Category: family

A letter to someone I care deeply about…

I have removed names, but I felt that the topic might be of some interest to other people that might stumble on my blog (for whatever reason).


************************************************





Thanks for your response, I received it today. I’m glad you are feeling a bit more open to having a discussion with me in regards to the questions of Church practices, however, I don’t want to get bogged down into discussing so many different issues at once, as nothing productive will come out from it.



I desired to write to you, and [name omitted], not with the intent of providing a biblical basis for every differing church practice, I only wanted to present an overview of what we do, in a non-threatening manner, if you choose to proceed in looking up the website. More than anything, I wanted to let you and [name omitted] know that the door is always open for discussions.



My note to you and [name omitted] was from the heart, and did not offer reprimanding biblical facts, as you can understand that if I just flooded you with scriptural evidences as to why I believe you are wrong, and your practices are wrong, you would have in turn (if not shutting me off completely), just fired scriptures right back at me, and we would never have gotten any further in the matter.



I am encouraged to see that we both agree that the love for truth is the driving force behind our commitment to our God, as you pointed out; it is the truth that will set us free! (John 8:32).



When looking over this scripture, because of our differences, I ask myself, if we both agree on what truth this is, that Jesus is talking about. A couple more verses down in John 8, Jesus says that He will set us free, and if He sets us free, then we are free indeed! Indeed, Jesus does say that He is “the way, the truth and the life” the only way to the Father (John 14:6). Do you believe that Jesus is this truth that He is referring to, or is there something more to it? And if there is something more to it, what is it? What truths must we believe in order to be saved?



The book of John is a very interesting book, it’s a book whose purpose was to prove that Jesus was the Son of God, that He loves us, that He died for us, and that through believing in Him, we might have eternal life (John 20:31). The beloved friend of our Lord wrote us a letter designed to guide us to eternal life, and yet, there is so much that he left out, questions like: “How do we organize our Church”, “How do we take up a collection”, “What days of the week are we supposed to meet on”, “How are we supposed to praise God in Worship”. Did John, the beloved of our Lord fail his mission in laying out what was necessary for salvation, or perhaps, have we misunderstood the instructive nature of the writing of the apostles on these questions and made them a test of salvation? And if we have, are we justified in doing so?



What freedom do we have in Christ? John definitely shows us that it is freedom from sin, but Paul (and James) shows us later in their letters, that it is also freedom from the old law and regulations. Is the freedom we gain the freedom by ushering out the old laws and regulations and works of righteousness; the “do not taste, do not handle, do not touch” (Col 2:20-23), and replacing them with new laws and regulations of different works of righteousness; the “do not taste, do not handle, do not touch” of the New Testament?



Paul answers this question by exhorting us to understand that “no one will be justified in the sight of God by works of the law”(Gal 2:16)(Gal 2:21)(Gal 3:11). Galatians is another interesting book in the new testament, it wasn’t until recently that I understand the context of Galatians Chapter 1 with Paul bringing down a curse on all those who taught a different Gospel. After he lays out this curse, he goes on in chapter 2 to describe how he is truly an apostle of Jesus, and how he stuck solid to salvation by grace, even though false brothers, had infiltrated the ranks to spy on the freedoms of Christ and then try to bring them into bondage to the old law (Gal 2:4). In the second part of Chapter 2 he shows how he wasn’t ashamed to oppose Peter to his face, again showing that he had the power of the Spirit. What was Paul opposing Peter about? Peter was falling into the trap of this “other gospel”, basing righteousness on works of the law (circumcision in this case), with Peter being a hypocrite so as to look good to the friends of James who came into town.



Paul continues then in chapter 3, telling the Galatians that they are foolish and bewitched in thinking that what they first received by grace through the Spirit, they could then keep by human efforts (observing the law). Many other scriptures go on to warn us and exhort us to understand that our salvation is not a salvation of works, but a salvation of grace and righteousness.



