God is With Us

Last Sunday I heard this great sermon from down here in New Zealand, preached by Matthew Guddatt. He is a Britain, come down to NZ and is currently a youth pastor.

So what is the big deal about this sermon?
I haven't often heard a sermon where God's sovereignty and power is connected to our daily lives.

Here is a summary of what the sermon covers:

- Matthew talks about the greatness of God and how we cannot limit God to one name, but He encompasses many names describing Him.
- He also talks about how the church today can have a tendency to go back to Old Testament ways by having super spiritual "priests" (pastors, and elders) who harbour spiritual connection with God for the lay people. Matthew points out that we are all called to be priests and all can access God.
- Lastly he talks about how God is omnipresent. I like how he says that God is in the very breath of the atheist, and that church is not the only place to find God. Matthew points out that God can be found anywhere and we don't need to chase conjured up feelings and emotions, but to know and have faith that God is with us anywhere.

Matthew has a good sense of humour and is easy to listen to. Click the link below to listen -

http://christianrenewal.org.nz/god-is-with-us-2/

Photo Retrieved from:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6gDvNsJRUMUMcJWOAGf2kzikQvzrJUIgNIwZ7J6IpGxid8USzNElMBDO_LZAEXL9EHgvutQXCaYRRCRzP9Jk2CMjgonXZKoo6rUdHl1haH3cpVy8WH29l0AXnDmIoPE_Od-WLziO2zq0/s1600/galaxy_universe-normal.jpg

        

HUMAN NATURE

Post number 4 (following 'God's nature - obscured'):

I haven’t written a post in this series for a while. In the meantime I’ve been having some great discussions on two relevant topics - which I’ll quickly mention here. At some point I may modify my earlier posts to reflect these subtle changes in my thoughts :)

Firstly I’ve been challenged to recognise the value and limitations of both modernism and post-modernism. The value of modernism is in its drive to know everything, including the details of reality. But it is limited by pride and an excessive focus on ‘reductionism’. The value of post-modernism is in recognising the flaws of modernism, becoming aware of the integral nature of bias and worldview and subjectivity in ‘knowledge’, and becoming aware of system synthesis knowledge (above and beyond reductionistic knowledge). But it is limited by its rejection of absolute truth and inability to challenge the bias it recognises to change. One day I will write a proper article on this, but until then I hope my posts reflect a balanced approach to knowledge pursuit :)

Secondly I’ve been researching the Hebrew concept of ‘spirit’, and I’ve recognised the Hebrew concept of ‘spirit’ is not so much about a ‘non-physical’ aspect to reality (they definitely did NOT believe this was true!), but IS more about an ‘eternal’ aspect to reality. Referring to ‘spirits’ is not really defining what they are, but it is defining their nature and function - i.e. eternal. Exactly how our souls are eternal is up for debate - maybe there IS a separate ‘thing’ called a spirit, but that is definitely not clear in Scripture.

With that in mind, lets talk a little about human nature, in preparation for discussing how God’s nature interacts with ours. This post (along with the next) will be unashamedly deterministic ;) I'll deal with the issue of human responsibility in post number 6. 

Remember I'm very keen for your input (and disagreements)!

Human Nature

Humans are created uniquely in the image of God, a pinnacle in the creative expression of His character. 

This means we are conscious ‘spirits’, but are created primarily to interact with the temporal fleshly realm. Our souls are thus dualistic in nature - having both spiritual and fleshly aspects and purposes.

Being spiritual means two things. Firstly, we have the potential for spiritual senses - altering our perceptions of reality/pleasure, moulding our character, giving spiritual aspects to our wills/desires/emotions, etc.

Secondly, even when our body dies, we are eternal, meaning our souls and characters are contiguous throughout life and death.

Total Depravity

Although God’s character is potentially perceivable spiritually, our fleshly perception is infinitely more influential on our characters than our spiritual perception. This is because we were created to experience and interact primarily with this realm.

