Go here, read what they have to say, and please – help them out.

The resources they offer are INESTIMABLE to apologists, and to the online Christian community.

(HT: Bene Diction

This entry is for the first “Vox Apologia,” a weekly showcase for apologists, and the defense of the Christian faith.

I believe I’ll examine what apologetics is to many churches, and to society – and a bit about where the “common” conceptions are wrong.

The Culture
The common conception, from the “culture’s” view can be summed up as follows:

I’m sorry. Allow me to enter an objection to the term ‘apologist’ as being more pre-judicial than probative. In short, the implications of the term ‘apologist’ implies in common wording that I am allowing for an ‘apology’ for something. Since I have no desire to provide an apology, be it in justification sense or otherwise.

In short. Anybody who asks for my justification that there _is_ a god, and that the Christian types are on the right track in that particular quest, must first provide his own justification or ‘apology’ otherwise.

Until the moment when an ‘Atheist Philosopher’ becomes an ‘Atheist Apologist’ I shall maintain this view. The term is unfairly prejudicial.

Which is a good point. Sort of. It “apologizes” way too much to “common usage”, and not enough to “classical scholarship”, though.

But, even more telling… I read this in a forum signature the other day.

What, is something so bad about Christianity, that you have to apologize for it?

Popular culture really doesn’t know what apologetics is. They don’t know, because they rarely see it. They have bought into the lie that Christianity is something “private”, and that they shouldn’t be “forced” (as if anyone can be “forced to listen to anything…) to hear what someone has to say about it. So, anyone who tells them what Christianity is, that doesn’t match up with the preconceptions they’ve been given, is either intrigued, or appalled by “insensitivity”.

It’s an interesting dilemma. However, that’s not the subject. Forgive me for digressing.
Read the rest of this entry

Well, I suppose now is as good a time as any to pitch some ideas.

Idea #1: “Apologetics Aggregator”
I recently started an aggregator catered specifically towards blogs centering on Apologetics. Mine is the only one currently listed – but please – if you feel like this is something you’re interested in, or something you concentrate on – shoot me an email – rk AT razorskiss DOT net (spam separated). Please list your blog’s title, and it’s RSS url. If you have category-level RSS feeds- please only give me the RSS for the category in which you discuss apologetics. I hope to see you soon.

Idea #2: “Apologetics Symphony”
There is a Best of Me symphony, a “Carnival of the Vanities”, and a “Christian Carnival”. However, I’d like something that could be used as a catalyst to encourage more apologetics-centered work in the blogosphere. I’ve also been talking with Pastor Phil Steiger, of Every Thought Captive, about some collaboration… and other things 😀 What do you think?

Idea #3: “Shade Tree Apologists”
I started a informal group, not too long ago, to counter a tendency I was seeing, on an online gaming forum I debate on, relatively often. The tendency was the same one that we see in our mainstream culture:
1. To marginalize Christianity, or to attempt to debase it.
2. To use out of context Scripture references to somehow “debunk” scriptural arguments used against social and moral issues.
3. To completely misunderstand both the goal, and the motive behind any sort of apologetic defense of Scriptural mandates.

So, out of the members on that forum, and a blogging friend of mine, from my old blogging community, I began a rough, informal “alliance”, which I called the “Shade Tree Apologists.” (You can look at what I’ve done thus far in the preceding link – or, by going to the main page of my site, and scrolling down just a bit on the left. You can find archives of my prior debates, reference tools and sites, and various articles.) In essence, it’s an “alliance”, a reference library, and a way to “encourage one another”, as we are called to do. I’d like to invite anyone, after prayerful consideration to help me build on it, and expand it into the blogosphere.

I’ve been inspired to do the above, to a considerable extent, by Joe Carter, and his Evangelical Outpost, as well as Adrian Warnock, and his work over at his blog.

That’s pretty much it. I’ve felt a strong burden for this for quite some time, and this is the chief reason I built this blog. So, comments, advice, and assistance would be greatly appreciated!

Phil from Every Thought Captive is back, with Part #2: The Turn to Community.

In navigating the transition between a Modern culture influenced by the Enlightenment and the Postmodern culture influenced by a deconstruction of the Enlightenment, the topic of Christian apologetics has come up in some circles as something which is up for grabs. It should not be too hard to find an Emergent or pomo writer who asks whether apologetics are still necessary, and more often than not the answer is that apologetics, as they are traditionally understood, are dead and outdated.

Excellent, excellent series. I suggest you go read it.

Every Thought Captive has an interesting topic – and, it seems to be right up my alley.

My basic thesis is that the first reason is an important cultural observation which should help us understand what kind of role apologetics will play in our world today, but that the second reason is, well, basically hogwash. In a short series of posts I want to argue that apologetics are still necessary, and will always be a necessary part of the life of the Christian disciple but that the cultural observation made above will guide us in our understanding about what is important about apologetics today. In short, apologetics are still a necessary and important part of the Church, but it may take on a slightly different face that it has in the past century.

Head on over, and take a look.

Part I – Relative.
———————————————-
Pro:
“Art, like morality, consists in drawing a line somewhere.” – G.K. Chesterton

Con:

“What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like and immorality is what they dislike.” – Alfred Whitehead

———————————————–

Objective:
———————————————–
In C.S. Lewis’ book, Mere Christianity, he explores the logical thought processes used to establish the foundation for Christianity, and provides several analogies which are useful to explain the principles on which the Biblical concepts of morality are based. I’d like to quote a short excerpt.

 Quote:

Every one has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very mportant from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this: “How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?”–“That’s my seat, I was there first”–“Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm”–“Why should you shove in first?”–“Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine”–“Come on, you promised.” People say things like that every day, educated people, as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects[ the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: “To hell with your standard.” Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have.

Now, what we have just seen, is an analogy. It is not a statement of absolute proof, which demolishes all arguments to the contrary. However, it points out something which, if you claim to be a thinking, reasoning being, you may have thought about, or need to think about.

