What Is Faith? Stripping the Christianese From the Term

There are certain terms that we use so often in our cultures that they have either been stripped of their meaning or no one really knows how to define the actual term. What usually happens with these terms when someone is asked to define them, they'll either say, "I don't know?" or will try to make up some odd explanation that forces them to talk in circles and making as much sense as Sarah Palin explaining foreign policy.

One of these terms is "faith." In the Christian world we have done a poor job explaining what this term means and have used such terms as "belief" to equate it with faith. People will say, "faith means to believe". What does believe mean? I don't know. So the spiral of confusion continues. Some say we have to just "take a blind leap of faith." What does that mean? And does anyone actually ever take a blind leap of faith?

Hebrews 11:1 gives us a great explanation of faith that tells us what we should expect from God when he tells us to have faith. I am not going to be a complete apologetical theologian and explain in this post who God is, or prove he exists. I am going to assume you believe in some sort of greater power than you that created all things. If God created all things, we should probably take his definition of faith while trying to explain it...especially those who claim to follow Jesus.

Here is how Hebrews 11 defines faith.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1

What this one verse doesn't tell us is what the term meant in all of the Scriptures when spelled out in Greek. The term always related to Jesus or God and their work. So, when we see assurance, or sometimes translated as substance, of things hoped for, what things is it speaking of? The "things" hoped for has to do with the work of Jesus Christ. That because of the work of God in this world that is evidence of who he is we can have hope that what he said will happen in the future will happen. Maybe this doesn't help practically. Let me explain. Everyday, we have faith in other things that we don't feel have anything to do with God. This faith is assurance or substance of things hoped for. Example. We believe that when a woman is pregnant that she'll have a healthy baby. Why? The reason is that based on other experiences of seeing people have babies and the stats we see, the probability of that woman having a healthy baby is really good. Even more so, our faith in this goes way up when the doctor tells us that everything is going as planned in the pregnancy.

So, is this faith blind? Not at all. It is based on something. It is based on other actions and evidence that we have seen to have made our minds up that having a healthy baby is pretty common. Is this a blind jump of faith? No. Is it faith? Yes. You don't know what's going to happen. The doctor has no clue, he's just playing probabilities.

The second part of Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is the conviction, or assurance of things not seen. This definitely plays into the last example I gave. But this has to deal with why we can have so much assurance or conviction today for things that have happened in the past. Think about sitting in a chair. You have no idea, usually, who made the chair, where it was made, or if it will hold you up this time. But, based on your knowledge of seeing others sitting in the chair, your experience sitting in chairs without them busting underneath you, your faith is built up that it is okay to sit in chairs even though you never saw it being built. You have a conviction and assurance of something not seen, namely the carpenter building it and the time he put into it to make it sturdy.

Is this faith? Yes. You have faith that the chair will hold you up. The two part process of faith in Hebrews 11 is very hard to separate as they go so much together. So, what do followers of Jesus mean when we speak of faith?

Basically, based on seeing God's providence, power, creation, historical evidences and scientific evidences throughout our lives, the lives of others and through nature we have the assurance that our hope is in the right place (namely the work of God through Jesus by the Holy Spirit) and that we have a true conviction that where we are presently in our faith is the outcome of knowing that we have not seen truly happened and happens.

Our faith in Jesus is not a blind leap of faith. It's based on substance, assurance, conviction and evidence, all given to us by God through the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

For those who are Christians who want to know a very practical way to think of your faith, it was spelled out very well in a book I am reading.

A translator was trying to translate a Bible for a tribe, but the tribe had no actual word for the term faith. As I speak to translators, this happens all the time, but what they look for is evidences of a certain word in that culture and then attach biblical terms with those local understandings. This translator went out with the local chief to hunt for the day. They were out all day and were very tired from all the hiking through the forest. As they got back to the village, they both sat down and just rested in the chairs in the front of the chief's home. At that point, it hit the translator clear as day. He asked the chief, what is the term for what we are doing right now? You know resting after working so hard and being tired? The chief told him and that was the term he used for faith.

Faith is resting in Christ and His work.

Jesus said,

My yoke is easy and my burden is light.
Matthew 11:30

If, as a follower of Jesus it is hard for you to understand this, your faith is probably not on resting in Jesus, but probably toiling in your own works. We are to believe that the works of Jesus are enough and that our work is merely sprung from the love we have in our Saviour who bore our sin on the cross and rose again to show us the victory was won in Him, and nothing about us.

I hope this post helps explain faith in a clearer way to those who ask you.

Read More......

Caner, Evangelicals, Muslims and the Media: Bearing False Witness

I have been asked many times on my opinion about the Ergun Caner fiasco. I have decided to not write on it because I don't feel qualified to write on it. But, Rick Love, an international recognized peacemaker between Christians and Muslims has written on the subject. Although Rick is a close friend of one of my close friends, I am just starting to get to know him. I would say this...his articles are very well written and I have had his site linked on my side bar for a while now. I highly recommend you to read his thoughts as he hits major heart issues and gets through cultural Christianity and cultural Islam. Here is his article on Ergun Caner, enjoy.

Caner, Evangelicals, Muslims and the Media: Bearing False Witness
By Rick Love

Liberty University recently demoted Ergun Caner from his role as Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. “Factual statements that are self-contradictory” regarding his past (especially his purported involvement as a terrorist) were the reasons given for the demotion of this famous Muslim convert to Christ. (See Liberty Univ. Demotes Ergun Caner After Investigation and Liberty U. removing Ergun Caner as seminary dean over contradictory statements)

What are we to make of this fall from grace? I will leave it to others to evaluate the facts of the case. I have two larger concerns: why did Dr. Caner find such a receptive audience? How should followers of Christ relate to Muslims?

The media has bombarded us with sound bites and stereotypes about Muslims. Sometimes we are told that Islam is a religion of peace. Yet the more disturbing and frequent picture painted is of militant Islam. Many articles, books and websites about Muslims and terrorism present an alarmist and fear-inducing approach. These authors focus mainly on negative elements of Islam and the threat posed by radical Islam. They tend to project onto all Muslims a radical agenda espoused by only a few. The result: fear and alienation. (See an excellent critique of this in Why Do You Fear Me? and The Myth of Modern Jihad).

This is the context that made Dr. Caner a celebrity among many fundamentalists and some evangelicals. Here was a man who was the “real deal.” As a former Muslim and terrorist, he was an authority that demanded our attention and deserved our devotion. So now it’s easy to point our finger at Dr. Caner when we realize he has not been truthful about his background.

I am more concerned, however, about pointing the finger at evangelicals (and journalists of all types) who frequently exaggerate or make misstatements about Muslims. While this kind of commentary sells books and appeals to our fears, the Bible calls this bearing false witness. In fact, overstatement, exaggeration and words taken out of context should not be found among followers of Jesus. Scripture calls us to be careful about the words we speak:

•You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (Exodus 20:16 NASB)

•Every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment (Matthew 12:36 NASB)

•In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12 NASB)

Thus we should strive to speak truthfully about Muslims, to respect Muslims’ own interpretation of themselves, and “not to compare the best of Christianity with the worst of Islam.” The lack of nuance, the negative stereo-typing of Muslims and the spread of Islamophobia among evangelicals is flat out wrong. There are far too many “Christians” who gulp down this potion of error.

How followers of Christ speak about others should be marked by grace and truth (Eph 4:25, 29; Col 4:6; John 1:14). The content of our message is important. But so is our motive and manner. (See “the Grace and Truth Project” for an example of how a large global network of evangelicals seeks to do this).

