Some Introspection


My thoughts on purpose and place in the universe.

A friend received a bunch of messages or posts from me which had not been delivered. Until today. So she sent them back to me, telling me facebook had bunched them up and delivered them all together. Really? I didn’t remember them. Then slowly it came back to me, yes, I had written them. I told her I would write a raindrop because they are all on the same topic, and who can trust facebook? Better to blog.

I may have them copied in the wrong order here. I told her I must surely have been feeling introspective when I wrote them.

Two of these were marked 2 years old. I have put them at the top.


Two years ago it seems I wrote this to my friend:

At some point in time you realize you appreciate that God hangs in there and keeps annoying you by re-arranging you life. You start to look forward to it. It creates a smile. HEY HEY HEY, just get your hands off that vase! That MY vase!

Every born again Christian experiences this. Sometimes Jesus just dusts a shelf in a corner. Because you throw things at him! I figure most people do that. They are not comfortable with him. Because they are the captain of their ship and want to control control control.

Later, you might decide he is more welcome and he moves a piece of furniture.
This is a process.

I meet scholars and bible students and church goers who haven’t got a clue what I am talking about. They got religion. They don’t got Jesus as the Christ of their life though. They talk big. Its like tinkling chimes blowing against a window pane.

There’s two kinds of people in the universe. Those who have eternal life (being adopted children of God) and those who will spend the next several trillion years in oblivion (at best).

The first kind do not have it easy. It can be agonizing as the spirit of the new redeemed man wars with the old unyielding carnal nature.

The second kind have no internal struggle, just the old self centered egotistical sin nature that rules them.

A bit later:
Today someone told me “I am very different from you”.

She refused to recognize the internal struggle that Paul writes about. SHE IS THE CAPTAIN OF HER SHIP. Not Jesus.
All the religious talk was just talk.

I have heard that “I am very different from you” before. It means “I am obstinate and you are full of crap”. And that was to my question “Who do you serve? Is Christ in your life anywhere?” It was a denial of Christ. Just like Peter. Lets hope it doesn’t hold. But there is no meeting of minds past that point. There is no fellowship possible.




March 8 2026:
I daily ponder with growing enjoyment that Jesus moves into your life (your inner house) and re-arranges the furniture. I used to resist and resent this.



A couple of days ago: This is when all the above were delivered as a bunch. She had never seen the previous messages.

I am meeting some people that whatever they do, whatever it is, is liturgy. Service to God. I see it. Even the miscreant Christians have some of that. The unadopted not so much.
What about the undiscovered adopted?
Not meaning to sound Calvinist here. 😉 There are some “shall be redeemed in the future” people out there.
Maybe our purpose is to weed, water, fertilize, and serve God by serving them?
Thats not trivial. There is a cross to bear in that process.
Jesus is a power boat, twin 427 hemi engines, and I am here on skiis, white knuckled grip on the tow rope. Afraid to let go. Tempted. But I cant swim. The apostle Peter was a skiier. Same thing. . 😉







Sean Carroll and Materialism

I saw an interesting discussion written by Michael Egnor in 2023 about Sean Carroll’s view of the immaterial mind here: https://mindmatters.ai

Who is Michael Egnor?

Michael Egnor

Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics, State University of New York, Stony BrookMichael R. Egnor, MD, is a Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook, has served as the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery, and is an award-winning brain surgeon. He was named one of New York’s best doctors by the New York Magazine in 2005. His book, The Immortal Mind: A neurosurgeon’s case for the existence of the soul, co-authored by Denyse O’Leary, was published by Worthy on June 3, 2025.

Now this article is talking about the human mind and and effects on the physical world or physical body:

Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist at Johns Hopkins University who takes an atheist and materialist philosophical perspective on nature and on science. I have disagreed with him often — I’m in no position to judge his scientific acumen, but his philosophical acumen leaves a lot to be desired. An example of this is a question he asks in a recent documentary about free will (which I haven’t watched yet). In the trailer for the movie, Carroll asks, How in the world does the immaterial mind affect the physical body? Carroll’s denial of libertarian free will is based on this question, and of course, he believes that the immaterial mind does not exist and, if it did exist, could not affect the physical body. Thus, he believes that libertarian free will is nonsense.

Well that is an interesting comment about Carroll’s philosophical acumen. My interest is on the immaterial mind of a transcendent being such as God. Can that mind affect the human mind? Or matter? If miracles are possible then the answer would be yes.

Carroll, however, seems to be a reductionist. Lets leave that until a bit later. Meanwhile, let’s learn some aspects of causation theory. Egnor uses a statue as an example.

1. Material cause is the matter (marble) that the statue is made of. The matter of what something is made is one of the causes of the thing – without the marble, the statue could not exist.

2. Efficient cause is the agent that gives rise to the effect – in the case of the sculpture, the efficient cause is a sculptor.

3. Formal cause is the design principle that underlies the effect – in the case of the sculpture, the formal cause is the idea in the mind of the sculptor of what the sculpture will look like. The formal cause is quite real and is indispensable to an understanding of causation – after all if the form of the sculpture did not exist in the mind of the sculptor as he was working, there would be no sculpture.

4. Final cause is the ultimate goal, purpose, or final state of the causal chain. The final cause for the sculpture might be the sculptor’s desire to express himself artistically or it might be the sculptor’s desire to be paid for his work.

Egnor comments, “In the Aristotelian paradigm, a complete understanding of cause must entail an understanding of all four causes in nature. In causation without a visible efficient agent, formal and final causes are often the same. The formal cause of an acorn growing into an oak tree is the design principle of the oak tree, which is also (in the Aristotelian perspective) the final cause of the acorn growing into the oak tree. The ultimate final cause, according to Aristotle, is God.”

PATTERNS AND PURPOSES IN NATURE

Egnor argues, “Aristotle was right – material and efficient causes alone are inadequate to understand nature because there are patterns and purposes built into nature that we can’t deny.”

He goes on to criticise Carroll, “So, Carroll’s implicit assertion that the immaterial mind could not affect the physical body is predicated on his belief that the only kinds of causes that exist in the physical world are material and efficient causes.

To me this assumption of Carroll’s is Philosophical Naturalism, which itself is an a priori metaphysical assumption and is not part of science. So I think Egnor is right. My observation is Egnor is Augustinian and Neo-Platonist in his thinking here, whereas Carroll is neither.

MATHEMATICS?

 Egnor says, “Ironically, Carroll’s own scientific discipline – quantum mechanics – is a prime example of the importance of formal causes in nature. The scientific description of quantum processes is entirely mathematical, which is a description of formal causes. Matter and individuation disappear at the quantum level. What remains are the mathematical descriptions of quantum particles and dynamics. Contrary to Carroll’s implicit insistence that only material and efficient causes act in nature, quantum mechanics shows that formal (immaterial) causes are fundamental to nature.”