If you say something is “wrong” – why do you say that? If you say something is “wrong” – where did you just get that standard? Some in the atheist camp – namely, Michael Martin – believe that it is possible to be an atheist, and an objective moralist. More power to them. I wonder, though – what standards, precisely, do they set as the
object? We’re getting ahead of ourselves, though.
—————————————
Pro:

“Morality is always the product of terror; its chains and strait-waistcoats are fashioned by those who dare not trust others, because they dare not trust themselves, to walk in liberty.” – Aldous Huxley

Con:
“There is only one morality, as there is only one geometry.” – Voltaire
—————————————
Subjective:
—————————————
Perhaps the most famous proponent of subjective morality was Pythagoras, who said “Humans are the measure of all things.”

(For the record, the terms “subjective”, and “relative”, for the purposes of this short essay, will be considered interchangeable.)

Subjective morality was defined quite succinctly by B.W. Van Norden in a recent paper of his. So, I’m going to quote it for you.

 Quote:

Speaking at the most general level, relativism is the doctrine that a claim is true or false only in relation to some particular viewpoint or perspective. Specific kinds of relativism may be distinguished according to (1) which kinds of claims the doctrine of relativism applies to, and (2) which viewpoint or perspective these claims are relative to.

Relativism applied to ethical claims is called, sensibly enough, “ethical relativism. Ethical relativism is the doctrine that all ethical claims are true or false only in relation to some particular viewpoint or perspective.

Source.

There is also cultural subjectivism, but that’s another issue.

Basically, the crux of the argument converges at one point: That there is no absolute standard for right and wrong: Except that there is no absolute standard for right and wrong.

Now, if you’re a quick study, you’ll immediately see the paradox implicit in that statement.

Now, we’ll look, a bit, at the problematical aspects of this philosophical worldview.

1. If there is no standard, how do we presume to create, enforce, or quantify law?

2. If standards differ with each individual, who are we to say anything when someone commits an act contrary to our standards?

3. If standards are relative to each other, on what scale, or measure, do we say that they are relative to each other?

—————————————–
Pro:
“Man was destined for society. His morality therefore was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right & wrong merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his nature as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, & not the {to kalon}, truth, &c. as fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree.” – Thomas Jefferson

Con:
“Morals are an acquirement – like music, like a foreign language, like piety, poker, paralysis – no man is born with them.” – Mark Twain

—————————————–
Objective:
—————————————–

C.S. Lewis goes on to speak about the foundation of moral law, and the principles inherent in moral law.

 Quote:

There are two ways in which the human machine goes wrong. One is when human individuals drift apart from one another, or else collide with one another and do one another damage, by cheating or bullying. The other is when things go wrong inside the individual–when the different parts of him (his different faculties and desires and so on) either drift apart or interfere with one another. You can get the idea . . . if you think of us as a fleet of ships sailing in formation. The voyage will be a success only, in the first place, if the ships do not collide and get in one another’s way; and secondly, if each ship is seaworthy and has her engines in good order. As a matter of fact, you cannot have either of these two things without the other. If the ships keep on having collisions they will not remain seaworthy very long. On the other hand, if their steering gears are out of order they will not be able to avoid collisions.

“But there is one thing we have not yet taken into account. We have not asked where the fleet is trying to get to. . . . And however well the fleet sailed, its voyage would be a failure if it were meant to reach New York and actually arrived at Calcutta.

“Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonizing the thing inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for? What course the whole fleet ought to be on? . . .

So, if we have established that Christian morality is concerned with these three things, what is the logical conclusion?

1. Right and wrong is determined on an objective basis. There is an outside determination of such principles, apart from subjective experience. Atheists claim that this trait “evolved”. Christians claim that this trait is called “conscience”, and is an inborn, spiritual part of every human being, which reveals the existence of absolute morality in creation. (Romans 2:14-17)

2. Morality is implicit in human consciousness. Everyone knows, in themselves, the basis of right and wrong. Those who know what is right, and don’t do it – are wrong. (James 1:17)

3. There is also a true and legitimate, objective basis for absolute truth: God, who gave it to us, and will hold us to account for our adherence to His standard.

Such a standard necessarily transcends the world of description. It presupposes that God exists and has spoken, or revealed such standards. The true absolute contends that the Creator of man AND nature has given such values that are commensurate with the way He made us and appropriate to people’s problems and aspirations.

Thus, in painfully short form, we have the Christian foundation for objective truth.
——————————————-

Now, we arrive at the heart of the problem.

When we look at today’s society, and we think; “What are the issues Evangelicals care about?”

This subject will come to mind. Not immediately, and maybe not even until a thorough discussion of the issues reveal it. However, this core issue is at the heart of much of the debate raging around the country.

Evangelicals, I find it safe to say, believe that there is one, over-arching, absolute Truth. With a capital T. The only Truth is that which comes from God. When we apply that to morality, we have an absolute statement to make. That statement reads as follows, in my own words:

—————————-
While we do not deny that there are elements of truth in most religions, we must, and we shall, reject any self-styled “truth” which contradicts the moral law, and the moral standards set forth in Scripture, which we believe to be the literal, inspired Word of God. To do anything other is a dangerous ignorance at best, and outright rebellion, at worst. While the world may be deceived by claims to truth, we must not, and cannot, cease to proclaim, and to advance, the Truth set forth in Scripture. To cease to so is spiritual, societal, and moral suicide.

We recognize that certain religions all have a kernel of truth, somewhere in their practices, and doctrines – otherwise, no one would ascribe to them. Men recognize truth, as it is in their nature to do so. However, the lies which are most convincing, are those which contain an element of truth, yet are deceitful, at their core. To sacrifice our devotion to the Truth, and to the Author of Truth, at the altar of “tolerance” is neither beneficial, nor sane. While we can respect that the proponent of a certain viewpoint holds that viewpoint, intellectual honesty, as well as spiritual honesty, demands that we challenge that viewpoint. Reserving our right to challenge the factual, doctrinal, philosophical, spiritual, and moral tenets of faiths we consider to be erroneous is not only crucial – it is the basic foundation for our beliefs. Wherever any faith, creed, or belief diverges from Christianity, it is wrong. Christianity is no more tolerant of untruth, illogic, unsound beliefs, or spiritual danger than nature is tolerant of defiance of gravity.

