BlogPost Introduction Pt. 2: Living with Tozer's God

"For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."

Lk 19:10


HOW DO YOU DETERMINE TRUTH?

Last time we finished thinking about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as the cornerstone of all Christian teaching and, of course, why this matters. Why it matters is directly related to why He died. According to the Scriptures, men are 'dead in sin'. By this is meant that man's selfish, rebellious determination to live his life, on his terms, for his benefit and satisfaction regardless of God's will has, understandably, caused a 'breach' in his relationship to God, a breach which man has no power or resources with which to repair, even if he wanted to. This 'separation' from God is 'death'. The 'gospel' is God's attempt to restore man's relationship with Himself.

But, is there any real need for a 'gospel' message? If there's no God, then there is no need. Moral questions of right and wrong, sin and guilt have no meaning. They only have value if a morally superior authority has imposed an objective standard for which we are accountable. That's the bottom line issue. But...

If God is real, then this is a critically important question, since it is obvious to the most casual bystander that there is clearly something morally deficient in mankind. We're killing each other at an increasingly alarming rate and have now reached the point where we're capable of totally destroying ourselves and, really, the whole world! Mankind appears to be in deep need of a Savior, and sooner than later!' The Bible declares that Jesus Christ is that Savior.

The unique thing about Christianity is Christ! There is no other person like Him. Of course, after claiming to be God, how could anyone else be like Him? The question we want to address today is this: Why should we believe the teaching about Him? Why should we believe He is the One we should follow? Why should we believe He can 'save' us? What would that mean? How can we know if any of it is true? What do we use for evidence to make an intelligent decision?

What Should We Believe? Why?

Some might argue they want 'scientifically verifiable' proof, as if that is the highest form of 'proof'. Is that true? Since we clearly live in a highly-ordered universe, we often enjoy the luxury of 'mathematical certainty'. This is really helpful when you're building a 40-story building and want to know how deep the foundation and how strong the steel girders need to be to keep it standing! This is critical in the purely physical world. But, what about the immaterial world?

What world is this? It's the world of the 'soul':  the mental, emotional, spiritual world of relationships, of right and wrong, of happiness and sadness, of joy and grief, of life and death, of truth and lies. It's where we, the inner person really lives...and there's no mathematical certainty in this realm. There is only integrity and character, truth and principles. This is where 'good and evil' are discerned and determined. You can argue which principles are best fitted to guide us, but the decisions and conclusions will be based on 'moral principles'. In the realm of the soul, mathematical certainty is not an option.

Truth: The Fundamental Human Operating Principle

In the spiritual/psychological/immaterial world there is one fundamental human operating principle that is apparent to anyone who cares to look.

We operate on the basis of truth or, at least, what we believe to be the truth. This doesn't mean we can't be deceived (i.e. believe a lie), but the point is we always operate on the basis that what we believe about something is true. That's simply the way human beings, are 'wired'. Why is this important?

In most of the important decisions of life, mathematical certainty is not going to be available. The goal has to be moral certainty, the 'rightness or wrongness' is going to be based on 'relational' (actions, reactions and real-world experiences) and 'psychological' (mental, emotional, spiritual) perceptions and components. And, this is completely legitimate. But, there is great potential for error and evil if this is all you have to base your decisions on. Why?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"...we always operate on the basis that what we believe about

something is true. That's simply the way human beings, are 'wired'.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IF moral certainty is based solely on the 'relational' and 'psychological' beliefs and experiences of the individuals involved, how do you determine what's right and what's wrong? One person's experience is just as valid as another's. Right? This leads either to a stalemate or anarchy. How do you avoid this?

What is needed is an objective criteria. Someone or something that has sufficient moral authority to impose their standard of right and wrong. Of course, their 'right' to impose their authority has to be legitimate. For thousands of years the solution for the Christian has been simple. The 'who' is God, the 'how' is the 'word of God', the Bible.

For those who reject God's right as Creator to impose His moral authority on His created moral beings, they are left to a world of anarchy where 'truth' will always be determined by the might of the stronger. And since Camelot doesn't exist and universal selfishness does, the 'lot' of these folks is almost always suffering and misery.

Back to the main point: Why should we believe any of this is true? How can we know whether Jesus Christ rose from the dead, especially since we weren't there to see for ourselves? The best answer is the testimony of the eyewitnesses who were there. Is this a valid basis on which to operate? The answer to that is simple. It's exactly what we base our whole evidence-based system of law and justice on. Don't we determine truth and lies, guilt and innocence ultimately on the basis of eyewitness testimony? We do it every day. In the end, we sometimes even have to determine whether to take a man's life as punishment for crimes that are committed based on the testimony of eyewitnesses. So, the validity of the approach is time-tested and proven.

