Mega-Churches, Emergent Christianity, Spirituality and Materialism

Question #1: 

Thought you might find this article about mega churches trying to "be cool" instead of teaching the Bible interesting:

The Perils of 'Wannabe Cool' Christianity

Response #1:  

It just keeps getting worse and worse, doesn't it? You would think all the "discontent" out there with the absence of any solid meat in the contemporary mega-church would result in more searching for a good source of truth. Laodicea is becoming more apt as a designation for our era day by day it seems.

David Welles (quoted in the article criticizing the mega-church phenomenon) is a pretty good guy. I've read a couple of his books slamming "evangelicalism". He is ever bemoaning the loss of theology in the church (although by this he means the more traditional Calvinistic stuff).

The same seminary buddy who put me onto Welles years ago had this to say about last week's posting:

So, anyway, I am happy to be able to supply some spiritual food via the website. Seems there is a need (if not a great demand).

Thanks for the link,

Yours Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #2:

Robert,

I did make an earnest search for the answer to my latest question on the Net. I often come across some bright champion of orthodoxy who has addressed an issue I am investigating and while there undoubtedly is one addressing my topic of today I was unable to 'Google' it up. In observing the rise of Laodicean church culture I have often focused on mainstream suburban megachurches and the like (not all of them are heretical but too many of the 'brand' name ones are if one is intellectually honest in applying the scripture to their methodologies and motivations and messages). But I have also recognised that the Culture of the Self (for that is at the heart of Laodicean culture) can also be found in the Emergent stream of the church. By Emergent I refer to those Gen X (and younger) churches which have an admirable ambition - to reach their own postmodern peers and, to achieve this, to place the unchanging wine of Truth in wineskins of postmodern language/understanding.

The more I come across such folk, however, the more I seem to experience the same thing: amazing insight after amazing insight and then, suddenly, an outrageous 'clanger' of a statement to the effect, say, that there are many paths to God. They seem to have undertaken a radical critique of themselves to the effect that they say none of us can claim certainty with regard to ultimate Truth - i.e. Knowing (with a big 'K') in their desire to avoid the pitfalls of epistemology as it has existed throughout history up to the start of postmodernism (i.e. certainty breeding inflexibility and even arrogance). Having carefully studied history in terms of philosophical belief, I am well aware that it was the scourge of Nazism that put paid to Objective Truth in the West (as university professors and philosophers began to see ALL notions of absolute truth as not only misguided but also outright dangerous - ironically, for these 'men of the mind', a very irrational over-reaction to an admittedly dark episode in human affairs).

Anyway, one can discern the same Culture of Self in Emergent Christianity because, as with the suburban Churchianity, it elevates the Self. In the latter, God exists to serve you and your dreams. In the former, it is the individual who discerns what 'truth' is right for them (so that Emergent Christians are like Al Gore - people of one 'faith tradition' who do not 'arrogantly' totalise their meta-narrative in imposing their 'certain belief systems' on other folk). Ironically, even though Emergents emerged as a reaction to the middle class suburban Churchianity, they are simply the flip side of the same coin. God remains sidelined and these folk are in thrall to the Self (albeit the heart and not the head).

In Emergentville, there is only tolerance (masquerading as love). In Churchianity there is this too but they have as their focus hedonistic pleasure and material acquisition (and God as the primary agent of feathering such a nest). Obviously, such Emergent folk are just as prone to deception as those they reacted against because if there is no absolute truth (or it there is Truth* with an asterisk - a 'cute' way of saying the same thing, let's face it) then if the Antichrist were to appear and claim to be the fulfilment of all religions (Messiah for the Jews, Jesus for the Christians, the 12th Imam for the Muslims, reincarnated Buddha for the Buddhists, an Avatar for the Hindus, Maitreya Christ for the New Agers, etc) it would fit with the beliefs of anyone whose view of truth is subjective. In the absence of a measuring stick (the Word) then they are left with their hearts ('deceitful above ALL things') and the Enemy will make light work of deceiving these hearts (pushing all the right buttons, saying things with the right nuances, etc - he is a cunning old devil after all).

