Can a Christian call the Qur’an Holy? He can only if he is ignorant or deceitful. When President Obama quoted (Cairo speech) form what he called the “Holy Qur’an” he showed his ignorance of the meaning of the word Holy in the spiritual sense or he contradicted himself. There can be no other explanation.
Christians believe, by definition, and repeat, by commission, that Jesus is God. Christians should know that when something is Holy it is spiritually perfect of God. The Qur’an states most specifically and more than once that Jesus is NOT God. Therefore, either Christians are wrong or the Qur’an is not Holy. This fact implies Obama is not a Christian (he says he is), Obama does not understand the meaning of the word Holy, or Obama is lying to the world; knowing full well that the Qur’an is NOT Holy.
In the love of Christ,
-Mel
Friday, June 5, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Rightwing Extremism
Dear Department of Homeland Security,
I am writing this correspondence to inform and make perfectly clear my attitudes and activities with regard to “right wing extremism”. Make no mistake; I am a law abiding citizen. In my 46 years on this planet I have committed a total of ZERO unlawful violent acts. I defended my country proudly in active duty service as an NCO in the US Army (1987 – 1991). I am happily married and am in the middle of raising three beautiful children. For the past 12 years I have been a high school math teacher at a private school in Erie PA.
Having said this; I must confront some serious warnings raised by the “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” report. I am an evangelical Christian. I believe abortion is nothing less than the murder of the innocent life of an unborn child. I believe homosexuals live in open defiance of the laws of God Almighty. I uphold the second amendment right of the individual to bare arms. I am against the illegal immigration of individuals from foreign lands. I cherish the liberty won for me by the brave who have come before me and I have no intension to sit idle as President Obama and the members, both Demarcates and Republicans, of Congress continue to pass legislation, initiated by President Bush, that is in clear conflict with the principles of freedom and the foundational truths contained in the Constitution of our Republic.
You should consider your subliminal attempts to word associate those good Americans who share my views with “terrorists” (a word I have been told President Obama frowns on) as lame and here unveiled. I am on to your intentional efforts to conflate “right wing extremists” and conservative Americans. Shame on you.
Your conclusion: “ (U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.” Listen DHS, I am NO threat to the United States. I will concede that there exist evil doers who share my ideology. Be aware! There are evil doers who share President Obama’s ideology (Bill Ayers).
I find your report arrogant, divisive, and derisive. I will not be intimidated to compromise my beliefs.
In the love of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,
Melvin H. Fox
I am writing this correspondence to inform and make perfectly clear my attitudes and activities with regard to “right wing extremism”. Make no mistake; I am a law abiding citizen. In my 46 years on this planet I have committed a total of ZERO unlawful violent acts. I defended my country proudly in active duty service as an NCO in the US Army (1987 – 1991). I am happily married and am in the middle of raising three beautiful children. For the past 12 years I have been a high school math teacher at a private school in Erie PA.
Having said this; I must confront some serious warnings raised by the “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” report. I am an evangelical Christian. I believe abortion is nothing less than the murder of the innocent life of an unborn child. I believe homosexuals live in open defiance of the laws of God Almighty. I uphold the second amendment right of the individual to bare arms. I am against the illegal immigration of individuals from foreign lands. I cherish the liberty won for me by the brave who have come before me and I have no intension to sit idle as President Obama and the members, both Demarcates and Republicans, of Congress continue to pass legislation, initiated by President Bush, that is in clear conflict with the principles of freedom and the foundational truths contained in the Constitution of our Republic.
You should consider your subliminal attempts to word associate those good Americans who share my views with “terrorists” (a word I have been told President Obama frowns on) as lame and here unveiled. I am on to your intentional efforts to conflate “right wing extremists” and conservative Americans. Shame on you.
Your conclusion: “ (U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.” Listen DHS, I am NO threat to the United States. I will concede that there exist evil doers who share my ideology. Be aware! There are evil doers who share President Obama’s ideology (Bill Ayers).
I find your report arrogant, divisive, and derisive. I will not be intimidated to compromise my beliefs.
In the love of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,
Melvin H. Fox
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Why?
