The Stoic school of thought was one of harmony with nature, using rational abilities one possesses, and depending only on oneself for needs.  Their theology of God is some sort of world soul similar to pantheism.  Stoicism was founded by Zeno (340-265 BC) and took its name from a “painted stoa.”[3]  While these two philosophies are different, they are both secular alternatives to dealing with life and problems.

Some of the Gentiles called Paul an idle babbler (Gr. σπερμολός [spermologos] – picking up seed). This is metaphorical to a beggar in the marketplace picking up seed and using what he can get.  When Paul presented the Gospel message, the Gentiles had the impression that he was taking many different philosophies and gods, abstracting certain commonalities and putting them together to create a new message.  The Greeks use the term “deities” in several of their writings for pagan gods.  It is used nowhere else in the New Testament in this sense but occurs fifty times for evil spirits and is, therefore, usually translated “demons.”[4]  Paul preached Christ’s resurrection, and the Gentiles could have thought that Jesus, as the new god, and the resurrection (anastasis) as His chief goddess.[5]  The lack of cultural filtration by the Gentiles by believing Paul was proclaiming new gods as a polytheist, gives example to the need to analogous illustration when witnessing cross culturally which Paul later used in verse 23.

Paul’s technique in evangelism will vary in approach, but draws down to Jesus and the resurrection very quickly.  Here he sets another example in witnessing; Paul left no room for tangents.  Christ set this example of ministry when speaking to the woman at the well (John 4), and when she would get draw off the main message, Jesus would bring the message back to light.  Paul also uses a relevant subject to present the Gospel just as Jesus did.

General summary of Ambrose and his theology: St. Ambrose is one of the four traditional Doctors of the Latin church along with St. Jerome (345-420), St. Augustine (354-430), and St. Gregory the Great (530-604). Ambrose was born into the increasingly prevalent Christian minority of the aristocracy. His father was Praetorian prefect of Gaul.  His father died not long after he was born, leaving his mother and sister to raise him.  His training was in law, and included a knowledge of Greek.  He followed his father into the imperial administration and, after practicing in Roman law courts, was appointed governor of Aemilia-Liguria, ca. 370, the seat of which was Milan.

There was a situation in Milan in 373.  The earlier orthodox bishop had been exiled by the Arian emperor, Constantius, in 343.  An Arian bishop, Auxentius, had been installed in his place, by Gregory, the intruded bishop of Alexandria (Athanasius’s supplanter).  Now, after thirty long years of Arian rule, Auxentius was dead, and both sides wanted control of the see.  Because the possibility of civil disorder was great, Ambrose, who was by this time governor, attended the election. 

Ambrose was an unlikely candidate for the Bishop.  At a point of high tension, Ambrose mounted the pulpit to restore order, and a child, seeing him in the place ordinarily occupied by the bishop, called out, “Ambrose, bishop.”  Reminded of the Scripture that says, “A little child shall lead them,” the congregation took this to be a sign from God that their governor was God’s choice for bishop.  While Ambrose had no desire to be bishop, Emperor Valentinian I concurred with the people,  and Ambrose had no real choice but to accept.  He was only an unbaptized catechumen at the time. So, he received baptism and was hurried through the various levels of ordination, all in eight days!  On December 7, 373, he was consecrated bishop of Milan. He was thirty-four at the time.

Though from a Christian family with a solid Nicene faith, Ambrose took further instruction in theology from the priest, Simplicianus, who had catechized him.  Not long after his consecration an emergency arose when Gothic raiders terrorized the nearby region, taking some people captive and sending the others fleeing to Milan for refuge.  Despite a howl of criticism, Ambrose melted down the golden vessels of the church in order to ransom the captives.

Because of Ambrose’s fame as a preacher, many came to hear his sermons.  Among them was a young teacher of rhetoric, Augustine, who initially went to hear Ambrose for his oratorical art, but increasingly for the content of his sermons. Ambrose’s sermons were instrumental in bringing Augustine back to the faith of his mother, Monica. Ambrose baptized him on Easter eve, 387.

During Ambrose’s tenure as bishop, the West was ruled by:

• Valentinian I (364-75)
• Gratian (375-83)
• Valentinian II (375-92)
• Theodosius I (379-95)

During Ambrose’s career, he would have four confrontations with the powers of state, winning them all, not only because of the respect he commanded, but because of the faith of the emperors.

