The Problem of Evil: A Theodicy, Part One.

The Problem of Evil is perhaps the single most difficult quandary for theologians and philosophers alike. This dilemma is the foremost reason for theological skepticism in the modern era-- and, indeed, of all time, dating back to at least the early Greek civilization in which a thinker by the name of Epicurus lived. The classical Problem of Evil, as given by Epicurus, is stated as follows: 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

Aside from what is commonly known as the "emotional" problem of evil, there is a seemingly air-tight"intellectual" problem of evil. As a young Christian theist, I myself am saddened by the obvious rise of atheism within my generation due to this intellectual problem. Many people think that the Problem of Evil simply leads to the conclusion that God does not exist-- or that if He does exist, He doesn't actually exist in the way that Christian theists claim. Those in my generation (or perhaps one before me) read the works of prominent "New Atheists" like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Lawrence Krauss. That's all very well. I encourage people to read the works of prominent atheists. They provide intellectual stimulation and challenge our belief systems, which can be infinitely useful tools in strengthening faith and allowing us to refine and reconstruct our defense systems. However, I discourage people who intend to read only their books. That would promote complete and utter bias, which is something I strive to remove when discussing the intellectual questions about God. Therefore, in addition to the works of atheists, it is of utmost importance to read books written in defense of classical Christian theism. 

Epicurus' version of the dilemma is posed in a question format. When understood that way, it seems rather daunting. After all, if we are to answer Epicurus according to the choices he provides, we are thereby rendered unable to affirm classical theism. That's what makes the problem so difficult to the common man.

However, we may easily dissect Epicurus' questions in an Aristotelian logical syllogism. For those who are unfamiliar with Aristotelian logic, a classical syllogism is comprised of two premises and a conclusion. If both of the premises are true, and the logical form is valid, then it follows necessarily that the conclusion is true. However, if one or more of the premises are false, then the conclusion cannot be affirmed. Let's try to shed some light on the classical Problem of Evil by dissecting Epicurus' quandary. 

The first question Epicurus asks is this : "Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then He is not omnipotent." In logical form, the question would translate in this way: 

Premise 1: If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able, he is not omnipotent.
Premise 2: God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able.
Conclusion: God is not omnipotent. 

If we are to accept both premises as true, then it follows necessarily that God is not omnipotent. This contradicts the classical concept of God, and would disprove theism... if not for an inherent untruth within the first premise. Interestingly enough, Epicurus loaded the dice, so to speak. He did so by sneaking in an a priori concept of omnipotence into the first premise. It can be stated as follows: "God is omnipotent if and only if God is able to prevent evil." This is a blatant lie. God need not be able to prevent evil to be omnipotent. You may ask, "Does not omnipotence mean the ability to do all things?" But I respond, "No. Omnipotence means the ability to do all things that are possible." In order to prove that God is not omnipotent by Epicurus' argument, then, it follows that one must prove that it is possible to prevent evil.

C. S Lewis, in his excellent work on the the problem of evil known as the Problem of Pain, wrote that 
"In a game of chess you can make certain arbitrary concessions to your opponent, which stand to the ordinary rules of the game as miracles stand to the laws of nature. You can deprive yourself of a castle or allow the other man sometimes to take back a move made inadvertently. But if you conceded everything that at any moment happened to suit him-- if all his moves were revocable and if all your pieces disappeared whenever their position on the board was not to his liking-- then you could not have a game at all. So it is with the life of souls in a world: fixed laws, consequences unfolding by causal necessity, the whole natural order, are at once limits within which their common life is confined and also the sole condition under which any such life is possible. Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself."

From Lewis' argument, we can understand that without free will and the possibility of evil, God could not have created life itself. But surely no-one is foolish enough to suppose that if God exists, He could not have created the world. Therefore, the only viable conclusion about Epicurus' first objection to the concept of God is untrue.

Love: The Miracle of the Crucifixion

“God, who needs nothing, loves into existence wholly superfluous creatures in order that He may love and perfect them. He creates the universe, already foreseeing - or should we say "seeing"? there are no tenses in God - the buzzing cloud of flies about the cross, the flayed back pressed against the uneven stake, the nails driven through the mesial nerves, the repeated incipient suffocation as the body droops, the repeated torture of back and arms as it is time after time, for breath's sake, hitched up. If I may dare the biological image, God is a "host" who deliberately creates His own parasites; causes us to be that we may exploit and "take advantage of" Him. Herein is love. This is the diagram of Love Himself, the inventor of all loves.”