Let’s suppose, for a moment, that there is no God. Let’s suppose that the universe came to be on its own and unintentionally so. Let’s suppose accidental abiogenesis in a soup of chemicals. Let’s suppose millions of years of random mutation are selected out in a dog-eat-dog game of survival and produce the kinds of life present on today’s earth. Suppose there exists a man, call him Edward, who is a member of what is undoubtedly the fittest species of them all. He, of course, is not the product of any intentional act of supernatural creation and there exists no specific plan for his life. He is not subject to any absolute law of truth. His survival and the survival of his genes in the gene pool depend solely on his fitness.
Suppose now that Edward, a striking figure himself, sets his sights on Mary. She is a beautiful young woman; fit indeed. Edward begins his advances only to find that Mary is engaged to William. William is small in stature but has a rather large brain. He is industrious, honorable, and brings home a large paycheck. Mary is in love and resolved to marry William.
Edward is undaunted. He reasons with the very brain given to him by the miracle of natural selection that the only solution is to remove William from the picture. Edward sneaks into William’s apartment and bludgeons him over the head a dozen times with a lead pipe. He steals his wallet and leaves behind a handkerchief of the color of the local gang. The police mistakenly arrest a boy who delivers pizzas in the neighborhood. The boy is convicted and Edward gets off scot free.
Mary is heart broken but Edward is there to console her. It is not long before they are on their honeymoon securing Edward’s place in the gene pool. Mary ends up having five kids with Edward before she finds out that he has had countless affairs almost from the start. Nobody is sure exactly how many kids Edward has fathered. Most of them inherit Edward’s cunning and good looks. Therefore they go on to lead similar lives and procure equally prominent positions in the gene pool. By the way, the pizza delivery boy who never had anything to do with the gang and was only trying to work his way through college was knifed in prison and died without ever fathering a child.
Of course this story is not true; but, if it were, then I would like to know something from any atheist, materialist, or humanist.
From the perspective of the natural world and in the light of our supposed evolution, is there any injustice in the above story? If so, then why?
-Mel
Suppose now that Edward, a striking figure himself, sets his sights on Mary. She is a beautiful young woman; fit indeed. Edward begins his advances only to find that Mary is engaged to William. William is small in stature but has a rather large brain. He is industrious, honorable, and brings home a large paycheck. Mary is in love and resolved to marry William.
Edward is undaunted. He reasons with the very brain given to him by the miracle of natural selection that the only solution is to remove William from the picture. Edward sneaks into William’s apartment and bludgeons him over the head a dozen times with a lead pipe. He steals his wallet and leaves behind a handkerchief of the color of the local gang. The police mistakenly arrest a boy who delivers pizzas in the neighborhood. The boy is convicted and Edward gets off scot free.
Mary is heart broken but Edward is there to console her. It is not long before they are on their honeymoon securing Edward’s place in the gene pool. Mary ends up having five kids with Edward before she finds out that he has had countless affairs almost from the start. Nobody is sure exactly how many kids Edward has fathered. Most of them inherit Edward’s cunning and good looks. Therefore they go on to lead similar lives and procure equally prominent positions in the gene pool. By the way, the pizza delivery boy who never had anything to do with the gang and was only trying to work his way through college was knifed in prison and died without ever fathering a child.
Of course this story is not true; but, if it were, then I would like to know something from any atheist, materialist, or humanist.
From the perspective of the natural world and in the light of our supposed evolution, is there any injustice in the above story? If so, then why?
-Mel
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Heart of The Clergy Letter Project
Heart of the Clergy Letter Project:
I propose to lay out before you in this post the heart behind the Clergy Letter Project. This procedure will be performed in as pure an objective light as is possible for me to do. Once on the examination table, we will be better able to understand the spirit of this project and how closely the letter mirrors to the Spirit of God.
The letter’s undersigners declare: “We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.”
One must first ask; is the theory of evolution a foundational scientific truth? There are four very important words that need defining here:
evolution – the origin of species by means of natural selection; or, the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life
foundation – the structure that a thing is based on or built on
scientific – pertaining to a branch of knowledge dealing with a body of facts systematically arranged to show the operation of general laws.
truth – verified or indisputable fact
Let me take a moment here to say: We better hope that evolution would not be a foundational scientific truth. This would have dire consequences for us all.
The good news is that evolution fails to qualify as a foundational scientific truth. It has not been, nor can it be, verified, objectively or otherwise. It is disputable on many levels. Now, evolution can be an axiom (taken as true without proof) but it can’t be a truth.
