A Christian Response to Richard Dawkins' Naturalism

          It has certainly been a while since my last blog post! This paper was one of my latest projects for my leadership degree. It is a very relevant paper for anyone wondering about a Christian response to the worldview of naturalism. I hope that you enjoy it!

Paper outline:

1. Introduction and thesis

“The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the superimposition of metaphysical naturalism upon science and religion by Richard Dawkins, as well as to provide a Christian response.”

2. An exposit of the thesis

3. Define important terms

            a. Metaphysical naturalism

            b. Metaphysics

4. Explore Dawkins’ popularity and views of science and religion

5. Assess the basis of Dawkins’ metaphysical naturalism to substantiate his views of science and religion

            a. From naturalistic evolution

                        i. Organisms are geared for survival, not obtaining truth

                        ii. There is an impasse between metaphysical naturalism and science

            b. From scientific method as the only criterion for truth

                                                  i.   Humanity can only observe reality in motion and give an interpretation

                                                ii.   Our interpretations of observations are often contingent upon personal presuppositions of meaning, origins, purpose, and worldview

                                              iii.   Metaphysical claims about morality, the supernatural, purpose, origins, and meaning cannot be substantiated by scientific method

                                              iv.   Scientific method cannot be used to demonstrate that only the physical exists, but rather, it needs external validation to be substantiated

6. A Christian response from the Bible

            a. God’s existence is self-evident and nonbelievers are without excuse

            b. The false premise of God’s nonexistence leads to a ripple-effect in the mind of nonbelievers

            c. The basis for objective morals and duties are in God’s nature

            d. The importance of apologetics in Christian leadership

7. Conclusion

            The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the superimposition of metaphysical naturalism upon science and religion by Richard Dawkins, as well as to provide a Christian response. This will be done, regarding Dawkins, by first elaborating on the breadth and application of the thesis, defining key terms, getting an overview of Dawkins’ views, assessing the explanatory range of scientific method, and giving a Christian response.

            When we look at the thesis statement, we find that the word “the” connotes a singular and specific imposition “by” Richard Dawkins. As such, the words “metaphysical naturalism” are not used statically, but are instead used to connote Dawkins’ specific use of that view to impose upon science and religion. This imposition would include Dawkins’ particularly aggressive application of metaphysics upon scientific method and religion. Therefore, as based on the thesis, the range of scientific method will be explored, as well as Dawkins’ metaphysical naturalism, by its own criteria. As such, this paper is not trying to “refute” metaphysical naturalism, but seeks to demonstrate how Dawkins’ own worldview cannot substantiate his claims about the non-physical. A Christian answer will also be posited, which has the intended explanatory power in coherence with, and beyond that of scientific method. Yet, the latter point cannot be explored in great detail, given the scope of this paper.

            Before continuing, it is necessary that metaphysical naturalism and metaphysics are defined. Metaphysical naturalism refers to “a philosophy which maintains that nature encompasses all that exists throughout space and time. Nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatiotemporal physical substance—mass–energy. … The supernatural does not exist, which is to say, only nature is real” (Academic Room, 2013). In other words, by this view, scientific method is the only criterion for truth, only physical matter exists, all thoughts in the brain are physical, and no nonphysical entities exist, and thus, only natural causes for the cosmos. Metaphysics is defined as “A priori [or, before experienced,] speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment” (The Free Dictionary, 2009). This includes discussing morality, the supernatural, meaning, origins, nature of reality, and purpose. Dawkins’ use of metaphysics will help us to assess his use of scientific method.

            Although other prominent atheists could have been chosen, Dawkins was specifically chosen because of his popularity in western culture today above the others. Dawkins is considered to be among the top ten atheists in the world, is widely regarded as the “most influential living atheist” (The Best Schools, 2011), and, as of 2010, has sold more than two million copies of The God Delusion (Friendly Atheist, 2010). William Lane Craig goes as far as to say that Dawkins is an “icon in pop culture” (July 7, 2013).

            Richard Dawkins’ views are consistent with the views of metaphysical naturalism, yet, his particular application of the view is likely what gives him his popular flare. Alister McGrath, a theology professor at Oxford, says that Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, “has established Dawkins as the world’s most high-profile atheist polemicist, who directs a withering criticism against every form of religion” (McGrath, 2007, p. 7). According to McGrath, Dawkins views the natural sciences as “an intellectual superhighway to atheism,” (p. 9) and views faith as a “process of non-thinking” associated with “indefensible” religious creeds (p. 17, 64). By this view, Christians are seen as people who have lost touch with reality, and are “delusional” (p. 18). Dawkins, according to McGrath, also views raising children in a religious tradition is a form of child abuse (p. 21), violence as a “necessary feature of religion” (p. 76) and sees religion and science as “locked into a battle to the death” (p. 46). He views God as “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully,” (Dawkins, 2006, p. 31) yet no Christian would agree with this (McGrath, p. 75).

            In a public secular rally, when talking about Christians, Dawkins said: “Mock them, ridicule them in public” (King, 2012). By making this statement, Dawkins is labelling himself as a polemicist, someone who spreads hateful propaganda, in a way that defies empirical reason (explained later). As a polemicist, much of Dawkins’ influence on society has been a negative one. Rather than appealing to science and reason, Dawkins instills biases against non-metaphysical naturalists. His views seek to condition the layman against rationally considering Christianity, and selectively dismisses evidence counter to his own beliefs (McGrath, p. 11). According to my experience, Dawkins generally appeals to those disenfranchised with the church, angry at God, afraid of religion and surrender to Christ. Ironically however, Dawkins public contempt for Christianity is helping to usher people into a Christian renaissance in philosophy and apologetics (Craig, June 9, 2013).