————-
C.S. Lewis puts it best, yet again:

 Quote:

I have been asked to tell you what Christians believe, and I am going to begin by telling you one thing that Christians do not need to believe. If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole word is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest one, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic- there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong: but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others.

…

If you do not take the distinction between good and bad very seriously, then it is easy to say that anything you find in this world is a part of God. But, of course, if you think some things really bad, and God really good, then you cannot talk like that. You must believe that God is separate from the world and that some of the things we see in it are contrary to His will. Confronted with a cancer or a slum the Pantheist can say, ‘If you could only see it from the divine point of view, you would realize that this also is God.’ The Christian replies. ‘Don’t talk damned nonsense.’ For Christianity is a fighting religion. It thinks God made the world–that space and time, heat and cold, and all the colours and tastes, and all the animals and vegetables, are things that God ‘made up out of His head’ as a man makes up a story. But it also thinks that a great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God insists, and insists very loudly, on putting them right again

This is why Christians are often, even justly, called “intolerant”. We don’t tolerate nonsense, we don’t tolerate lies told in place of truth, and we don’t tolerate being told that “there is no real truth”.

A Roman governor once answered something similar to Jesus.

However, it was in reply to this statement:

 Quote:

You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.

This is also why, without fail, an evangelical, when given the opportunity to explain Christianity, will do so.

“Evangelical” refers to a very specific thing: “Evangel.” comes from Greek euangelion, “good news”. Also known as “The gospel”. (also a translation of the Greek “euangelion”.) And, as a little known fact… the word “angel” means “messenger”. It can be traced back to the word “angelos” – a very close relation to the word above. Angels, in the Bible, were almost exclusively used as messengers for God, to man.

Our passion, and our central focus, is on the spread, and dissemination, of that “good news” – the account of God, becoming man, dying on a cross in place of us, in order to save us from our fall into sin and death. Most importantly, rising from the dead, on the third day, to show us both His power, and His plan for us.

So yes – a world without absolute truth precludes a need for the Truth of the Good News.

A word without absolute truth, is a world without meaning. A world where you cease to exist, for all eternity, when you die. Such a world is not only logically inconsistent – but a horrible thought to contemplate.

————————————–
Part II – Relevance.

—————————–
Whew.

So, now that we’ve addressed the logical instabilities inherent in subjective/relative morals – now, it’s time to address why, despite the fallacies inherent in them – they are used.

——————————
In Francis Schaeffer’s book, “The Christian Manifesto”, he lays out the counter-claims to “The Humanist Manifesto”.

So, before we delve into Schaeffer, we’ll examine this Humanist “manifesto”.

 Quote:

Today man’s larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man’s religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of “new thought”.

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation — all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion.

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a ooperative effort to promote social well-being.

TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in
order to function effectively in the modern world.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the echniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

Wow. If you examine this document thoroughly, you will find that this, in a nutshell, is the root of current secular thought.

We shall also find, if we examine the successor to the original Humanist manifesto (which was penned in 1933), the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), that we find not only the root – but the absolute foundation for subjective morality.

Read the following statement, from the second “manifesto”.

 Quote:

We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest.

Note the phrase I bolded above.

Now, a short explanation is in order. The term “situational” ethics refers to a school of thought that is very similar to subjective morality. In fact, it is, more or less, the same thing. You can read up on it Here, should you wish. I’ll define it for us, though. Situation ethics, as defined by dictionary.com, is “a system of ethics that evaluates acts in light of their situational context rather than by the application of moral absolutes.” Ok? Now, doesn’t that sound familiar?

So, according to this definition, morality is fluid, and not defined by any set standard – only by context, or the situation.

I know that I didn’t really need to define that, but I hate leaving undefined terms out there when I’ll be leaning heavily on them.

SO. We’ve seen what humanism believes, as it pertains to morality. Now Let’s look at how it views religion… and what religion it seeks to create. Yes, humanism, within the humanist manifesto, seeks to create a religion, based on the assumption that humanity’s place in the world as preeminent.

Note also, the following.

1. The universe was not created.

2. “Continuous process”, as I understand this statement, is endorsing evolution.

3. The mind and the body are one – there is no spirit.

4. Religion is an evolved, natural process.

5. The supernatural does not exist. The only reality is that posed by scientific inquiry – thus, materialism.

6. Everything which came before is no longer valid, as pertains to religion.

7. Religion is human-centric, not God-centric.

8. There is no life after death. All of existence is our mortal lives.

9. Religion is “heightened self” and “social well-being”.

10. Religion, thus, has no ties to the supernatural.

11. Religion focuses on “reality”, and discourages “sentimentality”.

12. Religious aims constitute furtherance of “satisfaction”

13. Religion exists to “fulfill” human life

14. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world. (Communism? :D)

15. Humanism seeks to promote “life”, by moral principles.

Whew. Now, as much as I would really, really like to answer each point from the Christian perspective… I won’t. That is a different subject entirely, and not within the scope of this discussion. However, I will ask you to note, that these tenets line up, very closely, with the direction and intention of modern-day thought,
and morality.

“I’m not a subjective moralist!” I can hear some of you saying this right now. Well, let me ask you this. If your morality is not founded on Biblical principles, but upon something else – what is that “something”? Your own perceptions of morality? Well, what is there to keep you from changing those views? If you DO change them – is it not subject to your own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs on the matter?

What external basis do you compare your own standards to, and thus achieve “objective” morality? The “social” morality? Well… if it founded upon the collective viewpoints of many – what is to keep _that_ from changing? What objective, set apart standard of morality do you adhere to? Is it unchanging? Is it unchangeable? I ask you… is it, in fact, objective, then? I prefer not to call it “objective morality, actually. Objective will bring to mind an object. A physical entity – which can be affected by other physical entities. An object can be moved.. In the deepest sense, objective morality is no more absolute than subjective. Absolute morality is the more correct term. Upon what absolute is your morality founded?