In 384 there was a confrontation at the Altar of the Goddess Victory. Its prehistory was as follows:

Gratian had come to the throne in the West in 375 at the age of 16, and in 378 seen the pro-Arian emperor, Valens, struck down by the Goths. He likely viewed this as God’s judgment on Valens.   He chose a strongly orthodox general, Theodosius, to be Valens’ successor in the East, and moved to Milan in 379, where he came under Ambrose’s influence.

The first of many antiheretical edicts followed, and Gratian asked Ambrose to instruct him more fully in Christianity in 380. Under Ambrose’s influence, in 382 Gratian ordered the altar to the goddess, Victory, removed from the Roman senate.  In 384 the senate voted to have it restored. By this time Gratian had been murdered in a military coup, and his half-brother, Valenintian II (age 13) had succeeded him.  Young Valentinian followed Ambrose’s advice, and rebuffed the senate’s will.

Young Valenintian’s position as emperor was anything but secure at the time.  The usurper (Magnus Maximus) who had murdered his brother was threatening to invade his lands.  The emperor’s mother, Justina, therefore begged Ambrose to intercede for her son. He did so and averted the invasion.  Even so, Ambrose’s relations with Justina were not good, for she was an Arian, and this would lead to Ambrose’s next confrontation with the powers of state.

In 385-86, Justina demanded that Arians be given a basilica outside the walls of Milan where they could worship, and Ambrose refused, setting the stage for more confrontation.  On one occasion, Ambrose organized a “sit-in” with his flock in the contested church. While they were being surrounded by imperial troops, Ambrose kept his people’s spirits up by leading them in hymns.  Justina sought a graceful retreat from the confrontation by demanding that, if not the church, at least its sacred vessels be given over. But Ambrose refused this concession, too.

At the time, Ambrose was building a magnificent new church, and ordered the ground dug up near the supposed tomb of two martyrs, Protasius and Gervasius. His hope was to find relics with which to furnish the new church.  Two skeletons were indeed found, covered with red ocher, and the rumor spread that these were the martyrs’ blood-stained bones. A blind man even received his sight.  Milan, which had been without relics up to this time, could now  boast the protection of two saints, and Ambrose’s position vis-à-vis the empress became unassailable.

At this time Maximus was again threatening to invade, and Justina was forced to depend on Ambrose for another mission in the spring of 387. This mission failed, and Italy was invaded.  Justina and Valentinian fled to Thessalonica, and implored the eastern emperor, Theodosius, to come to their aid. He did so, defeating Maximus on July 28, 388.   Theodosius came to Milan, where he remained for three years, and sent Valentinian to rule Gaul. When the latter was killed in 392, Theodosius became sole ruler of the empire.

Though Theodosius had shown himself to be a champion of orthodoxy at the Council of Constantinople in 381, Ambrose clashed with him on two occasions.  On the first, a Catholic mob led by rampaging monks had burned down a Jewish synagogue, and Theodosius ordered that they be punished and the synagogue rebuilt.  Ambrose insisted that no Christian emperor ought to order his subjects to rebuild a synagogue. Ambrose prevailed: the arsonists were not punished, the synagogue was not rebuilt.

The other confrontation occurred after a riot in which several officials, including the governor of the city, had been killed. Knowing the anger of the emperor, Ambrose went to him to dissuade him from rash action.  When he left, the emperor’s wrath seemed to have abated, only to rekindle once he was gone. Theodosius sent a delegation to the city with the news that the uprising had been forgiven, and invited the people to a show in the circus. Once the crowd had been seated, his troops moved in to butcher the 6-7,000 present.

Afterward, Ambrose met Theodosius at the door of the church, barring his entry with these words:

“Stop! A man such as you, stained with sin, whose hands are bathed in blood of injustice, is unworthy, until he repents, to enter this holy place, and to partake of communion.”

When the emperor’s guard threatened violence, Theodosius interceded, acknowledging that Ambrose was right.  He made public repentance and gave the order that if ever he were to order capital punishment again, that the execution should be deferred for thirty days.  A precedent had been set: “The first milestone on the road to Canossa had been set up on that day.” (W. H. C. Frend).

