Undefining the Redifined Church

There are numerous words that have been redefined in such a way that is contrary to their original meaning. There are also words that have been given meaning beyond their own capacity. Words that may have only one simple interpretation are compromised and complicated which I shall soon demonstrate. One such word, which I wish to discuss here is the word: church. Before we are to begin, please keep in mind that “Church” (uppercase “C”) means the entire body of believers while “church” (lowercase “c”) means a building or single body of believers.

           In this day and age, the Church is often defined as a building where believers get together to sing worship songs, sit in pews, take offerings, listen to the pastor, and fellowship with friends and family. Now this in and of itself is not necessarily bad, but when compared to the historical identity of the Early Church, we may, in fact, see many differences. It is true that in the past fellow believers congregated at specific places where they would praise the Lord, sometimes take love offerings, eat, and discuss portions of Scripture; and yet, there are at least four main differences between the churches back then and what we have now.

            The first difference we will see is how and where they would congregate. For the Early Church, there were no building specifically constructed and named “church.” Instead, they were more like what we might call “home-churches.” The communities were so tight-knit that fellow believers would even connect their homes to each other by tearing down sections of wall and creating somewhat of a compound of connected homes. These communities were so close. They loved and trusted each other, not because they all got along so well, but because they all worshiped the One True God.

            Unfortunately today, by moving out of these home churches and into dedicated church buildings, the Church has lost the intimacy she once had with other believers, and even, the Lord. In the Old Testament, the Lord resided in the Ark of the Covenant behind the veil. You had to go to the temple and do sacrifices to speak with God. Upon conquering sin, Christ has given us the gift of the Holy Spirit to indwell us, thus tearing the veil in two and making it possible for us to have an intimate relationship with the Lord and other fellow partakers of the Holy Spirit. With this intimacy came: less gossip, fewer heresies, greater comradery, greater zeal, and a more vibrant Holy Spirit. No doubt the last part of that sentence raised a few eyebrows, but please hear me out.

            The Holy Spirit is what drove the early church. It was not silent, nor timid, nor cowardly, nor easily pushed around. The Holy Spirit was (and is) bold, passionate, courageous, and downright fierce. It was for this reason that so many of our brothers and sisters of the faith were hated and martyred. We see Stephen, the first Christian martyr, stoned to death for opposing and vigorously bringing condemnation upon the heads of the Jews. We see Paul thrown into jail and stoned for confronting false philosophies, calling out believers in their mistakes, being driven by the Holy Spirit wherever he went. There was nothing holding back the Holy Spirit, it was a fire in their hearts that could not be held in by time, place, age, or reason. The Holy Spirits transcends all that is natural, and it is not until the natural tries to dictate the actions of the supernatural that compromise and apathy take hold. The Church of those days was so close-knit that you could easily tell who was and was not a believer. Thousands were killed for pronouncing the faith. They didn't cave in to what the world or what their government wanted (silence). They didn't falter. Can you honestly say that the Church of America resembles, in this aspect, the Church of old? Nowadays, going to these buildings has become something akin to a chore. We have fallen into the same legalistic trap that the Jews were reprimanded for. Deny this if you will, but you are only fooling yourself. Just as the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, so the Church was not made a building, but the building was made for the Church. It is when Church is defined by this specific building, that its reality is stripped of its intimacy. And in this day and age, the Church has truly been defined by an address.

            Secondly, today’s Church differs from the Church of old in how worship is conducted. The Early Church refrained from using instruments because they lived in a culture of idol worshiping pagans (the Romans) who put a great amount of importance on the way idol worship was conducted: with a variety of instruments, a variety of songs, and in ways that were often unpleasing to the blossoming Church. Thus, they would sing with just their voices songs from the Psalms. Today, churches uses various instruments and sing various songs that may not have originated from the Scripture. This is not a bad thing. The Early Church’s choice to refrain from instruments was a personal and cultural choice, and could also be viewed as an example of not eating meat because it offends your brother (1 Corinthians 8:13). Still, there were positives to having such a low amount of importance placed on how worship was conducted. Today, worship leaders often place more importance on the presentation rather than on who they are actually worshiping, and they do this under the guise of trying to attract non-believers to come and hear the gospel. They want better equipment, more practice sessions, strict guidelines, and set schedules. I have heard countless stories of Worship Leaders making worship a full time job for the participants. It has become another form of legalism where it must be done THIS way or else it is not worship! This is partly due to the fact that today’s Church is defined as a building. If Church was merely fellowship at someone’s home, or a park, beach, bar, etc. there would be a lot less drama and stress put into worship. Fellow believers have refrained from going to specific “churches” because they disagree with how worship there is conducted. How have we become so shallow? The only reason one should not wish to fellowship with believers is because the Holy Spirit is not present and thriving there!