————————————

Francis Schaeffer is considered, by many (and rightfully so) to be the foremost Christian philosopher of the 20th century. He cuts incisively through the fluff that surrounds the penetrating political, moral and spiritual questions we face today. His insight is incredible. if you want to know – truly know what Christianity is, intellectually – read this man’s writing.

 Quote:

The word Humanism should be carefully defined. We should not just use it as a flag, or what younger people might call a “buzz” word. We must understand what we are talking about when we use the word Humanism. Humanism means that the man is the measure of all things. Man is the measure of all things. If this other final reality of material or energy shaped by pure chance is the final reality, it gives no meaning to life. It gives no value system. It gives no basis for law, and therefore, in this case, man must be the measure of all things. So, Humanism properly defined, in contrast, let us say, to the humanities or humanitarianism, (which is something entirely different and which Christians should be in favor of) being the measure of all things, comes naturally, mathematically, inevitably, certainly. If indeed the final reality is silent about these values, then man must generate them from himself.

So. If we do not get our values from an outside source…(God) they must come from ourselves. This, my friends, is the absolute, unequivocally real conclusion we must draw! Be it collective, personal, or “internal” (conscience), this is where they must be derived. Can we, with any sort of truth, define such a view as “objective” truth?

Furthermore, those of you who reject the Bible as literal, absolute truth, yet call it “moral teaching” – are we not siding with the humanists, by interpreting for ourselves that which is right? By picking and choosing for yourselves which truths to accept, and which to reject – are you not simply “borrowing” your own “truth”, while rejecting that which does not “suit” you? in what possible way does such a “morality” lend itself to absolutes – if you reject whatever you decide?

There are two beliefs: Absolutism, and Subjectivism, at heart. Everything which does not fit into “absolutism” is simply a different form of Subjectivism – somewhere on the “sliding scale” we try to call “Objective”, as if by fixing a certain point on that sliding rule, we can ignore the metrics by which that slide rule is divided. Or the fact that such metrics exist!

 Quote:

But it is not only that man must start from himself in the area of knowledge and learning, but any value system must come arbitrarily from man himself by arbitrary choice. More frightening still, in our country, at our own moment of history, is the fact that any basis of law then becomes arbitrary — merely certain people making decisions as to what is for the good of society at the given moment.

Now this is the real reason for the breakdown in morals in our country.
It’s the real reason for the breakdown in values in our country, and it is the reason that our Supreme Court now functions so thoroughly upon the fact of arbitrary law.

They have no basis for law that is fixed, therefore, like the young person who decides to live hedonistically upon their own chosen arbitrary values, society is now doing the same thing legally. Certain few people come together and decide what they arbitrarily believe is for the good of society at the given moment, and that becomes law.

The world view that the final reality is only material or energy shaped by pure chance, inevitably, (that’s the next word I would bring to you ) mathematically — with mathematical certainty — brings forth all these other results which are in our country and in our society which have led to the breakdown in the country — in society — and which are its present sorrows. So, if you hold this other world view, you must realize that it is inevitable that we will come to the very sorrows of relativity and all these other things that are so represented in our country at this moment of history.

Truth is objective, you say? Tell me this. Why does the same clause in the Constitution – namely, the “establishment” clause, mean one thing, up until this century – and now mean it’s exact opposite today? The answer?

Subjectivism. The word “establishment” means the exact same thing, when it was penned as part of the Bill of Rights, as it does today. The meaning, the intent, and even the definitions of words themselves have been twisted into ten kinds of pretzels to attempt to “justify” the “new” intent, without the inconvenience of actually changing the words themselves!

THAT is what moral relativism brings you to. You can lie to others, you can lie to yourself. If you are told a lie enough times, you may even believe it to be true. If you lie to yourself enough, you may end up thinking of yourself as truthful – by your own lights! This, however, does not negate the central issue: When absolutes no longer hold sway, there is no fixed system of morality. Unless you are willing to say this is so, and thus, is always true, at all times – and have some external reference to keep that standard unchanging… you are, in fact, a proponent of subjective morality.

Try to call it “social morality”. Society is the objective reference! Society is in a constant state of flux. If you count on society to provide your “objective reference”, you are up the creek, without a paddle.

 Quote:

It should be noticed that this new dominant world view is a view which is exactly opposite from that of the founding fathers of this country. Now, not all the founding fathers were individually, personally, Christians. That certainly is true. But, nevertheless, they founded the country on the base that there is a God who is the Creator (now I come to the next central phrase) who gave the inalienable rights.

We must understand something very thoroughly. If society — if the state gives the rights, it can take them away — they’re not inalienable. If the states give the rights, they can change them and manipulate them. But this was not the view of the founding fathers of this country. They believed, although not all of them were individual Christians, that there was a Creator and that this Creator gave the inalienable rights — this upon which our country was founded and which has given us the freedoms which we still have — even the freedoms which are being used now to destroy the freedoms.

The reason that these freedoms were there is because they believed there was somebody who gave the inalienable rights. But if we have the view that the final reality is material or energy which has existed forever in some form, we must understand that this view never, never, never would have given the rights which we now know and which, unhappily, I say to you (those of you who are Christians) that too often you take all too much for granted. You forget that the freedoms which we have in northern Europe after the Reformation (and the United States is an extension of that, as would be Australia or Canada, New Zealand, etc.) are absolutely unique in the world.

What does the Declaration of Independence say?

Tell me. Read it. Please tell me what, exactly, is the intent of the people who wrote it. The person who was a Deist wrote this. Not even a Christian, but a Deist!

 Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Oh, please tell me how that can be misconstrued! If not the Creator, [i]WHO gave us these “unalienable” rights!

Tell me! Society? We’ve already discussed that! The State? The State giveth, the State can taketh away! Individuals? How does a “right” granted by an individual constitute an inalienable right?

THIS is the central, absolute problem facing us. If not God, WHO!

Who!

If God does not give us morality – if God is dead, as Nietzsche claims… then who defines morality? Us? Then, good sir – kindly explain how “objective” your morality is. How absolute your morality is. Then, good sir, kindly explain how your conception of morality, when it impinges mine, is any more correct. Or how any “morality” can even conceive itself correct, even in self-deceit, if, by definition, it is no more “correct” than that of anyone else.

