Hello, nobody. I finally came to the realization that nobody reads this silly thing. So I thought I'd say hello to them. I was stupid for thinking it would do any good in the first place. Goodbye.
WWW.NOAHKAYE.COM
12 years ago
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
The Becoming
Today is my first day. Today I taste my first fresh air. Today I feel my first sunlight. What will my future hold? Scared, excited, apprehensive. Will I reach great heights, or will I fall short? Only the Lord knows. “Lord, whatever I am to be, I leave in your hands. “
Time passes. Seasons come and seasons go. I reach. I stretch. I grow. I strive to become the best that I can be. I do not know what I and meant to be, but I know the Lord knows. “Lord, help to grow and become exactly what you will for me to be.”
“Ouch!” Pain. “Ouch. Ouch!” More pain. My time has come. This is the day I start to be what I am meant to be. Will I work in the Lord’s house? Oh wouldn’t that be great. Maybe I am meant for the courts of kings. Just think of all I would see there. Perhaps I will work in craftsman’s shop, where food is earned with sweat and muscle. That would be fine too, nothing wrong with good, hard work. “Ouch!” I know it is necessary to be shaped and molded. But why does becoming have to hurt so much? “Lord, help me to endure the pain of being shaped into what I am meant to be.”
What was that? What did they say? Did they say I was meant for THAT? No, they couldn’t have. I can’t be meant for THAT. Anything but THAT! I know it is necessary for some to become THAT, but... but not me? There must be some mistake! I heard right. I am to become THAT. Sigh. “Lord, this is not what I wanted, but I put myself into your hands.”
Oh no. Not HIM! Anyone but HIM! It is bad enough that I have to be THAT, but do I have to be THAT for HIM?! “Dear Lord, please not THAT – not HIM!” It would be better to be sent to the flames. It would be better that I had never been. “Dear Lord, NO!!! WHY??!!”…
I hear a reply: “My child, be at peace. I know you do not understand, but I do. I created you for this very moment. I created the seed from which you sprang. I caused it to fall on fertile soil. I sent sunlight and rain in good measure to make you grow big and strong. From the Beginning I planned this. Your faith honors me. You allowed me to make you whatever I willed. I know you don’t understand this now, but just trust in me. Today you are a thing of pain, torture and death, but tomorrow you will be a thing of beauty for all time.”
I am the Lord’s. “Lord, I do not understand, but I trust in you.” Today I am the Cross of Calvary. Tomorrow I will be a symbol of peach and love for the entire world. “Lord, give me the strength to endure today.”
Time passes. Seasons come and seasons go. I reach. I stretch. I grow. I strive to become the best that I can be. I do not know what I and meant to be, but I know the Lord knows. “Lord, help to grow and become exactly what you will for me to be.”
“Ouch!” Pain. “Ouch. Ouch!” More pain. My time has come. This is the day I start to be what I am meant to be. Will I work in the Lord’s house? Oh wouldn’t that be great. Maybe I am meant for the courts of kings. Just think of all I would see there. Perhaps I will work in craftsman’s shop, where food is earned with sweat and muscle. That would be fine too, nothing wrong with good, hard work. “Ouch!” I know it is necessary to be shaped and molded. But why does becoming have to hurt so much? “Lord, help me to endure the pain of being shaped into what I am meant to be.”
What was that? What did they say? Did they say I was meant for THAT? No, they couldn’t have. I can’t be meant for THAT. Anything but THAT! I know it is necessary for some to become THAT, but... but not me? There must be some mistake! I heard right. I am to become THAT. Sigh. “Lord, this is not what I wanted, but I put myself into your hands.”
Oh no. Not HIM! Anyone but HIM! It is bad enough that I have to be THAT, but do I have to be THAT for HIM?! “Dear Lord, please not THAT – not HIM!” It would be better to be sent to the flames. It would be better that I had never been. “Dear Lord, NO!!! WHY??!!”…
I hear a reply: “My child, be at peace. I know you do not understand, but I do. I created you for this very moment. I created the seed from which you sprang. I caused it to fall on fertile soil. I sent sunlight and rain in good measure to make you grow big and strong. From the Beginning I planned this. Your faith honors me. You allowed me to make you whatever I willed. I know you don’t understand this now, but just trust in me. Today you are a thing of pain, torture and death, but tomorrow you will be a thing of beauty for all time.”
