One Hundred Pages Later

I've been trying to get to this blog post for a year now. I read the book way back when I had originally thought that I was going to be able to write a blog about it but got caught up with life. I did re-read it several times as I tried to put my thoughts into notes for this blog. I do apologize for the delay. I am glad that I am finally able to post my thoughts on this book. The following is just that. Although it is not a point by point address of the book, I did try to address or put my thoughts down as I read through the book. I did find it a bit difficult as I describe below because I didn't find it to be particularly addressed to Catholicism as Sam warned which is fine, but I still wanted to address what popped out at me with in his book.



Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris

After reading this book, it seems to me that Catholicism, the fullness of Christianity, has the answers to the objections Sam Harris poses. There have been 2000 years of Christian history where many objections have arisen and been answered along the way. Some being posed by atheists but most posed by believers themselves, looking to answer or address questions that should be asked and looked at with much scrutiny so that faith is not taken as an unintelligent act but instead as a combination of faith and reason.

I myself have placed and continue to place Christianity under the microscope because it is our duty as Christians to always be mindful of what we believe and what we act upon because we are responsible for how we live our lives and how our lives affect those around us. As humans, we depend on each other and if my beliefs are going to affect others, I owe it to them as well to try my best to make proper judgments so that others are not negatively affected.

Perhaps Sam has not previously heard the answers to the objections that he presents or perhaps he just doesn’t find the answers that he’s heard convincing, either way, the following are just some of my thoughts on his book.

Although his book is in part directed towards Catholics per Sam’s own statement, I really didn’t feel like it was directed towards me, even though I read it multiple times. I guess I’m okay with that as Sam stated that some may feel that way. I did feel like his book was directed towards a particular Christian though, a Christian that perhaps didn’t have reasons for believing what they believe other than maybe that’s just how they were raised so they took it for granted, or perhaps a Christian that hasn’t thought much about the opposing perspectives. Many of those Christians that fall into these categories happen to be Catholics. Nominal Catholics. To them, this book I would think could have the effect that Sam seems to want to have, which is to give their faith a jolt. If not to jolt their faith, then to at least, as he stated, to give secularists ammunition to combat Christians whom he deems as opponents. I propose that those Catholics that feel a sense of insecurity (and perhaps protestants and other Christians) after reading this book, pick up the Catechism of the Catholic Church where we see the Church's stance on just about all topics related to living life as Christian. While it is not meant to be an apologetic book, it is a book designed to help people learn and better understand what the Catholic Church teaches which may be helpful for those who are not familiar with Church teaching. For a work of apologetics, I would suggest maybe to start The Godless Delusion A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley which was a response to a book by Richard Dawkins titled The God Delusion.

https://www.amazon.com/Godless-Delusion-Catholic-Challenge-Atheism/dp/1592767877

Sam started off his letter in a very agreeable way stating... "we agree ... that if one of us is right, the other is wrong". I think this is an appropriate place to start, to start with an absolute truth. Either there is a God or there isn’t. Truth is not relative, it does not depend on whether an individual person believes it or not. It just is true or it isn’t. Similarly, morality itself is also not relative, It’s objective. Although, if Sam is right in saying there is no God then morality would be relative to each individual whereas if Sam is wrong about the existence of a God, then morality is objective and is not shaped by individuals but by God. In essence, each individual would be their own God if a supreme being did not exist and we’d have each individual acting in their best interest as they each best see fit. Perhaps a survival of the fittest scenario. Moral relativism is probably what we can spend most of our time talking about here but I’ll move on.

Sam continues, "the way you view Islam is precisely the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions." So each religion believes they have it right and that others don’t and Sam believes he has it right and all other religions don't.

Sam then goes on to state his own religious view: “Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering... to the degree that our actions can affect the experiences of other creatures positively or negatively, questions of morality apply." I just ask myself, who made Sam the authoritative voice of what “questions of morality” are? Happiness and suffering don’t determine what is good or bad. Some people feel happiness in killing others while other people suffer for the benefit of their health. There are countless of examples where we can see good and bad are not equal to happiness and suffering, but if Sam is correct in saying there is no God then, he can have his own version of morality and others can have their own version of morality and both versions of morality would be equal because there would be no objective morality. It’s a free for all. Why is Sam’s version of morality better than others? It seems that he is somewhat violating his own atheistic point of view in declaring an objective morality or moral absolute?