In addition, Jesus calls us to be peacemakers – to go beyond our comfort zones and outside the walls of our churches (Matthew 5:9, 44-45; Luke 6:27-36). No borders. No boundaries. Everyone. Including Muslims!

•If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone (Romans 12:18)

•Make every effort to live in peace with all men … (Hebrews 12:14).

Check out the realism of Romans 12:18: “if it is possible.” Peace isn’t always possible. We are called to be peacemakers but we will not always be peace achievers! Note, however, that the onus is on us to do everything in our power to make peace (“as far as it depends on you”). Hebrews 12:14 adds a further dimension. We are commanded to “make every effort” towards peace with everyone, indicating intensity of effort on our part. In a world of conflict, peace just doesn’t happen. It takes work! And a big part of this work is bridge-building communication. (For a good example of this see Yale Center for Faith and Culture).

Does this mean that we cannot engage in serious theological debate or that we cannot say anything negative about Muslims or terrorism? Of course not. Peacemaking and grace-and-truth communication does not imply naiveté or silence about troublesome issues. We are called to speak the truth in love and speaking the truth, even graciously, will offend some people.

But our focus should be on building bridges and positive witness. Lift up Christ, don’t tear down Islam. We should not attack the other. Respectful witness has nothing to do with being politically correct. It is a matter of being biblical: “In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15 NIV). Anything less than this is bearing false witness!

Dr. Rick Love
President, Peace Catalyst International
ricklove@peace-catalyst.net
http://www.peace-catalyst.net/
http://www.ricklove.net/

Read More......

A Deadly Misunderstanding :::UPDATED:::

**After posting my review, Mark Siljander was kind of enough to write me an email and tell me that some others have had some of the same "issues" as I did with the book. Because of this, Mr. Siljander, in the 2nd edition of the book is going to make some changes. He also was kind enough to tell me that this book was written to both the Christian and Mulsim. Because of this, some things can seem more "soft" for the Christian, when not intending to be. I appreciate the humility that is shown by Siljander, one that is not found that often in authors today. We have had a good exchange between each other, and one that I pray will continue. I also hope to be able to get together with him if he makes it up here to Seattle, to hear more of the amazing work that Jesus is doing through him. Again, I highly recommend the book.

A Deadly Misunderstanding by Mark D. Siljander, is challenging and pushes your comforts past where you would like. The full title for the book is, A Deadly Misunderstanding: A Congressman's Quest to Bridge the Muslim-Christian Divide. Not only is this a title of a book, but the title of Mr. Siljander's life. Siljander is one that will surprise you. He is a white, Republican, conservative, Evangelical, from Michigan. He breaks the stereotype fully, when you read his quest. But, he is honest where the quest started, which is one where he used to hate Islam so much, and spoke out against them so profusely, that Yasser Arafat had a hit put out on him. He really started out where the majority of Evangelical Christians find themselves today. I found the opening to the book one that I can personally relate with:

Many years later, after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, when Christian leaders began denouncing Islam and the Qur'an from pulpits and radio stations across America, their litany of vitriol and hysteria was both frightening and yet oddly familiar.

Back in 1984, what I didn't realize was that I was also a hostage, held captive by my own ignorance and fear-much like the fear that has held so much of the world hostage since the events of 9/11. And while I could not have remotely suspected it at the time, that same letter of protest would trigger a series of encounters that would eventually shake me loose from the beliefs that held me there. (p.11)

The book is about the quest of a congressman (mostly as his time as a former congressman) who wasn't content at being ignorant. Siljander took this urge seriously as he spanned the globe meeting up with major leaders in the Islamic world to sit and speak to them about the divide between Muslims and Christians. Not only this, but he would be someone I would call (I doubt he would call himself this) a self trained genius. He so much wanted to truly befriend those from other nations that he learned Spanish, Hebrew, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, French, Italian, Portuguese, and then to specifically speak to those in the Arab and Muslim world, learned Arabic and Aramaic. He learned the former two to aid his quest to study the Qur'an and language that Christ most likely spoke in, Aramaic, to be able to seek out why these two Monotheistic faiths have been at each other's throats for so many years.

In this book, Siljander gives forth not only his life's quest of bridging this divide one relationship at a time, but also through showing some of his findings (exegetically) that break down some major walls between the two faiths. I will say that those he has spoken to in the Muslim world are quite impressive. These stories are amazing to read about, and truthfully should challenge all of us to consider our motives for relationships. Siljander over and over again, quite honestly, shatters any concepts one would have of a conservative Evangelical Republican congressman.

The reader is challenged, both Muslim and Christian (but mostly Christian) on their understanding of the Bible, Qur'an and how they interact, which is more than most think. Reading this book, had me going back and forth. At one point, I would smile and almost yell, "amen!", then I would find myself cringing because I felt a misstep was happening within Siljander's exegesis. And although Siljander does his best to convey this when stating,

What follows in these pages is not some new form of ecumenism or syncretism where Christians, Muslims, or anyone else is expected to give up cherished and long-held beliefs or creeds.

The problem is that I felt as though, at points, Siljander seemed to just that. The reason is because the centrality of the Christian faith is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as God's atoning death for us and His glory. This seemed to be very light in the book and within his interactions with the Muslim world. He even, at one point, tries to bring these two faiths together on this point, but I believe he gives up too much in the understanding of orthodoxy within Christendom to make this work. So, at points, I feel as though Siljander sounds very syncretic, even though he starts trying to say he is not doing this. But, I will also say this. The written word can be misleading and very difficult to convey at times, especially on such touchy subjects as this. So, before I would say anything completely negative about Siljander and his path towards reconciliation, I would desire to sit down and ask him questions about these issues and what he has found as he has spoken to those of the Muslim faith.

So, with that in mind, would I recommend this book? Yes. Like any book about faith and dialogue, you must be discerning. Siljander doesn't even say "his way" is how everyone should handle themselves. But, he tells the story of how his journey and where his journey has taken him, both in his study and relationships. This, I highly commend him for sharing. This book will stretch anyone who reads it. There is so much "good" in this book and so much that the reader will realize about their own journey towards truth (if they are honestly trying to learn), that it is well worth the read. If you like where you are currently in your understanding of the world and are enjoying what is portrayed in American media, don't read this book. But, if you want to see what is actually happening elsewhere, what Muslims actually believe, what the Bible actually says in certain points and desire to be stretched, you need to read this book. You will learn much through Siljander's interactions with Muslim leaders and also with his interactions of great study through the Aramaic translation of the New Testament (which is a personal conviction with just that statement). You will learn such things as:

Who is Allah? What does this term have to do with the term "God"? (for an excerpt, click here)
What do Muslims understand of the Christian when we speak of the Son of God, Jesus' death and the Trinity?
What does the Qur'an say about Jesus and the spirit of God?
What is the Aramaic understanding of (this was one of my favorite parts):
- Camel through the eye of the needle (Matt 19:24)
- The Lord's Prayer, specifically on God leading us into temptation
- Jesus telling us to hate our family members (Luke 14:26)
- Heap burning coals on our enemy's head (Romans 12:20), etc.

As you can see, this book is jammed pack with data. It is only 222 pages, and flows in and out with exegesis and personal stories of his travels all over the world. It is very readable and very enjoyable and one that I couldn't put down. I read it in three days. It will have you saying "amen" one second, "no way!" the next and lastly just plain shaking your head in personal shame for your misunderstandings.

I ask you, please read this book and be challenged. Will you agree with everything in this book? Probably not. Will it stretch you more than other books you have read in the past? I would bet it will be in the top 5, if not the top book as far as its' challenges.

