HeartQuest 101

This is the ninth chapter of Paul Little’s classic book, “Know Why You Believe” for my Sunday Bible study class.

This is a pretty hot question through the ages. The issue could be how data is interpreted; often conflict comes from trying to make the Bible say things it was not meant to answer. Do scientists and some Christians disagree? Yes, like Galileo, the Scopes trial of 1925 or Wilburforce and Huxley.

Well meaning Christians:

Some try to make the Bible say what it does not say. For instance James Bishop Ussher (1581-1656) calculated the genealogy back to Adam and claimed the earth was created in 4004 BC. Ussher’s notes are not part of the original text so the Bible does not really say that the earth was created in 4004 BC. Statements can be philosophic interpretations of data which do not carry the same weight of authority as the data.

When a scientist speaks:

When a scientist speaks on any subject, he is likely to be believed. He may be speaking outside of his field but gets the same respect that should be given from within his field. Carl Sagan (professor of astronomy at Cornell) speaks on the subject of science and religion. Science is his field; religion is certainly not. He makes bold statements like the universe is all there ever was or ever will be. If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, would it not make sense to worship the sun or stars? But it makes no sense to worship the product of blind chance in a pointless process.

Honest differences:

If we stick to what the Bible actually says and what the scientific facts are, the area of controversy is much smaller. There are times of honest differences among Christians: like the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis 1. We cannot condemn someone with a differing view.

Faith is suspect:

Can something that cannot be verified scientifically be dismissed as invalid or unreal? If a statement cannot be proved in a lab or confirmed by science, it cannot be accepted as reliable. There are other ways to acquire knowledge, than just in a laboratory. Consider falling in love. It cannot be confirmed in a lab yet no one would say it is unreal. The scientific method is only reliable on topics whose realities are measured in physical terms.

Scientific methods:

Faith is no detriment to reality. Science itself rest on presuppositions which must be accepted by faith before the research is possible. The universe is orderly, operates on a pattern, and we can predict it’s behavior.

The scientific method we know of today began in the sixteenth century, among Christians. They broke from the Greek polytheistic concepts that looked at the universe as in chaos and irregular.  The alternative was a universe of order and there must have been an intelligent designer behind the patterns. Another improvable presupposition that must be accepted by faith is the reliability of our sense perception. One must believe that our senses are trustworthy enough to get a true picture of the universe and enable us to understand its orderliness.

Science is the only way to truth:

A Christian exercises faith and sees no incompatibility in using reason or intelligence. A scientist who is a Christian sees himself following the steps of the founders of modern science.

Science is incapable of making value judgments about the things is measures. There is nothing inherent in science that guides them in the application of the discoveries they make. Science can tell us how something works but it cannot answer why it works; whether there is any purpose for it in the universe. The Bible often tells us how, but rarely tells us why!

Is God Necessary?

Some have thought God was necessary to explain some things that could not otherwise be explained. Scientist will say that given enough time they can explain anything in the universe.

God is not only creator but the sustainer of the universe (Colossians 1:17). The universe would fall apart if it were not for God. You still need God even if you understand everything. Knowing how the universe is sustained is not the same as things as sustaining it.

Consider DNA. Is God going to be thrown from the throne since DNA can be produced in a laboratory? These advances in science only emphasize that life did not come from blind chance, but from an intelligent mind! Science does not create ex nihilo!

Three views of evolution:

Evolutionism: that the universe has been evolving forever on the basis of a natural processes, mutation and natural selection.

Microevolution: describes a continued process or development within a species. A bear is still a bear, and dog is still a dog. A species is one of seven classifications (according to the Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus) 1) Kingdom, 2) Phylum, 3) Class, 4) Order, 5) family, 6) Genus, and 7) species. Kingdom is the largest group and species is the smallest. Members of a species have a high degree of similarity and will generally interbreed only with themselves. Microevolution will allow for the creation of a new species but not the development of one species into a higher classification.

In Genesis 1:24-25, is kind the same as species? Likely not. It basically means that each kind produces offspring like itself.

Macroevolution: requires the transfer of genetic information from one species to a higher more complex classification. Factors along with chance cannot provide the information necessary to build legs on a fish. There are no missing links in paleontology; from whales to land mammals for instance.

