Young Americans

You wrote:

What's more terrifying: nothing at all, or a Holy God who will judge one's every act and every thought?

The latter is far far more terrifying. I believe that I know what it is like to not exist, I think that I did that for approximately 5,113,500,000,000 days during the existence of this universe - and it holds no terror for me.

You can see the problem with this:

“I didn’t ask to be born God, surely you should put me back into the state that I was in before you incarnated me? If I had asked to have been born then I guess it’s fair enough for you to judge me. But as I believe that I didn’t ask to be born, why send me to an eternity of pain, just because I did not believe in Jesus Christ?”

On:

What's the value of "American Values" if they're not God's values?

Huh? I'm sure that God believes that we all have the right to drink Pepsi.

But seriously, first of all, what are “American Values”? Is there such a generalized set of values? Does anybody know? If there are, are they the same as those espoused in the puppet-movie “Team America” (a film which I could not help laugh at)? In this movie American soldiers are defeating terrorists, they always get their man. At one point they destroy the majority of Paris, but it’s ok as they get their bearded terrorist. This is quite a satirical insight into how the rest of the world (outside of the coalition) sees American foreign policy.

But you’re absolutely right, the question is a non-sequitur, it is the wrong way around, it should be “Do American Values undermine those of God”?

Current song: “I'm afraid of Americans" - David Bowie

++++

I saw the Netscape 8 announce (thank you slashdot!) I even went to download it and the first thing I saw was a security alert on the new rendering engine so I think I will wait a while.

Fearing Loss?

Welcome back from vacation, good sir. I hope you enjoyed yourself and came back relaxed and refreshed.

I've not yet seen the Star Wars movie, and probably will not. I'm not much of a fan of that franchise, and generally not much of a fan of science fiction. As to what Yoda was supposed to mean when he said, "Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed, that is. Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose" ... I can't begin to guess. But it got me thinking ... is it fear of losing, or fear of realizing something that terrifies people?

I've always wondered about this question: if we could know -- with absolute certainty -- that upon death there truly is nothing at all, would people be more or less frightened of death? Put another way, are we afraid of death because of it's the end, or because it's a beginning? What's more terrifying: nothing at all, or a Holy God who will judge one's every act and every thought?

I've come to fear the latter more than the former, which leads me to appreciate gift of Grace through Christ. I'm no better at the "spiritual disciplines" as I was before (that is to say, awfully negligent), but there's something really pounding in my heart and head -- it's all about Christ. What I do with that realization I do not yet know.

* * *
I saw a blog today that posed this question: "Is Christianity undermining American values?" I thought about that a bit, then I thought -- that question completely misses the point, doesn't it? What's the value of "American Values" if they're not God's values? And if one makes the assumption that "American Values" are a subset of "God's Values" (which is not necessarily a given, obviously), then Christianity by definition can't undermine those value. Unless, of course, the term "Christianity" means something different; or the values being considered aren't God's values. If "American Values" are opposed to God's values, then the true Christian must strive to undermine those values. The tough question is this -- what means may a Christian employ to resist those things opposed to the Lord?

* * *
Netscape 8.0 is out ... it has a dual rendering engine -- Firefox and IE. Cool.

Sympathy for the devil?

Apologies for the delay my brother, I have been en vacance à Paris for the last few days. Paris is a beautiful city and I can recommend the open bus tour.

I append this from a window manager called "icewm" running on a Linux distribution named "Gentoo", and it is singularly the fastest desktop that I have ever used. I can boot and do work within 45 seconds compared to the 400+ seconds on my WinXP rig on the same hardware. But, I can do less work in the long run (no iTunes or some other key apps), and how often do I boot up these days anyway? Still, Linux improves.

I checked out the site, I will be very interested indeed in what you discover about Mr. Sprouls interpretation of the Christian Doctrine. It's a tricky one this "everything is going according to God's plan" vs. "humans do not act according to God's will". Logically one should suppose that our human will is not aligned with God's perfect plan, and that that is allowed, even with a perfect plan. Had the Sproul works at that site been free of charge I would have downloaded them myself. I am sure that he is being exploited by middle men :-)

Having seen Star Wars 3 today, George Lucas (in the guise of a small green Master Jedi called Yoda) said:

"Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed, that is. Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose."