-- C.S Lewis

A few nights ago, April 3rd 2015, I attended a Good Friday service which I am not likely to ever forget. Aside from the candles illuminating the stage in the stead of the usual electric lights; the archaic icons of Christ appearing on the screens and fading, like a dream remembered and forgotten again; the theatrical interpretations of the thieves on the crosses; the classical guitar humming reverently to ancient tunes; there was an overwhelming presence of the Divine. The movement of the Holy Spirit within that sanctuary was unmistakable. There, the shekineh of God dwelt, even if only for an hour.

But within that small period of time, I was reminded of the most important Truth: the Love of God.

Now, I could guess what some of you are thinking, for not so very long ago I used to think these things myself when I heard people speak about God's Love. Really? The Love of God? Isn't that a bit overstated? If I were you, I would talk about God's justice, or His wrath, or His grace, or His sovereignty-- or all of those things combined, provided you make His Love a mere subset of those factors. The Love of God is too mainstream. Everyone has already heard that God is loving-- what about the other attributes?

To answer these questions I am afraid I'll have to shake things up a bit. This may disturb you, or at least confuse you. The following statement is revolutionary in the modern culture:

Most of the world has a very distorted view of Love.

Let me elaborate. In the post-Romantic era of the modern world, we tend to view Love through highly distorted lenses of sentimentality. If we were to know what Love truly is, I reckon we would be less eager to claim that "everyone already knows that God is Love." The modern concept of Love is so dysmorphic that it is nearly impossible to claim that even most Christians understand what is meant when they hear the word in reference to God.

The original meaning of the Greek word "Agape" in reference to God is far deeper and more meaningful than any definition of "love" which we humans are likely to ponder without Divine intervention. This fact should not surprise us; on the contrary, it is to be expected. For humanity is a limited creature, and cannot comprehend all things. Do not think I am saying this in order to make an appeal to "mystery." I myself hate it when other people make such nonsensical appeals; it usually means they have given up all attempts at thinking. Nevertheless, in this particular circumstance, the aphorism is true.Our lack of complete comprehension is the primary reason for our misunderstanding of "love."

I am not saying that we cannot comprehend Love at all. Indeed, we often recognize its obvious forms. When two people cannot refrain from thinking about each other-- when they are devoted exclusively to one another, for better or worse-- we say they are "in love." When a person enjoys a particular tune, we say he "loves" that song. Likewise, the master "loves" his dog.

Nevertheless, they all are all lacking. By nature the objects of these loves are mortal, and cannot hope to pass into the realm of the everlasting. They are possessions, and are therefore temporal. The flower fades. The song is over. The Beloved dies. We are left to weep by the graveside. Without the hope of the Divine love, we can only despair. Nothing that is not connected to God, the Author of Life, will ever live eternally, and must therefore die-- even our earthly loves. Only love between those who have Life Everlasting can endure.

But I see that I have not answered the questions. I have shown nothing about what Love in its highest form truly is.

Let me use a definition by C.S Lewis to clear the matter up. It is perhaps the best way to explain the meaning of the divine "Agape" in English. He informs us that "Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person's ultimate good as far as it can be obtained." 

Go back and read that definition again. Memorize it, even. It is of utmost importance, and cannot possibly be overstated. Once you have an understanding of that definition of Love, continue reading.

I often hear people say things like "Yes, God is Love-- but he is also just;" or, "Yes, God is Love, but He is also sovereign." These people have a distorted view of God. They do not realize that the reason God is sovereign (or wrathful, or gracious, or glorious, or good, or any number of characteristics) is because God is Love. If God were not Love, all His attributes would be in a state of cacophonous warfare among one another. His grace would contradict his wrath, His sovereignty would contradict His goodness, and His Love would be partial. His Love is the reason for our existence, as Lewis stated in the opening quote.

