My view on war and peace

The God of Peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

- Romans 16:20

Jephthah's Tragic Vow pt.. 2

After looking into it some more, there are some debates on this passage as to what it actually means.  Some commentators say this is not at all talking about human sacrifice, but merely the devoting of the daughter to religious service to God, presumably in the temple or likewise (this is what John Wesley says, and he notes Henrys' commentary below in doing so).  The word used for burnt offering, according to these commentators, can be used for this type of meaning also.  Also, she did not "bewail" death, but only her virginity, which may indicate that she was not being put to death, but merely about to vow an oath of chastity for the rest of her life in service to God and in honor of her father.

Matthew Henry's commentary highlights the differences of opinion among the commentators he knew, but in the end simply states that it is unclear and we cannot know for certain.

Among those who say it IS talking of a real sacrifice (the daughter is killed), some commend him for his faith (as Hebrews 11 would, though perhaps not for the killing, it is simply mentioned in passing) though it was manifested in a "deformed and imperfect" way (as Calvin calls it), and some condemn him for doing so (which is not consistent with Hebrews, though it is conceivably possible Hebrews references a different event in Jephthah's life, perhaps even one that is not mentioned in the Canon, but in other traditions, though unlikely).

Additionally, John Gill's commentary gives quite a good answer as I deem it.  I especially like the interpretation of the end where the girls of Israel are visiting the daughter yearly to comfort her in her solitude rather than lamenting her death, though I think my own desires for the meaning of the text may be an influence here.  I wish it not to be the case that he killed his daughter, but it may well be so.  

Regardless, the commentaries are enlightening, and explain the possibilities well.  I am a little bit comforted.

Jephthah's Tragic Vow

This is maybe one of the craziest stories in the Bible (Judges 11:29-40, it should be read in context).  I don't recall ever reading this in my life, but I came to it this morning.  Wow.  There are so many things to say of this, of which are these few observations:

• The mighty character of a man as to uphold a vow he made to the Lord, even at the greatest cost to himself and his family
  
• The risk that we take when we make a vow to God, especially when it's put on chance (or at least what seems to be chance)
• The value with which the daughter and the people of Israel held for virginity (perhaps almost too much)
• The trust the daughter had for her father
  
• The poor choice of a vow Jephthah made, and the sadness of this scene.  The final slaughter of the daughter is mentioned in a very soft way
  

Then the Spirit of the Lord was upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh and passed on to Mizpah of Gilead, and from Mizpah of Gilead he passed on to the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord and said, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whatever [4] comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lord's, and I will offer it [5] up for a burnt offering.” So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them, and the Lord gave them into his hand. And he struck them from Aroer to the neighborhood of Minnith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel-keramim, with a great blow. So the Ammonites were subdued before the people of Israel.

Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah. And behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. And as soon as he saw her, he tore his clothes and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.” And she said to him, “My father, you have opened your mouth to the Lord; do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, now that the Lord has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites.” So she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: leave me alone two months, that I may go up and down on the mountains and weep for my virginity, I and my companions.” So he said, “Go.” Then he sent her away for two months, and she departed, she and her companions, and wept for her virginity on the mountains. And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made. She had never known a man, and it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.

Why do you believe Christianity is true?

What's to distinguish from belief in a general God from belief in Jesus as God?  Surely it has to be more than personal experience, saying basically that it "works for me" or because I have "experienced it in my own life."  Surely that has to be more than that, but if you ask the average person (as this excerpt from a radio program attempts to show) this is likely what you will hear.  Now perhaps the people haven't fully thought out their answers, but their imemdiate response says something about the state of Christianity today and how the faith is being defended, or perhaps not defended.  This radio program makes the point that Christianity is true because it is grounded in the historical life, death and resurrection of Jesus and attested to by the reliable books of the New Testament that was written by eyewitnesses of these events.  If Jesus was not raised, then we are fools.  Why do you believe Christianity?