This I found quite interesting. I guess Lucas was talking about the fear of loss of the things we enjoy in life? But in our lives, what do we really fear to lose? Perhaps we fear to lose our very "existence" and have a very hard time in letting go? Therefore we invent for ourselves an afterlife?

If the Bible is not "true" is that why the Bible is the way it is and so popular ?

The film was kind of tragic the way the story portrayed the decline into evil of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader as a result of his desire to hang onto those he loved dear. Good and Evil, are they absolute or relative terms?

I don't know, but I for one actively want an afterlife.

And now that you're living in such a hot place you're attracted to cold web sites I see!

Current song: "Bo Weevil Song" - Eddie Cochran

Cool Blog ...

Completely unrelated to this blog's topic thread, but the pictures on this site are about as cool -- pardon the pun -- as I've seen:

http://simonc.f2o.org/south/

A fellow Brit, down at some South Pole scientific station.

Further Study

I am of late enamored by the MP3 series of R.C. Sproul. After your latest set of questions -- and my inability to answer them -- I searched around on the site and found a series titled, "The Providence of God." The description reads:

In this series, R.C. brilliantly shows the wisdom and power of God's rule, clarifying how God can guide all events without initiating human wickedness or destroying human freedom. Six 30 Minute Episodes.

The direct link to the series is:

https://ecom.ligonier.org/ecom/products.asp
?idDept=M&idCategory=&idFamily=PRO01
&title=The%20Providence%20of%20God

I found the headings for each MP3 quite interesting:

• What is Providence?
• God Makes it Happen.
• God or Chance?
• Is God Responsible for Human Wickedness?
• What About Human Freedom?
• If God Knows Our Needs, Why Pray?

I purchased the series and am listening to the first. I'll let you know what I learn from this.

Quote: "The study of providence is one of the most fascinating, important and difficult areas of theology."

I'd agree with that! :-) He cited as an introduction the very things you and I were batting back and forth.

P.S. -- I think you'd like R.C. Sproul ... very logical, very smart.

Perfect Plans

Drats! I thought I could slip by this question, but you're too clever, deep.thought. Drats! :-)

The issue here is tied into the question of God's omniscience -- his all-knowing nature. Did God know that Satan would rebel prior to his creating the angels? Did God know that mankind would fall prior to his creating man? If God did know this would happen, can it be said that therefore it was part of his plan?

Somewhere in the Bible -- I sure wish I could find it -- I read that it was God's eternal plan to send Jesus his only Son to act as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of mankind. If my recollection of that is true, then it suggests that God did indeed have foreknowledge of our fall, and planned well in advance for a mechanism to rectify it.

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you ... I just don't know how to answer this. If I grant that God doesn't know the events that are yet to unfold, then I deny his omniscience. If I grant that he does know, then it suggests (but not proves) that it was part of his plan. That opens up the thorny issue of explaining the existence of bad things within the realm of God's creative plan. It also draws into question the true nature of our free will in a context where God knows exactly what we'll do anyway. I don't like these discussions ... not just because I can't answer them (which is certainly part of my dislike), but because it distracts me so forcefully from the main point of the faith: Christ himself.

So I will defer answering this until I feel I am better equipped. Right now I am not -- either intellectually or spiritually.

Write Structured Field

You're not kidding are you? I found it at:

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/dzichelp/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.ims.doc.aptm_8.1.0/adc149.htm

x'F5C3' erases the 3270 buffer!! Never trust an ex-3270 datastream programmer.

You wrote:

So this world is not perfect by his divine will; it is corrupt by our freely chosen disobedience. The "mire," as I alluded to, is of our making, not his.

I agree. But you're not getting away just yet kind sir :-) Is this thing, of our making, part of God's Perfect Plan? And if so, do we have any right to denigrate it?

Current song: "Flawed to Perfection" - Thunder

Willing vs. Allowing

What we're struggling with here is this logic:

"God created all things. Sin exists. Therefore, God created Sin."

Somewhere deep in the explanation for this -- an explanation, incidentally, I won't try to really elaborate on too much -- is the question whether God allowing something to happen is the same thing as God causing it to happen.

