@ op. Trust in the Lord and take heart.

Example when was Jesus crucified.
9:00 a.m.  -- “It was the third hour when they crucified him.” mark (15:25)
After 12:00 p.m.  -- Jesus was not crucified until after the sixth hour!    john(19:14-15)

This one takes more digging in the Bible. This difference, involves the Jewish times of the day, and our times of the day (the Roman time of day: 12am-11:59pm). Let's look at the Jewish times of day in the New Testament time: (hours are approximate because the length of the hour was not "set in stone" until about the 18th century)

Third hour--6am-9am
Sixth hour--9am-12pm
Ninth hour--12pm-3pm
Twelfth hour--3pm-6pm
First Watch--6pm-9pm
Second Watch--9pm-12am
Third Watch--12am-3am
Fourth Watch--3am-6am

The Roman times of day, are just as English Time, the Third Hour would be literally the Third Hour, from 12am (3am). The Jewish Day starts at about Evening of one day (about 6pm or so), to the evening of the next day, whereas Roman time, the day starts at 12am.

     In Mark 15:25 we see Jesus crucified in the Third Hour, which is about from 6am-9am. In John 19:14 it appears to be the Sixth hour, 9am-12pm, when Pilate brought Jesus before the crowd, right before Jesus was sentenced to Crucifixion! Is there a contradiction? It honestly appears to be . . . but it's not! The difference is the system of time that Mark wrote in, and John wrote in! Mark, wrote in the Jewish times of day, while John wrote in the Roman times of day! That might seem like a long-shot, but let's look at the context (not to mention, more highly studied Biblical scholars have said Mark seemed to write more after the Jewish manner, and John more after the Gentile/Roman manner) to check if this makes sense.

     Look at the time frame for this; Peter denied Jesus, The cock crew, then we see Jesus being led to the chief priests STRAIGHTWAY in the Morning (as said in Mark), and EARLY in the Morning (as said in John). Now for both Jewish times and Roman times, Morning and Night are the same, it is still dark at night and light during the day. The only difference is when they consider the daily time frame to begin. Morning, is Midnight and onward, from the time the moon begins to descend and give way to the sun. Something to note, is that the Jewish timing, counts also the Third Watch (12am-3am), as "cockcrow," and the Fourth Watch (3am-6am) as "morning." Though roosters crow throughout the day (believe me, I know, I used to live by one!) they are most noted for crowing in the early hours of the morning, this probably caused the Jews to also think of the Third Watch as "cockcrow," and honestly is probably the time when Peter heard it after denying Jesus! Then it says they led Jesus in the early morning, or straightway in the morning, which would then be considered perhaps as the Fourth Watch (also known as "morning" the way Third Watch is known as "cockcrow", between 3am-6am. Then we see Jesus Crucified (in Mark) DURING the Third Hour, from 6am-9am, and in John at the "Sixth Hour" about to be led to the hill to be crucified, which knowing to be the Roman time of day, is about the beginning of the "Third Hour" at 6am.

     All that, if we understand how John wrote in Roman time of day, and Mark in Jewish time of day, many other things make sense, even from the inscription on the cross, Mark says: "The King of the Jews," and John says, "Jesus of Nazareth The King of the Jews" It was written in three languages: Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. I believe Mark wrote the Hebrew form, John the Greek form. There is a clear difference between John's form, and Mark's form, because they probably did write, Mark, Hebrew form, and John, the Greek (or maybe Latin) form. Another thing that makes sense in light of all this, is that in John it is mentioned the "Seventh hour" (John 4:52). Unless it's mistaken, there was no "seventh hour" in New Testament Jewish time of day, but indeed there is in Roman time of day!

     Another thing that makes sense when we see that John wrote in Roman time, and Mark wrote in the Jewish time, is the fact that the Jews were rushing so they could eat the Passover meal and finish before morning or daylight (which Jesus being condemned in the area of 6am, and crucified in the Third Hour (6am-9am) that would have been possible). They are commanded to do so early and be ready to leave by morning . . . remembering the commandments from Exodus. Now, if John were speaking in terms of Jewish times of day, Jesus would be before Pilate, about to be condemned, from 9am-12pm. That would be far too late in the day. It would actually be close to the END of that day, and close to the BEGINNING of the Sabbath day, wherein everyone was to rest, not still deal with the passover work.

     These are a few clues in the Bible, that show how Mark and John still agree, yet Mark speaks in terms of the Jewish times of day, and John speaks in terms of the Roman times of day. The truth of the matter: Jesus was about to be condemned at about 6am or so, and He was Crucified a little later on, between 6am and 9am (probably closer to the beginning half of the "Third Hour".

http://www.workmenforchrist.org/Bible/BC_Jesus_Nets.html

@~Lady~
Thanks for the compliments. God bless you.

The New Catholic Catechism in Part One, Section 847,(http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm) states that non-Catholics who “seek God with a sincere heart” and “try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience,” will “achieve eternal salvation.”

The Roman Catholic Church has publicly stated that this means that sincere people from non-Christian religions such as Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Taoists, animists, etc. will make it to heaven without the necessity of hearing of or believing in it or its dogmas. As long as they are sincere in their faith and live a good life, they will make it to heaven.
The Roman Church has also publicly stated that this means that sincere people who have no religious convictions such as agnostics, atheists, skeptics, etc. will make it to heaven without the necessity of hearing of or believing in it and its dogmas. As long as they are sincere and live a good life, they will make it to heaven.

The Pope has also said that the Orthodox, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc, will also make it to heaven without hearing of or believing in the Roman Catholic Church. As long as they are sincere in their faith and live a good life, they will make it to heaven. They are only “separated brethren.”

Since this is what your Church teaches, we who are non-Catholics request that you stop trying to convert us. Why?

1.   We do not need to hear of or believe in your church to make it to heaven.

       Since we do not need your religion and our own religion or lack of religion is 

       sufficient to save us, don’t bother us.

2.   Our ignorance is our salvation according to your Catechism. Thus if you try to convert us, you will endanger our souls. Your Catechism states that people go to hell if they come to believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the true religion but “refuse to enter it.”  Thus you may cause us to lose our salvation if you convince us that your religion is true. So, please leave us alone.

3.   Section 846 also states that people who believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the true religion but “refuse to remain in it,” will go to hell. Those who leave the Roman Church and then are sincere in their new beliefs and live a good life will still make it to heaven. But if you convince them that the Roman Church is the true church, you will endanger their immortal soul. So, leave them alone! As sincere ex-Catholics, they are going to heaven. Don’t damn them by trying to convert them.

