Worldly Systems Will Never Reach the Heights of Heaven, So Why Try To Do The Same In the Name of Jesus?

If the scientist cannot rise above rational probability by any and all means of his empirical investigation, why should the Christian attempt to do more using this same method?
If the philosopher cannot rise above reason and logic itself by any and all methods of his rational inquiry, why should the Christian think he can reach any higher using this same process?
If the moralist cannot rise above the universal ideal of ethical theory that governs society by any and all means of his own system of knowledge, why then, should the Christian try to prove a God that transcends the constraints of the universal box by using this same set of rules?
Why do we try to fly higher than the systems of men in order to reach the heights of heaven when the wisdom of God has been unleashed by the power of the gospel of Christ in simplicity and foolishness at the base of the ground?

We attempt to rise higher than other men, only to find that by rising above we have not risen at all, and have lost all power that is capable of bringing life to the spiritually dead, including ourselves. We may be waging war with more advanced natural weapons, but they are nonetheless, natural weapons and are not spiritually empowered. Natural weapons that, no matter how far advanced, are useless and ineffective in bringing about the salvation of souls. Our attempts are weak, futile, worthless, human, and the only thing that stems from these things is impossibility, especially when it comes to fighting the darkness of the world. The main problem with our attempts is that, no matter how high they may fly, they can never go beyond the heights of what is reasonable or what is probable. The problem with what is reasonable or what is probable is that, no matter how convincing anything may ever be, it always ends with a "probably." Now, a "probably" that results when considering the subject of God's existence or the subject of Christ Himself, means that God or Christ and any of the presumed works that they have done (Either in Creation or Redemption) all hinge on what is “probably” true. This means that, when we fly, we are basing the foundation of our faith, that which we label truth, on what is not explainable by the methods of our attempts and expect it to yield fruitful results, when in fact the opposite is the only reality. A proof can neither prove that something is true, nor can it prove that something is not true, it can only prove that a "probably" is probably true. Truth that is probably true is just as much truth that is probably not true, and therefore, is no standard of measurable truth at all. No, truth that is probably true is indefinitely no truth at all. A truth such as this cannot rest on what is probable. It must be definite. What is definite cannot be proven true by any given "probably."
So, why then do we fly?

We fly because we think that we must. We think that we must because we do not trust. We do not trust because we suffer from lust. It's the same lust that took Eve and ensnared Adam. The same desire that has captivated all of humanity and has manifested itself as a four letter word: P-R-I-D-E and the sinful nature that we all inherit. Our pride causes us to fly. We think that we can do this on our own, and in that we fall and fail at bringing others into the obedience and humble submission of Jesus Christ. We have fallen and continue to fall. We think our power is still found high up in the sky of human discovering and human reasoning and human governing, when in fact it is found at the base, the foundation, the very cornerstone of Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:18 "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise."

-burton 261e

Unexpected Expectations.