Now please don’t misunderstand me, indeed, our Faith, a true faith, brings about appropriate works of righteousness, however, the works aren’t the cause of our salvation, they are the result of our salvation (Eph 2:8-10).



However, we are clearly shown that if we are under obligation to observe the strict nature of the law, that if we break any law, then we are guilty of breaking the whole law (Rom 2:17-29), (Jas 2:10-11). What kind of freedom is that, is that the truth that Jesus wanted his disciples to know? So if we perform the Lord’s Supper exactly how it is supposed to be done, but then, we are unfaithful servants and store up treasures in our banks on earth, or we abuse our neighbors, or we swear, or we lie, or we steal, or we do one little thing wrong (in our personal lives, or in our collective Church practices) then we guilty of all laws, and we’re condemned to hell! (Jas 2:11)



I think this is why James tells us that we should be speaking and acting as if we ourselves are going to be judged by the law that gives us freedom (the law of grace) because if we are unmerciful and judge by the old law (of “do not taste, do not handle, do not touch”), then we ourselves will be judged by the old law (and no one can find life through the old law) (Gal 2:16)(Gal 2:21)(Gal 3:11).



This brings me back to the first question, what is the doctrinal truth that is necessary for salvation? While we should try to strive to the best of our understanding on how we are to worship God in a pleasing manner (because we should want to please him), is it a specific set of rules to govern the Church that saves us, is it a specific set of traditions to practice in the Church, a specific set of ways to sing, to praise, to worship, is it a detailed checklist of all the ways that we are to be worshiping God, is it keeping the law perfectly, or is it Christ and the message of the cross?



I think the bible speaks very clearly that it is Christ who saves us, it is His grace, it is Him. In Christ Alone! C.S. Lewis’ book Mere Christianity blessed me, in this way, showing me that, like the word Gentlemen, which used to just refer to a man who owned a track of land, but now is used in a refined sense to mean “Someone who agrees with my standards of living”, the word Christian has also come to be used in the same way, it used to mean someone who believed in Christ and his saving power, but now really means to most people “Someone who agrees with my standards of living”…. I really hoped that book would bless you too…



[name omitted], this is my concern for you, [name omitted], and those who are members of the Church [name omitted]. Apart from arguing any specific detail of the differences in Church practice, you require perfection in Church practices, and yet, you yourselves do not have perfection; by condemning others, you are condemning yourselves, it’s like the man who has a plank in his eye, trying to remove the dust speck from another, what a sad illustration of someone who has misunderstood the message of the cross, the way, the truth and the life.



Please be willing to test what you believe, change when you are wrong, stand firm when you are right, but remember that God will judge us in the manner that we judge others, and it’s only through his grace that we’re saved…



We continue to pray for you, and [name omitted] that you will break free from the bondage of the weight of the law, that you will find your freedom in Christ. I want you to be free! If Christ sets you free, you will be free indeed!



[with love & affection it was signed]

Final decision – Theism versus Atheis

This is the final paper on the topic in the philosophy class (I think) – so next week, onto something new. 🙂


Last week in our philosophy course we were asked to partner up and argue the point of Atheism versus Theism. The discussion was to focus around the problematic or logical view of the existence of evil in light of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. The number one argument for the non-existence of God surrounds the problem of evil, which is basically stated as such:


God is all omnipotent (by definition of God)


God is omnibenevolent (by definition of God)


Evil Exists


Therefore: God does not exist




This argument basis it’s assumptions on the idea that if evil exists it is both problematic and logically inconsistent with the existence of God (by definition, and in reality). In discussing this problem, there were so many ways to go about addressing the questions of concerns around the problem of evil, however, the primary focus that I had during this assignment (as the one arguing the Theistic perspective) was to neutralize the argument of evil.


Before making a final statement as to why I believe the Theistic position is most plausible, I would like to look at a couple different approaches for this discussion, some of them I used in my argument for Theism, and some were left out of the discussion for the sake of brevity.


I have recently been listening to a discussion on Atheism versus Theism as presented by a Boston College and Kings College Professor of Philosophy by the name of Pete Kreeft. Kreeft states in this particular lecture, that the number one argument against the existence of God is the problem of evil.