Animal ancestors:

Christians hold to two non-negotiable facts: God supernaturally created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1), and God supernaturally created the first man and woman (Genesis 1:27). The Bible rules out the possibility of mankind evolving from a lower life form. The NT refers to Adam and Eve as historic figures (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45, 2 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:13-14, 1 John 3:12, Jude 1:11). Genesis was not an allegory!

The age of the earth?

Was it 4004 BC or millions of years ago? Look at the Hebrew word for day. Can it mean a period or are rather than just a 24-hour period? The first humans were created on the sixth day (Genesis 2:7-22, 5:2) and he named the animals and had a wife all on a single 24-period? God’s use of the word day is not so confined (Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8). Other theologians state that God created a grown up universe, Adam at 20, trees with rings, a rock with the appearance of age, mountain ranges in place. It’s not an argument for the Christian to push since the Bible is silent on the matter. We should be agnostic as to the age of the earth.

Commentary: The same word day is used in the Ten Commandments, a 24-hour period (Exodus 20:11). Adam did not start out as an embryo. There was vegetation on day three, yet now sun until day four, so photosynthesis would not have worked if day three was more than 24 hours.

A constantly moving train:

We are always learning, yesterday’s generalization is tomorrow’s discarded hypothesis. What is to say that evolution is the last assault on our origin? If the Bible becomes embedded in today’s scientific theories, what happens when the theories change 20 years form now? In 1861 the French Academy of Science published 51 scientific facts that controverted the Word of God. Today, not one scientist would support one of these 51 facts.

The university quote on ps. 125-128…

Many scientists ignore these evolutionary assumptions and consider only the seventh.

1. Non-living things gave rise to living material; spontaneous generation.
2. Spontaneous generation happened only once.
3. Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are interrelated.
4. Protozoa gave rise to metazoa.
5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
6. Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates.
7. Vertebrates and fish gave rise to amphibia, to reptiles, to birds and mammals.

Observation:

These assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification. They assume a certain set of variables occurred in the past.

Does one assume there is a God or not? It either happened by chance or there is an intelligent design behind it all. If God, where does one stand on Christ?

Extremes to avoid:

That evolution has been proven and anyone with a brain should accept it.

That evolution is only a theory with little evidence for it.

The issue is interpretation of the facts; we choose to believe what we do based on our interpretation of the facts. The presuppositions one brings to the facts, rather than the facts themselves, determine one’s conclusion.

 Print This Post

This is the eighth chapter of Paul Little’s classic book, “Know Why You Believe” for my Sunday Bible study class.

Jonah being swallowed by a great fish. Jesus feeding 5000 people with two fish and five loaves. Did these really happen? Are we to take this literally?

The whole concept of God

The real problem is not with miracles or prophecy but with the whole concept of God. Once we assume that God actually exists, there is no problem with miracles, because by definition God is all-powerful.

God is not bound by natural laws

The real question becomes, “Does an all-powerful God who created the universe, exist?” If He does then miracles are possible. A miracle transcends natural law which God is the author. Some people define miracle as a violation of natural law, but this definition practically deifies natural law, and God becomes a prisoner to that natural law, and in effect ceases to be God. It’s fine to believe in natural law, because we can see the usual cause and effect process at work year after year. God does not restrict His right to intervene because He is over and beyond natural law, not bound by it. Laws do not cause anything but are a description of what happens or is observed.

What is a miracle?

We generally use the term to describe anything out of the ordinary or something unexpected; however the term is used in the Bible in a different sense. Some events in the bible could have a natural explanation, like the parting of the Red Sea. High winds could have pushed the waters back, but the miraculous part was the timing. They just reached the shore, the Egyptians approaching, and all the Hebrews were able to cross on dry land.

One the other hand, there are some that do not have a natural explanation, like Lazarus being raised from the dead, or many of the physical healings (like leprosy or the man born blind). This is more than a psychosomatic situation.

Some believe that ancient people were gullible, ignorant and superstitious. Perhaps the disease they had could be explained by modern science, like demon possession could have been psychosis or epilepsy. A primitive person might see a modern jet and call it a silver bird god in the sky. But there is a problem with this perception, since many of the miracles do not fit in this category.