So, after that long preamble, my question is this: Emergents can often critique the notion of scripture as the final arbiter of Truth by saying that fallible men gathered together 400 years after the fact to decide what should or shouldn't go in the Bible. They could also, for instance, point to the fact that Jude quotes the Book of Enoch and yet that Book is not in the Bible (I haven't come across anyone making this point but I was trying to inhabit their shoes and discern their line of thinking and argument). [I do take your point in response - on the website - that there is an original and long-lost Book of Enoch simply unavailable to the Church when it put together the Bible - and clearly not of vital importance that we have it or else God would have divinely preserved it; linked at "Issues of Canonicity: Apocrypha, Enoch, and Inspiration."]

My retort (to the Emergents) would be that we have the Holy Spirit to guide us and the Spirit guided those fallible men to gather inspired books into what we now enjoy as the Word (just as the Spirit guided the hearts and minds and hands of the writers of the books) and it is not for us to discern why, for instance, Enoch was left out (again, the original Book and not the counterfeit that utilised Jude's quote of the original to make it appear as the real thing).

But I was wondering if there was any other argument one could make to defend the authority of the Bible? Emergents are typically disdainful of simply invoking the Holy Spirit (seeing it as a 'magic wand' to dismiss all thought and enquiry)? I understand their point as God has often been invoked to shut down all discussion. And their question is a reasonable one. It is only their response (in the wake of not knowing, simply abandon the premise of scriptural authority - thereby transgressing all manner of wisdom and guidance in the scripture itself and opening themselves up to the bitter fruit that one reaps from sowing such bitter seeds), it is only their response that is misguided## and, finally, wrong and, for them, very dangerous (even though they would dismiss me saying such a thing as 'intolerant' and 'arrogantly asserting my opinion as ultimate Truth all must follow'). For all their talk of nuance they seem to consistently mistake one thing for another (tolerance for love, opinion of a scripture with what the scripture clearly says in semantic context - passage, chapter, book, consistency with the overall collection of books, etc...and so on...but I guess this is what happens when reason is abandoned in toto: confusion and even a form of insanity rule the roost).

Blessings,

##I note too that one could argue that as with Laodicean Churchianity folk (e.g. prosperity-addicted 'Christians' who gather unto themselves prosperity teachers to scratch their itchy ears), Emergent folk are similarly inclined to gather unto themselves teachers to scratch their itchy postmodern culture ears (if the endgame is not Loving God and Others - in practise [deeds not words] - but simply to feel good about oneSELF at day's end - which has to be the case if the Word is being effectively abandoned in the name of it not fitting with the culture and times and audience).

Response #2: 

Always good to hear from you, my friend. Thank you for an excellent disputation on this phenomenon. To be honest, something about mega-churches of the sort you focus on here in part has always induced such an overwhelming nausea in me that I have been unable to go often enough or inquire deep enough to have this sort of insight. I only know that "something is rotten in Denmark" (to quote the Bard; to which I think the locus classicus is Sophocles O.T.). One only has to use one's eyes, one's ear's, one's nose to know that these places are not really doing anything of a particularly positive nature (at least in terms of spirituality, spiritual growth, spiritual progress, and spiritual production).

You have also hit the nail square on the head in regard to the issue: truth. Jesus is "the truth". If we would follow Jesus, we need to know where He is going, what He is saying, what He wants us to do, say, think. How do we get that truth without the Bible? And how do we get it out of the Bible without studying and teaching, learning and believing in the biblical way? And how can we ever progress in such a process if we do not accept the authority of the Bible and the authority of prepared men who teach the Bible (assuming we can find any)? For, after all, we cannot presently see Jesus, nor can we have face-to-face conversations with our Lord. What other source of the vital truth is there presently available to us except for the water of the Word? Anything we hear from a church or a pastor or a Bible teacher that may be true came not out of thin air but from the scriptures. Certainly, much that we may hear, indeed, perhaps the vast quantity of what is available and passes for Bible teaching today, is in error; but whatever is not in error, whatever is good and nourishing, must have come from the Bible, every verse of which is "useful for teaching, for admonishing, for correcting, and for training in righteousness" (2Tim.3:16).