When I consciously decide to sin against God, am I doing his will when I do that? I would argue not. If God truly is Holy as we're led to understand, then his willing me to do something that runs opposite his very nature is a contradiction. If we allow God the possibility of contradicting himself, then we diminish his Holy nature. He ceases to be God.

But if I allow that when I decide to sin against God I am doing it of my own free will, then God is not causing the sin, nor is he creating it. It is a violation of my own accord. God, being omnipotent, is certainly capable of stopping me from doing it. His not stopping me is an element of my free will (after all, if I were not permitted to do what I wished to do, I would not have free will). Therefore, God allows sin; God does not cause sin.

So this world is not perfect by his divine will; it is corrupt by our freely chosen disobedience. The "mire," as I alluded to, is of our making, not his.

Note: look, I'm as uncomfortable with that formulation as you probably are. I've never understood the Book of Job, from which this general formulation comes. To say that the earth's processes -- tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis -- are all a result of sin corrupting the natural order (as I've heard some preachers say) begs the question whether all of created matter is sinful, or just some of it. If only some of it, where's the dividing line and why? If all of it then we have a fundamental problem -- Jesus was made of matter, and if all matter is inherently evil (as the Gnostics believed) then Jesus himself was not perfect and therefore the atonement structure falls apart.

This is why, incidentally, I do not like discussing the issue of predestination vs. free will. I don't think 1 person out of a 1,000,000 can comprehend the tiny slice where it's not contradictory.

* * *
Will man still be around in 500,000,000 years? No. I think Zager and Evans in their classic song "Exordium & Terminus" ("In the Year 2525") sang:

In the year 9595 / I'm kinda wonderin' if man is gonna be alive

Now, wonderin' is something short of certainty, therefore if the probability is less than 100% it might just be 0%. Let's assume the chances of 100% certainty implies "miracle," then what we see is that a "miracle" is equal to 9595 - 1969 (the year the song was written) = 7626. The number of times 500,000,000 can be divided by 7626 is 65,565 ... which is eerily close to the hex 'FF'. Hex 'FF' sounds a lot like x'F5C3' which is the 3270 "erase/write" command string. It's a prophecy! We're all just characters on a big green screen and we're about to be erased in favor of another byte stream!

Therefore, I think it can be concluded beyond a shadow of a doubt that no, man will not be around in 500,000,000 years.

The logic is flawless.

Evolution

Interesting article on the headline at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7103668/

Will humans be around for another 500 million years?

Is it possible for Humans to "evolve" (ok let's say "change" - become more, or become less complicated for example) in some way due to spontaneous mutation and natural selection?

Given that we were created by God as "human" should we be changing in this fashion?

++++

From your last post when you mention that we had been pulled from the mire ... I got to thinking that "the mire" is exactly how it should be. Everything that happens is part of God's perfect plan.

Including the mire :-) And our plucking from it.

As Christians are we not supposed to go around saying that everything is marvellous? If we say that something is less that marvellous are we not implying that we wish things were different? And if we want God's perfect plan to be different in some way then what does that say about us? Or indeed God's perfect plan?

Eve and Adam sinning was part of God's perfect plan, was it not? If it wasn't then the plan was (is) not perfect. If the original sin was part of God's perfect plan then is not all sin part of God's perfect plan? (as all sin is inherited from the original one). Is this argument logically constructed? Or am I doing a Spock again?

Current song: Revolution - The Beatles

Only Through The Power of the Spirit

You wrote:

I spent most of my life not believing, as I had no basis to even start my faith and trust in God. I then had an experience that allowed me to ignore logic and reason and have faith. I cannot reconcile the existence of God as described in The Bible with logic or reason at all. When Christians say that the Holy Spirit is necessary for a "conversion" that seems to have a ring of at least relative truth.

I agree with that statement so much, it almost feels as if I wrote it. One can read the Bible all they want ... it may enlighten them, but it'll never convert them on their own. It is only through the power of the Holy Spirit that one can come to saving faith in Christ.

What this does is open up some very challenging questions about faith, evangelism and predestination. Questions I just don't have the energy right now to pose, let alone attempt to tackle. But let us thank Him who chose us to believe! Two of the most unlikely candidates, plucked from the mire.