            The problem with Dawkins’ views of religion and God is that they cannot be substantiated by his belief in natural causes or scientific method. Yet, Dawkins claims objectivity in scientific method, regarding his metaphysical claims (McGrath p. 41). The bastion of metaphysical naturalism is evolution, which Dawkins believes is substantiated by scientific method. However, even if evolution is true, all it could demonstrate innately is that humanity could not obtain “truth” naturally, but instead, incline towards survival. Regarding evolution, Timothy Keller states that, “The laws of reason would have to make sense to us only because they help us to survive, not because they tell the truth” (2008, p. 142). In other words, according to naturalistic evolution, the reason why we reason is to help us survive. This was originally meant to be applied to just religion: that religion would help us to survive. This however, is not only against religion. In essence, it also applies to all of our rational functions, science not exempt, because of the belief placed in the interpreted meaning of observations. Therefore, in evolutionary biology, reason is not a reliable tool to uncover truth, but rather, a tool to further the species. Therefore, according to Dawkins’ metaphysical naturalism, all we can be certain of is not the truth of our statements, but our inclination to survive. As such, by his view, his musings about science and religion can be dismissed as an attempt at survival. The conflict, therefore, according to Alvin Plantinga, “is not between science and belief in God but rather, science and naturalism” (2007, p. 24).

            In regards to the explanatory scope of scientific method, in our human limitation, all we can possibly do to discover how reality works is observe. Scientists observe and try to replicate what they observed. At the end of the day, all they can do is give an interpretation of what they observed. By this method, they cannot justifiably say “this is definitively reality” because humanity is not in a position that can transcend its existence. Peter Hitchens, a former staunch atheist, realized this when he said, “the ‘laws’ in science are all accounts of what did happen, rather than rules of what should happen” (2010). Since scientists have to give an interpretation of observations, it is impossible to maintain in that interpretation the uninterrupted realities of the cosmos, as it was before it was interpreted, without imposing an outside worldview on the observations. This is especially true regarding purpose, meaning and origins. As such, our observations are contingent upon our interpretation, which is always subjective and grounded in the presumptions of our worldview. Therefore, when Dawkins makes metaphysical claims regarding the supernatural, meaning, morality, religion, or origins, on the basis of “scientific method,” he is only highlighting his personal interpretations, and is not maintaining objectivity, since morality, for example, cannot be derived from observing the collision of two atomic particles. This realization seriously calls into question the metaphysical naturalist’s use of scientific method as the sole criterion of truth. Also, this point becomes even more questionable when we remember that metaphysical naturalists can only affirm the inclination to survive, and not an inclination towards obtaining truth.

            When the belief of scientific method as the sole criterion of truth is analyzed more closely, we find more complications. We find that viewing scientific method as the only criterion of truth cannot be substantiated from scientific method. Eric Ling used this example, “we cannot validate a piece of software using a tool that belongs to the same piece of software being validated. We need a separate test tool, which is logically and physically independent from that piece of software, in order to validate it” (2013). Therefore, scientific method cannot itself prove that only the physical world exists. Such a statement would require an infinite knowledge of the cosmos and beyond. In order to remain consistent with what scientific method can attest, Dawkins would have to avoid making any philosophical claims about purpose, meaning or metaphysics, which includes claiming that only physical reality exists (Noebel, 2001, p. 56). Yet, Dawkins does go beyond the scope of scientific method because metaphysical naturalism is a belief system that is “distinct from scientific practice” (Bishop, 2009, p. 109). Therefore, since metaphysical naturalism cannot be substantiated by scientific method, neither can claims from religion regarding the supernatural be assessed by that medium (McGrath, p. 67). Metaphysical issues are simply beyond the scope and explanatory power of scientific method.

            The greatest objection that metaphysical naturalism has with Christianity is that Christians believe in a supernatural God who created the cosmos (Genesis 1:1). If God exists, then there were not naturalistic causes, and therefore, entities exist who transcend physical matter. The Bible also says that people who deny God’s existence are without excuse. Romans 1:20-22 says that, “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse … and became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” Therefore, according to the Bible, metaphysical naturalists have sufficient resources to know that God exists. They become “vain in their imaginations” because their worldview is based on a false premise: that God does not exist. All of their vain imaginations stem from that mistake, like Richard Dawkins.

            Since the logical conclusion from naturalistic evolution is that all genetics can try to do is survive, there is no allocating for objective moral values and duties. Furthermore, humanity would have to transcend human subjectivity in order to find justification for objective morals and duties. Christians, however, find justification for objective truth in the unchanging nature of God (Malachi 3:6). Much of this objective truth is revealed in Scripture, where moral commands are given to humanity (Deuteronomy 10:4), and God is identified as the “Lord God of truth” (Psalm 31:5). God identified His nature with His commands when he said in 1 John 5:3, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments,” and solidified their objectivity in His nature when He said, “For I am the Lord, I change not” (Malachi 3:6). By equating immutability with “the Lord,” God was declaring His nature to be transcendently objective. Dr. Greg Bahnsen summarizes the metaphysical naturalist’s predicament and the Christian solution well, when he said,

“The transcendental argument for existence of God … is that without the existence of God, it is impossible to prove anything. And that's because in the [world of metaphysical naturalism] you cannot justify and cannot account for laws in general, laws of thought in particular, laws of nature, cannot account for the human line, the fact that it is more than electrochemical complexes and events, and cannot give us moral absolutes. … You would have to say they are just something that happens inside the brain” (Bahnsen, & Stein, 1985, p. 31).

Therefore, a better justification for absolutes, morality, and rational intelligibility is in the Christian worldview. As Kai Nelson, a prominent Canadian atheist said, “Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality” (Nelson, 1984, p. 90).

            It is very important that Christian leaders get acquainted with the beliefs of Richard Dawkins, and know how to answer them from a rationally coherent Christian worldview. Young adults and teens, especially when they go to university, often have their Christian beliefs challenged in a similar manner, if not by Dawkins’ materials. The Bible calls Christian leaders (and all Christians) to “always be ready” to give an answer for our faith (1 Peter 3:15) in grace and love (Colossians 4:6; Matthew 5:44).

            In conclusion, Richard Dawkins’ metaphysical naturalistic worldview is ill-equipped to substantiate the metaphysical claims he made about God, the nature of reality, morality, science and religion. Dawkins, while popular in western culture, has been ineffectual in light of his foundation both in scientific method as the only source of truth and naturalistic evolution. Only in God do people have a stable foundation for objectivity. As such, the Christian worldview contains more explanatory power and gives external validation to its claims. The resources are out there. As leaders, it is necessary that we learn and teach these resources to the next generation.