As Theodosius lay dying in 395, he asked that Ambrose, the only man who had ever dared to censure him in public, be at his side. By this time, Ambrose’s fame was such that Fritigil, queen of the Marcomanni, asked him to write for her an introduction to the faith. After reading it she resolved to visit him in Milan.   On her way, she learned that he had died on April 4, 397, Easter Sunday.

Probably no one played a greater part in the development of medieval piety than Ambrose.  His great cathedral was the prototype of the medieval cathedral. It had daily mass, morning and evening prayers – sometimes at other times of the day –  and there were special ceremonies to commemorate the saints.  To combat the Arians, Ambrose deliberately transformed the worship service into theater, introducing fine vestments, antiphonal singing, and he hired professional singers. Ambrose formulated a theory of two separate powers, civil and ecclesiastical.  He sought no political power for the church, yet, by his actions, set an example of church authority over the state that would be emulated by later church leaders. Ambrose was the prototype of the medieval prince-bishop.

At the very time that Arianism was being defeated in the East (Constantinople, May 381), the Balkans were still a bastion of Arianism in the West.  Ambrose brought about Arianism’s defeat by a synod he convened at Aquileia, at Eastertide, 381 for the purpose of deposing two Arian bishops.  This was while Gratian was emperor, and for the time being, Arianism had become a spent force in the West.

Ambrose was a firm believer in the efficacy of relics to offset the hordes of demons that he believed were all about us.  Such relics offered protection to the church that contained them, and Ambrose was the first to place relics beneath the altar of a church. In short, he was a superstitious man.  He promoted the perpetual virginity of Mary against Bonosus, who doubted this.

Ambrose wrote in praise of asceticism and encouraged the spread of monasticism in N. Italy.  He (and Jerome) condemned Jovinian, who taught that all baptized persons, whether married or virginal, could be equally pleasing to God.  Ambrose was the first bishop to deal at length with the topic of sex. He was adamant that married life was incompatible with a church career. If a bishop did happen to be married, he thought he should cease to cohabit and beget children with his wife.

Ambrose was one of the few Latin fathers with a knowledge of Greek, and this enabled him to introduce eastern theology to the western church.  Of course, Ambrose’s greatest legacy was the brilliant mind he helped influence – the man who would prove to be the greatest theologian from the time of Paul down to our own day – St. Augustine.

His most noteworthy works were:

• On Virgins 
• On the Faith (addressed to Gratian, and an important contribution to Latin thought on the Trinity)
• On the Sacraments (addressed to the newly baptized)
• On the Duties of Ministers (a treatise on Christian ethics, addressed to priests)
• The rest of his works are letters, hymns, sermons, and instruction given to baptismal candidates.

When considering the criterion of observable evidence I make the distinction between observation and what is empirical.  Something may be observed and qualify as evidence even though it’s not related to material causes.  This is where the distinction between Duhemian science and Augustinian science must be made. I would deny the use of Duhemian science.  This method, or philosophy, has a goal of stripping science from all metaphysical imports.  Augustinian science is open to metaphysical presuppositions with science.  In the mid 1800’s William Whewell was the first to restrict science to only mean natural science.  Pierre Duhem followed this idea and constructed a methodology, which barred explanations to material causes.  For instance, agent causation is completely compatible with Augustinian science but is prohibited as a scientific explanation in Duhemian science.  Agent causation is something that can be observed but isn’t necessarily reductionistic in the material sense as with material causation because agent causation has metaphysical import.

Concerning the Duhemian science, this methodology is incapable of being achieved across disciplines.  This would, by definition, remove psychological, sociological, and historical disciplines from being scientific since all require agent causation in explanation.  Thus, the constraints of Duhemian science are untenable across the spectrum of [scientific] disciplines.