Oh, and while you are at it – explain the source of our inalienable rights, if not defined by the state, or society.

 Quote:

Now we have turned it over and we have put it on its head and what we must do is absolutely insist that we return to what the First Amendment meant in the first place — not that religion can’t have an influence into society and into the state — not that. But we must insist that there’s a freedom that the First Amendment really gave. Now with this we must emphasize, and I said it, but let me say it again, we do not want a theocracy! I personally am opposed to a theocracy. On this side of the New Testament I do not believe there is a place for a theocracy until Jesus the King comes back. But that’s a very different thing while saying clearly we are not in favor of a theocracy in name or in fact, from where we are now, where all religious influence is shut out of the processes of the state and the public schools. We are only asking for one thing. We are asking for the freedom that the First
Amendment guaranteed. That’s what we should be standing for.

Interpretation is just a fancy way of saying “change the meaning.”

Do not – I repeat, do not, equivocate. If you are saying no external standard for morality exists, you are, in effect, saying that you are the basis, and the judge, of right, and wrong. This is, and we have demonstratively shown it to be, the very heart of subjective morality. We have also shown that a “pick and choose” version of “absolute”
morality is nothing but a flimsy attempt to play bait and switch with Truth.

Truth either is, or is not, absolute. The moment you say it is otherwise, you begin the path of “subjective” truth. Until we reverse our course, our destination lies fully along the path of the humanist manifesto.

So, along with Mr. Schaeffer, I present to you the Christian Manifesto:
God is God, and we are not. Thus, our standards can only be measured by the yardstick of His eternal truth. To do otherwise is folly.

~Finis
———————————————————-
Further Discussion: Mektek’s Political @ Religious Debate forums

Quote:

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.”

– Isaiah 55:8-9

You’re right – God doesn’t see things like we do. He’s God. The only
yardstick he uses is “guilty”, or “not guilty”. So really, by
categorizing one sin as worse than another, we’re guilty of the same
thing we profess when calling someone on saying “a lie is not as bad as
murder” – which is untrue. That was a very perceptive statement, and I
thank you for pointing that out. I needed to hear it.

However, Jesus also said this, while He was surrounded by a crowd of
children, as they listened to the Son of God Himself teach them:

Quote:

But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to
stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his
neck, and he were thrown into the sea.

– Mark 9:42

So, in another way, Jesus gave perhaps one of the strongest warnings in
all the Bible to those who think to prey on children. So, there’s a
case for both, but again, I appreciate you pointing that out.

God, however, the more I learn of Him, confounds my mind more and more. Which is as it should be.

A couple thoughts on God, since I’m writing.

Quote:

Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, And how small a whisper we
hear of Him! But the thunder of His power who can understand?”

– Job 26:14

God is awesome. To this same man, who God held up as an example of a
righteous follower, He replied to Job’s simple question, amounting to
“why is this happening to me” – with 64 questions of his own. These
questions were rhetorical, and amounted to one cosmically massive
answer – “because I am God – and you are not! Do you trust me to do
well by you, or not?”

Job’s answer, like the answer we all will give one day, was this – He could give no other:

Quote:

Then Job answered the LORD and said, “I know that You can do all
things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that
hides counsel without knowledge?’ “Therefore I have declared that which
I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not
know.” ‘Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct
me.’ “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye
sees You; Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes.”

God is sovereign.

The same God who will judge creation, and all that is in it has also
promised life – life without end, life without limit, or sorrow, or
hurt – to those who believe Him.

This same God, who will one day “tread the wine press of the fierce
wrath of God, the Almighty”, comes this poetically beautiful statement,
for our comfort, and to give us peace.

Quote:

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down
from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow
of turning.

– James 1:17

What in the world is a Nazarite Vow, you might ask?

Quote:

Naz”a*rite, n.
A Jew bound by a vow to leave the hair uncut, to abstain from
wine and strong drink, and to practice extraordinary purity

of life and devotion, the obligation being for life, or for a
certain time. The word is also used adjectively.

Additionally, they are prohibited from any contact with a dead body.

The word used for “Nazarite” is based upon the Hebrew verb “rzn”, transliterated as “Nazar”, which means “to dedicate, consecrate, separate”. It is commonly used to indicate that someone is living as a Nazarite.

Further, another form (noun) is the Hebrew “ryzn”, transliterated as “Naziyr” – this form means “consecrated or devoted one” – interestingly, it also means “untrimmed”, as in a vine.

Who were Nazarites, in the Bible?

The first one mentioned in the Bible is the famous Samson, the Judge. His story can be found in Judges 13-16..

Samson was a Nazarite from birth. You can read more about his life, and
his story above – in fact, I’d suggest it. It’s a very interesting
story. He’s the Superman of the Bible – but that never helped him, when
it came to doing the right thing.

The second Biblical Nazarite was Samuel, the first Prophet. He also was
consecrated from birth. He was the last Judge, and crowned Israel’s
first earthly king. He was raised by a priest, and was conceived due to
the prayers of his mother, who promised to give him to God, should she
bear a child. Samuel is also, incidentally, the only person (besides
Jesus, of course) in the Bible to visit the world again after his own
death.

To read about Samuel… read the books 1st Samuel, and 2nd Samuel.

The third Biblical Nazarite was John the Baptist, of whom Jesus said
“Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than
John the Baptist”. High praise indeed, coming from the Son of God! John
was also consecrated from birth. He was born to a priest – and he was
Jesus’ cousin. John was the promised forerunner of the Messiah, who
pointed all toward Him. John baptized Jesus. In short, this was one
awesome guy. A bit odd, though. He wore camel-hair clothes, ate only
locusts and honey, and lived out in the desert! His favorite sermon was
“Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand!”.

That’s all well and good, but so what?

The Nazarite Vow, like many other things in the Bible, was a
foreshadowing of the decision required to become a New Testament
disciple. Don’t get the connection? Let me explain.

Did you know the Nazarite Vow is explicitly mentioned, and detailed in the book of Numbers?