            Thirdly, tithing today when compared to that of the Early Church is completely different. Let me say this: tithing was not a requirement. You did not have to give money to your local church. This is not to say that giving money was prohibited; on the contrary, if you felt led by the Holy Spirit to give of money, land, clothing, etc. you were welcome to do so. The Church did not, however, pass around a basket or give sermons on tithing. And yet, what we see now is so much importance placed upon tithing. It is no longer a matter of one's heart, but another man-made law that resembles those which Christ criticized the Jews about. There are even some churches that pass around the tithing basket at the beginning and again at the end of the sermon! Tithing and giving offerings are not just meant for a specific church body/building. As a matter of fact, “tithing” could simply be helping any brother or sister in need, whether it be food, transportation, time, money, etc. Tithing/giving is something that should come from the heart. Again, one of the main reasons that tithing has become this way is due to the Church being viewed as a building. In America, you must pay for so many things in order to hold such an establishment, that churches are constantly shoving tithing down the throats of their members so they can pay for their building, supplies, and salary.

            Finally, I would like to discuss one of the most corrupted definitions in the Christian Church today: pastor. The title of pastor has been re-defined in so many ways that a true pastor can hardly be recognized any more. Today, a pastor is a particular individual (sex neutral) who has gone to seminary, received his/her pastoral degree, and who speaks in front of a congregation at what is called, by today’s standards, a church. My dear brothers and sisters, this is just not so. What the Devil has gained from this corrupt definition of pastor is a myriad of leaders indoctrinated by liberal and passive seminaries to stunt the fire of the Holy Spirit and preach only that which is accepted by the sheep and the world.

          No doubt many of you believe this claim to be quite bold and perhaps uncalled for.Yet it is a fact that we have homosexual pastors, women pastors, liberal pastors, etc. It is just as much a fact that these “pastors” have gone to a Christian college/seminary. It is a fact that the Church has become more corrupt and more complacent then ever before. If a student doesn't come out of seminary liberal, they will come out passive. If, by some divine miracle, a student comes out unscathed by the wiles of the Devil, he will soon fall prey to those that have been tainted with apathy and the abhorrence of zeal. The student becomes afraid of confrontation, he condemns anger, is soft spoken, and fragile. I have heard countless pastors speak of when they were bold and passionate, of a time when they spoke out with such fervor and courage. Along with these stories, they explain how they were taken aside by an elder (either someone greater in age or someone who actually held the Biblical title) and were reprimanded for being overzealous. You see, instances like these aren't few and far between. Passion and boldness have become demonized. And yet, if you read the Scriptures, that is precisely what the Holy Spirit is… a passion, a fire! Jeremiah explains how uncontainable the Lord is when he calls the Holy Spirit, “A burning fire within my bones that I cannot hold in.”

            Consider: one day, a youth pastor named Peter was at an elder meeting in the church he had been with for a few years. He was rather young, especially in comparison to those around him. One of the issues discussed in the meeting was upcoming topics of Peter’s sermons. Peter offered a couple of topics he wanted to speak on and each topic was shot down. Angered and annoyed, he raised his voice and exclaimed, “Why don’t you guys just tell me what I am allowed to say!?” Silence immediately fell upon those around him. The head pastor broke the silence and proceeded to a different topic as though nothing had happened. Later that night Peter received a phone call from the head pastor's assistant saying that the pastor wanted Peter to join him for a hike the next day. Peter knew the “hike” would, in fact, be a small meeting concerning what had happened, and so, he agreed to go. The next morning he met with the head pastor and they began their hike. While walking, the pastor told Peter that his passion was good, but needed to be somewhat bridled. His passion was misdirected and he should never speak that way towards his elders. Peter was reprimanded and was told there was a time and place for speaking out like that…and during an elder meeting was neither the time nor the place.