Plumb the Depths

I believe God could have created us incapable of sinning. We would be an earth full of automatons, moving about doing simply as we were programmed, offering to God our praise based on our firmware, receiving from God the bounty of his love without real appreciation for what it is or its value.

We should remember that in addition to creating us humans, God also created the angels. They too were given the ability to choose for themselves whether they would obey God. Some did not. But those that chose to obey God have apparently done so in a fashion that permits them to exist in the presence of the Holy God.

Is God capable of creating a being that is Holy, like himself? That's an interesting question ... I do not know the answer to that. Normally, warning bells go off in my head whenever I start to think there is something God can't do. But impression is that God's Holiness is unique in all existence. Is this a case where were God to create another who is equally Holy that it would invalidate his very nature? I don't really know.

Given that God also created the angels, and like us they were granted the opportunity to obey or not, it appears that "free will" -- however one wishes to view that phrase -- is part of his plan. I believe the reason for that is because it permits us to experience God's love in the most beneficial manner -- by freely choosing it. But I don't know if there's Biblical support for that reasoning.

Now, on to your main question [which you posted in bold italic, which you do not normally do, so I know it's really, really important :-) ] -- does God feel responsible for our sin? In the back of my mind this thought is floating around ... for God to "feel bad" about our behavior, or to regret it and feel some portion of responsibility, would suggest God admitting he had made a mistake. Given God's perfect and Holy nature, he is incapable of making a mistake. Also, our behavior is the object of his Holy wrath -- perfect and just wrath -- and that wouldn't make any sense for him to direct his wrath against behavior he himself feels responsible for creating. (Well, it would make sense if we diminished his Holy nature, but doing so causes the whole structure of faith to crumble.)

So I would answer, "no." He does not in any way feel responsible for our behavior. He created us with the free will to obey or not; we chose to disobey and in ever increasing measure. That God has provided a way for us to once again come back into his presence -- through the shed blood of his Son, Jesus the Christ -- shows the immense mercy and selfless love of God.

I am off to Minneapolis!

Responsibility

Were Adam and Eve the best beings He could create? (Sinless but imperfect, or at least not Holy).

I see now that God created Humans as imperfect, but sinless beings. I assume that He could have created perfect beings who got something out of having a relationship with Him?) The question I am pondering is why did He not create sinless perfect beings? (Thus avoiding all the sin)

Is the answer:

a) He did it for some unknown reason?

b) He created us imperfect in error, feels guilty about it, and that is why He lets us live on? He feels responsible in some way for our sins?

c) Some other reason, or without a reason?

Does God, our creator, in any way feel responsible for our behaviour?

I agree with you wholeheartedly when you talk about faith and trust. I spent most of my life not believing, as I had no basis to even start my faith and trust in God. I then had an experience that allowed me to ignore logic and reason and have faith. I cannot reconcile the existence of God as described in The Bible with logic or reason at all. When Christians say that the Holy Spirit is necessary for a "conversion" that seems to have a ring of at least relative truth.

For faith there is something greater than The Bible that is needed.

And is not one answer to the child .. "Satan could do so because God made him that way" ?

God bless you brother.

No song: same reason as yesterday!

Another Question Along the Same Lines

One of the most basic, fundamental objections people raise to the idea of an all-powerful creator God is this:

If God is all-loving, how come there is suffering in this world?

Note: Or, rephrased so it ties more closely to your most recent question: "If God is the creator of all things, then did he create suffering?"

There's a really problematic aspect to this:

• If one allows that God is all-powerful, then one must conclude that suffering falls under the control of God's omnipotence

However ...

• If one allows that God is unable to stop the suffering, then one denies the omnipotence of God.

In response to this dilemma, some have opted to craft a vision of God based on the second bullet. This is known as "Open View Theism," wherein God's powers are not limitless; that he is learning as he goes along; and that the suffering that occurs on this earth is because God is helpless to do anything about it.