The apostle John, the "beloved disciple," claimed that "God is Love." At the time (and even in the modern era), this statement was revolutionary. No other religion besides Judaism had ever claimed that God, in His essence, was Love. They might have adhered to the doctrines of his sovereignty, or His glorification... but Love? It was unheard of in the ancient world-- they understood only His power.

John certainly had a unique view on God's nature. As the "disciple whom Jesus loved," he was given the extraordinary privilege of revealing what is perhaps the most essential Truth in the world. He emphasized the Love of God to the extent of stating that God Himself is Love! Some might object that it was merely John's opinion. However, those who hold to the infallibility of Scripture will ultimately testify that his words were inspired by God Himself. In Scripture, God reveals who He is through the words of John. God is Love, and we know this because He tells us so.

But let's take a step forward into your life, centuries after John wrote his epistles. It may seem irrelevant, and forgive me if I seem to jump around. But bear with me. I daresay you have a heart full of emotions and desires. If I may be so bold, I believe you also have people whom you truly love. Perhaps you don't always admit it verbally to them-- you may fear rejection, or a half-hearted reciprocation, or disbelief-- but you love them all the same. While you don't constantly express it in words (indeed, perhaps you can't), you may do alternative things to show your affection. You may spend hours in conversation, or give gifts sporadically, or listen intently to him/her rant, or do an act of service, or hold their hand and hug them. Regardless of the method, love usually expresses itself and its genuineness somehow. The level of that expression is an indicator of the level of love.

I am the same, and do not claim to be an exception. I usually don't tell people how much I appreciate them. I find it awkward--cliche in fact-- to say "I love you," even to the ones closest to me. I sometimes find myself wanting to say it, but as soon as the words reach my mouth there appears an invisible barrier separating them from their intended recipients. I fear rejection. I fear the mediocre "I love you" in return, like an unopened letter with the words "Return to Sender" stamped on the front. Every man experiences this fear at some point in life.  If you are human, you have felt it-- or if you haven't yet, you simply haven't lived long enough.

Jesus was no exception, either. He was fully human, and knows every emotion we experience. Indeed, as Hebrews 4:15 states, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin." He, too, was tempted with despair. In fact, He was tempted with far worse despair than any we experience in fear of unrequited love. 

You may object, "But Jesus was God. He could not possibly have been tempted in the same way, because He had the complete and utter power to endure."

But have you ever stopped to consider the fact that the fact that Jesus was God is the very reason why His temptation was so much worse than ours? 

God is omniscient. He foreknew our treacherous adultery with false lovers and idols, and He foresaw that few would accept Him. Yet He extended His arms to the thieves on both His right and His left, in passionate, unconquerable, all-consuming Love for them. Jesus understood that the thief on one side would reject Him, despite His every effort to bring the thief into the Kingdom of Heaven. 

Pause for a moment and reflect on that. 

Love Himself, though hated, still loved the one who rejected Him. 

John recognized the utter significance of the Divine Love in the fourth chapter of his first epistle: "In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

God loves every single human being He has ever made-- even though He already knows which ones will reject him of their own free will. We cannot even partially imagine the pain God feels, knowing that some of His beloved creatures will choose to hate Him eternally. We experience something like it (albeit infinitely less in measure) when we are deserted by those whom we trusted most, or when a spouse is unfaithful, or when a child becomes a prodigal son.

 Yet even in our pitiful state, we cannot cry the tears of God. When we grieve His Spirit, a sorrow greater than the sum total of pain experienced collectively by all of humanity is created. We do not have a God who is unable to sympathize-- rather, it is the reverse. It is we who cannot sympathize with our God. God is not impassible-- He is infinitely passionate. 

We all too often forget that God's various attributes are rooted in one essential virtue. His wrath and justice are not separate from His all-encompassing Love; rather, they exist only because of it. His Love unifies all His attributes. As a loving husband is jealous for his wife, so is the LORD jealous for us. And just as a loving husband is furious and pained at the very thought of his wife's infidelity, so is the LORD's wrath kindled against those who would adulterate themselves with false gods and idols. His justice is a direct deduction from His goodness-- and God could not be all-good (omnibenevolent) without the essential core virtue of Love. 