Is evolution scientific? The answer here is yes, in part. The branch of knowledge dealing with the body of facts (repeatable observations) concerning micro evolution (variety within kinds) has been and continues to be systematically arranged to show the operation of general laws (limited natural selection). However, the leap of extrapolation necessary to increase the depth of evolutionary claims to encompass macro evolution (origin of species or kinds) is scientifically untenable.
Is evolution foundational? Within some circles it is yes. Within other circles it is not. It is true that much of human knowledge and achievement rests on this idea. Unfortunately, what man thinks he knows does not always end up to be what is so. And, much of man’s achievement turns out to be pure vanity; a chasing after the wind. If the reader finds himself today in the camp which takes evolution as foundational, then I suggest that reader take a long hard look at evolution before building anymore of his world view on top of this pile of shifting sand.
What have we learned so far? Evolution is feasible as an axiom but not a truth. Parts of it are scientific but the whole of it requires many vast leaps of extrapolation. These leaps are unbecoming of scientists. Evolution is a foundation that can be built upon but what sort of person would attempt this construction?
Here it is where we crack the chest of our undersigners. For in order to take evolution as an axiom and make it the foundation for knowledge and achievement, one must regard the mental capacity of the human race as supreme among all things and hold the judgments made by the most sapient of homo sapiens sapiens as righteous.
The undersigners lay bare their own heart with these words: “We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator.” Need I point out to the Christian clergy undersigners the folly of these remarks? One only need read Proverbs chapters 1 – 3 to understand that the human mind is not the source of knowledge; not the foundation of wisdom. Clearly the undersigners instruct us to lean on our own understanding and to in all ways acknowledge a purposeless and unguided mechanism as the originator of man. It would seem that although they know of God (source of good gifts) they do not accord Him glory as God. Rather, they have become vain in their reasoning; claiming to be wise – they have become fools (Romans 1).
I ask you to examine their words closely. Is their heart more like Paul’s when he claims to know only Christ and Him crucified? Or, is their heart more like those who began work on the Tower of Babel? Yes, the theory of evolution is a modern day Tower of Babel. I suggest the undersigners read Genesis 11 and if this does not correct them, then they should read Ezekiel 28.
No! If we are to fully employ our mind, a good gift from God, then we should do it properly. Our axiom can’t be a fantasy that from chance order came. Our foundation must be that Truth comes from the mouth of God. The Holy Bible is the Word of God. God said that He knitted you together in your mother’s womb. God said that you are fearfully and wonderfully made. You are not the product millions of years of random mutations surviving only by the brutal and careless elimination of countless other products of other sets of millions of random mutations.
Dear Undersigners, please reconsider your position. Use your mind but start from the correct and only foundation that leads to God; His Son Jesus Christ, the Lord of all, Amen!
I propose to lay out before you in this post the heart behind the Clergy Letter Project. This procedure will be performed in as pure an objective light as is possible for me to do. Once on the examination table, we will be better able to understand the spirit of this project and how closely the letter mirrors to the Spirit of God.
The letter’s undersigners declare: “We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.”
One must first ask; is the theory of evolution a foundational scientific truth? There are four very important words that need defining here:
evolution – the origin of species by means of natural selection; or, the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life
foundation – the structure that a thing is based on or built on
scientific – pertaining to a branch of knowledge dealing with a body of facts systematically arranged to show the operation of general laws.
truth – verified or indisputable fact
Let me take a moment here to say: We better hope that evolution would not be a foundational scientific truth. This would have dire consequences for us all.
The good news is that evolution fails to qualify as a foundational scientific truth. It has not been, nor can it be, verified, objectively or otherwise. It is disputable on many levels. Now, evolution can be an axiom (taken as true without proof) but it can’t be a truth.
Is evolution scientific? The answer here is yes, in part. The branch of knowledge dealing with the body of facts (repeatable observations) concerning micro evolution (variety within kinds) has been and continues to be systematically arranged to show the operation of general laws (limited natural selection). However, the leap of extrapolation necessary to increase the depth of evolutionary claims to encompass macro evolution (origin of species or kinds) is scientifically untenable.
Is evolution foundational? Within some circles it is yes. Within other circles it is not. It is true that much of human knowledge and achievement rests on this idea. Unfortunately, what man thinks he knows does not always end up to be what is so. And, much of man’s achievement turns out to be pure vanity; a chasing after the wind. If the reader finds himself today in the camp which takes evolution as foundational, then I suggest that reader take a long hard look at evolution before building anymore of his world view on top of this pile of shifting sand.
