Thursday, March 16, 2006

Logical???

I was given some literature by a member of a church group that goes door to door.  There is an article about whether Jesus was God.  Of course, different groups read certain passages in different ways, but that isn't going to be my point.
 
"Many who believe that Jesus Christ is God have difficulty explaining why he is called the Son of God.  Logic suggests that he cannot be both.  Others think of Jesus as an important historical character, a wise man, or perhaps even a bona fide prophet of God, but nothing more.  What does the Bible really teach?  Does it matter what you believe?"
 
My answer is   WHAT DOES LOGIC HAVE TO DO WITH IT? 
 
I am saved by the work that Jesus did on the cross.  I am saved because I believe and was baptized, but only because of what Jesus did.  Is it logical for God to send His Son to die on the cross?  Of course not.  Is it logical that I could be saved because of what someone else did for me?  Not logical, but it does happen in other contexts on this earth. 
 
There are a number of Bible verses about God's thoughts and mind being greater than mine.  I would hope so!  And I sure would hope that His logic is of a higher order than mine.  Yes, I believe this. 
 
So I say, logic, my human logic, doesn't really apply here.  I have been saved by an illogical act done by a person, who illogically, was God made man, who saved me because I didn't logically deserve it. 
 
Does the theology that I subscribe to have anything to do with it?  No.  I won't be saved because I may happen to belong to the church that interprets the Bible most correctly.  Or perhaps my denomination actually reads the Bible wrongly and is too closed minded to realize this.  I may or may not read the Bible.  That doesn't change the saving grace of God.
 
Salvation comes not through my logic but through God's actions.
 
Praise God for that.  And I do praise God that I know that I am a saved sinner.

2 comments:

  1. Kierkegaard was a great critic of the Lutheran stste church but his thoughts were similar to Luther's theology of the cross and the view that reason has its limits and cannot explain faith.


    From the Existential Primer which I agree with: Source+http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/ex_theo.html

    For Kierkegaard, there is a moment when the believer realizes that faith is not reasonable, logical, or scientific. Trying to defend faith actually proves the believer has doubts. Faith is a surrender to something beyond what can be known. That churches and religious zealots try to prove the existence of the Creator(s) is evidence these individuals care more about what others think than what is personally experienced. Theological existentialism tends to view faith in the following light:

    * Faith is a personal experience that can never be fully explained to others;
    * Faith requires sacrifices emotionally and socially;
    * Faith is usually damaged by religious organizations; and
    * Faith is preceded by doubt and a quest for answers.

    None of these concepts is alien to religion, but the theological existentialists see the alienation as far from extreme than previous philosophers. True faith is so apart from a group udnerstanding that it can only be damaged if the believer entrusts his or her spirituality to an organized church. Even explaining faith reduces its purity, to some degree, but it is important to be authentic and honest about believing

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm responding to an older post of yours, but I very much like your whole blog.

    I loved this part of your post from 3/16: I have been saved by an illogical act done by a person, who illogically, was God made man, who saved me because I didn't logically deserve it.

    Amen.

    ReplyDelete

And what do you think?