7) Faith Again: Good Deeds Will be Done

So we find that searching for a motivation for doing good deeds is a useless pursuit.  But that does not mean that good deeds do not, in a different sense, have a source.  The quotation cited above states that the source of abstinence from sin results from being dead to it, which already gives us something of a lead.  A thoroughgoing study of the New Testament reveals a recurring theme of “New Life” (Rom. 6:18, 2 Cor. 5:17, Eph. 2:4-5, 1 Pet. 2:16, 1 John 1:7, and 1 John 3:1-2); it is further asserted by the Bible that the New Life is tied closely with the doing of good deeds:

We know that we have come to know Him if we obey His commands.  The man who says, “I know Him,” but does not do what He commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.  But if anyone obeys His word, God’s love is truly made complete in him.  This is how we know we are in Him: Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did (1 John 2:3-6 NIV, see also Rom. 6:1, 6:15-18, 1 John 2:9-11)

In other words, someone who is in the New Life simply will do good deeds; it’s not a question or a cause for concern, really.  Those who are reborn will act like it (in a sense, whether they like it or not, though they are quite certain to like it, since they are, indeed, reborn).  We are getting close.  If only we can find the method of entrance into this New Life, we can find the ultimate source of good deeds, and therefore better characterize their relationship to faith.  Again, the apostle John is particularly helpful on the topic:

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves His Child as well.  This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out His commands.  This is love for God: to obey His commands.  And His commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world.  This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.  Who is it that overcomes the world?  Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 5:1-5 NIV, see also Gal. 3:26)

In this verse, we find the entire conclusion laid out for us; the entire conundrum sorted out and tied up with a satisfyingly beautiful bow.  We know that good deeds proceed from being in the New Life, and, thanks to this passage, we now know that being in the New Life (being a “son of God” as John puts it) proceeds from faith in Jesus Christ.  It follows that good deeds proceed from faith.  If someone in the New Life simply will do good deeds, and the New Life is entered via faith, then it follows that the one with faith simply will do good deeds.  If you must, you might look at it in strict cause-and-effect terms (though the actual relationship is likely far more dynamic).  Good deeds are caused by faith – it is the character out of which they spring.

8) Faith Again: Addressing Concerns

Some possible counterpoints should be addressed before getting too excited.  There are verses in the Bible which imply that it is not, in fact, by faith that one enters the New Life but by baptism:

Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life (Romans 6:4 NIV, see also 1 Cor. 12:13 and Gal. 3:27-29)

It would seem from this and the verses below cited that the New Life in Christ was entered into via physical baptism.  This threatens, to a noticeable degree, the conclusion to which we have already come – that the New Life is entered via faith in Christ, not to mention even suggesting contradiction within the Bible.  Luckily, however, this contradiction is softened in light of the consideration that baptism is usually done because of one’s faith in Jesus Christ.  Indeed, it can be further argued not simply that baptism is done out of faith in Christ, but that you cannot be baptized in a spiritually significant way unless you have faith in Christ.  We know that rituals commanded by Christ are not safe from misuse:

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.  A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.  For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself (1 Cor. 11:27-29 NIV)

This above example is of Communion (or Eucharist if you prefer), and its ability to be used unworthily.  From this, we have reason to suspect that baptism, too, can be done unworthily.  If this is indeed so, what would differentiate between worthy and unworthy baptism?  Again, Acts is particularly helpful:

And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may [be baptized].”  And [the Ethiopian] replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts 8:37 HCSB)

This goes to show that faith in Jesus Christ is an integral part to baptism in His name.  Indeed, practice affirms the conclusion that baptism is done out of faith in Jesus Christ.  I have yet to meet someone who was baptized into the name of someone they thought merely to be a great moral teacher or a lunatic.  This should give us the sense that baptism is made efficacious by one’s faith; it is how one is baptized into Christ’s rather than another’s name (see Acts 19:1-7).  It is also notable that this does not work the other way around.  The Bible does not indicate that one’s faith is useless until he gets baptized, but it does give us cause to doubt faithless baptism.  The contradiction between John’s and Paul’s words is therefore liquefied in light of the fact that baptism and faith are inextricably linked.  If you get baptized (the right way), it is out of faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ anyway.

This, by the way, brings us full circle back to the conclusion which is here being defended – the idea that good deeds proceed from faith.  Baptism is easily classified as a good deed; Jesus said that “it is proper for us [to be baptized] to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15 NIV).  And if indeed baptism is done out of faith, then this further hardens our conclusion that good deeds proceed from faith.  Baptism may not activate faith, but it can be said to proceed from it.  It is the perfect expression of faith and the New Life which it created in the faithful; our first example of faith’s ability to generate good deeds.  Baptism is the “first fruit” of faith.

9) Faith Again: Conclusion

Faith is the motivation for good deeds.  With that in mind, we might do well to return to James with a moderated eye, able, now that we have gone digging through the rest of the Bible, to decide what he very probably meant.  By saying, “Faith without deeds is dead,” he is usually taken to mean, “You had better do good deeds, or your faith will die.”  There may in fact be truth to this statement, but nevertheless it is so vulnerable to misinterpretations that it ought to be re-directed with proper emphasis.  In light of the preceding arguments, James can be taken to be saying, “There is no such thing as a faith in Jesus Christ which does not motivate you to do good deeds.”

There is a certain beauty to this re-direction, for it really allows us to affirm salvation as an undeserved grace and also the pertinence of good deeds in the New Life of the Christian.  If you say you have faith in Jesus Christ, and yet you are not motivated whatsoever to lift a finger for a brother or make a sacrifice for a friend, you are probably kidding yourself.  If you say you had better do good works or be damned, you’ve gone too far.  You need to be saved because you can’t do any good works; or at least, not anything that can overturn the nasty things you have already done, and definitely nothing which warrants being welcomed into Perfection.  It is by grace through faith that we are saved not only from the penalty of moral imperfection but also its power; we are slowly but surely being made more perfect through faith.

From a purely practical standpoint, one who believes that something is true also acts like that something is true.  You do not very often find someone walking about in broad daylight who truly believes that the apocalypse is going to begin in a few minutes, for the one who believes this will probably be found holed up in his house.  If you did indeed find someone on the street who claimed to believe this, you would have every right to doubt the strength of their belief.  So it is with Christianity.  If you believe that Jesus is the Christ – if you truly believe it – you will find yourself acting like it as time goes on.  If you resolve to follow Christ’s commands out of no conceivable motivation, pretty soon you’ll find yourself believing His truth-claims about religion and about Himself.  There is hardly any distinction between these two statements.  Neither precludes the other.  If indeed belief is true, action follows (or begins to follow) at that same moment, and vice-versa.  Faith contains both and unites both; you cannot have it with only one or the other.  It compels one to practice what they preach.  It is the method by which man imitates the practice and trusts himself to the preaching of Christ.

A word on Christian rituals

          The following essay will be a Biblically-based analysis on two major Christian rituals: baptism and communion.  I am not supposing that there are no other useful rituals in the Christian faith out there; on the other hand, these are the only two explicitly handed on to other believers from the Bible.  In addition, this post discusses the two rituals in a broader sense.  It analyzes proper attitudes that one should have towards baptism and communion.  As such, for any other obscure Christian ritual, I would argue that these same attitudes apply.