But, there is one weakness in this approach, one flaw that can contaminate the process. Sometimes, the eyewitnesses are wrong or interpreted what they saw inaccurately or, worse, they just lied. How can we insure this isn't the case here?

There are two compelling arguments to me. First, we're not dealing with just one or two witnesses. There were literally hundreds who saw the resurrected Lord. And there is no conflict in their testimony. The second thing is that multitudes of them died for their testimony. We noted earlier that folks operate on the basis of 'truth'. They live their lives on the basis of what they believe to be true. We can add to this, rational folks don't knowingly die for lies. Yes, they can be deceived. But, the essence of deception is that the person believes it to be true. You can deceive some of the people, but not all of them...not to the point where they give up their own lives over it!

The disciples who saw the resurrected Lord were so committed to what they witnessed that they died for it, sometimes dying horrible deaths at the hands of the Roman persecutors. Almost all the apostles died martyr deaths, none ever recanted. The resurrection of Christ was an undeniable reality. It literally changed their lives and, because of it, millions of other lives have been changed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"...rational folks don't knowingly die for lies. Yes, they can be

deceived. But, the essence of deception is that the person
 believes it to be true."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This may not convince you of its truth, but there's certainly enough evidence to compel a thinking person to at least want to investigate the claims. The potential of eternal loss is too great to just 'blow it off' as foolishness. Next time we'll be delving into the amazing potential of 'knowing Tozer's God'. If you haven't settled the issue of the Resurrection and what it means in your life, now is a good time to do that. The Bible is pretty clear when it says in Romans 14, "For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living." After all, there's not much point in seeking Him unless you believe He's alive!

Until next time...

Note: This may not completely convince you of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but if you think these posts are of value, pass them on to others. Help us help others to find the 'true knowledge of God'.

BlogPost#1 - Introduction: Living with Tozer's God

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" Matt. 5:8

Think about that statement. What would you give to 'see God'? When I first wrote that as I outlined the plan for this blog, I assumed that to the majority of people it would be a great desire. And once that may have been true. But, I am afraid the truth is we now live in a world where multitudes (a majority?) of people, well, could care less about 'seeing God'. When you consider the annals of history (which I realize most folks don't), that's really a stunning thought. So, we have to begin, at least briefly, at the most fundamental level. Do you believe God exists? Does it even matter?

Don't kid yourself, there is a whole generation of young people out there now who really don't know why this question is important, they don't see that it matters. That's hard for those raised in previous generations to fathom, but it's a fact now.

The idea of 'seeing God', that God actually interacts with us, living in the real presence of an omniscient God, and a need/desire to please God; these have all been essential elements of the mindset of mankind as far back as history records it...and beyond. Even when 'primitive' men didn't seem to have any kind of 'formal' religion, there was always the idea that 'gods' controlled the world. And common sense told you that if someone greater than you made this world then you needed to know what to do to keep them happy or bad things might happen!

Only in the last 150 years has there been a concerted attempt to ridicule this belief and 'prove' that God does not exist. It began with Darwin, but his ideas just gave voice to the growing desire to throw off the restraints of 'religion'. Those who resist this 'new wisdom' are now viewed as anti-intellectual. They declare 'the science (of evolution) is settled'...and we're supposed to just accept that as 'truth'.

Yet, when challenged by those with equally impressive credentials, but opposed to their conclusions, evolutionists are forced to admit, 'it's an unproven theory'. Are we e-volving or de-volving? The real question we should be asking is: Is science now our 'god'? Has it supplanted the place of the 'Creator God'? Most of the scientific establishment would say, 'Yes'. The problem is, they can't prove it. The time may have come when those who don't cower under the disdain of the elite educational establishment's bias on this could legitimately ask these elites, "Are you even smarter than a 5th Grader? Can you prove it?"

 We won't spend much time on evolution now, but we should all understand that if evolution is true, then the whole idea that 'seeing God' has any real value is ludicrous. There are only two options, either God exists or evolution is correct (i.e. our 'beginning' is the result of spontaneous, random occurrence)...but, both can not be true. If evolution is true,the 'gospel' is unnecessary. No God means no moral authority, no accountability, no sin and no need for salvation. Period.

