Ask Waymer

Ask Waymer about his "Doubting Thomas" testimony that he gave at upwards basketball last saturday.
Waymer also has a question. When Thomas is quoted in John 11:16, after Jesus says "let us return to Judea", as saying to the rest of the disciples: "Let us also go, that we may die with him." was he being "serious" or "sarcastic" or maybe "resigned" when he made this statement? Which do you think it was and why?

Quote of the Day

“A fair result could be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts on both sides of each question.” –Chas. Darwin

Seems like Charley's disciples these days don't subscribe to this statement.

Encounter with a Darwinist Today

Don't tell me Darwinism is not a "religion". Have you ever seen those Christian fish symbols attached to the rear of vehicles with "evolved" feet and "Darwin" on them?
Well, today, I was driving to court and I saw one of these symbols on the rear of a truck. On a whim or maybe after being sensitized to the issue by reading about Darwin earlier in the day, I followed the truck into a parking lot and waited until the driver, sporting a beard, stepped from the vehicle. I rolled down my window and called out to him: "Hey, do you know that today is the 200th birthday of your savior?" He look quizzically at me for a moment, and then smiled and said: "Yeah, I know. I going to a celebration party tonight." I responded: "Can your savior save your soul from eternal damnation?" He looked at me warily, and then condescendingly replied: "Actually, my soul is in pretty good shape." I countered with the "J" word: "Then you know Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord?" The fellow looked at me with disgust, turned and walked away without responding.
The foregoing is an absolutely true and verbatim account of what happened.

Lincoln vs. Darwin: Co-Shaping the Modern World?

Two hundred years ago today, two boys were born within hours of each other; one in the United States and the other in England. Both would become renowned and affect the lives of their contemporaries as well as generations to come. One would lead his nation to a “new birth of freedom” and pay with his life. The other would be responsible for an idea that would justify and rationalize the worst cruelty and oppression the world has ever seen. Whose 200th birthday is getting the most attention?
The cover story of this month’s Smithsonian magazine tells readers “How Lincoln and Darwin Shaped the Modern World” The author of the article writes that Lincoln and Darwin had “midwifed” a new world where “the hierarchies of nature and race and class that had governed the world”, had been brought into question, if not overthrown. According to the author, “evolution” and “emancipation” are co-laborers in this transformation. What?
Tell that nonsense to the millions of people murdered in the name of ideologies that cited Darwin’s On the Origin of Species as justification for their acts such as the perpetrators of the gulags and the death camps. They saw themselves as acting in concert with the laws of nature: specifically, nature according to Darwin and his successor supporters. And what about “Social Darwinism”; which ideas have been utilized to justify and rationalize class hierarchies (Hitler's so-called "master race") around the world rather than “weaken” “question” or “overthrow” them.
The adverse social consequences of Darwinism are spun and portrayed as after-the-fact corruptions of Darwin’s thoughts. However, it has been documented plainly from Darwin’s own notebooks that he anticipated his ideas’ influencing “competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality”. Not to mention his endorsement of ideas about eugenics. Where is the outrage over the social consequences of Darwinism and Darwin’s complicity in these consequences and the destructive impact those ideas have had on one particular species: man himself?
So as for me and my house, I think I’ll celebrate Lincoln today.
Credit for much of the content and concept of the above post is attributable to Chuck Colson.
And we haven't even started talking about the justification for the denial of God or avoiding accountability for lack of morality that has spun off from Darwinism. We'll get to that.

Happy 200th Birthday: Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin

Whose birthday do you want to celebrate today? Lincoln or Darwin? Emancipation or Evolution? Both born February 12, 1809. More thoughts to come on this. Stay tuned.

Read the Bible in a Year with Devotion

Going to start up a new blog activity.
"Read the Bible in a Year with Devotion".
What's different about this plan from others? 1) we are starting now rather than at the first of the calendar year; 2) we are starting in Leviticus, the third Old Testament book; and 3) the daily posts will cite the passages to read for the day (usually 2-3 chapters) and there will be some devotional commentary related to the daily passage of Scripture (that's the "with Devotion" part).
Why? 1) systematic reading plans such as this usually start at the beginning of the year, after the holidays, when people are immersed in attempting to implement numerous new things, most of which have since been abandoned by this time of year; 2) starting in a book that will require discipline to get through it (along with the next one, Numbers); thereby rewarding the faithful reader with the formation of a good habit that will allow the reader to perservere to completion of the goal, which is reading the entirety of God's revealed truth within a year; 3) the devotional commentary will hopefully enhance the understanding of the passage along with enriching and encouraging the readeer.

Additionally, this activity will allow active participation of the reader by being able to post "comments" on the day's passage, and see what other people have commented as well. Further, as a group activity, it allows whatever degree of accountability desired to stay the course to completion.
My suggestion is to pick a certain time to do this each day and sit down first and read through the daily chapters, in a relaxed, casual manner or pace. Allow God, through the Holy Spirit, to speak to you. After reading the passage, you can review the devotional commentary, consider it, and post whatever comments you desire for your own expression and/or for the benefit of others.