Imagine the pain that Christ felt. Certainly some of it was physical-- in fact, we had to invent a completely new word to describe such pain: excruciating. Literally, the word means "out of the cross." But more than the physical torment of the flayed back, the pierced hands and feet, the concussed skull with deadly thorns pressed in, the asphyxiating lungs, and the hypovolemic shock, there is a sense in which an even greater agony pressed itself upon the heart of Jesus. The grief which Jesus must have felt because of his absolute foreknowledge of every person's free choices had to have been unbearable. 

But He endured it. The miracle isn't just that He was raised-- it's that He submitted to the will of His Father, and died for the atonement of sin. It wasn't His physical power or strength that allowed Him to do this-- it was His Love. As He said to the disciples in John 14:31, shortly before his crucifixion, "The world must learn that I love my Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me." On that cross, Christ conquered the forces of sin and darkness, and crushed the head of the serpent forever. But if you could have traveled back in time to that instant of history, you would not have seen anything glorious about it. The Victor had to be vanquished before He could save us. That, my friends, is the ultimate expression of Love. 

And, having endured all earthly suffering, 

He gave His very life

That we might one day have Life Everlasting in Him. 

"Greater love has no one than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Jars of Clay: Rebuking the Modern Church

Hello readers,

Recently, I was reading about Jars of Clay's semi-recent departure from modern contemporary evangelical Christian culture. I don't know if you've heard about this, or if you even care, but it has pointed out some things which have absolutely enormous implications for Christians everywhere today.

 As I was reading, I wondered, "Did Jars of Clay denounce Christianity? Do they now separate themselves from God in this action of separation from contemporary Christian worship music? If not... what are they? What DO they believe?"

while reading Dan Haseltine's words (lead singer for Jars of Clay), I took a step back from my own bias and thought for a moment. I looked at what he said, and then looked again at who I claimed to be and what I claimed to believe.

And I was frightened. I realized that he was right!

Here is an excerpt from a few years back, in Haseltine's article An Unfinished Record, an Uncharted Path.

 "These songs are honest expressions of what life around us looks like. The descriptions of love and pain, loneliness and hope are real to us. It is what frustrates me about the general church audience. If artistic expressions do not have an evangelical agenda, or they don’t explicitly cheer for Jesus, they tend to fail commercially. In my experience, the music with those kinds of agendas is shallow and somehow not ultimately believable to me. Ironically, what people probably want, and have a hard time articulating, is a description that gives voice to their experiences of doubt and faith and life, but they have been tricked into a very narrow view of where those descriptions come from. And so they often settle for the Jesus cheerleaders or worship songs that have been loaded with sentimentality but not reality. People set expectations that they are going to connect with real life during their worship services through the medium of worship music. At the same time, people may forget entirely or dismiss the movie that described a portion of hard life that their soul found resonance with, because it wasn’t in a church context. This doesn’t mean there is no space for evangelicalism. But it is such a tiny sliver of the entire pie."

He was right. The "Jesus cheerleaders" (another name for Christian alternative music) had too much control, and their messages were far too narrow-- and not in a good way. Some may refute me by quoting Jesus and saying that "The way is narrow" but they don't realize that what they are showing is in fact only a part of the way of life to which Scripture calls us-- their way is more narrow than Jesus' Way!

I'm not saying that we shouldn't continue to do worship music. What I am saying is we spend more time in worship singing about our faith than because of our faith. How often do we quote Scriptures in songs without actually adding something of significance that God has shown us in our own experiences? How often do we sing the words of other people-- not necessarily because the words are meaningful, but because someone who is a "strong Christian musician" wrote them? How often do we mean what we sing wholeheartedly? Yes, we sing a "New Song" about "Worthy is the Lamb" -- but every new song never really seems all that new. Nothing artistic ever shows up, because most of the Calvinistic fundamentalist Christian contemporary groups are more worried about getting their doctrinal ideologies into their music than actually making good music.

What a mess!