References:

  Academic Room. (2013). Metaphysical naturalism. Retrieved from: http://www.academicroom.com/topics/metaphysical-naturalism/

  Bahnsen, G., & Stein, G. (1985). The great debate: Does God exist? Retrieved from http://cdn.theresurgence.com/files/2012/01/13/The_Great_Debate.pdf/

  The Best Schools. (2011). 50 top atheists in the world today. Retrieved from: http://www.thebestschools.org/blog/2011/12/01/50-top-atheists-in-the-world-today/

  Bishop, R. (2009). What is this naturalism stuff all about? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 29, 108-113. doi: 10.1037/a0016967/

  Craig, W. L. (2013, June 9, July 7). The unbeliever’s movie part 2 & the NEW new atheism [Audio podcast]. Reasonable Faith Podcast.

  Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.

  The Free Dictionary. (2009). Metaphysics. Retrieved from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metaphysics/

  Friendly Atheist. (2010). How many copies of the God delusion have been sold? Retrieved from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/02/03/how-many-copies-of-the-god-delusion-have-been-sold/

  Hitchens, P. (2010). The rage against God: How atheism led me to the faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

  Keller, T. (2008). The reason for God: Belief in an age of scepticism. London, England: Hodder.

  King, B. (2012). Interview: Richard Dawkins celebrates reason, ridicules faith. Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/03/26/149310560/atheist-firebrand-richard-dawkins-unrepentant-for-harsh-words-targeting-faith/

  Ling, E. (2013). In Richard Dawkins and metaphysical naturalism [comment]. Retrieved from: https://courses.mytwu.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=118519&parent=465977/

  McGrath, A. & McGrath, J. (2007). The Dawkins delusion: Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.

  Nelson, K. (1984). Why should I be moral? American Philosophical Quarterly, 21, 81-91.

  Noebel, D. (2001). The battle for truth: Defending the Christian Worldview in the marketplace of ideas. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers.

  Plantinga, A. (2007). The Dawkins confusion: Naturalism ‘ad absurdum [Review of the bookThe God delusion, by R. Dawkins]. Retrieved from http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2007/marapr/1.21.html?paging=off/

Part 3: James 2:17 Carrying Out Your Faith

                I have been thinking about the passage in James where it says “faith without deeds is dead”. Many Christians take this passage to mean, “If you don’t go out and do ‘good things’ in general then your faith is useless”. This is not what the passage is talking about. Simply said, we should carry out our faith. This passage is not saying that we need to tag on good deeds to our faith, but rather, we should act on our faith. If we know God wants us to preach, then to not preach is to make our faith useless. If we do preach however, then we have carried out our faith “in word and deed”. Deeds (or works) can be anything that God has called us to do. It is not limited to helping the poor, but to everything we know by faith (even simply going and talking with someone can be living out our faith; whatever God’s will is for us). If we believe that God wants us to speak for or against something for believers (on the basis of God’s word) then in that case by doing it, we are acting in faith and deed.

                Both works and faith have to work together and can never be separated since we live out our faith in whatever that faith is (as based on the Bible). We can never then have faith apart from carrying it out (that would be sin because we are not doing what we know we ought to do) and things that we do should never be done not in faith, “for whatever is not done out of faith is sin” (Romans 14:23) From this we can see that we are justified by faith being taken to completion and not by deeds independent of faith.

Part 2: Needs Based Ministry

                I have been thinking lately about what is called a “needs based approach to ministry”. This approach does definitely focus on some important things, like helping the poor to have autonomy, a higher quality of life and to promote mental health. There are however, inherent attitudes and messages that this approach is sending to the recipients of “needs based ministry”. I feel that this approach is perpetuating a mentality which chooses to say that human needs take precedence over God’s sovereignty over us. I have heard it said that one’s needs must be fulfilled first (or to reach autonomy) before we can and should share the gospel with them. Although needs are important, we should never try to forcefully cram the gospel message into a formula. The reasoning behind this is simple: Romans 12:2 says, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” “Do not be conformed to this world” means that we should not conform to an “A leads to B” mentality, which would be rooted in self (a narcissism or serving something other than God). In other words, we need to teach others not to be rooted in themselves (which is the message conveyed in a needs based approach to ministry). Rather, we should teach others to be rooted in God.

                Too many times the carrot for the unbeliever has been “join so that you can reach self-actualization and have all your needs fulfilled” and, “God is here to fulfill your every need and so are we”. This could sound great on the surface, but what is really behind this approach is the deification of the self. When people become Christians on this precedence they would generally do one of two things: they either view God as a cosmic Santa Claus who is there only for their own self-wellness, or they conform to a sort of secular humanism where human suffering is the greatest evil and is the highest priority for humankind to alleviate. The difference between a Christian approach and a secular one here appears subtle, but makes all the difference. After all, who does not want self-wellness or human suffering to be alleviated? While these are both great things, they are not the main things in Christianity. God is being left out of the picture to a large extent. We are teaching others to submit to the gods of self-wellness, autonomy and humanism, which greatly plague the church today.

                There is, further, a great irony in this approach to ministry. We hear a lot about promoting justice, human rights and various tenets of humanism in what is called “the social gospel” but we never hear anything about God’s judgement. Am I missing something here? Last time I checked, judgement was synonymous with justice because it is the carrying out of justice. Who better to define what justice is and is not than God himself? Or do we find it unthinkable that God would dare to condemn humanity? 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 says:

“This is a plain indication of God’s righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.”

And

Romans 2:4, “Do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?”

God has made a way for humanity to be saved despite their just deserving of eternal condemnation. The greatest charge of God to Christians is that we tell others about God’s grace which goes beyond justice. Grace is also different from any conceivable “human right” because it is undeserved (the only right we have is to condemnation). Grace is at work through a belief-obedience in God so that we do not need to face God’s just and eternal condemnation. Anything good in addition to God’s just judgement is an undeserving grace as is any kind of relief from suffering. We justly deserve eternal death, but God has given us a way out by taking consequences that should be upon our own heads upon himself. What greater love can there be then this: that one would lay down his life for his friends? God has laid down His life to save our wretched selves. Who else would do such a thing? People need to know and accept this or face eternal judgement! Therefore, the single greatest and most potent injustice a Christian can do to humanity is deprive them of Christ's call to repentance, forgiveness and eternal reconciliation with God. God’s judgement is totally and utterly interwoven into the fabric of justice. To leave God’s judgement out of justice is to have no justice at all. We can have a façade of justice in absence of God’s judgement, but in reality, it is only an illusion. This is because God is the standard of justice and without Him we are caught perpetually in a cycle of subjectivity.

