Tag Archives: Trust

Self-exhortations to think and feel correctly

7 Jun

I continue to be absorbed by the Triune God’s commands to trust Him.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding! Proverbs 3:5a

Why do we hesitate to actually do just that?  It certainly isn’t due to a paucity of evidence in Scripture.  David repeatedly recommends confident reliance on Yahweh as the way to experience joy.

Oh, the joys of those who trust the Lord!  Psalm 40:4a

Looking inward I can only speculate that our reluctance is due to that universal insatiable hunger to control our lives!

Jesus’ counsel to His disciples in the upper room was:

Don’t let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.  John 14:1

I re-read that verse this morning and then thought through to some ‘crunchy’ encouragement:

  • If Jesus tells me to do something, then as a Spirit-indwelt Christian, I CAN and MUST set myself to obey Him.
  • I am indeed a gal in union with Jesus, host to His Spirit
  • Therefore, not only am I capable of trusting God, I am obligated to.

I looked up ‘don’t let your heart be troubled’ in the Greek to see the original text.  ‘Troubled’ is rendered like this:  don’t suggest doubts to yourself.

What an apt description of how I feel when I am anxious and troubled.   I busy myself, imagining fears and ‘what-ifs,’ all the while discounting GOD!!

Here’s an example:  the other day I was called into my principal’s office.  My mind raced to think of a possible reason.  I’ve had ‘problems’ in the past when my ‘outspoken proselytizing’ was criticized and I was placed under scrutiny for a while.  I catalogued and scrolled through recent days seeking to locate any ‘event’.  I finally settled myself down by reminding myself that I have the Lord constantly with me, no matter what the trouble.  And I chose to trust Him.

That was relatively easy.  What is tougher to halt has been wrestling or ‘agitating my mind’ over something I said that I now regret.  As I thought about that episode, I spun out a ‘worst-case’ scenario in vivid color.  Enough to put a damper on my mood.  The ONLY way I could handle it was to confess the sin of betraying a confidence and to remind myself that God IS sovereign, even over my sin and mistakes.  Though I couldn’t undo what I had revealed, God could handle the outcome. Yes, there might be consequences that would be painful, but He would still be with me.  I confessed to God again and then sought relief in 1 John 1:9 and God’s promise to forgive confessed sin.

Three more times, I replayed the ‘regrettable’ incident and wondered what would happen.  True heart-troubling behavior. But Jesus’ word to His brothers is: DON’T!!!

Instead, trust God.  And remember that for those who belong to Jesus, there is NOW no condemnation.

I had confessed my sin and Jesus had already paid for it on the cross.  Settled.  This is how I talked about to Satan who seemed to fling the event back into my face.

This is the logic battle we fight.  And let me assure you, logic is not cold and analytical and disconnected from feelings.  I’m a thinker, but I’m also a feeler and I see the power in logically, REASONably applying God’s Word to my heart so I hold on to Truth and tame those emotions.

Brothers and sisters, logical Joes and Janes, we MUST harness our minds.  And if God says we can, then empowered by Jesus’ Spirit, we can and must. But it’s a daily, hourly battle.

Logical Gal and featherless bipeds

28 May

Apparently Plato defined man as a ‘featherless biped’. 

Featherless biped

And ever since, philosophers have used his wording as an example of a poor definition.  The photo proves the point!

But there is another consideration. Is the phrase ‘featherless biped’ a description or a definition?  And what is the difference?

A definition is actually the technical evaluation of a term  (called the definiendum) that includes the definiens or the cluster of words used to set out clearly what the speaker or writer means.  An adequate definition :

  • will refrain from using the term being defined  – as in  ‘a human is an animal which has a human parents’
  • will employ a genus and a differentia  – a fork is an eating utensil (genus) that has prongs to spear food (differentia)  Think of genus as the family of items and the differentia as the distinguishing characteristics of each member.  So a spoon would belong to the genus of  eating utensil, and its differentia could be this- bowl-shaped on one side to scoop up liquids or soft food.
  • will be mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive – both considerations work to PIN DOWN PRECISELY what is meant, thereby avoiding both a situation where ‘family members’ could be assigned to more than one group (NOT mutually exclusive) OR a situation where a ‘family member’ has been left out (in this case the definition would NOT meet the requirement of being jointly exhaustive)

 

  • Precision
  • will avoid negative language,  metaphors and  vague or cumbersome language meant to obfuscate the meaning
  • will focus on what is essential to the concept

So a human being as defined by one on-line dictionary offers this:

Thinking and Talking Humans

“A man, woman or child of the species Homo Sapiens distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.”

In assessing what makes for a good definition, the attribute that comes to mind is ‘functional’, as in What’s THAT for? 

So how do descriptions differ from definitions?

A simple way to look at a description is to see it as merely one aspect or representation of a concept.  Attention is NOT given to meeting all the above requirements of a ‘good’ definition:   Think SINGLE-orbed v. FULLY-orbed.

For example, one might ‘DESCRIBE’  a musician as someone who enjoys performing  vocal or instrumental sounds.  That is just one venue for musicians.

musicians

 

So why are definitions and descriptions important? Because they can either further, facilitate or hinder understanding.  I witnessed this Saturday during a debate between an atheist and a Christian.  They were at odds with each other over the definition or description of the term FAITH!