Jesus taught us how to pray-- not how to sing. I think He did so on purpose. Perhaps He wanted us to worship Him in our own unique way. Perhaps, after all, free will may play some sort of role in the way we love God and worship Him. Maybe we can freely chose Him-- and maybe we can freely chose how to worship Him as well. Maybe there are no set standards for how to worship. Maybe its better to go off alone on your guitar or piano and sing something you made up on your own that has real meaning to you concerning God's Love than to sit in church and listen to the doctrine-of-Glory/grace songs that your pastor picks for you deliberately each Sunday. Maybe we've taken a step in the wrong direction.

And our artistic talent shouldn't stop at worship service, anyways.

We shouldn't  think for a millisecond that unless there is some scriptural reference to our art, we ought not to do it-- that if a song isn't explicitly about Jesus, we can't listen to it. Or if a painting isn't a Biblical portrayal, that we shouldn't enjoy the art. Surely, all true art is inspired by God. It's like Scripture for the senses. Don't reject the baby, just because you don't like the bathwater. Don't reject the art, just because it isn't explicitly "evangelical." That's another thing the modern church does. if art doesn't fit with their extremely narrow agenda-- well, we discard it. That's that.

We so often blame the secular world for not going to our churches, wearing our T-shirts, and listening to our music. Did you ever stop to think that maybe...

WE are the ones to blame for this?

"I have attempted to provide questions that could lead to a more love based approach.   This has meant taking a careful and often critical view of contemporary church behavior and culture.  At times this has led me to unproductive and unfair assessments of the churc)h culture.  Other times, it has helped me navigate around unhealthy environments and practices that could have caused me to hurt people." --Haseltine

Perhaps the world is hurt by our condemnation. Perhaps, as Rob Bell said, we should put down the bullhorn and take a step in their direction. Perhaps, instead of clenching our hands tight against the world, we ought to open our hearts and hands and give them Love. After all, that's what the gospel is really about. It isn't about the doctrines-- although doctrines matter-- it's about the Love that is shown to every human being on the planet by Jesus Christ. Behold, He stands at the door and knocks. But does He barge into your house like a bull in a china shop?

No. He is gentle, inviting, and more importantly-- Loving. He extended His hands to us-- and all He asks is that we don't resist. Not that we are unable to resist grace-- but we owe our very lives to Him, and therefore we have no right to resist. Sadly, some do-- perhaps because they don't see Christians practicing what they preach.

Maybe we should change our views on some things. Maybe God DOES love the whole world. And maybe, instead of sharing doctrinal opinions and dogmas (like Calvinism, Fundamentalism, or Escapist Christianity) with them-- we ought to share our LIVES with them. Our experiences, our dreams, our love, our laughter, our sorrow, and our faith. All of these things are what make up the true Church. We are a community that lives together, and Christ is who inspired us to do so. We ought not to exclude anyone-- because Christ did not exclude us. We are to be the means of showing love to the whole world, with no exceptions. There is not a single person on earth who we ought to withhold our community. As C.S Lewis once said, "To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable in others, because Christ has forgiven the inexcusable in you." This is the message Jars of Clay wants to spread-- and I myself support it without exception.

Emerging in Today's Culture

Hello viewers, I hope you're all doing well! Just decided to post a little something that's been on my mind today. Actually, it's been in the back of my mind for a while, ever since I first saw the "NOOMA" (Greek for spirit) video in my worldview class. I found it intriguing, stylish, and attractive-- especially in comparison with most modern church videos.

In the first little movie clip, Rob Bell (a leader of the Liberal side of the Emergent Church Movement) spoke with passion against hellfire and brimstone preachers. It showed a man holding a bullhorn, in the midst of a crowd, in an attempt to yell at them about their sinfulness.  "Please, I beg of you, on behalf of all of us, put the bullhorn down!" said Bell.

Now while I was watching this, I was careful not to be entirely swept away by the attractive qualities of the video. I didn't allow myself to be convinced by cool graphics and catchy words and phrases. 

But I agreed with Bell on many things. Namely, that we need to reach out to the postmodern culture with Christ's love-- not with the wrath of God. His message about evangelism was backed up with several scripture verses. The culture is tired of hearing words of hate from Jesus' followers. Don't they already know that we think they're sinners? Don't they already know that we believe God hates sin? Clearly, our method of hellfire and brimstone "evangelism" only brings division. No-one is attracted to a God who hates them.