While doing this, Sam is talking about the Bible and his view on why it is not a perfect guide to morality. As a Catholic, I paused here thinking, well Catholics don't see the Bible alone as a perfect guide to morality. The book came from an existing Church. An existing people that discerned its content, its canon. The collection of books didn’t just fall out of the sky. It was the Church that found itself as the perfect guide to morality, not claiming to be a perfect example of it but claiming to be the perfect guide to morality through its official teachings. In essence, the Church claimed to have a special authority given to it by God, Jesus Christ. So as Sam discusses the problems he sees with the Bible and giving us his interpretation of those passages he quotes, Sam should instead be talking about why the Church placed those books in the Bible and how the church sees those passages as fitting with its reasons for including them. Sam describes passages in the Bible that he sees as "obscene celebrations of violence that we find throughout the Old and New Testaments." Why not take the next step and ask “why are they included and what purpose do they serve?” as apposed to making assumptions and then attacking the assumptions he himself has made? He’s not really attacking the Bible but his own assumptions of what he believes the Bible to be meant for.

Sam then goes on to compare those passages with references from other religions in reference to nonviolence. He states how the Bible can be interpreted to mean just about anything to anyone (as he proved to us by doing just that). Well it could be used for that if it is taken out of context. What I mean is, if someone goes and picks up the Bible and begins to read it without understanding why it was put together in the first place and what its intent is meant for, then people will undoubtably use it as they wish. Sam names Augustine and Aquinas, two Catholics, as examples of using the Bible to justify torture or even the death of heretics. Again, why not take it to the next step? Look at these examples under the microscope and investigate them critically from all angles. Ask the proper questions. Are Augustine and Aquinas to be seen as inspired scripture? Is everything they do or write suppose to be followed and believed 100% without question? Sure they are very important figures in the church for good reasons but let’s not make them Gods.

Sam then goes on to talk about Jesus and how others have expressed the Golden rule better than the Bible has. Not sure if I can change Sam’s mind here within the confines of this blog but Sam seems to believe that Jesus is confined by what is in the book. If he believes all of Christianity is found within this Book that he’s trying to understand as its sole proper interpreter, he’s robbed himself of a fair critique of the other side. Jesus never wrote anything himself while on earth that he left for anyone on paper. I don’t think Jesus so much cared about trying to be the most eloquent in expressing the golden rule not that I can know either way but that’s just my humble opinion. The Bible also is not meant to be what I think Sam thinks it’s suppose to be. It’s a collection of different writings placed within the canon each for different reasons.

Sam goes on to talk about violence in the Old and New Testaments and sees them as blemishes of the Bible and ultimately of Christianity. Also goes on to talk about violence that happened during Christian history and compared it to that of the beliefs of Jainism. Now I don’t know anything about Jainism so I can’t really comment on it but Christianity has held some form of the just war doctrine where it states that violence in some cases is just (as the name insinuates). Can we say that the instances in the Bible where violence is described is acceptable? I think not always but that’s part of the reason why it’s included, there are illustrations of historical events and spiritual meanings. Each added for different reasons, all should be asked how they relate ultimately to Christ as the fulfillment of the old covenant.

Sam seems to suggest that violence is never acceptable or at least posses the concept as being superior to Christianity. The Just War Doctrine itself I believe refutes any argument Sam could pose. Perhaps Sam just brought up Jainism as an example in contrast to Christianity. Either way we have to understand the violence found within the Bible in its proper context.

Same with when Sam brings up the issue of slavery. Comparing slavery of the nineteenth century to the concepts of slavery mentioned in the Bible without differentiation is not very good scholarship. Sure some have used the Bible to promote slavery but that’s why the Bible alone doctrine or position fails. As Sam stated “People have been cherry-picking the Bible for millennia to justify their every impulse, moral and otherwise” and I would argue Sam is doing the very same thing in his book and interpreting as he so desires to try and make conclusions that fit his need. Again, the Bible was put together for a certain purpose which is not even given one line in his book, unless I missed it. The Canon was discerned by the Church, it didn’t just fall out of the sky and it wasn’t just a book that Jesus just gave the Church. These are separate writings all included for a purpose. What that purpose is, Sam neglects to address or simply doesn’t care.

Sam then writes about the Ten Commandments and says that the first four have nothing to do with morality. Not sure how much to say about this other than the fact that they have everything to do with morality if there is a God. Sam has his own definition of morality as we already stated so perhaps in his own mind they don’t apply to his definition of morality. Again, it comes down to subjective vs objective morality. Sam’s subjective morality, his personal definition vs that of Christianity’s, which is not even self defined but revealed by God. For example the Ten Commandments (as Sam gave as an example) or Christ’s revelation through his ministry (claiming to be God). If Christ was God then Christ defined morality objectively because he’s God making everyone subject to it. If Christ wasn’t God then Sam is within his rights to declare his own personal subjective morality as every person would be within their rights to have their own equal personal subjective morality. No one’s would be greater than another’s except for ones ability to impose it on another through force or persuasion but either way it doesn’t make it any less subjective and would only be binding on others if freely accepted or forced upon.

