Freedom

What is freedom? Is it the lack of constraints, the opportunity to do whatever we want, or the opportunity to do that which is most beneficial to us? When people are told that the gospel is freedom, they are often puzzled by the fact that it comes with many regulations on how they should live. If I am free, why am I not free to engage in debauchery? This question is valid because, on the surface, it seems that freedom is merely the absence of rules or constraints. The only problem with applying this definition to our lives is that it is a simple definition and it cannot be applied to a complex situation. If I am given the freedom to do anything I please, I may do something that will cause me to be incarcerated, or otherwise constrained. Therefore, freedom is not merely permission; it comes with a set of rules, which show us the way toward a life that is free of harmful constraints.

With this view toward freedom, many circular questions are avoided. “Why doesn’t God want me to get drunk?” “Why does it matter whether or not I give glory to God, if His glory is not subject to my actions?”…. I could go on. When we realize that part of freedom is rules that set us free from many things (things that we call sin), we see joy in the rules and cease to follow them without meaning or personality. This is why many Pharisees offended Jesus, they demeaned the rules that were created for freedom by making them into constraints; the very thing they were meant to destroy.

So, we see that there are two extremes when viewing moral law, and that neither is true. First we have the view of the anarchist: rules cannot beget freedom. Second we have the view of the legalist: rules should be followed for their own sake. Both of our characters have fallen into deadly traps of slavery. The anarchist is a slave to himself, while the legalist is a slave to rules. One has bastardized freedom, while the other has bastardized order. If only we could see that the two are not separate, I believe we would be on the road to the freedom that is promised through the gospel of Christ.

I'm Not a Politician

I wonder how many beliefs i hold for the sake of diplomacy.

You're probably right, God is probably wrong...

It seems like a contradiction that we would be fulfilled though service, that we would gain by giving. We wonder how God could love us if His will for us is only that we glorify Him. Is this a paradox or a contradiction? Does it benefit us to serve God without regard to ourselves? If so, why?

The discrepancy here arises due to an inaccurate view of who God is and who we are. When determining what is beneficial for anything, we must first determine what the thing is and why it exists. Let us apply this concept to humanity. What is humanity and why does it exist? This can be answered by first asking how it exists. The Bible teaches that we exist as a product of creation by an all-powerful God. This is so simple and so matter of fact to a Christian that it is often overlooked when he is considering the dynamic of his relationship to God. The profound revelation that is found in this simple truth is this; since God is our creator our meaning, purpose, and worth can be nothing greater, or less, or anything at all other than what is assigned by Him.

If the creator assigns the purpose, then humanity must look to its creator in order to find its purpose. The Bible teaches that our purpose is to please God, to glorify Him. It can be said in many ways, but any way it is put, we are meant to be servants. Is it any wonder then that the selfish are unfulfilled while the selfless live at peace? We were created for God, not God for us. God is for us, He does love us, and He does work for the good of those who love Him, but we cannot define a Godly good in human terms.

Now, if we are servants and God expects to be served, does this make Him any more selfish than we are for expecting our meals to sustain our bodies through the day? After all, that is what a meal is designed to do. This is not a case of pride or arrogance; this is a case of a God who created things, which would be made full by glorifying Him. How can one be called arrogant for calling something exactly what it is?

It's A Learning Process

I hear people say that salvation comes through our deeds. I hear others say that our salvation comes through belief and belief only. Both of these ideas make me sad. Our salvation is something that could never be earned, and yet will not come without commitment. Salvation will always be followed by the process of sanctification. (Or perhaps it should be said that salvation is completed through sanctification).
I think that in order to dissolve the myth of salvation through deeds one must only examine their own life and heart. I know that my life and my heart are far from perfection and therefore I cannot believe myself to be able to earn anything good. Since this is so naturally evident I will choose to focus on the fallacy of salvation based strictly on belief.

It is true that the Bible teaches us salvation comes through belief, but this cannot be thought of as a mere intellectual agreement. The Bible shows that following the teachings of Jesus and pursuing a likeness to Him is truth. This belief would not be held without action, it could not be held without action. Thus, we cannot fully believe it at first. Our initial belief comes in the form of a commitment to pursue lives that are Christ-like. This is when God takes hold of our hearts and our lives and begins the process of sanctification.

The rest of a believer’s life after this commitment is spent learning to believe what he already knows and becoming who he already is. He is already a follower of Christ, though he is still learning the way. He is already a Son of God, though he is still a slave to his flesh at times. In this way, a faith that does not have deeds cannot be real. This is not because the deeds earn salvation, but rather it is because the salvation creates the deeds. The life and heart are learning to believe what they know and they are showing this more and more through action.

Postmodernisn'tm

Yesterday I read a church’s billboard that read the following: “The Bible is not a weapon.” I agree with the idea that the Bible is not something to be used simply for our own advantage or to the disadvantage of others, but this statement is fundamentally false. The Bible’s very definition is as a weapon. We have been told that the Bible is not only a weapon; it is a double-edged sword. In the battle that we are called to fight, the Bible is our offensive tool.

This sort of fallacy seems to be all too prevalent in the church of our time. As a response to the mindless rejection of past generations, we exhibit mindless acceptance. Truth is final, Truth is eternal, Truth does not change. Truth was before creation and will be after creation. Truth is not relative to our time or situation because its home is outside of both. Postmodernism has no more of a place in the church than does persecution. And yet, we accept, we bow to the idolatry of acceptance in the world and therefore fall into accepting the world itself. We are so concerned with the way the world sees us that we look at its criticism before we look at the Lord’s. We are so concerned with presenting God to the world in a way that is not offensive that we forget the fact that God is offensive to those who reject Him because He must in turn reject them. Do we trust God so little that we can’t even show Him for who he has revealed Himself to be? Do I actually imagine that I am capable of softening a human heart? I am not God; therefore all I can do is show God to people as He actually is.