1. A Nazarite can “eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk” (v. 4)

2. A Nazarite cannot let a “razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled” (v.5)

3. A Nazarite, during the days of his separation, “shall come at no dead body” (v.6)

Ok? What’s that have to do with anything?

What did Jesus tell his disciples, when He called them to follow Him?
The recurring principle was “sacrifice”. He told every single disciple
to give up their livelihoods, and follow Him! All 12 did. The decision to follow Christ is, at it’s very essence, a vow. Every Biblical vow to God, in order to underscore it’s importance, involves sacrifice.

As Ecclesiastes says:

Quote:

“When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou vowest.”

God takes vows seriously.

The first component of the vow:
Sacrifice.

Wine, in the Bible, is a symbol of joy – like most things that are
good, to be a child of God requires sacrifice. In this case, the
sacrifice is of joy.

“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself” (Luke 9:23)

The second component of the vow:
Shame.

Long hair on a man indicates shame, in the Bible. Also, imagine, an
entire LIFETIME without a haircut? You’d look very, very unkempt. Very,
very long hair… like, dragging the ground. Imagine how different
someone like that would look. Back in the day, the “older generation”
looked askance at “the hippies”, due to their long hair, and generally
unkempt appearance. Just IMAGINE an entire lifetime of that – and worse!

The third component of the vow:

Separation from death.

Remember, the whole world is dead, in its sin. We were cursed with
death, in repayment for our sins. A Nazarite vows to wholly exempt
himself from every contact with death. It is not their concern.

Remember this?
“Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead” (Matthew 8:22)

Conclusion:

The Nazarite vow was yet another way for God to point us toward the
correct way to Himself. The Bible is absolutely chock full of types,
illustrations, examples, and directions – all of which are designed to
point us directly at the face of God. All 3 lifetime Nazarites were
extraordinary people. One was the strongest man who ever lived, a
Judge, and singlehandedly defended his entire nation from another. The
next was a Judge, annointed the first King of Israel, and spoke
directly with God. The third, as we said earlier, was called the
greatest man ever born of a woman. A very impressive record, wouldn’t
you say?

Something to close with, though.

Directly after Jesus’ glowing recommendation of John, he added something we should pay close, close attention to.

“Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. – Matthew 11:11.

Catch that? If you are a child of the King, you are already greater
than the most righteous man ever born of a woman. That’s saying
something, when God took two previous prophets of His directly to Heaven, without dying, because they were so righteous. Why are we greater?

Quote:

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the
Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our
Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs
according to the hope of eternal life – Titus 3:5-7

The Nazarite vow is just a big sign, pointing to future discipleship,
and explaining it’s principles. That doesn’t mean, however, that it
isn’t important, or a worthy topic of study. Everything in scripture is
designed to point us toward God. This is no exception.

Atheism

Definition:
Dictionary.com

Quote:

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Language origin: Greek

“a” (negative, negator) – “theos” (god) = “No God”

Antithesis:

Theism – Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. (Dictionary.com)

Self-definitions

* “An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god.”
* “An atheist lacks belief in a god.”
* “An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all.”
* “An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry.”
* “An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas.”

Reasons:

1. Lack of Evidence

Example:

The supporting evidence isn’t good enough for him to affirm God’s existence. (agnostic?)

2. Illogical

Example:

Says there is evidence contrary to God’s existence.

3. Non-Issue

Example:

Lack belief in God the way they lack belief in invisible space snails in orbit around Saturn.

Common Presuppositions

(NOTE – NOT universally adopted. The ONLY common belief is a belief that God does not exist.)

1. There is no God or devil.
2. There is no supernatural realm.
3. Miracles cannot occur.
4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God’s will.
5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.
6. Man is material.

7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.
8. Ethics and morals are relative

Example Argument

God is supposed to be all good and all powerful. Evil and suffering exist in the world. If God is all good he would not want evil and suffering to exist. If He is all powerful then He is able to remove all evil and suffering. Since evil and suffering exist, God is either not all good (which means he is not perfect and not God), or he is not all powerful (and limited in abilities and scope). Since either case shows God is not all good and powerful, then He does not exist.

Mission: Prove a negative, absolute statement
—————————————————— —————————————————————– —–

Your mission, should you choose to accept it – is to state that there is absolutely no god, and that the concept of god is absolutely false -then, to provethis statement: NO GOD =1

First, we have to make a couple definitions. A CANNOT be A and NOT A, at the same time.

To say there is NO God is an absolute statement. So, if you say that there is NO God, No God = NOT A. If you say that there IS a God, God = A. A cannot be A, and NOT A at the same time, remember. So, the mission is to prove that A =/= A – but A = NOT A.

If A = god, and NOT A = No god

A cannot be A, but MUST be NOT A, in order for NOT A to be true.

NOT A and A are not equal, and cannot have the same value – so, we must accept that NOT A =/= A.

In order for NOT A to be a true statement. A MUST be false. In order for NOT A to be accepted true, the axiom of “A =/= NOT A” MUST be accepted – thus, absolutes must be accepted, in order for there to be NO god. No is an ABSOLUTE statement – thus, A MUST be false, and it MUST be accompanied by a proof, for the statements GOD = A , and NO GOD = NOT A, to be logically true.

So, since we’ve established that “No God”, and “God” are mutually exclusive – we’ll move on.
———————————————————— —————————————————————-

“No God” is a negative value – so, the mission is to prove a negative. God cannot exist, and there must be proof of God’s non-existence – or there is still a possibility of A equaling A.
————————————————————- —————————————————————

To prove that A = A, however, is still pretty hard. It’s an axiom, like 0=0, or 1=1. To prove that God = A, requires that Not A also be proven false. So, on the other side, we’re also stuck.

But, we’ve proven that it’s impossible to “prove” God’s existence, or non-existence – and, we HAVE proven the existence of absolutes. So, it’s now possible to use absolutes in our argument,s henceforth. A, forever after, CANNOT also be NOT A – thus, unless you invalidate absolutes altogether, and thus, any scientific method, you’re stuck with absolutes as an axiom. So to accept that A cannot be NOT A did absolutely nothing but prove absolute exist. So, let’s move on.