The question is indeed one of authority. And you are right on the money in seeing the issue as one of self versus God. Are we an authority unto ourselves? That is Satan's position. Or do we put God first (as our Lord Jesus always put the Father's will first)? Are we seeking to please ourselves, or is God the One we are striving to please? Are we looking for a little something in this life, or have we turned our backs on the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life in the hopes of reaping an eternal reward and earning a "well done" from our dear Lord on that great day of days?

I don't think this is really a question of information or one of argument. I am happy to argue for the truth (BB 7 "Bibliology" will, when I get to it sadly many years hence, will contain a complete rundown of the information and arguments for canonicity and biblical authority), and I have written some on this in the past (see the links below), but I think you are exactly right when you discern that contemporary Christians are interested in pleasing themselves and not in pleasing God. That is why they are quick to dismiss the authority of the Bible – because they have in large part dismissed the authority of the Lord. If they were to accept what the Bible says, seeking out the truth, it would occasion some very painful adjustments to their lives and lifestyles. I think they realize this full well (even if that truth is suppressed), and that their lukewarmness and essential unwillingness to change is really what is at the heart of the matter. As I often say (in paraphrasing L.S. Chafer), the Bible is like no other book; no one who reads it with an open heart could ever fail to realize that it is the Word of God; and no one who has had he experience of tasting the genuine truth would ever mistake some other literature masquerading as the truth for the truth. The Spirit makes very sure of that – for all willing to respond to Him. The canon is the canon, and was from the moment the last word of Revelation was penned by the apostle John. That is so by the power and direction of God. All men have done is to recognize what God already did – or refuse to accept the Spirit's words.

Christian epistemology, canonicity, and bibliology generally are very important subjects and very beneficial to study . . . for growing Christians who have the humility to follow where Jesus Christ leads. Those who exhibit the behaviors and express the opinions you report have need of milk before such solid food will avail them much. More than that, they first need a fundamental change of heart, a 180 degree change of direction away from indulging self and embracing the world, turning back to God and setting themselves to march with us up the high road to Zion in the service of the One who died to liberate us from the world and its corruption, and from the death which allegiance to it surely brings.

Please have a look at the following links. They are somewhat far-ranging, but so is the question.

Satan's system of Satanic Lies (esp., #1, "I don't need God")

Bibliology (links page at present)

Read Your Bible

How do we know the Bible is true?

Christian Epistemology

Characteristics of the New Religion of Antichrist

The persuasiveness of the tribulational false religion

The Anti-Christian Religion of the Tribulation

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord -- may He ever be our all in all.

Bob L.

Question #3: 

It has been said that salvation is the free gift of GOD; Actually in what way is it free…

Response #3:   

As to your question, you certainly have a point that salvation was not free to Jesus – He went into the darkness and faced the continual burning of hell to expiate all of our sins! But, as a result, it is indeed called the gift of God (e.g., Jn.4:10; Rom.5:16; Eph.2:8-9).

So I suppose it depends on one's perspective. Biblically speaking, it correct to say that salvation is the most expensive thing in the history of the universe; and also that it is even so free to us, since Christ paid the entire price for us.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob Luginbill

Question #4:

Hey Bob, How are you doing? I know I have not written you for awhile but there has not been any news on my end. Anyway, my hard topic now is eternal security. That is the biggest switch I would make. But even debating the subject in my own mind, while searching the Scriptures leaves me in a temporary quandary (at least I hope it is temporary), until I sort out a few crucial texts. I just assume you have done all of that over the years. But coming down on a position down on a position as yours would certainly rule out a lot of Christian fellowships, which could be a good thing (including a number of relatives). But I love the study and it is an everyday battle to find quality time and place to do this. Well, I want you to know there are a dozen or so topics we could talk about. For now one at a time. Take care brother.

