Good Friday, The Shroud, Gnosticism, and Various Other Ruminations

Regardless of the outcome of the centuries-old debate stretching back into
the annals of time regarding the celebration of the death and resurrection of Christ,
today seems as good a day as any to acknowledge the selfless sacrifice of
our Lord and Savior.

According to all accounts, He died somewhere around 3pm in the afternoon.
Darkness covered the land according to Scriptural description from 12 noon to 3pm.
This darkness was recorded by a historian named Phlegon who penned
a historical work sometime around AD 140.

Unfortunately none of his original works survived the ages, but they are referenced
by Sextus Julius Africanus, and Origen, an early church theologian and scholar.

According to Sextus Julius Africanus:

"Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was
a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth."

Origen records:

"Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles,
not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into
confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus),
but also testified that the result corresponded to his predictions.
So that he also, by these very admissions regarding foreknowledge, as if against his
own will, expressed his opinion that the doctrines taught by the fathers of our
system were not devoid of divine power.

And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus
appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place,
Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his
Chronicles.

He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention;
but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages made our defense,
according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that
these events took place at the time when our Savior suffered."

In addition to these impressive historical corroborations of the testimony
of the Gospels, we also have the quotation of ancient Samaritan historian
Thallus by Sextus Julius Africanus in which Thallus chronicles
the crucifixion of Jesus and offered a plausible explanation for the phenomenon
of the accompanying darkness:

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were
rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown
down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of his History, calls, as appears
to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."

In any case, pardon me for my tangential perambulations.
Today I also had the opportunity to watch an illuminating History documentary
on the Shroud of Turin and the computerized rendering of the face of the
man wrapped therein.

There indeed does seem to be a body of convincing forensic evidence
indicating that there is something to the Shroud of Turin.
It did irritate me slightly that the entire commentary was seemingly
infused with various praising references to the gnostics of the early
1st and 2nd centuries who authored the non-canonical gospel of Thomas
(a blatantly 'borrowed' name since Thomas had nothing to do with authoring this work).

What bothers me is that the gnostics were branded as Christians in the
documentary, even though their teachings are only remotely Scriptural
in the fondest light and very close to a poorly rendered episode of the
X-Files in some other, less flattering ones.

The gospel of Thomas contains some 114 'sayings of Christ'
many of which either vaguely or overtly contradict the sayings of Jesus
from the canonical Gospels.
For example, Simon Peter saying 'Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.'
Jesus saying, 'I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.'

This has nothing in common with the nature of the rest of Scripture.
Scholars should know this. Yet it never comes up when things like this are
discussed in documentaries and the like.
For more information on the discrepancies between the so-called
gospel of Thomas and authentic Scripture you may examine here.

Overcoming Addictions

I had promised an outline of some of the studies I had previously
done on the subject of overcoming strongholds of addiction.
So I am going to attempt a brief synopsis here.

1.) Overcoming the flesh by the power of the flesh is nonsensical and
one of the primary mistakes we can make. As human beings, we automatically
want to rely on our own power and the strength of our will to triumph over
difficulties.

(Mat 26:41)  Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

(Gal 3:3)  Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

(2Co 10:3)  For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
(2Co 10:4)  (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
(2Co 10:5)  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

(Rom 7:22)  For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
(Rom 7:23)  But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
(Rom 7:24)  O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

2.) Spiritual warfare begins in the mind.
We are under spiritual attack every single day. We war against our own
carnal nature, and against outside influence. Make no mistake about it;
satan will do everything in his power to keep you from being an effective Christian.
Especially if you begin praying strongly for others.

Sin begins in the mind as a train of thought. If allowed to linger, it builds momentum
and becomes difficult to expunge. Ultimately, we will act on the thought
if it remains long enough. These thoughts must be brought under control immediately.
Just as the previously quoted verse states:

(2Co 10:5)  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Here are some further verses regarding spiritual warfare taking place in the mind.