4.   Section 856(http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm) the Catechism states that a “respectful dialogue” with non-Catholics may be done. But you have failed to be “respectful.” Instead, you have repeatedly engaged in rude and offensive “Protestant bashing.”

Conclusion

Since, according to your Church, we non-Catholics can get to heaven without becoming Roman Catholics, we do not need you or your Church. And, since we have our own religion, we do not want you or your Church. Catholic apologetics will do us more harm than good. It is thus time for you to seek gainful employment elsewhere such as selling insurance, cars or shoes.

Personal testimony of an ex jehovah witness.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/cults/exposejw/chap3.cfm

Militancy is the difference between what was historically known as “atheism” and the modern movement of “antitheism.” The atheists of the old school took a rather relaxed, passive attitude toward God and the Bible. They felt that if people were foolish enough to believe in religion, that was their problem. These atheists did not feel the need to read through the Bible, desperately seeking contradictions or errors. They did not sit up night after night feverishly trying to formulate attacks against religion. They simply ignored religion.

The situation abrubtly changed after Hegel (1770-1831). Atheists became anti-theists as they were now actively “against” God, seeking to wage war on God and on those who believed in Him. Thus the pure atheism of nonbelief gave way to a crusade of anti-theism. No longer did they simply not believe in God. They now hated God and wished to destroy all faith, love and obedience directed to Him.

Hegel and those who followed him, such as Feuerbach, Neitszche, Marx, etc., believed that God had to be pushed aside in order for man to be free to be his own god. The only way for man to ascend the throne of divinity was for God to step down. It was not simply that God did not exist; God must not and ought not exist.
Thus modern atheists deny God’s existence because they actually hate God. They hate Him because this God demands they serve Him and fulfill the destiny He has decreed for them. This God gives man a revealed law which dictates what is right and wrong. God thus robs man of the freedom of being and choosing whatever he wants. God is viewed as the enemy that must be destroyed in order for man to reach his full potential. Instead of God being the measure of all things, man must be the measure of all things.
The only way atheists can strike a blow directly against God is to deny His existence. Is it any wonder then that the modern anti-theists’ champion is Prometheus who said, “I hate all the gods,” who said he would rather suffer death than be the servant of the gods. Prometheus did not deny that the gods existed. His was the rebel cry, “I will not serve you. I will not acknowledge your authority over me. I deny your very existence, for I will not bow down to you.”

Prometheus’ hatred of God and all He stands for is the soul and substance of modern anti-theism. This is why the name “Prometheus Books” was chosen for the major publisher of infidel literature.
So tell me, are you not "Promethus"?

Revelation 22:11-15
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

The Incomprehensibility of God

The God who has revealed Himself in Scripture tells us that He is going to be “incomprehensible” to us. But does this mean that God is going to be irrational or illogical? No. It means that God is beyond man’s capacity to understand or explain exhaustively. In this sense, God is beyond human reason and logic because He is infinite and we are finite.

The doctrine of incomprehensibility is the opposite of rationalistic “reductionism,” which reduces God to human categories in order to make Him “manageable,” “coherent,” and “explainable.” Incomprehensibility allows God to be GOD. It reveals that God is infinitely better and greater than man. Thus we can build all the little theoretical molds we want, and we can try to force God into these molds, but in the end God will not “fit.” He will always be beyond our grasp. He is too high for us to scale and too deep for us to fathom. We cannot get God in a box. The finite span of the human mind will never encompass the infinite God of Scripture.

But does this mean that God is “unknowable”? If by “unknowable” we mean the Greek philosophic dichotomy that “man must know either all or nothing,” this is not what Christian theology means by its doctrine of incomprehensibility. We can have a true but finite knowledge of God on a personal and intellectual level because God has revealed Himself. Thus while we cannot fully understand the God who has revealed Himself, yet we can and do know Him. (See Jeremiah 9:23, 24; Daniel 11:32; John 17:3; Galatians 4:8-9; 1 John 4:4-8; 5:18-21).

The doctrine of incomprehensibility means that we can only go so far and no further in our understanding of God because we are limited in three ways.

First, we are limited by the finite capacity of our minds. This is a “problem” that cannot be avoided any more than it can be overcome. So, we might as well as admit that we are not gods. Since we are finite creations of an infinite God, we will never understand it all.

Second, we are also limited by the sinfulness of our minds. Thus we have a moral problem as well as a capacity problem. By nature, we do not want the light of Truth. We prefer the darkness of error (Genesis 6:5; John 3:19-21). Sin and Satan have darkened and blinded our minds lest we see the Truth (Romans 1:28; 2 Corinthians 4:4). Only God’s wondrous grace can overcome our moral aversion to truth and righteousness.

Third, we are limited by revelation. Paul warned the Corinthians “not to go beyond what is written” because it would lead to arrogance (1 Corinthians 4:6). The constraints of revelation are given in order to restrain man’s depraved lust to make gods for himself. We are not free to speculate and come up with our own ideas of God. We are to study the Bible in order to learn God’s ideas about Himself, to think God’s thoughts after Him.

What are the consequences if we reject the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God? While we might “cheer” at first because this gives a cheap and easy way to resolve the antinomies and paradoxes of Scriptures, it ultimately leads to a rationalistic denial of all Christian doctrine.

Stephen Davis is a good example of this process. He demands a “precise explanation” that is “coherent” to him, or he will not believe. In other words, if he cannot fully understand some aspect of the Christian God, he will throw it out because “man (in this case Davis) is the measure of all things.” This is the basic assumption of secular and religious humanism.

Davis first applies his humanistic assumption to the issues of divine sovereignty and human accountability. He understands that the historic Christian solution beginning from the Apostolic Fathers is that both divine sovereignty and human accountability are true. Christians for two thousand years have also believed that no one is able to reconcile these two ideas. It is a Biblical mystery that demands faith, not explanation. Since those who hold to both doctrines at the same time openly admit that they cannot give a “precise explanation” of how divine sovereignty and human accountability are both true, Davis has no choice but to reject the Christian position that both are true. He must now choose one and reject the other.

But does he now choose God and exalt His glory? No, as a humanist, Davis will always exalt man at the expense of God. When the choice comes down to either God’s being “free” to do as He pleases with what He made, or man’s being “free” to do as he pleases, a humanist will always make man “free” and God “bound.” Thus Davis argues;

Take the person who tries to reconcile divine predestination of all events with human freedom by saying, “Well, I’m talking about a kind of predestination which allows for human freedom.” Until it is explained precisely what this species of predestination is, we will be suspicious that the proposed reconciliation is spurious.