Sam goes on to state that moral emotions precede any exposure to scripture. Again, Christianity is not a faith of a book. The book is in reference to Christianity, and not all inclusive, it’s not meant to be.

Sam then speaks about primates and how they seem to not like murder or theft “generally”. Well “generally” speaking humans don’t either, that doesn’t make it right or wrong. People’s attitudes toward something doesn’t make it objectively right or wrong. But since Sam brought up chimpanzees, I do want to point out that the natural moral law (which is also God’s law) is also found or revealed in nature. Does nature always directly correlate to human morality, no. Humans are special. We are held to a different standard than spiders, lions, etc. but I guess that would be, according to Sam, my own subjective opinion. Let’s say everyone thought killing babies was okay, would that make it okay? Of course not. Maybe Sam would disagree.

Sam says that in order for God to be taken seriously, that God should give us freedom to follow the commandments we like and reject those we don’t like. Well, actually God does give us freedom to do so. I guess Sam should take God seriously? Free will is given to each person to either accept or decline God’, to either live in communion or live separately. If a person refuses, he freely chooses to accept the results or outcomes of such a decision as like with all other decisions made. 

Sam goes on to speak again about the Jains stating that one single sentence surpasses all the Bible contains. First off that’s another subjective opinion and secondly does Sam even believe it, would he or does he live according to that one sentence he gave as an example from the Jains or does he have an even more superior morality than that of the Jains example? Not to kill any creature or living being? To me that’s an interesting statement. On the face of it, it sounds good, after thinking about it, it places any living creature and humans on the same level of superiority. Should people eat any type of meat? Should we kill insects? The list can go on and on. Is Sam a vegetarian and if so what stopping someone from saying we shouldn’t eat plants because they are also living organisms? Organisms are living things too. On what basis is one person’s morality better than another’s if there is no God?

If God created all things then he subjects all creation to his morality and rightly so. If there is no God, then it’s a free for all and rightly so and logically speaking. Everyone turns into their own “God”.

Sam again goes back to his definition of morality, happiness and suffering and calls it objective. Is he talking about short term or long term happiness/suffering, happiness/suffering relative to each individual or happiness/suffering as Sam sees happiness/suffering? Stealing makes some people happy. Slavery made some people happy. Killing makes some people happy. Sex with children makes some people happy. Killing children makes some people happy. We can go on and on. We could do the same for suffering and how suffering isn’t alway a “bad” thing.

Sam goes on to say that we can state things are wrong without reference to scripture. Again, Christianity is not based on scripture. Scripture is a book of Christianity. Not everything is found in scripture. Maybe this argument would work against some Protestants who hold to the Bible alone doctrine as stated previously.

There is much more that Sam mentions but for the most part I believe that there are answers that have been given by others in much more eloquent ways than I could do. 

I think that I would enjoy it if Sam wrote a book specifically addressed to Catholics and actual Catholic teachings and beliefs and not make it so general that perhaps no one sees themselves being addressed completely. I would definitely read that book and write another blog with my thoughts on it. I found it difficult to decide on how to address Sam’s book precisely because I didn’t find it necessarily addressed to me as one the Christians he meant to address. The Bible alone doctrine is not held by Catholics and I think that Sam formed the majority of his arguments to attack those Christians that do hold to such a belief. I definitely will keep a close eye on Sam and his publications so as to keep up with his work. I always enjoy listening to others perspectives and thinking critically about them.


I do want to end with adding a link to a blog that is of a Facebook friend of mine, Aileen, who first introduced me to this book by Sam Harris through a conversation we were having. The link leads to her thoughts on a book that I recommended to her which was G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy, hence the picture above. Both books were close to one hundred pages, hence the title of this blog post. I really enjoyed my conversations with her and I look forward to more in the future.

https://aileensoprano.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/the-morbid-logician-on-the-poetical-fairyman/

Pentecost vs Moral Relativism

Two events happened to coincide for me this past week: the arrival of Pentecost and the arrival of a book I ordered titled "Relativism: Feet firmly planted in mid-air" so I thought to myself, why not write a blog about it since it's been a while since I've written one 

At first glance it may seem like quite a combination to write about, but admittedly, I find it intriguing to ponder about. Looking at the two, I started making a list of ideas associated with each and I found myself seeing the vast disparity between the two. 

Moral Relativism
-usually disenfranchises God
-makes each individual "God"
-pits individual against individual
-creates confusion/chaos
-lacks credibility 
-illogical
-leads to despair 
-no ultimate meaning

Pentecost
-God at its center
-brings people together as one body
-brings Order/form
-provides a foundation for growth
-logically consistent
-provides hope
-gives life meaning
-provides a mission

The lists could go on. In a sense, as I was thinking of the two, I found myself picturing a battle between two opposing world views: moral relativism vs. objective morality. A battle that many have participated in throughout the centuries. Some of the best thinkers of the world have debated the topic and not to anyone's disappointment as both sides have their advocates. 