Of the two choices facing me -- accepting the mystery of suffering in the presence of an omnipotent God, or defining God down to a limited deity -- I hold steadfastly to the former. In my mind I see absolutely no way to reconcile the "Open View" approach with a God capable of rendering all sin absolved through the death of himself incarnate in Christ. A God capable of merely saying "Let there be" and in an instant the heavens and the earth are created is a God who is the very definition of the word "omnipotent." On a far more basic level, the Open View proponents need to ask this question: "If God is limited in what he can do, why bother with any form of intercessory prayer?"

What's my point in all this? Just this: it is impossible to approach the Christian faith with the expectation of having every question answered, every dilemma worked out, every difficulty explained, every aspect fully understood. There is an element of faith in revealed things beyond our ability to comprehend. The Trinity is at its heart a mystery we'll never, ever understand completely while in this mortal world. What happened on the cross at the moment of atonement is a mystery that cannot be expressed with words as we know them. The extent of God's Holiness is beyond our minds' ability to imagine.

The Christian faith all comes down to an issue of trust. That does not mean an unthinking, "put your brain under the pew" approach. Christianity is a remarkably complex thing; it taxes my abilities to reason as these posts illustrate all too well. But ultimately, it boils down to a trust in the things the cornerstones have being discussing:

• A trust that God does exist and that he has revealed himself in nature and in written word
• A trust that God is Holy; perfect in his ways and therefore worthy of our trust
• A trust that I cannot overcome my sinful ways and that I must rely on God, not me
• A trust that God provided one and only one way to him, through Christ Jesus our Lord
• A trust that by surrending our lives to Jesus, the power of God's Holy Spirit will guide our lives in a manner pleasing to God
  

Logic cannot fully explain that. Which is why it is called faith.

Adam, meet Eve; Eve, Adam ...

I think there's a misunderstanding here, and it involves the use of the term "perfect" to be equal to the phrase "without sin." When I write that God is "perfect," I am using that term in an attempt to describe the indescribable -- the Holiness of God. But to say that Adam, initially without sin, was "perfect" and therefore equal to God is beyond what I was trying to convey. Adam was created with the ability to disobey God and therefore sin, but that does not mean that he was created sinful. I believe the decision to disobey God was entirely within the realm of Adam and Eve's free will. Had they resisted the serpent and trusted in God alone, they would have continued to be without sin. But in no way would they be "Holy," for there is only one who is "Holy," and that is God himself.

Note: I've heard some radio ministers suggest that the decision to sin was not Adam and Eve's to make, that in fact God willed them to sin to place mankind into a state of sin. I do not agree with that line of reasoning.

There is a mystery around the apparently competing doctrines of predistination and free will. I don't claim to understand it all, nor can I effectively communicate how the two can coexist. But here's what I will say, and I've made this point before: the doctrine of free will is an essential part of God's selfless gift to us. It's difficult to explain, but in my mind and in my heart I have this realization that God created us with the ability to obey or disobey so that in obedience we would then experience the greatest realization of his glory. I have had a fractional sense of this at times when I have truly "given up" and submitted to God; in those moments the peace and security of being in his hands is incredible. Had God created us without the ability to be disobedient, we would have no notion of that; we would never know the experience of freely-chosen obedience.

I really wish I could articulate this better ... in the middle of all this is the fundamental issue of why God created us. Many -- wrongly, I feel -- think God created us (and the angels) so God would have this throng of adoring creatures. But that, I feel, paints God in a very selfish light, as if he needs the adoration or craves it. It's hard to reconcile that picture with the idea of Holiness. But if the reason God created us was so that we could share in God's perfect love -- the flow of benefit is him to us, not us to him -- then it makes sense in my mind. And as I mentioned, the only way to fully realize the benefit is to freely choose the benefit. Hence our having been created with the ability to choose to obey God.

I've probably made a hash of that ... if so, I apologize and ask the Lord to forgive me. My desire is to somehow convey what I feel has been revealed to me: the incredible beauty of obedience freely chosen. I am, unfortunately, a terribly stubborn man and I don't live what I see right before me.

* * *
Here's a question to chew on ... this question was asked of a radio minister by a child; a simple question but unbelievably profound:

If Satan saw God face-to-face, and experience the full measure of God's Glory, why did he then choose to disobey God?

To be, or not to be perfect

You said:

"I think the answer to your basic question is that God did not create us imperfect; he created us with the ability to disobey if we so chose.”

