In a world of many faiths, many beliefs about many different things, and in particular a culture that simply requires belief in absolutely anything whatsoever as the only requisite for a hope of heaven or wherever it is you might like to be going, one thing glaringly stands out: the validity of your beliefs.

Lets cut to the chase: the requisite is not an ambiguous random thing called faith.

If I might mimic James, “So you say you have faith?”

Faith in what exactly?  Or is it something that you purchased at Wal-Mart?

Not desiring to belittle anyone at all, we must concede that if a strong belief in anything is all that is required then Hitler and Dahmer are just as likely candidates as any.  I have no doubt at all that they had strong convictions. 

I am simply trying to underscore this one point: it is not the mere existence of faith that grants a validity to it (does that seem strangely circular?), but rather the validity of the object of the faith.  In my daily reading, I came to 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul actually addresses this very topic.  Apparently some had been stirring up controversy as to whether Christ was actually raised or not and the Apostle addresses it very pointedly.

1 Cor 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

We see clearly in this passage that it is not the faith that gives validity, but rather the object, viz. the ressurected Christ.

You can have all the faith in the world and if Christ is not raised then your faith is not valid and therefore futile. 

The Apostle is not embarking down this line of reasoning to leave the subject open to speculation, as we see in verse 20:

“But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead..”

The Apostle affirms the validity of the object and therefore the validity of the faith.  Our faith is valid because Christ is raised.

While studying hermeneutics today, the Doctrine of Inspiration in particular, I was profoundly struck with the weightiness of the reality of such a Doctrine.  I suppose, while whole-heartedly affirming the doctrine, that I fail often to have a simple awe for this idea: that God has spoken.  The omnipotent, omniscient, holy, creator God has spoken.  More than that, he has spoken through men imparting divine authority to the sounds that are created by the vibrating of vocal cords and the moving of muscles in the mouth.  To read the Prophets and see them speak the Words of God in the first person is suddenly astounding.

I consider further that the Son of God was manifest in the flesh and spoke the Words of God with his very own physical mouth.

This is nothing short of Awesome. 

Since beginning the study of Hermeneutics, one thing has struck me as extremely important.  In acquiring a brief overview of the history of Hermeneutics, it has appeared as a dire necessity for the truth to be guarded and protected.  It does not only need to be protected by us, but also from us.  While there is no shortage of enemies of the Scripture, including those of the woolly sort, we must be careful to conclude as well that our own hearts do deceive us.  Subtle motives and deceptions lurk in dark places that we do not always see clearly.  A sound Hermeneutic however, seems to alleviate much of the danger of such things from taking root, as well as arm us with the ability to rightly guard the precious truths of the Word of God.

I heard a quoteable statement in a sermon on contentment by Curt Arend and thought I would share.

“In order to carry a full cup, one must walk very carefully.”

You can listen to the sermon here:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=3270702454

I have once again begun to embark on furthering my understanding of and ability to handle the Word of God.  Sadly, I have already acquired a Bachelors Degree in Theology, however I am quite certain that the validity of the honor bestowed by this glorified piece of papyrus is marred.  So here we go again, with hopefully a greater degree of success, Lord willing.  I have chosen Reformed Baptist Seminary to acquire future pieces of paper from.  The benefits of this school for me are manifold.  Tuition stands out as one major reason, as the tuition is a mere $60 per credit, compared to similar institutions boasting $300+ per credit.  Secondly, being like-minded in doctrine is a major benefit.  Other schools considered typically had some major departures from my own convictions, which is always less than ideal.  Finally, the course work is available almost entirely (excepting languages) through portable media.  This is one of the most vital issues for me as time is critical.  My family is of the utmost importance and slaving away for 8 years on one class a semester is not desirable.  I have already done a trial run of this through community college and it has been a rather brutal 20 or so credits.  The great blessing of technology, combined with a schedule change at work allowing me to arrive home 1½ hours earlier each day during the week provides me the opportunity to consistently and steadily work through classes at a reasonable pace without taking a huge chunk of the time I previously had available.

The only downside to this particular school is that they are not accredited.  The only concern I would have here would be the quality of the education, and from what I have taken so far it seems to be up to par with what you could acquire elsewhere (this is a mere estimation of mine which has no actual basis).  The classes are thorough and challenging.

For some strange reason I was thinking about this phrase this morning and have come to a conclusion about it.

I do not see that it is a useful question for the people of God.  When I ask someone this question, what am I really asking them?  I realize that questions such as this one are merely formalities and are simply a matter of politeness.  I simply cannot resist asking the question though, Why do we use that particular phrase?  You see, I am one of those annoying people who actually answers honestly.  I remember one fellow who was visiting our church came over to talk to me and upon asking how I was doing he was a bit disrupted by not getting your “typical K-Mart answer”, to quote him.

So what do we mean when we ask if someone had a good week?

Are we asking if their week was full of blessings?  or are we asking if they were in an agreeable state of mind throughout the week?  Was your week comfortable?  Were all things pleasant?  No catastrophies occurred, no one died?  Your walking with Christ?  Struggling with sin this week? 