Hmmm.

BIOCHEMISTRY

Egnor makes a point about drugs and biochemistry, “Thus a mental (formal) state can cause a physical state in a way that is currently understood in physics. A particularly striking example of the importance of formal causes in science is the phenomenon of chirality. Chirality is a property of mirror image molecules in which the molecules contain exactly the same number and kinds of atoms connected in exactly the same kind of way except that one is a mirror image of the other. In other words, the matter comprising chiral molecules is exactly the same although the form of the molecules can be radically different. For example, all biological amino acids that make up proteins are L enantiomers (one mirror image). Amino acids that are identical materially but are R enantiomers (mirror images) play no role in protein manufacture. The difference between L and R enantiomers can be a matter of great medical importance and even life and death – Darvon is an analgesic but its enantiomer Novrad is an anti-cough agent. Penicillamine is used in the treatment of arthritis, but its enantiomer is very toxic.

PHILOSOPHICALLY VACUOUS?


Egnor’s conclusion: “Formal causation is ubiquitous in biology and Carroll’s argument that we cannot have libertarian free will because the immaterial (formal) mind cannot affect matter is philosophically vacuous.”

Fascinating!

I knew Carroll and one other person debated Dinesh D’Souza in 2014, and his debate partner (whose name I do not recall) was a reductionist. It seems Carroll is as well. Now, what does this mean for quantum mechanics? To me there are two questions and they may be the same question.

1. Who is the observer?
2. What is measurement?

As you know, when you take a measurement in the quantum world you perturb the wave function and cause quantum collapse. So a wave suddenly localizes into a particle-like phenomenon. Can a mind function as the observer? How would we ever know?

If God is in the universe (ie, immanent) can his mind perform a measurement (or observation?). What kind of observations are possible? We do not know. But ignorance is not proof of non-existence. So, I am still pondering these questions. I am looking for input on these subjects from a variety of sources. This includes Sean Carroll’s lectures on quantum mechanics. I really enjoy listening to him. I think one just has to be aware of his presuppositions.

If you want to be more aware of issues related to the soul you might check out his new book The Immortal Mind .

Now, it may be worth considering the following definition: Naturalistic evolution, or evolutionary naturalism, is the philosophical concept that all of life, including the human condition and morality, arose through natural processes, rather than supernatural or intentional design.  (This is an AI summary.)

I am not happy with AI summaries. The problem is the definitions are taken from websites that are reactions to chatter, are not real propositions, and are mere hyped up opinion. There is no substance underneath. The concepts are fabricated and imaginary.

Note, I can only find one book written on the subject in 1922. Everything else I have found is propaganda from creationist websites where the terms are re-defined to support the war between science and God. ( a political viewpoint, not a scientific one). The book itself is a philosopher’s response to other philosophers in order to find a better naturalism. This is because naturalism was considered to be broken or inadequate.

BTW, this linkage with natural processes would fit neatly with Sean Carroll’s view that there is no free will. It also is congruent with nihilism – the view that human values and maybe even human minds themselves are mere illusions – all in the imagination and not real at all.

I will contend that what scientists do is based on methodological naturalism (MN), not philosophical naturalism (PN). MN produces science. PN produces scientism. PN, being metaphysical, is not a statement about either science or reality. MN is a statement about science, is not metaphysical, and is a statement about an approximation of reality, or a part of reality, but not all of reality. Just the physical part of reality in which humans live.


What I have noticed is the biologos people are adamantly against PN. The young earthers totally ignore PN as if it does not exist. Old earthers and ID people are somewhere in between.

DISTORTIONS – WHY I DONT TRUST MANY CHRISTIANS

Speaking of which … another interesting article: https://www.str.org/w/if-naturalistic-evolution-is-true-people-are-not-equal. I disagree with this person’s definitions of naturalism. The STR people are concordists and distort both philosophy and science.

Then there is another voice: Masters U. These are horrible statements about naturalism at Masters University, which seems to be associated with John MacArthur. https://www.masters.edu/thinking_blog/creation-believe-it-or-not-part-1/. Masters miscontrues and distorts the meaning of almost all of these concepts.

I have come to think that Christians are either terribly dumb or they are terrible liars.

TRANSCENDENCE

The real problem I see in Christianity is somebody in history philosophized that God is “transcendent only.” Yes, God is transcendent. But He is also immanent. I.E., In the world. Affecting the world. Affecting physical reality. He is not entirely outside the physical reality. This is difficult to understand – indeed, no human really grasps it just like no human really grasps the trinity. But the bible and Christianity do not teach that God is purely transcendant (purely supernatural). That is a lie held to by atheists.


Young earth creationists (and concordists?) teach that God can only “create” from outside the physical universe by overturning the physical laws of the universe. To me that is *not* a Christian belief. It is not what the bible teaches. I think the bible teaches that the laws of the physical universe are held fixed by God, and God often creates by using these laws. Can create by using these laws. That is not, BTW, naturalism.

These two cases of Masters and of STR may be the subject of future posts just on them.

Summing Up

So we started with Sean Carroll’s issues with free will. But the real issue is far larger. Free will is really just a side topic.











Berean Baptist Church Statement of Faith

The points of belief number 15. I may have further comments in the future as I ponder the reference scriptures. These 15 are doctrinal beliefs, but I personally have more than the 15. Such as the Nicean Creed. I adhere to certain creeds and certain confessions and that is part of my personal faith separate from these 15 points but not in conflict with them.

Point 1: The Word of God

We believe the Bible is the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and has supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.

Psalm 119:89Romans 15:41 Corinthians 10:112 Timothy 2:152 Timothy 3:15-171 Peter 1:23-252 Peter 1:21

I believe the manuscripts were inspired and given error free. In the original manuscripts. Do we have those? I don’t know. Have they been preserved intact? Good question. I don’t know.

I do know a lot of alleged Christians claim interpretations about the meaning of the manuscripts which are vastly flawed.

Point 2: The Trinity

We believe there is one living and true God, eternally existing in three persons; these are equal in every divine perfection, and they execute distinct but harmonious offices in the work of creation, providence, and redemption.

Genesis 1:1Deuteronomy 6:4Matthew 3:16Matthew 28:19John 5:18Acts 5:3-4Romans 1:20Philippians 2:6


I agree with this.

Point 3: God the Father

We believe in God the Father, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, an infinite personal spirit perfect in holiness, wisdom, power, and love. We believe he concerns himself mercifully in the affairs of men, hears and answers prayer, and saves from sin and eternal death all who come to him through Jesus Christ.

Genesis 1:1Matthew 6:9-13John 3:164:245:2617:1125Romans 8:33

I agree. Spirit.

Point 4: Jesus Christ

We believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son, conceived by the Holy Spirit. We believe in his virgin birth, sinless life, miracles, and teachings. We believe in his substitutionary atoning death, bodily resurrection, ascension into heaven, perpetual intercession for his people, and personal visible return to earth.

