There is one mediator between God and Man

I heard a comment today from someone who was trying to defend a position. The position is of some relevance in that in a certain respect it's a leading indicator of a persons world view. I think it's important, not only to understand your own world view, but be able to interpret others as well. In this I believe we test the spirit to see if it be of God. Some may say that this is not our duty, but I disagree. I think it may seem unkind or untoward, but the scripture is definite that we're not to have anything to do with apostates.

The comment was actually a quote of someone else. "Faith without common sense is fanaticism, and common sense without faith is rationalism". In fairness to both the quoter and the quoted, I'm not certain that this is the ACTUAL quote or if it's a paraphrase. So I can only deal with what I heard. In reference to and in the context of the original conversation, there is a coherent and consistent message. And so, I feel comfortable commenting on what I see as a clearly compatibilist and nearly pelagic viewpoint.

"Faith without common sense"

Where does faith come from? Well, according to Romans, it's the gift of God. What about common sense? Well, this is where we run into a bit of trouble. As the conversation was framed, the whole concept being presented is that man must in some way to take a common sense approach to what can lead some to fanaticism and others to rationalism. But I wonder does faith need common sense? And further more, what common sense would be useful to faith? And then, since we know that not all have the same level of common sense, what common sense would be appropriate? Since, fanaticism is the final and ultimate destination without it, one would be quite remiss to leave the station and not have what they need...lest they become a fanatic. I guess my ultimate question would be is what kind of common sense are we talking about? Are we talking about moderation, wise discipleship, being a respecter of other people's faith? It's the wording that gives the phrase it's meaning. What it doesn't say is;

Faith without common sense can lead to fanaticism.

Which is quite different than the original quote. Faith, without some mysterious, subjectively defined component leads to some other mysterious, subjectively defined condition.

"leads to fanaticism"

What kind of fanaticism I wonder? Is it the kind that walks into a temple and tips over well establish businesses and throws out the patrons? Or, the kind of fanaticism that calls the religious fathers and elites, vipers, hypocrites and white washed graves? Or perhaps in a final act, totally devoid of common sense, one gives their life for those who could never earn or deserve it and in some sort of depraved lunacy, decides to make those whom he chose part of his family? Yes, this sounds like common sense free faith...totally fanaticism.

Look it's this simple. You are not the author of what some call common sense. And if you're a fanatic, it's certainly by God's choosing. Neither would common sense in anyway, balance or prevent you from such a thing. Trying to separate your knowledge from your faith from how you act, would be like trying to separate the color from paint. However possible the mechanics of that process might be, it deteriorates the original substance from recognizability. They cannot be separated and maintain each as individual and complete at the same time.

So, then, how you act, how you think and what you do make up who you are. And that, instilled directly from God. Since we can't learn except that the Father allows it.

My point in all of this is simply this; however quaint and easy to digest this saying might be, it's devoid of any coherent substance. Because, it places God on the left, by calling him faith, depraved man on the right calling him rational, and enlightened man in the middle with the all powerful linchpin called, common sense. And this is the reason I call it pelagic, because man must perform his will and understanding to bridge the gap so that some bad condition shouldn't be arrived at.

Common sense won't keep you from fanaticism, nor can it prevent you from depending on rationalism. In the end, we depend on the one True God, who called us. Who made a covenant and intends to keep it. In these situations keep the scriptures in mind. Without this, all we have is rationalism and it is a god who cannot save.

Why I thought I tithed but now understand that I give

I, like most I'm sure, was educated about tithing. What it is, what it's for and why we MUST do it.

I've never really written on the subject and thought, since I want to think about this, meditate upon it, invite the Spirit to teach me, I would write. Come now Spirit, teach my willing heart.

The only basis for tithing I've ever found is in the old testament. However, the references for giving are everywhere. And of the 10% so often quoted? Well that's old testament too and as it turns out, that's not even referring to giving to your church. Consider this video and article.



Is tithing biblical? - DA Carson

SO, with that in mind, I want to consider whether or not I should be giving to my local church, saving the money to give to someone in need or just following the Spirits leading...I think part of the problem is the number of 10% is so easy to cleave ourselves against. Satan is able to easily and mathematically quantify how we don't measure up...may each of us be able to shed this desire to please God in righteousness, but fully accept our fallen nature and allow God the imputation of our righteousness that he might work his ways through us.

And this is my prayer, that God would lead me how and when and to the measure he desires me to give. For he has need of nothing. He owns the cattle on 1000 hills, and he also owns the hills. May God lead me to those in need. I hope for myself and for you that 10% is a number I never have to think about again.

Tolerant of In-tolerance?

In today's day and age, people are unlikely to outrightly call you a fool. It's not proper. Or so they say. No, tolerance is the mantra where suffering every idea, thought and action to exist is required and forced discernment is necessary. Calling a bad idea bad, is arrogant. For who are you to call me, or my idea bad?

This argument is just a sub-derivative of this cognitive dissonance that Satan has captivated so many with. You have two mutually exclusive ideas, yet a person holds them in complete harmony with one another. This of course only lasts until they arbitrarily decide that the ideas are no longer harmonious and one prevails over the other. Usually after violating some level of personal, and relative set of moral standards. e.g. you can call my a right wing religious whacko, but I can't say that someone is mentally retarded, even if they exhibit the condition of mental retardation. I can say relative morals because unless we all submit to one moral authority, then we have ourselves for the authority and as I can easily demonstrate, you are not my authority and I am not yours; thus, it's relative to ourselves.

Thus it's revealed to be tolerant or to label oneself tolerant is a confused state of mind. You are no more tolerant than I am an ostrich. I can say that because your tolerance denotes a sense of acceptance and tranquility, yet that can be easily disrupted if the right buttons are pushed. Then you are revealed to be quite intolerant and maybe in ways that you didn't even realize that you were intolerant. You may decide to be or be interested in being at peace with all men as much as it is within you to do so, and you do well do to do this, however, is not tolerance.

I can prove that no one is tolerant. You're all prejudiced and in some cased bigoted. Some of you literally hate with a level of hate that could kill. If all social barriers were removed you literally would kill. We've elected ourselves, democratically of-course, to the King of the Land of Me and all are loyalists to the crown. Dis-loyalists are considered hateful, arrogant, bigots, or at least rude and unkind.

What about letting people fail in their train of thought, allow them to learn from their mistakes and being willing to stand up for what you believe in? What is wrong with that?

Still think you're 'tolerant'?

Want to take my test?

1. Do you see or suspect terrorism when you see a practicing Muslim in Shiite garb, perhaps on a plane?
2. When you see a group of rowdy young black adults in the mall, grouped together, do you suspect malevolence?
3. When you see a white congressmen talking television, do you assume deception?
4. When you see children, do you assume innocence?
5. If an attractive woman or man is a distressed situation are you more or less likely to help them? That's a trick question, either answer demonstrates prejudice!

See you're not tolerant. You've been lied to. Now, will you tolerate me, or learn from your mistakes and get to the root of who you really are?

Once you do that, perhaps we can talk about how tolerance really looks.