Posts Tagged ‘the truth’

This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

These words thundered from the very mouth of God in Matthew 17:5 when Peter, James, and John beheld the illuminating brilliance of Jesus Christ in His glory, as He was transfigured before them high upon the Mount of Transfiguration. Imagine how they must have felt as they beheld the Lord of glory communing with Moses and Elijah while they watched, engulfed in radiant white light. Awestruck and unable to keep silence any longer, Peter exclaims in blissful delight how good it s for them to be there and then…..a big mistake. He commits the critical error of equating Moses and Elijah with Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, when he suggests that they build three tabernacles–one to honor each of them—on that very spot. Immediately, a cloud engulfed them all, God’s voice was heard confirming the preeminence of His Son, and then, when the smoke cleared, there remained Jesus only standing with them.

Oftentimes, it can be frustrating for us when we see Christianity casually and irreverently lumped into the same category as the false, man-made ‘religions’ of our day. Those who do so also commit a grave error, comparable to the one made by Peter all those years ago. Personally, I dislike the word ‘religion’ (at least in the modern sense) as a descriptor for the Christian Faith, as nowadays that word carries connotations that tend to conjure up images in the mind of all sorts of ritualistic, superstitious rites and traditions (e.g. bowing toward a particular city in prayer at various mandated times of day, lying on a bed of nails or performing handstands for hours with one’s head buried in the sand, reciting ‘hail mary’s’, dousing oneself with and drinking cow urine in the streets of India, vain repetition of ‘formal’ prayers, ritualistic and robotic reciting of verses from a ‘holy book’, offering of prayers to dead saints, idolization of ‘holy’ relics, etc.) that go hand in hand with the worship of man-made gods. Christianity, by contrast, is not based upon ‘religious’ form or mysterious rites of passage but, rather, it is a genuine relationship with Almighty God through Jesus Christ. We are reconciled to God, not based upon our own works, but by placing our faith and trust in the finished work of His only begotten Son. The Apostle Paul confirms this in the very familiar passages of Ephesians 2:8-9 when he declares:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Herein lies one of the primary distinguishing factors which separates the Christian Faith from man-made ‘religions’. While it is useful to know some of the details and beliefs of false religions when witnessing to those who hold to them, we need not feel overly compelled to burden ourselves with learning the finer points of papal infallibility, trans substantiation, the five pillars of Islam, proxy baptism for the dead, etc. in order to engage a Catholic, Muslim, or Mormon in a discussion. Instead, I have found it much easier to demonstrate the exclusive Truth of Christianity vs. other religions via a very simple (yet powerful) illustration:

Visualize two columns in your mind. In one column, list every world religion you can think of (e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism, Roman Catholicism, Islam, Mormonism, The Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientology, etc.). In the other column goes Christianity, all by itself.

Upon closer inspection, you will find that the man-made religions in the first column all have something in common; at their core, they ALL advocate some form of ‘works righteousness’–the ability of man to somehow earn God’s favor or forgiveness through doing ‘good’ deeds or performing some other outward work. Without exception, this is the mark of any false religion, as mankind’s prideful desire and need to merit their own salvation is the fly in the ointment which corrupts, and, subsequently, exposes corrupt human creeds vs. the genuine Truth of God. Religions of men attempt to (and do) woo masses by appealing to man’s unregenerate and self-righteous human nature with a flattering message which proclaims, ‘you can earn your way to heaven through your own goodness’, while Christianity tells us something radically different.

The Bible teaches that there is NONE righteous or good in themselves (Rom. 3:10). In fact, we are told that our own self-righteous deeds are as filthy rags before the absolute, perfect holiness of Almighty God (Isaiah 64:6). Christianity unapologetically declares to a sinful and rebellious world, ‘there is nothing you can do to save yourself, but God has mercifully paid the penalty for your sins in the blood of His precious Son’. Upon Divine authority, it demands that we cease our vain and contemptible attempts at self-righteousness at once and surrender to the Saviour, in order to be reconciled to God and to be justified freely by Him on his terms, not ours.