                        There are numerous stories similar to this one. Stories of beginner pastors fresh out of seminary who did not adhere to the pacifism and liberalism they were fed while there, only to be placed in a church run by elders that reprimand any form of passion or zeal. This is one of the greatest reasons that the Church of America looks as though she is on the brink of death. Brothers and sisters, if the Holy Spirit has put a fire within you and is pushing you to speak out, do not keep silent! If you feel your spirit stirred within you, you must act (Acts 17:16). This may happen whilst in a meeting, during a sermon, at work, in class, etc. And if you are told to keep silent, be it by an elder, a prophet, a pastor, a teacher, etc… you are still to speak! The problem with the Church of America today is that she has sacrificed her zeal for obedience to the reigning authorities. Pastors have become castrated by either seminary or the elders that have preceded them. The Church is not getting better; thus, we must examine ourselves and make changes.

                        Can you see just how far we have fallen away from the original Early Church? Church has never been a building. Worship was never defined by music. Tithing was never thrust upon Believers. And pastors acted as leaders, preaching on that which was relevant for the times without fear of offending their flock.

     And so, I challenge you dear reader. Examine the Church of America. Examine your “home church.” Is it preoccupied with what kind of worship should be conducted? Does it put so much importance on tithing that you feel judged/condemned by the elders if you are unable to participate in their form of giving? Does your pastor merely teach that which is safe and general (milk)? Or does he talk about that which may be sometimes seen as offensive and perhaps even illegal (501 C 3 Tax Exempt status)? Does he talk about what is going on in the world right now? ISIS? Homosexuality? The Cults? Liberalism? Drunkenness and Pornography? Does he condemn sin? Does he speak out on such relevant topics as Christ Himself did while here on earth?

            What tends to happen with this corrupt definition of Church is that we become more pre-occupied-more attached-to our “home church” and excluded from the rest of our brothers and sisters. We begin to define Truth through what our church believes, rather than studying the Word, praying, and being guided by the Holy Spirit towards a Truth that may not agree with our home church. There is no growth, and the Church of America will simply remain stagnant.

            And so, with all of this said, I ask that you leave your “home church”… not forever, just momentarily. The Church is not a building. Visit some of our other brothers and sisters. Let us stop letting trivial things like personal preferences divide us. Leave the church you call home and discover that it was merely a room in the mansion of our Lord.

            

Don't Care About Who You're Debating

          

       Dr. Walter Martin was debating a Mormon professor in Philosophy from Columbia University with an audience of approximately 11 to 13 million people spanning 43 states and after about an hour and a half discussion, the professor looked across the table at Dr. Martin and said,

       “You know, part of the problem with Christians is that you persist in circular reasoning. When we ask you for authority to believe in God you quote the Bible and then when we ask for authority to prove the Bible is reliable you quote the Bible to support itself. That’s circular reasoning and I don’t see why you just don’t find a better way of defending your position.”

       While Dr. Walter Martin was sitting there as the professor was spinning this out, he said to himself, “Lord, there is a number of ways I could answer this but I will lose the audience. The main thing I want to do is hang on to the audience. I don’t care about this joker because he’s in here to just fight the gospel. I got to get to these people out there, Lord just give me an answer please, I just at this moment don’t know what to say!”

Well, the Lord did gave him an answer and boy was it a good one. He stumped that professor.

          The purpose of this post is not to give the reader a good response to the objection of circular reasoning, but to show you that when debating someone in the midst of an audience, you have to discern whether or not the person you are debating is actually searching, or just attacking the faith. So many Christians, upon realizing that the person is merely attacking the faith, become silent and walk away… quoting Christ when He says to knock the dust off your feet. I think this to be a cop out, a cowards way out. Christ is talking about giving the Gospel, not defending it. So the next time you run into someone, while in the midst of an audience, who wants to just attack the faith, you give them both barrels! Don’t care about the person you are debating, rather focus on the individuals who are standing by actually listening.