Pentecost has at its center the coming forth of God the Holy Spirit to His people with a call to "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" providing the people an opportunity to respond by repenting and devoting "themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" which would unite them together as a people with a common purpose and creed under God as shown in Acts 2. 

Moral relativism pits itself against the idea that there is a God who dictates a morality that the individual ought to submit himself to. Individually, moral relativism can take multiple forms as each individual authors their own boundaries and apologetics for their moral compass. It also, logically speaking, finds itself in pickle when trying to assert its views over others. If morality is truly relative then each individual is not subject to another person's opinion related to morality in any way...

Any way, I look forward to reading the book and seeing what insights I can take from it in regards to the relationship between God and His people. 

Religion: Good or Bad

I often come across slogans such as “It’s not about a religion, its about a relationship” and “Christ came to save, not to establish a religion” and “Religion is dead, Christ is life” being tossed around by protestants and I just don’t get why these slogans are not being challenged by my protestant brothers and sisters. 

I found this video to be humorous but also a good presentation of what is being presented to my protestant brothers and sisters as two supposedly “opposing” concepts: religion and a relationship with Christ.

My first thought on the slogans is that they are aimed at trying to keep people from practicing their belief in God in vain which is very commendable. I can understand that there are many people that just go through the motions and are not practicing their belief as they should be, but does that mean that religiosity in general is a bad thing? Should religiosity be something that is attacked as something that should be avoided because of the fact that some people just “go through the motions” impiously or lacking the respect and honor that God deserves?

“Nobody who fails to keep a tight rein on the tongue can claim to be religious; this is mere self-deception; that person's religion is worthless. Pure, unspoilt religion, in the eyes of God our Father, is this: coming to the help of orphans and widows in their hardships, and keeping oneself uncontaminated by the world.” -James 1:26-27

I feel that instead of warning people to not be vain in their actions, that religion is being thrown under the bus as a whole instead of just educating everyone as to what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Why is this a concern of mine? Well, As I read the Bible, I come to passages such as James 1: 26-27 and understand that things that are done in vain are bad and should be avoided; However, I also see that things that we do with love are tremendously encouraged. We are also shown that participating in certain rituals such as baptism (Mat 28:19) and partaking in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:24) is to be expected by those who wish to be part of Christ’s family. We are expected to do certain things like keep Christ’s commandments (Matt 19:16). There is much that we are expected to do including other traditions as taught by the apostles that may or may not have been mentioned in the Bible (2 Thess 2:15). We are not expected to do things in vain by doing them separated from Christ but we are expected to do things in communion with Christ. By the grace of God we must freely accept and freely decide to do things that bring us to a closer relationship with Christ and His body, the Church.

Are we to place religion and a relationship with Christ at odds with each other as if they were mutually exclusive? On the contrary, the bible seems to imply that it is precisely because of our pious and loving actions and religious rituals that we are able to experience a greater and closer relationship with Christ. I think that everyone understands that we are expected to do our part freely and lovingly.

Something however that I feel many are not necessarily taking notice of is that the slogans almost seem to be more of an attack on organized religion than they are an attack on the vain actions of any certain individuals. The slogans seem to be promoting the individualistic aspects of a relationship with Christ and discourage the organized aspects of what it means to be part of the Body of Christ as Christians.

Let me for example tell you what I get from the video above, which includes some of the slogans I mentioned above. Of course I see that there is an attempt to rectify the actions of people who practice their religion in vein. But what I also get from it is that it’s not about the community of believers; it’s about the individual believer. The community of believers doesn’t necessarily have to be in a community at all. They don’t have to abide by any rules or regulations they don’t like. They don’t have to do anything they don’t want to do especially if it’s not “fun”. They don’t have to believe in one single version of truth or doctrine or theology. They don’t have to understand the deeper meanings behind why some things are done and others are not. They don’t have to be “slaves” or servants to those that authority has been given or anyone else for that matter.

Could it be that slogans such as the above are actually meant to do away with organized religion in order to promote a “it’s about a me and Jesus relationship and everyone else can believe what they want as long as it doesn’t affect me” theological point of view? Is this what Christ had in mind when He prayed for unity or when St. Paul asks us to be united in mind and purpose (1 Cor 1:10)? It seems to me that when these slogans appear, so does an attack on the visible unity of Christianity.

A lot of thoughts and questions, not enough time to express them all. Hopefully I can write more on soon. Let me know what you think about the slogans and the video above, I would love to know everyone's take on them. 