But first of all, my 7/7/77 had little to do with the fairer sex! I was alluding to the fact that the number 7 is viewed as divine in certain parts of the world :-)

Now let’s look at your sentence above more closely …

“God did not create us imperfect; …”

I’m assuming from this that you would maintain that Adam and Eve (pre-fall) are “perfect” beings?

“… he created us with the ability to disobey if we so chose.”

And Adam and Eve certainly did chose to disobey. But do you see the problem here?

In an earlier post you mentioned that God was “perfect” but unbounded. So He could sin if He chose to, but being “perfect” He does not. If there were some slight flaw in his perfection (making Him an imperfect being) then maybe it would be possible for him to break His own Law and therefore commit a sin against Himself.

The logic is (to me) inescapable;

1. Perfect beings cannot sin.

2. Adam and Eve sinned so therefore could not have been created as “perfect” beings.

Note: By implication, if Adam and Eve had been perfect they would have taken their free will and chose to obey God

This begs the question: why did God, being perfect Himself, create imperfect beings in the first place?

No song: It’s late and my daughter is sleeping.

Can God Create Imperfection?

First, please do tell what the July 7, 1977 story is all about! My guess is it involved a girl. :-)

Secondly, what I'm relaying in these cornerstones is not original at all; I'm simply providing back a distillation of what I've come to understand from my studies. These are the "connections" I see in my mind when I think about things. Eventually I come to see the connections well enough to articulate them.

* * *
I think the answer to your basic question is that God did not create us imperfect; he created us with the ability to disobey if we so chose. The story goes that's what "we" chose, and having made that choice the "stain" of sin has carried down ever since.

Your ancillary question is the intriguing one ... did God intend for us to choose disobedience? Or, stated another way, did he know that we would choose to disobey? The answer to that appears to be "Yes," that in fact he did know ahead of time. The apostle Paul writes of God's plan for salvation through Christ being a plan in God's mind prior to the creation itself. I'll confess I have trouble working through the circular logic of all this.

Did God expect us to be perfect? From what I gather it looks as if he expected us to be perfectly obedient; to do his will rather than ours. To the extent we would then be perfect, we would simply be reflecting his perfection, not ours. That was the very nature of Jesus in his earthly form -- over and over again Jesus claimed that everything he did and said was commanded him by the Father. Jesus the man had the ability to be disobedient just like we have the ability to be disobedient ... but he didn't.

Even today, though our sin is so deeply rooted in us we can't overcome it on our own, we are still expected to practice the act of obedience. There is a very strong thread through the middle of the Christian faith having to do with discipline and daily devotion to obedience to God. This is where I stumble.

Note: there's a tension there -- between legalism and "antinomianism" (the belief that since salvation is through Christ's efforts alone, we are free to live entirely unconstrained by any rules whatsoever).

This is actually a good tie-in to the last conerstone -- our response. But that'll come later.

05 05 05

I have fond memories of that day in school when the date was the seventh of July in 1977. Heavenly :-)

Your last post was pretty amazing, you know that you're building a logical basis for Christianity from scratch. I trust that some theology students are taking note. I imagine your basis will be discovered at some point in the future and be used to start a new "Bagwellian" based religion. Perhaps by moon colonists who are hiding there after all life on Earth is wiped out by the Wormwood?

Now your last post also makes me think along these lines:

1. God created us (yes)
2. We are imperfect (yes)
3. How does a perfect being create imperfection?
4. Is God in any way responsible for our being less than perfect?

Clearly God is able to create imperfect beings ... the question is why did he do that, being perfect himself, why did he not create beings that had free will and were also perfect?

Ancilliary question:

Did God actually intend for us to be perfect? I guess not, otherwise we would have been.

Thoughts?

Current song: Watching The Wheels -- John Lennon

Cornerstone #5 - The Nature of Christ

As I mentioned in my last post, what I'm providing here is a logical framework. When I get to Cornerstone #6 I'll shift away from logic.