        For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses usually travel in pairs. There is an older, more experienced one, and then there is a newcomer. Blow up the older one in front of the newcomer. Show them their elder is wrong, thus planting doubt and opening the door for the truth! We live in a world where love is defined as always being gentle, soft spoken, tolerant, sugar coating, and downright passive! Let’s not allow the world to define our actions… be Christ-like… be passionate.

To Be Lukewarm

          The Lord requires us to have a passion, to be zealous, but to truly know and understand passion and zeal, one must examine what it means to be lukewarm.  

            Lukewarm is neither hot nor cold. It is no good to the Lord. Lukewarm is being complacent, lazy, willfully ignorant, and downright detrimental to the faith.

            Someone who is lukewarm does not like arguments or division so they will do whatever it takes to make the opposing party happy. Whether they be Mormon, Liberal, JW, Atheist, or Homosexual, they will evade certain topics like truth, the Bible, science, ethics, etc. They are the ones who cannot “hate the sin but love the sinner” because hatred, from their twisted perspective, is morally wrong and looked down upon in the world. It is far too easy for them to be loved by the world then to have love for the Lord.

            Someone who is lukewarm is lazy because they do not wish to study the Scriptures, to seek out and confront the wolves, to reprove and exhort their brothers and sisters of the faith. They would much rather sit in the comfort of their church pew and hear the same sermons, sing the same songs, and definitely stay away from anything that may stir the pot. They would much rather blend in and turn a blind eye to corruption and false teaching. Just continue on the road to Jericho…stepping over the bodies.

            Someone who is lukewarm is both stupid and just flat out willfully ignorant. Willfully ignorant because if they learned of the truth, they would be devoured by shame. Shame for not knowing sooner and shame for realizing what they have become…a coward. When the truth is presented or known by a believer, they cannot be still or silent in the face of opposition.

            Someone who is lukewarm is downright detrimental to the faith… so undesirable and useless that the Lord will spit them out. They have become a tool for the enemy. Christianity was not founded on apathy, nay, it was founded on passion, zeal, and self-sacrifice.

            The Lord does not desire a corpse. All throughout Scripture we see examples of those godly men who were zealous for the Lord: Abraham, Elijah, Phinehas, Stephen, Paul, etc. These were not men who kept silent. Stephen was not stoned to death because he gently reproved the Jews. Phinehas was not declared a friend of the Lord because he sat idly by as corruption descended upon the Israelites. The church is built upon sacrifice. Sacrifices will not be made by those who are unmoved by the world around them.

The Bible, Logic, and Tattoos

Arguments Against Tattoos

1.      Physical Pain

·         Argument:

–        “The Lord would not want His children to cause harm to themselves for the sake of art and symbolism”

·         Rebuttal:

–        “We see in the Old Testament the Lord instructing the Israelites to pierce the ear of a servant if he wished to continue to reside with them. If causing physical pain on an individual for the sake of ownership is not considered a sin, I think a simple tattoo doesn’t even come close to being immoral.”

·        Arguer’s Rebuttal:

-          “The difference between the harm caused by a tattoo and a pierced ear is that (1) the ear will heal (not permanent) and (2) it was God ordained (unlike a tattoo which is man made and may be consider a poor choice."

2.      Ethical Relativism

·         Argument:

–        “If there is such thing as an immoral tattoo, for example, having 666 across your back; who decides which tattoos are immoral if the Bible is silent on them? If humans decide, then we have moved from Biblical moral “absolutism” to human ethical relativism."

   ·         Rebuttal:

                  –        “Arguing that there are bad tattoos cannot be used to discredit the act of tattooing itself. If there are immoral tattoos as you suggest, than from your very own statement we ask you by what authority you declare a certain tattoo to be morally acceptable if the Bible is silent on things such as this? How could you in the same sentence claim there are immoral tattoos but turn around and say the Bible is silent on tattoos?"