Response #4: 

On eternal security, I guess you know where I have come down. It truly is a difficult topic and probably would have been even without John Calvin. When Paul says in Ephesians 2:8 that we are saved by grace "through faith, and this is not of you – the gift is of God", even though the "this" is neuter (so that it can't refer to faith per se in my view), still the principle that everything good we have and are is of and from God cannot be denied in this passage or indeed anywhere and everywhere else in scripture. There are any number of other passages which can be similarly construed, but to me Ephesians 2:8 is the most pithy and pronounced on the subject. Yet at the same time it is true – and one need not look any further afield than Paul and even Ephesians (e.g., Eph.5:5-7) – that the whole tenor and tone of scripture, indeed a large part of the point of scripture, is designed to influence our behavior, turning us to Christ in the first place, and encouraging us to follow Him in the right way thereafter, with positive consequences for doing what is right and harsh, even disastrous consequences for turning aside and turning away. Since scripture speaks to our heart and demands a response, a doctrine which proclaims the result already "baked in the cake" regardless of our future response seems to fly in the face of the point of the message in first place. This may not be definitive, but I do believe it is indicative of where the true answer lies. I do believe that our salvation is "baked in the cake" in that it is all set solidly in the eternal plan of God, that He has known "who are His" since before the universe began; but I also believe that this "security" is based upon His prior knowledge that we would, that we did, maintain our faith in His Son firm until the end. Discussions of this sort always risk casting God in the role of determining who is saved and who is not or of reacting to events in time. Neither thing is true, of course. We have it on good authority from scripture that He wants all to be saved (Ezek.18:23; Matt.18:14; Jn.12:47; 1Tim.2:4; 2Tim.2:24-26; 2Pet.3:9). This suggests to me that there must be an element of "free will" in the decision (otherwise why aren't all saved if that is truly His will?) – and indeed I find that element of free will to be critical to explaining the entire plan of God, the satanic rebellion, and salvation in toto, from Christ's work to our individual salvation through His blood. And if that is the case, namely, that our free will truly is involved in this most critical decision we make, the reason we are here and why it is that we have "eternity written in our hearts" (Eccl.3:10-11) and why it is that the universe is constructed so that we might come to know Him (Rom.1:18-23), then it would seem odd that somehow that same free will would cease entirely to be any issue or a factor after salvation (or at least critical on the same life and death level). This too is not a dispositive argument, but it is also indicative of where scripture is truly pointing. Finally on the prolegomena, if we accept that there is true free will in salvation and that when scripture tells us that God as the potter can make vessels for honor and also for dishonor it is talking about His right as the Master-craftsman to allow creatures the free will to accept Him (and then necessarily the opportunity of abusing it by rejecting Him) and not that He has in any way predetermined the outcome to the extent that none of us really had any true choice in the matter, then it would seem to me that the most natural reading of all those many passages which suggest that apostasy is possible and that we should take care to avoid it (along with the practices which lead to it) ought to be understood in a similar light, to whit, we continue to have free will after salvation, that is, the opportunity of continuing to respond to God in a positive way, to grow and to serve Him as we should (but that the negative use of it to an extreme degree can cause faith to wither and die as in the parable of the Sower); for it is fair to ask if our level of reward is not predetermined but based upon continued and continuous effort, why our status should be so. It is not, of course, that God could not indeed provide the sort of "eternal security" we were brought up to believe in – indeed He could. But for me it is more the dual issue that 1) the passages which suggest there is no such absolute security are numerous and straightforward while, on the other hand, 2) the passages are claimed to show absolute eternal security do not seem to me to be inconsistent with the idea that this security is in fact conditional upon continued faith in Jesus Christ. Given that in my overall reading of scripture the principle of our free will, that is to say, the appeal to us as His creatures on every page of the Bible for us to respond to Him, is fundamental and in many ways assumed as the sine qua non of our existence here on earth, the direction pointed by passages 1) seems very clearly to me to trump the dubious claims for some biblical passages under #2). It is, however, all about the scriptures and their interpretation, individually as well as collectively, and I am certainly happy to correspond with you on this important topic "one thing at a time". In my experience that's the best way to go about these things in any case.

Your friend and brother in Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #5: 

Hi Dr,

Thanks for your reply. Yes you are so correct about keeping our focus on what scripture has to say and not getting caught up in extra Biblical events.