Thus ANY evil in the fleshly realm inevitably results in a perception of evil which cannot be combated by mere human ‘spiritual’ perception of God’s goodness. This means that, if any evil exists in the fleshly realm, every single human is destined to fall.

Total Depravity states that all of humanity can ONLY fall and develop sinful characters (collectively known as the ‘sin nature’ of humanity) in the face of life with evil, and that faith is thus impossible. 

This was demonstrated by Adam’s Fall, but not CAUSED by Adam’s fall. The curse did not  involve forcing Adam’s offspring to have a different ‘fallen’ nature to what Adam originally had. It merely involved a further propagation of evil, which demonstrates we all have the same nature as Adam. This is why God can judge us ahead of time ‘in Adam’, because Adam was a true representative of us.

For humanity to sanctify and develop holiness and faith, God must do something - either supply full total fleshly saturation of His character (eliminates evil, and thus the possibility of faith in the face of evil), OR powerful spiritual perception of His character (beyond our spirit’s natural capabilities).

Limited Atonement

God requires the existence of evil (and thus human total depravity), and His justice subsequently demands that this evil and sin be dealt with (which is why all men are judged in Adam). 

God’s justice is itself a necessary expression of God’s love - possibly the most necessary aspect, because without it the very importance of God’s character to our pleasure is thrown into question. Since God is infinitely important to the universe, sin is infinitely terrible, and only an infinitely terrible display can demonstrate this. Infinite suffering of humanity, or finite suffering of an infinitely important person, is required. 

But His love not only desires justice, but ultimately for all mankind to delight in His goodness. How can these things be reconciled?

God Himself - the most infinitely important person in existence - came to demonstrate the seriousness of sin on our behalf, by suffering and dying - the atonement. 

The atonement allows God to forgo the removal and punishment of any evil/sin that He sees fit - and so demonstrate other aspects of His love - without compromising His justice. 

The atonement is as expansive as God can have it. We know God desires it for the whole world. It is offered to the whole world. It is sufficient for the whole world. And the whole world is required to accept and love it.

But the atonement is none-the-less ‘limited’ in that it only actually keeps a select few people from Hell. Since God can mould all characters as He sees fit, this must be a deliberate act on God’s part, known as election or predestination. 

Unconditional Election

The election has two huge implications. It means that God deliberately separates humanity into two groups, including a select group of specific people to be in Hell, AS PART of His entire aim in all that He does - His expression of Himself, in relation to other beings (I’ll discuss this more later). 

And if Hell is inescapable once there, it means that this expression is in fact targeted at a select group of specific people in heaven, and NOT at all of creation. 

How does this election work? Scriptures teach that God does not elect based on any intrinsic merit. It also teaches that EVERY aspect of our souls (including faith) has merit attached. 

Thus election cannot be based on foreknowledge of our existing/inevitable faith or sanctification. But it must be based on something, since God is far from random! 

God has chosen a particular collection of people to develop a particular set of characters, via particular processes, in relationship to the complexities of the rest of His creation (including other people) - SO THAT the end result is the greatest possible expression of Himself to as many people as possible.

Summary

1. Humans have a dual nature - spiritual, but focused primarily on the temporal fleshly world
2. This means that evil in the fleshly world inevitably leads to humanity falling - Total Depravity
3. We are judged in Adam because Adam is our perfect representative - we would have all behaved as Adam did
4. The atonement demonstrates God’s justice, freeing Him from demonstrating it in other ways (e.g. removing or punishing evil immediately)
5. The atonement is evidentially limited, which must be a deliberate decision on God’s behalf - meaning some are elected, others are not.
6. The election is unconditional, and yet our faith is ascribed merit in Scripture, meaning the election cannot be based on ‘foreknowledge’ of inevitable faith.
7. The election is not random, but is ultimately based on God's drive to use complex processes to maximise the display of His character to as many people as possible.