One of the greatest discoveries that I have ever had in my short 2 1/2 years of following Christ is also one of the most grievous discoveries that my heart has ever felt. I have noticed, that the more time elapsed with my nose pressing hard against the rich pages of the biographical accounts of Jesus' life [the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John] and the numerous hours my mind has spent twirling in certainty and uncertainty over what is clearly and plainly written before my eyes, the more I have begun to realize how far away this world of Christendom that I have both involuntarily been surrounded with and voluntarily immersed myself in truly is from "the way" that is depicted in the teachings and revelations of this remarkably divine text. It is evident that the culture in which the bible was written is nothing like today's culture, and yet, so many are guilty of reading a twenty-first century framework into each author's first century intent, contorting the pure form of Christ on the basis of presumption and presupposition, and thus, leaving behind an impure distortion of what one chooses to think of Him under false pretenses which ultimately and undoubtedly creates an alternative form of Christ that fits neatly and cozily into one small compartment of the large complex of a twenty-first century Christian mindset. Beyond and also in the midst of this obvious cultural contextualization puzzle lies the grievous discovery that I am referring to in the first line above: that we are recklessly guilty of doing just as the Jews did upon the long anticipated first coming of the Messiah--Jesus Christ. The Jews, using their own human ingenuity, generally (I say generally because of the four known major sects of Judaism at the time [the Sadducee's, Pharisee's, Essen's, and Zealot's] each independently desired a different form of Messiah, each wanting one pertaining to their own idealized persona which naturally resembled their own style of community of righteousness and I have lumped these four into one category: the Jews) anticipated a Messiah that was to come in power who would descend from the line of King David, restore the sovereignty of Israel, gather all of her people back into the promised land from every dispersed region of the earth in which they lived, recommit to total observance of the Law [the Torah], and bring peace to all of humanity. Due to the Messianic standards that the Jews had preconceived, when the Messiah [Jesus of Nazareth] had finally come to gather his lost and scattered sheep, he was, to them [the Jewish religious leaders of the time], altogether unrecognizable. He was not seen because they did not have the eyes to see Him, for their eyes were shut by their own predetermined and obstinate biases. In a similar way, I'm afraid that far too many Christians, myself included, are guilty of not seeing Jesus for who He really is and for who He says (and others say) He is. The mistake that the Jews had made in reference to the coming Messiah was basing the total focal point of who their Messiah was on one aspect of Messianic prophecy when there are undeniably numerous aspects that the Messiah has and each of those aspects are not determinate on any specific group or individual's own expectations of the Messiah. Christians do this exact thing by grabbing hold of one aspect of the character or teaching of Christ and advocating for that precise thing without taking into account the whole of who Christ is and what He taught. What is so treacherously terrifying about this is that far too many Christians are guilty of adhering to only some part or parts of Jesus' teaching while, at the same time, they neglect the rest of His teaching, and some even do this intentionally based on personal discomfort or a reluctance to change! Too often Christians read what the sacred text says and only adopt those sayings or teachings that fit into the preconceived belief system that they already have, and in so doing, either consciously (If willfully one is to resist the teaching at hand) or unconsciously (If unknowingly one resists the teaching at hand by not investigating due to laziness or apathy) pervert the beautiful portrait of Jesus Christ. It would be as if a skillful artist were to place a freshly brushed painting in front of a small child, only to have the child smear the finished work all over the floor and thus, blemish the painting right in front of the master. Although the small child would gain two hands full (and then some) of paint immediately, the child would never have grown up to witness the beauty and glory of what the master had done for him and would never be able to properly receive the gift that was already given. Unfortunately, it is inevitable that many will continue to view Jesus in this way. If you are reading this and are among the many, I implore you to consider asking yourself if your own expectations are in the way of you seeing Jesus, and if they are, then you must look to see which teachings of His you are playing down and which teachings of His you are accentuating too much. If you are guilty as the Jews were and as many Christians are of having unexpected expectations about Jesus, you must also carefully search for the truth and never cease to ask Jesus to show you more of Himself. We must not be lazy any longer. We must not neglect full knowledge of the truth when the truth is right before us and even within arms reach. Ask, seek, knock. The door will be opened fully, but, in His due time and in accord with His glorious grace.


For a rather scary, but sobering reality that is only slightly related to the condition mentioned above:
"If one wanted to be brutally honest and reflect the dynamic of the first century, one would have to say that the conservative, evangelical Christian, the one who today has a very high view of Scripture and wants, in detail, to apply it to every aspect of life, is probably the closest parallel to the ancient Pharisee. How shocking, then, when such people at times fall into legalism and are accused of perverting what is intended to be a vibrant relationship with God into a religion of a long set of dos and don’ts."
--"What Life Looked Like In Jesus' Time," Dr. Craig Blomberg, a distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary in Littleton, CO, USA

I am quite sure that Jesus wasn't a huge fan of the Pharisee mentality and posture in relation to the kingdom of God. One quick skim through any one of the gospels will convey that fact. Jesus was not against the Jews. He was a Jew, however, He was against the attitudes that the Pharisees had acquired and came to lay down and become the very foundation of truth which was strongly opposed to such attitudes. Check yourself, repent, and begin to pursue and believe in the One who is truth.



-burton 261e

The Human Heart In All It's Glory.