There is no natural explanation for the healing of a person born blind, then or today. How could anyone explain the resurrection of Jesus? One cannot get away with the supernatural aspects of the Bible.

Not in conflict with natural law

Miracles are not in conflict with natural law! One definition of miracle is that they are unusual events caused by God; the laws of nature are generalizations about ordinary events caused by Him. Some people believe that miracles employ a higher natural law which is unknown to us. We must increase our knowledge we actually realize that the things we thought were miracles were actually higher laws of the universe, of which we were not aware at the time.

An act of creation

On the other hand, we can view them as acts of creation. Biblical miracles are not scattered throughout the Bible randomly, but are associated with purpose. From the Exodus, through the prophets and into the time of Christ, miracles confirmed faith by authenticating the message or the messenger, or to demonstrate God’s love by relieving suffering.

Miracles are never performed for personal prestige, or to gain money or power. Jesus was tempted to do this in Matthew 4, and resisted, but He regularly used miracles to show evidence of His claims (John 14:11, John 10:25).

Why not now?

Many believe that if God would only do it today, then I would believe. But even in Jesus’ day, He dealt with this in Luke 16 in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. The kicker verse is Luke 16:31. If people have ruled out the possibility of miracles, no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. It’s like the talking animals in the movie, Babe (1996 – the dog spoke slowly and precisely to the sheep because it was a cold fact of nature that all sheep were stupid and no one could convince him otherwise).

We have reliable records

We don’t need miracles today because we have reliable records that tell us these miracles really happened. If miracles are capable of sensory perception, then they can be matters of recorded testimony. If they are adequately testified to, then the recorded testimony has the same validity for evidence as the same experience of beholding the event. Every court operates on the basic of reliable testimony. If an eyewitness saw and recorded the event (like Lazarus’ raised from the dead), then this witness’ testimony is as good as being at the event.

Miracles were done in public: anyone could have seen and investigated the events. Even the chief opponents of Jesus never denied the fact He could do miracles! They either attributed the event to Satan or tried to suppress the witnesses.

Miracles were performed in front of unbelievers: Jesus was no cult member that deluded his private audience, it was before unbelievers, too.

Miracles were performed over a period of time and involved a great variety of powers: power over nature (John 2:1-11), power over disease (Mark 1:29-34), power over demons (Mark 1:21-27), power with supernatural knowledge (John 1:48), power over creation (Mark 6:30-44), power over death (Mark 5:35-43).

We have testimony of the cured: lie in the case of the man born blind (John 9:25) and Lazarus (John 12:10-11).

We cannot discount biblical miracles because of the extravagant claims of pagan miracles: many pagan believe in these miracles because they already believe in the pagan religion; the Bible uses miracles to help people discover the true religion (John 20:30-31).

Pagan miracles

These do not display the same order, dignity and motive as those found in the Bible. They do not have solid authentication of the miracle. Same can be said of miracles in our time today, they do not stand to investigation. Just because some miracles are counterfeit, does not mean all miracles are counterfeit (like discovering a few counterfeit bills does not less the authentic bills).

The question is philosophical

The question as to whether miracles are possible is not scientific but philosophical. Science says they do not occur in the normal course of nature or observation. Science cannot forbid them because natural laws do not cause not forbid miracles. They are merely description of what happened. The only question the scientist must ask is, “Are the records of miracles historically reliable?”

Miracles in the Bible are seen as God communicating with us. The whole matter depends on our belief in the existence of God; settle that question and miracles cease to be a problem.

 Print This Post

While I never have claimed to be a theologican, I read Al Mohler’s scholarly article on this topic and he summarizes and illustrates the issue:

Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth? The answer to that question must be a decisive No. Those who deny the virgin birth reject the authority of Scripture, deny the supernatural birth of the Savior, undermine the very foundations of the Gospel, and have no way of explaining the deity of Christ.

 

Anyone who claims that the virgin birth can be discarded even as the deity of Christ is affirmed is either intellectually dishonest or theological incompetent.