Part 1: God and Human Rights

                Many Christians see humanity as “deserving” to be relieved from suffering, which would imply that God, who orchestrated the consequences of the fall was unjust in giving them. This reminds me of Lecrae’s song, Truth:

“But then some say 'How can God exist when
All this evil stuff in the world keep persistin'?
Wrong question. Ask again.
‘How come God ain't' let you feel the wrath from sin?’
What you thought last night deserved a first class flight
To Hell where God doesn't dwell.”

                How many times do we put humanity and its desires above the reality of God? It is so easy for Christians to become self-absorbed and self-entitled in this day and age. We forget that we are under grace. The consequences of the fall (Garden of Eden) are as just as the one who initiated them. We chose them and we deserve nothing more, but that is of course, where God’s undeserving grace comes in.

                The image of God upon us was tarnished as a result of the fall. We still have part of it, but not as it once was in the garden. Many Christians use the “imago dei” (image of God placed upon us in the Garden of Eden) to claim that we are valuable independent of God. They say that we are valuable because of the image of God which is upon all of humanity. Many Christians use this as a basis for “human rights” to which they believe that God should be held accountable and promote. This would assume that we have one-up on God, when in reality we have nothing at all to which we can keep God accountable. This is secular humanism in disguise. Rather, God is the one with the power. In fact, the only reason why we have any value at all is because God has placed value on us. In other words, we only have value at all because of God’s love upon us all. Otherwise we are worthless. We cannot have any value independent of God. This reminds me of an action figure that looks like a man. However, the value does not come because the action figure looks like a man but because the one who owns it places value in it. If humanity, as its creator, placed no value in the action figure, it is worthless (despite being in the image of a man). We are valuable because God places value in us.

                Despite popular belief, to believe in what some call “natural evil” is to actively condemn God for his just consequences which resulted from the fall in the Garden of Eden. Some try to justify this position by saying that “natural evil” is “chaos”. However, the implication of this is that there are things that are “chaos” to God (that there are things outside of His control). If we truly believe that God is sovereign, then it would be wrong to believe in “natural evil” because nothing is outside God’s control. As such, we should never call God’s just consequences evil. To do so, we are in fact, advocating a self-entitlement and humanism before God where we place ourselves as gods above Him. Furthermore, God did not choose these consequences for us, but we chose them for ourselves. It is a consequence of our free will. As mentioned earlier, all that humanity really deserves is condemnation. As such, we can never say that we deserve anything but condemnation. Jesus dying for us was purely by God’s grace. Let us never call God’s just consequences evil.

                A truly remarkable thing about God, is that despite knowing that we deserve nothing more than eternal torment, he took pity on us. He came down from heaven himself and took the consequences of our actions upon himself when he died on the cross. Jesus is the only person who did not deserve any of these consequences. Because of God’s tremendous love for us, he took our place. Because of this, even when we are saved in Christ, we are still as undeserving of God’s grace than an unbeliever. With that said, we should not go around telling people that they have “rights” that God is obligated to fulfill (that would be humanism). Yes we are called to help the poor and to act justly, but this command is from God to humanity. It is by no means a fundamental “right” that we can hold God accountable to. It is a command from God to do it, but not our “right” to receive it. Why should believers say that they have any “rights” under God? Wouldn’t this be abusing the grace God has given us? We should never call God’s grace a right.

“God has never been obligated to give us life. If we fought for our rights, we’d be in hell tonight. Mere sinners owed nothing but a fierce hand.” Lecrae's song: Boasting

Sola Scriptura? (Scripture Alone)

I was recently looking at debates about the idea of using Scripture on its own as a normative authority. I did not find any developed side for using "Scripture alone" (also known as "Sola Scriptura"). Much of the information that I have here is very seldom brought to the forefront. However, I believe that it is imperative to bring the following information forward when communicating the authority of Scripture. Let me know what you think.

If anyone was going to say that there is another authority apart from Scripture, they admit that Scripture is an authority. As such, every authority would have to maintain a strict adherence to each other. That means that there cannot be contradictions between these authorities. If there are contradictions, one can assume that the first is the infallible one and that the new one is of merely human construction (will be elaborated on later). The question is: What was the Scriptural authority before the Bible in its present form was an authority?

Before the preceding question is explored, I must say that it is irrelevant to ask whether or not one book in the Bible recognizes the entire Bible as the normative authority. The books in the Bible were written before it was compiled as the Bible (AKA, the canon) we have today. I would argue rather, that the New Testament in its form before it was compiled was in another form: the oral tradition passed down and taught from Jesus himself and those who were with him. Oral teachings and traditions was the form that the New Testament was in, in the early ages of the church before the Bible was compiled. Some of it was written, but it would not be readily available to the average person. The theology of the Bible in its entirety was still followed by the early Church in its early form. Again, the Bible as it was then, was in an oral form. The oral traditions and teachings of Scripture were normative to the Christian faith. Even before the Catholic Church was formed, the New Testament existed in mostly an oral form (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The oral form of the New Testament was just as pervasive to them then as the written New Testament is to us today. As we can see, when Paul spoke to Timothy, Paul was not a member of the Catholic Church, nor was he referring to their doctrine which did not exist at the time,

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

Here a form of the Bible existed when Paul speaks of the “Holy Scriptures”. However, I believe that the "Holy Scriptures" that Paul is referring to here is the Old Testament and not the New Testament (will be elaborated on later). “Those from whom you have learned it” has to refer to the oral tradition passed down from those who have originally been with Christ in the first and second hand (I believe this would be the New Testament equivalent in its oral form as its interpretation is derived from the Old Testament). To me, to say that the Bible did not exist in one form or another before it was canonized is ludicrous. I also believe that if we research the oral tradition of passing down Scripture verbally before the Bible was fully written, we will never come across a time where that Scripture was contradicted. In ancient times oral tradition was very reliable and meticulously maintained. Today the idea of passing things down orally seems very unreliable because we do not live in an oral culture where that is the primary means of passing things down. The oral tradition was very reliable despite most speculation on it today.