What have we learned so far? Evolution is feasible as an axiom but not a truth. Parts of it are scientific but the whole of it requires many vast leaps of extrapolation. These leaps are unbecoming of scientists. Evolution is a foundation that can be built upon but what sort of person would attempt this construction?
Here it is where we crack the chest of our undersigners. For in order to take evolution as an axiom and make it the foundation for knowledge and achievement, one must regard the mental capacity of the human race as supreme among all things and hold the judgments made by the most sapient of homo sapiens sapiens as righteous.
The undersigners lay bare their own heart with these words: “We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator.” Need I point out to the Christian clergy undersigners the folly of these remarks? One only need read Proverbs chapters 1 – 3 to understand that the human mind is not the source of knowledge; not the foundation of wisdom. Clearly the undersigners instruct us to lean on our own understanding and to in all ways acknowledge a purposeless and unguided mechanism as the originator of man. It would seem that although they know of God (source of good gifts) they do not accord Him glory as God. Rather, they have become vain in their reasoning; claiming to be wise – they have become fools (Romans 1).
I ask you to examine their words closely. Is their heart more like Paul’s when he claims to know only Christ and Him crucified? Or, is their heart more like those who began work on the Tower of Babel? Yes, the theory of evolution is a modern day Tower of Babel. I suggest the undersigners read Genesis 11 and if this does not correct them, then they should read Ezekiel 28.
No! If we are to fully employ our mind, a good gift from God, then we should do it properly. Our axiom can’t be a fantasy that from chance order came. Our foundation must be that Truth comes from the mouth of God. The Holy Bible is the Word of God. God said that He knitted you together in your mother’s womb. God said that you are fearfully and wonderfully made. You are not the product millions of years of random mutations surviving only by the brutal and careless elimination of countless other products of other sets of millions of random mutations.
Dear Undersigners, please reconsider your position. Use your mind but start from the correct and only foundation that leads to God; His Son Jesus Christ, the Lord of all, Amen!
Sunday, May 25, 2008
The Sorcerer's Plight
I have made an online acquaintance. His name is Ray. And Ray has got himself into quite the predicament. He seems to have convinced himself that even the idea of Almighty God is incoherent and internally contradictory. He reports his findings here.
I have invited him to this blog. I have offered him a venue for friendly discussion. I aim to clear some if not all of the confusion from his mind. I understand that this will not be easy. He has invested a great deal of honest thought and effort into the construction of his line of reasoning. In fact I fear that he has gone over it so thoroughly in his mind that unintentional ruts may have been carved. While comfortable and perceived as safe these engraved lines of thinking may prove insurmountable obstacles to the truth; God forbid.
When we read Ray’s list of Assumptions we see Ray trying to paint God into a corner of contradiction. He seems to be saying “God, if you CAN make a perfect universe, then why did you NOT?” Well the answer might be that Ray’s idea of a perfect universe and God’s idea of a perfect universe are different.
What if the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God, Ray referred to, wanted to create special beings that love Him? Well, He could create them so they have to love Him. But, that is weird. I mean love is a decision. It is not a character trait. For these creatures to be able to actually love God, they would have to have the real option to reject God. Hence, the possibility of Evil is a necessity for a universe that meets God’s standards. He would have to sow a universe where Evil is allowed in order to reap a universe that fits His standards.
One problem; God will not tolerate Evil. He separates Himself from the smallest of sins as He does from the gravest of sins. God must then devise a universe in which His special creatures can choose Evil time and again yet be always near a path to reconciliation. And what of the sin; God can’t just overlook it. All seems lost; the perfect universe unattainable.
But wait. What if God intervenes? What if God enters His creation fully as one of His creatures and fully as Himself? He then having committed no sin would be legally qualified to pay the sin debt for each of the special creatures. They in turn, sins accounted for, would have a continually new opportunity to choose to love God.
Is this the perfect universe; with God separated from Himself? Don’t forget; He is the All Mighty! He has power over death. He, with the righteous requirement of the law fulfilled and raised from the dead, lives and rains as God for all those special creatures who decided to love Him and worship Him. Those special creatures loved by God but choosing time and again to reject God to the end; live eternal separated from Him in torment. Again, this is a necessary consequence in order to reap the universe fit to standard.