My Idea for a Song: Thug Jesus

I can think of few images in all of literature more striking and provocative than that of Jesus in Revelation 19.  I can't write songs for crap, but if I could I think I would write about Jesus in Revelation 19 on a white horse with his title "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" written (or tattooed perhaps?) down his leg, or as has been termed cleverly before, Thug Jesus:




Why haven't there been worship songs written about this text?  I'm aware of none.  Not to denigrate anyone's preferences and likes/dislikes because I respect them and can identify with some of it, but I think an understanding of this text and the picture it paints of Jesus in the reality of his glory and righteousness would change our perception of some of the cheese (my opinion) that's put out a lot of times in the name of Christian music.

Revelation 19:11-21:

11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in [4] blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, [5] both small and great.” 19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. 20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence [6] had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. 21 And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.

Who's the Hero?

Great resource available for any amount

Reformation Study Bible for Any Amount

Celebrate Reformation Week with a genuine leather Reformation Study Bible (ESV) for a donation of any amount.

Past Few Years - Part 3 - Predestination cont'd

Here's what I meant, picking up from last time. I don't mean that everyone acknowledging Christ claims the label of Calvinist (obviously this is not true). There are reservations I have with taking the label as well, since it seems awfully focused on John Calvin, rather than on Jesus and the Scriptures. But my point is that every true Christian believes that God is sovereign over all, that it's Jesus and his power that saves us and it's not ourselves or our abilities that do so. Truly, this is the heart of what it means to be a Christian, to be humbled and ask for forgiveness of sins from God. However, it is my contention that Arminian theology does not hold to this, even though some claim it as their own that truly are Christians. A quote from Spurgeon, which is him caricaturing a prayer of an Arminian, illustrates this better than I can say:

"You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer—for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, 'Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.'" (taken from a sermon entitled Free Will--A Slave)

The underlying problem with the Arminian system (meaning that ultimately it is the choice of a fallen human to believe in Christ and be saved) is that in the end the Arminian believer must boast in himself for his salvation, rather than in Christ. The reason is that Armianism (as opposed to Calvinism) espouses a system of doctrine teaching that all humans are given the same amount of grace to believe (termed prevenient grace by John Wesley), and some choose to accept it to their salvation and some choose to reject it to their damnation. This inescapably makes the work of Jesus on the cross merely a powerful suggestion (if we can say it has power at all), rather than a great work of redemption. Now I will fully admit that few Arminians would claim that their salvation was of their own doing, but if questioned logically they are left with no other possible path to take. All Christians, when squeezed in the press of rational consistency, must reveal the pulp of Calvinism. The Christian heart is inevitably Calvinist, since our hope is not in our own abilities, but in the sovereign power of God. (I know some may take great issue with this, so I reiterate here the secondary importance of this doctrine in being a Christian, though as I have noted I believe Calvinists and Arminians would all agree on the main point of God's sovereignty here, despite the stark difference in label and professed doctrinal loyalty.)

Many of my friends that I met in college would hold to the teachings of John Wesley (inevitable since this was at the Wesley Foundation of the United Methodist Church) and those of Jacobus Arminius by association, since Wesley was an adherent to this system of theology. Also, for the person I was closest to in college (no names mentioned), this was a large source of our conflict and eventual falling out, so I am quite familiar with the sentiment of the debate's other side.

I am also familiar because I have often taken the Arminian side, and have switched between the two a few times, whether for emotional reasons or for what I perceived as biblical ones. I was raised in the free will side of the Baptist church and given pretty much the standard Arminian stance: Jesus died for all sin and we just have to accept it to be saved, or: God chose everyone, we just have to choose him back. When I was confronted with the concept of Calvinism, I wrestled for a good while with it, and eventually aligned with it. Upon interacting with others in debate over this, I was forced to evaluate harsher the claims of the predestination clan, and was convinced for a time that it was not biblical. This turning back was due mostly to the influence of these few things (listed with how they were corrected afterwards):

• The audio teaching of Dennis McCallum (from Xenos Church in Columbus, Ohio) on Romans 9. McCallum, whose teaching was invaluable to me in much of my understanding of the Gospel in college, interpreted this passage to mean that the Jews were chosen, as it were, to be the vessel by which all the nations of the Earth would be blessed, and not chosen in the sense that they received forgiveness of sin and salvation. This was very intruiging to me and convinced me for a time, but it simply did not hold up in the context of Romans (though this is what he claimed), and especially by the verses that follow which speak very clearly of salvation (10:1). The purpose of this text is to point out that Israel does not believe and has rejected its Messiah, and that God has now opened wide the door of his blessing and salvation for Gentiles. Indeed, Christ the Messiah is the very blessing which the witness of Abraham and Israel pointed to. This is the promise spoken in the old days of a blessing to the nations--Jesus.
  