Another thing to ponder is the question: Was the Bible a compilation of the “Holy Scriptures” as it was understood to Paul in this passage, just in another form? Also, is it possible that Paul could only be referring to the Old Testament when he refers to the Scriptures? If Paul is only referring to studying the Old Testament at the time, should we not assume that the New Testament should be completely reliant on the authority of the Old Testament?

I would argue that Paul did not use what was accepted as new Scripture at the time at all. At first this could sound heretical until we understand that the main test for the authenticity of the New Testament is its grounding in the Old Testament. At no point should the New Testament present any information that is contrary or different from the Old Testament. As an Old Testament scholar of the time (in its form) Paul made it his main duty to make sure that what was taught was taught out of the Old Testament. That is, the New Testament is authoritative because of the authority it holds from the Old Testament.

The Old Testament as the authority to the New Testament begs the question: Where did most of the Old Testament get its authority from? We hear of all kinds of prophesies all over the Old Testament! Is all of the Old Testament authoritative in and of itself or did most of the Old Testament prophesies have an authority from which to base its prophesies? The Jews before Christ recognized that everything that they believed in stemmed from the books of Moses, also known as the “Torah” back then, or the “Pentateuch” today. Therefore we can deduce that the test for the authority and authenticity of the rest of the Old Testament came from the Torah.

Finally, where did the Torah come from? The Torah is believed to have come directly from God and from God through Moses. All of the authority of Christianity and the Bible rests on what we get from God through Moses in the Torah. This does not mean that, in order to disprove all of Christianity and Judaism, all we need to do is find fault in the books of Moses. The meanings and significances of the Torah are very difficult to understand. There is so much information in such a small area of text that it is very easy to misunderstand and misrepresent. This is also why it would be impossible for those who have never known God to refute God’s Scriptures on any level. That is not to say that Christians who know God can, but that they would have the potential to understand much more of its true meaning because of the indwelling Spirit. Those outside Christianity cannot hope to even touch upon the true meaning of the Torah, and thus are no threat to its truth.

You may ask: Where is the divine inspiration in the extracted Scriptures if it was always based on what came before it? Over time, the Holy Spirit revealed to us through stages the fuller meaning to the original Torah and from the Torah to the rest of the Old Testament, and finally from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Jesus, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) explained to us what the heart of the Ten Commandments was when it was written. Things like, if you hate your brother it is the same as murdering him, or lusting after someone is the same as having intercourse with them. Jesus made the extracting of the New Testament from the Old Testament possible by fulfilling and confirming many of its’ prophesies. The New Testament flows out of the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies. The Holy Spirit worked through Jesus to make the Old Testament prophesies plain to us, fulfill them and present the new implications of those fulfillments. The rest of the New Testament authors use Jesus’ interpretations of the Old Testament as their own and even expand on the implications of Jesus’ ministry further with the Old Testament.

It may help us a lot to remember that God is the same and never changes (Hebrews 13:8, Psalm 102:24-27, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17). What God gave us originally in the Torah holds all the truth that He wants us to have. The rest of the Bible is Holy Spirit led extractions from the Torah. God never deviates from what he originally gave us because God does not change. The God of the New Testament is the very same God in the Old Testament. This is how the Bible remains amazingly coherent despite taking more then a millennia to write.

Finally, if any group is to accept the Bible as an authority, they will have to subject themselves to each level of Biblical extraction. When one understands that the New Testament stemmed from the Old Testament and The Old Testament from the Torah, one can see that arguments with the New Testament’s authenticity is irrelevant if the arguments disagree with the accounts of the Old Testament from which the New Testament came. In other words, the New Testament can only be open to scrutinizing as far as it does not act in accordance to the Old Testament. Also, those who create new doctrines and try to impose it on the New Testament cannot if it does not stem explicitly from the Old Testament. The Bible as a whole is usually very apparent with its doctrines and is therefore not an administer of strange and ambiguous teachings (2 Thessalonians 2:15, Hebrews 13:9a). One way to test “strange doctrines” is to check its coherency or lack there of to the Scriptures. The Bible at no point contradicts itself. If there is a contradiction, then it is a false doctrine. As such, if anyone accepts the Bible as an authority, they cannot add anything at all to Scripture, otherwise they will be going against the essence of God who does not change (as we saw previously). Anything new added to Scripture is thus heretical and not of God. If someone has an issue with New Testament canonicity, they will have the Old Testament to deal with and so on. The Bible supports itself at every stage. As such, no one can claim ownership to the Bible we have today.

The Gospel of Judas and Thomas were rejected because they disagree with the Old Testament. We must remember that the New Testament books are not presenting new ideas! If the New Testament was presenting things apart from God’s unchanging truth, then others could claim ownership over their own heretical anti-truth. As it stands however, God is the only one who can claim ownership over the Bible as a whole. Anyone who does claim ownership of the Bible is thus an anti-Christ because God’s truth does not change. The Bible’s ultimate test is itself. Humankind has no provision to change its unchanging truth as they have no provision to change its unchanging God.

Concluding verses:

Jesus said “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17).

Paul said, “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” (Galatians 1:6-9).

Hebrews 6:13-20 “For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, ‘I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply you’. And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise. For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. 19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, 20 where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”

Luke 24:25-27 “And [Jesus] said to them, ‘O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?’ Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, [Jesus] explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.”

I Fear, Therefore, I Trust Not

Lately God has been teaching me a lot about fear, and about its connection to the "Fear of the Lord". I hope that this is as helpful to you in your walk with God as it is with mine.

God bless.

Scripturally, What is So Wrong With Fear?

Fear shares it’s equivalents with murder, sorcery, whore mongering, the abominable, idolaters, and even disbelief! As we can see in Revelation 21:7-8, “He that overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, [cowardly] and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death”. Therefore, those that are paralyzed by fear have their place among murderers, whoremongers and idolaters. Have we ever thought of ourselves as being addicted to fear like it would be to porn or murder? In the Bible, there is no distinction in severity between those addictions. I am not speaking of merely the feeling of fear. Rather I am speaking of a fear that paralyzes us from following our Lord regardless of whether or not we see the paralysis as being significant.