While this is a quick and easy way of philosophically dismissing the position of the early Church and the Reformation, we should warn the reader that having established the precedent that “whatever cannot be precisely explained is spurious,” Davis goes on to apply it to such doctrines as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Similarly, we would be suspicious of a person who tries to explain how an incorporate being can be spatially located somewhere by the use of what this person calls “an aspatial concept of inside of.” Again, until it is explained precisely what this species of “inside of” is, we will reject the proposed reconciliation.

Since no one can “precisely explain” how an “incorporate being,” either the Holy Spirit or a demonic spirit, can exist “inside of” someone, Davis rejects the idea. He also calls into question the omnipresence of God, for who can “precisely explain” howGod is everywhere present? Davis concludes,

If we want to be rational we have no choice but to reject what we judge to be incoherent

We had better consider the way that someone does theology because it sets a precedent that will be relentlessly applied to more and more Christian teaching until nothing is left. While a denial of predestination is exegetically foolhardy, it is not damnable. But it is damnable to deny the essential attributes of God, such as His omnipresence, or the doctrine of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Christians need to understand that they must first look at where a line of reasoning will take them before they unknowingly start down the “primrose path” to apostasy.

Let us now examine some of the Scriptures which clearly teach the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God. We will begin with the book of Job as it contains the fullest treatment of the doctrine in the Bible.

The Book of Job

This book is the passage of full mention in the Bible concerning the problem of evil. And it is also the passage of full mention on the subject of the incomprehensibility of God. Thus any discussion of the problem of evil must involve an affirmation of the incomprehensibility of God.

In Job the problem of evil is “solved” by the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God. In other words, Job’s solution was to accept both that God is sovereign and that man is responsible. He did not try to explain this. He simply left such mysteries in the hands of God.

It is interesting to note that when we examined the books that claim to “solve” the problem of evil by reducing the power and knowledge of God, not one of them even mentioned the book of Job. Why is Job ignored? Perhaps they don’t like the answer God gave Job out of the whirlwind, because this answer is the incomprehensibility of God.

Now, we must point out that the problem of evil was not an academic issue for Job. The pain and suffering caused by the death of his children, the theft of his goods, the loss of his health, the ruination of his marriage, and the criticism of his friends, were all real evils to him.

But when Job said that he was willing to receive “evil as well as good from God,” he meant what he said (Job 2:10). He was even willing to worship the God who “took” away his children, wealth, and health, saying:

The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away.

Blessed be the name of the Lord (Job 1:21).

When his wife told him to curse God for all the evils He had sent their way, Job refused (Job 2:9). In the face of unbelievable pain and suffering, Job exclaimed,

Though He slay me,

I will hope in Him (Job 13:15).

This passage is very important, for in his mind, Job viewed God as his “Slayer.” He did not say that “chance” or “bad luck” or even “the Devil” was the cause of all the evils which came upon him. He always assumed that God was in control of this world. Although the agent who caused the evil may have been the Devil, the Chaldeans, etc., Job bowed before God as the One who sent the evils his way. Yet, he did not “blame” or “curse” God as if He were the agent or cause of these evils.

Job held to two seemingly contradictory doctrines. On the one hand, God was not the author of evil in the sense of being its agent, and He was thus not accountable for it. Therefore God should not be cursed. On the other hand, God is sovereign and He sent all these evils on Job. Thus he states over and over again that it is God who “took” away his children, wealth, health, and happiness (Job 12:9). No other exegetical conclusion is possible. As we shall see, Job could live with two seemingly contradictory doctrines because he had a very deep belief in the incomprehensibility of God.

But how could he endure all these things and believe in God’s sovereignty and not curse God? Why didn’t he give up his belief in God and become an atheist? Why didn’t he trade in his infinite God for a finite god like the gods of the heathen? They were “guilty but forgiven” because they were limited in power and could not know the future. Did Job ever limit his God in these ways? How did he handle it?

Job handled all the evils in life the same way true believers have always handled them. Faith! Mighty faith! Faith that looked to God alone! This was his secret.

Job ultimately accepted the fact that his “reason” was incapable of comprehending the Being and works of God. So, he simply trusted in God that He knew what He was doing. Job did not presume to instruct the Almighty or to be His counselor.

But Job and his friends had to learn the hard way to trust in God and not to lean on their own understanding. At the beginning they still tried to reason it out all by themselves. But after all their discussions, they never solved anything. The book of Job concludes with the solution that Divine revelation is the only way for man to find an answer. This is the enduring message of the Book of Job and God’s eternal answer to the problem of evil.

Several passages in Job deserve close study.

But as for me, I would seek God;

And I would place my cause before God;

Who does great and unsearchable things,

Wonders without number (Job 5:9).

How does Job resolve the fact that God is good and, at the same time, that “He inflicts pain” (Job 5:18)? The answer given in Job 5:9 is that when we try to search out the whys and wherefores of God’s actions, we will always find that His ways are “unsearchable,” i.e., incomprehensible. His “wonders are without number” and cannot be counted and measured by man.

Who does great things, unfathomable,

And wondrous works without number.

Were He to pass by me, I would not see Him;

Were He to move past me, I would not perceive Him.

Were He to snatch away, who could restrain Him?

Who could say to Him, “What art Thou doing?” (Job 9:10-12)

Starting with the doctrine of Creation (verse. 8. Job proceeds to the incomprehensible nature of God and His works. What God does is so “great” that no one can “fathom” its depths. This makes His works “wondrous” or “awe-inspiring.”

Job now proceeds to the fact that we cannot “see” God. Thus we cannot “perceive” His motives or goals. Neither can we “restrain” Him from doing whatever He wants. Thus we have no right to challenge God by demanding, “What art Thou doing?”

Can you discover the depths of God?

Can you discover the limits of the Almighty?

It is high as the heavens, what can you do?

Its measure is longer than the earth,

And broader than the sea.

If He passes by or shuts up,

Or calls an assembly, who can restrain Him?

For He knows false men,

And He sees iniquity without investigating (Job 11:7-11).

The impact of these rhetorical questions cannot be avoided. No one can “discover the depths of God” for the depths are bottomless. No one can “discover the limits of the Almighty” for He is limitless. The text states that even if we could search out all of creation in terms of its height, depth, length, and breadth, we still could not “discover,” i.e., comprehend, the infinite nature of the Almighty.