I have had a brief conversation with Mr. Siljander and I hope to have some more in the future. I pray that I get the chance to sit down with him and seek out his wisdom on how God continues to challenge him on the path he has been put on. Until then, I pray that my misunderstandings of others, are able to be broken down as I search out the truth in both Jesus and my relationships with others who aren't like myself.

I highly recommend this book.

May God be glorified.

Read More......

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God? Part II

What Do the Scriptures Teach About Non-Trinitarian Peoples?

Hopefully you have seen what I mean when I say worship (again, not speaking of the term “to know”) and the fact that Allah is described in many of the same ways we would describe him. The one fact remains though: We (Christians and followers of Jesus) worship God, knowing God is triune in nature; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Remember that when seeking to find if Muslims or Jews worship the same God, we are not saying that they know him or are fully worshiping him in the manner that God desires. We even see this in the Old Testament when Isaiah is given the commandment to proclaim to Israel that they were not worshiping God in the way he desired, but this didn’t mean that they were not worshiping God, it just meant that their worship was in vain, or empty.

Then the Lord said,
“Because this people draw near with their words
And honor Me with their lip service,
But they remove their hearts far from Me,
And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote,
Isaiah 29:13

We see that Jesus quotes this same verse from Isaiah in Matthew 15:8, using the term “sebomai” to show forth the idea of “worship or fear” of God. If Jerusalem in the Old Testament wasn’t worshiping the true God, we have some real issues, as it is God himself who is speaking to Jerusalem and telling them “you are worshiping me incorrectly!” What God is not saying is that they are worshiping another god. What is being conveyed, in both the Old and the New, is the importance of worshiping God correctly, so that your mouth and your heart are near God, so that you may know God.

What I want to show is how the terms used for worship are used both of those who are true followers of Jesus and those who don’t know Jesus as God. If I am successful in this, one should be able to see that to say that “Muslims don’t worship the same God as Christians” is at least unhelpful, if not totally false.

Cornelius in Acts 10

When we come to Acts 10, a man named Cornelius is introduced to us. He is described in this way:

a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.
Acts 10:2

Understand that Cornelius is a Gentile and knows nothing of Jesus. The term “feared” used here is the term “phobeo” which Peter also uses in 1 Peter 2:17 when he tells believers to “Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.” As we mentioned above, this term for fear is closely related to the term worship. Not only this, but this passage gets very clear about this Gentile who knows nothing of Jesus Christ. It says in Acts 10:4 that the angel of the Lord that appeared to Cornelius states, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God.” I don’t know of any scholar, or even nominal Christian, who would say that prayer isn’t a part of worshiping God. What we find here is that a Gentile, who has yet to be converted to Jesus, or taught the triune aspect of God, is, and has been, worshiping the true God.

Cornelius’ total ignorance of what it means to truly worship and know God shows forth when Peter visits him to preach. When Peter approached Cornelius, Cornelius fell down and worshiped Peter!

So, although Cornelius is a Gentile, knowing nothing of Jesus, he worships/fears/prays to God and God hears him.

The First Convert in Europe, Lydia

The second example is found in Acts 16:14 when it states the following:

A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.

In this passage, we find a woman in Europe who ended up submitting herself to Jesus. But, before she was surrendered her life, she is called a “worshiper of God.” This is before Paul had spoken the gospel to Lydia, and once she heard, her heart was opened and she responded. The term used here in the Greek is the term “sebomai.” Which, as we noted above, is used both to have a sense of “fear” and also “worship.” This term puts these two expressions in congruence with each other.

One might say at this point, “Yes, they are said to worship God, because once they heard the good news, they then converted to Jesus.” (I think that is quite a weak argument, but nevertheless, I will respond as though it were convincing) While this is true of both of the first two examples, this term “sebomai” is also used of people where we have no proof that they ever converted to be followers of Jesus

Here is a quick list of the verses that use this term “sebomai” in regards to those who are not shown to ever submit to Jesus:

‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ ”
Matthew 15:9


‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
Mark 7:7

So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present.
Acts 17:17

In every one of these instances, we see that this Greek term “sebomai” is used for those who are worshiping God in ignorance, with no proof that they ever turned to Jesus. On the contrary, we also find the same term used, not only with Lydia, but with others who “feared” or “worshiped” God and then later (also used in the present tense) turned to Jesus.

Some of these could be argued from the text that we don’t even know if some of these people actually submitted to Jesus later, but I will put them in this context to avoid argument.

Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.
Acts 13:43

But the Jews incited the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district.
Acts 13:50

And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.
Acts 17:4

Then he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God, whose house was next to the synagogue.
Acts 18:7

saying, “This man persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.”
Acts 18:13

One can plainly see that throughout the Scriptures, the term “sebomai” which means to worship is used interchangeably with those who know the fullness of God through Jesus Christ, those who eventually come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and to those who we never see turning to Jesus. What we never see is the fact, that some would like to charge, that Jesus and the apostles ever told those who are worshiping God in the way they know him as, that they are worshiping another god.

If this term “sebomai” or “worship” or “God-fearers” can be used for those who don’t know Jesus in the New Testament, why can this term not be used in today’s context with Muslims?

Miscellaneous Thoughts on Worshiping God

I want to also point out a couple of other verses that support this understanding, but might not necessarily hold enough weight to convince as the above.

The first is found in Matthew 5:16

Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

What we see is a command from Jesus to those who follow him, his disciples. He tells them that they should be light and salt, and to allow their works to be seen by men. Why? So that men will glorify their Father who is in heaven. It interesting because the term “glorify” is closely related to worship (1 to think, suppose, be of opinion. 2 to praise, extol, magnify, celebrate. 3 to honour, do honour to, hold in honour. 4 to make glorious, adorn with lustre, clothe with splendour. 4a to impart glory to something, render it excellent. 4b to make renowned, render illustrious. 4b1 to cause the dignity and worth of some person or thing to become manifest and acknowledged).

You’ll also notice that there is no distinction whether those that will glorify God are followers of Jesus or not. But, the fact remains, whether they love Jesus or not, they can glorify God who is in heaven, without knowing Him. Again, this would seem to show that although one doesn’t know God, they can still glorify and worship God.

The second is found in Acts 13:48 and has been much debate among Calvinists and Arminians, but we can also glean one other theological conclusion here.

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

What you see here is Paul and Barnabas preaching to a group of Jews and Gentiles. The Jews reject the preaching, while it says that all the Gentiles present began to rejoice and glorify the word of the Lord. Again, we see this exact same term “glorify” or “doxazo.” You’ll notice that not all those who were rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord then believed; only those who were appointed to believe, believed. That would leave us to understand that there were some who rejoiced and glorified the word, without actually turning to Jesus.

Conclusion

I wrote this to simply ask those who continually say that “Allah” is a demon or that Islam worships another god, to see the reasoning from us who say that this isn’t the case. Although I don’t believe that Islam paints a complete picture of who God is, and what his attributes are, this doesn’t mean that they worship a completely different god altogether. Let me give an example before I conclude.

There were two men (Steve and David) who claimed to know another man (James) who lived in South Africa. As these two met each other in New York at a conference, they began speaking about this man James who lived in South Africa. David began to speak about James, but didn’t know him personally. He only knew a guy who claimed to know James and learned about James through him. Throughout the years, David sent James letters of thankfulness because of all the wisdom he was learning through his other friend. As David began to describe James to Steve, they seemed to be talking of the very same man. They both knew James to be quite funny, he had two sons, his wife had died giving birth to their second son and James, to both of them, was quite the business man. Then David said that James was pretty harsh in business, and disowned his second son after the son refused to get a job when he turned 18. Steve was quite perplexed. Steve told David, I actually live right next to James and I personally have known him for over 20 years. He actually isn’t harsh in business, but quite kind to all of his employees and very forgiving those who have been dishonest in their business dealings. Also, Steve said that James’ oldest son, decided to leave the house at the age of 18 on his own and James has been pursuing a relationship with him ever since. Then Steve asked, “Would you like to know James personally?” David quickly responded, “Yes, in fact I would”. Steve said, “Good, because he is coming to New York tomorrow, and you can start to personally know him.”