A scientific theory must be put in empirical harms way even though empirical evidence is not a necessary condition for a theory to be scientific.  Scientific theories must be supported by facts and empirical evidence is certainly a sufficient condition for science and is preferred depending on the discipline.  If the theory is based on facts then it should be able to withstand scrutiny when compared to with relevant facts that could potentially falsify the theory.  Contrary to Karl Popper’s line of demarcation between science and PS, a theory absent of evidence is not scientific—it’s mere speculation.[1]  Popper’s model allows for a theory to be scientific prior to and supported evidence.  There’s no positive case for purporting a theory under his model. There can only be a negative case to falsify it and as long as it may be potentially falsified it’s scientific.  Thus, a scientific theory could have not evidence or substantiated facts to provide good reasons for why it may be true.

I agree with Lakatos when he states that falsifiability is not the solution to the problem of demarcation in science.[2]  Falsifiability is not a necessary condition for a scientific theory because it doesn’t meet it’s own requirements.  Thus, falsifiability is a sufficient condition for a scientific theory and should be preferred.  I believe a theory can have an anomaly in it and it’s completely acceptable for a theory to account for the anomaly.  If a theory accounts for so many anomalies that the probability of the theory still being correct in light of these problems then the theory should be rendered inert.  The theory needs to be abandoned as an appropriate scientific theory because at this point it’s probably a completely different theory than it had been originally.  It should be reworked accounting for the, what were, anomalies as actual evidence for the theory.

Scientific theories should make predictions.  This is a simple consequent to observation.  If the theory is based on observed evidence, which is applicable to past observation and present observation than, if true, it should be observed in the future.

The reasoning process should be uncontroversial. Using empirical evidence is commonly accepted because it’s readily accessible to be observed by anyone.  The interpretation of the data is where this is similar to the criterion of observability.  This will determine if what is being observed is evidence for a theory of if it is not.  Deductive reasoning may be used in scientific explanation but inductive or abductive reasoning is most preferred.  Abductive reasoning is critical for the historical sciences.  This serves well to the distinction between material causation and agent causation and why agent causation falls under observability.  With reasoning by the inference to the best explanation the best explanation may be an agent.  Whatever the best explanation is it cannot be contrived ad hoc or post hoc but must be related to the evidence and must follow from the evidence.  When using non-deductive reasoning this allows for the explanans is not reached under logical control from fixed premises and that it follows from the apprehension of the data.

This follows contrary to Kant’s a priori fixed categories.  Under Kantian categories one cannot know the Ding an Sich but the mind imposes its categories on to the explanandum. The explanans should explain causation as having more than just Hume’s causality where causality is deprived of being foundational in making necessary connections between actual events and leaving it with nothing more reliable than habits of mind rooted in association.  This is important for historical sciences.  Uniformitarianism, broadly speaking, must rely on the regularity of causality—presently known causes to phenomena may be inferred by the perceived effects are efficacious retroactively.  The explanandum should be a posteriori as well as the explanans.  A priori notions can be used in the reasoning process (using mathematics, semantic terms, etc.).  However, the synthetic a priori should not be in the explanans and if it is contained with the explanandum the explanans cannot account for it (i.e. morality or mathematical proofs if math belongs in that category).  Scientific theories must be a posteriori in its explanans because if this theory is to have any epistemic authority because epistemology follows from ontology (theory being epistemology and ontology being the observed data).

How I’m using the explanans and explanandum in relation to Kant’s categories arises the issues of rationalism and empiricism.  Empiricism focuses on analytic a priori truths and synthetic a posteriori truths.  I tend to be more of a rationalist in my approach.  I do caution using the synthetic a priori in the explanandum.

Scientific theories should not have religious import.  This may certain have tensions with Augustinian science but religious import is much more than mere metaphysical import.  Religious belief imports something that is considered to be internally authoritative (as in within that system of belief).  The applicability of some of the beliefs may be universal but using religious belief as a grid for interpreting what is and what is not science is methodologically irresponsible.  Religious belief is not itself scientific but may have scientific beliefs and in sync with science.  There’s a categorical difference.

