Evangelism the Reformed Way

What is evangelism? To many Christians evangelism is what they support through missions. Others feel it is more tangible and must be themselves preaching on a street corner. Still others believe that their lives as lived is another form of evangelism.

Which one is right? Are any right or wrong? Paul says in 2Ti 4:5, "But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry." and Peter says in 1Pe 3:15, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

So we are all required to do the work of evangelist because that is what the Bible says, right? Lifting one verse out of the Bible and using it in such a manner is called proof-texting (I think). And in this case we would be wrong to proof-text in this way. What is the context in which this verse is given?

2 Timothy 4

1I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus
Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove,
rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3For the time
will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts
shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4And they
shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an
evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Paul is giving direction to Pastors not laymen, we should take note of this and then draw out the principle that we are to follow. What is the context that Peter speaks in?

1 Peter 3

8Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as
brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
9Not rendering evil for evil, or
railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto
called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
10For he that will love
life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that
they speak no guile:
11Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek
peace, and ensue it.
12For the eyes of the Lord are over the
righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is
against them that do evil.
13And who is he that will harm you, if ye
be followers of that which is good?
14But and if ye suffer for
righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be
troubled;
15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready
always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that
is in you with meekness and fear:
16Having a good conscience; that,
whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that
falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

This is addressed to all Christians. It appears to me that a cursory view here of these two passages show slight differences in the roles of differing parts of the body. Pastors are called directly, in the tradition of the Apostles, to do the work of an Evangelist and that laymen not neglect this when the opportunity arises. If that is what is being taught in Scripture, then it is wrong for the radical proponents of personal evangelism to condemn those who are not as vocal about their faith.

Here is a good analysis of the modern trend in evangelism: Highly Questionable Methods by Robert Reymond

For more information on Dr. Robert Reymond, see his wiki-bio. He currently shares a Pastoral Ministry at the OPC mission Church plant of Holy Trinity Presbyterian Church.

Calling a Cripple a Cripple

Do you? No. It is acknowledged, but your mother told you not to stare or point. So you don't do it. But what do you do when a non-cripple vies for attention claiming to be crippled and is somehow entitled to special treatment because of it? You heartily dismiss it or give in ushering in a reign of terror. Not an authoritarian night mare mind you, but a psychological and social nightmare. Why do I say that? What happens when you give a mouse a cookie?

Keep this in mind when you read this: House poised to apologize for slavery, Jim Crow

Let the accusations roll. "If you don't support this then you support slavery." I prefer the third option...There are no living freed slaves today to make reparations to, thus no one is deserving of "cash payments" to make themselves feel better about what happened to someone else.

Cash payments? What? The money I work hard for taken from me to give to someone whom I have not wronged. Does this make sense? Why (if they ever make these cash payments) would I be punished for someone else's sins? Public funds should not be spent in such a manner. It is fiscally irresponsible to do so. I am in support of an official apology but making reparations to people only possibly, indirectly affected is a stretch.

The point of the title:

"African-Americans continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow -- long after both systems were formally abolished -- through enormous damage and loss, both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity and liberty, the frustration of careers and professional lives, and the long-term loss of income and opportunity," the resolution states.

This suggests that black Americans descended of slaves are incompetent so they need a crutch (even if it is only an emotional one). As an American I am offended in this being suggested of any of my fellow Americans. The black community should be offended too. I am not black or descended of any slaves that I know of...But if I was, for some reason I think that I would not let that get in the way of my ambitions.

What is Safe to Believe?

I have been reading far too much on the Federal Vision Controversy.

Who should I believe? Well, that is an easy question to answer. Of course, where I am unlearned I should rely on my authorities in the Church at which I am a member. But where my faculties are mature enough I ought to be unmovable, viz. basic Bible teachings.

If what is stated in the blog post "For Those Just Tuning In" is true, then I side against the FV. I will have to go back and re-read my Bible, but I am still convinced of the Reformation Solas. The next thing I need to do is to verify if the FV position obliterates the three covenants (pre-temporal, works, and grace) and if justification (in their understanding) includes "faithfulness." Then I'll need to study the traditional view of justification.