Fear can paralyze someone to a point where they refuse to obey our Lord and Saviour. I admittantly have fallen under this paralysis many times. Despite this, the desire to serve my Lord was still there! At this point, my motives were right, but I did not follow through with what God was telling me to do. I have heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This can be true because, when we are paralyzed with fear, intentions are all we have. Our faith is not being carried out.

We are Stewards of Even Ourselves

In addition to faith, it is imperative that we obey and trust our Lord; otherwise our faith is useless (James 2:17). Jesus speaks of obedience in the parable of the talents in Luke 19:11-27. The unfaithful servant says, “Lord, here is your pound. I wrapped it in a piece of cloth, for I was afraid”. That servant was paralyzed by fear. He allowed fear to be his master rather than God. The “talent” or “pound” refers to everything that God has given us to be stewards of. These include our abilities, time, and resources. The unfaithful servant had abilities, time and resources from God. God called that servant (as he has called all of us) to use what he had in obedience to God’s will. Everything that we have, we have because God has given them to us. Everything we have, and even our own selves belong to God. Who are we to misuse our Lord’s resources by being cowards? We are then no better than that unfaithful servant.

When Jesus Says “Believe” What Does That Entail?

The word “belief” in the Bible also connotes obedience and follow-though to that belief. Therefore, if we believe, we will obey. If we do not obey Christ, then we do not believe Christ. Paralyzing fear, as we have heard, prevents this obedience, making us no better than the unfaithful servant in the book of Luke and the coward in Revelation; both of whom were condemned despite being God’s “servants”.

Where Does Trust Come In?

In reference to Proverbs 29:25, which says “The fear of man brings a snare: but whoso putts his trust in the Lord shall be safe.” I found a blog by Bethel Church which explains this verse very well.

“This text may be understood in the broad sense-suffering from cowardice in general, or in the specific sense-fearful of some other human being. Fear that paralyzes or causes anguish and worry can absolutely be a snare. Many people are trapped by various situations in life because of fear. They are afraid to move out or take a risk. What is the solution? The answer: to trust the Lord … The wrong reaction to fear can be so harmful that one can lose salvation as a result. Consider this: ‘He that overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, [cowardly] and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death’ (Rev. 21:7-8).”

Fear is a sign of distrust to our God whether it is internal or external. I believe that in order for us to follow God fearlessly we would need to trust our Lord unconditionally. The only thing that we have any right to fear is our Lord who makes everything pale in comparison. This does not mean that we tremble under our Lord in a life defined and controlled by fear because 1 John 4:18 says, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love”.

Trust God with What???

We are meant to trust God with everything. We should recognize that God is not subject to time; time is a created thing. Therefore he can see our whole lives from its beginning to its end. He knows what we will go through and what we will experience before it happens. If we really have the “Fear of the Lord” (not just a one time thing) than we will have no reason to fear anything because God is in control and sovereign to all that exists. With the fear of the Lord we have no need to know why certain hardships are happening to us; rather, we can rest in our trust of God that no-matter what happens, God is in control and will work everything out for his good. If we are in a car accident, we can praise God because we realize that everything is in his hands. We trust him with those things that his purposes and not our own will come out of this. We can learn to see God in it and be excited to see what God will do next no-matter what it is! This is trusting in the Lord. He will supply to us based on his own perfect timing and his own perfect way, which we have no reason to doubt.

God’s Punishment and Guilt

Although fear is not what defines our relationship with God, we had better be fearful when we walk away from God because he will punish us. How can we respect and revere who God is if there is no consequence for disrespecting and disobeying him? Here is a critical distinction: as long as we are following God we do not need to be afraid of him; however, when we walk away from God, we will be punished. Those who have the “fear of God” will be with God not because they are afraid of him. However, they will realize that God does punish, correct and encourage. They will also realize that the only time when they aught to be afraid of God is when they intentionally live a life in rebellion to him.

I just thought that I would point out that when it comes to sin, there is a difference between Godly guilt and worldly guilt. Godly guilt always leads us to God and to repentance. Worldly guilt is not of God and leads only to our destruction.

How can the “Fear of the Lord” and “Perfect Love” Co-exist?

Proverbs 1:7 says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Fools despise wisdom and instruction.” This fear in Proverbs must refer to a reverence and awe for God; we recognize him for who he is, and for what place he has in our lives. We see him as someone whom we respect incredibly, and whom we hang off of every word he speaks. We regard him as much as possible for who he is. This “fear” brings us closer to God, where a relationship defined by worldly fear is no relationship at all. God does not want us to merely follow him because he can beat the crap out of us. Rather, he wants us to recognize him for who he is, and to treat him as such; that we put him into the rightful place in our lives: as number one and second to no-one and no thing. I would argue that since this fear is the beginning of wisdom, we need this fear in order to enter into a relationship with God; a relationship not defined by worldly fear but rather a fear that brings us closer to God where a loving relationship can thrive.

When one is paralyzed by fear, one shows that there is a distrust or anticipation of some sort of punishment in his or her reality (1 John 4:18). When we relate paralyzing fear to following God’s will, we can see that there is no other explanation for the fear other than that we do not trust our Lord. This is so because if we revere God for who he is, that is, we realize that nothing exists that is outside of his power, we have no reason to fear anything on this earth. If we fear things of this earth, we do not trust in God’s sovereignty, and thus we do not trust in God for who he is. Paralyzing fear is therefore the distrust of our Lord as we follow His will. Those who are paralyzed by fear are not living in the “fear of the Lord” nor have they accepted perfect love, “for God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind” (2 Tim. 1:7).

I Believe that you will find the following distinctions very helpful in defining the “fear of God” and “be afraid” in the Old Testament:

In Exodus 20:20 Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.” Here Moses differentiated between the “fear of God” and worldly fear. This passage tells us to not be afraid of God but rather have the fear of God. Why would there be a differentiation? Because being afraid of God, and the fear of God are different.

The following is taken from Exodus 20:20…

Definitions:

Hebrew: ‘yare' is translated “Be afraid” in the Old Testament; Strong’s 3372. Short definition: “Affright”

English: ‘Affright’:

To arouse fear in; terrify

1. Great fear; terror.

2. A cause of terror.

Hebrew ‘yirah’ is translated “fear” in “fear of God” in the Old Testament; Strong’s 3374. Short definition: “fear”

English: ‘Fear’: (READ NUMBER 4)

noun

1. a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.