The Series

1. The Soul
2. God's nature
3. God's nature - obscured
4. Human nature (this post)
5. More to come...

Quantum Physics - Explains or Vexes?

I am not very knowledgeable in quantum studies, but for those interested like me, here is a fantastic documentary on quantum physics/mechanics and its peculiarities. It leads to lots of questions to chew over.
Such as:
Are there parallel universes?
Do things at a quantum level really have random qualities?
How does God fit in with these discoveries?
Does He or can He use a form of "randomness" in the workings of His creation?
If He doesn't use randomness, then what are the alternatives?

Personally, I am with Einstein :) ... everything has an explanation, random probably does not exist. I cannot venture very far in my mind to even conceive the possibility of randomness, and it would be incredibly vexing to comprehend how or why God would use methods that are out of His control in order to run nature. But I might be wrong.
BTW when I talk about "random" I mean "absolutely" random, not incalculable complexity.

All thoughts welcome, except for those comments that are too far above our human intellects for us to even begin to cognize :)

GOD’S NATURE - OBSCURED

Next I want to discuss the apparent obscuring of God’s nature in reality, and God’s relation to this - his justice, and victory over/through evil. Much of this discussion will continue throughout the series, so this is just a simple introduction. Also Hell is notably absent from this discussion - I will address this later too.

Remember I’m really keen to hear philosophical or scriptural challenges, or even simple lack of clarity. Please comment :)

Sin & Evil

In contrast to holiness, divergence from God’s character is known as sin - this is not a description of specific acts, rather a state of character.

Anything which encourages development of sin character (called ‘falling’ or ‘hardening of heart’) is evil. This includes trials (perceived lack of expression of God’s character), and temptations (perceived alternative offers of pleasure). Sin always wills for evil to be expressed.

Since the best expression of God’s character is the ultimate result of all things God creates/allows, God only allows evil/sin to exist because they ultimately serve as part of that best expression. Thus evil is never truly/ultimately evil - it is only temporary. This also means that sinful characters will never find as full ultimate expression as holy characters, minimising possible pleasure.

Justice

God’s relational nature compels Him to express his character in a very particular way - by demonstrating how other relational beings do / should relate to Him and the rest of reality. This is known as God’s justice.

Part of his justice is demonstrating the natures of other relational beings. These are themselves part of the expression of God’s character (and so need demonstrating anyway), but particularly in a relational sense to uphold God’s justice. Also, no other being has foreknowledge like God, so without demonstrating some of these fundamental realities, they would never be known, and the expression of God’s character (and justice) would be reduced.

Part of His justice is treating His character as of infinite importance  - as the ultimate purpose AND good for all things. Evil and sin cannot merely be overlooked because they ultimately work for good - although that would still demonstrate God’s character in the end, it would fail to demonstrate the full importance of His character (especially in a relational sense).

Part of His justice is demonstrating a contrast between good any other possible experience (i.e. evil), and between holiness and sin. This includes describing and demonstrating the differential outcomes of each character type - in terms of natural consequences, and punishment/reward (thus upholding the importance of His character). God’s justice ascribes merit to individual soul-states - to sin/holy characters, and to subsequent wills, desires, and emotions.

Necessity of Evil & Sin

God’s desire and ability to mould a variety of holy characters, coupled with the nature of soulishness, means that a variety of specific experiences in specific contexts are required to produce the necessary sanctification process. And some (? all) of these sanctification processes theoretically require directional switches (repentance - rather than simple unidirectional sanctification).

In addition to this, conscious faith toward God’s own character is necessary to God’s plan. It demonstrates the depth of God’s grace more clearly than faith-less ‘sanctification’, because it is focussed on Him, and allows more pleasure (in Him). 

But those attitudes of faith only have any real substance WHEN they exist in the face of imperfect realisation or experience. In other words, only if a semblance of holiness persists in the face of some experience of evil. Ultimately, faith requires a mix of good and evil, where the perception of good slightly outweighs the perception of evil (possibly involving prior learning and spiritual senses).