  
• Appeals to emotion and personal reasoning. This is the argument used most of the time by those that despise predestination. Admittedly, it simply doesn't seem right when we think that God predestines some for salvation and leaves the rest to their own devices. It also seems to violate the principle we call "free will." While I do agree with the notion of the free will of man, I also think that the majority's conception of it is critically erroneous. I believe that we have a choice to obey God or not, and the decisions we make everyday can be made either way. But I also believe that man's "free" will (which is a bestowal on us from God's perfect creation) has been indeterminably bent towards sin. We are forever free to sin and to will our own defiance from God. We are not free, however, to turn our hearts to the Lord on our own power, since we are endowed with the curse of Adam from birth. We can do the right thing from time to time, but we can never please God with the filthy rags of our righteous deeds (Isa. 64:6). We need the impartation of God's Spirit to us, a regenerated heart to be able to willfully love him, and a new nature to turn from sin and obey Jesus. And it's only by God's free action to give us these gifts and enable us to have faith in him again. In other words, our wills are in bondage, as Luther would say. Think of it this way: Adam's initial standing with God was perfect because God made it to be that way. Adam chose to sin against God by a free action. But Adam could not right the wrong he did through any amount of "free" action unless God came looking for him and granted him forgiveness (which he did), eventually by providing the ultimate sacrifice in Christ. The restoration of their relationship was made only by God in dying for the sin Adam committed, since it is by definition a divine act to forgive and redeem.
  
  
• My Methodist surroundings. I was surrounded by Methodists, 99.9% of which were Arminians. This isn't meant to be denigration since I have so much to owe to the environment I was placed in at Texas A&M, but merely an account of its truth. The environment you find yourself in is a big influence on the beliefs you lean towards. If you took a Methodist and put them in the opposite situation (perhaps in a PCA Church), I would bet that they would struggle with predestination also. Seeing people you love have different beliefs, and the character and integrity you see them draw from those beliefs is a strong witness to their veracity. Some of the strongest and most devout people I know are Methodists. I love my Methodist friends and I am indebted to the fellowship I have had with them (heck, my wife grew up Methodist), but I just simply disagree with a significant chunk of the doctrine. I just don't see it in the Bible. Much of this disagreement has nothing to do with predestination mind you, but is more along the lines of church practice. A lot of it has to do with the view of women in ministry (more on this later), as well as some of its practical stances on Scripture, homosexuality, etc. On the whole though, I see them as brothers and I would never separate myself from fellowship with them unless a bigger issue arose.
  
  

In the midst of struggling so much with all of this and leaning one way or the other, I discovered a preacher that would shape me the most in my life and my understanding of Christian truth. Not by a long shot does this only apply to predestination, but to a large degree its truth was solidified in my heart through the preaching of Mark Driscoll. Odd as it may seem, since he's been known by some sketchy identities (the Cussing Pastor, for one, as labeled by Donald Miller in Blue Like Jazz), but I was moved by his passion for the Scripture and for the Reformed faith, while maintaining his real personality. As he would say, he's a "boxer-wearing Calvinist (not briefs)." In some ways I feel like I've been swept up in the new wave of Calvinism among younger people, which is weird to say. Something about it appeals to white guys in their 20s. I'm not sure what. I think a lot of it has something to do with the whole emerging thing, with the younger generation wanting something new and different from Christianity and the church than the older traditional approach. Like any division, people go to the left (Emergent) and to the right (Calvinism), though I think the orthodox thrust of it is somewhere in the middle. Driscoll's theological push is for the church and its members to view themselves as missionaries in the culture, much like an overseas missionary would in a different nation. The goal is the same: to win people to Christ and disciple them. This is the historical view of the church. The Emergent side would claim something similar, to love people where they are and in the culture they inhabit, but they simply reject the foundation of historical Christian truth and seek to forge new territory.