(Mat 12:35)  A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

(Rom 8:6)  For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

(Rom 12:2)  And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

(Eph 4:23)  And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

(1Pe 1:13)  Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

(Pro 23:7)  For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he:

(Jas 1:15)  Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Where does lust begin? In the mind. This is why it is critical that our minds be renewed
by the power of the Holy Spirit and we begin the process of disciplining our thoughts.

3.) So how do we overcome the strongholds of the carnal nature?
The Scripture draws a clear and distinct contrast between the flesh and the spirit.

(Rom 8:1)  There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

And most people know of this extended passage from Galatians, but it never gets old:

(Gal 5:16)  This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
(Gal 5:17)  For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
(Gal 5:18)  But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
(Gal 5:19)  Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
(Gal 5:20)  Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
(Gal 5:21)  Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
(Gal 5:22)  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
(Gal 5:23)  Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
(Gal 5:24)  And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
(Gal 5:25)  If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

4.) How do we walk according to the Spirit? It's my firm conviction that
one of the secrets of the Christian life in this area is total submission to the will
of God in our lives.

(Jas 4:1)  From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
(Jas 4:2)  Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
(Jas 4:3)  Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
(Jas 4:4)  Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
(Jas 4:5)  Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
(Jas 4:6)  But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
(Jas 4:7)  Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
(Jas 4:8)  Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you...

What's James saying here?
The source of enmity between us is the fleshly nature which prompts
us to seek for ourselves out of a base and selfish desire.
We can't have it both ways. We can't seek to satisfy ourselves every day and
the kingdom of God at the same time.

Jesus said: (Mat 6:33)  But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Then James makes a reference to the jealousy of the Spirit of God in
regards to us; we are the living temples of the Holy Spirit.

(1Co 3:16)  Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Verse 7 is written in the form of a logical syllogism.
This is the antecedant: 'Submit yourselves therefore to God'.
This is the consequent: 'Resist the devil, and he will flee from you'.

In order for the consequent to be true, the antecedant must first be true.
The one is a corollary of the other.

When we voluntarily relinquish our self-will and control of our daily lives
to the Lord, powerful things begin to happen. One of which is the process of absolution
from strongholds in our lives. This isn't an overnight process. There will still
be struggle involved. But if we learn to rely on the strength and power of the
Holy Spirit from moment to moment instead of leaning on our own power,
this is when we begin to truly overcome.

Subservience to God is the truest form of freedom!
It sounds like a contradictory statement, and indeed, most people who have
never experienced the type of freedom I'm referring to will think I am crazy
for saying so. However, the Scriptures support this concept.

(Rom 6:15)  What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
(Rom 6:16)  Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
(Rom 6:17)  But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
(Rom 6:18)  Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
(Rom 6:19)  I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

(Rom 6:22)  But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
(Rom 6:23)  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

(1Co 7:22)  For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.

(Joh 8:34)  Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
(Joh 8:35)  And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
(Joh 8:36)  If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

That's all for now. It's not a comprehensive study. Just some sporadic thoughts.

Interesting Article on Materialism

The original article titled "The Heretic" may be found here.
A brief synopsis can be found here.

Basically the article refers to why the book "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Naturalist
Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" by Thomas Nagel
has a majority of the materialist community in an uproar.

In Andrew Ferguson's article, he highlights the folly of the reasoning
used by most materialists:
The truth of using the scientific method to lead to useful discoveries about
physical causes and effects doesn't necessarily produce the conclusion
that only physical objects subject to this sort of study are real.

In a dazzling six-part tour de force rebutting Nagel’s critics, the philosopher Edward Feser provided a good analogy to describe the basic materialist error—the attempt to stretch materialism from a working assumption [methodological naturalism] into a comprehensive explanation of the world [ontological naturalism]. Feser suggests a parody of materialist reasoning: “1. Metal detectors have had far greater success in finding coins and other metallic objects in more places than any other method has. 2. Therefore we have good reason to think that metal detectors can reveal to us everything that can be revealed” about metallic objects.