I know that this parallel is only helpful to a small degree. But, the understanding I am trying to get across is the one we should have with our Muslim friends. Although they might worship God, as David was sending letters to James, they don’t know God personally as we do, because of Jesus. Our job isn’t to tell the Muslim that they don’t worship another god, as it would have been very odd for Steve to tell David that he didn’t know the real James from South Africa. Our job is to lead them to the fullness of God, only known through Jesus Christ. Our job is to lovingly guide the Muslim to a complete understanding of the grace found in God, through the Messiah.

Remember, incomplete truth isn’t non-truth. It’s like saying, “sugar and flour” are ingredients of a cake. While true, this isn’t the complete ingredient list for a cake. We need to continue with the fullness of wisdom to show which ingredients have been left out, or which ones are wrong.

We should be like Paul at Mars Hill. We should find those things that are similar and then guide them to the fullness of truth. We should not burn those bridges that have already been built between the two faiths, but we should introduce Jesus to them through these bridges. Just as Paul did with the “unknown god” to the Greeks.

Let me remind the reader, that what I am trying to convey is the difference between worship and knowing God. Knowing is a very deep and personal term in both the Hebrew and the Greek. One can think of it this way:

All those who know God will worship God; All those who worship God, don’t necessarily know God.

May we continually seek ways to show all men the greatness of the Messiah, and ask them to seek out who Jesus was, is and will continue to be. May we do this in a constructive way, instead of a detrimental one.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Matthew 5:9

Read More......

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God? Part I

When I first heard this question brought up to me, my thought was a simple, “No.” The reason that I gave was the fact that we, as followers of Jesus, worship the monotheistic, yet triune God of Abraham. If one does not believe that God is triune in nature, how can they worship the same as I, one who is a follower of Jesus? But, I quickly started to think this through. The reason was that Jews would give the same answer as a Muslim in regards to God, yet I would have a harder time to say that God’s chosen nation in Old Testament didn’t worship God, if they didn’t believe Him to be triune. Not only that, but I would have a hard time regarding those in contemporary Judaism as not worshiping the same God as I. Being that both the Muslim and Jew worship God, who is the One and only, if one is cast out as not worshiping God so shall the other. One can see the similarities in the two faiths, in their preeminent proclamation of them:

The Shema for the Jew, taken from Deuteronomy 6:4, states:

“Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!

When the Muslim is asked what makes one a true Muslim, or one who is submitted to God, they will speak of their Shahada:

There is no god but God

So, as I started to think this through, I said, “If I say that Muslims do not worship the same God as I, then neither does the monotheistic Jew either.” Although this bothered me some, I still, nonetheless, decided to go to the Scriptures to see what it would say about those who did not believe Jesus to be God, and held that believing so, meant that God is more than one and was therefore being blasphemous.

I am going to go through this in steps to show what I am getting to. I will first distinguish between worshiping God and knowing God, then will show what Islam teaches about God or Allah, and then what the Scriptures speak of concerning those who do not know Jesus to be part of the Triune aspect of the Godhead.

Defining Worship, Not Knowing

Worshiping in the New Testament Greek is brought about in the terms “sebomai, proskuneo and latreuo .” These terms have the connotation of both a physical aspect and spiritual one. The physical aspect is brought out in the term, “proskuneo” which can either mean to “prostrate, kiss or bow” but also carries the idea of “deep reverence.” We see this term used in the most profound way when John uses it when quoting Jesus as saying,

“God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

John 4:24

The next term that is translated as worship in the New Testament Greek is “sebomai” and has the idea of “revere, worship or one who is devout.” This term is translated in the NASB by using the terms “God-fearing, devout, worship and worshiper.” A couple of usages in the New Testament are found in Acts 13:50 and Acts 16:14 respectively:

But the Jews incited the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district.

A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.

What one will notice is that the connection in these terms is the term, rendered in the English as, reverence. We will connect these further when looking at the Scriptures, but one other term that is very close to these two terms is the term “phobeo”, which means to “fear, to reverence or to be afraid.” So, when the Bible uses the term, “worship” there is some idea that reverential fear is being spoken of. Many times we see in the Scriptures that those who followed God were said, ‘to fear Him”. To give a reference that I will use later, Peter says in 1 Peter 2:17, “Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.”

What I want the reader to know is that I am not saying that all those who “worship” or “fear God” know God fully, or worship him in the way that God desires. Jesus tells us,

“All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”

Matthew 11:27

I want to make this distinction, because I don’t want to confuse the reader to think that I am saying that by worshiping God, one then knows God, therefore accessing heaven by a different means than Christ.

What Does Islam Believe About God?

First, this is not some Magnum Opus on the doctrines of the Islamic faith on Allah or God. I understand that most of my readers are Westerners with very little knowledge of the Qur’an, but have only heard Evangelical Polemics against Islam in regards to their understanding of God. My intent here is to show the similarities of the Qur'an with the Torah and New Testament, not to get into a debate about their practical wisdom of the terms they use.

Before we begin, some love to draw a very odd straw man against Islam by saying that “Allah” is a demon and should not be used as a term for calling on God. So much so, that they desire Muslim converts to Jesus to stop calling God, Allah. This is quite simply, very elementary and foolish. Mark D. Siljander, in his book, “A Deadly Understanding” puts the understanding quite well. He states:

What did the Semitic languages have to say about God and Allah? The answer proved fascinating.

In pre-Muhammadan times, Arabs worship a moon god called Hubal, whom they also referred to as “Al-ilah,” and this, goes the claim, was the source of “Allah.” But ilah is simply the Arabic word for “god.” Al-ilah means, “the god.” (The Arabic “al” is equivalent to the English “the.”) In precicely the same generic way, Semitic tribes used this basic term, il or el, to refer to their various gods for thousands of years before Muhammad. El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon; the Canaanite language was closely related to Hebrew. With Abraham and the birth of the great monotheistic faiths, these words were adopted to refer to the one God. The Aramaic form was Alaha, the Hebrew Eloah, which became the Elohim who does the creating in the first chapter of Genesis.

Taking a closer look at our own language, I found precisely the same linguistic process: our word “God” is derived from the proto-German pagan word gott, which denotes a particular water spirit. The Latin Deus, from which we draw our word, “deity,” Spanish its Dios, and French its Dieu, are all descendants of Zeus, the name for the chief god in the Greek pantheon. Yet when modern Christians pray to God, Dios, or Dieu, we don’t accused them of invoking Zeus or a pagan water demon! The Hubal issues was a nonissue: God, Dios, Elohim, Eloah, Alaha – and yes, Allah as well – all refer to the same One Deity of Abrahamic monotheism.

For over five hundred years before the birth of Muhammad, Arab Christians and even some Jews in the Arabian peninsula used the word Allah for God.

Mark J. Siljander, A Deadly Misunderstanding, 46-47

As we continue, remember that the great monotheistic beliefs understand that there is only one God. There is no other God. So, when one says that they are worshiping the one God and then describes that God in many of the same ways we would, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that they are, in fact, worshiping “another” god. Here are some of the descriptions that Islam has for Allah:

God is:
One
Sovereign
Omniscient
Omnipotent
Eternal
Creator of Universe
Revealer of Himself
The Light
Love
Merciful
Compassionate/Beneficent

It is easy to see that the way the Qur’an describes God, is very much how we would describe God. Would they describe God in every way that a follower of Jesus would? No. Would they understand God in every way that a follower of Jesus would? No. But, this shouldn’t negate the fact that Islam is monotheistic and hold to many of the same descriptions that we would hold to.