2. a specific instance of or propensity for such a feeling: an abnormal fear of heights.

3. concern or anxiety; solicitude: a fear for someone's safety.

4. reverential awe, especially toward God: the fear of God. Synonyms: awe, respect, reverence, veneration.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fear)

Conclusion

There is a difference between being terrified for one’s safety, “be afraid” which is rooted in self-preservation (and is thus not of God, but rather, making one’s self god), and fearing someone. All the definitions of “fear” up to number four are towards self preservation; number four is the only definition that is towards another, in respect and reverence. In other words, "the fear of the Lord" is not fear as we know fear in our own culture. If we are afraid of God we still fear for our safely. A selfless fear; a fear that does not concern itself with our own well being is the type of fear in the “fear of the Lord”. To say that one has to be terrified of God is to say that we ought to put ourselves first before God. This is because we have made our own wellbeing more important to us than our own Father-God. When God sees us now, he no longer sees sin because Jesus has covered us with his righteousness (Romans 3:20-22, Romans 10:3-5, Philippians 1:10-12). When God sees us, he sees Jesus (as long as we are not living in rebellion). The “fear” (in this case, respect, reverence and awe) of the Lord is towards God, and is not contingent on the idea of our own self preservation. Let us respect and revere our Lord and not put ourselves first in regards to him.

In conclusion, we can see that if we trust God with everything, no-matter what trials and tribulations we face, fear dissolves. God has shown us what the fear of the Lord is, and what it is not. We can see how having respect, reverence and awe for our Lord, coupled with unwavering and unconditional trust (which comes from the former if it is true in our lives) can equip us to boldly go wherever God sends us (2 Peter 1:3, John 3:21). In this, God enables us to do anything and everything for him without any fear for our own safety. The “fear” of the Lord is not terror. Rather, as we have seen, perfect love casts out fear. The fear casted out includes this terror (1 John 4:18). The Bible has shown us how God does not want us to be driven and defined by terror, but rather a loving relationship with our Lord (Philippians 3:8-10). God is so amazing! And he supplies us with the tools for his will. All we need to do is rely on God and he will equip us with even these things if we let him. That is my prayer for humanity; that they make God first, and regard not themselves as god in either word or deed. This prayer is not only for non-believers but for self professing Christians who have still not submitted to our Lord as God in their lives. Amen.

The Phenomenon of Christian Entitlement

It has certainly been a while since my last blog post. What I have written today I am sure ruminates with many of us. Whether we like it or not, we live in a culture that believes that we are entitled to whatever we want. Wants and needs usually cross on very fine lines. We may say that we "need" something when in fact God is saying, "no you don't. I have this plan that is even better in accordance to My purpose" This blog explores this tendency and puts it through the test of Scripture. I believe that God has shown this to me and that all Christians need to be aware and careful that they do not make themselves out to be their god. I hope you enjoy the blog and that it stirs some thoughts in you.

The Bible never says that we should strive for having "more of God" but rather that we let Him have more of us. This is much more than semantics. Whenever we ask God into our lives we instantly have all of Him. The only thing holding us back is not God, but ourselves, and how much we are willing to give up to follow Him. I find particularly that most Christians have a hard time accepting what God has to teach them because it is so radically different from what our culture (even our Christian culture) and socialization has taught us to believe.

One counter-cultural example of God’s teachings would be that He expects us to suffer for Him. He would tell us to not run away from the suffering, but to learn from it and to trust Him through the difficulty (see the situation how God sees it); to be content despite circumstances. When we can get to this place we will no longer desire to simply avoid and pray against difficulty and pain, but rather, embrace it. We would embrace it because of our excitement in following God’s will; we will see it differently as an exciting place and time where God can teach and mould us; where he comforts us. We learn not to go by what we feel or see, but by our God who leads us out of grace and love. In another example, our culture would tell us to only go to something as we need it. However, even when we feel that we have no worldly needs, God expects us to and desires that we hold onto Him like we would when we are facing trial. This means that we do not drop God when we see Him as no longer needed. We need Him just as much, if not more, when things are going well.

It is never in our power to have more or less of God. However, God is always ready and waiting for us to fully surrender to Him; to give ourselves to Him. Our “portion” that we have of God never changes from Christian to Christian.

The Bible says,

2 Timothy 2: 1-4,

“1You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. 3 Join with me in suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 4 No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather tries to please his commanding officer.”

The Soldier in this army does not let himself get entangled in life to the point where he cannot follow orders. In the same way, we need to be always ready to say "yes" when God calls and to allow Him to completely mess up our schedules when necessary. It is never contingent for a soldier to have “more” of his commanding officer, rather, it is contingent that the officer give more of himself to his commanding officer in order to better serve Him. We definitely seek God, however, we need to realize is that our Lord is waiting for us to give our selves wholly to Him. In fact, the only way to live a Spirit-driven-life is to be fully surrendered to God. Otherwise we are just fooling ourselves and walking by our own strength.

What was just described is the "narrow way" that few find. Are we really following God, or just our own ambitions? Are we filtering through all the junk that our culture has taught us is truth, and seeking the truth of God no-matter how easy or hard it may be to accept? Are our presumptions and socialization shaping our perception of the truth, or are we letting God show us the reality of that truth? If we hold onto things that we think are Godly because that is just how we were taught, we are in danger of falling into many pits. Many times truth is a very hard thing to accept and we must not allow ourselves to override it with a counterfeit truth (no matter how much more comfortable the counterfeit truth may be).

Is “Christian” Entitlement a Byproduct of our Culture?

Our culture is a culture of entitlement. It gives us the mentality that “we deserve better” and that God should serve us, and bless us in any way WE choose to serve Him. We almost naturally force this mentality on the truths of Scripture. We find verses, claim them, call them God’s promises and expect God to serve us as we want Him to. This leads people to take Scripture out of context such as many Christians do with Jeremiah 29:11, “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” This is not a promise to us today, but to the Israelites of that era. Yet, Christians of “entitlement” claim it for themselves and mourn when God does not follow through with his “promise”.