I think Kreeft makes a very intuitive statement when answering “Why does God allow evil”, by saying, “The answer must be someone, not just something. For the problem (suffering) is about someone (God—why does he… why doesn’t he …?) rather than just something. (Kreeft, 2003).” Kreeft in the end states that Jesus is the answer to the problem of evil.


However, because we were not in an apologetics course, and more specifically, because there has already been expressed in our courseroom varying beliefs on the exclusivity of Jesus Christ, I choose not to take this position in my argument.


Kreeft also has some very interesting lectures out on his site, one in particular where he uses the Lord of the Rings trilogy to discuss the problems and answers of evil, however, I haven’t listened to his presentation yet, and was in no way ready to take such a stance.


Another argument that is often employed is the greater good argument. This morning during our Church service we watched a video with Joni Erikson Tada. For those not familiar with Joni, she was injured in a diving accident when she was young, and has spent the last few decades as a paraplegic in a wheel chair; she is, as a result, acquainted with both mental and physical suffering. Joni made a statement that I tried to capture as closely as I could, and she said that God has rigged this world for disappointment, so that it would bring us to Him.


While this statement is amazingly powerful and personally uplifting to someone who has faith in the existence of God and a belief that He is the greater good, again, if someone is stuck in a myriad of doubt, in light of, or because of specific forms of pain and suffering, this argument may not be the best.


A third and very popular form of the argument for God and suffering is the “Free Will” argument. While this argument seems very intuitive, it has a number of philosophical problems our class wasn’t ready to deal with, and thus, I stayed away from this argument altogether (yet, I made a comment to one individual in light of the possible traps within this argument as we closed last week’s discussions).


When it came to discussing my beliefs on the problem of evil from a personal perspective, in my argument, I appealed to an amazing book by C.S. Lewis called Till We Have faces. In this book, Lewis outlines a magnificent rendition of the story of Psyche and Cupid, and puts a twist on it that left me amazed at the end of the book. The gist of his argument is that we cannot begin to fathom the reasons that God has for doing what He does, until we see him face to face. I used a similar example out of the Jewish book of Job.


However, in the end, I realized that for those who were coming at this from a point of personal suffering, no amount of answers were going to assuage them during their time of crises. Additionally, for those who were in the midst of intellectual rebellion against the arguments of the existence of God, still no argument would likely find solidarity.


As such, I decided to neutralize the argument of evil for the questioner. I took a position that is discussed by C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity, and one that I found out soon afterwards is championed by William Lane Craig. This argument is roughly as follows:


If God does not exist, there is no ultimate standard of goodness


Evil exists (which is defined as a privation of the ultimate standard of goodness)


Therefore: God exists




Now, truly someone could argue (and many do) that there is no ultimate standard of goodness, the problem is that there are then no grounds to argue that something is evil (if all evil is relative). C.S. Lewis states that it is simple proof when two argue over what is ‘right and wrong’ that they are intrinsically appealing to a standard which is found outside of themselves, and because all people engage in arguing ‘right and wrong’, then there is indeed a standard to be found outside of ourselves.


As a foundational piece of my argument I also discussed the ideas of a paradox. Many times, in our lives, there are paradoxical concepts that, without the fullest understanding, we might believe to be incoherent, inconsistent, or outright contradictory.


Through the final argument, my position was that while the historical argument put forth by John M. Frame in his book Apologetics to the Glory of God, seems to me, to be the most cogent form of the understanding of the problem of evil (at least to date), I must admit, that I will likely never be able to argue someone into this understanding, and therefore, by neutralizing the problem of evil, I have opened the door for the various forms of argumentation on the existence of God (like the Teleological, Ontological or Cosmological arguments in all their various forms).


While I am admittedly a Theist prior to, during and after this conversation commenced, I have a more rationalistic rather than fideistic view of religion, and thus, I maintain that the rational arguments still tip strongly in favor of the existence of God.