Matthew 1:20Luke 1:34-35John 1:13:1611:25Acts 1:3, 916:311 Peter 2:221 John 3:5Revelation 1:7

I agree.

Point 5: The Holy Spirit

We believe in the Holy Spirit, who came forth from the Father and Son to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment and to regenerate, sanctify, and empower all who believe in Jesus Christ. We believe that the Holy Spirit indwells every believer in Christ and is an abiding helper, teacher, and guide.

John 14:1716:8; Acts 5:1-4Romans 8:1-1715:16; I Corinthians 2:123:16; Titus 3:5I John 2:27

I agree.

Point 6: Man

We believe that all people are created by God in his image to glorify him forever. Because the first couple, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God’s command when tested, they and all people since are alienated from God and are sinners by nature and by choice. Because God is holy and cannot tolerate sin, all people are under condemnation and unable to save themselves.

Genesis 1:26; Psalm 50:15; Matthew 5:16; Romans 3:23, 15:6; Revelation 4:11

I agree.

Point 7: Salvation

We believe that Jesus Christ was crucified to bear our condemnation and that “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” By doing so, we are freed from condemnation and given eternal life. 

Romans 10:9; John 1:123:86:4014:6Ephesians 2:8-9; Isaiah 53:5-6; 1 Peter 2:24; 2 Peter 3:9

I agree. There is absolutely no statement here about the age of the earth, or how the earth was made. There is no belief requirement pertaining to those issues.

Point 8: The Church

We believe in the Universal Church, a living spiritual body composed of all regenerated believers of whatever race or nation. We believe in the local church consisting of a company of believers in Jesus Christ, baptized in a credible profession of faith, and associated with worship, work, and fellowship.

Matthew 28:17-20; Acts 2:41-42; I Corinthians 12:12-31

I agree.

Point 9: Christian Conduct

We believe that Christians should live for the glory of God and the well-being of others, that their conduct should be blameless before the world, that they should be faithful stewards of their possessions, and that they should seek to realize for themselves and others the full stature of maturity in Christ.

I Corinthians 2:14-3:3; Galatians 5:22-26; Ephesians 5:1-33

I agree.
On conduct I have run into some issues at Berean.
Part of promoting the well being of others is speaking the truth in love and being edifying. And that means allowing others Christian freedoms. It means allowing the Holy Spirit to convict Christians of sin and not trying to take over his job as if a human could ever do a better job than God. It means not being a busy body but to focus on one’s own relationship with God, one’s own sin, not the sins of others.


Point 10:The Ordinances

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has committed two ordinances to the local church: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. We believe that Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Triune God. We believe that the Lord’s Supper was instituted by Christ to commemorate his substitutionary and atoning death. We believe that these two ordinances should be observed and administered until the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 8:26-40; Romans 6:3-5; I Corinthians 11:17-34

I agree.

Point 11: The Last Things

We believe in the personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth and the establishment of his Kingdom. We believe in the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the eternal joy of the righteous, and the endless suffering of the wicked.

John 14:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Revelation 20:11-15

I agree.

Point 12: Religious Liberty

We believe that every human being has direct relations with God and is responsible to God alone in all matters of faith and that each church is independent and must be free from interference by any ecclesiastical or political authority.

I agree.

Point 13: Church Cooperation

We believe that local churches can best promote the cause of Jesus Christ by cooperating with one another in a denominational organization. Such an organization, whether a regional or district conference, exists and functions by the will of the churches. Cooperation in a conference is voluntary and may be terminated at any time. The church may likewise cooperate with interdenominational fellowships on a voluntary independent basis.

I agree.

Point 14: Baptism

We believe that Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Triune God. It is the first step of obedience following salvation and serves as a public declaration of the believer’s devotion to Christ and a commitment to their local community of faith. Immersion in water identifies the believer with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as one dies to self, surrenders to him, and is raised with him in newness of life.

Romans 6:1-52 Corinthians 5:17Acts 8:36-39Acts 2:3841

At Berean, baptism is required for membership. Attending our First Connection gathering is the first step in baptism and/or membership. If you are interested in being baptized or becoming a member of Berean, sign up for First Connection here: 

I agree. I was baptised by immersion at the age of 18 in my home town.

Point 15: Church Membership

We believe that membership is a covenant relationship with God and one another to pursue the gospel in our lives, our community, and our world. The Bible explains the existence and importance of local churches, as well as the necessity to belong to a local church for our spiritual growth and health. 

Accountability:
Hebrews 13:17
Church membership provides accountability for the members and church leadership. Accountability is designed to help us be faithful in our walk with Jesus as well as to help the pastors and elders shepherd and protect the body.

Belonging:
Hebrews 10:24-25
Belonging to a local church provides love, acceptance, stability, and purpose as we intentionally live our lives together as Christ-followers. 

Care:
Acts 20:28Ephesians 4:11-16
As members, we come alongside each other to encourage, equip, and empower one another to grow in our relationship with Jesus.

Biblical Requirements for Membership:

Salvation
Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man and is offered freely to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Baptism

Baptism takes place after salvation when a professing believer is immersed in water in the name of the Triune God. Baptism is not essential for salvation; however, it is essential for obedience.


I agree.

ITS NOT ENOUGH.

I feel like I do not fit.



As of August 2024 I am in a dazed state of confusion.

The church has not proven to be safe space for me. But WHY?

I have constantly been badgered by some of the members to believe in ideas I do not see in scripture. This is on both doctrinal and on practical levels. And I have been badgered to follow a vocation that has not been assigned to me by God, effectively becoming a busy-body. For example, I have been told by parishioners to care too much about people outside the church (people who the church does not even know) and to get involved in the lives of those parties in unhealthy ways that would result in further abusive relationships.

Then there is the matter of becoming excessively involved in the lives of the folks inside the church. I have sometimes been urged to sin-hunt other believers when there is no obvious sin evident. I am supposed to assume there is sin and hunt for it because this does a service for the other person. But this is God’s job, not mine. It is not my task in life to watch other people’s sin and try to convict them of it. Only a busy-body would do such a thing! I am constantly protesting “leave it to God.” It also is not my job to impose external standards of righteousness on anybody.
I do consider it a duty to exhibit GRACE.

These aspects are obviously a Christian life-style choice of some. But they do not derive from the above 15 statements of faith and as far as I can tell they do not derive from scripture either. I want to stick to just the 15 listed points in the statement of faith. I want to stick to just the 15 points and not go beyond that.


A toxic environment.

I have come to a point where I dare not tell anyone about my life, who I am, what is going on with me, or what my personal concerns might be. Why? People have to comment and try to fix me. It seems like they think it is their duty to fix others by giving unwelcome advice not asked for. And they urge others to do likewise!!!! They do not seem to be able to just listen or to tell (teach) solid principles and practices. They have to comment on a person’s journey, on their story, to tell them what they are doing wrong. It is called cross-talk, or, well, gossip. The gossip level is, well, really high.