When many Christians read a passage and claim it for themselves, they forget that the world of the Spiritual and culture are different. Christians may choose a verse (can be very dangerous) where they see a promise that they will be prosperous. However, prosperity as well as many other words in the Bible hold different connotations than what people like to apply to them. For example, in some cases prosperity may simply that God will use the person. That person will be prosperous as God sees as prosperous. This doesn’t necessarily mean that God will give them riches and Gold. God sees that world very differently then what we see it as. Another example is happiness. What makes people happy by the world’s standards does not make God happy. Part of maturing as a Christian is that we eventually adopt God’s wants and desires. What makes God happy will eventually make us happy as we follow Him. The only way to get to get a spiritual perspective is that we let God teach us through surrender.

A great example of “Christian” entitlement is a heretical group called “The Word of Faith Movement” (also known as the Faith Movement and the Vineyard Movement). They believe that if they can only just have enough faith that they can have and get anything that their heart desire (thus making God into a cosmic santa claus). This movement is where the sayings, “Name it and claim it”, and “Grab it and blab it” came from. This movement and the culturally encouraged mentalities like them fulfill what Paul warned the church about in 2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” People today want entitlement, and if they can slap God’s name on it, all the better for them to accept it. They may think that they are following God however, the most deceptive lie is one that is one hair away from the truth; a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” led by “false prophets” (Matthew 7:14-16). This is just one example of just how our culture can force itself upon what would otherwise be Godly truth. The context is changed to suite themselves. God always furthers His agenda and not ours. God’s agenda will always bring people closer to Him and bring Him glory. This is one way to test whether or not something is from God. God does not merely create spectacles, nor does He do anything for nothing.

Along the lines of “entitlement” many Christians only real desire to obey God is because of what they can get out of it (such as our “reward” in heaven). Whenever the Bible says that we should strain towards the goal, the goal (and reward) is having the great privilege of eternally being in God’s presence. God does not say “follow me because of the great riches I will give you.” (This would be a lie from the devil and not a truth because it leads us away from God to other things: a counterfeit truth)”. Rather, God tells us to follow him because of His great love for us and because we were made to serve Him.

What Does God Entitle Us To?

“Well done good and faithful servant” should be our goal, just as it was for the servants who were entrusted with the money of their master in Matthew 25:14-30. Again, their “reward” was not a gift, but rather more responsibility and the opportunity to share in their master’s happiness. There was no increase in wealth, nor were they then given the opportunity to now do whatever they wanted to, believing that their master would bless them no matter what they did now, as they had earned their master’s trust. Instead, they remained servants. However, they became servants that their master was able to celebrate with. Their reward was that they became closer to their master, not free of him. Although it was their choice to put the money to work in the way they did, it was only because they helped further their master’s interest that they received this reward. Earning more with what they were given helped further their master’s interest, whereas burying the money did not further the master’s interest. It was only using what the master gave them (their skills, abilities, resources etcetera) that they were able to earn any more money for their master. None of this money was given to the servant, nor were they responsible for the presence of the money given to them. It was only using what was given to them, and using it in a way that helped their master that they received their reward. For 1 Timothy 6:7 says, “For we brought nothing into this world and we can take nothing out of it”. Everything in this life is what God has given to us to use for HIS glory. If the master really would bless His servants no matter what they did with what they were given, then the third servant, who buried the money, would also have been blessed and received a reward. However, this did not happen. It is only when we use God’s gifts in a way that furthers His plan that we can ever hope to be blessed. The premise of this blessing for the servants was not wealth or land of their own to make their lives better and easier in the world’s eyes, but instead the opportunity to become closer to their master and to gain his favour.

The third servant did what he did out of fear. His intentions were good, but at the core was fear. His actions were based off of what worked best for him, not what worked best for the master. Many Christians today are much worse than even this servant because they think that God wants them to “exploit His wealth” (think about it) like the prodigal son has done in Luke 15:11-32. Thus making matters worse because at least the prodigal son knew that he was doing wrong. Even though burying the money kept it safe, and was easy, the path he should have taken in this case was the harder one. Because the servant who buried the money did what he wanted, and not what the master wanted, in Matthew 25:30, the master had him thrown out. This can be a scary truth to face for many: that they can find their own ways to serve God, but without God’s desire being the drive behind it, it is utterly worthless. The intentions can be as noble as any others, and the person may honestly desire to do good, just as the third servant did by keeping the master’s money safe, but if it is not what God wanted you to do, then you will be thrown out too. Therefore, it is vital to make sure that you are following God’s will in what you do. Don’t just look around you for something good to do for God without asking God what it is He wants you to do. His will and your ideas may be very different. Many people mistake what they want and desire for what God wants and desires. This is because they want to feel as though they are really making a difference. However, this brings it back to their core being themselves, and not God. He won’t bless what He did not orchestrate.

Control of the path you take needs to be God’s. He is the one who should be leading you down a path. If he isn’t the one leading, don’t expect God to change course to follow you.

Should We Desire “More” of God?

Desiring more of God sounds like a wonderful and noble cause to work towards, but at it’s core is a desire for God to do the moving towards the person. This is a false premise. We are not waiting for God to come down on us, neither do we simply need more of Him. This mentality is stemmed in the cultural belief of entitlement whether we like it or not. Rather, the weight is on us to go to Him because he is already with us. He is waiting for us to tell Him that we will follow Him no-matter what (daily surrendering to His will and not to our own). To be “Spirit Filled” and to live a “Spirit Filled Life” goes only as far as we allow God to have more of us. God entitles us to follow Him; we cannot entitle ourselves. Thus we are the ones inhibiting ourselves from living the Spirit filled life, and not God. God is always ready to lead us, the question is: Are we ready to follow Him?

Some may read this and think “Oh yeah, I know that. I just need to work on being better and convincing God that I’m a good person for him to allow closeness”. This is another lie. We cannot woo God into drawing us close. He is ready to do that, and will do so as soon as we surrender ourselves to Him, realizing that we can never be good enough to earn God’s love. God is not looking for spiritual ability. He is looking for spiritual availability. His love and attention are not something we can earn or deserve. It is only by God’s grace that we can come to God’s throne.