So which of these are we really asking?  Depending on where our own thoughts are and the type of week we had and how humble we are at the moment will determine our underlying meaning. 

Now here is the problem:  the person your asking has no idea what you really mean by your asking.  And so you get a “K-Mart answer”: “Good”, “Fine”.
What does THAT mean?
No one died.  My house did not burn down.  I did not lose my job.  My week was terrible but I do not care to tell you, I would prefer to just be polite and keep it to myself. 
I will also mention the difficulty of actually answer such a terrible question in the 2 seconds you have, if you actually consider your week, to make a one-word summary of it.  In those 2 seconds you have to evaluate every state of mind, every event, every emotion, as well as those of your own family.  Good luck.  I commend you if you can do it.  More than likely, 98% of your week will immedietely vanish from your memory and the moment your currently in and perhaps one or two events that stand out will determine your answer.

Now lets look at this from a Biblical standpoint.
What does it mean, Biblically, to have had a good week?  Well, according to Christ, only God is good.  So you can only honestly say you had a good week if you are God.  Maybe “Fine” is a better answer.

All that being said, the primary thing I would like to address is this:  is it necessarily a good thing if we have had a “good” week in some of the senses mentioned above?  If we examine our week from a heavenly perspective, a good week suddenly looks drastically different.  Now a good week might be more along these lines:
God delivered me in a difficult situation this week.
God gave me victory over a sin I was struggling with.
The trials in this week have further sanctified me and conformed me more to the image of Christ.
God chastised me this week.
God was glorified in my suffering this week.
God taught me patience this week.

I think I prefer the old Puritan greeting. 

How is it with your soul, friend?

I have begun listening to this audio book and have been thoroughly enjoying it.  I would definitely recommend this for anyone who has struggled, or does struggle, with assurance.  We should always be wary of a false sense of assurance, but we should also be wary of a false lack of assurance.  John Bunyan was tortured within over his own salvation for several years.  This has been profitable to hear for me, especially having struggled with assurance more than ever before in the past six months.

Also a bonus: the speaking quality of whoever is reading is fairly good, so this book is rather easy to listen to.

Then entire book can be downloaded here:

Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners

I have been considering how to address this article at some length now. I think I have arrived at the conclusion that my main desire will be to address the issues raised in the article plainly, but with as much kindness as possible and in as few words as possible. That being said, lets dive right in.

Men are creatures of reasoning. Biblically speaking, the main thing that makes us to differ from animals is that we are rational souls while animals are brute beasts. The capacity for reasoning is part of the image of God that has been imparted to us. This then forces the point: there are not many logics, or polylogism as it is called. The article being addressed seems to indicate that there somehow are, yet a brief examination of the law of contradiction will yield an obvious answer: a thing cannot be what it is and not what it is in the same way at the same time. This is a universal rule, much like rules of mathematics. 1+1=2. Always. These rules do not change based on how you look at life. What then is the writer of the article trying to say?

I think what has happened here is a miscategorization of what logic really is. Based on the examples given and the presentation of what appears to be polylogism, much of what the writer refers to throughout the article is not actually logic. I truly feel that what is being called logic are actually applications of logic that are based on faulty premises. The two “logics” in question here are what has been called “step logic” and “block logic”. Both of these are not different logics, but rather the same principles of logic with different premises. The Greeks were empiricists and based their premises on experience, so you will tend to see a somewhat consistent (though ultimately faulty) “step” process of thought in their arguments. The Hebrews however, had revelation and therefore their premises were based on the Scripture instead. Mention was made of many paradoxes in Hebrew thought because they truth for them was derived from propositions found in the Scripture. The crux of this matter is quite simple: they did not have Christ. Christ is the Logos, which is the Greek word for logic. Christ is The Reason; the light of the world. The Greek application of logic fails because it does not start with Christ. Hebrew logic fails because, though they had Divine revelation, they did not have the Cornerstone of Divine revelation. Christ is the key. Apart from Christ, nothing makes any sense at all.

Logic, like mathematics, must be applied correctly. If the main premise of all your syllogisms is a false premise then all the conclusions arrived at shall be incorrect. Lets look at a few examples.

In the article an example is given of “God’s non-syllogistic logic”. Genesis 17:9, 21:2, and 22:2 are all quoted as examples. The first two dealing with Isaac’s birth, and the third with Isaac being sacrificed. These are cited as non-syllogistic. This is actually incorrect however. The main premise is not explicitly written into the verses, nor is it anywhere in the Bible. It the implicit truth of the scripture that is present from the first verse of the Bible to the last: God. If you ignore the ultimate premise then all your logic will fail. Lets look at the syllogism of Genesis 17:9

Major Premise: Everything God says comes to pass.
Minor Premise: God said Sara will bear a son.
Conclusion: Sara will bear a son.

This may be applied to basically every example given in the article quite reasonably.