This is also applied to the sovereign will of the Almighty. If He wants to “pass by or shut up” something (verse. 10), no one can restrain Him. He will do as He pleases.

God’s omniscience is then defined in terms of an immediate and perfect knowledge of all things including the sins of man (verse. 11). God’s knowledge does not “grow” because He does not have to investigate a matter to learn about it. No, God knows all things “without investigation,” i.e., without waiting until the event and its investigation occurs. The incomprehensibility of God is the context for both God’s sovereignty and God’s omniscience.

Then the Lord answered Job out of

the whirlwind and said,

“Who is this that darkens counsel

By words without knowledge?

Now gird up your loins like a man,

And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth!

Tell Me, if you have understanding,

Who set its measurements, since you know?” (Job 38:1-5)

Job and his friends had sat around discussing the problem of evil in terms of what had come upon Job. On the basis of human reason, they engaged in endless philosophical speculation and, in the end, failed to resolve anything. Although a great deal of heat was generated during their discussions, little light came of it.

At last, God gives a revelation to the problem of evil. The first thing that He does is to dismiss all the conclusions of human “reason” as “words without knowledge” that only “darken counsel.” Paul echoes this thought when he states that the world with all its philosophical wisdom is sheer “foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:18-21).

Then God challenges their ability and capacity to understand the questions and the answers to those questions. In fact, they had asked questions that were “too deep” for them. Not only did they not understand their questions, but even the answers were also beyond their capacity to understand. They were “in over their heads” and did not know it! This is why so many people drown in unbelief. And even when we toss out to them the lifeline of Scripture, they would rather drown in unbelief than accept God’s revelation by faith. For four chapters, God challenges them,

So, you think that you are so smart that nothing is “beyond” you? You don’t even hesitate to tell Me how to run the universe I made! Well, I have a few questions for you. We’ll see if you are as smart as you claim. Since you think that you can comprehend Me, let’s see how well you comprehend the world around you. After all, this should be easy for you since you claim to understand Me!

God then proceeds to put Job and his friends in the “hot seat” and give them “the third degree.” Under divine interrogation, they soon realized that their “reason” and “intuition” were not sufficient. The sovereignty of God was the solution to the problem of evil.

Then Job answered the Lord, and said,

“I know that Thou canst do all things,

And that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted.

Therefore I have declared that which

I did not understand.

Things too wonderful for me,

which I did not know.

Hear, now, and I will speak;

I will ask You, and You instruct me.

Therefore I retract,

And I repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:1-4, 6).

Under the rebuke of God for trying by “reason” to solve the problem of evil, Job “repents” and “retracts” all the things he and his friends had said. He now bows before revelation and submits to the Divine glory. He admits that God can do whatever He wants and no one can frustrate or condemn His sovereign will. He admits that such questions are “too wonderful,” i.e., mysterious, for him. He will leave such things to God.

Other Passages

The rest of Scripture follows Job in resolving the problem of evil by submitting to the incomprehensibility of God. Let us examine a few of these passages.

Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;

It is too high, I cannot attain to it (Psalm 139:6).

In this Psalm, David first introduces the subject of God’s omniscience in verses 1-5, which leads him to the incomprehensibility of God in verse 6. Then he goes on to describe the omnipresence of God in verses 7-12. David did not become depressed over the fact that God’s omniscience and omnipresence are concepts that were “too high” for him to comprehend. The opposite was true. The incomprehensibility of God enhanced his worship. He could worship such a God because He is so wonderful.

Great is the Lord, and highly to be praised;

And His greatness is unsearchable (Psalm 145:3).

In the context, David has in mind not only the “greatness” of God’s being, but also of His works. The word “unsearchable” is often translated “unfathomable.” A nautical term, it meant that the plumb line of human reason will never discover a bottom to God in His nature or deeds. The true God has no “bottom” or limit for man to discover. Such a God is alone worthy of our worship.

Why do you say, O Jacob, and assert, O Israel,

“My way is hidden from the Lord

And the justice due me escapes the notice of my God”?

Do you not know? Have You not heard?

The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the

ends of the earth,

Does not become weary or tired.

His understanding is inscrutable (Isaiah 40:27-28).

The apostate among Israel cherished two vain hopes. First, they hoped that God was limited in His knowledge and thus did not know about their sin. If He did not know about it, they would not get punished for it.

Second, they hoped that if God were not ignorant, at least He would be distracted by far more important things than meting out the justice due to them. If He were going to punish anyone, He would have to begin with people who are really wicked, not them. Or, perhaps, He was just uninterested in them and wouldn’t care.

The prophet Isaiah dashes to the ground all such finite views of God that would see Him as “growing” or “learning.” God is not ignorant, distracted, or uninterested, because the eternal God is the Creator of all things including man. His “understanding” or “knowledge” is not limited in any way by what He has made. It is thus “inscrutable,” i.e., unlimited.

Oh the depths of the riches both of the wisdom

and knowledge of God!

How unsearchable are His judgments

and unfathomable His ways!

For who has known the mind of the Lord,

Or who became His counselor?

Or who has first given to Him

that it might be paid back to him again?

For from Him and through Him and to Him

are all things.

To Him be the glory forever. Amen (Romans 11:33-36).

This is one of the most beautiful statements on the incomprehensibility of God in the New Testament. It is brought in by the Apostle Paul as the doxological climax to his discussion of election, predestination, God’s sovereignty, and human responsibility in Romans 8-11. The Apostle Paul calls us to worship a God who is beyond our capacity to comprehend in either His being or works. This God is “unsearchable” and “unfathomable.” No one will ever “know” all the “ins and outs” of the mind of the Lord. If someone could, he would “become His counselor,” for he who can understand God would be greater than God.

The immediate occasion of this doxology to the incomprehensible God is his discussion of the inclusion of the Gentiles into the covenant of grace and the exclusion of Israel. Paul states that God’s election is based on His grace and not on some condition of man such as race or parentage (Romans 11:6-7).

But what about all the “whys,” “hows,” and “wherefores” that naturally arise? Paul does not claim to know all the answers. He knows only what has been revealed. Thus he can now freely worship God because he leaves such mysteries in the hands of his Creator:

The love of Christ which surpasses knowledge (Ephesians 3:19).