For instance, using Scripture to interpret science or empirical data is circular in its reasoning.  Scripture would already have the conclusion and then uses the reasoning process to conclude with that Scripture may be advocating.  Since I’m coming from a religious perspective I would argue that science and Scripture are harmonious and congruent.  It’s necessary to have a scientific understanding of nature and agency prior to interpreting Scripture.  In order to know a miracle has happened one must know that sea water is less dense than the human body, or that water doesn’t normally undergo chemical reactions to become fermented wine, or that dead bodies don’t normally undergo a natural biological resuscitation or resurrection.  If creation science is an actual science then the antecedent conditions must be subject to scientific scrutiny.  In other words, in order for creation science to be considered a scientific theory it must meet all the appropriate conditions I mentioned earlier.  However, it’s not that creation science does or does not meet all that criteria it’s that it’s dependent on an antecedent interpretation of Scripture.[3]  Though I’m not as militant as Michael Ruse when classifying creation science as pseudoscience I do believe it falls short of being a scientific theory.  Additionally, what makes creation science so unattractive is that it is completely void of the possibility of being falsifiable unless the antecedent conditions (the interpretation) have been falsified.  This makes the issue of accounting for anomalies so absurd that creation science doesn’t really account for anomalies; rather, it produces extreme ad hoc explanations to account for contradictions to it’s theory.[4]  Lakatos includes this distinction between anomalies and refutations.[5]  Refutations are falsifiers.  Additionally, scientific theories are true regardless of any religious understanding.  Religious belief, like I mentioned earlier, begs the question on certain scientific matters.  Religious belief, when used as a hermeneutic for interpreting scientific data and developing scientific theories, is also a controversial methodology.  Its appeal to method isn’t necessarily objective (as close to objectivity can be) and is not commonly accepted (though not to be used as an argumentum ad populum).  There’s no such thing as creation science–there’s just science.

Repeatability is only applicable to certain categories of [scientific] disciplines.  Repeatability is no applicable to historical sciences.  The explanandum cannot necessarily always be repeated.  Certainly, facets and contributions that bring about the explanandum could be repeated (i.e. what would happen in sedimentary formation in geology).  Astrophysics cannot be repeated but can be continually observed.  We can understand that stars uses lighter elements for fuel and then proceed to consume up to iron but this is a process that cannot be repeated.  Also, galactic formation cannot be repeated.  Repeatability is appropriate in laboratory sciences like biology and chemistry and may be used in social sciences on repeating certain experiments on subjects.

With regards to a litmus test to identify science from PS the line of demarcation is straight and strong. The logical positivists made contributions to the methodology of science with their litmus test.  Kurt Gödel’s proofs required that the positivist use a priori truths to explain away a priori truths.  Their attempt was certainly admirable for science but their demarcation was too rigid and untenable. I would argue that something should be classified as pseudoscience if it contradicts any of the above criteria.  There’s a difference between inconsistent or incongruent and contradiction.  A theory may have anomalies or unknown ways of falsifiability but if the theory is utterly incapable of being falsified at any point it’s not scientific. A theory can be scientific if it is based on little evidence or observation but if there is none then it’s just as bad as Popperian science and pure speculation. Also, as an example, if a theory uses illogical reasoning then it should not be scientific (it can have controversial reasoning, which is not preferred, but it cannot be fallacious).  I don’t think there’s such thing as a pseudo-question because science is not the sole source and means of epistemology.  Any other non-scientific questions or theories may be legitimate in the field in which it applies (i.e. theology or ethics).

I certainly believe Christianity is falsifiable, that is, to be proven false.  I think there is biblical warrant for this.  Consider 1 Corinthians 15.17 when Paul says that if Christ had not risen from the dead then our faith is in vain.  To show Christianity is false one must demonstrate that the resurrection of Jesus did not happen.  I was speaking with my professor over lunch a month or so back and we struck up a conversation on what it would take for us to be atheists.  Proving the resurrection false doesn’t disprove God, it just disproves Christianity.  The cosmological, fine-tuning, ontological, and moral arguments still work.  I’m convinced of these arguments that God exists; however, I cannot abandon them intellectually.  I believe these arguments are sound.  If I were to become an atheist it wouldn’t be for intellectual reasons, it would be for emotional and existential reasons. What’s interesting is that I’m a Christian for existential reasons. My existentialism is what drove me to Christianity.  I recognized my life was utterly meaningless, valueless, and purposeless without God.  This is what got me interested in my forté–the fine-tuning argument.  The fine-tuning argument is a type of teleological argument and the implications are existential.