In conclusion, I must adamantly oppose the content of the article as I do not see that it accurately presents the information. The negative disposition towards logic that is expressed in the article, though the tone seems to shift some towards the end, is unfounded. This negative disposition, I am convinced, is due to a misunderstanding of logic. While I wholeheartedly agree that logic is not to be taught above the Scriptures, it is to be taught. Much of the foolishness of this generation I think is because logic is no longer taught. People no longer think clearly, nor can they perceive error because they have forsaken logic. The example in the article given of the person trained in reasoning deceiving the audience is a perfect example of this. A person trained in reasoning who uses it properly will deceive no one. It is the crowd who is too ignorant to perceive errors in reasoning who is at fault. The current Presidential candidate debates vividly come to mind where character attacks are made rather than reasonable presentations. And America eats it up. Do you think they are not trained in reasoning? They know full well how to manipulate crowds. If you feel you do not need to train your children how to think clearly, you are just training the pawns of the future. And just for the record, what was called repeatedly “critical thinking” is logical thinking.

Note: For anyone who would argue against the example of mathematics, do not be confused by different bases. To argue that is to totally miss the point.

Here is a short compilation someone put together of Paul Washer bringing some encouraging words.

Make sure you visit http://upp.mypodcast.com for more Paul Washer stuff.

Forgive me for not having a blog full of fresh thoughts on every post. I tend to think about things for several weeks at a time and continue to draw parallels between two seemingly separate thoughts. So, forgive me if this is some of yesterday’s manna.

I have been considering John MacArthur’s sermon, as shown below, ever since listening to it. I must say I wholeheartedly agree with him. Even more so after watching the first movie I have seen in about 6 months or so. If you desire to enjoy any type of modern entertainment, it will come at the cost of you having to overlook the sin that is boldly proclaimed in it.

My wife and I had a rather lengthy meditation on John 8:12 last night and I think that there is some application of that passage in regards to this topic. The passage reads as follows:

Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Sadly, I have not prepared an expository 3-pointer for you. You will have to deal with my conglomeration of ramblings.

In meditating on this passage, the first issue to address was Jesus’ statement, “I am the light of the world”. What exactly does he mean by that? First, lets look at some passages in the Gospel of John that use similar language.

John 1:4-13

4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. 9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3:19-21

19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.

John 9:4-5

4 We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. 5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

So what does Christ mean when he says that he is the light of the world? It seems in John 1 you have the idea of natural revelation, which Paul mentions more fully in Romans 1:19-23. I do wonder also if this refers to man’s understanding and ability to reason. Christ is characterized in proverbs as Wisdom, which would be “good” understanding. Somewhere in all this it seems vital to include Moral Uprightness. Wherever you turn to in the scriptures, when men depart from any of these things, whether it be suppressing the truth of natural revelation, departing from wisdom, or forsaking clear thinking, there is always a departure from morality. Indeed it seems that the primary characteristic of light as it is used in the scripture is that it exposes. Consider the passage in John 8 (whether you think that 7:53-8:11 is part of the autograph or not) Jesus exposes the sinful hearts of the Pharisees in their condemnation of the adulteress. The next statement he makes is John 8:12.

Next, consider John 3. Why do people love darkness rather than light? Because their deeds are evil. They love darkness, that is, where their deeds may be hidden, because their deeds are evil. The issue here is a moral one. They hate the light, even flee from the light because it reveals the wickedness of their deeds. How does light reveal that wickedness? Without question, moral degeneracy is laid bare in the face of moral uprightness. I have to agree with the Puritan who said that man’s fall was a moral one. So when Christ says he is the light of the world, he is saying that he exposes the deeds thereof. Consider the ten commandments; did they not reveal to man his sin? Paul declares in Romans 7:7, “Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin”. We clearly see that the Word of God exposes that moral condition of our hearts and deeds.

Psalm 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

The Word of God shows us where we are going. It shows whether we are in a way of evil and wickedness, or whether we are walking uprightly. It is the moral perfection of the Word of God that exposes these things, and we know that Jesus Christ is the Word manifest in the flesh. So then it seems obvious that Jesus Christ should expose the wicked deeds of men.

Interestingly enough, Christ also calls the disciples the light of the world. Their purpose for being lights is to uncover the darkness around them. So how do we do that? Exactly the same way: Moral Uprightness. You will find it abundantly taught in the scripture that the indications of true salvation are characterized by moral uprightness (See Matthew 7:21-23, the whole book of 1 John, and 1 Peter 1:14-16 contain a very small sampling). The children of God have a disposition that tends toward moral uprightness. Indeed he has given us a heart of flesh, that is, one that is sensitive and tender to the things of God and that does not sit by cold and calm when faced with sin (Ezekiel 36:26). And we are also made partakers of the Holy Spirit, whereby we do love those things that God loves. Righteousness, love, and all manner of godly virtue we now pursue instead of carnal pleasures.

So how can we apply this to our lives? We can start by being the light.

Ephesians 5:11

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

We are commanded to do this. In a society that rejoices over sin and demands the acceptance of all manner of riotous living, sexual immorality, homosexuality, we are commanded to do this. In a society where it is not politically correct to confront people about their sin, and moral integrity and virtuous qualities are scoffed at, we are commanded to do this. Sin is not relative. God is not relative. Morality is not evolving.

Christ also refers to his disciples as the salt of the earth. He also says what happens when salt loses its flavor…