Ray, and others, does this presentation clear up in the mind “The Problem of Evil?”
In the love of Christ,
-Mel
I have invited him to this blog. I have offered him a venue for friendly discussion. I aim to clear some if not all of the confusion from his mind. I understand that this will not be easy. He has invested a great deal of honest thought and effort into the construction of his line of reasoning. In fact I fear that he has gone over it so thoroughly in his mind that unintentional ruts may have been carved. While comfortable and perceived as safe these engraved lines of thinking may prove insurmountable obstacles to the truth; God forbid.
When we read Ray’s list of Assumptions we see Ray trying to paint God into a corner of contradiction. He seems to be saying “God, if you CAN make a perfect universe, then why did you NOT?” Well the answer might be that Ray’s idea of a perfect universe and God’s idea of a perfect universe are different.
What if the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God, Ray referred to, wanted to create special beings that love Him? Well, He could create them so they have to love Him. But, that is weird. I mean love is a decision. It is not a character trait. For these creatures to be able to actually love God, they would have to have the real option to reject God. Hence, the possibility of Evil is a necessity for a universe that meets God’s standards. He would have to sow a universe where Evil is allowed in order to reap a universe that fits His standards.
One problem; God will not tolerate Evil. He separates Himself from the smallest of sins as He does from the gravest of sins. God must then devise a universe in which His special creatures can choose Evil time and again yet be always near a path to reconciliation. And what of the sin; God can’t just overlook it. All seems lost; the perfect universe unattainable.
But wait. What if God intervenes? What if God enters His creation fully as one of His creatures and fully as Himself? He then having committed no sin would be legally qualified to pay the sin debt for each of the special creatures. They in turn, sins accounted for, would have a continually new opportunity to choose to love God.
Is this the perfect universe; with God separated from Himself? Don’t forget; He is the All Mighty! He has power over death. He, with the righteous requirement of the law fulfilled and raised from the dead, lives and rains as God for all those special creatures who decided to love Him and worship Him. Those special creatures loved by God but choosing time and again to reject God to the end; live eternal separated from Him in torment. Again, this is a necessary consequence in order to reap the universe fit to standard.
Ray, and others, does this presentation clear up in the mind “The Problem of Evil?”
In the love of Christ,
-Mel
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The Way
Some would say that “God enjoys punishing man.” I say.
God is love. God is also just. The righteous requirement of God’s law for sin is death. When a sin is committed, then that sin must be paid for by death. Why? Because that is the way the Creator of the Universe has set it up. Why? God is Holy. He does not tolerate sin. He does not tolerate anything against His will. He separates Himself from all things sinful; things against His will. That is what death (the eternal second death) is. It is separation from God.
God created man to be with Him and worship Him for eternity. However, God gave man free will. That means man can choose to be with God or not. Man can choose to act in accordance with His will or not. Man can choose to sin against God and to not worship Him. In other words God wants volunteer worshipers.
Like it or not, man was created to worship God. Again, like it or not, man is only fulfilled when he is in right relationship with God. Man can’t have joy apart from what he was created for.
God loves man. God wants man to choose His will; but, if God were to force man to choose His will, then this would be no choice at all and it would not be the case that man loved God. So, the choice to love God or not is a real choice with real and everlasting consequences. The decision of each man then belongs to each man.
Man is given sovereign authority to make his choice but he is not given sovereign power. Hence, he is unable to continue in God’s will by his own effort. Every man fails, due to lack of power, to choose to keep God’s law to perfection. God made man, and so, at first glance this may seem unfair of God; even sadistic. On the contrary, the withholding of sovereign power is in fact merciful. If man were to have sovereign power, then his sin, any individual choice against the will of God, would be beyond God’s grace. It would be God’s power that was too limited to make restitution. Praise God for His wisdom and for His grace.
The plan of salvation in Jesus Christ was set down before time. God would come to be with man as a man; the person of His Son Jesus Christ. He would live a perfect life, one without sin, by His sovereign power and then lay His life down willingly in payment for all sin. This Way the righteous requirement of the law would be fulfilled. This Way man’s sovereign authority displayed in disobedience could not separate him from God for all eternity in that he lacks sovereign power. This Way man could be reconciled to God for eternity through the one decision of faith in His Son. This Way God could deliver man into His Holy presence through each man’s humble acceptance of the gift of eternal life. This Way the only man who would spend eternity separated from God would be the man who refused, time and time again, the outstretched arms of the Savior calling him home. This Way, whomsoever (that is broad enough), calls on the name of the Lord (that is specific enough), shall be saved (that is sure enough)!