If I could also ask your advise on a matter relating to my church that I am concerned about. Last Sunday My Pastor gave a sermon all about how God needs us, that he seeks us out, looks for us. The only scripture he mentioned was when God went looking for Adam and Eve in the garden when they had hid themselves, that he was seeking them because he needed them.

I really disagree with this. Gods ways are not are ways. I see 'need' as a human weakness, the first thing Adam and Eve needed after they had eaten the forbidden fruit was something to cloth themselves with, they had sinned and were now aware of all their weaknesses such as need, want etc. Putting God in the same category as us is like saying he has weaknesses too. My concern is that anyone new to the Bible is getting the wrong message from a sermon like this. If I am missing the point on this message and you think I am wrong and agree with my Pastor can you please explain to me then what I am not understanding. I haven't spoken about this concern with my Pastor yet, if you would rather not comment on this matter I will really understand.

The other concern about my church occurred that afternoon at a church meeting, when the big topic was the changing of the church name. The thinking behind it is to encourage more people to the church by not really calling ourselves a church having small groups on different days around the city, social groups etc, for people that would otherwise not come to a church at all. I think the concept is great to try and commission more people to Jesus. But to not call ourselves a church and the name change to [misleading secular name], I believe once people realise we are still trying to get people to read the Bible is misleading and not honest. I also believe if you start making changes to appease people you will eventually start making other changes to make the Gospel more attractive, you will start looking at all the values in the Bible, like Love one another, all the commandments etc. but package them so that they eventually miss out on key names like Jesus, God and Prayer. And the name is terrible it sounds more like a train service. The name is up for debate, but it is just the thinking behind it. I know that the importance is not in a name but how we have relationships with people, I just do not see why we cannot still do all these great things and keep the name with church in it and be proud to be a church, regardless of if this is in a building, in a field or at someones home. [Misleading secular name] just sounds too worldly to me. Again if I am missing the point let we know.

God Bless.

Response #5:   

We are on the same "wave-length" on both of these questions. First off, "We need God – God doesn't need us" is a hallmark teaching of this ministry. We are helpless and hopeless without God; He has saved and provided for us in every way. He had no need to do it – and that is what is grace is all about. On the other hand if He needed us, then we would be providing something in return (that false notion is what legalism is all about). In part 4 of the Satanic Rebellion series, I characterize these as the "book end" essential truths of life in terms of the general revelation which all human beings by nature understand, but which the devil seeks to reverse in our thinking in order to keep us from God:

1) We need God (we cannot turn death into life).

2) We are not God (we cannot expiate our own sin).

3) God does not need us (we cannot substitute anything for His Word so as to help Him).

This is all covered in much greater detail at the link under section IV. Satan's World-System: Tactical Doctrine.

I find the fact that a pastor has this fundamental spiritual truth absolutely backwards very disturbing. In his defense, he is probably in very good company on that score at present, given the current state of the church-visible.

On the second point, I also entirely agree. Deception in the service of truth is something that any righteous soul should find disturbing. And, as you rightly suppose, people drawn in under false pretenses are not going to become good Christians just because of their physical presence. That may work for Communist cells and satanic cults, but it never works where the truth is concerned. Again, the fact that a church could be contemplating such tactics sends shivers up my spine and I cannot help but wonder how far removed from the truth they must be overall. I certainly defer to your judgment in this.

In short, far from "missing the point" in these matters, it seems to me that you are dead on the point. The fact that others are not as taken aback as you are by these obvious departures from basic Christian truth and spiritual common sense says a lot, both about your own level of spiritual maturity and also about their lack thereof. So there is certainly much opportunity for someone like yourself to supply a genuine, biblical perspective on these matters. Whether or not that voice is responded to or is instead treated as a "voice in the wilderness" is something I cannot predict. But whatever happens, stay true to the Spirit, your conscience, and the truths of the Word of God as they are revealed to you in scripture – I am confident that you will do so.

In our dear Lord Jesus, the One and only One who fulfills are every deepest need.

Bob L.

Question #6: 

Hi Dr

Thank you so much. I do take much comfort and encouragement in knowing that someone agrees with me.