But of course a metal detector only detects the metallic content of an object; it tells us nothing about its color, size, weight, or shape. In the same way, Feser writes, the methods of “mechanistic science are as successful as they are in predicting and controlling natural phenomena precisely because they focus on only those aspects of nature susceptible to prediction and control.”

Meanwhile, they ignore everything else. But this is a fatal weakness for a theory that aspires to be a comprehensive picture of the world. With magnetic resonance imaging, science can tell us which parts of my brain light up when, for example, I glimpse my daughter’s face in a crowd; the bouncing neurons can be observed and measured. Science cannot quantify or describe the feelings I experience when I see my daughter. Yet the feelings are no less real than the neurons.

The point sounds more sentimental than it is. My bouncing neurons and my feelings of love and obligation are unquestionably bound together. But the difference between the neurons and the feelings, the material and the mental, is a qualitative difference, a difference in kind. And of the two, reductive materialism can capture only one.

An Extended Quote on the Dangers of Unlimited Freedom

"The true essence of modernity is a particular conception of what it is to be free,
as I have said; and the Enlightenment language of an 'age of reason' was always really
just a way of placing a frame around that idea of freedom, so as to portray it as
the rational autonomy and moral independence that lay beyond the intellectual
infancy of 'irrational' belief.

But we are anything but rationalists now, so we no longer need cling to the pretense
that reason was ever our paramount concern; we are today more likely to be committed
to 'my truth' than to any notion of truth in general, no matter where that might lead.

The myth of 'enlightenment' served well to liberate us from any antique notions
of divine or natural law that might place unwelcome constraints upon our wills;
but it has discharged its part and lingers on now only as a kind of habit of rhetoric.
And now that the rationalist moment has largely passed, the modern faith in human
liberation has become, if anything, more robust and more militant.

Freedom for us today is something transcendent even of reason, and we no longer
really feel that we must justify our liberties by recourse to some prior standard of
responsible rationality.
Freedom -- conceived as the perfect, unconstrained spontaneity of individual will --
is its own justification, its own highest standard, its own unquestionable truth...

...It is, at the very least, instructive to realize that our freedom might just as well
be seen -- from certain more antique perspectives -- as a kind of slavery:
to untutored impulses, to empty caprice, to triviality, to dehumanizing values.
And it can do no harm occasionally to ask where a concept of freedom whose horizon
is precisely and necessarily nothing -- a concept that is, as I have said, nihilist in
the most exact sense -- ultimately leads.

This is not a question, I would add, simply for the conservative moralist, pining
nostalgically for some vanished epoch of decency or standards, but a question
that should concern anyone with any consciousness of history.

Part of the enthralling promise of an age of reason was, at least at first, the prospect
of a genuinely rational ethics, not bound to the local or tribal customs of this people
or that, not limited to the moral precepts of any particular creed, but available to all
reasoning minds regardless of culture and -- when recognized -- immediately compelling
to the rational will. Was there ever a more desperate fantasy than this?

We live now in the wake of the most monstrously violent century in human history,
during which the secular order (on both the political right and the political left),
freed from the authority of religion, showed itself willing to kill on an unprecedented
scale and with an ease of conscience worse than merely depraved.
If ever an age deserved to be thought of as an age of darkness, it is surely ours...

...Either human reason reflects an objective order of divine truth, which awakens the will
to its deepest purposes and commands its assent, or reason is merely the instrument and
servant of the will, which is under no ultimate obligation to choose the path of mercy,
or of 'rational self-interest', or of sympathy, or of peace.

When Nietzsche -- the most prescient philosopher of nihilism -- pondered the possibilities
that has opened up for Western humanity in the age of unbelief, the grimmest future he could
imagine was a world dominated by the 'Last Men', a race of empty and self-adoring
narcissists sunk in banality, complacency, conformity, cynicism, and self-admiration.
For him, the gravest danger of confronting a nihilist culture was the absence of any
great aspirations that could prompt humanity to glorious works and mighty deeds.

