Faith-knowledge

"What sort of knowledge of God’s action in Christ’s death may we have? That a man named Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate about AD 30 is common historical knowledge, but Christian beliefs about his divine identity and the significance of his dying cannot be deduced from that fact alone. What further sort of knowledge about the cross, then, may Christians enjoy?

The answer, we may say, is faith-knowledge: by faith we know that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Yes, indeed; but what sort of knowledge is faith-knowledge? It is a kind of knowledge of which God is both giver and content. It is a Spirit-given acquaintance with divine realities, given through acquaintance with God’s word. It is a kind of knowledge which makes the knower say in one and the same breath both ‘whereas I was blind, now I see’ (Jn 9:25) and also ‘now we see as in a mirror, darkly . . . now I know in part’ (1 Cor. 13:12). For it is a unique kind of knowledge which, though real, is not full; it is knowledge of what is discernible within a circle of light against the background of a larger darkness; it is, in short, knowledge of a mystery, the mystery of the living God at work.

‘Mystery’ is used here as it was by Charles Wesley when he wrote:
‘Tis mystery all! The immortal dies!
Who can explore his strange design?
In vain the first-born seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine!"
(J Packer)

Any thoughts?

Pseudo intellectual protesteth too much

"I do find it rather comical anyway that you need to scrabble around for ‘evidence’ (often pretty dodgy evidence) when it suits and then spend ages refuting any empirically tested evidence with all ‘sound and fury’ when it doesn’t suit."

(A comment posted to me on an earlier post)

I have yet to see any empirically tested evidence that a creator God does not exist. Or that Jesus did not resurrect from the dead. Or That after receiving the 'death sentence' from doctors my friend wasn't miraculously healed of cancer IMMEDIATELY after another friend prayed and heard Jesus say that he (Jesus) was going to heal him - even the doctors were quoted in the papers as stating this was a miracle!

If there is empiracally tested evidence for such things, why is that many who I suspect are greater and more intelligent thinkers even then those who post negatively on my blog (if that be possible - given the rudeness and patronsisation of some 'intellectual' protestors) believe otherwise???

Then I get accused of needing evidence to sustain my faith. The implication is that I should take on board: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. Heb 11:1"

I feel that on this one I just can't win. I am damned if I offer evidence for my faith, and damned if I appear to have blind faith. Well the truth on this matter is that I am sure of what I hope for and certain of what I do not see, but am also greatful that I can enter into the world of appologetics using the evidence that is before me.

Man is nothing but ...

Man is nothing but:

FAT enough for seven bars of soap

IRON enough for one medium size nail

SUGAR enough for seven cups of tea

LIME enough to whitewash one chicken coup

MAGNESIUM enough for one dose of salts

PHOSPHOROUS enough to tip 2,200 matches

POTASH enough to explode one toy crane

SULPHUR enough to rid one dog of fleas (C E M Joad)

OR PERHAPS MAN IS SOMETHING MORE THAN THIS .... PERHAPS HE IS SOMEONE WHO CAN EXERCISE FREE WILL! PERHAPS HE IS SOMEONE WHO IS ABLE TO RATIONALISE! PERHAPS HE HAS A SOUL AND A SPIRIT! PERHAPS HE HAS A REASON FOR BEING!

The human soul consists of our mind, our free will and our emotions. To say that free will does not exist, that the choices that we make are random, would make the penal system unjust. Why should one be sent to prison for murdering (even a child) if all we are is a combination of physical matter? It would also rob us of any sense of conscience any purpose or meaning of life. Evidence for the soul can be based on experience of ourselves - the fact that we are conscious of our being who we are. Evidence of the soul is our ability to rationalise and take responsibility for the decisions that we make.

Evidence for our soul is the God given ability to LOVE..

Is the Old Testament God a God of wrath and the New Testament God a God of Love?

Is the Old Testament God a God of wrath and the New Testament God a God of Love?
This is the question we have been looking at tonight at a superb presentation by two leaders in our church. In the next few days I will attempt to summarise what has been said and add a few thoughts of my own. Meanwhile what do you think?

Where does the ability to love come from?

Perhaps a silly and too basic a question, but I wonder if you have sat and thought about the question: "Where does the ability to love come from?"

There is a new film out about Charles Darwin's life and of course his theory of evolution. The theory (and that is all it is!) describes a dog eat dog existence - where only the fittest survive. In all this the theory fails to address the existence of love. I'm thinking about the type of sacrifical love that we see clearly in the life of Jesus Christ. The type of love that on a good day we might manage to emulate.

The Bible of course is absolutely clear about the source of love.

Dear friends (says John) let us love one another, for love comes from God. And more clearly goes on to say: God is love!

In the New Testament there are 3 words for love:

Philia (family loyalty)

Eros: (physical intimate love)

And Agape: (sacrificial, life transforming, Christ like love)

All these are gift from God but it is the third Agape - the love that bucks the trend of a dog eat dog existence that can not be adequately be explained by those who put their faith in the theory of evolution. For this type of love there is but one explantion: that it comes from a creator God who created man in his own image.

Dear friends let us love oneanother, for love comes from God (1John 4: 7)

50 Days to Save the Planet

A couple of days ago Prime Minister Brown boldly and declared that we have 50 days to save the planet. He was referring of course to Copenhagen summit. A blog by my friend in America (here)
picked up on his comment and it set me wondering if there is anyone out there who would put their trust in politicians to save the planet. My second thought had an eschatological slant: If the planet had 50 days left - would that sharpen Christians' resolve to evangelise their part of the planet.

The truth is we do not know the day or the hour of Jesus' return. But we do know that His return will triger the end of this planet as we know it. Why then is the church still nonchalent in its aproach to obeying Jesus' command to 'Go and make disciples of all nations.' ?

'There is a heaven after death. I've been there and I know" (Sailing into the sunset)

"For centuries in Europe, people debated the question as to whether there was a land beyond the western horizon, beyond the sunset. SOme said there was, others expressed their doubts. Then one day Columbus and his men sailed out from Europe across the vast Atlantic Ocean into the sunset. When they returned they could say, 'we've been there and we know'.

In the same way, for generations people have debated the question of life after death. Some have said, 'Yes, there is life beyond the grave', others have denied it, 'No there isn't.' Then one day Jesus sailed out into that 'undiscovered country', and he came back, and in coming back, still says to us, in Isaac Watts' verse:

There is a land of pure delight
Where saints immortal reign;
Infinite day excludes the night
And pleasures banish pain.

'There is a heaven after death. I've been there and I know!' "

(From 'Heaven and Hell' Bruce Milne)