 

Several years ago, Cecil Sherman–then a Southern Baptist, but later the first coordinator of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship–stated: “A teacher who might also be led by the Scripture not to believe in the Virgin Birth should not be fired.” Consider the logic of that statement. A Christian can be led by the Bible to deny what the Bible teaches? This kind of logic is what has allowed those who deny the virgin birth to sit comfortably in liberal theological seminaries and to preach their reductionistic Christ from major pulpits.

 

Christians must face the fact that a denial of the virgin birth is a denial of Jesus as the Christ. The Savior who died for our sins was none other than the baby who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. The virgin birth does not stand alone as a biblical doctrine, it is an irreducible part of the biblical revelation about the person and work of Jesus Christ. With it, the Gospel stands or falls.

I have to admit that I find his teaching to be intriguing and thought provoking, if not downright logical. But for me, the discussion must also include the doctrine of salvation itself. Just what is salvation and what is it that makes one a Christian; a follower of Jesus or a disciple of Christ?

• Is a true Christian one who believes a defined set of propositional statements about Jesus?
• Is it that one knows and understands the Four Spiritual Laws?
• How much of the Bible must one know and understand and believe to be saved?

If we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), if we answer the call to “Follow Me” (Matthew 4:19), if we confess that Jesus is Lord, and believe that God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9-10) and we call upon the name of the Lord (Romans 10:13), where is the command to believe in the virginal conception of Jesus? Back to Al Mohler’s point, it is not about belief in the virgin birth, but the active denial of it.

I believe that we can be saved without the knowledge of the virgin birth, but once we learn about it, how could a true believer not accept this detail that explains the divinity of Jesus? How can someone read the Bible, claim to believe in its truth and accuracy, and at the same time deny the passages that talk about the virgin birth? Is it the same as John’s instruction about those who deny that Christ came in the flesh (2 John 1:7, 1 John 4:3)?  What do you think?

 Print This Post

At this time of year, it is a good question to ask, “What child is this?” 

• Some say He was just a good teacher, but good teachers don’t claim to be God.
• Some say He was merely a good example, but good examples don’t mingle with prostitutes and sinners.
• Some say He was a madman, but madmen don’t speak the way He spoke.
• Some say He was a crazed fanatic, but crazed fanatics don’t draw children to themselves or attract men of intellect like Paul or Luke to be their followers.
• Some say He was a religious phony, but phonies don’t rise from the dead.
• Some say He was only a phantom, but phantoms can’t give their flesh and blood to be crucified.
• Some say He was only a myth, but myths don’t set the calendar for history. 

Jesus has been called the ideal man, an example of love, the highest model of religion, the foremost pattern of virtue, the greatest of all men, and the finest teacher who ever lived. All of those descriptions capture elements of His character, but they all fall short of the full truth. The apostle Thomas expressed it perfectly when he saw Jesus after the resurrection, and exclaimed, “My Lord and My God!” (John 20:28).

** Adapted from John MacArthur, in God With Us, the Miracle of Christmas, 1989.

 Print This Post

One of the most popular Christmas carols of all time is “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing.” Did you know Scripture does not say the angels sang? When they appeared to the shepherds, they were speaking, not singing.

In fact, there are only two times in Scripture where the angels are found singing. One is in Job 38:7. Here the message is a bit cryptic: “The morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.” “Morning stars” refers to the angels; the archangel Lucifer, before he fell and became Satan, was called “star of the morning, son of the dawn” (Isaiah 14:12). Job 38:7 describes the angels’ singing at creation. That took place before Adam sinned—perhaps even before Lucifer fell.

Revelation 5:8-10 describes another incident when angels sing. Four living creatures—these are angels—join with twenty-four elders in singing a new song to Christ: “You are worthy to take the scroll and break its seals and open it. For you were slaughtered, and your blood has ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. And you have caused them to become a Kingdom of priests for our God. And they will reign on the earth.”

So angels sang before the Fall of man, and after the curse is removed, they will sing again. In the meantime, they apparently minister without singing. It is as if they cannot sing while the earth is under God’s curse.