We can see from these things that there is a good argument to be made for the necessity of evil, FOR the best expression of God’s character, despite the fact that (by definition) it temporarily obscures at least some aspects of that very character.

The variety of sanctification processes God requires need the existence of evil/sin. Faith needs evil/sin. Demonstrating the contrast between His character and otherwise, requires the existence of evil/sin. 

And finally - both of which are discussed later - Demonstrating humanity’s nature of Total Depravity requires evil/sin, and the existence of Hell (also necessary for different reasons) requires evil/sin.

Note that the necessity of Evil/Sin for ultimate good, means that it is entirely possible for God to ordain and create sin and evil, without Himself being sinful, and without evil being the ultimate result.

Thus the context in which we live our lives - a mixture of God’s goodness (needed for any holiness to be possible, and the continued expression of God’s character) AND evil (needed as discussed above). God’s deliberate allowance of evil in the fleshly world is known as the curse, and it includes human death.

God uses processes

We can also make an observation about God’s methods. He does not instantaneously create what He desires, but uses processes. 

This is partly because He desires some of the actual processes themselves (as they display aspects of His character better, or demonstrate aspects of creation which need to be displayed).

It is also partly because He is constrained to use them by other desires - i.e. the complexity of creation, the nature of our souls, the necessity of temporary evil (i.e. must progress from the stage of its existence to the stage of its removal).

Conclusion

1. Evil (trials and temptations) is any lack of expression of God’s character, which encourages the development of sinful characters (divergence from God’s character).
2. Evil is something God continues to allow in creation, meaning it MUST somehow be part of the best expression of His character. Thus evil never exists in an ultimate sense (only temporarily).
3. God’s justice compels Him to demonstrate the natures of all beings, and the contrast and natural consequences of evil/good and holiness/sin.
4. God’s justice compels Him to treat His character as of infinite importance, meaning he cannot overlook them (even though they work for good in the end), and meaning He ascribes merit (for reward/punishment) to various soul states.
5. Evil is necessary for the variety of sanctification processes, for faith, and for aspects of God’s justice.
6. Since Evil is ultimately ‘good’, God can ordain it without being sinful, and without evil having even the slightest victory in the end.
7. God uses processes rather than instantaneous power - partly because the processes themselves display His character best, partly because of the complexity of creation and the nature of souls, and partly because of the need for temporary evil.

The Series

1. THE SOUL
2. GOD'S NATURE
3. GOD'S NATURE - OBSCURED (this post)
4. HUMAN NATURE
5. More to come...

What did God mean by calling His creation "good"?

Lately I have been pondering about the meaning of "good" when God said that what He had made was "good" in Genesis chapter 1. In the past we have discussed in Bible studies that the definition of good and evil in Hebrew is often thought of in a concept of function and dysfunction (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_good.html).

Lamentations 3:38 talks about how God issues good and evil or in other words "function" and "dysfunction". This view of good and evil gives a new picture. It is not that God is morally "evil" in His actions but in order to bring about full functionality in creation sometimes dysfunction is necessary. At this point in time I think about God flooding the earth in Noah's day - it was an act of dysfunction. It was not ultimately God's intended end or ultimate outcome to cause death, but it was necessary to do in order to reach His intended and ultimate outcome for His creation (justice and salvation).

Coming back to the title of this post, I have been wrestling with God's definition of "good". How can something that is "good" become evil? If it is good or functional, then where is there room for it becoming bad or dysfunctional? If something is good would it not be completely resilient to evil? These questions came from an understanding that when God made everything good, it meant that it was perfect in a present complete sense.