·        Arguer’s Rebuttal:

-          "Who will hold someone accountable for getting a tattoo that is offensive and even if someone is held accountable, how would they be able to repent from getting it? A permanent mark that may be removed by leaving a nasty scar? And tattoo removal is far more expensive than actually getting a tattoo so they may be unable to afford it.”

3.      Historical and Cultural

·        Argument :

-         “As Christians, we are to be set apart from the world. Throughout the entire Old Testament, the Lord had instructed the Israelites to not act as the other pagan cultures did. They were instructed not to follow their traditions and practices. All through history, tattooing had been a practice both originating from and practiced by pagans. Christ, in the same token, has instructed us to be in, but not of, the world. Tattooing is still done primarily by pagans (non-Christians) so how does having a tattoo set you apart from the rest?"

·        Rebuttal:

-         “There have been many instances where Christians have taken a bad thing and used it for good. An example of this would be Christmas which originated as a pagan holiday but has now been transformed into the celebration of our Lord and Saviors birth.”

·        Arguer’s Rebuttal:

-  “It may be true that Christians have taken something pagan and made it virtuous. Tattoos are a far more different thing than Christmas or any other pagan practices. For example, Christmas originated as a celebration called Saturnalia. The very definition of this celebration was pagan. And so, Christians took this and changed not only the name but the meaning as well. Tattoo’s cannot be changed liked this. You can call it a different name but it is still someone taking a needle and permanently marking your body."

4.      Jesus and Tattoos

    ·        Argument:

             -         “As a young Jewish man, Jesus would never had gotten a tattoo because the Torah expressly forbids it. If we are to be Christ-like, than we should not get tattoos.”

    ·        Rebuttal:

               -         “Christ would have also refrained from eating pork and meat offered to idols, but we see that the New Testament condones things such as these.”

·        Arguer’s Rebuttal:
-  “This in fact is true, but, those things which were condoned were blatantly condoned by God. We also know through Scripture that the Torah was not abolished. It would make more sense to think that Jesus would not get a tattoo because of it being pagan and wanting to be separated from the surrounding cultures, especially the Romans.”

5.      Body is the Temple

·        Argument:

-         “The Bible defines our body as not being our own … a temple for the Lord. How is putting symbols and verses on your body not being reckless? Reckless in the way that you don’t have 100% certainty that a tattoo is morally ok.”

·        Rebuttal:

-         “Putting a Bible verse on anything, let alone your body, cannot be considered reckless. We may not have 100% certitude concerning tattoos, but neither do you.”

·        Arguer’s Rebuttal

-         “The Bible is God’s Word, so lets show it some respect by not rolling the dice in hopes of it (the tattoo) being moral. Also, our Lord instructs us to be as sly as serpents when presenting the gospel. Tell me, how sly are you being by tattooing, “I’m a Christian” on your arm? I could understand if you try to be sly as a serpent with nonbelievers by getting a tattoo because the act of tattooing has been, and still is, mostly practiced by nonbelievers. And yet, when told to be sly as serpents, this does not mean we are to be sly to the point of sinning. For example, a lot of lonely, depressed men go to strip clubs. What better place to share the gospel? And yet, we know that it is unwise and sinful for a believer to go to a strip club even if they are trying to be sly as serpents. And so, we know not if tattoos are immoral so it would be foolish/reckless to get one for even the sake of slyness."

Arguments FOR Tattoos

     From here we move to arguments in favor of getting a tattoo, followed by a rebuttal which is also followed by another rebuttal in response to the opposer.

1.      Glorified Canvas

   ·        Argument:

             -         “Everyone sees your body and what a better way to share the Gospel than putting the Word of God on it! A good tool to be used for witnessing.”

   ·        Rebuttal:

             -         “There are hundreds of better ways that aren't as reckless as getting a tattoo. Sure, their may be a few people interested in what you have tatted up your arms, but think of the parents with children who are trying to teach their kids to be responsible. What about the Jews who are sensitive to the history of Nazi Germany (tattooed the Jews). The elderly laugh at, are offended, and even demoralized by the sight of tattoos. You might as well become as the street preacher who hopes that at least 1 or 2 people are receptive to their rants about hell.”