Works Cited


Kreeft, P. (2003, January 23). What is God’s answer to human suffering? Retrieved Feburary 10, 2008, from PeterKreeft.com: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/suffering.htm

On monday morning

I go for my MRI to have my head examined on monday morning (yeah, yeah, go ahead – take the cheap shots! :). I’m not afraid of what they might find – I can’t change it – I hope for my family though, that it’s nothing to serious.


If they don’t find anything (which I obviously would perfer them not to) – the next question is : what can they do to get rid of these flippin headaches =..


Quid Est Veritas

Why did the Greeks Analyze and Critique their religion?


Philosophy from its inception has always tried to answer the quintessential question “Why is there something, rather than nothing” as well as the famous question of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate “Quid est Veritas?” (What is truth?). Our reading also describes what it feels to be the ultimate philosophical question: “What is the nature of the cosmos” (Bishop, p. 45)


The Greek Philosophers like Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle had within themselves what Philosopher’s many years later referred to as “our need to know God”. I think one of our strongest desires to know God, is to thus know ourselves. We want to understand God, because, as our creator, we are made in his image (so we are told in the book of Genesis) and the more we know about that image, the more we can understand about ourselves.


As Augustine of Hippo stated, our hearts are restless until they find their rest in God (Augustine), and Blaise Pascal referenced what is often referred to as a “God shaped vacuum”, a space within ourselves that cannot be filled with anything other than an infinite and immutable object – namely God (Groothius, 2006).


Greek Philosophers had this insatiable desire to be filled with knowledge and understanding, but had at their disposal only a general revelation of the origins of humanity. They were, however, given this strong desire to seek out and study the nature of knowledge and the world around them.


It is interesting to me, to see many years later, the Apostle Paul walking into the Areopagus in Athens and using words from their own Philosophers, Epimenides and Aratus, to explain to them that they have this idea of God that has been placed in their minds through general revelation, and that if they truly want to know God, he is not far from any of them.


This is, as C.S. Lewis puts it in his book “Mere Christianity”,


God sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again and, by his death, has somehow given new life to men.


The Greek Philosophers, therefore, I believe were analyzing and critiquing their religion to continue the ever relentless quest to answer the question “Quid Est Veritas?” which in bitter irony was the question asked of the man called Jesus of Nazareth, of which, he himself was the answer.


Works Cited


Augustine. (2002, 07 13). Confessions of St. Augustine Bishop of Hippo. Retrieved 12 07, 2007, from Leadership University: http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augconfessions/bk1.html


Bishop, P. (2007). Adventures in the Human Spirit. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.


Groothius, D. (2006, 05 15). Incorrect Pascal Quotes. Retrieved 12 07, 2007, from The Constructive Curmudgeon: http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2006/05/incorrect-pascal-quotes.html

Reflection on the Road Not Taken

The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.





I love The Road not Taken…. however, here is the question, did he believe he took the right road?

Herein lies the enigma of human existence, the game of “What If”. I had a young lady that I was in love with, to the point that I felt like I would die living without here (even now, almost 15 years later, it still pains my heart to think of). She quoted this, the last day I remember spending time with her. She was a year older than I, and going off to college, she felt that it was time for her to step out into the world, and try the road less taken. She had one road, that seemed safe, it was the road that seemed more traveled, but she wanted to take the road less taken.

And here, Robert says “I kept the first for another day, yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back” – he made a choice, and regretfully knew that he would never be able to come back to that point in his life where he could make this same choice again.

And he continues on, “I shall be telling this with a sigh” – and I believe the heart of this sigh is, he still wonders, what would have happened if he took the road more taken. He never really tells if he regretted it or not, he just says that his decision made all the difference – which is the beauty of this poem – he leaves it to each and every reader, to look into their own heart, and their own experience, and answer this question for themselves… “Do I regret the road I have taken”.

Notice the title of the poem – it’s not The Road I Took, it’s the Road Not Taken – I think that in our lives, we will all be plagued by the road we didn’t take as we wonder “What If” – but that’s a question we’ll never have answered.