This creates fear.

It is very important for a person to be able to tell their story without judgement. If you cannot do that then you are not going to trust anybody. You are going to HIDE.

Since I am in treatment for addiction the commentary is incredibly most unwelcome. I cannot hear the voice of God when people are clamoring at me. So, I just have to hide myself and do technical bible study.

This then is the traditional church I have always experienced. People judge and they judge out-of-turn. This kind of fellowship has kept me a stranger for most of my life. I never connected with a church body anywhere. it is a stumbling block.

What is weird is I have found secular (outside the church) organizations that foster trust. The church is failing.

What about Point 15, Belonging: “Belonging to a local church provides love, acceptance, stability, and purpose as we intentionally live our lives together as Christ-followers.”

I don’t find love, acceptance, stability, and purpose. I am an adult child of alcoholics and I am not like other people.  I pursue 12 step recovery. And most Christians do not want to hear about that let alone accept it, even though it is in accordance with biblical teaching. As an adult child I have characteristics most people don’t have. Such as the Laundry List. (See other posts — links forthcoming).

How does the church minister to Adult Children? It should be part of the church’s mission, shouldn’t it?

A Comment To Joel Duff


I wrote this to Joel Duff today. He had done a movie review of The Ark and the Darkness.
His review is called My Reaction to The Ark and the Darkness: Background, Themes and Thoughts.
On Maundy Thursday I am too busy to watch his review, perhaps tomorrow.


I said:

“I haven’t looked at the movie review yet. But today some movie fans became overly exuberant and claimed some things that are clearly wrong about how we all descend from Noah. No other humans survived anywhere on earth.

My hobby is genetic genealogy. Just today the ftdna blog announced George Washington’s Y-DNA is R-U152, which originated 4500 YBP (years before present) , ummm…during the flood!

I have low confidence that God faked DNA and high confidence that humans understand human DNA reasonably well. My church people haven’t yet told me what their confidences are or why they have them. All I know is they are affirming faith in God by affirming they believe no other humans survived the flood. They are hitching their faith in God to that wagon. I am going to guess they think they are preserving the truth of Christ. I am puzzled as to why that works. I can only guess what fallacies may be involved.

Thanks.”

https://youtu.be/yBMOZavfGiw is the URL of his review.


Why Do Christians Ignore Lexicography?

One sane man explains  YEC, Concordism, and Answers In Genesis  in a nutshell.

Paul A. Miller

As a retired linguist, these types of discussions as to whether the sun is a star remind me of similar examples like whether or not a tomato is a vegetable. As lexicographers would say, a tomato is a CULINARY fruit but it is a BOTANTICAL vegetables. That is, it suits the purposes of chefs to include the tomato among the vegetables even while it suits the purposes of botanists to call it a fruit because it is a reproductive product containing seeds. Neither is more “correct” than they other, because tomatoes don’t care what humans call them. Accordingly, tomatoes will continue to do what tomatoes do and be what tomatoes are. The labels don’t change them. Indeed, labels and classifications/groupings are about human convenience.

To state another way: Humans have countless labelling systems which involve groupings of similar things. It is a matter of communication and convenience—but naming does NOT somehow control ontology.

Likewise, to an astronomer, the sun is just another star. But to a poet or a painter, the sun is unique in beauty and significance for human experience. It is clearly “set apart” from stars, which are mere pinpoints in the sky. Indeed, that is how the Hebrew language of Genesis reflects its culture: the sun is the greater light and the moon is the less light—and the stars are far less significant. Nothing erroneous about that. It is a matter of perspective.

By the way, Genesis 1 is clearly not meant to be a scientific treatise, so we can’t make dogmatic arguments that it requires a “separate” creation for the sun and moon versus the stars. The main theme of Genesis 1 is “God made everything” and it uses the literary form of that culture and era to declare that message. The Answers in Genesis dogma on Genesis entails all sorts of anachronistic impositions of modern cultural notions (including scientific ones) on a text from an ancient culture.

My Response:
I am not a linguist. But I have never met a Christian who is one. But they often tell you what words mean. Because they KNOW.   Or do they?

David Buddrige says,

I agree (with Reverend Graham) on this point.Genesis isn’t talking about biological life, but rather spiritual life.You can see this by observing that God promised Adam that on the very day he ate of the fruit that he would “die”.The day he ate the fruit, he didn’t (physically) drop dead, but what *did* happen was that he was thrown out of Eden, and lost his friendly relationship with God.Consequently, what “death” *means* in the Bible is to be thrown out of God’s place and out of relationship with God.If “death” means to lose one’s relationship with God, then to be alive means to gain the relationship with God.Therefore when the Genesis creation account says that God breathed the breath of life into Adam, he is describing that moment in history when the biological human creature first became aware of their special relationship with God and the promise of blessing and life with him – if only they would look to God for the definition of good and bad.It is for this reason that Paul could – with a straight face – tell the Ephesians that they were previously “dead”, and had now been made alive in Christ.

Excellent! This is another point where a linguist can tell us how words work.

My take on the subject is the concordists are wrapped around the axel on the topic of death in the world before Adam sinned. But the bible isn’t talking about biological death. it is talking about spiritual death. The concordists actually have a DOCTRINAL DISPUTE with other Christians.

Language of God Excerpt #3

While reading Language of God something important caught my eye and I wrote about it at the time.

This is cross posted here: https://randomraindrops.com/2023/10/21/naturalism-of-the-gaps/

Francis Collins writes,

Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual worldview finds another way of finding truth. scientists who deny this would be well advised to observe the limits of their own tools, as nicely represented in a parable old by astronomer Arthur Eddington.

He [Eddington] described a man who set about to study deep-sea life using a net that had a mesh size of three inches. After catching many wild and wonderful creatures from the depths, the man concluded there are no deep-sea fish that are smaller than three inches in length! If we are using the scientific net to catch our particular version of truth, we should not be surprised that it does not catch the evidence of spirit.

Reference: Language of God, p 229 https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744

Collins is quoting this fellow:

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington OM FRS[2] (28 December 1882 – 22 November 1944) was an English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician. He was also a philosopher of science and a populariser of science. The Eddington limit, the natural limit to the luminosity of stars, or the radiation generated by accretion onto a compact object, is named in his honour.


My remarks:

Eddington points out an epistemological mistake that is then used to draw an ontological conclusion that is not warranted. This is exactly what believers in philosophical naturalism (PN) commit when they tell us “science says there is no god.” PN believers are actually asserting that the natural world comprises all of reality and therefore theists must give up theism because the supernatural is impossible. This, BTW, is scientism.

