God has spoken … and he is nonetheless talking …

[ad_1]

“Beware lest any man spoil you thru philosophy and useless deceit, after the custom of males, after the rudiments of the world, and never after Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

On the one facet, there may be philosophy. On the opposite facet, there may be Christ. The 2 are very totally different. Philosophy begins with man – “after the custom of males.” After we communicate of Christ, we start with God – “God so beloved the world that he gave his solely Son …” (John 3:16). Generally, philosophy might attempt to discover God. In philosophy of faith, we hear in regards to the arguments for the existence of God. When these arguments are mentioned, it quickly turns into clear that it’s questionable whether or not such arguments could be thought to be ‘proofs’ for God’s existence. There are arguments. There are counter-arguments. We’re left questioning, “What does all this actually show? – Neither facet of the talk is more likely to persuade many on the opposite facet. There could also be some who will transfer from one facet to the opposite – however there might be many who will keep the place they’re. Even once we transfer from unbelief to religion, we have now to ask the query, “What sort of God do the ‘proofs’ talk about? ” Do they lead us to Jesus Christ, our Saviour? or Are we left with a ‘God’, who is a little more like “the unknown God” (Acts 17:23) than the God whom we see once we flip our eyes on Jesus Christ? Are we not left with the sensation that there is a large distinction between the conclusion of an argument and the God who has come to us in Jesus Christ, who’s “Emmanuel … God with us” (Matthew 1:23)?

Earlier than I ever heard something about philosophy, I heard the phrases of the opening verses of the letter to the Hebrews. I keep in mind, as a younger man, listening to my minister, Rev George Philip, communicate of the way in which wherein the King James Model begins with the phrase, “God.” We learn, in Hebrews 1:1, about  God,  talking via “the prophets.” The second verse takes us past the prophets. It takes us to  somebody, who is larger than all of the prophets – “God has spoken to us by his Son.” That is so totally different from the way in which wherein philosophy speaks about God. Each time philosophy speaks about God, it is all the time of him as a topic for dialogue. When Hebrews 1:1-2 … speaks about God, it speaks in regards to the residing God, the God who takes the initiative, the God who involves us in love. He isn’t the end-result of an argument. He is our starting-point. 

How are we to reply to the distinction between the 2? Are we to combine and match – a little bit of this and a little bit of that, slightly little bit of philosophy and slightly little bit of Scripture, let philosophy take us so far as it will possibly after which transfer over to Scripture to fill within the gaps? 
Listed here are two related feedback from Carl Henry’s “God, Revelation and Authority.
“It’s inconceivable for fallen man to reach on the reality of God by starting with himself.”
“If we’re licensed to say something in any respect in regards to the residing God, it is just due to God’s initiative and revelation.” 
Taken collectively, these two quotations say what must be stated in regards to the distinction between “philosophy” and “Christ.” Begin with philosophy’s arguments for God’s existence and you will find that they solely take you to this point, and no additional. Start with God – the God who has spoken, the God who nonetheless speaks. Go to the prophets (Outdated Testomony). Go to Christ (New Testomony). Hearken to what the Lord is saying to you. Let your thoughts be instructed by him. Let your coronary heart be drawn to him. Let your might be submitted to him. Could you say, in your coronary heart, “All information of God that I’ve has been given to me by him. It has not come from me.” Allow us to not be deceived into pondering that we have now taken the initiative in attending to know God. Allow us to say, from the center, “Lord, you will have come to me in love. In response to your love for me, which all the time comes earlier than my love for you, I open my coronary heart to your love. Educate me increasingly more about your love for me, as I learn your Phrase.” 

[ad_2]

Latest posts