I wish I had written this poem, it’s so full of heart, and pain and hope!

What does a biblical Christian look like?

So many people are afraid to say that the bible is open to interpretations, I believe it is. It also seems clear to me that there is only one ‘right’ interpretation, but equally clear, that no one has that one interpretation in its entirety. I might be right about one point, but just as wrong about another point.


To me, I believe the bible makes it clear that it’s not about being perfect, it’s about learning, and growing from each other, changing and maturing to be more like Christ would ask us to be (The law and the prophets are summed up in two things, Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and Soul, and Love your neighbor as yourself). Lewis, in his book “Mere Christianity” makes the statement that if there are those that have chosen a different ‘denomination’ then you, and you believe they are wrong, then you are to pray for them, and love them, for even our enemy we are told to pray and love all the more!



With all that being said though, I think it’s important to have a set of rules for interpreting it, a correct Hermeneutics as it’s called. If we don’t agree on the rules for interpreting English, how then can we agree on what an English passage says – the same with the bible, unless there is a scholarly agreement on how to interpret the bible, then how can we know for sure, what the passage says, either in the context of when it was written, or in the context of today’s day and age.



And I disagree with some who say that the rules for biblical interpretation are “How it sounds to me”. I think the Spirit’s working is definitely part of it – but God never worked in one individual. Even Christ found himself a party of believers to surround himself with and preach the word. Christ says “Where two or more gather in my name, there I will be”. When Paul talks about the gifts of the Spirit he makes it plain that the gifts were spread out to many believers, so that together, they may work together to display and proclaim the word of God and encourage each other for more noble things.



I think the solo scriptura view is false [That is much different than the Reformed view of Sola Scriptura] (that is, solo scriptura is the view that the bible is the only authority (me the bible and God), solA scriptura is the view that the bible holds the final authority, but that God has revealed himself in many different fashions throughout all of history) – God gave us history, he gave us great thinkers, he gave us revelation about himself spread throughout history, more than just in the bible (Romans said what may be known about God is plain, because God has made it plain).




C.S. Lewis calls it, in his book “Mere Christianity” – “Good Dreams”, that God throughout history has spread himself and the knowledge of himself throughout the entire world, so that those who seek him will find him, although he is not far from them. In Athens on Mars Hill, Paul says, that they are serving the idea of God, but they do not even know the real God, that the Greeks call him Zeus (His reference to the poets citing “In him we move and breath and have our being” is a reference to a poem written to Zeus), but he says that he will declare to them the real God that they are speaking of.



God clearly wants us to rely on his Spirit not just in the here and now (which is another false pretence that many Christians think that our generation is better, smarter and more informed than previous generations) – but he wants us to rely on his workings throughout history. To read, and learn, and understand the decisions and disagreements throughout history, and use them to help build and understand what it is that God wants us to learn.



One thing that Lewis said is that belief is Jesus’ death and resurrection is the pivotal thing of Christianity. That understanding Christianity (more specifically Jesus’ death), is like understanding Vitamins and minerals when we eat. We ate before we understood vitamins and minerals, we eat even now with our understanding of Vitamins and minerals, and if someday we find that our whole view of vitamins and minerals was wrong – we will continue to eat. We can still be nourished by the vitamins and minerals in our food, without understanding exactly how it nourishes us. We can be saved as Christians, without understanding the in-depth technical details of what actually happened when Christ died and was resurrected.



I think this vitamin view can be applied to so many other things in Christianity. True, we don’t intentionally disregard God’s word, if we don’t like it, or want to do something different, but there is no reason that we should fear that if we get something wrong, because we couldn’t understand it that he is going to condemn us to an eternity in hell.



I’m finishing up a book right now, a book by C.S. Lewis called “Mere Christianity” – I would HIGHLY recommend getting a copy and reading it. Lewis was not a theologian, and he speaks in such plain terms about what “mere Christianity” is, apart from all the things that people have tried to make it into. It’s AMAZING!