Creation is so diverse and expansive, that it takes more faith in my mind to disbelieve in a Creator than to believe in one. Can chance create a man? Can it create the massive jungles that thrive with living creatures? If I put a pig in a room with a pump and some laces will it develop into a football over a long enough time? These questions are obviously answered in a negative manner. The world is specially designed. Such a design requires a Designer. Our bodies are intricate machines that are more complex than a computer- indeed, to this day there are still many mysteries about the human body. Such a “machine” requires thought, design and skill to produce. This begs for a belief in a real, existing God.

The life I have, the understanding and ability to learn and grow intellectually, the ability to love- it all cries out as evidence that God has made me different from a mere developed organization of cells. We cannot recreate a human life. Cloning will never do so.

Finally, when we see love where the human soul cries out for revenge, hatred or racism, we see the influence of God. We are egocentric creatures. When we resist that egocentrism, we reflect the influence of a God who is love. Darwin proposed that evolution requires natural selection. God put love in men to instill natural protection- the protection of the weak by those who are stronger.

This is my briefest answer to the question “How can you believe the existence of God?

Labels: Reflections

That God is so righteous and Holy that our response to being in His presence- even in a worship service- should be as Isaiah's. That is because He is Almighty and Awesome and Omnipotent and “Holy-Holy-Holy” -beyond our ability to fathom holiness.

Our fear should be in a sense truly "fear" but the fruit of that should be awe and reverence. To be clear: it is fear, not just awe or reverence. For instance, Jonathan Edwards' sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" focused on God's anger at men due to their sin. Some today say that sermon focused too much on wrath and that God is not angry, but He has every reason to be angry. Our world has chosen to sin against the Sovereign God. They shake their fists at Him and claim disbelief when a tsunami, hurricane or earthquake hits, what vanity. We should ask ourselves who are we to lift a finger in opposition to the God who created us? He holds our lives in His hands and owes us nothing. But for His own pleasure we would be snuffed out. It is the height of arrogance and ignorance to be irreverent toward God. We need a healthy fear of God.

In the churches, too many want games and a show. That is rejection of the fear of God. He is not "the man upstairs" as if we lived in an apartment with Him- He is God!

The lack of the fear of God produces false teachers such as Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton, Kenneth Copeland, TD Jakes, Kenneth Hagin, etc. The fear of God should provoke us to study God's Word for what He says, not to support our pet doctrines- or our pet want for a lack of doctrine.

This treatment of the Gospel is extremely dangerous- to the forfeiture of men's souls to the darkest reaches of hell. God is not a game to be played at the whim of a man- He is Sovereign and Almighty.

Labels: Reflections

“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4.12 ESV)

Unfortunately it is considered intolerant in modern society to say that the only way to salvation is found in Jesus. However, it is extremely important not to waver when it comes to Biblical truth.

If there are five doors, four of which lead to rooms filled with ferocious tigers that are hungry and only one of which leads to safety, would I be intolerant to say that was the only way to safety? No, of course not. But on a level that concerns spiritual life and death, we are supposed to keep the door to salvation to ourselves. After all, the Scripture is clear: “Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'” (John 14.6 ESV)

I often hear people complain that the Bible has contradictions, but I have yet to find one that is legitimate beyond a logical apologetic explanation. And when I boil it all down, I believe in Jesus and place my full trust in Him. That solves it all for me.

I used to have a bumper sticker that said, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." However, I now know that the truth is: "God said it, that settles it." My belief has no impact on the truth. The same can be said for those who want to mush all "religions" together and who become heated when we say "Jesus is the only way to salvation." I am convinced that whether we believe the truth or not, it is still the truth.

“So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.'” (John 8.31-32 ESV)

Labels: Reflections

In the belief of Karl Barth, C.S. Lewis, Reinhold Niebuhr, and apparently Donald Bloesch, the Creation account of the Bible is not to be trusted or taken literally. In my view, this is dangerous ground. If we are not to take the Creation as it is written in the Bible, how can we take any of the information recorded in Genesis, Exodus, or even the New Testament? Bloesch quotes James Orr saying, “the Genesis narrative is 'old tradition clothed in oriental allegorical dress.'”¹ I think this minimizes the work of God in transmitting His Word.

It seems that a great deal of the problem facing modern objections is the obstacle of evolution and the perceived “scientific” age of the Earth. However, the evidence of an old Earth and evolution require a great deal of faith as well. In the past I researched the age of the Earth from both Creationist and Evolutionist perspectives. I found that there was a great deal of disagreement between Evolutionists, not just between the two groups. Evolutionary theory is not 100% reliable and most Evolutionists are not prone to favor a system that supports a belief in God. From the lack of a “missing link” to the unreliable dating systems used, it seems that those claiming to be Christians should trust in the Bible over the ideas of man. The Bible says clearly, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Colossians 2.8 ESV)

Further, why should we believe in the Tower of Babel, the Flood, Joseph interpreting dreams, the giving of the Ten Commandments, or even the miracles of Jesus- especially the essential belief in the Resurrection following His crucifixion.

While I am not as well-schooled as the men mentioned above, and I am not as invested in thought, I have confidence in God and the truth of His Word. “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.”²

“And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land that the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you.”³ (See also related Scriptures: Deuteronomy 12.32 and Revelation 22.18-19) If God took His Word seriously enough to give the warnings above in Deuteronomy and Revelation we should expect that He meant for us to take His full written Word as He had it transmitted. Then again, with the way Creation is discounted by so many within the church maybe this warning should be discounted as well. As for me, I will live trusting that His Word is true.