Paul prays that the saints might “comprehend” and “know” the love of Christ (vv. 18-19). But while they can have a finite but true knowledge of such things, they cannot exhaustively comprehend the Lord Jesus Christ or His love. Christ is God as well as man. He is infinite in His being and love. We will never be able to understand the “whys,” “hows,” and “wherefores” of His love for sinners.

Let us point out that if we begin with the rationalistic assumption that everything must either be “precisely explained” or we must reject it, then we must reject the love of Christ because it “surpasses comprehension.” God’s election and love are so joined in Scripture that they either stand or fall together.

The peace of God which surpasses all comprehension (Philippians 4:7).

Who can “precisely explain” how the peace of God can “indwell” us and gives us comfort? Who can make “coherent” the ways of the Spirit of God? Is not the work of God in the soul like the wind which comes and goes without our permission or knowledge (John 3:8?

If we are limited to what can be “precisely explained” and “made coherent,” then we will have to reject the peace of God as well as the love of Christ! But if we accept the incomprehensibility of God, we can have both His peace and His love. By this faith we can live without fear, being confident in His sovereign love and power.

Conclusion

From just these few passages of Scripture it is abundantly clear that the Christian doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God is a revealed truth. It follows naturally after the doctrine of creation and forms the context of all the other attributes of God.

It is also clear that the authors of Scripture were not embarrassed by the incomprehensibility of God but proud of it. They did not apologize for it but boasted of it. They did not agonize over it but rejoiced in it. They were not driven away from God by it but were drawn nigh unto God because of it. They did not curse God but fell at His feet in wonder, awe, and praise.

The relationship between modern atheism and logic is a precarious one. Beginning with the assumption that there is no God, and, hence, no absolute exists to serve as the basis for any other absolutes, the blight of relativism infected all fields of knowledge. Subsequent history has demonstrated that the spread of relativism is irresistible once the premise of atheism is assumed.

Premise: Since there is no God,

Conclusion: there are no absolutes.

Premise: Since there are no absolutes,

Conclusion: everything is relative.           

The first field of relativization was ethics. The Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule and all other moral absolutes were jettisoned. With great joy, atheistic philosophers proclaimed that there were no moral absolutes. Ethics became a matter of personal preference instead of an issue of “absolutes.” Morality was reduced until it had no more significance than a personal preference for vanilla over chocolate.

Joseph Lewis wrote in 1926, “There is in reality no absolute standard by which we judge…. In the final analysis our guide in moral affairs should be that which gives to the individual the greatest possible happiness.”1

The Encyclopedia Americana comments, “Since there is no God, man is the creator of his own values.”2 John Hick declares, “There is no God; therefore no absolute values and no absolute laws.”3

The poverty of relativism is demonstrated by its inability to condemn evil on an objective basis-when the existence of God was denied, the existence of good and evil was also denied. Its adherents must therefore depend on other bases of morality.

When confronted with the question (given his commitment to relativism), “On what grounds would you condemn the acts of Hitler?”, the great infidel logician Bertrand Russell committed an obvious logical fallacy. He said that Hitler was wrong because “most people agree with me.”4 This is the fallacy called argumentum ad populum, in which something is considered true just because many people agree to it.

When Russell was finally forced to tell how he distinquished between good and evil, he said, “by my own feelings.”5 This is the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem (circumstantial) in which something is said to be true simply because of the circumstances of the person. Russell was saying, “Because of my personal feelings, Hitler was wrong.” Of course, if Russell’s reasons were valid, Hitler could have argued on this same basis that he was right in killing six million Jews. His feelings and happiness were in complete accord with his actions!

At first people naively assumed that relativism could be contained in the realm of ethics. But relativism like a cancer could only grow until it had infiltrated all fields of knowledge. One by one, every area of knowledge has been infected and consumed by relativism. Several examples will illustrate this point.

Relativism and History

Modern views of history have become relativistic. The idea that it is possible to have objective knowledge of the past has now been replaced by an agnostic approach to history which assumes no objective knowledge is possible. History, no longer a matter of historical facts, has been reduced to the level of subjective interpretation by the process that modern atheism unleashed.

Premise: Since there is no God,

Conclusion: there are no absolutes.

Premise: Since there are no absolutes,

Conclusion: everything is relative.

Premise: Since everything is relative,

Conclusion: history is relative.             

Relativists view history as a matter of personal interpretation. No one can really know what happened in the past. History is therefore only relative, subjective interpretations which arise out of a historian’s personal preference. The Soviets write history one way and the Americans write it another way, but it makes no difference in the end, for no one really knows what happened in the past. No one appeals to historical facts anymore because there are no absolutes in history.6

In this sense, modern atheists state that Jesus of Nazareth was not historical, i.e., His existence and teaching are not to be viewed as facts of history, but rather as the products of subjective interpretations. To be consistent, this principle should also hold true for Socrates, Napolean, Isaac Newton and Abraham Lincoln. After all, they are no more historical than Jesus. Each historian presents his subjective conception and not objective history. Thus all history is reduced to personal preference and interpretation.

Relativism and Science

The process of relativism has begun to erode confidence in the reality of scientific absolutes. What were once viewed as objective scientific laws which man discovered by observation and experimentation have now been relativized. This was unavoidable once atheism was adopted as the beginning assumption.

Premise: Since there is no God,

Conclusion: there are no absolutes.

Premise: Since there are no absolutes,

Conclusion: everything is relative.

Premise: Since everything is relative,

Concusion: science is relative.             

In one debate with an atheist, I asked, “What is a scientific ‘law’ or ‘law of nature’ to you?” He replied that a “law” is a statement written on a piece of paper which represents the ability of the human mind to order reality according to its wishes. There are no objective or absolute laws per se in the universe, so the order that we see in the world is a projection of our minds. There are no scientific absolutes.7

It was, of course, inevitable that once the laws of God were jettisoned, the laws of nature would soon follow. Western science was originally built upon the assumption that an orderly God had made an orderly universe which ran according to laws He had placed in it at creation. These laws were absolute because they were the laws of an absolute God. On one occasion, Einstein was asked how he knew the speed of light in a vacuum was the same everywhere in the universe. He replied, “God does not play dice with this world.” His answer was the same as that which Isaac Newton would have given. All scientific absolutes depend on the existence of an absolute God who upholds them throughout the universe.