I had really thought I had found a strong church until last week, and I did feel guided to it, maybe to help them. I will certainly do my best for God to try and stop them stumbling. I haven't spoken to my Pastor of my concern about his sermon yet, but I will do. But I have already expressed my concern about the changes to the church, this he cannot understand as he believes he is really moving the church forward with the times? He has the backing of a very enthusiastic congregation that really believe they will be doing good. Only two others have expressed concern but they were coerced quite easily after discussion. We have four weeks to discuss everything and come back to a final agreement meeting, but I think the devils got their vote so far. The pastor says he takes my concerns very seriously especially about the name change, we will see. I really believe this church is being spiritually targeted by satan.

It is so hard to find a good church, I actually travel an hour to this church. most of the churches where I am are Baptist, Church of Christ then there are churches that love clapping and singing all the while. I'm afraid I don't like too much emotional outbursts at church. I do spend a lot of alone time talking to God. UK born I now live in a beautiful rural area in _______ Australia and I will go off into a field and sit on a rock or by the stream where it is so peaceful and really listen and connect with God and pray. I think a lot of Christians don't put enough alone time with God, and so don't have a spiritual armour to protect themselves and this is when the devil trips them up.

I will prayer for my church, but if change becomes imminent then I will have to leave.

God Bless

Response #6:   

What you say makes eminently good sense. Some churches substitute ritual for the study of the Word, other substitute emotionalism, others occupy their members with "work". But there is no substitute for reading the Bible, doing serious Bible study, praying and concentrating on walking with the Lord – then helping others do likewise in accordance with one's own particular gifts. The substitutes are easy. The real thing takes commitment, consistency, humility, and spiritual courage, especially when it comes to the point of putting our faith on the line in the ministries we have been given (as you are doing). Best wishes in all your good efforts for the Lord. May He grant you wisdom and discernment in all these challenges.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #7:

The last correspondent on your latest email postings was a real nutcase, and he's not your friend either. He was probably screaming at the screen as he typed his responses (I'm assuming it was a guy). I see him as frothing at the mouth wearing a string of garlic and wolf bane while banging on the keyboard; I would say that he was waiving a silver crucifix and throwing holy water on the screen but apparently he doesn't go for that Jesus stuff. Hope your site doesn't get hacked or assaulted by some computer bug or worm. You can always tell a well-trained RC cause they're gonna have Mary involved one way or the other. They obviously don't know much ancient history (or Biblical doctrine) or they'd concerned about the mother goddess thing. Still, they seemed interested which puts them ahead of most people going to Protestant churches today. I have some friends who fall in the same category as they come up with the Mary stuff at times when I talk to them; the RC must really work on instilling the Mary concept. I'm just too Protestant. No doubt I would be a stake candidate if this was 400 years ago in Spain or France.

Response #7: 

You have a way with words for sure. And it's always good to know you've got my back.

Have a great Memorial Day weekend.

Here's to remembering.

Your bud in Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #8: 

You must have a plethora of kooks sending you emails on scripture. Your latest posting where the guy argues about what day the crucifixion occurred and the monastery gospel is a good example. I looked at his website and besides having a jumble of information, his confusing thesis on salvation shows how far he misses the mark. It is one of those "what did he just say?" type of writings. Well written nonsense is still nonsense; poorly written nonsense is irritating.

Response #8:   

You have no idea. Still, it occasionally leads me to helpful places, believe it or not. Shamelessly, I usually save myself the time when it comes to investigating the writings of such persons in any great depth.

Stay tuned for more kookiness next week.

Your pal in Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #9: 

Bob, I don't understand why a person with a Ph.D can't simply explain the finite nature of our universe, and the true nature of what exists beyond our linear perceptions of it. This universe had a beginning point. And from that point, everything within this universe has followed the pattern of birth to death. The universe itself will potentially collapse, or expand beyond it's ability to maintain molecular cohesion. This does not jive with an eternal everything paradigm. And everything is exactly what must exist. Science doesn't like the term absolute, but that is precisely what NOTHING is. It is NOT empty space, nor is it anything our linear minds can imagine. Nothing is the absence of all. Therefore creation could not come from nothing. What exists, has, and always will exist. The alternative to nothing is everything -- all or nothing. The problem with man is that he can't perceive everything that exists...any more than he can perceive God.