·        Arguers Rebuttal:

-         "Spreading the Gospel is spreading the Gospel. Why criticize how someone receives the Good News? If someone is receptive to/more comfortable with tattoos, why demonize that which opened the door?"

2.      Silence

·        Argument:

-         “No where in the New Testament does it condemn tattoos so why should we think it to be immoral?”

·        Rebuttal:

-         “We cannot think that because the Bible is silent on a specific subject, that it automatically mean that said subject is therefore moral. There are a few subjects that the Bible is silent on, for example, masturbation, suicide, life support, cremation, breast implants, video games, etc. Silence does not mean that something is condoned by God.”

·        Arguer’s Rebuttal

-         “The same authority you use to argue that silence does not equal condoning by God, can be used to argue that it does. It may true that the Lord is silent on numerous things, some more serious then others, but we (believers) have been given the Holy Spirit who will convict and lead us as we make choices in life.”

3.      Glorified Canvas Part 2

·        Argument:

-         “A lot of tattoos are a work of art. Kind of like the Sistine Chapel. Art can be used to glorify God and spread His Word.”

·        Rebuttal:

-         “Tattoos have a negative connotation. When you go to a job interview, you are told to hide your tattoos. Certain companies require their employees to where long sleeve shirts to cover their tattoos. How often do you see a tattooed babysitter, judge, pastor, etc.? As a matter of fact, parents lean more towards steering their children away from tattoos for a reason. Mostly because tattoos are related to gangs, they are permanent, and something that you may regret in the future."

·        Arguer’s Rebuttal:

-         “There are many things that have a negative connotation but are not negative at all. For example, drinking alcohol. Jesus himself drank wine and even He knew that it was seen in a negative light by some who called Him a “winebibber.” To argue that simply because something has a negative connotation means its immoral is illogical.”

4.      Jesus has a Tattoo

·        Argument:

-         “Revelations 19:16 says, ‘On His robe and on His thigh He has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of Lords.’ If tattoo’s are a sin, how is it that Christ has one when He is in fact perfect and sinless?”

·        Rebuttal:

-         “I find it interesting that you would use this passage in your defense. There are two things that people often miss, or are simply ignorant of, concerning this passage. First, theologians and Scholars are not quite sure as to whether or not His name is actually inscribed on His thigh, or on His garment that would be on His thigh, or on His sword that would also be on His thigh. Hence, to make such bold claims as to have 100% understanding of this passage is quite naïve and hubris. Secondly, if His name is actually inscribed on His thigh, one must ask from where He had gotten this marking? A local tattoo parlor? Nay, it was from God Himself thus making it not equal to, both in construct and meaning, to any tattoo that has ever or will ever exist. By definition, tattoos are man made and not God made. You might as well apply the mark of Cain into the category of a tattoo, but than you must use your same line of reasoning to deduce that tattoos are evil.”

·      Arguer’s Rebuttal:

-         "You cannot make the claim that Cain’s mark is evil—thus making all markings evil—because it is not necessarily the mark of Cain that is evil; it could have just as plausibly been the content of the mark which was evil/depicted Cain’s wickedness. Thus, it comes down to an issue of content. The content of the tattoo is what was evil, not the tattoo itself. The tattoo/mark is simply a mode of communication, used to convey a message; the message which is conveyed is what should determine whether the tattoo/mark is immoral or wicked."


Conclusion:

                Now, some of you may be asking as to what my personal position is regarding tattoos. I tried to present both sides in a balanced manner, but there is no doubt that the arguments against tattoos hold more weight than the arguments for tattoos. Some may venture to say that I, the author, have a personal biased against tattoos and that is why the arguments lean as they do. My response is simply that regardless where I stand, the fact remains that there are more and some better arguments against tattoos. Now, let us not confuse more and better arguments with the establishment of truth. Humans are incapable of stating that one side is 100% correct. There are no deductive slam-dunk arguments for either side and we are missing the opinion of our Lord. Hence, in the end, my stance is that neither side can claim they have superior knowledge regarding this topic. Neither side is able to claim moral superiority nor that their view is sanctioned by Scripture.