And these descriptions shouldn’t be too surprising, as Muhammad had much contact with Jews and Christians on the trade routes and the fact that Surah 3:64 states,

Say, "O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah ." But if they turn away, then say, "Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]."

One can see that there are many similarities between the God of the Bible and Allah of the Qur’an. Even Muhammad, when speaking to “the people of the book (Scripture)” states that we both worship the same God and that none is his equal. The reason is the fact that Muhammad saw that the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim were all worshiping Jehovah, God, Allah – the one true God.

I will continue tomorrow with how the Scriptures describe those people who do not know God to be triune, yet One: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Read More......

Muslim and Christian Resources: And Some Questions

There is an elder in my church who is doing some amazing work within the Muslim communities here in the Seattle area. He works with local churches to aid them in the understanding of how to speak to and serve Muslims in their area. I recently asked him for some resources that would speak to me how he formed his convictions for his ministry to the Muslims. I wanted to put that here for all to have. I have only had the chance to read the Christianity Today article (Muslim Followers of Jesus?) and listen to the Desiring God mp3's from the conference: Evangelicals and A Common Word. Both have already started to impact my thinking. I have not made many actual changes yet, but looking forward to see what the Spirit will teach me through it. Some of the questions that I am honestly asking myself as I read and listen is:

Do Muslims worship the same God? If we believe Jews do, what is the difference?

What does an actual Muslim believe? Do I characterize Muslims in a way that erects straw men instead of their actual convictions? (this is of vital importance) I have read many books on apologetical differences, but have found out that most of them erect unnecessary and unhelpful straw men.

How far can we go to reach Muslims? i.e. Can we pray with them?

What can I appreciate about the Muslim? What can I learn from them?

How can I impact Muslims for the gospel?

Mike is a great resource as he is on the front lines of bringing the gospel to the Muslims. He has been great to me so far in our discussions and I look forward to many more. As I continue, I will probably be interviewing him on this blog and would also like to invite a Muslim as well to interview them to aid us in a correct understanding of what they believe. I hope these resources help.

Evangelicals and A Common Word Conference Lectures (mp3):

Muslim Perspectives on the Writing of "A Common Word" (Caner Dagli and Joesph Lumbard)

Christian Defenses of the Yale Response to "A Common Word" (C. Donald Smedley and Joseph Cumming)

Christian Concerns About the Yale Response to "A Common Word" (John Piper and Al Mohler)

Questions and Answers

Readings:

Muslim Followers of Jesus?

Pilgrims of Christ on the Muslims Road by Paul Gordon Chandler (http://www.paulgordonchandler.com/)

Building Bridges: Christianity and Islam by Fouad Accad

No God But God by Reza Aslan

How to Win A Cosmic War by Reza Aslan

Muslims, Magic and the Kingdom of God by Rick Love (http://www.ricklove.net/)

Read More......

Machen on Biblical Inerrancy

I have been reading Nichols' book entitled, "Ancient Word, Changing Worlds: The Doctrine of Scripture", and I came to a quote from Machen from his book, "Christianity and Liberalism" which I found to be very helpful and insightful. Remember that this book by Machen was written in 1923:

This doctrine of "plenary inspiration" has been made the subject of persistent misrepresentation. Its opponents speak of it as though it involved a mechanical theory of the activity of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit, it is said, is represented in this doctrine as dictating the Bible to writers who were really little more than stenographers. But of course all such caricatures are without basis in fact, and it is rather surprising that intelligent men should be so blinded by prejudice about this matter as not even to examine for themselves the perfectly accessible treatises in which the doctrine of plenary inspiration is set forth...

The modern liberal rejects not only the doctrine of plenary inspiration, but even such respect for the Bible as would be proper over against any ordinarily trustworthy book. But what is substituted for the Christian view of the Bible ? What is the liberal view as to the seat of authority in religion?

The impression is sometimes produced that the modern liberal substitutes for the authority of the Bible the authority of Christ. He cannot accept, he says, what he regards as the perverse moral teaching of the Old Testament or the sophistical arguments of Paul. But he regards himself as being the true Christian because, rejecting the rest of the Bible, he depends upon Jesus alone.

This impression, however, is utterly false. The modern liberal does not really hold to the authority of Jesus. Even if he did so, indeed, he would still be impoverishing greatly his knowledge of God and of the way of salvation. The words of Jesus, spoken during His earthly ministry, could hardly contain all that we need to know about God and about the way of salvation; for the meaning of Jesus' redeeming work could hardly be fully set forth before that work was done. It could be set forth indeed by way of prophecy, and as a matter of fact it was so set forth by Jesus even in the days of His flesh. But the full explanation could naturally be given only after the work was done. And such was actually the divine method. It is doing despite, not only to the Spirit of God, but also to Jesus Himself, to regard the teaching of the Holy Spirit, given through the apostles, as at all inferior in authority to the teaching of Jesus...

It is not true at all, then, that modern liberalism is based upon the authority of Jesus. It is obliged to reject a vast deal that is absolutely essential in Jesus' example and teaching--notably His consciousness of being the heavenly Messiah. The real authority, for liberalism, can only be "the Christian consciousness" or "Christian experience." But how shall the findings of the Christian consciousness be established? Surely not by a majority vote of the organized Church. Such a method would obviously do away with all liberty of conscience. The only authority, then, can be individual experience; truth can only be that which "helps" the individual man. Such an authority is obviously no authority at all; for individual experience is endlessly diverse, and when once truth is regarded only as that which works at any particular time, it ceases to be truth. The result is an abysmal skepticism.

The Christian man, on the other hand, finds in the Bible the very Word of God. Let it not be said that dependence upon a book is a dead or an artificial thing. The Reformation of the sixteenth century was founded upon the authority of the Bible, yet it set the world aflame. Dependence upon a word of man would be slavish, but dependence upon God's word is life. Dark and gloomy would be the world, if we were left to our own devices and had no blessed Word of God. The Bible, to the Christian is not a burdensome law, but the very Magna Charta of Christian liberty.

It is no wonder, then, that liberalism is totally different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism on the other hand is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men.

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, pgs. 73-74,76

Read More......

Faith and Reason: Do They War Against Each Other?

This morning I was having quite the discussion based on this quote by one of my favorite theologians, Martin Luther:

"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "

Now, some (I don't think all the guys I was discussing this with would take it this way) take this quote and use it for some help in an understanding that our faith isn't reasonable or logical. But, this is not what Luther was trying to get across. We must take Luther in his context and whom his fight was against. His fight was against Rome who was taking their theological constructs from Aristotle and Aquinas. Both of these men put revelation (Scripture) and reason on an even playing field. In actuality, they usually would put reason completely above Scripture in any competing argument.

So, when Luther is speaking of things such as reason and logic, he is not speaking about throwing them out all together, but making sure that they keep within the context of the revealed faith in our Scriptures. A clearer quote from Luther came from a debate Luther had where he said that,

Reason is a whore

This is clearer because reason is not sinful or wrong in it's context it should be used in. If used inappropriately beyond the confines that God has placed it in, one can then abuse what God has made to be good. Think of sex within the context of this quote. Sex is not wrong in the correct, godly context, but taken outside of the bounds which God has placed it, one becomes a whore.