The physical dimensions perceived by the human brain are height, width and depth. Some believe time to be a dimension as well, and if that is so, then we are capable of perceiving four physical dimensions. Whether the number is three, four or twenty, what we can perceive is not even a fraction of what actually exists.

Color, for instance, is how our brain interprets light. The human eye can see radiation at a wavelength of 380 nanometers to 740 nanometers. This is called the visible spectrum. Issac Newton listed the pure spectrum of colors seen by the human eye as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. Thomas Young, on the other hand, proposed that the human eye is only capable of seeing three colors -- red, blue, and yellow, while other colors were just combinations of the primary colors. Ewald Hering theorized that there are four unique hues: red, green, yellow, and blue, which, when mixed with each other, or with white or black, represent all possible colors perceived by the human brain.

Equally limited is our ability to perceive sound. We can hear sounds from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Cats perceive sounds up to 25 kHz, Dogs to 35 kHz, while dolphins and bats perceive sound up to 100 kHz. The point is this: the human brain is extremely limited in what it can process. Because of this, we are only able to perceive a micro fraction of a micro fraction of what is really there.

The human brain is incapable of perceiving anything that does not conform to the laws of linear progression. The scientific symbol for infinity, the figure eight, is an excellent example. With an endless supply of fuel, a person could drive a car around a figure eight track forever...if he lived that long. However, once the car completed one lap, everything beyond that point would simply be repetition. That is NOT infinity. Even if the most extraordinary minds in human history tried to imagine infinity, they would fail. They simply have no point of reference to draw from. I actually heard a scientist naively state that infinity reaches in all directions, suggesting a starting point from which straight lines of perception reach out across the cosmos. Direction, however, requires space, and space requires time to go from one point to another. Time and space are entirely linear, infinity is not. Infinity, or rather eternity, is never ending…more importantly, it is also without beginning. And what has no beginning, and no end, does not conform to linear laws of time and space. Such constraints should not exist. Eternity would be both timeless, and boundless; therefore, most of what we perceive as real should not exist in the manner in which it is perceived.

Matter, for example, is actually energy, bound by rates of vibration which give it form and mass. The foundation of all matter is energy; the very energy that forms the ether of creation. It is the essence of our perceived "reality." Yet, if this prime energy is the true state of things like matter, what caused it to take a form that is contrary to its natural state? Why not remain in its true form?

We are limited in what we can perceive, yet there is no limit to things like sound, or color. The limitations lay within us. Existence, however, is not contingent upon the determinate nature of our five senses, or our elementary understanding of reality. In spite of this, we do, sometimes, have our moments.

Science claims that what exists can neither be created nor destroyed, which would be the logical nature of eternity. If everything does exist eternally, then it cannot be created or destroyed...only changed. This would be true of all things. Perception exists…therefore it too must be eternal. In fact, it is my belief that perception is the key ingredient in the grand design. After all, what is perception but cognitive understanding of what is being perceived. In other words…sentience. It exists within you, me, and everyone else; to deny that would be na ve; and yet, completely in sync with the nature of sentience. And if something exists, it must be part of the eternal force. Perception makes the concept of "everything" possible. If matter is perceived to be solid, or fire is perceived to be hot, then that is what they will be to the observer. Keeping that in mind, is it really so difficult to imagine intelligence being behind the design of realities like ours? Are we really so arrogant to believe that things like reality, and sentience, are limited to OUR understanding of them?