I would become an atheist solely on the basis of rebellion and disdain for God.  It would be the problem of evil that would drive me away.  I guess I wouldn’t really become an atheist per se but rather someone who doesn’t like God. I guess it just depends on what I believe if that were to ever happen.  I would need to construct a noble lie, a la L. D. Rue, to live off of. I would need construct my own teleology to keep me from committing suicide.  I would follow Camus and Nietzsche’s existentialism.

That’s what would happen if I were an atheist.

In order to win you must take a screenshot of your computer screen that includes the date and time and the 100,000th visitor stat midway down the right side of the screen of the blog.

In the comment section please list any books you’d be interested in me offering for the prize.

For instance, using Scripture to interpret science or empirical data is circular in its reasoning.  Scripture would already have the conclusion and then uses the reasoning process to conclude with that Scripture may be advocating.  Since I’m coming from a religious perspective I would argue that science and Scripture are harmonious and congruent.  It’s necessary to have a scientific understanding of nature and agency prior to interpreting Scripture.  In order to know a miracle has happened one must know that sea water is less dense than the human body, or that water doesn’t normally undergo chemical reactions to become fermented wine, or that dead bodies don’t normally undergo a natural biological resuscitation or resurrection.  If creation science is an actual science then the antecedent conditions must be subject to scientific scrutiny.  In other words, in order for creation science to be considered a scientific theory it must meet all the appropriate conditions (a scientific theory should have observable evidence, provides predictions, uses non-controversial reasoning, and is repeatable).  However, it’s not that creation science does or does not meet all that criteria it’s that it’s dependent on an antecedent interpretation of Scripture.[1]  Though I’m not as militant as Michael Ruse when classifying creation science as pseudoscience I do believe it falls short of being a scientific theory.  Additionally, what makes creation science so unattractive is that it is completely void of the possibility of being falsifiable unless the antecedent conditions (the interpretation) have been falsified.  This makes the issue of accounting for anomalies so absurd that creation science doesn’t really account for anomalies; rather, it produces extreme ad hoc explanations to account for contradictions to it’s theory.[4]  There’s a distinction between anomalies and refutations.[2]  Refutations are falsifiers.  Additionally, scientific theories are true regardless of any religious understanding.  Religious belief, like I mentioned earlier, begs the question on certain scientific matters.  Religious belief, when used as a hermeneutic for interpreting scientific data and developing scientific theories, is also a controversial methodology.  Its appeal to method isn’t necessarily objective (as close to objectivity can be) and is not commonly accepted (though not to be used as an argumentum ad populum).  There’s no such thing as creation science–there’s just science.

[1] Michael Ruse, along similar lines, suggests that creationists use the data from non-creationists and warp the data to have a conclusion fitted to the preconceived idea of what it should say. Michael Ruse in “Creation-Science is Not Science” in Philosophy of Science, Eds. Martin Curd and J.A. Cover (New York: Norton, 1998), 43.  This circular reasoning is worse than Kant’s use of having fixed premises from his categories by which he used deductive means to arrive at a conclusion.  Creation science does not allow for free invention of hypotheses derived from the evidence.  This is different from mere invention where science is a human institution, something we invented to organize our experiences and enhance our technological control of nature. Alex Rosenberg, Philosophy of Science ed. 3 (New York: Routledge, 2012), 53.  Free invention is more in sync with discovery contra Kant.  This free invention could be likened to an exegesis of nature.

Brief Abstract

The two divisions of absurdity, subjective and objective, by all evidence, binding.  If God does not exist then man lives in Bertrand Russell’s world of scaffolding despair.  Man is merely the product of pointless cause and effects with no prevision of the ends being achieved.  All the labors of the age, devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vase death of the solar system.  Man’s achievements are destined to be buried in the debris of the universe.  Only within the scaffolding of these [teleological] truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.[1]

If there is no God to provide meaning, value, and purpose, the only consistent option for humanity is suicide.[2]  Any becoming of life-affirming or life-denying acts are illusory.  Absolutely nothing can be a positive or negative act for the individual since there is nothing to determine a differentiation.  One is forced to face Nietzsche’s abyss and face the reality that no rope can scale the depth of nothingness.  One is only left with despair, guilt, and angst.  If guilt, and angst are not subjectively preferred then the only option is to eliminate such emotions and thoughts.  If there is no God, the only remedy for absurdity is to participate in Nietzsche’s abyss of nothingness:  suicide.