Dr. Ray says Truth Matters!

The following are videos that I would say sum up many of the questions that I have asked in the past and continue to ask today in order to grasp a better understanding of protestantism and denominationalism. I encourage everyone to take some time out of their busy lives to see if any of the questions and answers presented within the videos have ever been questions that you yourselves have encountered in your journey towards a closer relationship with Jesus Christ. If these are questions that you have encountered, I encourage you to search sincerely for the answers where ever those answers may be available as the speaker in these videos has done himself.

Video # 1 of 3

Video # 2 of 3

Video # 3 of 3

Titus 1:9 "holding fast to the true message as taught that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents"

The voice in these videos is that of Dr. Ray Guarendi. He is a man that bears an amazing testimony of how his intense necessity and craving for Truth led him to Jesus Christ and His Church after a long struggle through protestantism and denominationalism. Hope you enjoy not only the questions he proposes but also his ever so timely jokes. 

If anyone would like to share their reaction to the videos, I would love to hear what everyone thinks!!

May God bless us all and lead us to His one and only Truth, that we may recognize it when we see and/or hear it :-) AMEN!!!

(The Bible is a Catholic Book!)

May our names not be blotted out, oh Lord!

1 Corinthians 4:1-5

"... For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not therefore acquitted..."

Who am I to proclaim assurance of my own eternal salvation? I, just another soul. The one that can not even be sure that I will not leave you tomorrow. I, the one, that has left you so many times in my so little past. I have no trust in my own flesh that I may not fail a day, an hour, or even a minute from now. Who am I to judge my own soul when I have no place in such a chair of honor.

I have a weakness so great to sin that I may and do fall short daily. It is only you, Jesus my God, my judge that knows with perfect knowledge and assurance where it is that I may dwell for eternity. I look to you for the grace necessary to accept that it is only through you that I may have eternal salvation. It is you oh lord that provides the grace necessary, that I may carry my cross daily. Will you please help me accept that grace for I have no assurance in myself. It is you oh Lord that is always there for me yet it is I that does not always accept your call. What assurance do I hold, except for your continued love for my soul?

Will I always accept your love? Will I fall short of what is expected of me which is just to accept you in my daily life by following your whole revelation? I do not know, I do not know. I do not pretend to know what is not meant for me to be known. I trust, I have hope and am confident but have no assurance. What grace it is to have to trust in you so blindly. To have faith in you and not be able to see you, what a blessing. I believe in you and accept you without having complete assurance of where you may eternally pronounce as my home. Oh how I fear and tremble at the thought of losing you, as is fitting for a person so deeply in love with another. You oh Lord I love blindly, and yet so confidently.

You oh Lord will save if I obey, will save if only I obey, will save if only, if only, I may obey. My faith alone just not enough, oh just so not enough. How easy it would be, how tempting it is but you oh Lord know best. You alone, your grace alone, but no, oh no, not just my faith alone. To be justified oh Lord, to commune with you, my love for you must be known. My cross must be carried like you oh Lord, my Lord, have carried your own. My cross, your cross, your cross, my cross.  One in your body, if only I continue to commune with you. May I not be cut off as easy as a branch may be cut off from its vine.

Just as through one person I was made a sinner, may I accept you daily oh Lord, that I may be made worthy of you, by only you, my Lord. May my faith in you oh Lord, come alive through my love for you and for those around me. May I not have a loveless faith, least it be dead. May you oh Lord, grant me grace to make my faith in you a working faith, a faith that is not in vain. How is it that I may know that I will accept this grace? I do not know. I do not know. I do though know that I now pray that I may accept your grace daily, now and forever. Such prayer brings me hope, such prayer brings me comfort. Hope, comfort and confidence such a prayer brings to me, but no, no, not the assurance only God may poses. May I not detour from your narrow road for the broader road which always brings temptation. My temptation strong oh Lord, but no match for your Love.

My Lord, to you, oh Lord, I look to you. Oh Lord, may I be gifted the grace to follow you. Your will, oh Lord, I wish to be mine. I oh Lord, may I follow you, My Lord!

May I remain in you oh Lord!

Early Christian Writings Matter... Don't They?

The first thing that comes to mind when someone refers to early Christian writings is the New Testament of the Holy Bible. The writings that are included in the New Testament canon are said to have been written by some of the earliest Christians of the first century. These books or letters are the most popular writings available to us today from early Christianity, but what about the other writings that were not included in the canon of the New Testament? What about those writings written later in the first century and into the following centuries? What happened to those and do they have something in them that may also be of some value to us today?