So, should we have a reasonable faith? Yes. God calls us to. There is never a story of faith in the Bible that was a blind faith, or one without reason. We are even told that Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac because of his understanding that God would raise him from the dead (Hebrews 11:17-19). He wasn't blindly walking up the mountain to sacrifice his son to an unreasonable and irrational god.

What one finds as they search the Scriptures and then tests them to the things of this world is a rational, reasonable God. This God is who gives us our reasonable faith so that we can trust in him. One does not take a blind leap of trust or faith. Faith without reason is foolish, reason without faith is pointless and damning. The reason I say that it is foolish is that no one should trust in something or someone without a reason. Why should we trust in Christ and his cross? Because God has given us reasons to do so. Do we always understand these reasons? No. But we do have reason and rationality to believe and trust in the Scriptures and the God who speaks through them. This also goes with someone who has intellect and reason but no faith. They are damned and without hope, because their reason and rationality aren't directed to the one who underlines their whole life of worship.

These two aren't warring but must work together. We even have the definition of faith in Hebrews that points to reason and logic within the person that has faith:

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1

Assurance and conviction do not come about through the air, but through a reasonable understanding of whom or what you are putting your faith and trust in. This is why when reason tells us something that seems to contradict the Bible we must put our attention on the reasonable God who is infinite. Our faith is reasonable and logical, but when life doesn't make sense in our finite minds, we must have faith in our infinite God.

Know that I am not saying one can merely come to God through reason, but one cannot come to God without a rational reason for doing so. One doesn't just one day wake up from being an Atheist to a blood bought Christian.

If you want to think about it this way. Today I am putting faith in the building that I am in. I have faith that it won't collapse on my head because of my minute knowledge in engineering and architecture and my experience of being in this building everyday. This is a reasonable faith not a blind one.

One will also notice how God tells us to report on this faith:

but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;
1 Peter 3:15

Peter uses the term "apologia" which of course is where we get the use of apologetics, which means to make a defense. Actually in the Strongs it says, "to make a reasoned statement." The term was used for courtrooms where something was defended with evidence and reason. One wouldn't walk into a courtroom and tell the jury, "just believe me."

Neither would God. He is always giving us more and more reasons to believe in Him. He has given us reasons and logic and rationality to have faith in him and he has never asked to follow blindly.

This doesn't mean we'll always understand or have a depth of knowledge in any given situation, but we can have faith in those times because our God has always been faithful and just and he alone is the evidence and reason to believe in those times.

If he didn't give us evidence and assurance then we would never believe the following:

...for He Himself has said, “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you,”
so that we confidently say, “The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid. What will man do to me?”
Hebrews 13:5b-6

When someone asks why you believe, never tell someone to "I just believe" or to "I had to take a leap of faith" because God has never asked you to do so.

Check out this short video on this topic as it gives a great summation in under 4 minutes: Faith vs Reason

HT: Mark at Here I Blog

Read More......

Can God Be Trusted?

I received this book from InterVarsity Press and really had no background to the book or it's author. The full title is "Can God Be Trusted?: Faith and the Challenge of Evil." This was one of the few times where I had no idea what theological convictions were of the author as he wrote. After reading the book, I am still left confused for the most part on his theological convictions on quite a few important orthodoxies.

The author, John Stackhouse, breaks the book down in two parts:

Part I: Problems (This is where evil is discussed)

Part II: Responses

I went back and forth with this book as I read it as to whether or not I would recommend it to anyone. Let me hit some of the strong points in the book and then I will hit some of the weak points.

Some of the strong parts of the book is that Stackhouse does a good job in defining and describing faith. One can tell that he has read some Schaeffer (or at least Schaeffer's sources) on this point, because his thoughts on faith remind me much of what I have read from Schaeffer on faith. Stackhouse does a good job of showing that faith is not a leap, but one that is based on at least some, if not quite a bit of, knowledge of the thing or person one puts faith in.

Stackhouse also does a good job of speaking to those whom the book is probably offered, which is the non-Christian. He speaks to them in their terms, gives respect to other religions where respect is due, and also is very open and honest about the struggles within Christendom. Within this, he also asks some very good questions to those who are non-Christians within the understanding of evil. He actually switches the question at one point to say if we think we can ask, "Why is there so much evil?" we have to also ask the question, "Why is there so much good?" I really enjoyed his discussion on that topic. He does open up some further questions for the skeptic, or the searcher, that they (actually all of us) need to ask at some point to come to an understanding of what we believe and why.

Those are the good points.

As a Christian, there was much to be alarmed at. I really don't know what theological convictions John Stackhouse has at this point. His answer to evil was quite troubling. He said that the reason there is evil was pointed to the fact of free will in all men. At one point saying that God "took a risk when creating humans with free will." This is a big stumbling block for me and this book. I am not sure how a sovereign God, who knows all things can take risks. His basic answer to why there is evil, is simply because of free will. He uses, somewhat, Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense to answer the question how God could be good, all powerful and still have evil exist. Free will in this book is taken as mere fact, with no Scriptural proof at all. The only time that predestination is mentioned is when speaking of the theologies of Calvin and Luther, as though it was their theology that wasn't found in the Bible. This mention lasts only 2 pages. What Stackhouse overlooks is the fact that predestination is mentioned in the Bible where the idea of moral free will is never mentioned apart from Adam and Eve. He continues this thought with the angels in heaven having free will and that is why they fell, and that while in heaven we will all have free will but will only choose good because of all the good before us. The question comes, "Does this mean we can fall like the angels did because of our free will?" The answer has to be yes in Stackhouse's system. Which is completely false. Quite the conundrum, especially when trying to defend that God is all powerful and evil can exist. I am not saying this makes the answer easy, but at least it is biblical.

The above is the one that really had me perplexed and one that made me question the book as a whole, but then it continued in other areas. Stackhouse would sometimes open up a can of worms without defending them but would just say, "a lot of Christians (or theists) believe..." and then leave it. He did this with the following things:

The doctrine of hell being annihilation

Whether the Old Testament should be taken as literally true. At one point saying he is just being candid and then adding, "Doesn't this all sound unbelievable, like a fairy story for kids rather than a serious explanation of reality for adults?"

The Idea of macroevolution being true

He doesn't defend Original Sin, but says that it has been debated historically

It was hard to hear him open up these topics without really commenting on them. He just would say something about them and move on (besides original sin, which he went on to describe a sort of middle ground), leaving the reader confused of why he would mention it in the first place. What then happens is one wonders what Stackhouse's actual convictions are in these areas.

Beyond those things, the things that had me concerned were his positive affirmations. Those were as follows:

His belief that the Protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15) was not really a pronouncement of the gospel, or meant to be understood spiritually at all, but should be taken as simply a curse on the snake. He says that "later interpreters have seen all of this as having to do with spiritual warfare between Satan and humanity, but the text itself is enigmatic. "

He also states that he believes that although the Gospel writers agree on the whole and overarching understanding of who Christ was, that they sometimes vary and contradict each other in some details. Through this we can see that Stackhouse must not believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.

As an added frustration, there are times when Stackhouse seems to defend, or at least acknowledge in part, that Christians, Contemporary Jews and Muslims all worship the same God. This seems to be a case to bring parties into agreement when there are too many lines of separation to do so.

Overall, this book will frustrate many, as it did myself. Just when you think it is getting good, he throws some odd curve ball into the mix that confuses things. I just can't get passed the bad to see the good in recommending this book to people. Although the description of faith and the resurrection are well done, the discussion of God's risk with free will, annihilation, OT kid stories, original sin, macroevolution, the Protoevangelium and the infallibility and inerrancy of God's word puts too much junk into the discussion. I cannot in my right mind recommend this book for reading. There is too much other good reading on the subjects at hand to have to wade through the bad theology in this book to get to the traditional and correct orthodoxy. Not Recommended.
Buy from:

InterVarsity Press

Read More......