The rise of relativism in quantum mechanics and modern physics has called all absolutes into question. Not even mathematics has been spared. Now there are no absolutes in math. Lee Carter, who wrote a handbook for atheists to use when debating theists, asserts:

There are, then, no such things as eternal and necessary truths of arithmetic and geometry…. There are many possible systems of arithmetic and geometry…. But such mathematical propositions are only statements about the system we have set up.8

Carter is saying that 2 + 2 = 4 is true only because we arbitrarily set it up that way. We could make 2 + 2 = 55 if we wanted. There are no absolutes in math because everything is relative.

Science is now being defined in terms of subjective preference and cultural bias. The cancer of relativism has destroyed the soul of science.9 The full implications of the relativization of Western science, however, are just beginning to manifest themselves. We now face an acute shortage of math and science teachers in the public schools. Students graduate from high school unable to solve the simplest mathematical problems. Very few young people have any desire to enter science as a career. The Western world’s edge on technology has almost disappeared. The ultimate economic consequences of this decline may prove catastrophic for the Western world.

Relativism and Logic

The last bastion of absolutes was logic. But this too has been consumed by the same irresistible progress of unbelief that destroyed absolutes in all other fields.

Premise: Since there is no God,

Conclusion: there are no absolutes.

Premise: Since there are no absolutes,

Conclusion: everything is relative.

Premise: Since everything is relative,

Concusion: logic is relative.               

Modern atheists are somewhat schizophrenic at this point. On the one hand, when confronted by a theistic argument that is logically valid, Carter advises young atheists to say, “Actually, logic is whatever people find to be convincing; and just as our concepts of nature have changed over the years, so have our concepts of the laws of logic.”10 He then dismisses Aristotle’s law of contradiction “as childish sophistry” and goes on to relativize all logic by claiming that logic is a matter of personal preference. What is logical to me may not be logical to him. It is all relative.

On the other hand, when trying to refute the theistic proofs, the same modern atheists will suddenly reverse themselves and appeal to the absolute laws of logic. For example, when refuting theism, Carter will point out the invalid use of tautologies and other laws of logic (which he has declared relative).11 On one page, he considers Aristotle’s logic as “childish sophistry,” while on another he employs it as the absolute truth!

Modern atheists never seem to realize that if there are no absolutes, then they cannot say theism is absolutely wrong. If there are no absolutes in history, science or logic, then it is impossible to say that history, science or logic refute Christianity. If everything is relative then theism is historically, scientifically and logically true to those who want it to be true. Atheists cannot objectively say that theism is false, for they deny objectivity. The irrational character of unbelief manifests itself most clearly in this issue. For example, how can atheists insist the law of contradiction to be invalid when they must use it to deny its validity? To declare “the law of contradiction is false” proves that the law is true.

If everything is relative, then all the arguments ever developed against the theistic proofs are invalid because they try to show that the theistic proofs are objectively or logically false. For if, as they claim, there is no objective truth, then there is no objective nontruth!

If modern atheists were consistent, they would say, “If the theistic proofs are logically valid to you, they are logically valid. If they are not logically valid to me, then they are not logically valid. It makes no difference. Logic is purely a matter of personal preference.” But modern atheists are not consistent because they would be out of business if they were. They would never get any royalties because they would never write books. They could never obtain any teaching positions because they would have nothing to teach their students.

The idea that truth is like a lump of formless clay which can be molded any way one desires does not provide any ammunition against theism. Where then do the atheists derive their arguments? They must temporarily function on the very theistic base they are trying to refute. They must argue as if there were absolute truth. They must appeal to absolute laws in science, history and logic. If they don’t do this, they can’t argue. But to do so shows that their atheism, materialism and relativism are fideistic (relying on faith alone) in nature because their beliefs cannot be “proved” unless they adopt theistic methodologies. When they appeal to absolutes to prove that there are no absolutes, they reveal that their position is fideistic.

Another problem faces unbelief at this point. By its assumption of relativism, it has placed itself beyond verification or falsification. Since there are no absolutes to appeal to, atheists cannot prove their position nor can others disprove it. Since verification and falsification are two of their chief arguments against theism, on the basis of what they themselves believe, atheism is erroneous.

When someone points out the logical errors in their system, they can reply, “Logic is relative. I simply don’t accept your rules of logic. I made up my own rules today and I am logical according to my rules. There are no absolutes in logic.” The same fate awaits any attempt to point out the numerous historical or scientific errors in atheistic writings. The errors are dismissed as unimportant because “Everything is relative” or “It is only your personal opinion.” In this way, the atheist cannot be refuted.

Of course, even if someone says there are no absolutes, he cannot live without absolutes. For instance, he must pay the proper amount at the check-out counter. Imagine him trying to convince the retailer that “everything is relative” and thus he will give the clerk one dollar for an item marked 25 dollars, and demand 150 dollars in change! In the same vein, who is going to jump off a ten-story building because the law of gravity is only relative?

The statement “Everything is relative” is not only unlivable, it is self-refuting, because it is always given as an absolute. (One student countered his infidel professor who had just said that everything was relative by asking him if he were absolutely sure of that!) “Everything is relative” is like the statement “Everything I say is a lie”; if everything I say is a lie, then the statement itself is a lie. My declaration means I must actually be someone who tells the truth. But if I always tell the truth, then how can I say that everything I say is a lie? The proposition is nonsense because it refutes itself.

The theist, however, is not fideistic because his faith is open to verification or falsification. When he states that the Bible is historically true, he means that it can be either verified or disproven by archaeological evidence. When the infidel Sir William Ramsey decided to disprove the reliability of the Bible, he went to the Middle East to do archaeological research. If the Bible were true he would find the evidence for such cities as Lystra, Derbe, etc., which were unknown at that time. But, on the other hand, if such cities never existed, then the Bible was false. His discoveries verified the reliability of the Bible so strongly that he later became a Christian.12

Of course, most modern atheists will not accept any refutation from objective facts, even if they are empirical evidence from archaeology. In one of my radio debates with an atheist, the atheist argued that Nazareth did not exist because it was not mentioned by Josephus or the Talmud. I pointed out that:

1. She was arguing from silence, which is a logical fallacy. She was being irrational in her argument.

2. Neither Josephus nor the Talmud attempt to mention every city, town and village in Israel. Why should they mention a small village such as Nazareth?

3. Nazareth was mentioned in the New Testament which was written in the first century according to the empirical and internal evidence.13

4. The Nazareth Stone, bearing a decree by Claudius, was discovered in 1878. It can be dated a.d. 41-54.14

The atheist’s response was instructive. She did not care if she was illogical in arguing from silence. As to the archaeological evidence I offered, she responded that “anybody can dig up a stone and call it whatever they want.” She simply swept aside the archaeological evidence!