While the religions of the world are man’s prideful and futile attempt to attain unto righteousness on his own, Christianity is God’s demonstration of Divine love expressed through the act of Him humbly becoming a man and obtaining for us what we could never hope to obtain for ourselves. He lived the life we could not live and then died the death that we should have died. As such, he receives ALL the glory for our salvation, as He is, therefore, both the Author and Finisher of our Faith. The difference between these two competing philosophies is as drastic as night and day and the consequences of which one we choose to follow are eternal. As it was that fateful day with Peter, James, and John, so it is today—when the smoke of worldly deception clears, the Christ of Christianity stands alone as THE way, THE truth, THE life, and mankind’s only hope of salvation and righteousness before Almighty God. Amen.

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 4]:

Greetings Soldier,

I appreciate very much your enthusiastic questions! I see a hunger for truth and understanding in you that the Father finds most pleasing. It is His great delight to ‘pull back the veil’ and reward those who seek truth with the answers that they desire as they ask, seek, and knock with confidence in Christ. It is my great pleasure to be the means by which this treasure is conveyed to you, as the only thing more joyful than receiving knowledge is imparting it to those who sincerely desire it. Indeed, the acceptance and appreciation of truth by those who gladly receive it is its own reward to those from whom it is imparted. With that in mind, let’s attend to that very thing.

First, you asked specifically for ways to convey to unbelievers how Creation itself demonstrates the existence of God. One very simple, yet powerful, way to convey this truth is to simply point out the obvious—that just as paintings don’t paint themselves and buildings don’t build themselves, creation cannot have ‘created’ itself. To assert that it has done so (and without having observed it or anything else ever having done so) is to abandon a stance of rationality and good sense in exchange for blind faith and wishful thinking. After all, who but a fool would attempt to argue that natural laws (such as thermodynamics, gravity, physics, etc.) can exist without a Lawgiver? No doubt, you have already noticed that many times, when in the midst of discussing these issues with unbelievers, they will often appeal to what they have read in science books or atheistic literature in order to try to support their faith in evolution—-in other words, they ultimately are asking you to join them in exercising blind faith in something they have only read about in a book—-how ironic indeed!!  Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

 

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 6]:

Greetings Soldier,

You do not have to apologize for the feeling of disappointment you are feeling now. After all, a sense of frustration is only natural when good evidence is given to support your case, but then dismissed out of hand due to the hostile bias of the one examining the evidence. It is very important to understand what is going on here with your brother and it is time that you were granted insight into the nature of ‘presuppositions’ and the effect they have on one’s reasoning and conclusions about the world around them. You see, everyone has a worldview—a view of the world founded upon certain tightly held beliefs that are assumed to be true and through which they interpret all of their observations and experiences (including any and all evidence presented to them for consideration). Because of this, it is impossible to convince someone of something they do not wish to be convinced of since they will interpret any evidence via the lens of those tightly held, most foundational assumptions that are already present. Confused yet? Perhaps this illustration might help:

Once upon a time, a young man believed he was dead. For months, his friends and family tried desperately to convince him that this was not the case, but to no avail. Finally, at their wits end, they decided to take him to see the family doctor in hopes that he could offer some sort of medical counsel to help the young man come to his senses. After two unproductive hours of talking with the young man and reasoning with him using the latest medical journals, charts, and photos, the good doctor had an idea! “Son, do dead men bleed?” He asked. The young man thought for a moment and then responded, “well, if a person is dead, there is no heartbeat to pump the blood and, therefore, no blood pressure to force the blood out of the body, so, no, dead men do not bleed.” Upon hearing this, the doctor took a needle and pricked the young man’s index finger. As the blood began to ooze from the small wound, the young man grabbed his finger and cried with great excitement, “well, what do you know! Dead men DO bleed after all!

See the point (pardon the pun)? The young man in the story had a predetermined belief which he was unwilling to surrender, despite being shown ample proof that it was false. The overwhelming evidence given to him did not change his mind, but, rather, his mind changed the interpretation of the evidence to make it agree with what he already assumed to be true (his ‘presuppositional bias’). Perhaps this makes it easier now to understand how and why many of the people who actually witnessed Jesus’ most notable miracles were the same ones who demanded His crucifixion. Why do you suppose they were not convinced of His Divinity by the marvelous feats of the dead being raised and the blinded eyes receiving sight in their presence? It was simply because they did not WANT to be. In fact, this is nothing new, as many today would simply rather be their own god instead of bowing the knee to God and surrendering to His authority. It has been rightly stated that the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a criminal can’t find a policeman—-they simply aren’t looking. The unbeliever chooses to live in willful denial of what they know to be true about God’s existence in order to avoid accountability to Him. You will do well to keep this in mind in your evangelism endeavors. At your service,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 12]:

Greetings Soldier,

I see the discussion has now turned to the laws of logic. I am happy to help guide you in how to formulate your responses to the latest responses you have received. First of all, it is crucial to understand that laws of logic, by nature, exist as abstract, invariant, universal laws for correct reasoning. That is, they are not made of matter, they never change, and they apply in all places and at all times. As such, they pose quite a problem for the unbeliever, since none of these characteristics agree with their version of the universe, which is allegedly wholly materialistic, changing, and different from place to place. Consider the logical law of non-contradiction for instance; it states that contradictions in reasoning (and in reality) are absolutely fallacious and cannot ever be true. However, how does the unbeliever justify such a claim in their worldview since they don’t have absolute knowledge of the universe, nor have they observed the future to know what cannot EVER be.

Whereas, the Christian appeals to Divine Revelation from God as their basis for knowing some things to be absolutely true (such as laws of logic, for instance) since an omniscient, omnipotent God could (and does) reveal things to human beings so that they can be known with certainty to be true—the unbeliever (due to their pre-commitment to a naturalistic, empiricist worldview) must rely solely on their limited observations and experiences of the universe as the foundation for each of the things they claim to believe. This means that the Christian can reconcile the existence of abstract, invariant, universal laws within their worldview, but the unbeliever cannot and must accept such concepts solely upon blind faith. Naturally, any such position that rests upon blind faith alone, while also undermining the very existence of logic, is the epitome of an illogical (and false) position. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 13:  A Word of Encouragement]

Greetings Soldier,

Don’t worry about feeling overwhelmed right now, as these concepts can take some time to wrap your brain around. Remember, though, always doggedly stick to your guns and keep challenging and exposing the internal inconsistencies of the unbelievers’ worldview, as they would like nothing more than for you to stop this line of argumentation and engage them on ‘neutral’ ground. However, ‘neutral’ ground does not exist with regards to this issue, as one either submits to God as their Ultimate Authority and the foundation of their thinking and reasoning, or they do not. I remind you of the very words of Jesus in Matthew [12:30] and Luke [11:23] when He stated that someone is either for Him or they are against Him, but certainly never ‘in between’. After all, when one even argues that there is neutral ground to be held here, they are necessarily disagreeing with the words of Jesus in the Bible and are, therefore, adopting a non-neutral position in relation to Biblical Authority and the truth of Christianity. Do not fall for this tactic! The unbeliever is NOT neutral in their presuppositions about God and the Bible and you SHOULD NOT be either. In the paraphrased words of Peter [1 Peter 3:15], ‘sanctify Christ in your heart and be prepared to give an answer to everyone that asks you of the reason of the hope that is within you with meekness and fear’. The foundation provided by God and His Word is indeed a sure one, and nothing overcomes and exposes that which is false like absolute Truth from THE absolute Authority. Stand upon that firm foundation, and you will always prevail. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 14]:

Greetings Soldier,

I see that some of the ‘intellectual’ unbelievers have presented arguments for how they can know things to be true in their worldview. Let’s walk through some of these, as they are an invaluable resource for your training in mastering the ‘Bible First’ (presuppositional) method of defending the faith. The gist of the argument from the unbelievers so far is that they are able to know things for certain because they use their senses and reasoning to make observations and formulate rational conclusions about the world around them through ‘trial and error’. Can you spot the inconsistency here? Indeed, human senses and reasoning are wonderful gifts from God and provide the means of exploring and learning about God’s creation and would, therefore, be expected to be basically reliable and trustworthy according to the Christian worldview. However, what basis does any non-Christian have for trusting their senses and reasoning according to their professed worldview? No doubt, they would say that their observations and experiences have told them that their senses and reasoning are basically reliable over time, but this will not suffice. After all, it is via one’s reasoning that their sensory input and experiences are interpreted, which means that they are basically arguing that they ‘sense and reason that their senses and reasoning are reliable’. Of course, this is viciously circular and renders that position an irrational one–and necessarily false. If one does not know for certain that their senses and reasoning are trustworthy to begin with, then obviously they cannot know anything at all. I recommend pointing this out as soon as possible (and for their own good). Remember, the truth only hurts when it should. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’