For more information, start here:
For Those Just Tuning in: What is the Federal Vision? (Critical)
Federal Vision (Proponent)
Disputing the Federal Vision

The Real Jesus

If you want to see skepticism in all of its irrational glory check out this forum thread. This is a good starting place for anyone interested in combating the modern revival of Gnostic "Christianity." It is a long read and provides several external links leading to a detailed study (not by me by any means, no time for that right now).

Now I know better where some people are coming from. (Truly from irrationality, but I know the basis for their questions now.)

In another part of the website Jay Rogers presents his scholastic research on The Real Jesus (someday soon I will jump in).

Disbelief of Disbelief

It won't get you there...

It is interesting to me that as we travel through life oftentimes the natural course we take turns out to be the right one. As we start to reason we end up going in the opposite direction. But after a thorough study we find ourselves back on the original course. A parlay with the oppositions of science (falsely so-called). God uses the foolish things to confound the wise (in their own eyes).

Example: Someone is raised a Christian (right course). But he accepts the religion w/o any rational basis for doing so. As he goes through Bible College he loses his faith; not implausible as it is anecdotally referenced. He uses his reason or becomes a skeptic (wrong path). Science and religion appear incompatible and so he rejects religion. But if he keeps honestly studying the issue there may be startling consequences. That genius scientist, Sir Isaac Newton, concluded that a God must exist (right course). Similarly many skeptics have come to a saving knowledge of the truth as a result of their honest study.

The Church is Like a Weed in My Lawn?

I have been weeding my lawn for the last few days and have had some very interesting thoughts because of it. Weeds are resilient, replicative, adaptive, and tenacious amongst other things.

This enumerative list sounds a lot like a description of the Church: In Christ we can do all things (resilient), Make disciples of all nations (replicative), Be all things to all mean that we may win some (adaptive), and Not carried about by every wind of doctrine but holding fast (tenacious).

I have also noticed how that this one particular kind of weed takes on many slightly different appearances, depending on the environment and the stage of its growth. In times of excess watering the weed grows abundantly and yet survives the dry times. When it grows large it begins to divide making it very difficult to uproot. Instead of one weed to pull, in a small area there are more like five weeds to pull.

This got thinking about division in the Church. We are called to have unity but there is something to be said for "precision through division." The Christian faith has been able to aptly compromise within any setting and spread its message through the established order. We may say that this contributes to a "watered-down" Gospel, but God in His perfect understanding has allowed division in the Church. Can we not see how God has even used this to His glory?

The World as [t]he Church

God is the father of us all. He created all men. The world is His footstool. His dominion is overall, but this has yet to be played out in history. And when all kingdoms submit to Him then will the end be.

In a very obtuse way I am going to say that the whole world is [t]he Church. By this I mean that God created all men and that He has called all men unto Himself. This calling all men unto Himself is not some weak desire for all to be saved nor does God feel a consternation that His will shall not be done. On the contrary, His will is already established and declared end to beginning.

I do not deny that there are two different kingdoms at war. But for the sake of discussion I am going to say rather that there is one Church with two different factions. In the one group we have the covenant-keepers and in the other the covenant-breakers.

The covenant-keepers strive always to retain the relationship with God as it was once for all delivered and revealed. The covenant-breakers want nothing to do with God and want to replace Him with another god or even with themselves. They deny Him and by some even His existence. They observe the lives of the covenant-keepers and are convicted (they know that the covenant-keepers follow the way of truth).

In response to having to confront the truth, the covenant-breaking faction fights against the covenant-keepers. They may preach the message of "tolerance" to the covenant-keeper, "don't force your religion down my throat;"but they seek nothing more than the conversion of all covenant-keepers to the covenant-breaking faction's point of view. They do not want to see division in the "Church" any more than we do. Fundamentally the struggle is one of dominion (it is a comforting thing to know that we can rely on His promises).

Conclusion: The preaching of toleration is a tactic. Their strategy is to replace God at every point possible. The goal is dominion. Christian, you now know your enemy. Love thy enemy. And convert him, because he is trying to convert you. Our goal is dominion. Our strategy is to infuse God into every area of life. Our tactic is to preach the whole counsel of God.

Check out a good article by Schlissel.