On the Incarnation

I was parusing the local "Christian" book store, I put that in quotes because when you have TD Jakes on the shelf one has to wonder where this store draws the line. I am guessing it is drawn on profit margin. Anyways, I found a small book on their "classics" bookshelf by Athanasius. I wanted to pick up this book so that I could read one of the greatest defenders of God incarnate in our history. I have read many quotes by Athanasius and also read some biographies on Athanasius, but I had never taken up the task to read any of his works. I am glad I decided to do so.

On the Incarnation is very well put together and I wish that more people would put together their argumentation for Christ in this way. Athanasius wrote this book sometime probably in his youth in the early 4th century to his friend, new to the faith, named Macarius.

To prove the incarnation of God the Word, Athanasius starts at Creation and the Fall, continues with the Divine dilemma and its solution in the incarnation, the death of Christ, the resurrection and then ends with refuting the Jews and Gentiles.

The letter to his friend is very easily set up and the use of logic as a defense and offense of argumentation is done very well. He not only does this, but also uses the Scriptures (a lot) and external proofs to lay out his argumentation for the incarnation of God through Christ.

I was expecting this read to be very laborious, but the translation is done very well and makes for an easy, yet edifying read. By the time the reader gets to the refutation of the Jews and Gentiles the arguments have been laid out so well that these arguments are not difficult to prove. Although some of these would not hold water now, as Athanasius does employ the fruits of conversion of people as proof. Using this same logic one could point to Mormomism and Islam in the same light. Even with this, the way that he shows these proofs is still very interesting to read and look to as great reminders of what Christ and the Holy Spirit were doing in the early years of Christianity.

What I like most about this book is that I was still able to glean much truth from it even though it was written 1700 years ago. I was able to take a glimpse into life in the 4th century and to see what was happening in early Christianity and watch a messenger of God put forth the great Gospel truths.

This book is still for readers and apologists today and shows why Athanasius was one of the most intelligent and used men of God. Highly Recommended.

Read More......

Apologetics to the Glory of God

This is the first book of John Frame's that I have read and I will have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. It is very well done and covers a lot of ground in a mere 250 pages. Although you can tell that Frame and Schaeffer have a lot in common, the way that they write is thoroughly different. Schaeffer focuses in on showing the historical understanding of thought and then showing the holes and practice of those in the past, while Frame skips all that and goes more general in thought and shows the holes in the thoughts of the atheist, the agnostic and the practical atheist. The former is one who says there is a god but lives like there is none.

I haven't read much of Van Til, but what I have read, I figured that Frame would be a lot like him and give him much praise. While I didn't find the direct opposite in Frame, Frame was very honest when he found Van Til to be lacking and where he found him to be strong. Van Til was known to stay mainly on the defensive and poking holes in the atheist's arguments, but rarely, if ever, went offensive with the atheist. Frame showed both, like Schaeffer did.

Frame's book is technical in parts but also very readable and very enjoyable. He opens up with showing the basics of apologetics and then he goes into showing what the apologist must show while writing or speaking to others. He, like Schaeffer and many others, points to the metaphysical (the study of being), epistimology (the study of knowledge) and ethics.

After giving this lengthy defense, he then shows the gospel as proof and then gives a lengthy answer to the problem of evil. Through this answer he shows that the previous answers to evil, although sometimes helpful, don't really give the final or most thorough answers in of themselves. What he does show is that they almost all have some of the answer, but not the complete answer to the problem of evil. I do like his honest answer in the end to evil though. He simply says that we can give some explanation to evil, but we really don't know the entirety of the answer of why there is evil.

After this section, the final section is devoted to showing why the gospel is true and he does so in a way that I have yet to see. He biblically walks one through the entirety of the Bible to show the problem of man and sin and the redemption of man through Christ. Through this he also dismantles other religions in a few sentences as though they were a mere sidebar to the discussion.

The final chapter is a mock conversation to guide the reader. Admittedly, Frame says this conversation is a bit simplistic and "perfect" in responses from both the defender of the gospel and the opposer. What I found to be helpful in this discussion is that it really served as a conclusion and recap to the entirety of the book.

I truly enjoyed this book and will be one that I continually go to, to aid in my discussions with others that oppose the faith. I will be now picking up some more Frame books to add to my collection and will put him in the top scholars of our era in regards to presuppositional apologetics. I highy recommend this book to any who are looking to answer the tough questions posed by the atheist or seekers of our Saviour. Link to Buy

Read More......

"Jesus" Isn't Enough

One of the things that you have to learn early on in apologetics and evangelism is that you need to have people define their terms. You will notice this most notably with Mormons and even moreso with those who merely label themselves as Christians. I have shown some of this in previous posts which you can read by clicking here.

People love to be included with everyone, especially politicians. Most people that I know believe that because President Bush said he was a Christian and used the name of Jesus, then he must be one. What I find interesting is that now that he has no votes or people to care about, we find out what he means by the term Jesus, salvation and the inerrancy of Scripture. What we actually find is that he actually sounds a lot like McCain and Obama. We must continually ask people to define their terms so that we can understand more fully if they need to be evangelized, exhorted or admonished. This should be our first goal when speaking to people that we don't know, or want to know more about. Defining terms helps immensely. What we found with President Bush is he loved to throw around the term Jesus, but now in the below article find that he really knows very little about him or the written word of God. From my perspective and this is completely arbitrary and just a guess...he used those terms to get votes. And it worked! Who knew that Jesus was that popular?

Jesus is more than a term, He is God incarnate, the eternal One, Whose word stands forever. Not one jot or tittle will be abolished, but fulfilled by the Holy Saviour of the world. Below, in this article you will see that, not only does Bush deny creation, but he denies that Christ is the only way, that God is completely sovereign and that the Bible is literally true. How much are we to allow someone to err before we call them an unbeliever? I wonder if anything will come of this or if the conservative pundit will stand by their man so that mud will not be on their face.

Take a look below at the article and tell me your thoughts.

Bush Says Creation 'Not Incompatible' With Evolution
President says in televised interview the Bible is "probably not" literally true and that a belief God created the world is compatible with the theory of evolution.

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush said his belief that God created the world is not incompatible with the scientific theory of evolution.

In an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on Monday, the president also said he probably is not a literalist when reading the Bible although an individual can learn a great deal from it, including the New Testament teaching that God sent his only son.

Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."

He added, "I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life."

Interviewer Cynthia McFadden asked Bush if the Bible was literally true.

"You know. Probably not. ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son,"' Bush said.

"It is hard for me to justify or prove the mystery of the Almighty in my life," he said. "All I can just tell you is that I got back into religion and I quit drinking shortly thereafter and I asked for help. ... I was a one-step program guy."

The president also said that he prays to the same God as those with different religious beliefs.

"I do believe there is an almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people," Bush said.

When asked whether he thought he would have become president had it not been for his faith, Bush said: "I don't know; it's hard to tell. I do know that I would have been -- I'm pretty confident I would have been a pretty selfish person."

Bush said he is often asked whether he thinks he was chosen by God to be president.

"I just, I can't go there," he said. "I'm not that confident in knowing, you know, the Almighty, to be able to say, Yeah, God wanted me of all the other people."

He also said the decision to go to war in Iraq was not connected to his religious believes.
"I did it based upon the need to protect the American people from harm," Bush said.