 The early Christian writings provide for us today an expanded look at what it was like to live as a Christian during the early Christian centuries. Early Christian writings provide a look at what the early Christians believed, how the early Christians worshiped, how the early Christian belief was spread, who was trusted to spread that Christian belief, how the early Christians prayed, and much more. Through these writings, we are given information that may not be found in the New Testament itself or things that expand upon or give us a better understanding of what we do find in the New Testament.

This is important because we see that many people come to different understandings or different interpretations of what certain passages in the Bible mean leading to a vast array of contradicting doctrines. As with any other course of study, if there is information that can help clarify our understanding of a topic at hand, it would do us well to seek out that information and put it to good use. This extra information after all could perhaps be the factor that leads to a unified understanding or unified interpretation of certain Biblical passages and the messages they convey.

Many would make the claim that the Bible is more than enough to give Christians of this century the context of what it meant to be a Christian in the first few centuries after the death of Christ. To this claim I would answer that if we are to accept the Bible for what it is, we must understand that the Bible was never meant to be an all encompassing book of what it means to be a Christian or what Christianity as a belief system entails.

This point becomes even more evident when history reveals that the Bible was not canonized (put into the list or order) as we know it today until about three centuries after the death of Christ. That’s at least three hundred years after the death of Christ! Mind blowing I know. How did Christians before this know what to believe and how to practice their faith!?! We also see that to this very day, not all Christians share a common canon (list/order) of books that are considered divinely inspired by God (some Bibles containing 66 books and others containing 73 books). If we are to accept the Bible as all that is needed to come to a complete understanding of Christianity (past, present, and future), we must then ask who gets to decide what books should and should not be included in the official Christian canon of the Bible. What then happens if some Christians reject the final outcome? The question becomes a subjective matter instead of what it should be which is an objective, authoritative matter that only those that are given authority by God should be addressing.

Don’t get me wrong; I by no means am suggesting that these other early Christian writings should be elevated onto a pedestal that is equal with those writings currently included in the Bible as we know it today. That would be nonsense for various reasons! I am however suggesting that these other early Christian writings should at least be taken into consideration for perhaps some contextual information they may have to offer. Many of the early Christian writings available to us today are believed to have been written by many of those people that were either alive and in communication with the apostles themselves or alive and in communication with those that were closely associated with the apostles themselves. Other early Christian writings were by those that were specifically chosen as successors to the people that were first entrusted by the apostles.

If anything, these early Christian writings may help people compare how Christianity today compares to the Christianity of about two thousand years ago and how we got from point A to point B. To some Christians of today it will feel completely foreign and possibly even unchristian in their view, and for others it will be a welcomed affirmation of what they have always believed to be the message Christ wanted to spread to the entire world. 

My answer to the question of whether Early Christian Writings Matter would be an absolute Yes!

 2 Thes 2:15 “So then, Brethren, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

God Bless everyone in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, AMEN!

66 or 73? Who gets to decide?

A few events have taken place in the recent past that coincidently, if you want to call it that, relate to the blog topic that I had already decided to share with you all. This past week at my work, a person was tragically killed in an accident. The death struck both employees and customers alike in a way that brought life into perspective. We were all reminded that we are here on earth for a limited time and there is no telling when God will decide it is our time to move into the eternal life, heaven or hell for eternity after our personal judgment day.

2 Maccabees 12:39-45

(Small excerpt)

“…gave themselves to prayer, begging that the sin committed might be completely forgiven.…

…For had he not expected the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead…”

With the recent tragedy at my work, the subject of praying for the dead has captured my attention.  When I first heard about the tragedy, my immediate reaction was to pray for the person that had lost her life because I believed that this prayer could be beneficial to her in the eyes of God. I immediately felt sorrow for her and prayed to God that mercy be granted to her. I prayed that God would grant her the forgiveness of her sins and that she be granted the wonderful gift of eternal life in heaven. I also prayed for the family of course.

I have come to understand, from the reading of my Bible and from other historical Christian writings, that prayer for the dead was not something that was seen as out of the ordinary. History has shown that praying for the dead has been an acceptable Christian practice for close to 2000 years and had been practiced for years prior to Christianity by the Jewish people before the coming of Christ as well. We are reminded throughout the Bible that prayer is something we should all do for one another in good and bad circumstances in life.

I was also reminded how much praying for the dead made sense to me. I was confronted with the picture of this woman who had lost her life and was having to go to trial for all the laws and commandments she had broken in the eyes of God. I thought to myself, wow, if this was happening while she was alive here on earth where she was being tried in court for breaking the law, people would be praying that the judge have mercy on her and grant her pardon with a slap on the wrist so that she wouldn’t be convicted if her offence was not so serious. In the same way, I found myself praying for this lady. Since I did not know much about the lady, I only assumed the best about her. I knew that Christ had the power to forgive any and all sins and that it was right for me to want the best for this lady. Praying for this lady was just my natural reaction. Intercessions for one another are what we are made to do out of love for one another. When someone is in need of help, is it not the proper reaction of any Christian to offer prayers for the person in need to our Lord?