          I think it altogether wise and in accordance with Scripture to consider baptism and communion to be "in the same boat", so to speak, with circumcision.  I think this for several reasons:
          1) They are both physical representations of a Thing, Occurrence, etc.  I say representation strictly.  A representation of a Thing cannot itself be that Thing which it represents, else it would cease to be merely a representation.  Circumcision represents the promise God gave to Abraham.  Now, is circumcision itself the promise of God?  Of course not!  The promise is the promise, and the rite of circumcision was given to Abraham and all those who received the promise as a reminder of that promise.  Romans 4:10, "But how did this happen?  Was he (Abraham) counted as righteous only after he was circumcised, or was it before?  Clearly, God accepted Abraham before he was circumcised!"
          Baptism is a physical representation of Jesus's burial and resurrection.  Just as Jesus was buried and resurrected in accordance with the will of his Father, so too, during baptism are we "buried" in water and lifted up out of that water by the will of our spiritual father on earth, that is, the pastor (do not be intimidated by my referring to a pastor as your father; it is only to keep up with the analogy.  Feel free to insert "leader" or "teacher" depending on your perspective on the matter).  Now, is baptism itself the burial and resurrection of Christ?  Of course not!  It it were, the world's sins would have been forgiven the moment Jesus was physically baptized by John.  The Bible is quite clear that it was not Jesus's baptism but His actual death and resurrection that did this.  
          Even if the Bible were not explicit, logically, which act would we assume took away the sins of the entire world?  The act where a man is dipped in a bit of murky water or the act where he is cruelly murdered and risen from the dead?  Certainly the second!  But, of course, there is not need to make logical conclusions of our own.  It is explicitly stated to us.
          My point is this: there is baptism and there is the death and resurrection of Christ.  And the death and resurrection of Christ is more significant.
          Communion is a physical representation of the body and blood of Christ broken and spilled out that we may be filled.  It is not itself the body that was broken or the blood that was shed; that happened at Calvary.
          As I understand, there is some opposition to this, mainly the idea of transubstantiation.  For those who do not know what that is, it is best not to bother with the following paragraph at all.  For those who do know what it is, the following paragraph may prove useful.  For those who know and believe that it is true, I should mention that this matter is not really that important to me.  If we disagree on something as comparably trivial as ritual, then does it really matter all that much?  I am only here to state the facts and what can be discerned from the facts as I know them. 
          Anyway, on to the point.  I think that the idea transubstantiation fails to draw a "line of literal-ness"; that is, a line at which point things stop being literal and start being figurative.  Indeed, Jesus did say, "Take and eat; this is my body (Mat 26:26b)," and, "This is my blood of the covenant (Mat 26:28a)."  If we are to take that as literally as possible, then we are to assume that the bread literally became his body and the wine literally became his blood.  
          So I see why one might decide that transubstantiation is a "thing", so to speak.  But is that what happened?  I think that it is altogether appropriate to get some context on the matter.  "Never read a Bible verse!" my Theology teacher once said.  Context is excruciatingly important when dealing with the Bible.  What is the context of this verse in this chapter?  And what of the chapter with the book?  And what of the book with the entire Bible?  A single thread may make one assume that the entire rug is red while the big picture is actually predominantly blue.
          So let's get some context here.  Here's is Matthew 26:28 in its entirety, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."  Now, were the sins of the world forgiven the moment that Jesus blessed the wine?  Don't be foolish!  The sins of the world were forgiven when Jesus died and rose from the dead.  So the wine could not have been Jesus's blood, because Jesus's blood is poured out for the sins of the world.  As it is, the world's sins were not forgiven the moment the cup was blessed.  Therefore, the wine could not have been his blood.
          By extension, I think it altogether prudent to assume that the bread did not become his body, either, even though Jesus never says this is my body broken "for the forgiveness of sins," as he said about his blood.  However, he did say about the bread, "Do this in remembrance of me," which ought to send up the red flag that this is all figurative; a physical representation of an outer Thing, Occurrence, etc. that was yet to come.  
          Now, though it clearly did not happen for the disciples, are we to suppose that transubstantiation can happen now that Jesus's body has already been broken and his blood already shed?  I think not.  If Christ saw fit to perform the ritual the way he performed it, why do we, mere mortals, think it fitting to do it our own way?  Or are you forgetting what is written in Revelation 22:18-19, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.  And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
          Though perhaps referenced out of context, the principle ought to stand.  We ought not add or take away from the core truths of the Gospel, and it is my opinion that transubstantiation comes dangerously close to doing just that.
          My point is this: there is communion and there is the Crucifixion.  And the crucifixion is more significant.
          Anyway, my next point...     
          2) They are both, baptism and communion, physical illustrations of ongoing spiritual Conditions.  Being only illustrations, they are not the spiritual Conditions themselves.  Consider circumcision.  Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness.  Now, was Abraham counted righteous before or after he was circumcised?  Certainly it was before!  Therefore, circumcision is not itself the righteousness that comes by faith.  It is merely an illustration of that Condition.  (Romans 4:10)  
          There is an easy way to test this.  Ask yourself this, who is circumcised?  Is it the man who is not physically circumcised yet obeys Jewish law, or is it the man who is physically circumcised yet disobeys Jewish law?  Surely the first man is circumcised spiritually; which counts for much more than being circumcised physically and not spiritually.  Romans 2:25, "The Jewish ceremony of circumcision has value only if you obey God's law.  But if you don't obey God's law, you are no better off than an uncircumcised Gentile." Note this: there is spiritual circumcision and there is physical circumcision.
          Now use this test against our other rituals.  Who would you say is baptized?  The one whose faith is in Jesus Christ yet who has not been physically baptized, or the one who has been physically baptized yet has no faith in Jesus Christ?  Surely the first is baptized in spirit and the second only in the flesh!
          Do not suppose that I have just pulled the idea of "spiritual baptism" out of a hat to conform with my argument.  Luke 4:16, "John answered their questions by saying, 'I baptize you with water; but someone is coming soon who is greater than I am - so much greater that I'm not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals.  He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."  He, that is, Jesus Christ, baptizes us.  Now, in physical baptism, is it Christ in the flesh who baptizes us?  That's ludicrous!  The pastor baptizes us physically.
          Should we suppose that Christ baptizes us in spirit only when we are baptized physically?  Of course not!  Consider this, is it not perfectly possible for one to be baptized physically and not spiritually?  Cannot someone wait patiently as some old fool dips him in water, not caring two-pence for the implications of what he is doing?  Physical obedience does not automatically imply spiritual obedience.  So just as physical obedience results in physical baptism, so too does spiritual obedience result in spiritual baptism.  So obedience to Christ baptizes the spirit and grants one with the gift of the Holy Spirit.
          Now, one might contest me, saying, "This is wrong.  It is faith that grants us with the Holy Spirit, not obedience!"  To the one who says that, I would remind you that I am not even saying anything contesting that long held, and I believe to be true, idea.  Did not Jesus tell us to put our faith in him?  So would not having faith in him be obeying him?  So it is by faith that we receive the Spirit, and by continued obedience that we grow stronger and deeper and more in tune with the Spirit.  We are first baptized in the Spirit when we take the first step of obedience to Christ, which is placing our faith in him.  From there, the cleansing of our spirit in ongoing baptism results from the ongoing obedience of our spirit.
          My point is this: there is physical baptism and there is spiritual baptism.  And spiritual baptism is better.
          Who would you say communes with God?  The one who prays continually without having taken physical communion, or the one who takes physical communion yet never prays?  Surely the first communes with God, and the other not at all!  As it is written in John 4:21, "Jesus declared, 'Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.'"
          Surely this applies to us all!  Or are all the churches outside Jerusalem vain and incapable of worship?  Certainly not!  I have seen many churches; I am convinced that all of them contain many that worship the LORD.  And how can they worship if they are unable outside of Jerusalem?  So communing and spending intimate time with God do not depend on the placement or method (so long as these factors do not default the fact that it is still genuine worship).  
          My point is this: physical communion is not the same as spiritual communion.  And spiritual communion is better.