Thoughts on Liberty

What is freedom? Is there anyone truly free? It is a question of perspective really. I am not talking about determinism and human free will; I am referring instead to ascription of sovereignty.

Sovereignty is an inescapable concept. It is not a question of "sovereignty or no sovereignty?" but of "who is sovereign?". To the religious, God (or a god) is sovereign. To the atheist, man is sovereign. And in turn, in the modern state, the state is sovereign.

So according to this, there is no freedom. Choices may be made however. You may choose to serve God, man, the state or anything else vying for control over you. I prefer to serve a benevolent dictator. Man and the state rarely prove themselves as such therefore I find myself in service to God. Man and the state will not show benevolence. They are extreme, intolerant, and have the insatiable craving to run other men's lives.

Check out the this article. Great Britain will destroy itself due to destroying freedoms...That is, unless heavy intervention takes place to prevent the natural course of society, tampering with men's freedoms to serve God will remove incentive to build a lasting civilization.

Read 1984 and Brave New World. These books show two very different (though not unlike) conceptions of where the ruthlessness of man will lead him when ascribes all sovereignty to himself (or the state by extension).

Conclusion: If you want to be free to serve God you must resist evil in all its forms. Evil in personal piety, evil in public society, evil in the church (the fabric of society) and evil in office over society all must equally be dealt with.

The Role of Family in Society

The church is the institution of positive sanctions while the state beareth the sword. In a child's youth the parents do both. The family functions as a type of church and state until such a time as the child has matured spiritually/religiously and civically.

The church is not a family of families and the state is not either. But to both family is necessary and integral. But this does not make family as such preeminent. That is like saying elementary education is more important than a college education. Both have their place.

Family precedes these two other institutions but there will come a day when a child is liberated, becomes an individual and joins the church and state representing himself. A family represents him when he is young and also administers the sanctions to him. The church nor the state are required by God to raise and train the children He has put here.

Families need to regain the proper role of the family and to not overstep its bounds. Everything written here are simply thoughts not dogma, but these thoughts do merit a place in your contemplations.

Authority

Christ is head of the church.

A man has been instituted by God as head of the household.

Hierarchy is inescapable.

As such superiority is inescapable. Superiority refers not to quality but to hierarchy. As humans we do not like God's hierarchy. We rebel against Him. We do not like human hierarchy either. We rebel against our earthly authorities as well. But God has given to everyone differing roles.

How do we react to superiority?

When an individual acts and thinks himself superior, we call him an egoist. When someone transfers superiority to a corporate entity such as an ethnicity or a political state, we call him a racist or nationalist, respectively. On the other hand, rarely do we experience truly superior people. That is, a truly superior person would not boast in himself but would present himself as meek and unassuming; oftentimes we call this kind of person weak. Little do we know...

The Truth Shall Set You Free; Secular Education Enslaves

The truth shall set you free, not lies. Where is truth to be found? In Scripture to be sure. Is Scripture accredited? Not by any secular agency. The Bible however has been accredited. It is self-accredited, accredited by the Holy Spirit and the spirit which is man and in man.

So the Bible tells us everything? No. You will need extra-Biblical education if you want to know more. So then, I should go to a secularly accredited institution of un-truth? No. To suggest that that is your only option for education versus non-education is a false dilemma.

Here are the options:

1. You choose to attend a secular school.

There are many reasons for this choice. The premier reason is usually lack of knowing a better way. For shame, it is too bad that many Christians send their children to be indoctrinated in institutions that hate God and will remove God from every area of life. The children may not lose their faith but that is all they will be left with when the school gets through with them. They will lose a God-centered perspective of history. They will forget why God created the heavens and the earth. They will accede far too much territory to the enemy to stay below the radar and get good grades. This is not a criticism. They have no choice; the teacher "knows" more than the student.

If they resist intellectually they will live and work in turmoil knowing that lies are being spewed forth daily and few of them will ever be contested in class; there is simply no time for debate. Memorize the "facts" (deny Him once), write it all down on the test (deny Him twice) and pass the course (deny Him thrice); get a good grade and move on to the next course in humanism. Make no mistake they will be influenced. Even for those who resist the lies will be influenced.
The only way to counteract the intellectual atheism of "higher" education is to train your mind in the opposing arguments.