Let's walk down through the previous cornerstones:

• If one believes that God exists and has revealed something of himself in creation, and
• If one believes the Bible to be a special revelation, in which the true nature of God himself is revealed to us in a way that is believed to be true, and
  
• If one believes what the Bible tells us about God; namely that he is "Holy" -- different, set apart, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, and
• If one believes what the Bible tells us about ourselves; namely that we not perfect, that in fact we fall well short of God's Holy nature, that in fact the difference between ourselves and a Holy God is so wide, so enormous, that we can't possibly bridge the gap through our own feeble efforts ... then
• One starts to grasp the nature of the problem we face -- that is, we are alienated from a perfect God by our sinful nature, and that no matter how hard we strive we'll never be perfect. In short, since we can't reconcile ourselves to God, then it will be only through God's actions that we have any chance at all of ever being reconciled.
  

Our sin represents a grave injustice -- an affront to God's perfect and Holy nature. In a perfect setting, there would be no injustice ... there may be offense, but every offense would be met with a perfectly calibrated punishment such that justice will have been served.

Note: be careful not to confuse justice with mercy. One may choose to forego punishing someone for an offense committed. One may choose to do that for many reasons -- a forgiving heart, for one. When one chooses to not meet offense with justice, one is measuring out mercy. But mercy does not eliminate the offense, and an offense not answered is injustice.

God, being perfect and Holy -- including a perfect sense of justice -- cannot simply ignore offenses committed. Doing so would create a realm of injustice, and injustice would be a violation of God's perfect nature. One aspect of God's nature as revealed in the Bible is his inability to be something other than what he is -- that is, perfect and Holy. It is like asking if God has the power to lie ... yes, he has the power to do anything, but for him to lie would be for him to cease being perfect and Holy; in short, he would cease being God. Therefore, God is "incapable" of doing anything that contradicts who he is, including ignoring injustice. Therefore, our sin -- an offense to God -- requires that it be met so justice can be served.

Note: one should stop reading if one doesn't agree with that. If one believes God is capable of, and indeed does simply overlook sin, then there is no chance that the message of salvation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ will make any sense whatever.

What's the difference between perfect and imperfect? I argue that the difference is like that between 1,000,000 and infinity. Or between 1,000,000,000 and infinity. In other words, the difference between perfection and anything other than perfection is essentially infinity. Therefore, our transgressions -- our sins -- are an offense to God that is of limitless degree.

Now, if our offense before God is limitlessly large, then for justice to be served would require a limitless response. But what would be the nature of a just punishment when the crime is so complete and vast? A slap on the wrist certainly isn't it -- that would not serve the need for perfect justice. Even the killing of a handful -- or more -- of us would not provide the punishment needed to effect perfect justice.

No, the truth is that before a perfect and Holy God our sin requires nothing less than our complete and utter elimination. God has not yet done that because in additional to God's perfect justice, God is expansively -- but the Bible tells us not limitlessly -- merciful. His mercy is demonstrated by what he chose to do -- make another suffer the punishment in our place.

That was Christ on the cross.

Now if Jesus was just another man, then the punishment would have been completely insufficient for the offense. So Jesus had to be more than "just a man" ... Jesus had to be perfect himself so that his death would provide the perfect atonement for the enormity of our sins against God. If Jesus were just another mortal man, then he could not -- by definition -- be perfect (see Cornerstone #4 on the Nature of Man).

Which is why it is so critically important -- within the framework of the Christian doctrine -- for Jesus to be more than "just a good teacher." Jesus had to be perfect -- Jesus had to be God himself. And so he was -- Jesus was God incarnate. The perfect sacrifice to effect the perfect atonement.

Hence Cornerstone #5 -- the Nature of Christ -- perfect; God incarnate. Anything less than that makes the entire Christian doctrinal framework come apart.

Note: this is why the previous cornerstones are so critical. The idea of Christ as God incarnate makes little sense if any of the prior four cornerstones isn't in place. If God chose to remain hidden (denying cornerstones #1 and #2), then we'd have nothing on which to base any claim of Christ's deity. If God wasn't perfect (denying #3) then there'd be no need for a perfect sacrifice. If man weren't truly sinful (denying #4) then there'd be no need for justice to be served, or at least no need for a punishment as enormous as God humbling himself by becoming man for 33 years and then killing himself on our behalf.

That's it.

The final cornerstone has to do with our proper response to this. We then jump the rails of logic to what we ought to do. But not necessarily what logic dictates that we do.