But this is getting far off topic, so I will end this post here and continue later...

Past Few Years - Part 2 - Predestination

Reader beware: a post about predestination is required to be really long, so I have broken this one into two (but maybe three or four) sub-posts, if you will.

Perhaps the most challenging question, both theologically and personally, I've ever faced, and one I know has puzzled more than a few people, is that of predestination. It's a subject that is tackled by philosophers as well as theologians and laymen everywhere, and one that has caused so much discussion, debate, and even animosity that few topics can rival it. Everyone breathing has an opinion on it, and many that take a side can be fairly opinionated about it, even rabid in some cases. Well, I've been known to be fairly opinionated and on this topic also, and perhaps even rabid at times. The funny thing is, I've been on both sides of it a few times. I've gone back and forth over this question as my understandings of the Bible, of church history, and of theology have grown and changed.

My encounter with this most difficult of doctrines was not isolated in my study and was never a simple question, but rather has been and continues to be perhaps the broadest and most encompassing of all mysteries of the Christian truth (at least for me). If understood correctly (as I think that I at least have done in part), it cuts straight to the heart of Christianity and into the nature of who God is. Though this was my first genuinely conscious exposure to the idea of God's absolute sovereignty in all things (election/predestination) and its personal relation to myself occurred at a specific time in college, it was merely part of a much broader, larger shift that took place in all of my thinking and in my heart as to the nature and character of God.

To start, my conceptions of God when I began college were insufficient at best, and injurious at worst. Not only was my faith under a time of testing during this period (see Part 1), what was already established in my beliefs was sorely deficient. My idea of God was someone who hated when you drank alcohol and would hurt you somehow if you did. Also, he hated gay people and was just waiting to unleash hell on them. These, I'm afraid, have been the predominant erroneous convictions of conservative evangelicals growing up, especially Southern Baptists (of which I grew up as). (Note: I do still believe that God will let no sin go unpunished, since he is fully just and no one who is identified as an idolater, adulterer, homosexual, drunkard, thief, or whatever will inherit the kingdom of God but rather those that have been washed from these [since we have all broken the whole law by the guilt of only one violation of it - James 2:10] and given new identity in Christ [as in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11]).

Not that these are completely without truth, for surely those that abuse alcohol and sexuality will be held accountable, but this is simply a gross understatement of what God is about. God is not primarily the moral police. This belief is a seriously tragic oversight from the beauty and mystery of the eternal God. It is apparently the same pit the Pharisees of Jesus' day were infamous for falling into--Legalism. Legalism is an attempt to justify oneself apart from God's grace, to any degree I believe. If you think about it, we do it all the time. Every time you say, "well that person is not as good as me because I tithe, or I don't drink, or I pray 3 times a day and he only does 2 times a day, or I have a quiet time," it is so often based upon a legalistic attitude. One problem with this is that it ignores God's grace to me in allowing me to have anything. All are allocated different measures of grace and expected to be faithful with them in whatever amount they are given (Mt. 20:1-16). Another problem is that it ignores the utter falsehood in assuming that we are good merely because of what we do or don't do, and in doing so inevitably leaves the state and motive of the heart out of the question.

This is the jist of what I came to think about God, mainly because I wasn't thinking about him or reading anything. I just assumed that I had him all wrapped up in my little brain and knew what he expected from me (which wasn't much). Further, I wasn't even able to live up to my own standards of what I thought God demanded and all the more I became greatly remorseful over my shortcomings upon learning that what he demanded was nothing short of perfection (Mt. 5:48).