I label this as Naturalism of the Gaps. I coined the phrase as a satire and later realized it is a serious position that invokes questions about human knowledge. I recently mentioned Naturalism of the Gaps to Jonathon Blocker. That afternoon I also read the remarks by Collins. It seems many physicists and philosophers have pondered these questions. I only noticed it because of the virulent and boisterous criticism of theists by science students who are looking for their daily student dose of confirmation bias.

Language of God Excerpt #2

The poverty of an objectivistic account is made only too clear when we consider the mystery of music. From a scientific point of view it is nothing but vibrations in the air, impinging on the eardrums and stimulating neural currents in the brain.

How does it come about that this banal sequence of temporal activity has the power to speak to our hearts of an eternal beauty? The whole range of subjective experience, from perceiving a patch of pink, to being enthralled by the performance of a Mass in B Minor, and on to the mystic’s encounter with the ineffable reality of the One, all these truly human experiences are at the center of our encounter with reality, and they are not to be dismissed as epiphenomenal froth on the surface of a universe whose true nature is impersonal and lifeless.

REFERENCE:
J. Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an age of Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 18 – 19.

Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual world view provides another way of finding truth.

REFERENCE:
Francis Collins, Language of God, p. 229.

Why (some) Deists are Stupid


Facebook pushed this at me:

Someone answered them. Actually, Luke 14:26 is followed by a parable – which the deist ignores.

Look how the deist answers. “A true leader does not speak in code”.

The OP is going to decide who a true leader is and who you should listen to based on the OP’s opinion. It is not even an argument. It is a declaration. Sounds like authoritarianism to me.

Actually it is the OP’s “Revealed Religion”, revealed by them. Because they say so.

This isn’t actually deism as conceived historically. It is pure atheism. Deists believe God wound up the universe but does not interfere with it. This OP says there is no God.



WHATS REALLY GOING ON?

See below for this: In the Hebrew Scriptures, the contrast between “love” and “hatred” is sometimes used to communicate preference. For example, in dealing with inheritances in polygamous marriages, the Mosaic Law referred to “two wives, one beloved, and another hated”

Following the statement that we must “hate” our father and mother, Jesus relates a metaphor about a man who builds a house without first counting the cost (Luke 14:28–30). The man finds that he cannot follow through with what he set out to do. He leaves the house unfinished because he cannot pay what is required. Jesus’ illustration helps explain His difficult statement about hating our mother and father—namely, we must count the cost of being a disciple. There is a cost, and that is the point of the passage.

In order to be a disciple, we must be willing to give up everything for Jesus. Following Jesus requires commitment and faithfulness, even if our parents choose not to follow the Lord. If and when we are faced with the painful choice of loyalty to family versus loyalty to Jesus, we must choose Jesus. Even if our family members disown us—or worse—for being Christians, we must follow Christ. It is in this sense that we are “hating” our family. Jesus’ command to “hate father and mother” requires us to prioritize our relationship with Jesus over our relationship with parents, siblings, and other family members.

Of course, it is right to love our family members, and we want them to love and follow God. Elsewhere, Jesus confirmed the fifth commandment that we honor our fathers and mothers (Mark 7:9–13). And Paul sternly warned that “anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8). Jesus’ statement that we “hate” father and mother must be seen in relation to the whole of Scripture. His point is not that we are to be heartless toward our families, only that we must love Him more.

We must not forget that included in Jesus’ condition that a follower must “hate” his father and mother is the condition that he likewise hate “even his own life” (Luke 14:26, NAS). Jesus is not teaching an emotional hatred of one’s parents any more than He is teaching self-hatred. The emphasis is on self-denial and absolute surrender. Immediately following is Jesus’ instruction to “carry your own cross” (verse 27, NLT).

Some other translations make Jesus’ meaning a little clearer: “If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison” (Luke 14:26, NLT, emphasis added), and the Amplified Bible says that a follower of Christ must “hate” his family members “in the sense of indifference to or relative disregard for them in comparison with his attitude toward God.” It is a “hatred” by comparison, not an absolute hatred.

The word hate in Luke 14:26 deserves a closer look. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the contrast between “love” and “hatred” is sometimes used to communicate preference. For example, in dealing with inheritances in polygamous marriages, the Mosaic Law referred to “two wives, one beloved, and another hated” (Deuteronomy 21:15, KJV). This is a good, literal translation. There was a “loved” wife and a “hated” wife. Other translations usually soften the “hated” wife to be “unloved” (CSB) or “less loved” (NET). The law was not indicating emotional hatred on the part of the husband, only preference. One wife was preferred over the other. We have a similar use of the love/hate idiom in Malachi 1:2–3 (cf. Romans 9:13).

Many Christians will never have to make the painful choice of turning their backs on their family in order to follow Christ. But, around the world, there are many other Christians who face shunning, disowning, or persecution from their families. These believers, if they are to be true to Christ, are forced to live in a way perceived as “hateful” toward their “father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters” (Luke 14:26). All believers are called to acknowledge the lordship of Christ and show Him preference over all earthly ties. Those who must sacrifice earthly relationships have this promise: “No one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life” (Mark 10:29–30).

So, the OP has jumped to a conclusion based on inadequate research of the subject he is complaining about. He is actually just complaining about his own imaginary world.

I do not need to read any more of this atheistic claptrap shrouded in religious language. A reductionist atheist makes way more sense. They at least know what epistemology actually is.

Surely You are Joking, Mr Lightman.

When an atheist (Mr.X.) declares to you “I don’t care what Alan Lightman thinks about God” you know you are talking to a narcissist.

Why?

Because Alan Lightman, to the best of my knowledge, doesn’t think anything at all about God. He isn’t a theist.
https://news.mit.edu/2021/pondering-unknowable-alan-lightman-0305

Mr X, the narcissist, is either lying or he is an idiot.

Alan Lightman isn’t talking about God and religion. He is talking about physics.

The real question about what atheism is: what does atheism really have to say to humanity? Atheists need to explain the following: “How do you know thought and mind does not exist? And if it does not, isn’t your religious world view then nihilism? Is the logical conclusion of reductionism nihilism?”

Nihilism means if thought does not exist then minds do not exist. if minds do not exist then humans do not exist. The human race does not exist. its a fantasy. and values do not exist. Love, hate, justice, hope, all these are fantasies because none of them really exist. They are figments of the imagination and have no reality.

“Well, gee, batman”, a student mutters under his breath, “the trans person with hurt feelings is just going to have to lump it, aren’t they?”

What do nihilists really have to say to humanity? Nothing. They add no value. Values do not exist in their world view.

That doesnt answer the question of, “Is the logical conclusion of reductionism nihilism?”

Atheists aren’t talking. They do not know. They rage against theists on the basis of, well, as far as I can tell, a basis of ignorance. I think Jonathon Haight describes it best. They have a preconceived conclusion, really just a moral belief, and they are looking for evidence to shore up their belief. What Jonathon Haight calls “the elephant and the rider problem.” There is a cognitive dissonance in that process, and also a dishonesty.