Understanding that an earthly death is not the end of life, but the entryway to the eternal life (whether it be eternal damnation with the devil or eternal glory with God), I knew that my prayers for this lady would be heard by God and that God would answer my prayers in the way that best conformed to His will. I would hope that if I was going to trial here on earth, that people would pray for me But I would hope even more so that if I was meeting my creator and having to give an account for all my actions, that everyone would be praying and asking God to have mercy on my soul on my personal judgment day.

… (break, J)

… As you have probably noticed, the passage of the Bible that I provided a small excerpt from may not have been contained in the Bible that you own. Why? That is what I plan on addressing next.

As a friend and I usually discuss several biblical topics, we bring out our Bibles. One Bible containing 66 books (39 OT & 27 NT) and the other Bible containing 73 books (46 OT & 27 NT). We discuss many topics and reference many Bible passages. Our discussions always seem to turn out great. We always discuss things in a charitable way, both trying to discuss the message of Christ as we have each come to understand it. Neither of us tries to win any disagreements that may arise, but instead just share our understandings with one another, each being open to perhaps a better understanding of Christ, which is most important.

As we went on, the topic that brought all other topics together for my friend and I was that of how the Word of God was supposed to be passed on to all generations after Christ’s ministry on earth. In other words, How Christ intended His message of Truth to be passed on. But this topic brought on others regarding the Bible. We both agree that the Bible is one of the ways Christ currently uses to pass on His message of Salvation. Both my friend and I believe that we find the Word of God to be present in the Bible. Not necessarily agreeing that the Bible is the only authorized source of God’s revelation but that it is one source of God’s revelation. But there is an obvious problem, our Bibles have different number of books, which in turn means that either one does not have enough books or the other has too many books. So a question for my friend and I arises, who is to decide what the number of books included in the Bible should be?

To put this in perspective, let me show how important the difference in number of books contained within the Bible actually is. There are many Christians that believe in a doctrine known as “sola scriptura” or “the Bible alone” meaning that they only believe what is expressed within the pages of the Bible. If something is not in the Bible, they do not believe it. So these seven books (if they contain anything that is not necessarily directly referenced within the 66 books held in common) become the source of God’s revelation to His people that otherwise may not be known by those who own a Bible that only contains the 66 books.

For example, usually with most “Bible Alone” adherents one sees a rejection of the idea that praying for the dead is a good thing and that it is an acceptable action for Christians to partake in. Reason being that it is not directly mentioned as a good thing to do within the 66 books held in common. But in the passage above we see prayer for the dead being presented as a good and gracious thing to do. So, this seven book difference can be the potential unifying element needed for clarification on the subject or it can continue to be one of the sources of separation amongst people who all desire to come to know and to best understand what God has revealed to its people. 

Again my friend and I question, who should get to decide the number of Books to be included in the Bible? Today, there are multiple groups of people deciding what should and should not go in the Bible. Shouldn’t it be one Bible for all and not one Bible for some and another for others? My friend and I would contend that there should be one Bible for all Christians. We are to be of one mind and of one heart. Christ after all did not want his followers to be divided by doctrinal issues. Christ wanted all to be unified in belief including the ones discussed here.

So today, I leave the question of who gets to decide how many books belong in the Bible open for all to ponder. My friend and I know what our answers would be but I believe that when people go out searching for answers on their own, they usually get more out of them then when someone tells them what their answer to a question is. Take this as a friendly challenge, from me to everyone who reads this blog, to learn why what is included or excluded in the Bible matters and why the Bible itself is a reliable source of the Word of God. If anyone would like to hear my answer to this question, I can address it later on a future blog, just let me know through a comment on the blog. I however would be interested to hear some of your answers if anyone has the time to share them with me. I always find it nice to hear others explain and defend what they have come to believe and understand.

Thanks to everyone for reading, let me know what you think and may God Bless us all J

When Jesus calls, a response is necessary!

Living in California allows me to experience my Christian faith in a very unique way. The number of Christian denominations are in far greater number here than in any other place in the world. I drive down the road and see the numerous churches on opposite sides of the road all claiming to proclaim the truth of Jesus Christ, and yet they are in disagreement as to what the Truth of Jesus Christ consists of. Churches pop up on a regular basis with a new version of Truth being made readily available to all who are willing to hear it, creating yet another division amongst God’s people. It seems that this has just become a way of life here, but I can’t imagine that I am the only Christian living in California asking myself why these divisions between Christians, seem to have become so accepted and in many cases promoted?