"You can't look at the decision to go into Iraq apart from, you know, what happened on Sept. 11. It was not a religious decision," he said. "I don't view this as a war of religion. I view this as a war of good, decent people of all faiths against people who murder innocent people to achieve a political objective."

He said he felt like God was with him as he made big decisions, but that the decisions were his.
"George W. Bush has to make these decisions."

Read More......

Escape from Reason

Francis Schaeffer admits that this small book overlaps much of his book titled The God Who is There. What Schaeffer does in this small treatise is give a glimpse on the impact that Thomas Aquinas had on the thinking about nature and grace. Meaning that before Aquinas much of what was thought about God and the heavenlies were never pictured in any way besides mere symbols. For instance, before Aquinas, Mary and Jesus were never portrayed as real bodies with a physical element, but were only allowed to be pictured using symbols. As well as this, nature held no interest to the artist and were never pictured at all in art in any way. This came from the fact that before Aquinas, to simply climb a mountain for the sake of climbing a mountain had never been done.

Out of this nature started to have more meaning for people, which if taken from a biblical perspective can be good in so far we speak of stewardship, but what we find is that from this time on, nature took on more of a role than Aquinas would have thought.

In the Escape from Reason Schaeffer shows how from the start of Aquinas and the Renaissance nature started to depart from the Scriptural understanding of its place among men. So, art, poetry, theatre, etc. took from this and lead us down the road of being completely autonomous from God, where nature ended up "eating up grace" so that it was completely free from the God who created it and us.

Schaeffer goes to show the history of this thought and then gives the better understanding through the Reformation and the Scriptures. Namely, that the only way that man can be the most free is within the "constraints" of the knowledge given by the personal, communicable triune God of the Christian bible.

Even though much of this was overlapped from The God Who is There, this book was still very worth the read and gives greater understanding of how, from Aquinas on, nature and autonomy took a dangerous turn from the freedom found in God, and turned instead to an autonomy apart from Him. Highly Recommended. Link to Buy

Read More......

The Personal God Gives Us Meaning

I have been reading a lot of Schaeffer these past 3 weeks and am about to finish up my third book by him in that time. I can now see why so many have pointed me to him in the past. He was truly before his time, yet spoke truth to those in his time as well. I want to give another quote of Schaeffer in regards to why the personal God of the Christian gives us meaning, unlike the impersonal god of the deist, or impersonal science in regards to the atheist or secular humanist. This quote comes off the heals of him showing the dilemma of a personal human coming out of an impersonal naturalistic science. Enjoy and have a great weekend.

So now let us think what it means to begin with that which is personal. This is the very opposite of beginning with the impersonal. That which is personal began everything else. In this case man, being personal, does have meaning. This is not abstract. Many of the people who come to L'Abri would not become Christian if we did not discuss in this area. Many would have turned away, saying, "You don't even know the questions." These things are not abstract, but have to do with communicating the Christian gospel in the midst of the twentieth century.

At times I get tired of being asked why I don't just preach the "simple gospel." You have to preach the simple gospel so that it is simple to the person to whom you are talking, or it is no longer simple. The dilemma of modern man is simple: he does not know why man has any meaning. He is lost. Man remains a zero. This is the damnation of our generation, the heart of modern man's problem. But if we begin with a personal and this is the origin of all else, then the personal does have meaning, and man and his aspirations are not meaningless. Man's aspirations to the reality of personality are in line with what was originally there and what has always intrinsically been.

It is the Christian who has the answer at this point - a titanic answer! So why have we as Christians gone on saying the great truths in ways that nobody understands? Why do we keep talking to ourselves, if men are lost and we love them? Man's damnation today is that he can find no meaning for man, but if we begin with the personal beginning we have an absolutely opposite situation. We have the reality of the fact that personality does have meaning because it is not alienated from what has always been , and what is, and what always will be. This is our answer, and with this we have a solution not only to the problem of existence of bare being and its complexity - but also for man's being different, with a personality which distinguishes him from non-man.

We may use an illustration of two valleys. Often in the Swiss Alps there is a valley filled with water and an adjacent valley without water. Surprisingly enough, sometimes the mountains spring leaks, and suddenly the second valley begins to fill up with water. As long as the level of water in the second valley does not rise higher than the level of the water in the first valley, everyone concludes that there is a real possibility that the second lake came from the first. However, if the water in the second valley goes thirty feet higher than the water in the first valley, nobody gives that answer. If we begin with a personal beginning to all things, then we can understand that man's aspiration for personality has a possible answer.

If we begin will less than personality, we must finally reduce personality to the impersonal. The modern scientific world does this in its reductionism, in which the word personality is only the impersonal plus complexity. In the naturalistic scientific world, whether in sociology, psychology or in the natural sciences, a man is reduced to the impersonal plus complexity.

Francis Schaeffer, He is There and He is Not Silent

Read More......

The God Who Is There

This is the first book of Schaeffer's that I have read, and I must say, I am pretty excited to continue to learn from this godly evangelist. In The God Who Is There, Schaeffer weaves in and out of so many philosophical systems and history that it is quite impossible to list it all in a book review. Schaeffer is definitely a classic presuppositional apologist. Meaning that he tries to get the listener or reader to get to the very reason they believe in the certain system that they believe in. He then points out their holes in their arguments and shows how Christianity is the better and most reasonable option there is in philosophical thought. Most of this argument comes from Romans 1:18 where it states,

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

If they suppress the truth, that means that the truth is definitely inside them, as they are made in the image of God, their Creator.

In The God Who Is There, Schaeffer shows how the modern man has woven himself through philosophy, art, music, theatre, movies, etc. After showing how this has been done throughout history, Schaeffer shows that the "leap of faith" does not happen in Christianity, but actually in humanism, or modern atheism. Schaeffer explains it this way:

Of course, faith is needed to become a Christian, but there are two concepts concerning faith. The two ideas of faith run like this: One idea of faith would be a blind leap in the dark. A blind leap in which you believe something with no reason (or no adequate reason), you just believe it. This is what I mean by a blind leap of faith. The other idea of faith, which has no relationship with this, none whatsoever, is that you are asked to believe something and bow before that something on the basis of good and adequate reasons. There is no relationship between those two concepts of faith. The biblical concept of faith is very much the second and not the first. You are not asked to believe in a blind leap of faith. The Bible teaches that there are good and sufficient reasons to know that these things are true. If you examine the ministry of Paul and also of Christ, you find they endlessly answered questions. There was no concept here of "Keep quiet, just believe"; it just does not exist. Paul answered the questions of the non-Jews, he was always answering questions; and the book of Romans certainly answered the questions of those without the Bible as well as of those with it. There are good and sufficient reasons to know that these things are true. We have already with the fact of reality and everybody having to deal with reality; (1) the existence of the universe and its form; (2) the dinstinctiveness of man; (3) you can relate these to a third thing, and that is the examination of the historicity of Scripture Francis Schaeffer

This is what the book aims to answer. Not only does Schaeffer answer these through the understanding of the triune God of historic Christianity, but he shows how humanism, or atheism, cannot fully answer these questions, therefore, they are the ones taking the "blind leap of faith", not Christianity. There is so much in this book that I did not mention, but Schaeffer had a strong conviction that the Christian cannot live in a castle with a moat, but must be among the culture to help answer the question of those that desire to know the answer to the question, "Why are we here?" He resonates much of what I desire to do within the ministries that God has given me and the convictions of my heart.

I very much enjoyed this book and would recommend anyone desiring to take up the challenge to read Schaeffer as well. I do not think that this is the only answer to the understanding of the existence of God, but believe it helps move us all in the right direction. Highly Recommended. Link to Buy

Read More......