What logic can be constructed to characterize God as a God who enjoys punishing man in the light of His love poured out for us on the cross? His wrath is only ever revealed against those who have, by their own sovereign choice, rejected His daily offers of love and forgiveness. His wrath is always dispensed with remorse and He never revels in its necessity. He readily and often relents in accordance with the prayers of the righteous for mercy. While He is jealous for His elect and can be angered to wrath; He is loving, kind, merciful, faithful, forgiving and full of grace. This is the God you will find if you open your heart to Him. This is the God who will save at a moment’s notice. Call on Jesus.
God is love. God is also just. The righteous requirement of God’s law for sin is death. When a sin is committed, then that sin must be paid for by death. Why? Because that is the way the Creator of the Universe has set it up. Why? God is Holy. He does not tolerate sin. He does not tolerate anything against His will. He separates Himself from all things sinful; things against His will. That is what death (the eternal second death) is. It is separation from God.
God created man to be with Him and worship Him for eternity. However, God gave man free will. That means man can choose to be with God or not. Man can choose to act in accordance with His will or not. Man can choose to sin against God and to not worship Him. In other words God wants volunteer worshipers.
Like it or not, man was created to worship God. Again, like it or not, man is only fulfilled when he is in right relationship with God. Man can’t have joy apart from what he was created for.
God loves man. God wants man to choose His will; but, if God were to force man to choose His will, then this would be no choice at all and it would not be the case that man loved God. So, the choice to love God or not is a real choice with real and everlasting consequences. The decision of each man then belongs to each man.
Man is given sovereign authority to make his choice but he is not given sovereign power. Hence, he is unable to continue in God’s will by his own effort. Every man fails, due to lack of power, to choose to keep God’s law to perfection. God made man, and so, at first glance this may seem unfair of God; even sadistic. On the contrary, the withholding of sovereign power is in fact merciful. If man were to have sovereign power, then his sin, any individual choice against the will of God, would be beyond God’s grace. It would be God’s power that was too limited to make restitution. Praise God for His wisdom and for His grace.
The plan of salvation in Jesus Christ was set down before time. God would come to be with man as a man; the person of His Son Jesus Christ. He would live a perfect life, one without sin, by His sovereign power and then lay His life down willingly in payment for all sin. This Way the righteous requirement of the law would be fulfilled. This Way man’s sovereign authority displayed in disobedience could not separate him from God for all eternity in that he lacks sovereign power. This Way man could be reconciled to God for eternity through the one decision of faith in His Son. This Way God could deliver man into His Holy presence through each man’s humble acceptance of the gift of eternal life. This Way the only man who would spend eternity separated from God would be the man who refused, time and time again, the outstretched arms of the Savior calling him home. This Way, whomsoever (that is broad enough), calls on the name of the Lord (that is specific enough), shall be saved (that is sure enough)!
What logic can be constructed to characterize God as a God who enjoys punishing man in the light of His love poured out for us on the cross? His wrath is only ever revealed against those who have, by their own sovereign choice, rejected His daily offers of love and forgiveness. His wrath is always dispensed with remorse and He never revels in its necessity. He readily and often relents in accordance with the prayers of the righteous for mercy. While He is jealous for His elect and can be angered to wrath; He is loving, kind, merciful, faithful, forgiving and full of grace. This is the God you will find if you open your heart to Him. This is the God who will save at a moment’s notice. Call on Jesus.
Monday, May 19, 2008
The Truth
Are we ‘seekers’ of the Truth? Do we want to know what is true and what is untrue? Well, before we get too far along on our journey we might want to consider, at least for a moment, what it is exactly we are looking for. I mean we would not want to spend a lot of time, money, and energy looking for something that once found would bring us no satisfaction; would we? Also, if we do not, from the start, understand the thing searched out, then, upon encounter, will we recognize it?
Most dictionaries will inform us that truth should be consistent with the facts or what is real. But if we look up the word fact or the word real, then we are likely to find that these are defined as things that are true. Sounds rather like a British round-about.