The human heart is dark, disillusioned, distant, and alone. It cares not for anything other than grabbing hold of its own disturbing desires. It seeks after pleasure and cannot remove its eyes from her smooth skin. Its vision is so narrow that it cannot even conceive of any other possible routes other than the one it's on. Unable to turn a degree to the left nor the right and with no lever to change direction in sight, it tramples upon everything that gets in its way and travels without mercy. It has one purpose: to bring pleasure to itself. It has one method: consume, use, take. It has one thought: mine. Fueled by obsession, the human heart seemingly stops at no end. As it gains speed down the long, stubborn terrain it enters into a tunnel. At first the lights of the tunnel shine fairly bright. One light after another goes zooming by. After just a short while, each tunnel light becomes more and more dimly lit, until quite suddenly the last light goes out. Racing at a great speed down the dark tunnel, the human heart knows not where it's headed. Blindly moving through absolute darkness at its own presumptuous pace, it becomes complacent, helpless, and ignorant of its own condition. There the human heart lies embodied in its own deception. Thinking of itself to be paramount in its own existence, it travels deeper into a highly distorted and sickly deformed dimension of human selfishness. This is the state of the human heart at it's highest.

-burton 261e

Percieving The Bible As The Word of God.

The Bible contains within it the very mind of God himself. When opened, one is immediately lifted up into the benevolent thoughts of the Narrator who has by His own soft words spoken the greatest and most powerful love story ever told. Each and every part within this great masterpiece contains within it the most resounding and astounding message of hope that could ever be offered to all of mankind. If then, such a book is within the reach of any man or woman here on earth, and whether this book be found on an old dusty shelf or on a freshly swept desk, one might care to listen to the kind voice offering to him the salvation of his soul, saying, "Take and read; meditate on my ordinances, my law, my commandments, my truth, my revelation, my beauty, my heart, my mind, and come to know My Son, who has died and risen just for you, please, meditate both day and night on these things, that your life may be made complete, that you might have unending joy in this life and in the life to come."


Perceive the Bible in a way such as this, and you will most certainly experience Jesus much in the same way as that generation of men who personally encountered him face-to-face:

"...what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life..." - 1 John 1:1


-burton 261e

Abandoning the Tool Shed and Leaving All the Tools Behind.

It has been said that with intensively laborious effort we are to strive after holiness. We are to seek after perfection using all of the tools within reach of the tool shed next to us. If we use the right tool at the right time, that is, if we can find the right tool at the right time, we might hope to take one more step up this dysfunctional ladder that leads to perfection by fixing the step right above us, resulting in one stride nearer to that one area we are explicitly told that we cannot reach, even while using all of the right tools in the tool shed at once, at the right time, in the appropriate manner. If we accidentally grab the wrong tool, we rightfully accuse the tool for our own lack of reaching perfection. If we happen to grab the right tool, or the tool that we are convinced to be the right tool, and the tool again [to our own astonishment] fails us, we instead blame the tool shed for our inability to reach this standard of ultimate perfection. We "ought to" rigorously pursue the unobtainable, and when we fail to reach the apex of this incomprehensibly impossible pursuit, we slip down from the lowest point of the ladder to the base of the ground [which to our surprise wasn't as far down as we had thought] and feel a superb sense of overwhelming frustration and anger at the current position of helplessness and abasement that we find ourselves in. When we hit rock bottom, we are forced to see that no tool or tool shed could ever elevate us to the height of the top of this unpleasantly tall ladder, for the top of the ladder is simply too high, the only way to the top has too many steps to remodel or fix with our inadequate tools, and we are incapable of accomplishing this eminent achievement with all of the determination and idolization that could ever be mustered, tried, or admired with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength. After the cloud of frustration has cleared away and every method of human pride has been tested and has both miserably and irrefutably failed, we are then susceptible to a small bit of humility to enter into the core part of our inner being. It is all now too clear: The only way to the top of this ladder is through another possibility that was formerly unseen, one possibility that has the potential to lift us up to the top without much goodwill, without any laborious effort at all. It is when we see this possibility that the door behind the base of the ladder is opened and we are given the opportunity to walk down the short hallway and step into the elevator that effortlessly rises to the height of the top of the ladder outside. This process is the stepping stone into a new way of life. We must realize that the Christian life is a life lived not in the flesh, not in a life domineered by the law, but through the outpouring of the Spirit which empowers us with a supremely boundless life. We ought to not strive harder, we ought to not try fancy new tools with the same basic function as the former, we ought not to draw from an old, outdated tool shed, but we OUGHT TO cease striving and know that Jesus Christ is God and let His Spirit reign in our lives. If only we allow it to happen...if only we rid ourselves of all pride and do away with the old way of living...the old way of habitually thinking...we would then reach the epitome of present joy and peace of mind, and would truly partake in the easy yoke, where there is true and immediate rest for the soul.