My first serious consideration of the concept of election/predestination was through my brother Tim and a sermon he gave me to read by Charles Haddon Spurgeon entitled "Election". Prior to this, I had heard the word predestination before, but it was always in the contextual assumption that this was a crazy notion and that certainly my Bible did not teach this, despite the fact that the word "predestine" was in there numerous times in several different forms. This sermon made me actually realize that if it is true that there even exists this word in Scripture, then there certainly must be some sort of predestination of something. Spurgeon's words spoke so clearly about what the Bible said that it was startling to me. It was startling because so few preachers actually teach in a plain way so as to just let the Bible speak for itself (that is, expositionally) instead of contorting it to say what they want it to say, injecting sarcasm and disdain for those that may disagree, and not facing the honest, immediate problems and questions that surface when the text is read. Instead, the assumption is made about the text, that it is truly and faithfully understood, before it is taught for reasons such as not wanting to ask honest questions, wanting to please the congregation, or wanting to appear as an expert before people (I would imagine at least).

The same felt true from some of the people I know that didn't seem to take the honest questions seriously. Pat answers were common. To their credit, I do believe that they are convinced in their own minds of their beliefs and that on the whole, the "free will camp" falls under the realm of Christian fellowship, and I would never "major on this minor." But, I would like to try and maintain that this question of predestination really does cut to the heart of the mysteries of God's grace. Believing it doesn't change our ability to be Christians, but it can reveal a lot about God and make a lot of sense out of the world, as well as drastically change how we worship and view him. For me, pat answers are simply not enough to explain Scriptures like Romans 9 and Ephesians 1-2, of which first impressions can leave the reader grasping at straws when based on Arminian assumptions. There is also the question of suffering: is God really in control of it or is he just powerless to do anything about it? I have yet to hear an Arminian argument about suffering that is sufficient without making God merely an old man in the sky with his fingers crossed (this essentially amounts to open theism or process theology if taken to its logical conclusions).

The central issue that seemed to bug me constantly through this is really the age-old question of who God is. The choice of what to believe here about the nature of God and how to behave accordingly is the crux of the entire human dilemma, and I would submit that all error and sin falls under this heading. I want to be my own god and not let him be God. It's the first mistake of mankind and has been ever since. As Martin Luther put long ago, the breaking of any of the ten commandments, indeed any sin or violation of the Law, is really just the infraction of the first two: to worship God alone and not idols. Furthermore, and getting back to my main point, I would submit that everyone that really believes in Christ and trusts God with their lives, truly are what we can call--Calvinists. Wow, that should cause a stir! More on this in the next post...

Past Few Years - Part 1 - Starting College

I was raised in a Christian home and my parents are the most faithful and trustworthy people I know. I professed my sins at an early age (7-10?) and I know at that time that I understood the Gospel: that I was a sinner and that only Jesus’ payment on the cross in my place was sufficient to “wash away my sins,” and “make me white as snow,” acceptable to God, and take me to heaven. I remember singing that song with my mom when I was very young. I also remember attempting to witness to one of my Mormon friends when I was in 2^nd or 3^rd grade, and realizing that he just didn’t understand what I was talking about. I remember quoting Romans 6:23 to him: that he would die for his sins and without hope if he didn’t have Christ. I remember feeling genuine sadness that he didn’t seem to understand what I was saying about Jesus. I know I was a Christian at this point and that God had completely changed where I was headed in my life through the love and security of my parents.

But the worldview I developed, almost upon stepping into my dorm room into a new universe was without the security and the easy answers to life’s hardest questions I knew back in my parents’ home. Actually the first encounter I can remember with skepticism (which was what I faced in college) was in high school at a book store with my mom. She was looking for a book in the Christian section, so I browsed with her. I came across a book that suggested something about the question of how we know the Bible is true (I can’t remember exactly what it was). I remember being dumbfounded at the notion of questioning the Bible’s veracity, so I immediately began to grasp at straws as to why I believed it. But I came up with next to nothing. In a conversation with my mom at that bookstore, she came near tears when I bluntly asked her “how DO we know the Bible is God’s word?” I guess the shock of her discovering that I didn’t know combined with my shock at the same was hard to swallow. I remember being terrified inside as to the implications of my inability to answer this question. Was everything I said believed a sham? Was I just adopting my parent’s beliefs? Was the Bible the word of God or just an old book?

