Knowing that I run the risk of a good ridicule by my equally good buddy Nate, this has been one heck of a day and a half (I can just here Nate saying, “Whaaa!  Cry!).

The good news is that’s it’s almost over.  I was affirmed by the ordination council yesterday after a few hours of grilling.  PABC will now have to vote on ordaining me.  The ordination will take place on the 26^th instead of the 19^th of August. 

Also, I finished my big paper today.  It probably wouldn’t have been a big deal if I didn’t try to over due it with 9 hours of summer school this semester.  Never the less, 16 pages of pure unadulterated pages of brilliance have flown from my fingertips and on to my lap top.  As we speak, it is now in cyberspace heading towards the professor.  I await the verdict.     

This next week’s sermon is on hell.  This time we are going to answer the question, “what about those who haven’t heard of Jesus?”  I plan to post three apologias on this site this week. 

Welp, my wife and I celebrate 19 years tonight…so…see ya!   

It is argued by many that all religions lead to the same god.  The philosophical argument is described by analogy.  The analogy is this: there are four blind men who discover an elephant. Since the men have never encountered an elephant, they grope about, seeking to understand and describe this new phenomenon. One grasps the trunk and concludes it is a snake. Another explores one of the elephant's legs and describes it as a tree. A third finds the elephant's tail and announces that it is a rope. And the fourth blind man, after discovering the elephant's side, concludes that it is, after all, a wall.

Each in his blindness is describing the same thing: an elephant. Yet each describes the same thing in a radically different way.

Islam is describing god as they see it.  Christians are describing the god as they see it.  Mormons are seeing the god as they see it.  If you were to argue with them that it’s the same god, they will never agree (using this analogy, I cant even point out the contradictions found in the different religions, so my major argument is mute). 

The philosophical argument is a good one and, if true, could break down all this hostility towards one another.  If we just accept that each one has a piece of god…then we can all just get along.  As we will see though, this is not a god that one would want nor need to follow.    

All analogies break down at some point or another.  The problem with the analogy is that the blind men, though they cant see, are smarter then the elephant.  They can communicate their ideas to one another, but they can’t communicate with the elephant and the elephant can’t communicate with the blind dudes.  If we were to make the elephant smarter then the blind men, we could assume that the elephant could tell them that one is grabbing its tail and the other is grabbing its trunk.  They could then know the truth.  The elephant in the analogy is an unknowable and impersonal god (not even worth knowing).    

But the analogy breaks down even further.  Let’s assume that the analogy was true and many religions were grasping to know this god.  It stands to reason that at least one religion might have sight and, therefore, could see that the other religions are only grasping at pieces of god (this is the exact claim of the analogy:  After all, the philosopher claims to see the whole god (elephant) where the blind dudes cant.  From their vantage point this god is an impersonal stupid god that cant explain itself, and, therefore, its not even worth knowing).  So, let’s assume that at least one religion has site.  Maybe take this one further and assume that this religion (or this person) is in communication with a personal God.  Then they would be in the best position to inform all others.  I just argue that Jesus was the best person to know God.   

Why does stating that one must do a necessary work in addition to faith in Jesus Christ do the opposite of what the perverters of the gospel claim it will do?  Let’s try to have a general understanding of what they (false teachers) are claiming.

Generally speaking, those that preach works + faith choose focus on a generally good deed, practice, or commandment.  For example, you must worship on a particular day of the week or you must be baptized or you must know God’s first name or you must eat the Lord’s Supper.  These items/practices/commandments are generally found in the scriptures and, yes, one should be about them.  But false teachers will state that these good things are a requirement for salvation. 

The claim looks something like this:  Faith in Jesus + a good work (one normally promoted in the N.T.) = Salvation.

Now if one understands “faith in Jesus” to be “belief in Jesus” then there is no problem with their logic:  Belief in Jesus (a work in itself) + another good work = salvation.  Of course the scriptures don’t state that faith is the equivalent of belief.  Nor is belief in Jesus sufficient to save a person (“the demons believe in God and they shudder”).  A faith in Jesus that leads to salvation is more like saying I trust that what God did to save me (Sacrificing His Son) is sufficient in itself to save me.

The equation should look something like this: 

Jesus’ righteous act + my trust in that act = Salvation.  If I dont trust in that act, I must then trust in my own acts to save me.  This is theological (Christian theolgy, that is) impossible (for the law saves no one).  

Now, if I add a good deed that I must do to the salvation equation…whatever that deed is…I change the equation:

Jesus’ righteous act + my own work = salvation.  I can’t say that my faith in what Christ did was sufficient to save me…can I?  No, because I have to add to His act.  That is, I can’t say that I trust His act will save me…can I?  No, because there is something I must do in addition to what He did. 

A huge question is raised:  If God’s payment wasn’t enough to save me….what makes one think their additional finite work could possible save them.  In other words if the infinite does not equal salvation, what makes one think that the infinite + the finite will = salvation.  It doesn’t follow logically.  For if infinite (does not)= Salvation, then infinitie + finite will not = salvation (after all, infinite + finite (always) = infinite.   

So here’s the next logically step for a false teacher:  knock Christ off of His throne (i.e de-deify Him).  Make him an angel (J.W), a spiritual brother (Mormon), a prophet (Muslim {though Muslims believe He didn’t die})…and so on.  Now one is preaching another Jesus.  And as Christ said:  "if you dont say that I AM you will indeed die in your sins."   

I’ve always been an aggressive apologist in regards to atheism, secularism, false religions (Islam), and these pop-up cults (Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons) that demand a person to work their way into heaven (or their version of heaven).  There are very few Baptists that I know that are as aggressive as I am in regards to defending the faith.  I must admit though, I have never set my internal trigger to go off when I hear someone proclaim, “I’m a Catholic.”  Be it laziness, false hope, or what have you, I’ve always hoped that the Catholic masses were part of the “saved” group (even though those that teach within the Catholic Church are, by Biblical definition, false teachers).  With the Pope’s latest reassertion that they are the only way (last I checked Jesus was the only way), the church’s continuing teachings of good works as a means to salvation, communicating with the dead, idolatry, and, if you couple that with the availability of the scriptures today…those who profess Catholic status cant say that they are just being led astray (though it is a rarity to ever meet a Catholic who is well versed in the Scriptures), but choosing their own path.    

I don’t believe that this is just a religious game that we are playing until we die.  We are talking about the salvation of lives.  So, as it stands to reason, those that stand with the papacy are preaching another gospel and they, according to Galatians 1: 6—10, got some “splaining” to do to our God.  Those that listen to the papacy and believe what the papacy says are naively going down the wide road when they do have access to the correct, but smaller, path.  (I feel as if I must now write to why adding any works to what Jesus has done makes adding to it a false religion…maybe later this week)

Now it’s easy to just point fingers and claim that we have access to the truth (notice I say “we have access” to the truth not “we are the truth”), it’s another to back it up.  As far as my walk goes, I have now set my internal trigger to include Catholics.  As with all the other false ways, I will approach them with one main goal:  To lead them away from the wrong path and set them in the right direction.     

I must apologize for not staying current with my blog.  This last spring and summer semester was just a killer.  The good news is that I’ve really killed some hours.  Add that to a relatively easy upcoming fall semester…I should pick up my bachelors this December. 

I suppose the good news is that I should have time to keep up with my blog (currently I’m lagging considerably behind in comparisons to my good friend J).

Just to give you a little update:  I will be standing in front of the ordination council this coming up Sunday.  Ordination council is set up for the 19^th of August.  We (the church) have just started a new sermon series.  Get to my web site and check it out.  It’s entitled, “Questions about Christianity.”