Since a formal definition eludes us, we must turn to an intrinsic understanding. Any alleged event, statement, or proposition consistent with what “IS” shall be taken as True. Any alleged event, statement, or proposition which contradicts what “IS” shall be taken as untrue or False. What “IS” must be universal and absolute (axiom). Otherwise, all things become True and nothing is False. But, Falsehood exists. As example, take the following Proposition (P): Over the course of the year 2007, the relative position of the earth to the sun was constant. The negation of P is True. The negation of P is universally and absolutely True. There exists nowhere in space or time a place where the negation of P is untrue. Therefore, Truth is universal and absolute.
So then, what “IS” becomes the standard for Truth. But how do we determine what “IS”? Here we have a huge problem in our search for Truth. We can’t in our own human weaknesses and limited power determine, for certain, what “IS”. We can only ‘believe’ to have determined what “IS”. To this point, humanity has failed to agree to ‘believe’ the same things about what “IS”. In fact, I am sure some would contend that P is true based on their beliefs about what “IS”. Some concede defeat to this Goliath. The Post-Modern man has given up their search for universal absolute Truth and settled for a personal truth. What is not realized is that the search for personal truth is Truly futile (chasing the wind). For by definition, as the person changes, personal truth is ever changing; ever elusive; never to be grasped for more than an instant. It is the carrot held just out of reach. Personal truth is unattainable.
So, are we left empty of personal truth and cut off from the universal absolute Truth? Not at all. We have available access to Truth by the revelation of the One with no weaknesses and unlimited power. For “I Am” is what “IS”. God is the Truth. We have access to Him by His revelation. If He is not willing to reveal, then we are shout out from the Truth. However, if He is willing, then we are guaranteed the Truth. Truth is attainable; only by the will of God.
The good news is that God is willing to reveal the Truth. He proved it coming in person to reveal Himself. He announced Himself as “I AM” (John 8: 58). He identified Himself as what “IS” (John 14: 6). He continues this revelation to this day in the hearts of those willing to humble themselves before the mighty hand of God. If we are ‘seekers’ of Truth, then we seek to know Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
In the love of Christ,
-Mel
Most dictionaries will inform us that truth should be consistent with the facts or what is real. But if we look up the word fact or the word real, then we are likely to find that these are defined as things that are true. Sounds rather like a British round-about.
Since a formal definition eludes us, we must turn to an intrinsic understanding. Any alleged event, statement, or proposition consistent with what “IS” shall be taken as True. Any alleged event, statement, or proposition which contradicts what “IS” shall be taken as untrue or False. What “IS” must be universal and absolute (axiom). Otherwise, all things become True and nothing is False. But, Falsehood exists. As example, take the following Proposition (P): Over the course of the year 2007, the relative position of the earth to the sun was constant. The negation of P is True. The negation of P is universally and absolutely True. There exists nowhere in space or time a place where the negation of P is untrue. Therefore, Truth is universal and absolute.
So then, what “IS” becomes the standard for Truth. But how do we determine what “IS”? Here we have a huge problem in our search for Truth. We can’t in our own human weaknesses and limited power determine, for certain, what “IS”. We can only ‘believe’ to have determined what “IS”. To this point, humanity has failed to agree to ‘believe’ the same things about what “IS”. In fact, I am sure some would contend that P is true based on their beliefs about what “IS”. Some concede defeat to this Goliath. The Post-Modern man has given up their search for universal absolute Truth and settled for a personal truth. What is not realized is that the search for personal truth is Truly futile (chasing the wind). For by definition, as the person changes, personal truth is ever changing; ever elusive; never to be grasped for more than an instant. It is the carrot held just out of reach. Personal truth is unattainable.
So, are we left empty of personal truth and cut off from the universal absolute Truth? Not at all. We have available access to Truth by the revelation of the One with no weaknesses and unlimited power. For “I Am” is what “IS”. God is the Truth. We have access to Him by His revelation. If He is not willing to reveal, then we are shout out from the Truth. However, if He is willing, then we are guaranteed the Truth. Truth is attainable; only by the will of God.
The good news is that God is willing to reveal the Truth. He proved it coming in person to reveal Himself. He announced Himself as “I AM” (John 8: 58). He identified Himself as what “IS” (John 14: 6). He continues this revelation to this day in the hearts of those willing to humble themselves before the mighty hand of God. If we are ‘seekers’ of Truth, then we seek to know Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
In the love of Christ,
-Mel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)