Later, in college, I would write an essay titled: “Why Do You Believe the Bible?” I sent it out to almost everyone I had the email address of, which in hindsight probably made me the weirdest person some of these people knew. Some of the email addresses I stole off of another guy’s email list in college. So I didn’t even know a large chunk of the people I was sending this out to, and I even gave credit to him as the one who provided the email addresses. I think I was just starting to really use email to communicate with friends, so I didn’t realize how weird it would be to do this. Plus, my first line in the email was: “DON’T DELETE BEFORE READING ALL OF IT”. As I was informed later by the email list guy, this looked very much like a chain letter, though I had never even heard of such a thing. So basically I was a complete idiot. But I sent it out with pride in what I wrote, hoping that it would mean something to them or make someone think. For the most part, as far as content, it was a good paper and reflected the study and research of the Bible I had done on my own time and found to be compelling. The paper itself, however, was shaky in structure, awkward in phrasing, disjointed, unclear, oversimplified, bigoted, judgmental, and expressed well my inability to coherently write (some may ask what has changed since then). But it was sort of my baby (though only 6 pages long) and reflected the immense amount of change I experienced in the first few semesters of my college experience. I had learned a great deal in the field of apologetics without me even knowing the term. And eventually, I had some college papers under my belt that helped my writing style quite a bit.

How I got to that point was a hard road, and lasted about a year (since I emailed the paper around October 2003 and started college September 2002), which actually isn’t that long but it felt much longer. Much of this time was spent alone, since I had a lot of trouble making friends in college, especially during the first semester where I generally didn’t hang out with anyone. I stayed in on the weekends and tried to find any excuse I could to go back home. My first roommate was a 5^th year senior, and was basically the party animal and social king of the dorm (Walton!). I was also noticeably awkward in almost every interaction with him and everyone else in the dorm. Later in the year though, we were decent friends and got along pretty well. But I owe a lot to the influence that my friends in the Wesley Foundation had on me in shaping my spirituality and grounding me in fellowship and support, even if I had some significant disagreements with some of the teachings of Methodism, what with developing Calvinist tendencies and all (perhaps later on this one). That sort of sounds like developing homosexual tendencies. Ha, funny. Anyway, having the Christian surroundings and environment brought to the fore the importance of knowing what I believed and why, especially being in theological disagreement as I was. It helped me face head-on the doubts and questions I had about scripture and Christianity, and forced me to open up the Bible, read books, listen to teachers, and find answers.

Some of the most compelling of arguments for the Bible’s truth for me were those of a more traditional, evidential approach, a la Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel type thinkers that argue for the evidence of Christianity, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and biblical inerrancy. McDowell’s The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (that my mom bought me in high school) was an instrumental guide in helping me discover the Bible’s amazing historicity and accuracy, as well as prophetical consistency and fulfillment. For example, one of the strongest points I ever read was concerning a prophecy in the book of Daniel (9:24-26) which predicts the exact time period, maybe even the exact day, of Jesus the Messiah, the King’s arrival into Jerusalem riding on a donkey’s back in 33 A.D. (Zech. 9:9), his subsequent execution, and the destruction of the temple following. (A recap of this is provided by someone here).

Many more things like this contributed to my increase of faith in the scriptures. Another greatly beneficial experience was listening to an open-air preacher named Tom Short speak on the campus square about Jesus and Christianity at Texas A&M (which was quite controversial I might add, but he was simply a good apologetic evangelist). Some trails I followed, however, seemed great on the front end, but ended up being kind of silly and unfounded, such as the Bible code theory.

All in all, this was one of the most important and shaping times in my life, and I can only credit God in doing a great work on my heart and mind in my first couple of years of college. At this point, I still had many, many problems and shortcomings such as arrogance, close-mindedness, and pride; but it also included times of great humbling and learning about the Bible, which I know have been crucial in my understanding of Jesus and his mercy to me as a sinner. I was also still (perhaps even more) confused as to what it actually meant to be a Christian, to repent from sin, and to walk with God daily (I still do; who doesn’t?). I came to realize just how hard this actually was since I was now responsible for myself in a way that you can’t understand when you’re living with your parents.

That is what college was to me: a great awakening. It was coming to understand that I am to be a man now. No more games. I needed to put away my childishness and move on to maturity. As I was to learn more about later, actually being a man of God and loving Christ was much more than I thought I was bargaining for in these first few years. But I’ll save that for later post(s). Peace out.