--Psalm 46:10--



burton 261e

Playing By the Rules Won't Cut it.

One of the most difficult things to comprehend as a Christian is the simple fact that when you seem to do everything by the book, follow every principle or guideline that exists, and attempt to obey all of the rules, you still find yourself sick, unfulfilled, and still somehow missing the mark (Note: A surprisingly short self-checkup is needed to notice this if you are currently unaware of it's deep manifestation). After scanning through every list, principle, or rule possible, you realize that all of that is not only not enough, but it isn't even the point at all. You can't possibly measure up to those things and even if you could you wouldn't be following them with the right motives to drive the action. And that's when the world as you so surely thought you had "figured out" may come crashing down. It is then that you realize the only reason that you are a Christian is because He first called you child, because He suffered for you, and because He is fighting for you. And that's precisely when Christianity begins to make sense. It begins at the cross, it suffers with the cross, and it lives in light of the cross. He promised that He would send us His Spirit. He did. He promised us a life of abundance. It is here, and it can be experienced now. All that is required of us is a redeemed and willing ear that is ready to listen to the whispering call of the Father. This life was never meant to be lived out by playing off the instructions of an owner's manual. What's abundant about a to-do and not-to-do list? This life is meant to be lived out by conversing with the Maker of the game.


-burton 261E

Descartes' Ontological Argument.