There is much to be said for Nietzsche's prophetic gifts, certainly; contemporary culture
does after all seem so to excel as depressing mediocrity and comfortable conventionality,
egoistic preciosity and mass idiocy.
But, honestly, Nietzsche's fears seem almost quaint now, given how much more nihilistic
we know a truly earnest nihilism can be.

Christian society certainly never fully purged itself of cruelty or violence; but it also
never incubated evils comparable in ambition, range, systematic precision, or mercilessness
to death camps, gulags, forced famines, or the extravagant brutality of modern warfare.
Looking back at the twentieth century, it is difficult not to conclude that the rise of modernity
has resulted in an age of at once unparalleled banality and unprecedented monstrosity,
and that these are two sides of the same cultural reality.

And why should this not be so?
If the quintessential myth of modernity is that true freedom is the power of the will
over nature -- human or cosmic -- and that we are at liberty to make ourselves what
we wish to be, then it is not necessarily the case that the will of the individual should
be privileged over the 'will of the species'...

...This is why it is correct to say that the sheer ruthlessness of so much of post-Christian
social idealism in some sense arises from the very same concept of freedom that lies
at the heart of our most precious modern values.

The savagery of triumphant Jacobinism, the clinical heartlessness of classical
socialist eugenics, the Nazi movement, Stalinism -- all the grant utopian projects
of the modern age that have directly or indirectly spilled such oceans of human blood --
are no less results of the Enlightenment myth of liberation than are the liberal
democratic state or the vulgarity of late capitalist consumerism or the pettiness of
bourgeois individualism.

The most pitilessly and self-righteously violent regimes of modern history --
in the West or in those other quarters of the world contaminated by our worst ideas --
have been those that have explicitly cast off the Christian vision of reality and sought
to replace it with a more 'human' set of values.

No cause in history -- no religion or imperial ambition or military adventure --
has destroyed more lives with more confident enthusiasm than the cause of the
'brotherhood of man', the postreligious utopia, or the progress of the race."

- David Bentley Hart 'Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies'
(emphases mine)
Agree with the man or not, he most certainly has a persuasive way with words.

Sacrifice and the New Covenant

It's been some time since I've made a post, largely due to work schedules
and a large amount of reading and research I've been doing into Trinitarian
doctrine in both the Old and New Testaments.

This morning, however, I've been thinking about the powerful symbolism involved in the
Mosaic law and the old covenant and how it relates to the new covenant.
Of course this is a vast topic, and far too large to do a proper study on in a limited space.

Under the old covenant, the blood of a sacrifice was a requirement for atonement.
We don't really know exactly when God set forth this system, but it appears extremely early
in Scripture as Cain and Abel were engaging in offerings in Genesis 4.
So it would seem that immediately following the fall in the garden of eden, God
made apparent to Adam and Eve that part of the consequences of their sin was that
blood must be shed on their behalf.

(Heb 9:16)  For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
(Heb 9:17)  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
(Heb 9:18)  Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
(Heb 9:19)  For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
(Heb 9:20)  Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
(Heb 9:21)  Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
(Heb 9:22)  And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

In spite of this, the Lord make it extremely evident that what He genuinely desires from
man and appreciates is meekness, an obedient heart, and a heart that loves justice and mercy more than sacrifice.
This information speaks volumes about the nature and the heart of our Creator.
Oh, how awesome He truly is.

David knew this:

(Psa 40:6)  Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

(Psa 51:16)  For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
(Psa 51:17)  The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Isaiah knew it:

(Isa 1:11)  To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
(Isa 1:12)  When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
(Isa 1:13)  Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
(Isa 1:14)  Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
(Isa 1:15)  And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.
(Isa 1:16)  Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
(Isa 1:17)  Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

So did Amos:

(Amo 5:21)  I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.
(Amo 5:22)  Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.
(Amo 5:23)  Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.
(Amo 5:24)  But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

Jeremiah too:

(Jer 6:20)  To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.

(Jer 7:21)  Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.
(Jer 7:22)  For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
(Jer 7:23)  But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
(Jer 7:24)  But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.