          Doubtless that I could go on, but it is likely unnecessary.  I am writing a blog post, after all, not a book.  Anyway, surely you see how circumcision and baptism and communion share a bond?  I have put them under the same roof for good reason.  There is some writing in Romans that explains circumcision rather well, and it is my opinion that baptism and communion should be treated with the same attitude.
          Romans 2:25-29, "Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law you have become as though you had not been circumcised.  If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?  The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.  A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward or physical.  No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.  Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God."  
          And so this sums up my word on baptism and communion.  Each of them are useless unless they are first done spiritually.  If they are, then of course they have value!  Like Paul said of circumcision, "Circumcision has value if you observe the law."  The physical, circumcision, has value if and only if the spiritual condition, observing the law, is met.  Like I said, anyone can eat a bit of bread, drink a bit of wine, or dip themselves in water without meaning what people think they ought to mean.  But if they do mean what the Bible says they ought to mean, then it is meaningful indeed.
          Baptism is useless unless the partaker is spiritually baptized.
          Communion is useless unless the partaker spiritually communes with God.
          I am convinced that on the day of judgement, it will not be counted against anyone as to whether or not they have been physically baptized or they have taken physical communion.  However, they quite probably will be judged for rejecting said rituals.
          Do not suppose that I have taken a sudden turn into cultish legalism.  The previous statement is perfectly logical for good reasons.  Suppose you are a Christian.  Suppose you are spiritually baptized and you spiritually commune with God.  If you are such a person, what reason have you not to be baptized or take communion?  If you know that doing such a thing is good, and if the opportunity is presented to you and you resist, does this not reveal a flaw of character?  
          Why would one do this: refrain from practicing in a ritual that they know is good?  Two fundamental reasons are that they are either afraid or arrogant.  As for fear, God never excused anyone from doing good on account that he was afraid.  And arrogance in of itself is sin in the first place, let alone what it makes one do.  No one is judged for being unable to partake in good ritual.  However, they can be judged for refusing to partake in it.  All I'm saying is this: when you know of this good thing, you ought to try and do it.
          So while this post seems to minimize the importance of ritual, its importance is not defaulted entirely, or even weakened by very much at all. 
          Consider an example.  Often, when people raise their arm to the heavens while they worship, they say that they feel closer to God.  I can relate to this from experience.  Indeed, I can honestly say that I felt closer to God when I did this.  Was this because I was literally, physically closer to God?  Don't be silly!  If God were physically anywhere, it probably wouldn't be anywhere in this universe.  And if it was, what are the chances that it was right above me?  Pretty much none.
          But the idea that He was up there.  The idea that he is above me, watching over me.  The idea that reaching my arm up made me closer to God.  And my willingness to look half out of my mind to do a simple gesture.  That is what moved my spirit closer to his.  You see what I am saying?
          This is the attitude you should have towards these rituals: respect their significance, but do not forget their subordination to the spiritual.

Dear Readers

          To the readers of this blog, regular and guest readers.

          From Codey, a servant of the LORD.  Peace, love, and light from the Father to the Son to the world.  Amen.

           My dear readers, I feel it entirely necessary to write to you in detail what the purpose of this blog is in addition to my testimony; why I am a Christian.  You probably saw and read my mission statement at the top of this blog.  I kept it short and sweet; I am not one to write an unnecessarily long mission statement that results in people stopping to read it rather than the actual blog.  While I did the best I could to make its meaning exact, the shortness of it may leave room open for interpretation or worse, misunderstanding.

          So for those who misunderstood the mission statement, or for those who seek clarification regarding such, or for those who want to know more about this enigmatic, obnoxiously and abrasively practical Christian writer, or for those whose eyes were caught by the simple title of the post "Dear Readers", this post is for you.

          My mission is this, "To mount an intellectual crusade, not against fools but against their folly."  Is it not true that the metal cannot be refined without fire?  I see the world as an ore; imperfect, but having potential.  I seek to fan the flames of its purification.  I myself am not that Flame, I stand as a testimony to the Flame's power and as a signpost, pointing others to brave the Flame's burning kiss and emerge a new creation; the old burned away, the pure metal remaining purer and stronger than ever.  I firmly believe that this Flame is Christ.

          If someone has decided before reading my blog that I am wrong, he should not read it.  This blog cannot change such stubborn minds; it can only enrage them.  I leave the closed-minded to the counselors of the world, those that appeal not to the mind but to the heart.  This blog is to be read by the mentally aimless, those who have yet to make a decision, those who have decided to remain undecided.  "Not all of the information is in, new developments are being made, I do not yet have the knowledge required to pass judgment," this blog is for the one who says this.

          That is not to say that I would turn away the stubborn-minded at the door; I do not fear you, you may do as you will.  Besides, if you came to my door with the proper spirit then you would not be so stubborn minded, would you?  Yet, if you come to my door with the purpose of mocking or disrespecting what I write, I respectfully request that you make none of your mockery known to me.  I prefer not to have my time wasted by frivolous hatred.

          To those whose minds are open and seek to be filled with knowledge, this blog is for you.  I have done my best to write in an unbiased manner, seeing things from every angle and writing down what I see.  Now, of course the conclusion itself is biased in favor of Christ, as any conclusion itself is biased.  Yet I have found, to an excitingly large degree, that one need not use biased methods to come to a biased conclusion.  The conclusion itself can always be considered biased in favor of itself.  And yet, can it really be considered biased if the principle on which it is declared true is not biased?

          The fool who refuses to be separated from his folly will feel attacked by what I write, naturally and rightfully so.  If a fool and his folly cannot be separated, then I cannot attack his folly without attacking the fool.  That is why I advise the close-minded not to read this.  Such people are partakers adhered to that in which they partake.  But those who are human, who are neither fool nor wise man, who do not truly believe in what they practice, this blog is for such people.  For if such a person is a fool, it is not because of what he believes in but because of what he does.  What he does is not an act of will, on the contrary, he does it because of a lack of will.  He is blown about by his own desires and impulses. 

          Though not ideal, these people are my favorite sorts of people, because it is only these sorts of people that I can help.  I can attack their folly without attacking them; indeed, it is not even their folly that I am attacking as opposed to folly itself, since they adopt nothing as their own.  Such people are far more inclined to accept what I say and decide that what I say is right; the thing I speak out against truly is folly.  Now liberated from folly, the human can start being a wise man, a pursuit which I believe to be thoroughly rewarding.  

          Yet who can be a wise man, not a man of worldly wisdom but a man of otherworldly wisdom, without listening to an otherworldly source?  I do believe that the only credible, otherworldly source is Christ; some of my posts scratch the surface of the answer I have to the question as to why I believe this.