But these questions have brought me to a new understanding of what is "good" in His sight. I believe that "good" to God is like a painting that He has begun and delights in the intended outcome or conclusion. When God created the world I don't think that He was surprised that mankind fell. I don't think that Christ was plan B. He was before the foundation of the world and was intended for sacrifice and salvation from the foundation of the world (John 1, Revelation 13:8, 1 Peter 1:18-20). The gift of Christ and therefore the fall of man is plan A.

So if Christ was God's intended outcome, in order to reconcile man to Himself, then Adam and Eve in their "perfect" state were not perfect at all in God's eyes in a complete finished sense. It is interesting to note that Paul said that Adam was of the dust and Christ is of heaven; first comes the natural and then the spiritual (1 Corinthians 15:45-49). Adam was not complete without Christ, even before Adam "fell".

So why did God intend or allow dysfunction (the fall) in His overall "good" functional picture? I wonder whether in order for mankind to experience the fullness of love, grace and sacrifice, then a negative or dysfunction is necessary. In order to know the difference between functional (God's best intended complete outcome) and dysfunctional then we as mankind need to experience both. Thus the tree of the knowledge of "good" and "evil" is necessary in order to appreciate what is truly functional. Adam was of the dust, and before the fall he was not yet aware of dysfunction, nor was he aware of the aspects of complete function. This complete function was the act and demonstration of love and sacrifice modelled by Christ. It is important to note that currently, mankind as a whole are able to experience aspects of function, such as love etc, alongside dysfunction. But mankind have not yet experienced God's full intended functional end-outcome, where dysfunction does not exist.

What is this end-outcome? To become like Christ Himself, valuing what He values. To die in order to have life more abundantly, and to experience dysfunction in order to become and appreciate complete functionality.

I will leave you with this verse from Romans 8:18 "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory, which shall be revealed in us" - KJV (Some versions say "to" instead of "in", but I believe it means "in" or both).

Isn't it cool that the glory will be revealed "in" US?! God is moulding and developing us into His masterpiece and suffering is a part of it! (Romans 5:3-4)

GOD’S NATURE

Post number 2 (following THE SOUL):

Anything we know about God’s nature is completely dependent on Him revealing His nature to us. There are various means of such revelation, ranging in clarity from intelligible recorded language (Scripture) to the expression of the resulting character in reality (i.e. creation, incarnation, sin and suffering, end-times, etc). 

Regardless of the clarity of revelation, there is some degree of interpretation by us, the recipients. We sense the language (with varying degrees of accuracy) and perceive it’s meaning (with even less accuracy) in line with our own current character.

I realise my own fallibility in receiving revelation, and welcome anyone to persuade me toward a truer and fuller perception of God’s nature! This is very important, because God’s nature is the basis for his character, and everything else!

Remember I’m mainly interested in peer review - both of philosophical validity and clarity, and Scriptural support.

Fundamentals

Most fundamentally, God is a conscious (soulish), relational (Trinitarian) spirit. 

His soulishness means He has a character, Free Agency (a hedonistic drive for best expression), and desires.

His relational nature is unique - for most other beings, this is merely one way of expressing a particular kind of character (which is itself malleable). God's intrinsic and unchanging relational nature becomes especially relevant to his creation of and interaction with humanity.

Another aspect of God’s nature, is that He is the ‘I AM’ - the ONLY self-sufficient, self-existent thing in existence. As such, God is not dependent on ANY other being for existence (and is thus eternal), but everything else is dependent on Him for existence. 

This does NOT mean he does not allow other beings to have God-like properties - after all, He has given angels and humans conscious spirits (and thus souls) just like Him. But the existence of anything depends on God wanting it to exist. 

The necessity of this clarification is obvious when considering the pre-existence of human spirits. If God is eternal and our spirits depend on his desire for their existence, it is possible that this desire has been present for eternity with God Himself. Thus it is possible that human spirits are eternal - but ONLY GOD is self-sufficient, self-existent.

Unlimited Expressiveness

God is free to fully define his own context, in which His free agency operates. 