Labels: Reflections

According to Strong's, Shaddai means “almighty, most powerful.”¹ Further, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia notes that Shaddai occurs both with “El” or without. El Shaddai is rendered “God Almighty,” while Shaddai is translated simply “Almighty” though the root is uncertain.²

A study of the Old Testament title of God, Shaddai, demonstrates an understanding that God is able to bless and prosper. He is also able to give directions that are to be followed. In Genesis 17.1 we find the first instance of the use “Shaddai” when God directs Abram to walk before Him and be blameless. He also makes a covenant with Abram, changing Abram's name to Abraham. Under this title, God is able to direct, make a covenant and change a person's name.

God, likewise, gives directions in Genesis 35.11 under the title “God Almighty,” or “El Shaddai.” In several other places within Genesis God is shown to give favor, mercy, blessing and to prosper. In Genesis 49.25 He is simply referred to a Shaddai, or Almighty: by the God of your father who will help you, by the Almighty who will bless you with blessings of heaven above...”³ God is referred to as Almighty in Numbers 24.4 and 24.16 and as God Almighty in Exodus 6.3.

Reflecting on what this means in application, it is clear that He is able to bless, prosper and grant mercy. However, God Almighty is more of a title than a name. In Exodus 6.2-3 (ESV), God says, “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the Lord I did not make myself known to them.”⁴ He became more personal in revealing His name over His title. As time progressed, Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant and He was revealed as the incarnation of “God Almighty” or El Shaddai. Jesus is the pinnacle of God's attributes presented in the flesh. He is able to bless, prosper, grant mercy and demonstrate who God is to the world in a tangible fashion. Jesus is also able to change a name: Simon became Peter (Mark 3.16, John 1.42) by Christ's directive.

Finally, Jesus has all authority on the earth (Matthew 28.18) and has been called our “all in all” (Colossians 3.11 ESV). With Jesus Christ the Almighty, we have the ability to be taken care of and given direction on what to do to follow God according to His will.

Labels: Reflections

“How does Evangelical differ from Catholic or Liberal? What is the heart of Evangelicalism?”

To consider the last question first, I believe Bloesch calls the “very heart and soul of evangelical theology” the redemptive and reconciling foundations of the Gospel in relation to God. He says that the divine authority of Scripture has a great importance, but that it is not the central essential of the faith. He also says that Biblical inerrancy is not an essential. I would disagree with his assessment, as there is no reason to embrace the redeeming work of Christ or the necessity or availability of reconciliation with God through Christ unless we accept the Biblical account from Genesis to Revelation as inerrant. For their to be room to question any part of the Bible as a whole would undermine its supremacy over any other text ever written.

To compare Evangelical to Catholic is to compare a system that values the Word of God over the institution of the Church. Evangelical belief places idolatry outside of acceptance, Catholic understandings embrace symbols and icons. Bloesch feels that Evangelicals value the cross over the incarnation, but I disagree. Evangelicals tend to value both. Evangelicals do tend to value the resurrection over the crucifixion, however, and that may be taken in some way to validate Bloesch's statement. He feels Catholicism and Evangelicalism are complimenting “ themes in the Christian symphony,” but I believe he misses the incompatibility of doctrines such as purgatory, papal infallibility and baptismal regeneration among others.

To compare Liberal with Evangelical, is to compare a faith without substance against all of the above. In that I mean “Liberal Christianity” tends to neuter their version of the Gospel by undermining any reason to accept it. If Christ did not really die, or if His death was purely the end of Him, there is no reason to be a Christian. Why embrace the religion of a failure? However, if the absolutes are erased and the lines are made “fuzzy,” converse to what Shakespeare stated in Romeo and Juliet, “What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...”- what we call Christianity is no such thing if it defies doctrinal standards and a basis in truth.

While Evangelical is the label by which Biblical Christianity is typically referred, it has lost some meaning. To further dilute it, some, apparently those like Bloesch, would stand it beside Catholicism like twin towers. However, I would agree with Barth, that embracing Catholicism would be far more acceptable than to embrace Liberalism if those were the only two choices.

Labels: Reflections

Reflection Paper:

Introduction to Theology, Dr. Pierce

“What Has Shaped My Understanding of God”

Bloesch demonstrates a great deal of sources that have impacted his “Evangelical” beliefs. My greatest influences have been my spiritual father, Don Walton, Pastor Tom Ascol, Jonathan Edwards, D. James Kennedy, James White and my sister Diane.

The Reformed brand of Baptist theology taught by Pastor Don Walton (Time For Truth Ministries), Pastor Tom Ascol (Founders Ministries) and Dr. James White (of Alpha and Omega ministries) has had a profound effect on my understanding of God. It has gone from an Arminian “me-focused” mind-set, to an understanding and acceptance of God's sovereignty.

Jonathan Edwards and Dr. D. James Kennedy brought forth excellent insights and sermons that have shown me the great skill and work that should be put into preaching God's Word. He deserves the best effort it is possible to muster.

My sister Diane would put “feet to her faith.” She demonstrated that in life and death. When we were at Southeastern University in Lakeland, she was very involved in ministry. She went into the inner-cities. Diane ministered at Guavaween and Fantasy Fest. God worked through her because of her faithfulness. When she was dying of cancer she delayed treatment in order to give birth to my niece despite the doctors' concern. She lived the pro-life message. She died at 29 when my niece was 2½ years old. She showed me God's ability to work through people in life and to give grace and peace in death.

These are the ones who have had some of the greatest influence on my life and understanding of God.

Labels: Reflections