          To the one who is open minded: I offer something to be decided on.  I offer not merely ideas to be considered but conclusions to be agreed with.  I offer the source of what little wisdom I have; the source is certainly not me, but Christ.  I offer not only a basket of fruit from my tree, I offer the seed to you all.  That is my mission statement.
          Now, some of you may want to ask me, "Why are you a Christian?"  I also know that a good answer to this question is vital, as told and well argued to me by successful ministers around the world.  Either way, an answer to the question is good to know for those who seek to read this blog.  So here, in the following paragraphs, lies the answer.
          I can honestly say that, to a certain extent, I envy those who were saved by some addiction or other through their faith in Christ.  They have a simple yet powerful answer to give; a before and after.  "Before I drowned in depression, now I have hope through Christ!  Before I was empty and addicted to every pleasure, now I have something better, joy in Christ!  Before I despaired, now I rejoice!  Before I was broken, now I am whole!  Before I hated, now I love!" so on and so forth.  As for me, I have no idea what I was like before Christ.  I very well could have been addicted to tantrums or sweets up until I put my faith in Christ... at four years old.
          That hardly leaves room for any legitimate answer as to the question "why" in my case, doesn't it?  Not entirely true, yet given the difference in circumstances my answer must be different.  I contemplated the answer within myself for a time and, to my eternal fortune, I found the answer.
          My answer is simple: I am a Christian because I do not want to experience any alternative.  Even since I was a child, I hated the idea that learning came from experience; indeed, I still to this day despise the claim of those who supposedly need to learn through experience.  "You can understand that something is wrong without experiencing the fact for yourself!" I insisted and still insist to this day.
          I have seen and understood a lack of purpose and happiness and love in many who are not Christians.  I have heard of those who were saved from addictions and worldly troubles through Christ.  I do not need to reject my Christianity to have some understanding of what it is like to live without Christ.  That may sound prejudicial, but that is not what I judge, that is what I see.  I do not decide that there is none, rather I see no benefit to rejecting Christ; in others or myself.  I understand that I was saved just as much as any Christian, not from much immediately, but from many things along the way.  In hindsight, I can see that my path would have turned in a direction wholly unsatisfactory were it not for my faith. 
          So that is why I am a Christian.  I am a Christian because I can read future possibilities that come with a life without Christ, and the possibilities I see I fear.  I refuse to entertain the question "what if" because the question has already been answered, not by experience but by understanding.
          
          That is what I see.  That is what I adhere to.  That is what I believe.  And the rest of this blog is aimed at the development of unbiased arguments on which these conclusions can stand.  So read.  Listen.  Understand.  I am convinced that my God does not need biases; if he did, he would be unworthy of praise.
          Peace, love, and light from the Father to the Son to the world.  Amen.     

Faith

          This post moves to dissect the nature and complexities of faith, or more exactly, faith in God, through Christ, by the Holy Spirit.  Faith can be had in all sorts of other, worldly things that time and again prove themselves unworthy of that precious Gift that you can bestow on merely one thing.  Is it not logical to place one's faith in God?  After all, he is perfect; it is literally impossible for him to fail you and dishonor your faith in him.  
          I think it only appropriate to start this post off with a definition of faith.  The word "faith" appears a mere eight times in the Old Testament, according to my research on e-Sword (a fantastic tool for studying the Bible, if I do say so myself!), each having a slightly different definition from the next.  However, Matthew, Mark, and Luke say it 28 times!  The gospel of John never says "faith", but it does say "believe", which translates to the Hebrew word pisteuo, simply meaning "to have faith".  This word appears in John 50 times!  
          What's entirely fascinating is that the meaning of the word "faith" changes when we cross over from the Old Testament to the New Testament.  With the exception of Jesus talking about a "lack of faith", each word "faith" as it is used to refer to an abundance thereof has precisely the same definition throughout the Gospels (I haven't bothered to cross reference "faith" each and every time appears in the remaining books in the New Testament, as it appears countless times).  Faith is derived from the Hebrew word pistis.  Note that the definition of "believe" as it appears in John is derived form this word, whose definition is as follows:

1. persuasion, that is, credence
2. moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation
3. abstractly, constancy in such profession
4. by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself
- assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity

          Faith is "persuasion", which means "to persuade", whose first definition means "to prevail on (a person) to do something, as by advising or urging".  Faith is also credence, which first and foremost means "belief as to the truth of something".  As the Bible defines it, faith involves both belief and deed.  We can assume that "persuasion" as it relates to faith in Christ implies the Holy Spirit prevailing on you to do something, and the "truth", referenced by the word "credence", in which one believes is quite certainly the teachings of Christ.  One might even say that the thing the Holy Spirit convinces you to do is to believe in the truth of Christ's words.
          Faith is moral conviction of religious truth, the truthfulness of God, or the truthfulness of a religious teacher (such as Jesus?).  Conviction's first definition is simple, "A fixed or firm belief".  It also says "moral conviction", that is, the conviction is moral.  This definition makes a bold statement; belief in religious truth is not merely a religious issue, it is a moral issue, an issue of right and wrong.  Everyone is bound to the standards of right and wrong, that is, no one can escape their need to have this moral conviction; it is not merely intended for those of a particular religion.  The definition goes on with a sentence supplementing what was just said about moral conviction, "Especially reliance upon Christ for salvation".  So faith is moral belief in religious truth, especially when such belief involves reliance on Christ for salvation.  Given this, we can easily rewrite the parenthetical annex to moral conviction as follows, "Of Christian truth, or the truthfulness of God or Jesus' teachings".
          Faith, in an abstract sense, is constancy in such profession; "such profession" referring to the definition above.  Therefore, in an abstract sense, faith is constancy in your moral convictions and reliance on Jesus Christ.  Basically, faith is "following through", as believing without acting on those beliefs would be inconsistent, the opposite of consistent, which is synonymous to constancy.  "Abstractly" is very likely added to take the stress off of deeds and their importance in relation to faith (though I do not think the importance is defaulted entirely; I'll explain later, of course).  After all, one does not have to be perfect to have faith in Christ; you would have to be perfect to be considered "constant" in that profession.
          Faith is, by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself.  This confused me, at first, then I realized that the definition was much more simple than it sounded.  This sense of the word "faith" merely refers to faith when used to refer to a religion itself.  For example, the "Christian faith" is the system of Christian truth, the "Muslim faith" is the system of Muslim truth, etc.  This particular word, though, is referring only to the truth of the Gospel, that is, the Bible, God's Word. 
          Now, we  simply must address the incredibly divisive issue involving faith and its relationship to deeds.  Some are tempted to say that there is no correlation whatsoever.  As it is written, "For I'm convinced that neither death nor life, nor rulers, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor heights, nor depths, nor anything in creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ."  Tying faith down to deeds threatens that sense of connection, since it is through faith that we are connected to Christ and without it that we are disconnected.  If something we do or do not do can default our faith, then is there truly nothing between us and God's love?  So we should be careful not to over-idealize the power of our own efforts, since such implies that by them we can separate or connect ourselves to God.  But it is not through ourselves but through Christ that we are redeemed to God. 
          Still, we cannot simply default deeds and their relationship to faith.  The second half of James 2 harshly criticizes those who fail to prove their faith with deeds.  As he writes, "You believe there is one God.  That's fine!  Even the demons believe that and tremble with fear."  Would you consider the demons to have faith in God?  Certainly not; not in the sense defined above.  Paul also writes to the Romans, "If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."  Notice that you cannot simply believe in your heart, you must also "declare with your mouth", an act which I consider literal or figurative.  In other words, you must act on the belief in your heart.
          "You believe Jesus is the Son of God, gents; your eternal soul is saved!  By all means, go out, get drunk, have sex, do whatever you please because Jesus has you covered!"  I hardly consider this faith, and nor does the Bible.  On the flip side of things, "Do more, slaves!  Give more money, be nicer people; do everything in your power because when you die, you better not have fallen short of your quota!"  This is hardly faith either; the Bible is very clear.  
          This is what I believe, and I believe that what I believe is in agreement with the sound Doctrine that is God's Word.  Faith is a marriage between creed and deed; that is, between believing and doing.  Suppose you believe that an action is good without doing the action?  That's hardly faith.  Suppose you did something that was good by coincidence and not because you believed it was good?  That's not faith either.  What's interesting to observe is this: if you do not act on your belief, is your belief even that strong?  And if you do good coincidentally or mechanically, I doubt your good deeds will number very high.  Faith is a marriage between these; they compliment each other, carrying each others' slack and keeping each other accountable.
          Now, this is not to say that faith is created by a good creed and good deeds.  On the contrary, faith creates firm beliefs and drivenness.  It is not so coincidental that Jesus compared faith to a seed, since that is how I can best explain it.  Faith is not a mixing pot, into which one must throw a few cups of conviction and ambition to create faith.  Rather, it is a seed that is planted and catered to from which springs the branches of conviction and ambition.  Creed and deed is the fruit of faith.
          I say this for very good reasons.  The depth and firmness of belief depends on the power of the believer.  The goodness and number of good deeds depends on the power of the doer.  With both, the strength lies with the person believing and doing.  But our strength is in Christ, is it not?  And he calls us to do things that the power of the flesh cannot do alone, does he not?  
          That is why we have faith.  Faith does not draw strength from the faithful, rather, it sustains the faithful according to the subject of that faith.  Consider this example: a soldier is wounded, behind cover, slowly being surrounded.  There is another healthy soldier nearby, doing his best to help.  The wounded soldier is very likely to place his faith in that healthy soldier.  When he does as much, his friend's success becomes his, and his friend's failure also becomes his.  The wounded soldier is sustained according his friend's ability to sustain him.
          Now, suppose he had more of a choice.  Suppose there are three soldiers close enough for him to drag himself near them and into their protection.  If he knows which one is the most skilled in combat, which should he go to for protection?  Obviously the most skilled.  Why?  Because that soldier's power will be the wounded soldier's power.  He ought to choose the one with the most power.  
          We do not place our faith in cockroaches.  Why?  Because whatever the cockroach can do, we can do better.  If a thief breaks into our house, we ought not trust the cockroach over ourselves to defend us from the thief.  So you see?  Faith not only has the power to add to our energy, it can also subtract from it.  It is highly unwise and illogical to place faith in something weaker than us, since we can always simply have faith in ourselves when all else fails.      
          At the same time, it is also highly unwise and illogical to place faith in ourselves when we are weak.  For example, suppose that the wounded soldier decided, "I can trust none of my men to protect me!"  What would he have to do then?  Well, he would have to have faith in himself and try to get himself to safety, an act that would almost certainly be futile.  His enemies are perfectly healthy and can all too easily catch him.  He's much better off having faith in a soldier on his team more powerful than he.
          I suppose the soldier could have faith in nothing, and instead sit there and accept death.  However, doing so would be a guaranteed death, while faith in himself at least gives him a chance.  So while you can withhold faith from everything, it is the equivalent of giving up.
          Anyway, my point is to point out faith's ability to empower or reduce you.  This also works with my arguments for why one ought to have faith in Christ.  Like I said before, He is perfect.  He is omnipotent.  Having faith in Him connects you to a limitless supply of sustenance and serious, raw power.  Why have faith in anyone or anything else?!
          If you find your belief being attacked by doubt, you shouldn't think, "I must strengthen my belief!"  Instead, pray, "Lord, increase my faith."  And if you find yourself doing evil at every turn, you shouldn't think, "I must do more good!"  Again, pray, "Lord, increase my faith."  God calls you to enormous heights not reachable through any means of your own.  You cannot hope to have the belief and do the good God calls you to do through your own power.  Remember, belief draws strength from the believer, and deeds draw strength from the doer.  But faith in God draws strength from God, only through it can you "believe" and "do" to the degree that He calls you.  Trying to "do" and "believe" is like trying to find fruit when you can just plant a tree.
          It is not surprising that some Christians over-idealize the power of mere belief, since belief is almost certain to come first chronologically; specifically belief that Jesus is indeed the Son of God.  Jesus being the Son of God is the only reason that you can have faith in God.  Without Jesus, we are so separated from God that we cannot even have faith in Him; we could only believe what He said and act on His commands.  Paul writes, "But now a righteousness from God, apart from the law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.  This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."  It only makes sense that one must believe that Jesus is the Christ (at least on some level, regardless of how low) before putting their faith in him; otherwise, he would be putting his faith in "some mortal man".  
          In addition, belief in certain commands of Christ and different doctrines of the Bible also comes with faith.  There is more to "believing" in terms of Christianity than merely believing that Jesus is the Christ, though that belief is what comes first.  
          Belief is also first chronologically on a day-to-day basis.  It is nearly impossible to do a good deed without first believing that you ought to; and if you do it by coincidence, it cannot be credited to you as faith.  This is not to say that deeds are less important; they come second in terms of order, not importance.  Do the stones on top of the mountain think they are more important than the stones that form the base?  
          Remember that Paul also writes, "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith?  Not at all!  Rather, we uphold the law."  I think it entirely possible to annex "by faith" to the end of that verse.  "Rather, we uphold the law by faith."  Jesus himself said, "Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets.  I did not come to abolish but to complete."  Just as through Jesus the Law and the Prophets are completed, so too through faith in Jesus can we uphold the decrees of the Law and the Prophets.
          Do not consider yourselves better than others if you are better at believing than another, or if you are better at doing than another.  I would not be surprised if some have more belief than deed, and others have more deed than belief.  But in the end, you cannot have absolutely no deed and all belief or vice-versa.  It's as simple as that.
          Do not be worried about how much good you do or how strong your belief is.  You are not saved from the world by such things.  Rather, you are saved by faith which merely proves itself by creed and deed.  Never jump over faith straight to belief or deed.  That's when we get over idealism of our own efforts, which cannot save us any more than a spider web can catch our fall.  But faith sustains us according to the subject of our faith, which ought to be Christ.  That way, it is through Christ alone that we are welcomed into heaven and absolutely zero effort of our own.
          Let's close with the most famous definition of faith as given by Paul, "Faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see."  What's entirely interesting is that this sureness and certainty is not even from ourselves.  We merely decide to start being sure and certain; God sustains that certainty as only He can.
          So to recap: faith is certainty of the truth of Jesus' teachings.  It is relying upon Him for your salvation.  It implies acting, so far as possible, as a Christian ought; that is, faithful service to Christ (note that faithfully serving Christ can only be done through faith in Christ).  

To Grace Arts Live

          To Grace Arts Live, through which I experienced much.
          From Codey, a servant of the LORD.  Peace, love, and light from the Father to the Son to the world.  Amen.