  • The atheist, Peter Boghossian, advanced a definition of faith as believing something for which you have no evidence.
  • The Christian, Tim McGrew, pushed back and said that the Oxford English Dictionary describes/defines faith as trust warranted by a certain degree of evidence.

Evidence

I want all you Logical Joes and Janes to know that these 2 men spent about 20 minutes going round and round arguing over which definition the majority of people subscribe to.  Definition of terms IS the beginning of all debate and discussion.  And if no agreement is reached, the discussion that might ensue will be very frustrating!

Question:  Where have you encountered such confusion or disagreement over terms?

 

 

Logical Gal says Christianity is an evidenced-based faith system

7 May

Evidence-based faith system – does that sound like an oxymoron?

If you’re like a lot of scientific rational people, you might think so.

God apparently doesn’t think so.  He encourages us to check out the evidence and use our faculties of reason (that He, the Creator planted in us)

Reasonable Faith

 

Speaking through the prophet Isaiah, God encourages us with these words:

  • Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord…. Chapter 18:1a

And lest you think that the ‘rules’ changed in the New Testament, Jesus himself invites His hearers to evaluate Him based on the evidence, i.e. His miracles or signs.

John, His closest friend and follower, records these words of Jesus:

  • Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.  (John 14: 11)

So, where does faith come in?  Good question!

Faith is a tricky word.  May non-believers think that Christians base their beliefs on a type of ‘blind’ faith.  They would describe this as believing DESPITE the lack of evidence.

Blind faith

 

But FAITH can actually be translated by two Greek concepts.  There is PISTIS (Strongs # 4102) which refers to convictions or beliefs.

And there is HOPE.  But this concept is NOT the kind of hope that we talk about in casual conversation as in:

  • I hope I get an A
  • I hope the rain holds off for the picnic

That is called wishful thinking. 

Wishful Thinking Dino

No, HOPE  in Greek is rather the idea of ASSURANCE, EXPECTATION, FIRM FOUNDATION.  The Greek word is ELPIZO  ( Strong’s # 1679)

Here’s how I would explain a Christian’s relationship to God.  Based on a careful evaluation of evidence provided by historical documents and the recorded speech of God, open-minded seekers follow the evidence to where it leads.  They do not limit or filter their potential results through pre-existing biases.  Then when they have a ‘reasonable’ amount of evidence, they put their trust in the God of the Bible.  (And God promises to meet those who seek Him sincerely)

  • Come near to God and He will come near to you. (James 4:8)

Do you have to have 100 % certainty? Of course not.  That doesn’t exist in this life in ANY arena.  When I buy a ticket and board an airplane, I am trusting the evidence of previous flights’ safety records. I have to make a faith-based decision to get on that plane!

Boarding a plane

So don’t think you have to check your brains at the door to investigate the claims of Christianity.  This religion is easily falsifiable. All one would have had to do to sink this world view would have been to produce the body.

But the murdered prophet who claimed that

  • He was God himself (Yahweh)
  • and that  He would come back from the dead after 3 days

DID rise from the dead.  And there WAS an empty tomb.  And Jesus WAS SEEN by more than 500 people in a different but recognizable body (nail holes and all) during a period of 40 days.

And millions of people have been convinced of the truth of Jesus and His claims to put their trust in Him.

Question:  What would it take for you to trust Him today ?

Logical Gal says: ‘No such thing as blind faith!’

9 Dec

I often cringe when Christians are ridiculed as being un-thinking simpletons who believe in the God of the Bible and the truth of His word by ‘blind faith’.

But before reacting out of mere emotion to what amounts to inaccurate name-calling, it’s more helpful to actually examine the terms. (Duh! – first step in logic, right?)

So what is ‘faith’?  The New Testament uses the Greek word ‘pistis‘ (Strong’s # 4102).  ‘Trust’ would be a more accurate translation.  And what is it that we are called to trust? – Evidence that God presents.

This is no blind trust.  God actually raised a dead man who claimed to be the son of God from his grave (evidence  = empty tomb, guarded by top-notch Roman soldiers). Then God provided 500 or so ordinary men and women in Jerusalem who gave eye-witness testimony that described  actually seeing, touching, hearing and eating with this resurrected Jesus of Nazareth during a period of 40 days.

Besides this direct evidence, there is also the accumulation of fulfilled promises.   Many prophesies of the Bible have come to pass.  Written down declarations of what will happen in the future is pretty risky.  God really ‘put it out there’ by having the direct evidence of written scrolls.  And as year succeeds year, the accumulation of these situations having come to pass is building a trust-worthy case of circumstantial evidence.  Trusting God is no ‘leap in the dark’!

So what we have is not BLIND faith, but reasoned, evidence-based trust in God and what He says.  That’s a lot stronger and more reliable than what amounts to living by sight of circumstances. Unfortunately, because of emotion, people often make assumptions followed by decisions based only on what they see.

” Seeing is believing!”  Can you say ‘oxymoron’?

Question: Which makes a better guiding principle for life?

  • A reasoned trust in God’s promises based on evidence

or

  • A blind faith in one’s circumstances as perceived through the senses