The problem with a blog

"better to keep your mouth shut and appear to be a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

I can win every time on The Price is Right. I can win because when I'm sitting at home playing, it's always my turn, even when my bid wouldn't have won, I get to go on stage with the winner and try again, and again, and again. When it's always your turn, you start thinking you're pretty good when really you may not be good at all. A lot of life is like that to me.

The problem with a blog is that you think you have all these insightful things to say and all your friends and even total strangers are going to read your blog and think "wow, that's cool, I never thought about it that way before" and they will be inspired or motivated to some higher level in their life. Then you start writing and the things you have to say sound really good to you, after all they are your opinions, you'll never find anyone you agree with more. Click "Publish Post".

What's weird is how, even though you are reading them on the same computer screen, at the same corner table, in the same Starbucks, when they're published, your opinions aren't nearly as insightful or clever as you thought they were while they remained unspoken...at least that's how I see it now.

Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent,
and discerning if he holds his tongue.
Proverbs 17:28

Remember that time...

A couple of years ago I met a former Heisman trophy winner. He was kind and polite to us, and my son has a picture of himself being held by this man, along with an autographed "Heisman Pose" photo. In visiting with him guess what he talked about? His "biggest day" scoring several touchdowns in one football game some 20 odd years ago. What has he done since then? Squandered the millions he made playing football, filed bankruptcy, divorced his wife, spent time in jail as a dead-beat dad, been convicted of domestic abuse, and acted like a fool on National TV.

This guy is not unusual though, often people will hold on to a time in the past when they acted with nobility as though that forever seals the question of their character. That is as fallacious as fixating on a past failure as forever sealing the answer of a man's character.

David, was he a great man of God, or a Lying, Murdering, Adulterer?
Paul, was he a great and godly apostle, or an enemy of God?
Peter, was he a foundational leader of the church and friend of Christ, or a bigoted, betraying, coward?
Rahab, was she a noble and courageous woman of faith, or a whore?

The answer is yes.

No-one wants to be judged today by mistakes they made in the distant past, I know I don't, but we do like to be judged today by successes in the distant past don't we? Recently I heard someone say "You know I will change my mind if I'm proven wrong, because 13 years ago there was this time that..." as if the fact they changed their mind 13 years ago forever proves they are open minded. Now this person may be open minded, but that isn't proven by something they did years ago, it will be proven by what they do today.

Paul said: Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

You see, he had been instrumental in the death of Christians, but he wasn't defined by that NOW. Now he was different. But in the same way, he had converted thousands to Jesus, yet he wasn't resting on that NOW. Now, he was pressing on toward the goal.

So how should we judge the former Heisman trophy winner? On his success or his failure? Well, actually they are both part of what he was. Right now though, I don't know what he is, God will be his judge, I don't need to. What I'm more concerned with is how I judge myself, and by extension, if you are reading this post, how you judge yourself.

Do you judge yourself now by your greatest moment in the past? Do you judge yourself by your worst moment in your past? Don't! Don't live back there. Enjoy your successes, repent of your failures, and today serve the Lord!

Nonsense is Nonsense

If God can do anything, can he make a rock so big that he can't move it?

"...nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God" - C.S. Lewis

Isn't it amazing when otherwise intelligent people become self-contradicting lunatics when we talk religion? Why does that happen? I've got a couple of thoughts.
First, often in religion, what I say/believe is tainted by what I want to be true. Now that's not the case in Mathematics. In Math, I'm not tempted to believe 2+2 is 5 because I want it to be 5. It simply doesn't matter to me what 2+2 is as long as I can learn the answer. But with religion we're different. I may believe the man is to be 'head of the house' because I read that in the Bible, but it just simply isn't true that I have no vested interest in the outcome of that study. I want it to be true. "Ah-ha! See, it must not be true that the man is the head of the house then", says my wife, "You just think that because you want to believe it!" Do you see the complication here? She doesn't want to believe it, and I do want to believe it. So is it true or not? "Well", someone says, "it is true for you, and not true for her". This is nonsense . Truth does not change from one person to another, unless it is truth about opinion. Either God says the man is the head of the house, or he doesn't. [To see His answer, read Ephesians 5:22-32]
Recently my daughter was writing a persuasive paper for a college class. Her thesis was that "Blue is a better color than red". Oh really? That may be true for me, and not true for you, because that is just a matter of opinion, or context, but it is not true in the greater sense of the word truth. The complexity comes when we forget that something isn't true or untrue "just because I want to believe it is true". Truth is Objective and External, not Subjective and Internal. One foot is 12 inches long, not just because I wish it to be 12 inches long, but because it is 12 inches long, my likes or dislikes aside.
Now, in matters of religion, most of us are influenced by what we know the Bible says, but we are also influence by what we want to believe, what we have a vested interest in believing. If I believe something different than my parents, it will offend them and make the holidays unpleasant, or If someone believes that God forbids divorce for 'irreconcilable differences', they're stuck in an unhappy marriage, etc.
Secondly, consider what is wrong with the opening line of this post. It is self-contradictory. There is no answer to it because it is nonsense. You might not be tricked or deceived by such a 

silly question as that, but don't people do that kind of thing all the time? God cannot at the same time give us free will to accept or reject Him and at the same time predestine, apart from our own will, who does and doesn't accept Him. Either we have free will or we don't, and this nonsense doesn't become sensible because we are talking about God. God cannot want "all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4) and at the same time predestine some for eternal damnation. Either he wants all men to be saved or he doesn't. God cannot require us to be baptized to be saved, and at the same time not require us to be baptized to be saved. Either God has told us that he requires baptism, or he doesn't. Not both.
So how do we know? We could spend hours discussing what C.S. Lewis believed about free will, or what Jonathan Edwards believed about it [they were diametrically opposed by the way], but really, the only thing that determines truth, is what the Bible says about it, right? This leads to a final fallacy that I want to mention here. The "my verse trumps your verse" mentality. As a believer that the Bible is God's word, I don't believe it contradicts itself. I don't believe that you'll find verses that genuinely teach we have free will and others that genuinely teach we don't. This shows up frequently when discussing what God requires of man in salvation. Some teach that we are saved by "faith alone" and quote verses like John 3:16 which only mention belief. Others say, "no, we must repent of our sins" and they will quote verses like Acts 17:30 which require repentance but don't mention anything else. Then others say "you must be baptized to be saved". They quote verses like Acts 2:38, or 22:16 which don't mention belief. In a discussion, often these combatants will argue "my verse trumps your verse". So who is right? "Well my verse says..." Then along comes someone who, desiring to keep peace, says "We're all just taking different paths to the same destination. You believe your verse, I'll believe mine." or in other words, there is no Truth, just opinion. In actuality, the verses are all true. You must believe, repent, and be baptized.My final witness in this post is John 14:6 where Jesus claimed "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father except through me". Either that is true or it is not true. Is there any other way to the Father except through Jesus? To say yes is to call Jesus a liar. Contradictory, mutually exclusive things can only be true simultaneously if they are opinion. In Christianity, many things are left to our opinion, (ie. celebrating religious holidays - Romans 14), but many things are not, and the things that are not...are not.
Pay special attention that you don't try to keep peace by spouting nonsense, and that you never, ever excuse your own nonsense by charging God with it!

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. - 1 Corinthians 1:25