          Do any of you recognize that rhetoric?  "Peace, love, and light"?  Lauren, you said it once before a show of Godspell to the audience.  I remember being surprised at how inspiring your words were regarding the show and regarding what it teaches us about life, since I myself share even stronger views about how the story of Jesus Christ applies to us.
          Godspell was one of my favorite shows for this reason.  It was cruelly ironic that I was cast as Judas, the betrayer of Jesus, whom I have believed and confessed as my Lord and Savior.  My experience in this role wasn't... happy, per se.  Not while I was on stage, anyway.  But it was powerful and humbling, reminding me that every minuscule sin we commit is just as bad as Judas'; that every time we sin, we too betray Jesus.  This realization helped not only with my acting but allowed me to learn from the character.
          Many experiences with Grace Arts Live share this pattern of "powerful but not happy" while others are very happy yet carry little weight.  Les Miserables was my favorite show out of them all.  Playing a revolutionary was outrageously fun, more fun than I could have ever thought possible.  Not only did I get to feign shooting a gun and feign my own death, but also because I got to play a character of pride; a character ready and willing to stand for what is right and to die for that same right.  I related to this ever so well, but not to the point that I could just act like myself.  Instead, my character was a portrayal of my ideal self.  
          At the time, my ideal self was more bold and outspoken.  I, of course, now see it necessary to scale back on that boldness today!  This just shows how much the show affected me; and for the better, no doubt.
          Dance classes were not only fun, but kept me fit and content with my body in terms of physical appearance and health.  I found the challenge well met most of the time, even if I completely failed to meet it.  I was most nervous my first day in ballet, yet I now consider ballet to be my favorite class!
          Seussical Jr. is among my favorite shows, not only because it was fun in general but because during it I met the first person I successfully lead to Christ.  I am convinced that her life is changed for the better after meeting me, and subsequently, so is mine.
          ...Which brings me to what I want to say apart from sentiment and parallel to honesty.  I am fine with sentiment, but sentiment for its own sake?  No thank you.  It is hard, knowing what I do, to be sentimental as I leave you, for such sentiment would conflict with Truth, and that is what I serve before sentiment.  And now by Truth I am compelled to speak with Honesty rather than Tact.
          If the one I met and successfully converted to Christianity could convert after having but one imposing Christian friend (that I know of), if she could have a heart so obviously open when so many things had happened to her that could very easily have closed it, if she confessed "Jesus is Lord" not after talk after talk after talk with her friend but after reading a single book, how much more condemned are you?!  I have had innumerable measures of spiritual talks with some of you, I told you about my blog packed with advice I considered helpful, I've let some of you borrow useful books and yet still many of you stand on the other side of things.  Some of you even told me that you enjoyed those talks and posts and books!  Was it a ruse?  Were you lying to appease my overbearing ministry to you?  Were you lying to yourselves and me?  Or perhaps you mean that it amused you, to hear someone talking about some fairy tale like it was real, to hear them talk ardently about something so obviously fake?
          If you had that last conclusion, you are right.  You got me.  You caught me RED HANDED.  I stand before you, persecuted, ignored, exhausted by service because I believe in something that not only is a lie, but is an obvious lie.  I don't get any fulfillment or joy or peace or wholeness or downright, inexhaustible contentment in return, I only convince myself that I do, and this whole time I have been bending over backwards to the point that I have nearly broken my back because I wanted you to believe in a lie!  Yup.  You caught me.  ...This ignorance makes me sick!
          I apologize.  It is hard to stay contained, knowing what I do.  I do not disown my previous experiences with Grace Arts Live that are good and wholesome and nurturing.  However, it is altogether disappointing and difficult to be thankful since I know that many of those experiences were good only because I was in a state of ignorant bliss (Godspell especially).  If one should want to make me content, he ought to keep me ignorant.  If I know enough to criticize, then criticize I will.  To the disdain of many, including me, there is much to criticize about the conduct of the most devoted in Grace Arts Live (simultaneously condemning themselves as the least devoted, for if they were devoted they would be servants of integrity and diligence).
          You, however, already know these criticisms, for I have made them known to you either through words or deeds or both.  I bother not repeating them here, not in there fullness, but I assume you know of what actions I speak.  Drugs, drunkenness, sex; all these undertakings I have criticized and here I criticize once more.
          Drugs destroy your diligence.  They simply do.  And the fact that many of you perform in shows or attempt to rehearse while stammering over your feet from the influence of drugs is not just wrong, it's flat out foolish.  And yet it is you who claim to be most devoted to Grace and her establishment?  Your hypocrisy is comparable, if not head-and-shoulders above, the hypocrisy of the Pharisees from Jesus' time, for whom Jesus had stern criticism.  In the same way that Jesus, my Lord and Savior through whom I am independent of the things that enslave you now, had these criticisms for the Pharisees, so too do I have stern criticism for you and your hypocritical conduct.
          Drugs not only destroy your diligence at work but also at home and in your life in general.  See "Arguments against Modern Ideals" and "Arguments against Intoxication" for more evidence on this and arguments against it.
          I'm not even going to go into sex.  See "Arguments against Adultery".  That's my final word on that.
          Leaders within Grace Arts, those in lead roles, directors, helpers of any kind, I now speak to you.  Do not presume yourselves capable of halting and healing the corruption within your walls through any effort of your own, for I know that many of you have already tried to do so.  This corruption did not come through any effort of man alone, but by the efforts of man through sin.  For I have heard many of them confess with their own mouth, "I hate what I do".  If they hate it, why continue to do it?  If it was indeed possible for them to throw off the chains that bind them by their own power, they would have done so already because they hate what they do.  Instead, they do not free themselves because they cannot.
          So too with you, leaders within Grace Arts.  You cannot inspire any change through words and deeds of the world, for the world has no power over sin.  Instead, you must use a Power opposite sin.  I am fully convinced that this Power is God in Father, Son, and Spirit, whom you may or may not acknowledge.  Acknowledge what you will.  Yet my God has a way of teaching belief to the unbelievers, and I feel sure that He may even increase the amount of corruption within your fine establishment in order to further humiliate you and force you to come to Him.
          If any leaders act with integrity, free from that which will destroy you, that leader must demote corrupt leaders from their positions of leadership and make them apprentices again.  If someone is doing abhorrent things, do not appoint them to leadership positions.  Rather, keep them as followers and they will be forced to follow leaders who are wiser than they.
          Do you not know?  Do you not understand?  Many young men and women learned their corrupt ways from their leaders!  Already corrupt leaders stand among you!  Will you not demote them to followers, as you ought?  Instead I fear many of you are trapped by sentiment.  Ignore sentiment and find logic!  Logic does indeed harm people, but it increases functionality and allows things to work.  Besides, by keeping a corrupt leader as a leader, are you not hurting countless others?
          Now, for those of you who find yourself in a follower's position, surrounded by corrupt leaders, I urge you, do not follow them!  In the event that no good leader steps up to condemn the bad ones, you must liberate yourself from the world.  This is not my way of recommending insubordination; no, you must still obey them in every way unless they command you to do evil.  Obey them, of course, but do not follow them.  Do as they say; do not do as they do.  Liberate yourself and become independent.  Become independent not only of the world and the corruption of those around you, but become independent of yourself.  For you, too, have just as much potential for corruption as they.  
          Rather, depend on God, for He is your only hope and rescue from sin, through which this corruption has come.  As it is written, "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."  Only through God can a mind be renewed, for you are aging continually, by no effort of yours can you make something new.
          It is unfortunate, for it is for all the wrong reasons that I am sad we are leaving.  I am not sad because I feel I want or need you nearby for my happiness, but because I feel you need me to help you in your own salvation from all sorts of evils.  Yet the hardness of your hearts is without equal, and I imagine that in no reasonable amount of time here could I have hoped to soften those hearts.  For I am a man of the mind; I know little of the heart.
          To those of you with Grace Arts Live who are Christians, whose faith is in Jesus Christ and in Him alone, I deeply and sincerely commend you.  I pray for you even now, as I pray for all those who believe and all who do not.  I beg you, do not break, do not give in.  Fight on with Christ, in Christ, through Christ.  If you feel you cannot fight any longer, remember what is written: "The LORD will fight for you, you need only be still."
          When I felt I could not speak to the LORD, when I felt suffocated by His commands for me, I was still and quiet, resolving only to sit and remember that the LORD was there.  You need not talk to Him for Him to be there.  You need not acknowledge Him to enjoy His presence.  By God's grace I have survived countless attacks on my faith, whether intended by people or not, and it is by God's grace that your faith can survive, also.
          With Grace Arts Live, I have had my ups and my downs.  I may regard it in large to be "down" simply because of my overwhelming connection to Christ and because many friends that I won within Grace Arts are either disconnected from Him or directly opposed to Him.  An enemy of my friend is my enemy... but that does not mean I do not love you.  For I am called by that same God, Christ, to love my enemies, and love you I do.  What you may read as hate is actually frustration, which is entirely different.
          I ought not and do not disown my inspirations through Grace Arts.  I seek inspiration intently, and I am glad to have found something that gave me so much of it.  Though the institution itself is not explicitly in God, I am convinced that God still used it to lead me to other things (inspirations, people, virtues, etc.) not necessarily connected to Christ, after which I faithfully made the connection.  So I sincerely thank you, and I thank God on your account.     
          I ask you, give me no glory, for I am undeserving.  Do not say among yourselves, "He served us exceedingly well!"  Instead, say to yourselves, "He was a servant of the LORD, even after this he did not fulfill his duty."  I tell you the truth, many times I served and did so with a secretly rebellious heart, selfishly desiring rest and peace and quiet more than was due.  I have lower tolerance for being busy than most, making me a horrible servant.  Only through God was I able to be busy and serve you to the extent that I was, and to Him only does glory belong.  Always give glory to God, in everything, for it is to Him only that glory is due.  
          I wish you all the best, even if I doubt that you are willing to seize the best for yourselves.  My hope for you perseveres against all odds, for that is what hope does, and hope is of love, which also refuses to give up on you.  Above all, above everything else, remember that I never gave up on you and never truly will; never, not once. 
          My words are sometimes rash and abrasive because I want them to break boundaries, tear down walls, and make differences that really matter.  If they do not, if my words fail, what then am I to do?  So I cannot let them be soft.  I want them to be powerful and eternal and effective above all else.  For the sake of God and for your sake on God's account were these words written, and it is my deepest desire to see both purposes, your sake and God's, united and fulfilled. 
          I don't want to speak of fools and folly ever again; not regarding this city.  I have criticized enough, it seems, and now I retreat from you, never to impose my criticisms again.  They are exhausting, and I fear they may be the very things keeping you from Christ, a fear that also is exhausting.  So I abandon my critique of your past, still unredeemed, condemning the future.  Condemning, that is, unless someone else (that is, Christ) steps in to redeem your pasts for you.  Not that I ever could have redeemed your past for you, but rather I sought to be an effective vehicle of that which can.  But that precious Redeemer does not need a vehicle, and even with me gone, His imposing on you will not end.  Perhaps another vehicle will be raised up in my place; perhaps one has already been selected.  Perhaps the Redeemer of your past, who is Christ, will not need a person to carry his message at all, and will instead seize you for Himself one hopeless night.