Matthew 4:12-25

(Small excerpt)

… “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” …

Reading through the book of Matthew, I see an exciting scene being presented towards the beginning of the Gospel where we see Jesus starting His earthly ministry. Jesus comes reaffirming a long held belief of the coming of a Messiah while also introducing new unexpected dimensions that not all people would be willing to accept. The message brought to light new standards of righteousness and holiness. For His ministry, Jesus elects a chosen few that He teaches and trusts to spread His message to the ends of the world. These men are given one message, one faith to pass on. As Jesus called, the people responded, with either an acceptance or a denial of His proclamations. Some followed Jesus for long periods of time and stayed with Him while others left Jesus when they realized what Jesus was asking of them.

When I see passages in the Bible like the one above, they always spark a variety of questions that I sometimes can’t wrap my brain around completely. Thoughts that make me question whether anyone else sees similar issues between what we see in the Gospels and what we are seeing today, especially here in California. In the Gospels we see only one message, one Truth being attributed to Jesus. In California, depending on what part of the state one lives in and what street one is driving down, we see hundreds of varying versions of Truth being attributed to Jesus. The Gospel shows us Jesus intended to present His people with one version of Truth because that is all He left for His people. His people, particularly the apostles, the first fishers of men, were entrusted with the one Truth by Jesus to spread to the world. But today, we see many men (and now many women) claiming to be fishers of men all preaching their versions of Truth and yet their messages differ.

I am truly saddened and just flabbergasted by how the acceptance of divisions between Christians has seemingly crept up on all of us and apparently most people seem to be unaffected by it. Am I the only one asking at what point did these divisions between Christians become acceptable?

(Long sigh…)

The Bible reminds me that if someone changed even the littlest of what was being proclaimed as the Word of God, that person (or group of people) was exiled from the Christian communities. Divisions within the Church were not acceptable by any means. There was one faith, one message, one Truth, not many versions of the one and only truth.

This, to me, is something especially critical for all of us Californians to keep in mind. I pray constantly that everyone takes a few minutes out of their lives to look around while driving down the road and ask questions like I can no longer not do. My prayer doesn’t stop there though; I also pray that everyone searches for the answers to the questions. Ask yourselves whether the current situation we Christians find ourselves in would be acceptable to not only the early Christians, but to Christ Himself and how this affects everyone’s ability to respond to Christ when He calls. 

Be not afraid to ask questions and find answers :-) We must be ONE, as Christ and the Father are ONE!

My Need For Guidance

As a person that has come to accept my need and reliance on the guidance that others provide to me, I can say that I am truly free. Free because I have faith and hope in the guidance that is being provided.

Acts 8:26-40

(Small excerpt)

… “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him…

As I usually read this passage, I see myself as the mentioned Ethiopian eunuch who reads the scriptures and knows that there is more meaning on the page that is being read from than he can ever come to understand without someone teaching him and explaining to him what the scripture passage means.

I, like the Ethiopian man, have the ability to read a certain passage in the scriptures and give it understanding from my own life experiences and from what I have been fortunate to study and learn about, but my own knowledge does not tell me what the passage was originally meant to convey. I’m sure the eunuch too was able to get something good out of passages, as he related them to his life experiences since that is all he knew how to do before he sat with Philip, but how much more did he want to understand about what he was reading? How much more did the eunuch appreciate the scripture after he learned the purpose of the scripture he had read and how it related to something much greater than he?

Philip was the person chosen to guide this Ethiopian man. Philip was the perfect person to teach the Ethiopian because not only had he been taught and been approved of by the apostles, through the laying of the hands, but was also commissioned by God, through an angel, to go instruct this man. I, being able to see, that Philip was the person guiding the Ethiopian to a better understanding of the scriptural passage, ask myself, who is available for us today? Can we expect to have such a person or people to help me or you to better understand the meaning of scripture?

I am here to suggest that the answers to these questions are an absolute YES!!! There are people who we can count on to help explain the scriptures to us. The same reason that the Ethiopian was able to rejoice after being with Philip is the same reason I rejoice to have people who through time have been appointed by the laying of the hands to preach, teach and bring people like you and I to a better understanding of scripture and the gospel. The people I speak of are the successors to the apostles. The successors are here to bring scripture to life and to allow me to rejoice in the scriptures that have greater meaning than what my experiences can offer. I feel absolute freedom in knowing that I don’t have to depend on my own interpretation of scripture but instead can like the Ethiopian man depend on someone more equipped to teach me what the true meaning of scripture is. 

Yes, I have come to accept my reliance on the guidance that the successors of the apostles provide to me. And because of this I am able to rejoice in my faith and my hope that is in my Lord and my God through the Holy Spirit.