Like Pieces of a Puzzle

First, thank you for your expressed gratitude for my navigating choppy waters related to my health. Thank you also for your prayers. It makes a difference.

Second, insanely spicey food is one of my life's little joys. I'm not convinced the onset of my symptoms is correlated with spicey foods. Fatty foods is a more likely candidate.

Third, you're a crafty one, Mr. Deep.Thought ... you think you can beguile me into #'s 5 and 6 so easily? Well ... perhaps. :-)

But not this post ... I need to think about things a bit more.

* * *
But I found this post of yours very interesting:

Thinking about it, one cannot believe in Jesus unless one believes in "sin" can one? Without "sin" there is no purpose for a Messiah. I just realized that.

Yes! If one never comes to the realization of their sinfulness, then the idea of needing atonement through the sacrifice of another will be just plain silly. Or worse, barbarian. Hence my #4 cornerstone on the sinfulness of man.

As I mentioned before, I'm really approaching this as a logical framework. You just touched on one of the linkages, or puzzle pieces. If man is not sinful -- or, more specifically, if I am not sinful -- then it is very unlikely I'll ever progress to the point of feeling a need for a saviour.

This also explains my cornerstone #3 -- the nature of God. One's "sinfulness" is really a matter of comparitive degree, isn't it? If I compare my degree of sinfulness to a convicted serial murderer, I come away feeling pretty good about myself. But when I compare myself against an utterly perfect -- an incomprehensibly glorious and perfect -- God, then by comparison I am awful wretch. But if I think of God as not much better than me, perhaps more powerful, but not immune to the same mistakes and missteps, then there's little chance I'll consider myself sinful, and therefore little chance I'll feel a need for salvation.

But how can I know that God is this "utterly perfect" God? Cornerstone #2 -- God's revelation in Scripture. The Bible makes it perfectly and undeniably clear that God is "Holy," or set apart from us.

Linkages -- one after another. Take one away and the house of cards falls down. You discovered one critical card in the construction -- the idea of sin and the relationship of that to the need for a Messiah.

"There is no one you can save that can't be saved"

Marvellous news for you this week my brother. Ok, you still need to get some things sorted, and cut down on the insanely hot burritos and asbestos melting chicken phaal curries, but all things being equal, not a bad result I would say. Thank you Lord.

Now you have two cornerstones to go young man, for completeness we need to see them, from an earlier post you said that #5 and #6 were:

God's Solution: Grace Through Jesus Christ
Our Response: Grateful Surrender

You can at least have a go at them can you not? I'm not telling the world that my bestest buddy quit in the home strait, that's like running the London Marathon, you're in sight of the finishing line and saying "I can't make it, I better go back"!

Thinking along the lines of these two last cornerstones of yours I am somehow reminded that belief in God gives our lives a purpose. Then I became slightly concerned that we may have invented God because we are immature. If you offer an immature schoolchild one bar of chocolate today, or two bars of chocolate tomorrow, the immature child will take the bar today. However the mature child will wait and reap the reward of two bars tomorrow. This is one of standard psychometric tests for maturity invented by people much smarter than I.

Now have we done the same with God? Science may (or may not) uncover why the Universe was created. But this scientific revelation may take a long time in coming. Probably millions of years, if ever and in any case most probably much longer than a human lifespan. As a result of this, have we grabbed today's reward?

I always come back to "it doesn't really matter", as long as your belief gives you something, you don't need to justify it to anyone.

If God created us to have a loving relationship with him then that gives our lives a purpose, that is good enough for me. I can't yet logically reconcile Jesus Christ into the equation (I see a reason for God) but I know that He exists, so I will Believe in Him, pray to him and talk to him.

Thinking about it, one cannot believe in Jesus unless one believes in "sin" can one? Without "sin" there is no purpose for a Messiah. I just realized that.

Right now I have a miserable temperature, sore throat, big time runs! I'm in bed, not eating as it won't stay down and quite annoyed as I had planned to do other things this weekend, tomorrow (Monday) is a UK national holiday. Oh well, the garden weeds will wait. As John Lennon said there is "no where you can be that isn't where you're meant to be".

Current song: "All you need is love" -- The Beatles