          Go now, all who are family in Grace Arts, with my blessing.  I cannot tell you how much I desire the best for each and every one of you; and perhaps one day, God willing, my blessing will come upon you.  I pray for each of you joy and contentment and hope and purpose.  I pray that Christ, who gives each of these things, would come and do real things in the lives of you all.  I pray this sincerely, everyday, every breathe, my very existence is a prayer for you and all people, believers and unbelievers alike.  
          Peace, love, and light from the Father to the Son to the world.  Amen. 

Apologetics: Jesus' Story

          The following argument follows a few of the central points of Jesus' story with the attempt to use reason and common sense to prove that such occurrences did indeed happen.  I have done little to no research regarding the credibility of the Bible, since internet sources have proven unreliable and wildly biased; whether to one side or the other.  Instead, I will use reasoning over knowledge.
          We are not going to concern ourselves with what is possible and what is impossible; not in this post; for it seems that every time we do we make fools out of ourselves.  Did you know that when computers were first invented, many considered them impractical and were convinced that they would never be able to be built any smaller than the average bedroom?  Yet here I am, typing this post out on a MacBook Pro about the size of a small binder.  So let's not convince ourselves of what is possible and instead look at what is probable.  
          This post will not be able to arrest control of your skepticisms and theories (I doubt that any of my posts could).  But I think it will pose some important questions.  By continuing to be skeptical, are you being smart or cynical?  This post will leave you with two conclusions to choose between.  These conclusions are not right and wrong, since I was not there and do not know precisely what happened.  Instead, almost as compelling, one conclusion will be logical and the other illogical.  You have to decide for yourself whether or not to continue being skeptical or choose to believe the logical conclusion.  