** Adapted from John MacArthur, in God With Us, the Miracle of Christmas, 1989.

 Print This Post

The birth of Jesus Christ, next to His crucifixion, was the most momentous event in the history of the world. It became the focal point of all history. Everything before Christ looked forward to His birth, and everything since then looks back at Him. It was such a crucial event that now all the world numbers years according to it. B.C. means “before Christ,” and A.D. means “anno domini,” “in the year of our Lord.” Today, in order to minimize Christianity, the phrase has changed to CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before Common Era)…but who are they kidding?

Jesus made an impact on the world that has never been, and never will be, equaled by any mere man. In all the annals of the human race, no one is like Him. He never wrote a book. He never held political power. He was not wealthy or particularly influential in His lifetime. Yet He altered the world completely; in fact, no other human being has affected history remotely like He has.

He has been opposed, hated, fought, censored, banned, and criticized in every generation since His birth. Yet His influence continues. After two thousand years, the impact of His life goes on so powerfully that it is safe to say not a day passes but that lives are revolutionized by His teaching.

** Adapted from John MacArthur, in God With Us, the Miracle of Christmas, 1989.

 Print This Post

Christmas trees seem to have their origins in the ancient celebrations of Saturnalia. The Romans decorated their temples with greenery and candles. Roman soldiers conquering the British Isles found Druids who worshiped mistletoe and Saxons who used holly and ivy in religious ceremonies. All those things found their way into Christmas customs.

Interestingly, however, the first person to have lighted a Christmas tree may have been Martin Luther, father of the Reformation. He introduced the practice of putting candles on trees to celebrate Christmas, citing Isaiah 60:13 as biblical authority for the practice: “The glory of Lebanon will come to you, the juniper, the box tree, and the cypress together, to beautify the place of My sanctuary; and I shall make the place of My feet glorious.”

** Adapted from John MacArthur, in God With Us, the Miracle of Christmas, 1989.

 Print This Post

Christians are supposed to influence culture for the better, despite what many non-Christians might want. Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist professor at Oxford recently put signs on London busses stating that “There’s probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Probably? Perhaps he is not too sure about his atheism or the bus company made him tone down his message. Either way, the message is pretty clear, he wants people to live their lives as if there is no God… I wonder what that kind of world would be like?

I wonder what professor Dawkins might think about a world were no Christians exist. Gone are the 90% of Christians who desire to serve mankind in a positive fashion, help others when they are in need, offer comfort to those who are suffering or in grief, those who are the first to rush in with disaster relief… Dawkins must long for a world with no hope at the end of life, with no purpose in this life other than to eat, drink, conquer, procreate and die. Without Christians or the Holy Spirit of the Bible in this world, all that is left is the base of human cruelty, the survival of the fittest where only the strong survive.

My question is, “What does it hurt for people to believe in God?”

I recently read the Southwest Virginia Christian Leadership Network newsletter that quotes Reggie McNeal, from his book Practicing Greatness. He outlines seven spiritual habits or disciplines that lead to the spiritual influence we need within our culture. Since leadership is the art and science of influence, this is what McNeal writes:

1. Self-awareness – understanding who God created you to be
2. Self-management – managing emotions, expectations, temptations, mental/physical well-being
3. Self-development – lifelong commitment to building on your strengths, not your weaknesses
4. Mission – living out of a sense of God’s purpose for your life and leadership
5. Decision-making – knowing the elements of good decisions and learning from failure
6. Belonging – nurturing relationships with family, followers, mentors, and friends
7. Aloneness – the intentional practice of soul-making solitude and contemplation

Seek ways to influence our culture with intentionality; not just seeking people to believe the way we do, but to allow people to see Jesus for who he really is!

 Print This Post  Email This Post

This YouTube video (the Church of Oprah Exposed) is tremendously disturbing. Is this video representative of what happens when the group or community gets together and decides proper theology? Rex Miller indicates we should trust our people to be on a hero’s journey searching for truth and significance in life (my interpretation of what I heard at a recent conference), but what happens when influential people like Oprah with her “experts” and credibility redefines who Jesus is? Is there no standard anymore within the Christian community?