                
                And now I must say to those who are anti-tattoos, you cannot claim that you stand with God on this belief. And the same goes for those who are pro-tattoos; you cannot claim that God approves, or condones, any person getting one

The Calvinists, Arminiusts, and Me

            The Calvinists and the Arminiusts are two different groups of Christians debating the concepts of free-will, God’s sovereignty, predestination, grace, belief, and faith. Both parties believe that Jesus is God incarnate, that He sacrificed His life, that He conquered sin by rising from the dead.  They both believe that Jesus is the ONLY way to Heaven and that the Bible is God’s inerrant Word. Of course, there are extremists on both sides that may be contradictory to what God has said, but that is an entirely different topic.

            As for me, I am neither Calvinist nor Arminiust; yet, I have received far more ridicule from the pro-Calvinist camp. The reason for this may be that about 75% of what I believe in contrary to that of Reformed Theology. Although numerous arguments have been set before me, there is one that seems to be more common than others. Allow me to reiterate the argument addressed to me whenever discussing my beliefs concerning choosing Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior:

            “If one is saved by choosing to believe in God, he cannot claim that he was saved by grace; rather, he has saved himself.”

            I believe this argument to be completely illogical. Consider this analogy which represents my understanding of choosing Jesus Christ:

      There once was a man walking in the desert. The relentless heat began to take its toll. He yearned for water. Thirst overcame him, and he began to hallucinate great pools of water, crisp cool streams, and trees providing shade and shelter from the sun. And yet, he could not grasp these beautiful apparitions. His legs finally giving out, he collapsed to the ground, slowly losing strength and hope. Suddenly, a traveler appeared. He approached the dying man and asked, “Are you in need of water?”

     The dying man responded, “Yes, I am dying, and I am in need of water. Will you save me?”

   “Of course,” the traveler replied, “I have water that will save you…all you need to do is ask.”

   The dying man cried out, “Please give me water that I may live!”

            So the man gave him water, which quenched his thirst, and saved his life.

            My dear friends, allow me to explain this analogy. The man in the story is a non-believer, and the desert is the world that seeks to devour us. Thirst is the emptiness that all non-believers feel and which the Lord uses to draw us towards Christ. The hallucinations are the false hopes, dreams, and realities that we create to sustain us for a moment, but inevitably break us in the end. When the man finally collapses on the ground he has hit rock bottom. The traveler is Christ and the water is His blood. When He asks the man if he is in need of water He is presenting the Gospel and the dying man’s response is his confession… in need of salvation.

            You see, the man no more saved himself than looking at a glass of water will quench one’s thirst. Without the water, there is no salvation. And if the man rejected the water, he would have dammed himself. He had to ask for the water and then drink it to be saved.

            Consider another example of this: The very act of asking for forgiveness from others (or the Lord). Just as the man did not save himself by asking for water, so we are not forgiven by simply asking for forgiveness. Asking to be forgiven does not rid us of the wrongs which we have done; instead, forgiveness must be given by the one who we have wronged. Asking for salvation does not save us; instead, it is God’s grace. Still, one must ask in order to receive.  

Impossibilities of God

“There are two kinds of arguments given to show that the theistic conception of God contains contradictions. One form of the argument goes like this: If God were really all-powerful, then He could make a stone so heavy that He could not lift it. But if He could not lift it, then He would not be all-powerful. Hence, no such God can exist.

            “In response, some theists have noted that God cannot do something which is impossible by definition. As it is impossible to make a circle square or to create another uncreated God, theists hold that it is impossible for God to make a stone that He cannot lift. Other theists explain that the problem begins with the use of a double negative: “If God cannot make a stone that He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent.” If we were to put this into logical notation, however, the statement would read: “Any stone which God can make, He can lift.” Worded this way, the statement does not present any limitation to God’s power.”

            -Norman Giesler Christian Apologetics

 

            If something is impossible, by its very definition it is unable to be possible or else it would have never been impossible in the first place. One may argue that God is not limited by the definitions of man nor logic, but you would have to use both logic and definitions to support said claim which would be circular reasoning. For example, “God can make a world where the impossible is actually possible and the illogical is logical.” How could one make such a statement without having meaning behind said words? Using definitions to prove the possibility of contrary definitions.