Take a look around the room you're sitting in. Perhaps you'll see a television, a book or magazine, a stereo, a couch or a table. I'm sure you're aware that no subatomic particle within any of these objects touches another, yet they all work together to maintain the structural integrity of the object. The same is true of our bodies. The brain sends signals to the various limbs and appendages, telling them to move here or there, and they do. From our perspective it's perfectly normal. From a subatomic perspective, however, it might seem a little strange since no particle connects to another physically. Yet the signal generated by the clusters of individual particles that form your brain, manages to jump from particle to particle, until every last one receives the message and does what it's told. Now I don't know about you, but I for one appreciate a subatomic particle that does what I tell it to do. And I'm extremely grateful that the prime energy that makes up ALL matter understands the message my brain sends. I sometimes wonder if matter could sustain itself, especially organic matter, if subatomic particles were simply lifeless objects. Would anything conform to our collective perception of reality, if sentient perception and the forces that shape our reality were not part of the eternal ether that is "EVERYTHING?"

For example: every aspect of a dream is dependent upon perception. Because of this, a dream can appear as real as life itself. Everything within the dream conforms to the observer's perception. Matter appears solid, the sky looks blue, gravity exists, and other people interact with the observer. Since our waking minds are only capable of perceiving a minute fraction of "everything," then, like a dream, reality is shaped by what the perceiving mind can understand and accept. And we are very accepting of what our five senses tell us is real, and very unaccepting of things we can't perceive...such as God.

Science is the study of things perceived by our five human senses, and understood by very limited intellects. Stepping outside of that box is not the nature of science. Everything science believes, must conform to human understanding, limiting it to this level of perception. Like our five senses, science cannot hear beyond its ability to perceive sound, or see beyond its ability to perceive color. To accept the interpretations, and explanations of science, in regards to the nature of reality, would be akin to a goldfish accepting that reality was limited to the confines of its aquarium.

Logically, God must exist. The building blocks of our reality include sentient thought. Science suggests that what exists cannot be created or destroyed...only changed. Therefore, sentience cannot come from nothing, which leads us to the conclusion that sentience is part of the building blocks...part of "everything". It suggests that sentience IS "everything". Which supports the theological idea that God is all things. See...simple.

Response #9:   

Dear Friend,

In your opening paragraph you make two statements which are not only untrue (or at the very least, to take an argumentative position, unknowable), but which also do not logically follow from the reasoning you present. First, when you say "this (i.e., the fact of the universe having a beginning) does not jive [sic] with an eternal paradigm", that would only be so in a materialistic "eternal paradigm" of your own construction (and is certainly not proved from anything said here). Secondly, when you say "Nothing is the absence of all. Therefore creation could not come from nothing", you are indulging in a sort Platonic discourse which does not bear up under close inspection. This is a corollary to your first false assumption. From a materialistic point of view, perhaps this makes some logical sense; it does not, however, make theological sense. God has always existed; but He has always existed independent of space and time; He is not material; He is spiritual. Spirituality cannot be identified through materialistic means (the only means available to science); therefore science, if it be honest, cannot really opine about what spirituality might be. You are certainly free to believe that there is no such thing, but that is a belief, not a fact. You have to have faith that there is no God, just as you have to have faith that there is a God. In fact, it takes much more faith to believe that there is no God. That is because you were born with "eternity in your heart", and because the entire universe was created in both macro- and microcosm in a way that declares God's glory. Simply put, admit it or not, there was a time when you knew God existed. It took conscious effort and deliberate decisions on you part to suppress and blot that knowledge out. Atheism and paganism are merely two sides of the same coin. They both proffer substitutes for the real God (because they do not wish to accept His authority).

I would prefer to deal with above before deconstructing your epistemological arguments in detail. Your understanding here is typical, and I will admit that most Christians are "foggy" on what true spiritual perception is and its ramifications for the materialistic arguments you advance. Simply put, not being material, God is not constrained by the material restrictions you catalog. All human beings, yourself included, are spirit as well as matter. We receive a non-material human spirit at birth, and it is that part of our being which is eternal (although it will never be without a body, merely an eternal one be it for blessing or cursing depending on our choice of heaven or hell). God teaches our spirit by means of His Spirit (when we respond to the truth). This process of spiritual epistemology thus arcs across all material restraint and produces salvation for the unbeliever who turns to the truth of the gospel, and spiritual growth for believers who choose to drink in the water of life. Nothing could be more important, even if science is, by definition, unable to discern it.  Please see the following links:

Epignosis, Christian Epistemology, and Spiritual Growth.