Skip to main content

You Are More Than What Others Say You Are

I suppose this truth is my uplift for this week. In order for it to be more than motivational speech from a Goalcast video--no offense to those--I would do well to recall that Jesus Christ died for me, and would have, even were I the only one in need of redemption. He endured human rejection, violence, and all the sorrow of the sins of humankind for me. For you.

People might be disappointed, or even angry with me. But Jesus has already made the definitive statement regarding my potential and my value. I myself may not even believe in my value in God's eyes. But who am I to argue with God? The flip-side of arguing against God, saying, "Why did you make me like this?" as though He has been unfair to us is also valid: I have no right to call unworthy that which he calls worthy. That which he redeems is of incalculable value. This is no less true for ourselves as it is for anyone else.

If this is true, how wasteful is it, in the face of our sins, to say, "This is just the way I am"? If we do, we can add "liar" to whatever else accurately describes us. If the Cross shows us the extent of His love in redeeming us, we have this and other images to show His generosity, for he also said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

Hope has been born in us indeed, if the desire to be in the arms of Jesus is greater than our self-condemnation. To repent is nothing more than to acknowledge that I have been turned in the wrong direction, and that I want to go in the right direction. To abuse and insult myself on account of my weakness is to argue with Jesus about the mercy in His own Heart! There is no doubt that the damned argue with God, despite whatever remorse is also present.

Whether I am innocent or guilty, or someplace between, the heart of true faith strives to agree with God.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un