And Haggai:

(Hag 2:11)  Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,
(Hag 2:12)  If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.
(Hag 2:13)  Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.
(Hag 2:14)  Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the LORD; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean.

Even Moses makes it quite plain exactly what the Law truly entails at its root:

(Deu 10:12)  And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,
(Deu 10:13)  To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?
(Deu 10:14)  Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.
(Deu 10:15)  Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.
(Deu 10:16)  Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

And Micah, making it plain yet again:

(Mic 6:6)  Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?
(Mic 6:7)  Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
(Mic 6:8)  He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Thus the new covenant comes.
This is of such significance in the daily life of the Christian.
These Scriptures contain so much power to me when I read them.
How can we hope to truly walk according to the Spirit,
if we fail to understand the potence of the new covenant by which we are cleansed?

(Jer 31:31)  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
(Jer 31:32)  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
(Jer 31:33)  But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
(Jer 31:34)  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The sanctification and the sprinkling clean of the Christian's heart
comes through the blood of Jesus and through the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.
Of which I noticed a fascinating parallel from Ezekiel 36.

(Eze 36:25)  Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
(Eze 36:26)  A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
(Eze 36:27)  And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
(Eze 36:28)  And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

This is the same language used by David in Psalm 51 after his sin with Bathseeba, where he begs the Lord for cleanness of heart:

(Psa 51:7)  Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
(Psa 51:8)  Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
(Psa 51:9)  Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
(Psa 51:10)  Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
(Psa 51:11)  Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
(Psa 51:12)  Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

But now this work is completed in the sacrifice of Christ:

(Heb 9:13)  For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
(Heb 9:14)  How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
(Heb 9:15)  And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

(Tit 3:4)  But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
(Tit 3:5)  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;
(Tit 3:6)  Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
(Tit 3:7)  That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

When Skepticism Goes Too Far

If one word could accurately be used to sum up the attitude and thinking patterns
of our increasingly postmodernist society, it would be 'skepticism'.

The dictionary defines skepticism as:
1.) An attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object.
2.) The doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain.
3.) Doubt concerning basic religious principles.

It's clearly natural for us as human beings to be skeptical about certain things.
If someone offers me a stake in a proposal that requires high initial investment and promises
outrageous returns with no up-front evidence, I would be considered naive to not be suspicious.
Suspicion of other human beings, for instance, is on the surface an ordinary sentiment.
This is because, as we grow older, our cumulative experience teaches us that people
have a tendency to be deceptive and our relationships with them damaging to ourselves.

Indeed, human beings have a propensity to lie to us, let us down, break promises, cheat us,
steal from us, and absolve former relations in emotionally turbulent ways.
This does nothing to diminish the fact that human beings can be wonderfully receptive as well,
full of kindness, mercy, compassion, and displaying a refined sense of justice.
There are two sides of the same coin.

Skeptics demand evidence. Our society today is populated by skeptics.
This skepticism can take a variety of forms, such as in some of the things said by the rather aggressive 'new atheists'. Skepticism can be emotional skepticism as well. It is not exclusively intellectual.

In a debate between John Lennox and Peter Atkins, I was struck by the repeated observation
of Peter Atkins that belief in God is laziness.
According to Peter Atkins, belief in God condones scientific laziness, making a scientist
who believes in a supreme Being stop short of pushing the envelope in search of
scientific truth. But is this really the case?

As I mulled over some philosophical topics and personal experiences last night, I began to develop
the opinion that the opposite is, in fact, true. I believe that it is intellectual and emotional skepticism
that promotes laziness, complacency, and apathy.

Ask yourself the following question.
Is it easier to destroy something, or to create something?
The answer should be obvious.
It's almost always easier to demolish something, when sometimes
it can take days or even months to build the same thing.

The next question is this: Is it easier to shoot someone else down with disbelief, or to develop
a refined opinion of your own and rebut their arguments with acuity, precision, and incisiveness.
Obviously, once again, the former is easier.