———————————————————- —————————————————————– –

So, here’s the next question – if a statement is unprovable – how can it be absolute?

The answer?

It can’t.

So, the basic statement Atheism is founded upon is based upon belief, to put it bluntly – yet contains an absolute statement – which, in order to be undeniably correct, would have to prove a negative – something which has NEVER been done in the history of logical thought.

So, in order to back up that absolute statement saying there is NO god, you would have to prove a negative – but, how do you prove that the negative of something which you say does not exist, does NOT exist – without recognizing it’s existence?

On the other hand, any Religion has only the burden of evidence to bear – not the burden of proof – because all religions are based upon faith in the unprovable – not an absolute statement of fact. If you believe something, you believe IN something. You have no need to prove the non-existence of a thing – you just have to prove a thing exists. Also impossible, but not because of logical impossibility – but factual impossibilty. Noone, but the God believed in, can know ALL the facts – so, it’s unprovable. There is evidence, of course – which an Atheist can never have – there CAN be no evidence of the NON existence of something – because there would be nothing to see, if the thing which does not exist – doesn’t exist.

Existence is either believed, or disbelieved – but it is never known, with complete certainly.

Christians are commanded to be “salt” – but what does that really mean?

Matthew 5:13

Quote:

You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.

We are to have influence in the wold around us – when people look at us, and at what we do, we are to be obviously different – not necessarily fanatical, (though some may consider us so – I have NO shame whatsoever in being called a “fanatic” for Jesus) or “in your face” about what we consider “improper”. But, in our own lives and actions – in what we stand up to, stand up for, and endorse – what we DO – we are to be obvious, holy and sincere examples of the principles taught by Jesus, His disciples, and every word contained in the Bible. We can’t pick and choose which ones we consider right, or wrong – we can only consider contexts and underlying meaning, concerning some parts in the Old and New Testament – and then, the underlying principles still must be followed, even if we’re no longer required to follow the “letter” of the law – we still must follow the “meaning” of the law. Always.

Salt is many things, but let’s look at a few things that salt has always been, historically, and in the Bible.

In the Bible:

1. A symbol of a binding covenant (Lev. 2:13)

2. A healing and cleansing aid (2 Ki. 2:20-21)

3. A stimulant to the appetite (Job 6:6)

4. A preventive of decay (Luke 14:34-35)

5. A promoter of peace (Mark 9:50)

6. A stimulant to our testimony (Mt. 5:13)

7. An evidence of grace (Col. 4:6)

In a Christian:

————————————————————- ——————————————–
Our Preserving Ability

Salt wards off rot and decay! It is rubbed into meat in an effort to preserve it.

Sodom and Gomorrah – Gen. 18:16-33. They could have been saved by the preserving influence of just 10 righteous men. So it is in America today. I am convinced that the presence and the prayers of “salty” Christians has done more to preserve this nation than anything else we could name. It is the righteousness of God’s children that made America great and it is what keeps this country from being judged today, Pro. 14:34.

————————————————————– ————
Our Penetrating Ability

Salt will penetrate and infiltrate whatever it touches. It is an aggressive substance. It dissolves easily in liquid, permeates solids.

Look at the early church! Acts 8:1 – They so upset the world, then, that the “establishment” was after their lives – that’s not “living quietly”, to me.

Acts 8:4 – After being scattered to the four winds – they still went about the very thing that caused them to be persecuted. What does that tell you, Christian reader? Hrmm?

Acts 17:6 – We’re meant to be ACTIVE. “These men who have upset the world”, it says – do you “upset the world” by attempting to be mild, non-controversial, and try your hardest to “keep from offending” people? I don’t think so. If I’m “upsetting the world”, I’m on the right track, ladies and gents.

The church should be a militant army charging the very gates of Hell. No, not militant, as in army, as in camo-wearing gun-toting militia – but we should be activists – not for some PAC – but FOR our GOD and what HE calls right, and AGAINST what He calls wrong! That’s our JOB, people.

Matt. 16:18. – Even if you reject the “militant” image – you can’t deny that we are commanded, by the previous verse, to DEFEND your Lord, when He, or His principles are attacked. There IS no option.

————————————————————- —————————————
Our Purifying Ability

Salt has remarkable cleansing ability.

2 Kings 2:19-22 – Elisha cleansed the waters at Jericho with salt.

In ancient times, newborn babies were washed in salt to cleanse their bodies and to give firmness to their skin, Eze. 16:4.

Salt in a wound can cleanse the area. Often, Christians have a purifying effect on the world around them. They ought to behave differently when the child of God walks up. Don’t be offended if they stop talking when you come around. Just thank God that you are acting as a purifying force in the world around you.

Every meat offering was to be made with salt – Lev. 2:13. So it is with our lives.

We are to offer our lives as an offering to the Lord, Rom. 12:1-2.

In that passage, we are told to be non-conformists. Did you catch that? We’re SUPPOSED to be different. SUPPOSED to be set apart (which is what the world “holy” means….), SUPPOSED to be clearly demarcated from the world around us.

When we are, it proves that we are worth our salt…

—————————————————— ————————————————————-
Our Pleasing Ability

Bringing out the best.

Salt blends and adds flavor to food. In fact, there are some foods that are better off not eaten, if there is no salt.

So too, the Christian should flavor the world around him. As salt, we are to so live our lives that we bring out the best in those around us. That is what Jesus did time and again, and that what you and I are supposed to be doing for His glory! Phil. 1:27

————————————————————- ——————————————————-
Our Poisoning Ability

Salt kills some things! Ever poured salt on a slug? Slugs and salt do not mix! Salt poured on a lawn will kill the grass. Too much salt is not good for your blood pressure.

Abimelech, in Judges 9:45, took a city and the sowed the city with salt to prevent the ground from being used to grow crops. He killed the fields with salt.

By the same token, when true Christianity is sowed into the lives, homes and communities of the world, some things will be put to death. We can make an impact on our world by the very fact that Christianity is pure poison to sin. When Jesus comes into a life, drinking, cussing, fighting, hating, killing, drugging, loose living, etcetera, are all put to death in the name of Jesus – 2 Cor. 5:17.