Descartes’ Ontological Argument
by: Nick Davis

In Nolan’s article on “Descartes’ Ontological Argument,” the author provides an excellent breakdown of Descartes’ so-called proof for the existence of God. He diagnoses Descartes’ argument by breaking it down into three separate parts; the first part being the simplicity of Descartes’ argument, the second the distinction between essence and existence, and the third providing various objections and replies between skeptics and Descartes himself. This paper seeks to illustrate a fair account of Nolan’s deduction of Descartes argument as well as establish its own grounds for the validity of Descartes’ ontological argument.
First, let us begin this deduction by defining what ontological is. Ontological (or a priori) is to be defined as knowledge that can be known without any empirical evidence. Now, as for the subject of ontological arguments, Descartes’ is not the only one to formulate one. An earlier version of this type of argument existed with St. Anselm in the eleventh century and had long since died out; however, Descartes’ denies any ties to this traditional argument (p. 1). Descartes’ ontological argument holds that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God, and according to Descartes, to conceptualize something posits that this certain something must exist. Thus, most simply stated, because there is a clear and distinct idea or concept of a supremely perfect being (namely, God), God must exist. Descartes also suggests that his argument is not a formal proof at all but is a self-evident axiom obtained intuitively by a mind exempt from philosophical prejudice (p. 1)
In the first part, Nolan claims that Descartes’ version of the ontological argument is simplistic in that it compares the way we ordinarily establish basic truths while using arithmetic and geometry (p. 2). This holds that God’s existence can be fundamentally known through human intuition. We are capable of attaining knowledge of God’s existence by learning that the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being is found in apprehending necessary existence, just as Nolan writes “if I am able to clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence pertains to the idea of a supremely perfect being, then such a being truly exists (p. 3).” However, the premise for necessary existence to be conceptually linked to God’s existence does not depend ontologically on anything, for He is omnipotent and exists by His own power, and if God did not exist on His own initiative then it would be impossible for God to be omnipotent (p. 4). On page 5, Nolan states that Descartes further develops his previous analogy between the ontological argument and arithmetic. In this section Descartes suggests that there is one group of “meditators for whom God’s existence is immediately manifest” through his demonstration of a triangle whereas the latter group of “meditators…require a proof to attain the requisite clear and distinct perception” through looking at the Pythagorean Theorem to see God as self-evident (or as having necessary existence contained in the idea of supremely perfect being) (p. 5). Nolan points out on page 6 that Thomas Aquinas rejected the claim that God’s existence is self-evident because what is self-evident cannot be denied without contradiction, but God’s existence can be denied. Quite frankly I would have to agree with Aquinas on this point as existence can be denied; however, merely denying that something exists doesn’t mean that that something doesn’t exist. Take a car on an empty tank of gasoline for example. Merely thinking or believing with your ability or willpower to deny that your car is not out of gasoline wont get you any closer to your destination. Denying the reality of having no more gas won’t put more gas into your tank, nor will it mean that gasoline doesn’t exist. Denial does not evoke non-existence; it only posits an opinion based upon your perspective. In Descartes’ defense, Nolan points out that he does not hold that God’s existence is immediately self-evident or self-evident to everyone, but only that it can become self-evident with meditatiors that free themselves of all philosophical prejudices (p. 6).
In the second part, Nolan shows Descartes traditional medieval perspective on the distinction between essence and existence. On this notion, it is held that Descartes believed in a version of the Theory of Rational Distinction, which articulates that “a mind is merely rationally distinct from its thinking and a body is merely rationally distinct from its extension” (p. 8) and that in the abstract essence and existence are distinctly different, but in reality they are completely identical (p. 9). From Descartes viewpoint, “God is merely rationally distinct from his necessary existence, while every finite created thing is merely rationally distinct from its possible or contingent existence” (p. 9). By holding God and created beings on these two separate grade levels, this perspective allows Descartes to account for the theological difference that God independently exists of Himself and that His creation is entirely dependent on Him for existence (p. 9). God is distinguishable because of His higher level of existence and independent being. The result of this principle leads to the belief that ontological arguments cannot be conjured up for created substances or beings but only for God (p. 10). A finite thing cannot have an ontological argument produced for it because a finite thing is dependent on God, whereas the whole idea of a supremely perfect being containing necessary existence rests upon an ontologically independent argument (p. 10).
In the third part, Nolan draws out two necessary and sufficient conditions for Descartes’ version to be held prestigiously superior to his predecessors. The first condition is the theory of innate ideas and the latter the doctrine of clear and distinct perception. These two conditions protect Descartes’ ontological argument from the charges that were made against Anselm as well as provide the tools for answering any other objections. These conditions safeguard Descartes’ argument from suffering the objection of fictional ideas by purporting that the idea of God is something innate to the human intellect (p. 10). Among the other objections, there is “the claim that even if we were to concede that necessary existence is inseparable from the idea of God, nothing follows from this about what does or does not exist in the actual world” (p. 11) of which Descartes’ responds with the principle of clear and distinct perception, which bridges the gap between mere thoughts and reality (p. 11). Another objection which is much more difficult to respond to is Immanuel Kant’s objection which states “Whenever we think of anything, we regard it as existing, even if the thing in question does not actually exist. Thus, existence does not add anything to the concept of a thing (p. 13).” This very same objection was later refined by Bertrand Russell, claiming that “the statement “God exists” is not ascribing existence to a subject, but asserting that a certain description (in single quotes) applies to something in reality (p. 13).” Nolan goes about responding to this fine objection by first, prior to mentioning how Descartes might defend himself, noting that the “question at issue is typically framed in non-Cartesian terms and thus often misses its target (p. 14),” or more plainly stated, the question (or objection) is irrelevant to Descartes’ intended framework because his argument was never meant to be picked apart by logical issues when the argument itself was constructed on subject-predicate logic inherited from Aristotle (p. 14). If Descartes were to answer the question, nonetheless, he would have defended it by conceding to certain aspects of the objection such as the point that existence does not add anything to the mere idea of something and the notion that a thing cannot have properties unless it exists (p. 14). Conceding to these aspects asserts that the distinction between a substance and its existence is limited explicitly to thought or reason, therefore rendering a substance as its existence in reality (p. 15). Nolan concludes his deduction of Descartes’ ontological argument not by demanding the verdict for the case as true but to show that Descartes had a sophisticated and systematic way of treating existence (p. 15).






Work Cited
Nolan, Lawrence. “Descartes’ Ontological Argument.” Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. 15 October 2006. Stanford University. 13 October 2008