Once you have experienced the emotional turmoil of the end of a romantic relationship,
does it become harder to enter a new commitment? Of course it does.
But we must overcome our excess of emotional skepticism in order to experience the joys
of love once again. Otherwise we become cold and apathetic; isolated and withdrawn from
the possibility of future social engagements.

I know. I've done it myself, probably to an extreme that most others have not.
But I believe that this example is one we can all identify with.
It is accepting the easy way out to take the stance of emotional skepticism; refusing to
believe there is someone who will not hurt us if we open ourselves up and allow them
into our inner circle of trust.

Similarly it is accepting the easy way out if we refuse to accept cumulative evidence when
it is staring us in the face. When we aggressively dismiss ideas when they are presented
merely because they disagree with our worldview. In these cases, skepticism
becomes a defense mechanism that does little or nothing to help us get at the truth.

So what am I saying? Is all skepticism bad?
Absolutely not. Some skepticism is necessary for us to live our lives from day to day.
Indeed, skepticism, when used appropriately, can be one of a host of intellectual tools
that we use to apprehend the truth of reality.

But there's a very fine line between skepticism and narrow-mindedness.
And if we are not careful, we will fall into a bad habit of utter refusal and denial.
My message is this warning:
beware of using intellectual or emotional skepticism as a defense mechanism and an easy out.
Don't be lulled into a life of apathy because you believe you are somehow smarter or wiser
than peers who have put their beliefs, opinions, and feelings on the chopping block.
There is no reward without risk.

A Succinct Theodicy

In working my through J. Warner Wallace's 'Cold-Case Christianity', which is a
fascinating new take on apologetics from a legal and logical viewpoint, I came
across this fascinating and succinct theodicy.

Theodicy, for those who are interested, is the theological discipline of
explaining how the existence of evil can be reconciled with the justice and
goodness inherent in God's nature.

Allow me, then, a brief quotation on this deep subject from J. Warner Wallace,
and also to strongly encourage you to pick up a copy of this book.
It is recent, it is well thought out, and it is powerfully convincing.

"Ask yourself this question: Which is more loving,
a God who creates a world in which love is possible or a God who
creates a world in which love is impossible.
It seems reasonable that a loving God would create a world where love
is possible and can be experienced by creatures who are designed
"in His image."

But a world in which love is possible can be a dangerous place.
Love requires freedom. True love requires that humans have the ability to
freely choose; love cannot be forced if it is to be heartfelt and real.
The problem, of course, is that people who have the freedom to love
often choose to hate.

That's why freedom of this nature is so costly.
A world in which people have the freedom to love and perform great acts
of kindness is also a world in which people have the freedom to hate and commit
great acts of evil. You cannot have one without the other.

In addition to this, from a Christian perspective, we are all eternal creatures
who will live beyond the grave. If this is true, then questions about why God
might not stop evil are a bit premature.
At best, we can say that God hasn't stopped evil yet.

But God has all eternity to act in this regard.
Our eternal life provides the context for God to justly deal with those who
choose hate and perform acts of evil. God is powerful enough to stop evil
completely, and He does care about justice.
But as an eternal Being, He may choose to take care of it on an eternal timeline.
Compared to eternity, this mortal existence is but a vapor, created by God
to be a wonderful place where love is possible for those who choose it.

If there are good reasons why God might permit evil in this life
(such as the preservation of free will and the ability to love genuinely),
concerns about His failure to act are simply unreasonable.
Doubt about God's existence based on the problem of evil may have emotional
appeal, but they lack rational foundation because reasonable explanations do, in fact, exist.

While one can imagine possible doubts related to the problem of evil,
careful consideration of the nature of objective evil reveals that these doubts
are not reasonable. We ought to be able to move beyond our reservations
here because the problem of evil does not present us with a reasonable doubt."

In his reference to 'reasonable doubt' here, J. Warner Wallace is referring
to the context of the chapter from which this quotation is taken, regarding
how jurors perceive when a cumulative-case inference to the best possible
explanation has attained a degree of certainty that can adequately provide
a conviction. Once again, I strongly encourage anyone who is interested to
check out this book. It has a unique perspective.