This means his context is designed to match his strongest desires - to allow maximal expression of His character, and thus maximal pleasure. 

It also means He has full and true perception of all things - his desires are spot-on, and his will knows exactly what the best expression of his character is.

Being always able to express his character fully, God is never under any pressure to mould His character.

This means that His character is the same, for all eternity.

It also means that He will inevitably attain maximum possible ultimate pleasure in the context He created.

This character is extremely broad and complex - given that it is not limited by anything except God’s nature (which is minimal).

God’s Free Agency mean that expressiveness is also part of His nature. Combined with a broad, complex character and ultimate expression, this makes powerful creativity part of God’s nature. EVERYTHING that exists is part of the perfect ultimate expression of God’s character. The observable and unobservable aspects of the fleshly and spiritual universes, along with various created beings and their natures, all serve this end. 

The complexity of creation itself is part of the perfect expression of God’s character, since God’s character is complex. But it also means that each and every minute event within reality has broad ripple impacts (Butterfly Effect). It is possible that God deliberately chose a reality in which his methods are somewhat constrained by these effects, because this best reflects His character.

Holiness

The character of God is referred to as His holiness - consequently, any created being’s character is holy to the degree that it aligns with God’s. Since God’s character is constant, holiness is a constant knowable standard of character. 

Holy characters have potential to find the greatest possible ultimate expression and pleasure of any characters in all of reality, since it is designed to allow the greatest ultimate expression of God’s character, which is holy.

Since holiness is the best way to pursue and attain ultimate pleasure, anything which encourages holiness is ‘good’ in multiple senses - maximising pleasure, maximising utility, fulfilling purpose, and being holy. 

Developing holiness is ‘sanctification’. To sanctify, characters must perceive a reality in which holiness finds best expression. They must perceive a reality created by and for the expression of God’s character. This is why ANY expression of God’s character is, by definition, ‘good’ for all created beings.

The Grace of God means that His character is always ‘good’ when it is expressed, and it is always perfectly expressed. It is an impersonal property of existence, which describes how God's expression happens to always be ultimately 'good' for us.

Human holiness also wills for 'good' to be expressed, resulting in 'good works'. These please God because of what they indicate about the character, regardless of his decision to bring them success or not (based on perfect holiness and knowledge).

Since God’s character it is so broad and complex, there are multiple varied ways that different (more limited) being’s can be holy - this is God’s purpose to display his character. Thus there are multiple ways to be sanctified. Also the way in which holiness works itself out in the will is even more varied, depending on context - but it will always be an expression of God’s character.

Human holiness is also different from God's holiness, in that our natures are NOT un-limited in our expression. EVEN IF we were perfectly aligned with God’s character, the expression of this character will be limited by our natures. 

True human ‘holiness’ (from God’s perspective, and what will bring us the most pleasure) is thus angled heavily toward finding pleasure in experiencing God’s OWN expression of this character, more than our personal expression of this character.

Thus human holiness includes a set of attitudes towards God’s own character - including confession (understanding, belief/perception, acceptance, and ownership), love (and desire), and trust (and hope). These can obviously exist apart from each other, but are collectively known as ‘saving faith’.

Relationship to Created Beings

Love is defined as pleasure in the pleasure of another being, with whom we have a relationship. 

There are three ways this can happen - mutual experience (both simultaneously enjoy each other, but on a superficial level as if they were just part of a pleasurable context, rather than primarily in the pleasure of the other), mutual characters (the characters are alike, so that when one expresses itself, it is as if the other had also), or the development of a character whose expression involves giving pleasure to the other (and can thus be sacrificial to this end). These are known (in Greek) as eros (sexual passion), philios (brotherly affection), and agape (sacrificial love) respectively.

Sacrificial agape love is based on God's grace (His intrinsic 'goodness', both defining and encouraging maximal possible pleasure in holy characters). But more than that, it includes a relational desire for His created beings (themselves a product of His character expression) to find delight along with Him - i.e, to delight in His character. While grace is impersonal, love is personal, and not only describes God's expression but influences it.