Question:  How many of you ever wanted to change the world?

A loss of motivation often comes from a spiritual failure

• A sense of unworthiness and guilt clouds our goals

We know how to avoid spiritual failure

• Accountability
• Discipline
• Fellowship
• Prayer

The biggest problem isn’t (although, they are still are problems)

• A lack of interpersonal love
• Sexual addictions
• Second thoughts on relationships
• Mental thoughts
• Social behavior
• Doubt

Rom. 7.19

• The biggest problem is that Satan/demons will use your guilt of all those failures to strip you of your once radical dream and put in its place a life that is the “American Dream”
• I don’t want you to waste your life, because of what you did last night
• This morning, Satan said to you because of your failure, “You’re a loser, you’ll never have a dream, you’re passion is totally over your head. “
• What do you do at 9am about the 2am sins?
• How should we deal with the guilt of spiritual failure?
• Theology can overcome biology

Col. 3 (backdrop of Col. 1-3 is the wrath of God—Col. 3.6)

• God interposes His own Son to shield us from His own wrath

Col. 2.13-14

• There is a record of everything we have done
• It has been nailed to the cross
• God took the warrant for you because of your sins and nailed it to the cross
• There’s a name for it:  Substitutionary atonement
• Rom 8.3

Col. 2.15

• How does the triumph over the devil connect to v13 and v14?
• Surely we know that he is alive and seeking those whom he may devour (1 Pt. 5.8)
• The devil has many weapons, he can taunt you, tempt you, cause you to do many things, but… he cannot damn you
  • Only one thing sends people to hell—unforgiven sin
  • He cannot take that away from those who trust in Jesus

This is not a license to go on sinning—Rom. 6—if you do, you see no value or preciousness in Jesus Christ

The Bible knows about you, Rom. 3.8—“their condemnation is just”

Faith is not a performance

Faith is not improving upon what Christ accomplished

Faith is a seeing it, being stunned by it, counting it as infinitely precious, and welcoming it as the treasure of your life!

When faith sees glory in the cross, faith becomes a fighter

God requires two things of us, that our sins be punished and that we be righteous

• We fail at both of these
• Imputation
• Propitiation

“I know a PhD in theology who had an affair with the secretary”

• So much for all-conquering theology!
• This is not replacing theology with the passion for Jesus
• The mind and spirit were created to be packed with the knowledge of God!
• Too long it has been preferred theology to passion or passion to theology
• Let us sing and jump up and down, but don’t teach us anything!
• Or, teach us something, but we’re not jumping if it costs us a million dollars!
• Don’t let your head be packed with stupid ideas in it
  • Hos. 4.6 “For the people are destroyed from a lack of knowledge”
  • How can give a rip about theology and think that your tree of faith is going to have any fiber when trials come?  Your tree is going to fall flat!
  • The Bible wasn’t written to be misunderstood
  • The Bible wasn’t written to get a buzzed feel good feeling
  • It was written to be followed clause by clause, phrase by phrase

Micah 7.7-9

Speak this into the face of your sin!

Of course I’m sitting in darkness, you think that’s news to me?  I feel rotten Satan!  I AM guilty!  But that is not all that’s true about me my enemy… that’s not all that’s true about my God…

If that light seems dim, you’re not going to help me doubt that it’s there

V9 Yes, this is true, I am bearing the indignation of the Lord, that’s not news to me.  God is mad at me!

This is a fatherly, disciplinary anger, not a damning anger

But there those truths stop!  He will plead my cause!  Satan, my sin, if you think you can make merry over sin—think again!

Guilt is to the mind like pain is to the body

Guilt is good!  Own it

Don’t Waste Your Life!

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

This is certainly exciting for Christians but I want to give a word of caution.  Many people may have quickly read this sentence in the article: “How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year… [continues on about what we can know now]” There are certain things we can derive from this manuscript but let’s not get overconfident about this.  We need to let this be reviewed over and over. We need to let the scholars write papers, review the work, and debate these things.  New information, especially like this, need to be reviewed and go through the process.  Let’s use what we can know from it but we need to allow the process to take place before we go wild about it.