I am the Lord’s. “Lord, I do not understand, but I trust in you.” Today I am the Cross of Calvary. Tomorrow I will be a symbol of peach and love for the entire world. “Lord, give me the strength to endure today.”
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Ockham's Razor
Pardon the excursion, but I felt it necessary to step away from apologetics for a moment and into philosophy. Just don't fall asleep on me.
Ockham's Razor (also known as "Occam's Razor", the "law of parsimony", "law of economy" or "law of succinctness") is a very useful idea named after William of Ockham, a 13th century Franciscan friar. (Friar's are like monks who live in the world serving others rather than hidden away in monasteries.) William apparently did not create the idea, but he did use is often in his writings on philosophy, theology and politics.
The basic idea of Ockham’s Razor is that when trying to explain something, without evidence to the contrary the hypothesis (explanation) with the fewest new assumptions is the one that is recommended. Or, put into more common terms: “all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one”. In practical application, this means that if there are two explanations for something, we should choose the simpler one unless there is proof to that the more complicated answer is more likely the correct one.
This idea is actually common sense, just put into philosophical terms. Say, for example, that a parent hears a loud crash from another room. They run in there and see a broken lamp on the floor and their son standing there with a basketball in his hands. When asked, the child says that the wind blew the door open and knocked over the lamp then blew the door shut again. The parent then has two choices: to accept either A) the wind broke the lamp, or B) the child did with the basketball. For A to be true, they would have to accept that 1) the door wasn’t latched, 2) the wind blew it open, 3) the opening door didn’t bang into the wall (or they would have heard it), 4) the wind blew hard enough to knock the lamp over, 5) the wind did not blew hard enough to blow anything else over, 6) the wind then reversed and closed the door and 7) the closing door made no sound. For B to be true, they would have to accept that 1) the child broke the lamp and 2) he is now lying to protect his backside since he was told not to play with the basketball in the house. So, accept the explanation that requires believing 7 things, or accept the explanation that requires believing 2? The parent cannot know with 100% certainty, but I would hazard to guess that the boy in question would be grounded and/or dealing with a sore backside in the very near future.
Ockham’s Razor is nice philosophical idea, and actually common sense, but why, you ask, do I bring it up on an apologetics blog? Good question! The answer is that it is necessary idea when we study apologetics, or even just read Scripture for that matter. If a given passage of the Bible has two or more possible interpretations, then we should tend to the simpler one unless there is good evidence that one of the more complicated interpretations is the correct one. Expect to see our friend from Ockham appearing in later posts.
Ockham's Razor (also known as "Occam's Razor", the "law of parsimony", "law of economy" or "law of succinctness") is a very useful idea named after William of Ockham, a 13th century Franciscan friar. (Friar's are like monks who live in the world serving others rather than hidden away in monasteries.) William apparently did not create the idea, but he did use is often in his writings on philosophy, theology and politics.
The basic idea of Ockham’s Razor is that when trying to explain something, without evidence to the contrary the hypothesis (explanation) with the fewest new assumptions is the one that is recommended. Or, put into more common terms: “all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one”. In practical application, this means that if there are two explanations for something, we should choose the simpler one unless there is proof to that the more complicated answer is more likely the correct one.
This idea is actually common sense, just put into philosophical terms. Say, for example, that a parent hears a loud crash from another room. They run in there and see a broken lamp on the floor and their son standing there with a basketball in his hands. When asked, the child says that the wind blew the door open and knocked over the lamp then blew the door shut again. The parent then has two choices: to accept either A) the wind broke the lamp, or B) the child did with the basketball. For A to be true, they would have to accept that 1) the door wasn’t latched, 2) the wind blew it open, 3) the opening door didn’t bang into the wall (or they would have heard it), 4) the wind blew hard enough to knock the lamp over, 5) the wind did not blew hard enough to blow anything else over, 6) the wind then reversed and closed the door and 7) the closing door made no sound. For B to be true, they would have to accept that 1) the child broke the lamp and 2) he is now lying to protect his backside since he was told not to play with the basketball in the house. So, accept the explanation that requires believing 7 things, or accept the explanation that requires believing 2? The parent cannot know with 100% certainty, but I would hazard to guess that the boy in question would be grounded and/or dealing with a sore backside in the very near future.