If you are in chemistry or biology, in addition to your course load, read "Darwin's Black Box" or similar books. If you are taking history you may want to get books/audio by Rushdoony or Wilkins or the like. Math is fairly "neutral," just don't listen to what your teacher says about things other than math. Science; know that the modern science is man's present day mythology. Science is savior. Secular humanism is the religion. Modern science is based not on absolutes but on relativity. Quantum theory has stood rational science on its head.

The pitfalls are many and the benefits are few. Think about why you choose this path. There are many wrong reasons for choosing this kind of school.

Get Informed (Required Reading):
Must Your Children Run the Collegiate Gauntlet?
The Dorm-Key Ritual
Running the Collegiate Gauntlet at Age 17
Thought Reform 101

2. You choose to attend a "Christian" school.

This school, while apparently the safe alternative, far too often proves the more dangerous option. Many "Christian" schools simply teach a "baptized" secularism. They concede the point to the secularists removing God from education everywhere it would be important to keep Him. They acknowledge His existence merely as an unproven and crudely held belief. Losing one's faith in a Bible College is no uncommon tragedy. As with anything, evaluate the school yourself. There are good "Christian" schools but they are few. Christ College is one example of a school I would trust to send my children. No others really come to mind (they may be out there though...Geneva College?).

3. You decide not to go to school.

This is a safe decision. You may not be educated to the world's standards, but that is a good thing. Education in America means giving up God and becoming "enlightened." For those who are educated and Christians, they are often stigmatized as being biased and not a respectable authority/source. A Ph.D. is a waste of time and money.

True education doesn't need to be expensive. It will cost something though; motivation. There are public libraries, school libraries, internet, and educational organizations. There are conferences, lectures and simple networking that can be done to garner an above average education. It is there if you want it.

4. You decide to get an education the cheapest way you know how.

Not going to school for the first two years is the first suggestion. CLEP's or AP credits are highly recommended. You may be able to get life experience credit. If you know a lot about the subject from high school or your own studies you may be able to test out of the class. Minor fees are involved in getting college credit for any of these but you will save some money and a lot of time.

Then "attend" class by taking online courses. Behold the power of the internet. You can work from home in your pajamas. You do school work around your own schedule. Again motivation is needed in order to save time and money. With less motivation you will at least save some money. Young people can pay for their own education this way, thereby taking ownership of it. There are hundreds of accredited online schools. The secular learning without the secular influence and pressure of conformity.

I would also suggest Whitefield College. It is non-accredited. You can go at your own pace or you can follow the semester time-line. I am currently registering for my first class at Whitefield. (Note: This is a small educational ministry with few people involved in administration. It took two months for me to get accepted and to begin the process. Don't get impatient if you decide on this school. If you do decide on this school, email me for a phone number you may want. michaelsei@hotmail.com)

Conclusion: I have mentioned nothing about financial aid. That is something you must work out with the school you choose. There are many options. Working to pay your way through college is one of them. In addition there may be other schooling options than those I have mentioned...If so, then they help make my case. You do not have to send your children to a godless institution. If you want them to learn something, have them read a good book. If you want them to learn the arts of the enemy they could even buy a textbook out of a school's bookstore. Do they know how to read and write? Good. Can they write a college level paper? There are books that teach it. Can they write an objective research paper? It is not that difficult to learn. Seriously if you have questions on education email me. michaelsei@hotmail.com I am in school and dealing with all of the humanist propaganda passing for education. I take this issue personal. Don't do it to your children without a clear understanding of what it is that you're trying to accomplish.

More links on education:
Timely Advice to College Students
America's Textbooks and America's Wars
The Self-Serving System of Peer Review
Why the Job Market is Slanted in Favor of College Graduates

Equilibrium in Personal Economy

What is equilibrium as it relates to trade? What is it in relation to a personal economy? Is equilibrium one of the natural economic laws?

Does any person at any particular time have everything he wants? If he is not working to obtain something he wants, I would say he has everything he wants. To "want" something and not work for it is some kind of illusion of want.

Most people say they want to be rich but few truly work to achieve wealth. So what is a person really saying? "I would like to be rich if it was worth my time working for it." That is closer to what they really mean.