For humans, agape love for God will also aim to maximise His delight in a reciprocal manner - but it is different to God's love, because we bring Him pleasure by being holy and enjoying His own character expression!

God is able to completely mould all created characters as He sees fit. This is because character moulding is dependent on perceptions of good/evil - they sanctify and/or harden based on the balance of goodness/evil that they perceive. 

God is in complete control of the actual presence of evil vs goodness throughout life (thus manipulating character moulding over time), and is also able to provide powerful instantaneous spiritual perception via the Holy Spirit (discussed later) in any degree He sees fit.

God works all things together to bring about what he has predestined. Since soul states cannot be the basis of election (election is unmerited as discussed later, but soul states are clearly ascribed merit by God), this leaves God bound to mould characters as required to bring about what He has predestined.

The problem of God designing sinful characters is addressed later when I discuss the necessity of sin. 

Summary

1. God is a conscious (soulish) and trinitarian (relational) spirit.
2. He is the ‘I AM’ - the ONLY self-existent, self-sufficient being - the creator and sustainer of everything else in all of reality.
3. Being able to define his own context, God is unlimited in expressiveness, is all-knowing, and is unchanging.
4. The creation as a whole IS the complex expression of God’s character, and that (according to God's Free Agency) must be its ultimate purpose.
5. Sanctification is the process of becoming holy - aligned with God’s character.
6. Any sanctifying pressures are ‘good’ because holy characters will find ultimate best expression in a universe designed for the expression of God’s character.
7. Human holiness includes faith, which means it focused on God’s expression of his own holiness.
8. God is loving because He wants other beings to align with his character AND find maximal ultimate pleasure in it.
9. God is able to completely manipulate the moulding of all created characters, because He is in control of their prior character development, their current context, and their spiritual perception (via the Holy Spirit).

The Series:

1. The Soul
2. God's Nature (this post)
3. God's Nature - Obscured
4. Human Nature
5. More to come...

Backwards Thinking

            

Photo by RBerteig

I used to be really worried if should I find a difference of accounts in the Bible, even the tiniest. Yet the more I consider it, the more it doesn't bother me, regarding it's truth. In fact it strengthens me.

I remember hearing a situation where one guy lost his faith in the God because of a "contradiction" (there had to be more to the story, no doubt). The difference was here:


Mark 10 says:
And they came to Jericho. And ^(B)as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great crowd, Bartimaeus, ^(C)a blind beggar, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the roadside. ⁴⁷ And when he heard that it was ^(D)Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”  And many ^(E)rebuked him, telling him to be silent. But he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” ⁴⁹ And Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.” And they called the blind man, saying to him, ^(F)“Take heart. Get up; he is calling you.” ⁵⁰ And throwing off his ^(G)cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus. ⁵¹And Jesus said to him, ^(H)“What do you want me to do for you?”And the blind man said to him, ^(I)“Rabbi, let me recover my sight.” ⁵² And Jesus said to him, “Go your way; ^(J)your faith has^(K)made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him on the way.


and 


Luke 18 says:
As he drew near to Jericho, ^(B)a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. ³⁶ And hearing a crowd going by, he inquired what this meant. ³⁷ They told him, ^(C)“Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” ³⁸ And he cried out, “Jesus, ^(D)Son of David, have mercy on me!” ³⁹ And those who were in front^(E)rebuked him, telling him to be silent. But he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” ⁴⁰ And Jesus stopped and commanded him to be brought to him. And when he came near, he asked him, ^41 (F)“What do you want me to do for you?”He said, “Lord, let me recover my sight.” ⁴² And Jesus said to him, “Recover your sight; ^(G)your faith has ^(H)made you well.” ⁴³And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him,^(I)glorifying God. And ^(J)all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.