Alan Lightman, by contrast, ponders the unknown and the unknowable and attempts to label them. That is why is is so hilarious that Mr X boldly declares “I don’t care what Alan Lightman says about God.”

Doctrines of Salvation


CATEGORY: Spiritual


The words are from Covenant Grace Church. Any commentary I add will be in shaded background.

Martin Luther said that justification by faith alone is “the article upon which the church stands or falls” (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae).1 Charles Spurgeon, concurred and stated, “Any church which puts in the place of justification by faith in Christ another method of salvation is a harlot church.”2 The doctrine of justification by faith alone is the heart of the gospel. It is possible for Christians to be in error on a myriad of theological points and still be in a state of salvation, but if a person is wrong on the Bible’s teaching concerning how a person is justified, they cannot be in a right relationship with God. The doctrine of justification by faith alone answers the most basic theological question: how can sinful man be right or just with God? How is it possible for people who have broken God’s righteous law and are unholy to be right with the Holy One? John Murray expressed this idea well when he wrote:

In the last analysis sin is always against God, and the essence of sin is to be against God. The one who is against God cannot be right with God. For if we are against God then God is against us. It could not be otherwise. God cannot be indifferent to or complacent towards that which is the contradiction of himself. His very perfection requires the recoil of righteous indignation. And that is God’s wrath. “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (Rom. 1:18). This is our situation and it is our relation to God; how can we be right with him?3

The doctrine of justification by faith alone addresses this fundamental issue of how sinful man can be at peace with a holy God. This is why it is the heart and essence of the gospel.

Two needs exist in regard to sinful man having a relationship with God: 1) Man has broken God’s law; he is a sinner; and 2) Man is not perfectly righteous. Our justification in Christ meets both of these needs. The Westminster Shorter Catechism gives a succinct definition of justification by faith alone: “Justification is an act of God’s free grace, whereby he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone” (Question 33). Three key points concerning our justification are brought out in this definition: 1) It is a forensic or judicial act of God based upon his free grace in Christ; 2) In it our sins are forgiven; 3) In it we are accepted as righteous in the sight of God because of Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us.

JUSTIFICATION IS A JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF GOD

It is important to recognize that God is the one that justifies. Justification is not something that we do; it is an act of God. Romans 4:5 states: “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. . . .” Romans 8:33 states: “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies.” Both of these passages say that it is God who justifies. Louis Berkhof states concerning justification:

Justification is a judicial act of God, in which He declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner. It is unique in the application of the work of redemption in that it is a judicial act of God, a declaration respecting the sinner, and not an act or process of renewal, such as regeneration, conversion, and sanctification. While it has respect to the sinner, it does not change his inner life. It does not affect his condition, but his state…4

John Murray writes:

This truth that God justifies needs to be underlined. We do not justify ourselves. Justification is not our apology nor is it the effect in us of a process of self-excusation. It is not even our confession nor the good feeling that may be induced in us by confession. Justification is not any religious exercise in which we engage however noble and good that religious exercise may be. If we are to understand justification and appropriate its grace we must turn our thoughts to the action of God justifying the ungodly.5

When we speak of God being the one who justifies, the key idea is that justification is a legal declaration by God. In this regard, justification does not mean to make righteous or holy in an ethical sense. For example, when a judge justifies a person who is accused of a crime, he does not make that person an innocent or upright person; he simply declares what the person is. In the same way, justification by God is a legal declaration of what is true concerning a person who is in Christ.

In both the Old and New Testaments, the usage of the term “justify” contains this meaning of a judicial declaration. Deuteronomy 25:1 states: “If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked. . . .” The judges did not make the people righteous or wicked; they simply declared what was the truth concerning the person under judgment. Proverbs 17:15 sets forth the same concept of justification: “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.” Here again, a declarative idea is affirmed. If the term “justify” had the meaning of making righteous, this statement in Proverbs would not be true. It would be an honorable act to make the wicked righteous. In fact, this is what God does when he regenerates a person. However, the abomination in Proverbs 17:15 is the giving of a judgment that is contrary to the truth; to justify the wicked is to declare him righteous when, in fact, he is not righteous. Therefore, the term “justify” must have a declarative or judicial usage. The New Testament also uses the term “justify” in a declarative sense. Luke 7:29 says, “And when all the people and the tax-gatherers heard this, they justified God. . . .” Obviously, the people and the tax-gatherers did not make God righteous; they acknowledged the righteous or just actions of God. They declared that God was just. These passages demonstrate the that the meaning of justification with regard to our salvation is that it is a legal declaration. They also show that the term “justification” does not mean to make upright or righteous.

The legal nature of justification is also seen in the term being contrasted with condemnation. In Deut. 25:1 and Prov. 17:15, justify and condemn are the opposites of each other. Just as “condemn” does not mean to make wicked, “justify” does not mean to make good. Romans 8:3334 also employs this same contrast between justify and condemn: “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns. . . ?” This passage also emphasizes the idea of a judicial declaration. It is the rebuttal against an accusation that may be brought against the elect of God. The answer to that accusation is that God’s judgment is final. God’s declaration that a person is righteous stands against every accusation. It is a legal or judicial act of God not an inward work in which a person is made righteous (see also 1 Kings 8:32Matthew 12:37Romans 5:16). John Murray writes:

This is what is meant when we insist that justification is forensic. It has to do with a judgment given, declared, pronounced; it is judicial or juridical or forensic. The main point of such terms is to distinguish between the kind of action which justification involves and the kind of action involved in regeneration. Regeneration is an act of God in us; justification is a judgment of God with respect to us. The distinction is like that of the distinction between the act of a surgeon and the act of a judge. The surgeon, when he removes an inward cancer, does something in us. That is not what a judge does – he gives a verdict regarding our judicial status. If we are innocent he declares accordingly.6