Thrift is the key to wealth. No debt (the bad kind), living below your means, and saving the rest is the start to amassing wealth. But it is not enough to have it (i.e. bury it), you must put it to use (i.e. put it in a bank at minimum).

With great risk comes great reward. You must take a reasonable risk to get rich. Combined with thrift even mistakes can be worked through. Oftentimes the rich did not get that way the first venture they tried.

Most people will admit that they are lazy (I have and am trying to reverse the curse of the desire for leisure). So even if some one says they want to be rich their actions will prove if they really want it or it is some unrealistic dream.

A persons "want" has to outweigh the "cost" be it laziness, time or money. If a person has to sacrifice too high a level of either of these he will not make the purchase (i.e. trading time for wealth). Thus that person has saved himself from mis-allocating that resource.

Being that people make decisions in self interest a personal economy reflects a certain idea of equilibrium (not sure if that was what Hayek was getting at but this is how I understand it). Thus people have everything they want, barring those things they are currently working to acquire.

Toleration is the enemy, Moderation is our friend

In my view toleration is the most unchristian ideology at work in the minds and hearts of men. The more I learn about God, the more I realize that He calls us to something resembling moderation not toleration. Moderation accepts no sin, accepts no evil. Toleration, on the other hand permits it.

Moderation: temperance, restraint; the quality of being moderate.
Moderate: not extreme or excessive, balanced; not violent; become less severe, to act as a moderator
Toleration: forbearance, allowing, enduring, or accepting what is not actually approved, act or instance of tolerating
Tolerate: to allow the existence, presence, practice or act of without prohibition or hindrance, permit

If God does not allow toleration of sin personally, how can He allow toleration of sin corporately in His body? Even our society of toleration does not intellectually tolerate Christianity. To be moderate does not mean equivocating. We do not accept sin, but neither do we walk around casting stones either. God wants us to be "moderators" on earth.

Intolerance is an inescapable concept. It is not really a question of tolerance or intolerance. The real antithesis is between those who would tolerate God and those who will not tolerate God. As Christians we need to come to grips with this reality and instead of accepting the false gospel of toleration we should repudiate it. But in our repudiation we need to be moderate.

Balance is the key.

What is more important, the individual or society? If you answer one or the other and take it to its logical conclusion, you will end up in one of two extremist camps: individualism or socialism. As a Christian theist I see a synthesis between the one (individual) and the many (society) based upon the concept of trinity. Neither is more important. They are both (or all) equally important. Both need to be dealt with as such. Laws passed to protect a society need to examine whether it is unduly encroaching upon individual rights. A society that protects individual rights needs to ensure that it does not do so to the detriment of society. The answer as originating from scripture is a multi-perspective view rather than a narrow one. The secular variant we might call the gospel of moderation. Again when I speak of moderation I come from the scriptural viewpoint, and yet it is very acceptable to a secularist when toleration is seen as a misplaced antithesis.

Love the Lord...and Him ONLY shalt thou serve.

What is heaven like? One perspective:

Rewritten & posted by Michaelsei (that's me!) on Helium.com

"We will never have God’s exhaustive knowledge of reality (in my judgment, not even in heaven)." John Frame

If this is true, and I think that it is true, then we will always be ever increasing and never diminishing. How does that feel? In a finite capacity we have felt this.

Have you ever read a good book? It was so great that you could barely put it down; you couldn't wait to pick it up again. And how did you feel when you finished it? "The End." No. "Where's the sequel?"

Then the feeling diminishes. It goes away. We remember the book though.

Have you ever seen a good movie? It is similar to a book, but it only has minutes to build up before it is all over; and usually doesn't quite evoke what a book can.

Have you ever been "in love?" You could not bear to be away from that person. No matter how long you were together it was never enough. You wanted to spend the rest of your life with that person; then you got married. Seriously, not being a cynic, marriage is great but it is hard work (a good marriage is).

What I'm saying is that we are bound by the "constrictions of time." "All good things must come to an end." They do and oftentimes change form. A good book ends with the beginning of the next one. Your romantic interest becomes your lover. But what of heaven? What of God?