Ockham’s Razor is nice philosophical idea, and actually common sense, but why, you ask, do I bring it up on an apologetics blog? Good question! The answer is that it is necessary idea when we study apologetics, or even just read Scripture for that matter. If a given passage of the Bible has two or more possible interpretations, then we should tend to the simpler one unless there is good evidence that one of the more complicated interpretations is the correct one. Expect to see our friend from Ockham appearing in later posts.
ybic (Your Brother In Christ)
KevinS
Generous Apologist in training
Ockham’s Razor - the idea that all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one..
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Rebirth
One of the most cherished doctrines of Christianity is that of rebirth or renewal. The Holy Spirit always brings the hope of renewal (Titus 3:5). Abraham was "as good as dead" when God brought forth is promised son (Heb. 11:12). And Lazarus was three days dead when Jesus brought him new life (John 11:43). And most importantly, Jesus gave us the the hope of being born again (John 3:1-21).
This blog has been on my mind much of late. I have to wonder if God still has something He wants me to do here. If He can bring new life to a sinner's dead heart, who am I to say He can't bring new life back into this blog. Hopefully I'm now in a better place in life to let Him. Look out for new postings in the near future, God willing.
ybic (Your Brother In Christ)
KevinS
Generous Apologist in training
This blog has been on my mind much of late. I have to wonder if God still has something He wants me to do here. If He can bring new life to a sinner's dead heart, who am I to say He can't bring new life back into this blog. Hopefully I'm now in a better place in life to let Him. Look out for new postings in the near future, God willing.
ybic (Your Brother In Christ)
KevinS
Generous Apologist in training
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The End
I've always hated it when shows just go off the air without any kind of closing. I didn't want that to be the case with this blog. So this is the closing post of this blog. I thought it would be worth trying, but I'm not a good blogger. And I guess it was a little arrogant of me to think I could change anything.
To those few who ever see this, farewell and good luck out there.
ybic
Kevin
To those few who ever see this, farewell and good luck out there.
ybic
Kevin
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Just a Sinner Saved by Grace?
(NOTE: The post is basically on my views not on generous apologetics.)
OK, so it's been two ice ages since I've posted. I figured the best way to thaw that ice would be to dive into something that's always set uneasily with me. That is when people say that they are "just a sinner saved by grace".
Just so that I don't get misunderstood, let me spend a moment to avoid some common errors. First off, according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary the word 'grace' means "an unmerited favor" or "a privilege given, not a right". The word 'grace' doesn't take on a completely different meaning in the Bible, so I use it as "unmerited favor" throughout.
Eph 2:8-9 clearly says that we are saved by grace. And Rom 5:8 equally says that Christ died for our salvation while we were sinners. So that means that sinners are in fact saved by grace. So what then is my beef? Good question; glad you asked. The problem then is in the difference between action and identity. Take a look at 1 Cor 6:9-11:
Verses 9-10 list several example types of sinners (not an exhaustive list to be sure). Notice, however, the verbs. Through verses 9-10 everything is future tense. However, compare this to verse 11. Here all of the verbs shift to past tense. Paul is contrasting what is and what will be from that which was. Notice the pivotal phrase in verse 11: "And that is what some of you WERE" (emphasis added). Paul says that they were idolaters, or adulterers, or .... - basically that they were identified by their sins. There sin was who and what they were. However, verse 11 says that this is all passed. Believers are washed from sin and into new life in Christ. Now their identity comes not from there sin but from their new identity in Christ.
A quick side note here. 1 John 1:8-10 says that all of us, believers include, sin. All of us have sinned, will sin and quite possibly are sinning. Only Jesus is sin-free. The rest of us can move towards a less sinful state, but we will never get there. Sin will always be a part of our existence, this side of the grave.
So what does that mean back in 1 Cor 6:9-11? Paul identifies people as their sins, but that is what they WERE but no longer are. Even though they do still sin. The difference is between identity and action. Before Christ, we sin. After Christ we sin (hopefully less). But, before Christ our identity (who we are) is sin. After Christ, our identity is found in Christ. We were sinners who sin now we are saints who sin.
The problem with someone saying that they are "just a sinner saved by grace" is that they are still identifying themselves by their sin. They are "just a sinner". What do sinners do by nature? They sin. If someone is "just a sinner" then we can't expect anything more from them than sin. But what about saints? What do they do by nature? They do the good works of God. 1 John 1:8-10 does say that even saints sin, but it is against their nature. By nature they do good works. If someone has put their faith in Christ, they are a "new creation". They are no longer a sinner, they are a saint.