But then a week later, just last Wednesday, I saw a video at youth group in which a preacher showed that God hates sinners. He backed it up with scripture, too. So I was slightly vexed: which do I believe?

I realized, first, that we need to understand exactly why God hates sin. Here's how I would illustrate it: imagine that God is like a husband, who loves His bride (humanity) with unconditional passion. He does everything He could possibly do to show her that she is loved. But she rejects Him, despite the fact that His love went beyond anything else. In fact, she not only rejects Him-- she commits adultery with her own desires. How would you feel in this place? Wouldn't you be wrathful and jealous beyond belief? And you would grieve, too, if you had been treated so.

I believe God "hates" us in this sense. He is angry just like a rejected husband is angry.

But He also loves us. So He proves this by DYING for His unfaithful bride. If this cannot prove to her that He is worthy of adoration, nothing ever will.

If we explain it to our post modern culture in THIS way, I believe we may have better chances of them connecting to the Holy Spirit's call. But if we keep on making the story about US, and what should happen to US (in other words, we should be going to Hell) , then unbelievers will never hear His side of the Story.

So Rob Bell was right about one thing: we certainly need to renovate the way we reach out to people.

But upon furtcombatsearch, I realized that there were things wrong with Bell's beliefs. I saw, for instance, that he promoted homosexual marriage. This, according to Leviticus 18:22, is incorrect. Mark Driscoll explained Bell's movement this way: they are good, attractive people, but they question things that were decided centuries ago, such as "was Jesus really God," or "is the Bible actually God's Word?" 

These questions are okay to ask, of course. No question should remain unanswered. We must always make sure our faith is accurate. But the problem is, Bell's movement never answers the questions, and thus leaves the Bible open to incorrect interpretation. In fact, it leaves room to redefine God. And who are we to define He who made US? That is true heresy, and should not be allowed to roam freely in Christ's body, the Church.

Mark Driscoll, however, showed that Bell's liberal Emergent movement was really only an offshoot of a much larger organization. Here are the other three divisions of Emerging Churches: Emergent House Church Movement, which is doctrinally sound, but rejects the Big Church mentality. This type of church generally consists of 20-30 people. The next kind of emergent church is essentially Calvinist in doctrine, with a strong outreach towards postmodern culture. The next is also traditional in doctrine, but simply seeks new ways to make Christianity and church relevant in today's culture.

Overall, the emergent church had some good ideas, but we must be certain that there are no wolves among us that would ravage God's flock.

Postmodernism. You know?

Hello Reader,

 Recently, I watched a few vids that the Rabbi posted online. They were about a relatively new movement within the church, which is loosely defined as "emergent" church movement. This movement has grown rapidly since the mid-20th century, and has an extreme appeal to a post-modernist culture. In this article, I'll attempt to debunk a few myths about the movement, as well as provide clarity as to how a Christian should handle it.
 Funny thing, though-- the majority of Emergent churches don't even want to be labeled! They prefer to maintain their own anonymity. Some members call themselves "post-modernists," "post-evangelicals," or even "post-protestant." It's difficult actually define the emergent movement-- the best I can really do is describe their people, practices, and philosophy.
 The members of these churches tend to be young and outgoing. They are sick and tired of pews and traditional church methods.They dislike the idea of the spiritual authority that resides in the church-- instead, they decide everything together as one community, without any specific leaders who want to decide everything for the congregation. They want to be heard, and their "sermons" are really just large group discussions about spirituality. They sit on couches, and a discussion leader sits in the center of the auditorium to act as a moderator. Their worship services are very sensory related, and include dj's who mix tracks in order to provide the right "atmosphere" of worship. Some even include ancient practices of worship, which include walking through labyrinths. They tend to mix different worship techniques of different Christian branches-- most notably, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
This is mostly fine-- at least it attracts the modern world to some form of Christianity... right? Well, not necessarily. Unfortunately, This influential movement puts little to no emphasis on the authority of scripture. They don't tend to accept anything as absolute truth, due to the post-modern nature of their views. As D.A Carson, a theologian from Trinity Evangelical Seminary in Illinois, believes, once people remove the authority of truth and scripture, they risk losing a correct view of God.
 Christians need to respond to this movement. The only question is, how do we do this? First, I believe we need to consider their arguments, and make sure that we are not guilty of any of their accusations. They claim that the church is too controlling-- is it? Do we put more authority into the church than in scripture? The truth is, some churches do exactly that. We need to avoid this by looking to God as our ultimate authority, and  be willing to correct the church's views on certain subjects if they dont align with scripture. They also say that our forms of worship are not convicting enough. They say that they don't really feel God's presence in the church during worship services. In response, we need to be certain that our worship services are filled with God-honoring songs that don't put the congregation to sleep. We need to lead people in worship with hearts that are pure before Lord, as well as being excited to be near Him in his throne room. Others claim that we don't allow people to speak for themselves, or ask questions. We need to make certain that we have places like small groups and bible studies where no-one needs to be afraid that their thoughts will be rejected.
 On the other hand, we cannot reject the supreme authority of God and His Word. While we should allow questions to be asked, we must not speak without authority of scripture as the basis for our thoughts. We must not change the clear meaning of the Bible and allow truth  to be twisted. Overall, we must put God's desires first when encountering one of these churches-- as we should in all situations.