It is beholding perfect love; not fully understanding it, but growing in it always. "Let the good 'times' roll." It will be good; it will not end. The good feeling won't go away; ever. That is eternity. Whatever God actually has for us (playing harps, making cloud castles, opening and closing gates for others, living on the 'new earth'); whatever it is, it won't be dull, boring.

God made us and He knows us. Jesus Christ is a man (though He is God). It's gonna' be good.

Growing through the process.

If perfection was required before anything could be done, nothing would be done. But God in His manifold wisdom and grace has elected to work with that which is imperfect, viz. humanity. "Be ye holy as I am holy." God has no priorities. Priorities are required of finite creatures. We do not have the time, stamina, ability, etc to do it all. Thus we prioritize. But what is God's priority? Would He have us achieve internal perfection before attempting to reform the world? Are results more important to God than means? Is orthodoxy more important than orthopraxy?

To all of these statements I give a resounding "NO." I do believe in the importance of orthodoxy, but how can we separate it from God's requirements? This is my perception of a problem in the Reformed movement. The youth are "jumping ship" as they say. Ought we to focus our efforts on the church before trying to reform the world? Some think so, "judgment will begin at the house of God," is true but is it everything?

The more I learn the more I see moderation. "Moderation in everything," even in moderation? Moderation for moderation's sake? Again NO. This ignores the express point of it all. "What does God require of man?" How do we learn what He requires? What does He require? He requires us to live righteously, believe orthodoxy, evangelize the lost, occupy till He comes, be fruitful and multiply, and on and on and on.

I have long championed right thinking over right living as the more important thing. Why did I do this? For one to excuse my own sins because at least I believed the right thing. But Proverbs tells us a different story. Wisdom as defined by the first 8 chapters (this is as far as I got with an in depth look at this concept) is not just right thinking but also right living. Proverbs assumes continuity. What one believes affects the way he lives. "Wisdom is the principal thing." Get wisdom.

So what does God require? Everything. But how are we to prioritize? Let me lend my thoughts here. We will not be perfect. We should not try to achieve perfection before trying to influence this world for God. If we were to try this we would logically end up as hyper-isolationists, if I can say that. We would be ultra-introspective so much so that we would be of no earthly good. We would spend a lifetime of possibly asceticism trying to reach personal holiness without interaction with anyone else. With interaction comes influence. And if you cannot influence until "you are ready" then you will never interact.

You are not required to be perfect before getting married. Some tend to think so. But God gives grace so that we may grow through the process. We live more righteously because of the complementing aspect of relationships; because God makes it work that way to our benefit.

Parents are not required to be perfect before having children or else there would never be any children. But God gives them to us and expects us to grow through the process.

Churches should not isolate and internalize without influencing the world. They should actively seek dominion in all spheres. The church is not perfect but it will grow through the process.

Children should not be excommunicated following their baptism. They should be able to eat with Jesus and grow through the process learning by participating.

I am an advocate for activism; activism in personal lives, activism in the family, the church society.

The fractured and splintered churches and their "pet" doctrines simplify the truth. In many cases several groups understand aspects of what God wants from us. We prioritize not God.

Moralism is not holiness, activism is not righteousness, purism is not perfection. God requires a pure and active moral creature; He demands it all. How we prioritize is seen by our denominational affiliations. How do we encompass all of the correct and complementary views? Whose doctrines and practices are closest to the "truth?"

I do not think the issue is as much about how much we know as it is how we know it. In the garden, Adam and Eve through obedience (i.e. growing through the process) would learn what was good and evil, but they chose differently. What does God require? Obedience; that is what I mean by "everything." God requires perfection of thought, word and deed. But this is a practical impossibility by man. Thus God in His omniscience gave us simple (not easy) instructions: obey!

The PROOF of God's existence...

To introduce this topic let me give a bit of my background.

I was raised in a Christian home. So naturally I became a Christian because I believed everything I was told, right? NO! I believed what my parents taught me was true, but that did not make me a Christian; in fact I resisted it.

In my teen years, as many others do, I was searching for identity. But did I look to Christ first? No. I looked elsewhere. I was particularly interested in mythology. But any thinking person could not accept mythology as true. It cannot be true. There is no basis for morality in mythology (specifically the Greek/Roman types). So I continued searching.