I see this like Dan Brown and his Da Vinci Code confirming in the minds of skeptics that Jesus really is the charlatan they always thought he was; because “now we have proof – Dan Brown’s research claims its truthfulness right on page one.” When is the print media of the Bible a true standard in this generation? Or is proper theology lost and we just have to keep diversifying the church (liberal vs. conservative, infant baptism vs. believers’ baptism, health and wealth gospel vs. theology of the cross, cheap grace vs. costly discipleship, gay bishops vs. homosexuality is a sin, etc.). While denominationalism divides the church (often times for good reason regarding non-essentials or preferences) we still can agree on who Jesus is in our foundational beliefs.

In Beauty and the Beast, the village is storming the castle in order to kill the beast. The cartoon musical has a great line, “a hundred Frenchmen can’t be wrong, so kill the beast!” Just because a larger group gets together and says Jesus is NOT only one way to get to God, doesn’t make it proper or acceptable Christian theology.

I read this article this morning in Our Daily Bread:

In his book Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, Neil Postman warns us of the danger of a world of information overload. He reminds us of a chilling futuristic vision—Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, which describes a world thoroughly flooded with information. But that data is manipulated so that none of it has any significance.

A glance at the Internet or a magazine rack hints that we are living in just such a culture. We’re drowning in a sea of information often marketed by the unscrupulous. We need discernment to choose wisely whom we will listen to.

In John 6, Jesus delivered His “I am the bread of life” message (v.35). It was a sermon so controversial that, at its conclusion, many of His followers went away and stopped following Him (v.66). They chose to stop listening to the voice of Christ. When Jesus challenged His disciples as to whether they would also walk away, Peter wisely responded, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (v.68). 

In a world swamped with confusing and contradictory information, we can, like Peter, turn to Christ for wisdom. He cuts through the words of confusion with words of life.  — Bill Crowder

So, here we are in the information age, so much information we often find ourselves in information overload (24 hour news, thousands of magazine choices, more web pages than Google can count, non-stop commercials telling us what we need in order to live a satisfying life). I wonder if the church needs to be more in the business of helping people make sense of the world around them; we need interpretation more than additional information.

Read what my friend Chuck Warnock has written on the topic.

 Print This Post

I read a Homelife Magazine article this week by and about Tullian Tchivijian (Billy Graham’s prodigal grandson who admits defeat) called a magnificent defeat at the hand of God. He discusses that as a teenager he rebelled against all he knew to be right and was sucked into sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll… now jump to the present, he is currently founding pastor of New City Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

As I read, my first question was… “What?” Did this guy know who his grandfather was? Did this not influence him at all? Billy Graham was/is God’s ambassador to sitting presidents, heads of state as well as the common people all over the world, who preached the message of the resurrection to more people than the apostle Paul could ever had hoped for. Yes, he knew; and that’s why his life went awry.  

A great quote from the article: 

“The problem between knowing about God and knowing God is as massive as the Grand Canyon. That distance, that separateness, is something that must be resolved.” 

That’s why his life was bankrupt. Now back to my original question, “What is a Christian?” We have all heard various definitions: 

o    One who believes in the resurrection of Christ

o    One who trusts in Christ for his salvation

o    One who believes a certain set of propositional truth

o    One who participates in an organized church

o    One who follows the teachings of Jesus or the Bible

o    One who tries to live by the Ten Commandments

o    The list goes on…

Another amazing quote from the article: 

When my kids ask me, “Dad, what’s a Christian?” I always answer, “A Christian is one who can say, ‘As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, 0 God. My soul thirsts for God”‘ (Ps. 42:1-2). A Christian is someone who hungers for God more than anything else; more than health, wealth, status, good looks, or a spouse. Make no mistake: What we love is a surer test of who we are than what we say. Actions are much easier to fabricate than affections. 

That’s the point of HeartQuest 101, to love God more than anything else; to find that pearl of great price and risk everything to get it; to risk getting out of our comfort zones; to step out of our boats of mediocrity and experience water-walking with Jesus (a story from Matthew 14).  

This lifelong journey is a quest of the heart, to actively search for God in order to bring a sense of meaning and purpose to this life, then to bring honor and glory to our Creator and Sustainer of this world. So, how does your life reveal the love of your life? If we claim Christ has that number one spot, how does life lived out back up our affections?

 Print This Post