While someone can say that the laws of logic are relative and need not be followed, he must nonetheless use those laws to say it. Logic is essential to human thought and communication. The law of contradiction has an ontological (based upon an analysis of the nature of being) basis in the nature of the God who “cannot lie,” and in the nature of man who was made in God’s image. Since modern atheism is fideistic in nature, it has therefore become the task of the theists to defend logic, reason and science.15

Of course, there is an appearance of reason in modern atheistic writings. When the typical modern atheist is refuting the theistic arguments, he will appeal to logic, reason and science because the arguments he is using came from the eighteenth and nineteenth century philosophers who believed in such absolutes. But when forced to defend his relativism, the modern atheist reveals that he believes there are no absolutes in logic, reason or science!

Modern atheists are thus in a hopeless situation. The only way they can refute the theistic proofs is by using old Kantian arguments which are based on absolutes which atheists no longer accept. It is a classic Catch-22 situation.



This is an excerpt from The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom by Robert Morey

I beleive this will answer your questions exhaustively
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read/r00136.html

CHECK THIS OUT:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090117050509AApeHjf

All you need to know about jehovah witnesses

http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness3.htm

Bible Question:I am an atheist. I want you to prove to me that there is a god in the world. I believe that science is god. So do not prove that God exists from the Bible, because I know that Jesus said He was god. Can you prove that for me?

Bible Answer: This week I read a surprising article in Forbes ASAP. I would like to quote it at length for you and then answer your question. Forbes Magazine is a non-Christian publication.

It's too easy, with the benefit of modernity, hindsight, and all that, to regard science as the most fearless, objective, apolitical, democratic, and open-minded of human endeavors - the seeker of truth. Never mind anything by divine right . . .

Throughout the 16th century, as it gradually dawned on everybody that Columbus hadn't, after all, hit some island off Japan or India (where he was headed at the time) but that he had in fact come across an entirely new continent, everything epistemological hit the fan. For a comfortable 2,000 years, life, the universe, and everything had been what Aristotle . . . said it would be . . So what was [America] doing there?

Things got rapidly worse in the first decades of the 17th century, as people like Galileo started seeing other centers of attraction, such as Jupiter circled by its moons. To compound the felony, sailors started coming back across the Atlantic to Europe with hundreds of new American animal and plant species that were not described in Aristotle's list . . .

In the desperate search for some way to bail out the sinking ship or shut the stable door, a couple of quick thinkers came up with some solutions. One was a French engineer named Rene Descartes who . . . suggested that the only way to find truth was to go on doubting until you stripped away all dubious elements so as to arrive at a point where what remained was so self-evident that it was beyond doubt. That would be truth.

The other guy, an English legal eagle by the name of Francis Bacon, opted for correlation and analysis as a means of certainty. Amass enough evidence and you were halfway there. His admirers then came up with a Royal Society for doing this stuff, with correspondents all over the place sending in cards and letters filled with their observations. The Royal Society motto, "Take Nobody's Word for It," generated a procedure for making sure other people were seeing what you were seeing, known as "witnessing." If enough people agreed they were all witnessing the same thing, then it was a "matter of fact."

In the late 19th century, at the University of Nancy, France, the recent discovery of X-rays convinced people that other rays should be there too. Sure enough, once some guy demonstrated N rays (named after the town), they became a hot ticket to a Ph.D. And, no doubt, somebody got a degree, in N-ray studies. Then one day some American, who hadn't heard about these rays, said the truth was he couldn't see them. Sure enough, when everybody looked closer, nor could they. Collapse of theory.

This kind of collapse riddles the history of the so-called truth finding sciences. Here's a list of the greatest hits of scientific theory collapse. For centuries it was known that disease came from miasma, a foul air emanating from marshes and putrescent materials and such creepy stuff . . . Until 1884, when Louis Pasteur discovered germs. For centuries electricity was a fluid . . . until 1820. It was a well-known fact rotten apples spontaneously generated little worms and grubs found inside them . . . until 1767. The atom was indivisible . . . until 1877 . . . Light was particles until 1801, when it became waves; until 1905, when it became particles again; until 1924, when it became both. And my all time favorite, the one that really makes my point: Space and time were absolutes until 1886, when Ersnt Mach introduced the insidious concept of relativity and set the stage for Einstein.

In the end, the can of worms Columbus opened with his trip to India is this: There is no truth to find. Truth is what you want it to be . . . (James Burke, Forbes ASAP, October 2, 2000).
While I disagree with the author's summary it is clear that he made is point. The theories of science are constantly changing because science is a constant search for truth. Science is an art form that seeks truth. It is art form because scientists create hypothesizes, test those hypothesizes, change the tests when the tests when prove to be inadequate and discard the theories if they are wrong. Science is not truth. It is only man's guess at the truth until something proves it to be wrong.

We Would Need To Be God! Neither science nor I can prove that God exists. You cannot prove He does not exist. Neither of us can prove He does or does not exist because we do not see Him. In order to prove that, you or I would need to know every part of the universe and everything about the universe because God could be anywhere. We would also have to know everything about the other dimensions of time and existence. In short, we would need to be god to know everything and be everywhere at the same time because God might move. Then we would be god if we could know everything and be everywhere at the same time. Science is inadequate for the task.
It cannot tell us how the stuff that caused the "big-bang" came into existence or where it came from - how anything got started. That is a problem for science if it really is the god of truth. Science cannot tell me why 4,000 or 2,000 year old prophecies in the Bible came true. It cannot tell me how 700 - 500 year old prophecies came true predicting the exact week in which Jesus would die. Or, why 1,000 year old prophecies were accurate about Jesus' birth, life and His death.

What Is Truth? Our experience is not a measure of truth. Atheism says there is no god. Did science prove that? If so, what is the name of the test for determining that god does not exist? Our experience does not prove or disprove god. I have heard men and women claim their god has done something wonderful for them in their life. People are always using experience as proof that god is real or their religion is correct. How do they know? How can they be sure it was their god and not mine? My God may have lovingly done them a favor! How do we determine truth? I started my quest for truth by determining which sacred book could be validated as truth. The Christian Bible passed the test of fulfilled prophecy. Its has hundreds of prophecies - they came true! This is the test of truth no other sacred book can match. When it speaks, it speaks truth! It states that God is Jesus Christ.