So the next time someone tells you that you are "just a sinner saved by grace" think about it. If you have put your faith in Christ tell them that they're wrong. Tell them that you are "just a saint saved by grace". If you don't care for the "saint" label, try telling them that you "were a sinner, now saved by grace". Which ever way you go, however you want to phrase it, don't let anyone tell you that your identity is still in sin, now it is Christ.
OK, so it's been two ice ages since I've posted. I figured the best way to thaw that ice would be to dive into something that's always set uneasily with me. That is when people say that they are "just a sinner saved by grace".
Just so that I don't get misunderstood, let me spend a moment to avoid some common errors. First off, according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary the word 'grace' means "an unmerited favor" or "a privilege given, not a right". The word 'grace' doesn't take on a completely different meaning in the Bible, so I use it as "unmerited favor" throughout.
Eph 2:8-9 clearly says that we are saved by grace. And Rom 5:8 equally says that Christ died for our salvation while we were sinners. So that means that sinners are in fact saved by grace. So what then is my beef? Good question; glad you asked. The problem then is in the difference between action and identity. Take a look at 1 Cor 6:9-11:
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:9-11 NIV)
Verses 9-10 list several example types of sinners (not an exhaustive list to be sure). Notice, however, the verbs. Through verses 9-10 everything is future tense. However, compare this to verse 11. Here all of the verbs shift to past tense. Paul is contrasting what is and what will be from that which was. Notice the pivotal phrase in verse 11: "And that is what some of you WERE" (emphasis added). Paul says that they were idolaters, or adulterers, or .... - basically that they were identified by their sins. There sin was who and what they were. However, verse 11 says that this is all passed. Believers are washed from sin and into new life in Christ. Now their identity comes not from there sin but from their new identity in Christ.
A quick side note here. 1 John 1:8-10 says that all of us, believers include, sin. All of us have sinned, will sin and quite possibly are sinning. Only Jesus is sin-free. The rest of us can move towards a less sinful state, but we will never get there. Sin will always be a part of our existence, this side of the grave.
So what does that mean back in 1 Cor 6:9-11? Paul identifies people as their sins, but that is what they WERE but no longer are. Even though they do still sin. The difference is between identity and action. Before Christ, we sin. After Christ we sin (hopefully less). But, before Christ our identity (who we are) is sin. After Christ, our identity is found in Christ. We were sinners who sin now we are saints who sin.
The problem with someone saying that they are "just a sinner saved by grace" is that they are still identifying themselves by their sin. They are "just a sinner". What do sinners do by nature? They sin. If someone is "just a sinner" then we can't expect anything more from them than sin. But what about saints? What do they do by nature? They do the good works of God. 1 John 1:8-10 does say that even saints sin, but it is against their nature. By nature they do good works. If someone has put their faith in Christ, they are a "new creation". They are no longer a sinner, they are a saint.
So the next time someone tells you that you are "just a sinner saved by grace" think about it. If you have put your faith in Christ tell them that they're wrong. Tell them that you are "just a saint saved by grace". If you don't care for the "saint" label, try telling them that you "were a sinner, now saved by grace". Which ever way you go, however you want to phrase it, don't let anyone tell you that your identity is still in sin, now it is Christ.
ybic (Your Brother In Christ)
KevinS
Generous Apologist in training
Grace - Unmerited favor. That is, either getting that which you DID NOT earn, or NOT getting what you DID earn.
Identity - Who you are.
Action - What you do.
Blog index
I decided I wanted to keep things somewhat organized. Blogs always list the latest entry first, but sometimes you post in sequence, so people get it backwards. Here I'll keep in index, perhaps grouped by topic. If it's not your thing, skip it and read in blog style.
07/17/08 - What is Generous Apologetics?
07/28/08 - Differences
07/28/08 - Brevity
08/14/08 - Scriptura (different views on Scripture and authority)
08/15/08 - What is the Bible?
08/22/08 - Topics?
11/10/08 - On Church Growth
08/28/09 - Just a Sinner Saved by Grace?
02/25/10 - The End
04/07/11 - Rebirth
07/14/11 - Ockham's Razor
03/22/12 - The Becoming
ybic (Your Brother In Christ)
KevinS
Generous Apologist in training
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)