My plan is to post the daily passage cites the evening before the next day's reading. You can do the reading in the Bible version that you typically use for study or you can choose another version for additional edification.
Come on now, let's give it a shot together.

"Barnabas Example" Challenge -- First Bite

Colossians 4:6
"Let your speech/conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt..."

OK, so I ran off at the mouth last Sunday in Bible study challenging us to consider being an encourager to someone this week and speaking positively to them in preparation for our study of the encouragement that Barnabas was to Saul/Paul in Acts 9, etc.

Little did I know that I was opening myself up to be convicted about my speech. Got to thinking about it after Bible study. Why do I talk so negatively so much of the time? Why don't I speak more positively? Why do I default to the negative in so many circumstances? So I have talked myself into taking the "Barnabas Example" challenge. But I want to make a commitment that I might have some chance of keeping. I do not want to bite off more than I can chew, so to speak, especially when it comes to possibly having to eat my own words. Therefore, rather than trying to "eat the whole elephant" at one time, I will instead try to do it one bite at a time. Let me explain my "first bite". I am going to limit the scope and length of time of the commitment. Rather than trying to speak positively and encouragingly to everyone (what a burden), I will select one person. Rather than committing to do such for the rest of my life (let's not get carried away here), I will make the commitment until this coming Sunday morning at 9:30, at which time my official commitment will cease, if I so choose. By way of accountability, I will report and have my "one person" report to the group whether or not I was successful in keeping my commitment.
Therefore, my "one person" I have chosen to encourage and speak positively to is my wife, Carri. I kind of cheated on choosing my "one person" because she is always so nice and pleasant. I also kind of cheated on choosing the time frame because Valentine's is coming up, so you sort of have to be nice during this time anyway, don't you?
Well, here we go! It's Wednesday afternoon at 5:00 pm, so I will amble up to the church and see what happens. Since I have not let her in on this yet, let's see how long it takes her to wonder if something is wrong with me.

Chapter Two -- Comments & Commentary -- Knowledge of the Holy --Tozer

God Incomprehensible

Tozer poses the question in Chapter Two: What is God like?
He asserts that this book is an attempt to answer that question. However, he acknowledges that it cannot be fully answered in our human inadequacies, except to say: God is not like anything or anybody, not exactly.

Our minds are not capable of leaping directly to contemplation of the unfamiliar or unknown. We access unfamiliar territory by bridging over and extending from what we already know. Complete knowledge or understanding of “what God is like” is unfamiliar territory that cannot be directly accessed in our minds.

Tozer illustrates this limitation of our minds by suggesting that even those with the most nimble minds, at their most imaginative, are unable to conjure up something spontaneous out of nothing. It always begins with something you already know. For example, try to imagine a new kind of creature or being that does not incorporate something from what is familiar to you. The human mind does not directly access the unfamiliar; it extends to the unfamiliar over the bride of the familiar.

Tozer also cites the example of the strain of the assignment of being inspired by God (as the writers of Scripture) to express infinite thoughts and concepts of the supernatural with finite words and language of the natural. That is, the difficulty of having to express the unfamiliar, using the tools of the familiar. “It’s like, you know, just like, man, sort of like, wow, like….”

Tozer argues that when the Scriptures state that “man was made in the image of God”, it does not say or mean the “exact” image of God. For this to be so would necessarily break down the barrier of the high wall that exists to separate “that-which-is-God” from “that-which-is-not-God”.(i.e.,Creator from created).

Tozer asserts that in trying to imagine God, we run the risk of creating an “idol of the mind” made with “thoughts”, which would be just as offensive to God as an idol made with “hands”. Ultimately, “Idolatry” is our attempt to shape God, either physically or mentally, to suit our desires.

Tozar quotes Nicholas of Cusa (a 15th century theological philosopher/thinker), for the proposition that the intellect knows that man is ignorant of God, because God cannot be fully known, unless the “unknowable could be known”, and the “invisible beheld”, and the “inaccessible attained.”

Tozar further quotes Nicholas to support the concept that God cannot really be ultimately conceived or totally understood, because God is absolute above any concepts of Him that man could conjure up.

In effect, man in his inadequacies, wants to craft God in his own image, which necessarily reduces God to less than He ultimately is, in order to manage or control Him.

I believe that Tozar is emphasizing this concept (to the point of potentially belaboring it) for the purpose of combating the two extreme directions that men tend to go that creates the “loss” which Tozar identified in the Preface of this book. That is, the loss of the sense of majesty of God or a low view of God. On the one hand, man, in his pride, deceives himself into thinking that he truly and clearly can understand and comprehend what God is like; or on the other hand, he is all too willing to give up and not engage in the spiritual disciplines necessary to systematically study and learn more and more about what God is like. Either extreme necessarily will give man a low view of God, and a false understanding of what God is really like.

Tozar contends that in the 20th century, God has been taken for granted and has not been properly conceived of by men. As a consequence thereof, Man's perception of the glory of God has necessarily suffered and been insufficient in this generation.