IS HE CRAZY... OR WHAT?

Hello viewers!


Welcome to another edition of "Insanity's Lair!" With us today, if not in flesh, we have the spirits of C. S. Lewis, John. F. Kennedy, and-- oh, almost forgot, Aldous Huxley. Today, I am going to explain some things concerning a talk they had during their lengthy stay in Limbo.
 Firstly, let's discuss Jesus' divinity. Was He truly the God of the Bible, incarnate within a human body?

 To answer that question, I'll first lay out in plain sight the four possibilities of who Jesus might have really been. First, we may consider the idea that he was a fool-- crazy, a little loose-minded, insane, delusional. The next possibility is that Jesus was a liar-- a swindler, a cheater, a person unworthy of any form of trust. The third is that he was simply a "nice guy."
And the last....

GASP!!!

Could he-- He-- have been God?

C. S Lewis said that we could dismiss with the idea that Jesus was a "nice guy"-- because "nice guys" generally don't claim to be God. If they do, then they are ether demented-- a "Lunatic"-- or they are lying. If Jesus was demented, then he was bad, mentally. If Jesus were a Liar, then he was morally evil-- which also contradicts the "Mr. Nice Guy Theory." So, I agree with Lewis, who said that He wasn't just a nice guy.
The next argument is that Jesus was a fool-- and this would make little sense in the end, as well. If Jesus was a fool, would he really have been so widely accepted? You would think that people would notice if there were something screwy about this guy. In fact, his disciples spent so much time near him it would be virtually impossible for them not to know if He were unhealthy mentally. He spoke to so many educated crowds, with such clarity, that we can essentially deny the very idea of Jesus' insanity.
The idea that Jesus was a liar (or, as Lewis put it, a homo malus) is much more plausible than the previous ideas-- but how does it stand up to scrutiny? Well, before one assumes that this option is true, we need to see Jesus' previous history of lying. Was he lying about other things? Even skeptic scholars generally agree that, on other points, Jesus spoke the truth. He wasn't intrinsically a chronic liar. When he spoke to people, he meant what he said-- and believed what he said. Jesus died for what he believed. Now, people may die for a lie-- but they never die for something they believe to be a lie.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the remaining possibility; it just takes a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants.

JESUS IS GOD

Sinceriously,
Micah Sample

Tell Me Your Opinion! Calvinism & Alternative Idealogies

Dear Readers,

I have been studying the doctrines of Calvinism (particularly referring to man's role in salvation-- if such a thing exists.) I would truly appreciate it if you commented below! I NEED YOUR OPINION! I do not want to stir up controversy-- I only aim to find out the truth about this topic.

Here are some questions I'd like for you to answer:

1.) Do you believe in Predestination?
2.) Is there a difference between Predestination and Election?
3.) Does God decide to send some to hell before they are even born? If so, how is this justified?
4.) Does man have Free Will? If not, why?

Thank you to those who respond and give opinions! One of the future articles on this blog will cover my own journey through the question of salvation.

Sinceriously,
Micah Sample

(P.S, Have any of you seen the new Son of God movie? Tell me what you thought about it.)