Conclusion:Science is not fool proof! It is constantly changing as one theory after another is being revised and updated because we do not really know - we are learning. Evolution is no exception. Science is only as good as the human mind and that is faulty, biased and guilty of serious errors. May I suggest truth can be found in a supernatural book - a sacred book - the Bible. It has been proven to be accurate when it speaks to history and prophecy. It predicted Jesus' birth and death, including the week in which He would die. It predicted His return to life, and historical records witness to the life, death and miracles of Jesus. Jesus is God! God only asks us to believe in Jesus!

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read/r00180.html

January 22, 2009 16:33

Contrary to the speculation that the meeting between former president Olusegun Obasanjo and his erstwhile deputy, Atiku Abubakar, on Monday, in Abeokuta, was to mend fences and pave the way for Atiku’s return to the PDP, P.M.News can reveal that there was more to the hurried meeting than what  the public believes.




Our investigation has revealed that the meeting was convened by the former leaders to find a common response to the investigation allegedly being carried out on them by America’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), regarding the bribery scandal involving global telecommunications giant, Siemens.

The company is being investigated in America for suspicious payments of $12.7 million for four projects with about $4.5 million paid as bribes to government officials during the Obasanjo administration, for the award of contract by the Nigeria Telecommunications Limited.

The United State’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) put the value of the four contracts at about $130 million. Report by the SEC revealed that the bribes were paid into the US bank account of a former vice president’s wife, in Potomac, Maryland.

According to the SEC complaint; “The vice president’s wife, a dual U.S.-Nigerian citizen living in the United States, served as the representative of a business consultant that entered into fictitious business consultant agreements to perform ‘supply, installation, and commissioning’ services, but did no actual work for Siemens. The purpose of these payments was to bribe government officials.

“Other corrupt payments included the purchase of approximately $172,000 (N17.3m) worth of watches for Nigerian officials, designated in internal Siemens records as ‘P’ and ‘V.P’, likely referring to the President and Vice President of Nigeria.”

Sources said, in the wake of this ongoing investigation, Atiku and Obasanjo could not travel to America to witness the inauguration of president Barack Obama, on Tuesday, because they were not sure of the fate that awaited them in America.

We also gathered that the investigation has forced the former vice president and his US-based wife to relocate from their home in highbrow Potomac, Maryland, USA, to Dubai, in the United Arab Emirate.

Meanwhile, Atiku has explained why he visited Obasanjo on Monday, this week, saying that his love for Nigeria and its progress necessitated the visit. According to a statement by Atiku’s media office yesterday, the fear that unresolved “political feuds and petty elite bickering will continue to undermine the country’s political and economic progress led both men to resolve to work with other patriots and statesmen to address critical national challenges.

“The meeting was not about the 2011 presidential election as some people have misinterpreted it. The two leaders decided to bury the hatchet and focus their attention, redirect their energies and harness their collective experiences for the benefit of the country.

“It was not about the two of them. It is about the future of our beloved country. At a critical moment such as this, in the life of a nation, great men and women must put aside political differences and work for the progress of the country. This is the context in which the Abeokuta meeting should be seen by all well-meaning Nigerians.

“Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, sat down one-on-one, in November, in Chicago, for a meeting with the man who defeated him in the U.S. election, president-elect Obama. They talked about how they could work together to solve America’s economic and social problems. They realised that the country is bigger than both of them.

“Nigeria is bigger than all of us, and true national leaders must be prepared to make personal sacrifices in the interest of the nation.”

There has been speculation that Atiku, who was the AC presidential candidate in the 2007 election, was gearing up to return to PDP ahead of the 2011 polls and the visit to Obasanjo was seen by many as a move to reconcile with his former boss and pave the way for the 2011 political contest.

Consequently, the visit has ruffled many feathers even within his political camp in AC and has remained a subject of debate in both the AC and the PDP.

http://www.nigeriamasterweb.com/paperfrmes.html

My 2cents:http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/tbjoshua.html

Grow up

[b][/b]

John 14:6[b]Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me[/b].

JESUS IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE
WHOSOEVER COMETH TO HIM SHALL NEVER DIE

Christ must save, and Christ alone.I have dwelt upon the efficacy of His Blood; but no tongue can ever speak of its worth. I pray that God the Spirit may lead some of you to put your trust simply, wholly, and entirely, on the Blood of Jesus Christ. See the Saviour hanging on the Cross; turn your eye to Him, and say, "Lord, I trust Thee; I have nothing else to trust to; sink or swim, my Saviour, I trust Thee." And as surely, sinner, as thou canst put thy trust in Christ, thou art safe. He that believeth shall be saved, be his sins ever so many; he that believeth not shall be damned, be his sins ever so few, and his virtues ever so many. Trust in and in Jesus only!

"My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesu's Blood and Righteousness;
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly lean on Jesu's Name;
On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand.

=====================================
"Just as I am, without one plea
But that Thy Blood was shed for me,
And that Thou bid'st me come to Thee,
O Lamb of God, I come."

So jealous is Christ of His honour, that anything you put with Him, however good it is, becomes, from the fact of your putting it with Him, an accursed thing. And what is it that thou wouldst put with Christ? Thy good works? What! wilt thou yoke a reptile with an angel, yoke thyself to the chariot of salvation with Christ? What are thy good works? "filthy rags"; and shall filthy rags be joined to the spotless righteousness of Christ? It must not be. Rely on Jesus only, and thou canst not perish; but rely on anything with Him, and thou art as surely damned as if thou shouldst rely upon thy sins. Jesus only — this is the rock of our salvation.

And now let us all remember, that "other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." My works, my prayers, my tears, cannot save me; the blood, the blood alone, has power to redeem. Sacraments cannot save me. Nothing but the blood of Jesus has the slightest saving-power. Oh, you that are trusting in baptism, confirmation, or the Lord's Supper (for salvation), nothing but the Blood of Jesus can save. I care not how right the ordinance, how true the form, how Scriptural the practice; it is all a vanity to you, if you rely in it to save. God forbid that I should say a word against ordinances, or against holy things; but keep them in their places. If you make them the basis of your soul's salvation, they are lighter than a shadow. There is not — I repeat it again — the slightest atom of saving-power anywhere but in the blood of Jesus. That blood has the only power to save. The Blood stands out the only rock of our salvation.

It must save alone. Put anything with the Blood of Christ, and you are lost; trust to anything else with it, and you perish.

, Charles H. Spurgeon.