          There is one major thing you need concern yourself with the Bible in this post; nothing else, just one.  Did Jesus indeed claim to be the Son of God?  I believe he did for a mounting number of reasons. 
          1) To Jesus's story, there are four witnesses: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  Each of them say, some more than others, that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.  Isn't a story considered credible when there are two witnesses with the same story?  Yet Jesus has double that number, a fact that ought not to be overlooked.
          Now, do not suppose that a lot of that information is second hand (for example, Mark told Luke and Luke wrote down what Mark said without having witnessed it himself).  You should not do this because many witnesses have stories that the other witnesses don't have.  In other words, while each account share similarities between each other, they are also each very unique.
          2) Accounts of Jesus have him stating and restating that he is the Son of God too many times to count.  Even if the story was exaggerated a bit, we ought not deny that he said that at one time or other.  To suppose that Jesus didn't say something that this book says he did (and the book says he said it a lot) is being a little cynical, don't you think?
          Besides, how do we assume that the story was exaggerated?  Through translation, of course.  But how do we assume that the Bible got translated enough to become exaggerated?  After all, if one-third of this book was only about some prophet who claimed to be nothing more than a prophet, how do we assume that the demand for the Bible became great enough for it to be translated so many times that his story eventually became exaggerated?  I personally think it illogical for "some prophet" to be famous enough for a book about him to be famous enough to be translated to the point that his claim as "some prophet" is exaggerated even a little, not to mention exaggerated to the point that he now claims to be the Son of God.
          Besides, why haven't we found any Bibles from ancient times clashing with Bibles form modern days on this subject?  If people are indeed skeptical on the matter, I imagine some archaeologist or other has looked into the matter.  Why hasn't he published his findings, "The Truth of Jesus' Claims", or whatever he wants to call it?  I'm just saying, that kind of claim is not twisted up that badly without someone smart finding out about it, no matter how late the finding may be.
          Also, think of how quickly Jesus became the center of culture.  Historical accounts say that by some 400 A.D., Rome had declared Christianity as the official religion of the empire.  Are we to suppose that this overwhelming influence was exerted by the memory of "some prophet"?  Illogical.  Are we to say, then, that by now Jesus' story had already been exaggerated from "some prophet" to "Messiah"?  Also illogical.  Are we to suppose that Jesus' followers, immediately after his death, lied and said that he was the Son of God?  Why would they do such a thing?  For in doing this they were persecuted by the Jews.  
          Does a liar lie simply to lie, or is it to benefit himself?  Would someone lie simply to lead others astray, or is it because they want to protect themselves?  If the disciples did lie about their leader being the Son of God, they would not be protecting themselves but rather doing quite the contrary and condemning themselves.  So this, too, is illogical.
          Bottom line: it is illogical to deny that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God
          I would next like to put forth the idea that Jesus did indeed perform miracles.  "Whoa whoa whoa!  Isn't this moving a little fast?" you may ask.  I suppose it is.  Still, there are no other really important things to analyze about Jesus' story.  Would you rather we waste our time debating whether or not the disciples did miracles, or whether or not he indeed had 12 disciples?  I'm not writing a book, its a blog post, and so I must concern myself merely with that which is important and that only.
          So did Jesus perform miracles?  I would think it logical to conclude that he did.  I think we should take the Bible's word that Jesus was famous during his preaching.  After all, he was exceedingly famous (overbearingly so) after his death.  Are we to assume that during his whole life, people didn't bat an eye, but then afterwards they suddenly placed him at the center of their lives?  And if those teachings could have so adverse of an effect from the mouths of others and on paper, why wouldn't they be as empowering from the preacher himself?  
          So it is logical to assume that Jesus was famous during his life, since he was so famous afterwards.  He claimed to be the Son of God and he was famous.  Wait, does not this sentence seem a bit oxymoronic?  After all, when you see on the news that someone claims to be the Son of God, you merely think them insane.  They are not famous, but rather infamous.  
          So, how could he claim to be the Son of God without seeming insane and rather becoming famous for it?  We must assume that he was a very convincing Son of God.  Now, how can he convince others so well with mere talk?  Wouldn't he have to do some pretty miraculous things to convince people?  After all, the Son of God is no small claim to make.  You can't just talk people into believing something so completely ridiculous.
          Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.  Jesus was famous.  Logically, in order for these two things to be true of the same person, that person would have to have performed some pretty miraculous signs to convince his audience.
          Bottom line: it is illogical to deny that Jesus performed miraculous signs
          I would next like to put forth the idea that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead.  I know, I know, I'm beginning to sound ridiculous.  Remember, though, that those who try to arrest control of the possibilities always look foolish.  Don't think of how impossible it seems.  Only look at the facts and probabilities with me.
          We ought to take the Bible for its word and agree that Jesus' disciples did indeed scatter after his death, as opposed to the alternative of continuing to preach about him posthumously.  "What makes you say this?" many may protest.  "After all, the followers of Joseph Smith and Muhammed didn't scatter after their leaders died."  A valid observation.  Still, there is something very different about Jesus as compared to these two examples.  These two examples claimed to be prophets.  There is one very natural thing that each prophet does.  They die.  It is not surprising when a prophet dies because it is understood that a prophet, while in possession of divinely inspired wisdom, will die one day.  This lack of surprise allows the followers of a prophet to gladly carry on the legacy of that prophet, unhindered in their faith in the prophet's words.
          While these examples claimed to be prophets, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.  There is one important fact about the Son of God, as is true about any divine being, whether explicitly stated or implicitly implied.  He cannot die.  So in Jesus' death the disciples have not only lost their spiritual leader, an occurrence that is hard enough to have faith in the midst of, but in dying Jesus is simultaneously condemned a liar.  His claims as the Son of God are proven untrue by his death.
          But wait, something is missing from this story.  As it is, the disciples did end up preaching Jesus' message to the world, and the world ended up being centered around his memory for millennia to come.  So what then?  Are we to assume that the disciples, now knowing that they had faith in a lie, decided to deceive the world through this lie?  Illogical.  Remember, the Jews condemned Jesus.  Do you think they weren't also on the lookout for his followers?  Sure, the disciples may be willing to endure suffering in the name of truth.  But for the sake of a lie?  
          Even further, who on earth would be willing to suffer and die for a liar?  And we're not just talking about someone who fires off a bunch of white lies, we're talking about Jesus Christ, who attempted to convince the world that he was the world's Master.  If Jesus is indeed lying, and his death just proved that he is, then he is pretty much the most evil liar in history.  After all, convincing people that you are the Son of God allows you to say pretty much anything and those who believe will accept it as truth.  Now death has come in and exposed Jesus not merely as a liar but as a power-hungry tyrant.  And yet the disciples suffered and died for him shortly thereafter?  Illogical.
          Are we to suppose that the disciples were crazy?  I think we ought not to.  After all, have you read the writings of Paul?  Do they sound like the words of a crazy man?  We may not always understand what he is trying to say, but is this because his words have no principle behind them or because the principle is too advanced for us to explain?  Read some of Paul's writings, I think you will find the writing very informed and advanced.
          Are we to suppose that the disciples were out for power?  After all, Jesus died a famous man, upon whose words many hung.  Perhaps the disciples found merit in continuing his legacy as a ploy for power?  For some perspective on the question, allow me to ask you another one.  During what time period do you consider the church to be less corrupt: 100 A.D. or 1000 A.D.?  Historical accounts attest to the fact that it was more corrupt in 1000 A.D.  
          But why?  What caused the corruption?  The most obvious answer would be power.  Weilding immense political and social power, the leaders of the church became corrupt, turning to dishonest methods to raise money, control the populace, etc.  
          If the original disciples were indeed after power, wouldn't the early church be more corrupt?  Are we to suppose that the disciples had a 1000-year conspiracy to create an institution that would eventually wield corrupt power?  Highly illogical.  Does one exercise corrupt methods to achieve power for another?  No.  One who achieves power through corrupt methods achieves it to enjoy it for themselves.  Consider this: how can one achieve power over others for others?  Not only is this improbable, but is it even possible?
          Some of you may protest, "Government has power over us.  Would you consider that power to be against our best interests?"  The answer is no, I consider government to be in our best interests.  But here is my point: does the government really have power over us?  Honestly, think about it.  It has the authority to punish us for crimes and control things in our lives economically here and there, but unless you are conflicting with the government, its power over you is largely obsolete.  Unlike the corrupt medieval church, which forced people to do certain things, government at its best has laws largely telling us what not to do, exerting power over lawbreakers but largely leaving the "righteous" alone.  Corrupt power (what I called "power over others" in the paragraph above this one) is absolute and does not discern between righteous and unrighteous.
          So the disciples didn't seem crazy, and it doesn't seem that they were out for power either.  Yet still, they suffered and died for who?  A liar?  There must be more to the story.
          Suppose that Jesus' death is not the end of the story.  Suppose that the disciples saw one last miraculous sign re-igniting their faith that all the words of Jesus were true, giving them the willingness to endure pain and suffering.  Now, this sign could not simply be, "Oh, I saw a bright light in my dreams that reminded me of Jesus!  Surely, he told us the truth!"  That sort of a sign does not change the fact that Jesus is dead, and the fact that Jesus is dead is what makes him a liar.  The sign the disciples saw had to have flipped the truth of Jesus' death on its head.  It simply had to.  Otherwise, the disciples would have suffered in the name of someone they knew to be a liar.
          But if Jesus rose from the dead, not only would he be welcomed back by the disciples as a teller of truths, but I imagine their faith in him would be even greater because of the rough days during his death.  This could account for why the disciples were willing to suffer since the alternative, the idea that they suffered for a liar, is illogical.
          Jesus died and is proven a liar.  The disciples suffered in his name.  Logically, in order for these things to be true of the same situation, Jesus had to have risen from the dead, proving to the disciples his rightness and explaining their willingness to suffer in his name.  Any alternative not involving Jesus' resurrection is just as illogical as the next.  Suppose the disciples stole his body from the tomb to convince others that he had risen.  Suppose they saw a vision of Jesus on the throne while his mortal body was still in the tomb.  Only resurrection turns back the fact that he is dead, which is essential because his death made him a liar, which made it illogical to suppose that the disciples suffered in his name.
          Bottom line: it is illogical to deny that Jesus rose from the dead                

          And so concludes my job as Jesus' lawyer, so to speak.  A part of me is outstandingly proud of what I have just written, another part of me rather shocked at the idea that this is even logical.  Still, I cannot deny that it is indeed logical.  Who is the master of logic?  Are we?  Hardly, we can only harness and use it for our own ends, or in my case, the ends of others (God).  I hope to add more to my growing stack of apologetic arguments in Jesus' and God's favor.  Don't wait for my next post.  Believe now, if not for God's sake than for the sake of logic and reason and common sense.