But, if it's not true, and a Creator-God does exist, then the issue of 'seeing Him' is of great importance...and of even greater importance is what will happen when we do! The critical question then becomes a moral question, 'How should we prepare to see or meet God?'. Is there any way to know? Does the fact that we are flawed, immoral beings or worse even matter? Is there an answer? How can we know for sure?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are only two options, either God exists or evolution is correct

(i.e. our 'beginning' is the result of spontaneous, random occurrence)

...but, both can not be true.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is where the proverbial 'line of demarcation' is drawn in pursuit of the knowledge of God. Some will declare that all roads lead to God? That 'true sincerity' in the pursuit all that is required to succeed? Others declare that there just one path and all the other paths lead to the wrong destination or worse, they lead nowhere? Can we know which is which? Christianity says there is. They proclaim unequivocally that the Bible is the infallible word of God to us on this very issue.

The Dividing Line of Christianity: The Resurrection

Whether you like it or not, this is the crucial question for anyone pursuing the knowledge of God. Is the Bible the true path to the knowledge of God or is it just another book of so-called 'wisdom'. The Bible is not a book of wisdom, unless you embrace the source of that wisdom. Is it truly divinely inspired? If evolution is true, it can't be. There are only two options, either God exists or evolution is correct (i.e. and our 'beginning' is really just an accident), both can not be true. It's either true or it's a lie, period. It can't be partly true, that just makes it a half-truth, which is still a lie. So, in the case of Christianity, you're going to have to decide whether to believe what it says, (which means believing that what Jesus says is absolute truth) or not. In which case, you should follow a different path. What criteria can you use to judge Him?  

There is one compelling difference between Christianity and all other religions. Their founders are all dead...and none of them tries to claim otherwise. Their founders made it clear that their goal was to 'enlighten' others to the path they should follow if they want to achieve the same status/state/experience, etc. which the founder had reached. They were not the ultimate source of the light or the path itself, just a guide to the path. In other words, they were really no different than their followers, they just found the path first. Jesus' claims were different.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"There are only two options, either God exists or evolution is correct

(i.e. our 'beginning' is the result of spontaneous, random occurrence) ...but, both can not be true."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Christianity makes the bold claim that not only has their founder left a path to follow which leads to God, He has also conquered death and promises eternal life to those who follow Him! He claims to be the source of the life, the source and embodiment of the truth He proclaims and is willing to share that life (meaning He'll share the source of that life!) with those who put their total faith and trust in Him alone. This resulting faith-union with Christ has as its declared goal that we should share His glory in heaven for all eternity.

Clearly, that claim is different from the others! If that claim is true (or is even possibly true), on what basis would you reject it without first investigating the possibility of it being true? Another way to ask it would be: Who would you be more likely to listen to, the 'founder' who is dead or the one who apparently rose from the dead? You'd have to at least be willing to investigate the evidence and decide if you think it's true. And the primary question you must resolve is clear. Did Christ rise from the dead, or not?

Make no mistake about it, this is the essential centerpiece of Christian teaching. It's the cornerstone. Everything hangs on the Resurrection. Either Christ was executed in our place as punishment for our sins, after three days rose from the dead and is now seated in heaven with God or Christianity is a lie.

It's either all true or none of it is true. There is no middle ground, Christ did not allow for any options or 'partial' truths. He did not come primarily to be a guide, He came to be a Savior. Either He was or He wasn't. It's really that simple.

What's not so simple is determining what evidence makes believing the claims of Christ an intelligent, reasonable decision. More specifically, what evidence is there to confirm that He rose from the dead! Ask yourself now, what evidence did you use to make the decision?

Is it just something 'you've always believed because this is what you were taught'? That may be okay for kids, and it may start you on the right path, but it's not the most solid foundation to base your eternal destiny on. That would truly be 'blind faith'. At some point, you need to own this decision for yourself, otherwise you'll be vulnerable. In reality, your faith is really built on someone else's foundation. Is there a reason you haven't laid your own foundation? This is crucial if you're going to know God.

What criteria would you use? First, of course, is history. The historical proof for the life of Christ is among the most well-documented events in all history. The fact of his life and even His death are rarely disputed. Even the facts of His own predicted Resurrection from the dead are well-documented. The disciples were actually looking for it and were perplexed that it had not occurred more quickly. Of course, it seemed incredulous (no one else had ever risen from the dead!).

But, they had seen Him do a number of death-defying miracles (like when He raised Lazarus and a few others!), so they couldn't rule out the possibility that He also could rise from the dead. You can take the historical route and find a lot of convincing evidence. But to me, when it all boils down, the only way we can come to a decision is going to be based on the testimony of the people who lived at that time, who actually saw Christ after he rose from the dead. Is this legitimate?

I think so and we'll see why next time. The deciding factor is compelling. 

 

Until next time...

Note: As you can see, this blog will operate more like a weekly newsletter.

So, if you want to make sure you get it, please sign up for email updates.