Tozar asks: If we do not conceive God properly, how then shall we think of Him? Is He incomprehensible?

Tozar provides the Biblical answer: We can know God only through Jesus Christ our Lord. In Christ and by Christ, God makes self-disclosure of Himself in response to man’s faith and love (as opposed to man’s reason and intellect). We process God in Jesus Christ, by faith and through love. By Faith, we gain knowledge of God, and by Love, we experience God.

Tozer returns to the original question: “What is God like?” If by the question we mean what is He like in Himself in His ultimate and essential nature?, there is no answer for us. It is known only to God. However, if we mean, “What has God disclosed about Himself that believers can comprehend?”, then the answer is that He has, in love, condescended to reveal things about Himself to us to be true as to his nature and character. These things are called His attributes. By identifying them and studying them and mediating on them, we can answer in part, what God is like.

In summary, Tozer entitled the chapter well: God is incomprehensible, except to the extent that He chooses to reveal Himself to us; so…what do His attributes reveal about Him?

The rest of the book will expound on the ATTRIBUTES OF GOD which have been revealed to us by Him through Holy Scripture and Jesus Christ.

Post your comments please by clicking on "comments" below.

Start reading Chapter Three. "The Divine Attribute (Defined): Something True About God"

The Heavens Declare the Glory (and Majesty) of God -- Psalms 19:1

Want a "High View" of God? Contemplate his creations in the "heavens"
CLICK on the Image to make it larger and easier to view

Knowledge of the Holy --Ch. 2-- God is Incomprehensible

so-called "eye of God" -- Helix Nebula
Have you been "thinking" about "right thinking" about God after having read Chapter One of our book?
Please read Chapter Two: God is incomprehensible and unknowable...?
I will post comments and commentary on Chapter Two at the end of the week.
Is anyone out there doing this with me?

Knowledge of the Holy - A.W. Tozer -- Book Text

HERE IS YOUR BOOK TEXT: CLICK ON IT.
Knowledge Of The Holy CLICK HERE

Chapter One: Comments & Commentary --Knowledge of the Holy --Tozer

Tozer entitles Chapter One: “Why we Must Think Rightly about God”.
Tozer begins the chapter with a prayer asking
God to “…enlighten our minds that we may know Thee as Thou art…” so that we may perfectly love Him and worthily praise Him. Tozer ends his prayer “…that we may know and call upon God as He is.”
We cannot know and call upon God as He is if we do not think “rightly” about Him.

Our ideas of God (who we think He is) must relate to the reality of God (who He really is).

What we think about God becomes what we believe about God. Right thinking about God is foundational to right belief in God.

Right thinking is necessary to properly love God, completely obey Him, and acceptably worship Him.

Without right thinking about God, we are prone to “idolatry”: that is, assuming that God is other than He is; substituting the true God for one made after our own likeness or conformed to our own image; the product of our wrong thinking. The essence of idolatry is entertaining thoughts about God that are unworthy of Him and that exchange a lofty view of God as creator for a debased or perverted view of Him in the likeness or image of the created.
Why must we "think rightly"?
Necessary for right belief, right relationship, right response, right worship.
Here are some questions to begin asking yourself during this study:
Q: How do you think about God?
Q: What comes into your mind when you think about God?
Q: Are you thinking right thoughts or wrong thoughts?
Q: How do we think “rightly” about God? What are "right" thoughts?
Q: How do we think “wrongly” about God? What are "wrong" thoughts?
Q: What is your idea of God?
Q: What do you conceive God to be like?

Please comment on chapter one by clicking on "comments" below.
Start reading chapter two this week.

Knowledge Of The Holy -- A. W.Tozer - Preface

In reading the Preface of "Knowledge of the Holy", I found 11 expressions of the loss the church has incurred. All of the references deal with the church's integration with modern society. Mankind finds it necessary to gradually integrate man's ideas and expectations onto God's character.

The losses of the church include:
-a loss of the concept and sense of the majesty of God (listed 3 times),
-the surrendering of a lofty concept of God,
-having a low view of God,
-a loss of religious awe and consciousness of the divine presence.
-a loss of a spirit of worship,
-a loss of ability to draw inwardly to meet God in adoring silence,
-a lack of appreciation or experiencing the life in the Spirit,
-a decline of a knowledge of holy,
-having an idea of God that is erroneous or inadequate.

Yes, I do believe that this problem is continuing in the 21st Century in a dramatic way. People today often go to church out of habit, obligation, and/or to socialize. They often do not truly go because they have a deep desire to worship God.

What are your thoughts as you are getting ready to go to church or worship God in any other way? Are your actions performed without thinking and/or out of habit? Do you think, "Oh, I need to go to church because the kids need to go"? Are you wanting to go to see your friends and find out the latest news?
Or do you get up every morning like it were a new day, marveling in God's majesty? Do you continually praise Him throughout the day? Are you eagerly wanting to go to whole-heartedly worship God? Every Christian truly should yearned to worship God the way intended by God.