Before I begin what I wanted to write about, I want to share this; when it comes to Bible differences, there is often and if not always an explanation for many of them. Here is a link to an explanation for this one if you are interested. 


So what is the potential difference here? Well, Mark says that this story happened as Jesus was leaving Jericho and Luke says that it happened as he was drawing near Jericho. Mark and Luke may not have understood completely what they were talking about.


There would have been a time in the past when this situation could have threatened my faith.


When I consider it now it strengthens my faith - but why? Well, the way I understand it now is...


1. If Mark and Luke had got together and planned how they would write a novel about the Messiah there would be no differences, wouldn't there? It is clear they didn't write this together since the accounts vary slightly. So in theory there would be no conspiracy between them to deceive the world about the Christ.
2. Even though the two passages don't agree on one point, they do agree on pretty much every other detail. If I remember correctly I think Mark got his gospel from Peter, an eye witness of the accounts of Jesus. Both Luke and Mark agree on other details - this shows that truth must have occurred because there are two different accounts from two different people.
If I were a juror hearing testimonies from people I would be more willing to accept the truth about a situation if the witnesses clearly differ on a small/insignificant detail and yet on the whole agreed. It is in the truth's favour to have complete agreement on the main facts, but small discrepancies on some minor details. It means:
     a. They didn't conduct a plan
     b. They are telling what they saw or remembered.


I grew up thinking that God wrote every word of the Bible. Yet I am not certain that He did, otherwise (in regards to the passages in Mark and Luke) could He be classed as lying? But we know that God cannot lie (Hebrews).


Could have God breathed the Bible in similar ways to this situation where I ask my wife to write a letter for me: 


1. Do I look over her shoulder and point all the grammar mistakes? (I am not sure whether God was interested in grammar since Revelation was written quickly and roughly apparently.)


2. Should I tell her to write my exact words? but then the letter would be all in my style wouldn't they? (The different writers of the Bible clearly had their own style)


3. Could I tell her to write key topics in the letter but let her choose the style and make sure she includes certain words?


4. Could I just tell her to write on a topic exactly what I say about the topic, but in her own words?


5. Could God have inspired what He wanted in His Word and yet not have written every detail?


Peter claims that God "breathed" out scripture, does this claim every word? Look at the styles of the writers - clearly they had their own style, their own choice of word phrases and yet God guided them and worked through them. The Bible is God's message to us through people. I am quite confident that the overall message that God has given us in His word is from Him and is not contradictory. One of the reasons why I believe the Bible is the Word of God is simply because it is amazing how it is so coherent with itself in doctrine, prophecy and many historical accounts. 
Could it be that when there is a slight difference, it doesn't mean God is lying, it is simply because the writer has made a mistake or remembers a different account? I remember asking my old pastor about a difference between Joshua and Judges I think it was, and he gave me a passage in 1 Chronicles 4:22. Right after listing a genealogy or similar the writer said, "Now the records are ancient."


I thought it was quite funny how the writer "sounded" like he was unsure about the accuracy of the records he had just written lol.


Could God only really be concerned about making sure the doctrine, prophecy and major historical accounts were accurate? 
Could He possibly not be really that concerned about the style of writing, or whether He walked into or out of Jericho first, or whether there really were armies of 65,000, 30,000 and not 65,004 or 30,005?
Could God have purposefully allowed differences to occur to show that the accounts of the gospel were not fraud or man inspired?


In summary, I believe that difference of accounts is more evidence to a truth than if it were all totally agreed. Could God possibly have not written every word?


I do thank you Father God for giving us your Word, please help us to not believe pre-conceived ideas about You or Your Word but teach us Your truth! 

And This Is Love?????

It's a simple concept or is it?

So....How do we love God?

How does God love us?

How do we share the love of God with each other?

Many of Gods children are dumbfounded by this question and their answers are varied.

I believe the answer can be found in what appears to be one simple verse.

And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

Isn't this what it is all about?

What are your thoughts?