HOW GOD IS ABLE TO DECLARE THE BELIEVER RIGHTEOUS

Since Deuteronomy 25:1 and Proverbs 17:15 both make the point that a righteous judge will only proclaim a judgment that is in accordance with the truth about an individual, how can God, the ultimate righteous judge, make a legal declaration that a person who has broken his law is righteous? The answer to this question is found in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer. The ground of justification is the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer. The Scriptures teach that when a person believes in Christ, Jesus’ perfect obedience to the law of God is imputed or credited to him. Romans 4:1-8 is one of the more important passages in the New Testament that propounds this truth. After setting forth some critical points concerning justification in Romans 3:21-31, Paul gives two examples from the Old Testament that demonstrate that justification is a legal declaration that has its foundation in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and work of atonement. First, Paul emphasizes that justification is a free gift and that an individual’s so-called good works are not the basis of his justification: “What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’ (Rom. 4:1-3). When Abraham believed God, righteousness was reckoned to him. The Greek word translated as “reckoned” is elogisthe (Aorist passive of logizomai). This word has the meaning of reckoning to one’s account just like an accountant would enter an amount in an account book. The New International Version translates this Greek word with this accounting idea: “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Paul continues this thought in verses 4 and 5: “Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. . . .” Paul makes a simple point concerning wages and obligation. If a person contracts to work for a certain wage and fulfills the contract, then he is owed that wage by his employer. The employer does not pay him that wage as a favor, but pays it as an obligation that is owed. Paul states that when God justifies a sinner it is by no means an obligation or debt that is owed the sinner because of that sinner’s works. Justification is not on the basis of an individual’s personal righteousness; the basis of justification is the legal crediting of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, a crediting that is received by faith alone. Romans 4:5 states: “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. . . .” Notice that God justifies the ungodly. It is not that a person makes himself righteous through a series of pious acts so that he has enough personal merit to be declared righteous by God. God justifies a sinner on the basis of Christ’s righteousness when he is still ungodly. God reckons the person as just or righteous because of the obedience of Christ credited to him. R. C. Sproul writes concerning this: “By imparting or imputing Christ’s righteousness to us sinners, God reckons us as just. It is ‘as if’ we were inherently just. But we are not inherently just. We are ‘counted’ or ‘reckoned’ just by imputation.”7 John Calvin said it this way:

Therefore, “to justify” means nothing else than to acquit of guilt him who was accused, as if his innocence were confirmed. Therefore, since God justifies us by the intercession of Christ, he absolves us not by the confirmation of our own innocence but by the imputation of righteousness, so that we who are not righteous in ourselves may be reckoned as such in Christ.8

Martin Luther summarized this idea in the phrase simul iustus et peccator (“at the same time just and sinner”). We are just or right before God because of Christ’s righteousness imputed to us and received by faith alone while at the same time sin remains in us. Romans 4:6-8 continues this thought and adds the idea of forgiveness for sins: “. . . just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: ‘Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.’” Paul continues to drive home the point that God reckons righteousness apart from works and uses the same accounting language in regard to the forgiveness of sins. The last phrase of verse 8 uses the same Greek word that is used previously in the passage for “reckon” or “credit” (logizomai). This passage supports the idea that justification is a legal act in which the sinner is declared righteous by God based on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and the forgiveness of sins based on Christ’s work of sacrifice on the cross. Therefore, two aspects of Christ’s work are applied in our justification. Christ satisfied all the demands of God’s justice in his perfect obedience to the law of God during his life. It is this perfect obedience or righteousness that is imputed to us when we believe in him. Christ also satisfied all the demands of God’s justice against the law-breaker in his work of atonement on the cross. The sins of the believer were imputed to Christ and he took the penalty due those sins. R. C. Sproul writes, “The atonement is vicarious because it is accomplished via imputation. Christ is the sin-bearer for his people, the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) who takes away (expiates) our sin and satisfies (propitiates) the demands of God’s justice. The cross displays both God’s justice (in that he truly punishes sin) and his grace (because he punishes sin by providing a substitute for us).”9 2 Corinthians 5:21 sets forth both of these elements of justification concisely: “He made Him [Jesus] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Robert Reymond summarizes this idea:

That the righteousness of justification is the God-righteousness of the divine Christ himself, which is imputed or reckoned to us the moment we place our confidence in him (see justification as a finished act in Rom. 5:1 – ‘having been justified’), is amply testified to when the Scriptures teach that we are justified (1) in Christ (Isa. 45:24-25Acts 13:39Rom. 8:11 Cor. 6:11Gal. 2:17Phil. 3:9), (2) by Christ’s death work (Rom. 3:24-255:98:33-34), (3) not by our own but by the righteousness of God (Isa. 61:10Rom. 1:173:21-2210:32 Cor. 5:21Phil. 3:9) and (4) by the righteousness and obedience of Christ (Rom. 5:17-19). In short, the only ground of justification is the perfect God-righteousness of Christ that God the Father imputes to every sinner who places his confidence in the obedience and satisfaction of his Son. Said another way, the moment the sinner, through faith in Jesus Christ, turns away from every human resource and rests in Christ alone, the Father imputes his well-beloved Son’s preceptive (active) obedience to him and accepts him as righteous in his sight.10

If you trust in Christ alone as your Savior, the promise of Scripture is that you are forgiven and accepted in God’s sight as righteous, not because of your own righteousness, but because of Christ’s righteousness imputed to you and received by faith alone.

JUSTIFICATION IS BY FAITH ALONE (SOLA FIDE)

The Scriptures emphasize repeatedly that justification is not by law-keeping or human works, but by faith alone. This is the key point of the Reformation phrase sola fide (faith alone). Robert Reymond writes, “With a gloriously monotonous regularity Paul pits faith against all law-keeping, viewed as its diametrical opposite. Whereas the latter relies on human effort of the law-keeper looking to himself to render satisfaction before God and earn merit, the former repudiates and looks entirely away from self and all human effort to the work of Jesus Christ, who alone by his obedient life and sacrificial death rendered full satisfaction before God and men.”11 This principle is set forth in many passages. Observe how strongly the following passages enunciate this point:

Romans 3:20-22: “. . . because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. . . .”

Romans 3:28: “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.”

Romans 4:2-5: “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. for what does the Scripture say? ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ Now to the one who works his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. . . .”

Romans 4:1314: “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be the heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified. . . .”

Romans 10:4: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”

Galatians 2:16: “. . . nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.”

Galatians 2:21: “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

Galatians 3:6: “Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”

Galatians 3:11: “Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ‘The righteous man shall live by faith.’”

Philippians 3:9: “. . .and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith. . . .”

These verses demonstrate that the Scriptures teach that man is justified by faith alone and not by the works of the Law. While the exact phrase “faith alone” does not appear in these verses, the concept is clearly there. In these statements, the Apostle Paul is declaring that faith is the sole instrument of justification. Roman Catholic apologists have argued that since Paul does not use the exact phrase “faith alone” when speaking of justification, that it is improper to hold to this concept. At the time of the Reformation, Martin Luther answered this criticism:

Note. . . whether Paul does not assert more vehemently that faith alone justifies than I do, although he does not use the word alone (sola), which I have used. For he who says: Works do not justify, but faith justifies, certainly affirms more strongly that faith justifies than does he who says: Faith alone justifies. . . . Since the apostle does not ascribe anything to [works], he without doubt ascribes all to faith alone.”12

John Calvin also states that the concept of “faith alone” is taught even though the term“alone” does not directly appear with “faith:”

Now the reader sees how fairly the Sophists today cavil against our doctrine, when we say that man is justified by faith alone. They dare not deny that man is justified by faith because it recurs so often in Scripture. But since the word ‘alone’ is nowhere expressed, they do not allow this addition to be made. Is it so? But what will they reply to these words of Paul where he contends that righteousness cannot be of faith unless it be free? How will a free gift agree with works? . . . Does not he who takes everything from works firmly enough ascribe everything to faith alone. What, I pray, do these expressions mean: ‘His righteousness has been manifested apart from the law’; and, ‘Man is freely justified’; and, ‘Apart from the works of the law’?”13

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE EXCLUDES ALL HUMAN BOASTING

Since justification is by faith alone and not by law-keeping, no one can boast that his salvation came because of his works or personal righteousness. That Justification is by faith alone means that the one believing is not looking to any human resource, work, or ability for salvation; the believer looks only to Christ’s work of salvation, a work which accomplished a complete satisfaction for all the needs of salvation before God.