I started looking into other more modern myths such as vampirism, but was quickly dissuaded. I came to the realization that Christianity seems to be the most reason-able religion, but really just based upon my limited experience and introspective reflections. So then I accepted what my parents believed then, right? Have you learned by now that I do not do that. I did not.

I wanted to know if maybe other "Christian" branches had the truth; I looked into Catholicism then the Eastern Orthodox. But I did not find truth there either. This took place when I was about fifteen. I had not found the truth for myself. I believed my parents' faith to be true, so by default I accepted what they believed as true.

In the winter I was seventeen going on eighteen, I had what Christians call a conversion experience. The faith of my father became my own faith. I had finally found the truth. Something awakened inside of me and I yearned so much for the truth of God's Law-Word that I read it every day, every chance that I got.

This is how I came to believe in God. But that is not to say that I have no rational basis for belief in His existence. I do. But as a caveat let me note that no one will become a Christian just because they read what I say and believe in the existence of God. God has to reveal Himself to the individual for them to truly put their faith in Him.

Transcendental Argument for God's Existence*:

There is proof that God exists. But if you expect me to upload a picture of that proof you are severely mistaken as to the nature of the question: "Does God exist?" The proof is not materialistic and it is not empirical. It is philosophical. Now, I am not a trained philosopher, but I will do my best to open up for you the enigma that is the philosophical proof of God's existence.

Normally we argue and debate about things we believe or do not believe, but this proof goes beyond that. In order to deal with the claim of God's existence we call for proof. But in order to provide proof we must first deal with what qualifies as proof. Do you see how you have to keep going backwards until you find the starting point?

So what qualifies for proof? Some might say a miracle or an appearance of God. But is that the only thing that can qualify as proof? To an empiricist or a skeptic, yes. I believe that would be the only thing they would accept as proof. Wait a second, what is up with the "empiricist" or "skeptic" talk? What I am saying is that there are differing philosophical schools of thought; and differing schools have differing criteria on how they arrive at their conclusions. If a "monist" and a "dualist" get into a debate they will most likely "speak past" each other. Why? The reason why communication breaks down is because everything known by a person is interpreted by their understanding. That is to say, your world view affects everything you believe; and people who hold differing world views cannot rationally resolve their disagreements without first dealing with the problems between their world views. What is next?

You have to talk about presuppositions and the pre-conditions of intelligible experience. This is the only way to rationally resolve the differences between world views. The proof of the Christian God is that without Him no other world view makes any sense. Without Him no other world view can rationally sustain an argument as to the origins of laws of logic, scientific laws and laws of morality. No other world view besides the Christian theistic world view can account for these laws in a consistent and internally coherent manner.

As to the laws of logic, the atheist cannot "logically" prove why we must use the laws of logic. As to the laws of science, the atheist cannot prove the basis for scientific laws. As to the question of morality, without God who is the arbiter of right and wrong? They cannot give a reasoned response. Morals are either conventions, stipulated or arbitrary. How then can they be laws?

The Christian theist has answers to these questions. What is the basis of these laws? The laws of logic are a reflection of the thinking of God. Morality is a reflection of the character of God and scientific laws reflect the way in which Gods sustains the creation. How do we know this? God has revealed this to us by His Law-Word.

The Bible reveals to us who God is and what He is all about. Consequently the world reflects this (general revelation). We see this in our everyday experiences. We view the world through our understanding and it logically makes sense because we know God. The atheist views the same world. Surprisingly it makes sense to him too. But the problem is he has borrowed the Christian theistic world view in order to make use of the tools of logic.

The laws of logic do not arise organically from an atheistic perspective and as such they cannot hold to a non-contradictory view of the world. Thus at the root atheism is irrational.

The proof of the existence of God is that without Him you cannot prove anything.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God exists. Believe it. But more than that, seek after Him and I hope and pray that you will find Him to the salvation of your soul.

(Note: I finished this @ 1:00 am and am posting w/o a final proofread. If my argument is incomplete or you simply have a question email me @ michaelsei@hotmail.com)

*Credit goes to Dr Greg Bahnsen for the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (from which I heavily borrowed) and to Cornelius Van Til whose reasoning Bahnsen furthered.