See, people SHOULD call us killjoys – if the “joy” in question is something God specifically calls SIN. Sure, Christians sin, too – if any Christian says he or she is perfect – they need a reality check. But, we are called – to call a spade a spade. we are called to recognize sin, and call it what it is. We are not to be deceived by “alternate” lifestyles, or “white” lies, or recognize “relative” morality – there is only ONE truth, there is only ONE way, and there is only ONE life – and all of those come directly from our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

—————————————————— ——————————————————
Our Promoting Ability

Salt creates a thirst for water in those who are exposed to it…

As salt, the Christian has the wonderful opportunity to promote a thirst for Jesus in the world. Remember what the Lord told us? He said that out of our innermost being would flow rivers of living water – John 7:37-38.

When we live as Christians should live. When we take the call of Jesus seriously and live right, look right, act right, talk right, worship right, dress right, etc. Then we have the ability to create a thirst for Jesus in the hearts of those around us. When that happens, we can point men to Jesus and share with them the water of life. Sadly, most Christians do not promote thirst, but ridicule instead. Too often, we live substandard immoral lives and the world sees it and says, “Why should I receive Jesus? I live just as good as that crowd down at the church!” Fact is, they are often right! Let’s so live that we ever prove them wrong. Our lives must be above reproach if we are to create a thirst for God in the world around us!

We must never give anyone cause to say, “If that is a Christian, then I never want to be one.” Instead, our lives ought to motivate people to say, “That is what I want my life to be.”

Brendan Manning has this to say:
“The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door, and deny Him with their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world finds simply unbelievable“

Is that you? Is that me? If so, we need to turn things around, and do it quickly.

—————————————————– ————————————————————–
Our Proven Ability

Salt changes nearly everything it touches – food, water, etc. We are called to be thermostats and not thermometers in the world around us. We are to be the instruments that God can use to implement change in a wicked world. When genuine, New Testament Christianity touches this sinful, wicked world, there will be change of some variety. We just need to be sure that we are changing the world and not the other way around!

The modern mentality, “We have to be like the world to win the world.” We’ll win more if we are like Jesus!

BE NOT CONFORMED!

—————————————————– ————————————————————–

In Practice

————————————————————- ——————————————————–
Dangers to Avoid

Salt was a very valuable in the ancient world. So valuable, in fact, that the Roman Legions were often paid their wages in salt. This payment was called the “salarium.”

This where the expression, “Not worth his salt.” comes from.

It was possible for salt in that day to lose its flavor. The salt used then was far different from that which we see today. Our salt is a chemical compound called chloride of sodium or sodium chloride. The salt used in the ancient world was either mined from the salt cliffs along the Dead Sea, which were 7 miles long and several hundred feet high, or it was evaporated from the waters of the Dead Sea. Either way, it was always mixed with mineral or vegetable matter. When this substance was exposed to the elements or when it touched the earth, the salt lost its salty taste. Even the surface salt that was dug from the cliffs was discarded because exposure to he light rendered it tasteless. This tasteless salt also lost all the qualities that made it so valuable and sought after to begin with.

It is possible for Christians to loose their saltiness as well. This happens to us when we, just like salt in ancient times, come into too close contact with the world. When get to be more like the world than we are like the Lord, then we have lost that thing that sets us apart and makes us valuable to the Lord’s Kingdom work.

————————————————————- —————————————————
A Destiny to Abhor

In ancient times, when salt lost its savor, it was then taken out and cast into the footpaths. It was used much as gravel is in our day. Its only purpose then was to kill out the weeds that might grow in the road, and for me to walk on to keep their sandals out of the mud. Literally, it was to be trodden under the foot of men.

Every Christian reading this needs to understand that when we lose our saltiness and when we cease to function as salt in the world, then we too have become good for nothing, and while we cannot lose our salvation, we can most certainly lose our usefulness to the Lord and to His work. When this happens, we have become something to be trodden upon and treated with contempt! When we are living for the Lord, men may not like us, but there is often a certain respect for the stand we take and for the testimony that we possess. When we allow our testimony to become tainted by sin and the world, then men will walk upon our testimony and we become absolutely useless to the Lord as a vessel of witness.

I do not know about you, but I do not want to wind up being cast out as a vessel by the Lord. I would like for my life to be useful to Him. I would like for Him to be able to use my life to bring others to Himself. I really would like to be a blessing and a light for the Lord. I believe that every child of God reading this wants to be a salty Christian for the glory of God.

Paul knew that the potential always existed for him to be a castaway – 1 Cor. 9:27.

I see that potential in my life as well, and I do not want that. How about you?

———————————————————– ———————————————————-

In Conclusion

Chistians are NOT called to be “quiet” – when SIN is the issue. Christians are NOT called to be so unnoticed that noone around them could EVER tell they were Christians. If everyone you come in contact with DOESNT know what you believe – you’re doing something wrong, folks. It should be obvious – it shouldn’t be something ANYONE has to guess at – it should be as plain as the nose on your face.

I was almost inconsolable, recently, when I realized the amount of damage I was doing to any attempt on my own part to advance the cause of the gospel – when I was in sin myself, and not renouncing it. My “mission” recently, so to speak, has been to make absolutely no bones, whatsoever, as to what I believe. Especially on the internet. I spend the bulk of my free time on the ‘net, and it’s simply ludicrous for me NOT to be an “ambassador” for Him – while I do “my thing” online. Oh, it takes a LOT more time – but I’ve been amazingly changed by the experience. Not only do I feel exonentially more fulfillment, in everything I do – as long as i do it for the glory of God, I don’t feel “guilty” about the time i spend on the net, anymore – because I have no compunctions about dropping whatever i’m doing and defending my faith – not aymore.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel – for it is the power of God, to salvation, for anyone who believes”

Don’t be ashamed, and PRAY that noone has to guess who you are. If it’s not obvious – are you “in the world”, or “in Christ”?

Quite possibly one of the most important questions you’ll ever ask yourself.