Many Scriptures support this idea. For example:

Romans 3:2728: “Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law.”

Romans 11:6: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.”

1 Corinthians 1:28-31: “. . . and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, that no man should boast before God. But by his doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, that, just as it is written, ‘Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.’”

Romans 4:16: “For this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace. . . .”

Robert Reymond comments on Romans 4:16:

I recall on one occasion how shocked I was to hear a well-known, highly regarded preacher of the gospel say: ‘I don’t know why salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ. God just declared that that is the way it is going to be, and we have to accept it because God said it.’ I was shocked, I say, because this preacher should have known why salvation is by faith. He should have known because Paul expressly declared: ‘[Salvation] comes by faith, in order that it may be by grace’ Rom 4:16).”14

If justification were not by faith alone and human merit was a part of justification in any degree, then salvation would not be by grace alone. If man contributed to his salvation through his works, then he would have reason to boast before God. Salvation by grace and salvation by works are totally incompatible. Since salvation is purely of God’s grace, then justification is by faith alone, a faith by which the believer totally abandons all trust and reliance in himself and relies solely on Christ’s accomplished work.

Charles Hodge summarizes the doctrine of justification with six crucial points:

  1.  [Justification is] an act, and not, as sanctification, a continued and progressive work.
  2. It is an act of grace to the sinner. In himself he deserves condemnation when God justifies him.
  3. As to the nature of the act, it is, in the first place, not an efficient act, nor an act of power. It does not produce any subjective change in the person justified. It does not effect a change of character, making those good who were bad, those holy who were unholy. That is done in regeneration and sanctification. In the second place, it is not a mere executive act, as when a sovereign pardons a criminal, and thereby restores him to his civil rights, or to his former status in the commonwealth. In the third place, it is a forensic, or judicial act, the act of a judge, not of a sovereign. That is, in the case of the sinner, or, in foro Dei, it is an act of God not in his character of sovereign, but in his character as judge. It is a declarative act in which God pronounces the sinner just or righteous, that is, declares that the claims of justice, so far as he is concerned, are satisfied, so that he cannot be justly condemned, but is in justice entitled to the reward promised or due to perfect righteousness.
  4. The meritorious ground of justification is not faith; we are not justified on account of our faith, considered as a virtuous or holy act or state of mind. Nor are our works of any kind the ground of justification. Nothing done by us or wrought in us satisfies the demands of justice, or can be the ground or reason of the declaration that justice as far as it concerns us is satisfied. The ground of justification is the righteousness of Christ, active and passive, i. e., including his perfect obedience to the law as a covenant, and his enduring the penalty of the law in our stead and on our behalf.
  5. The righteousness of Christ is in justification imputed to the believer. That is, is set to his account, so that he is entitled to plead it at the bar of God, as though it were personally and inherently his own.
  6. Faith is the condition of justification. That is, so far as adults are concerned, God does not impute the righteousness of Christ to the sinner, until and unless, he (through grace), receives and rests on Christ alone for salvation.15

The believer in Christ, justified before God through faith in Christ’s work may sing in the words of Horatius Bonar:

Not what my hands have done can save my guilty soul;
Not what my toiling flesh has borne can make my spirit whole.
Not what I feel or do can give me peace with God;
Not all my prayers and sighs and tears can bear my awful load.

Thy work alone, O Christ, can ease this weight of sin;
Thy blood alone, O Lamb of God, can give me peace within.
No other work, save thine, no other blood will do;
No strength, save that which is divine, can bear me safely through.

Augustus Toplady adds to this chorus of praise to God’s “grace alone” salvation:

A debtor to mercy alone, of covenant mercy I sing;
Nor fear, with Thy righteousness on, My person and off’ring to bring.
The terrors of law and of God with me can have nothing to do;
My Savior’s obedience and blood hide all my transgressions from view.

__________

Works Cited

1 R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 18.
2 Carter, Spurgeon At His Best, 116.
3 Murray, Redemption, Accomplished and Applied, 117.
4 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), 513.
5 Murray, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, 118.
6 Murray, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, 121.
7 Sproul, Faith Alone, 102.
8 Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.11.3.
9 Sproul, Faith Alone, 104.
10 Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 746-747.
11 Reymond, Paul: Missionary Theologian, 425.
12 Martin Luther, What Luther Says, edited by Ewald M. Plass (St. Louis: Concordia, 1959), 2:707-708.
13 Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.11.19.
14 Reymond, Paul: Missionary Theologian, 428.
15 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprinted 1981), 3:117, 118.

Honey, you are such a Peach.

“The difference between you and a pear is you think you are important and the pear does not.”

— Dennis Prager.



He gets this from current events about a movement of people wanting to bequeath their bodies to nourish the earth.

Dennis says, (paraphrasing):

If humans are not made in the image of God then they are no different than fruit. They are just compost.
It comes down to whether you are merely physical. If humans are merely physical then they can be compost. They are compost. Any difference is just imaginary.


I would add this is the philosophy of atheism. Dennis calls it the nihilism of the secular western world. What I would call the secular western fundamentalist religion. It really is the logical conclusion of reductionism.

To the atheist your real meaning, in any ultimate sense, is you will become fertilizer and will help plants grow. Anything you do before that is … well, you are just having a nice fantasy.


Atheists will tell us they have moral codes and build moral societies. They have been saying that for years. What they cannot tell us is WHY. Who could possibly even care about the moral code of a pear? Or fof fertilizer? It is not logical. Not even rational. But they insist the theist’s interest in the transcendental is irrational. Surely they base this on a metaphysical assumption. They will tell you that the flaw in theism is that it is based on metaphysical assumptions. But will deny their own world view is based on a metaphysical assumption.

One atheist recently called me a nutcase for even asking the question. Instead of answering the question they just name-call. One can only assume that is because they cannot give reasons. Their philosophy is vacuous. If they could give reasons then everyone could consider the reasons.

Meanwhile, everywhere one encounters such people they scream that theists are believing in imaginary things. And they truly believe that too!

I think the atheist needs to explain why he is meta-physics free. Otherwise, why is he believable?