DEEP // WIDE // LIGHT

Today's Handbook For Solving Bible Difficulties, pp. 107-108 David E. O'Brien I can't help thinking of a scene in the seventh book of The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis. The Last Battle pictures Narnia wracked by the evil of the Beast and his prophet, a donkey dressed in lion skins, and a chattering ape. After what seemed to be the defeat of Narnia at the hands of the armies of the false god, King Tirian was thrust into the door of a stable that ushered him and his party into an Edenic world. It was a place where the fruit was so sweet that "all the nicest things in the world would taste like medicines after that." In that wonderful world, they found a band of dwards who had shouted the time-honored cry of sinners everywhere: "The dwarfs are for the dwarfs!" Thrust through the same door, into the same Eden, these sinful creatures sat huddled together, cursing the darkness and filth of the stable they believed they were in. Lucy, one of the queens o...

So a good friend of mine asked me a great question the other day. He said, "I noticed that there are seeming inconsistencies with who was present at the tomb for the resurrection. I don't necessarily have a problem with the differences. What I don't understand is this: when God was transmitting His holy word to us (that is, inspiring the authors and guiding its being copied and its being canonized), why would he include such things knowing they would cause us struggles? Why would God do that?" Here's the discrepancies he's referencing. Matt 28:1 , Mark 16:1 , Luke 24 , and John 20:1-4 . I think his question is a very, very good one. It goes past the basic questions straight to the heart of the issue: What was God thinking? We must tread lightly here. Anytime we try to plumb the depths of the mind of God, we're doomed to an incorrect conclusion. 1 Cor 2:11 says, "[N]o one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." But that doesn...

So I found an amazing quote the other day. Here it is in its entirety. I highlighted the phrases that caught my attention. The intellectual and physical parts are in and of themselves sinless, and natural to us; but the man who has been shaped by the intellectual, or even worse, by the carnal, is not sinless. He is guilty of granting supremacy within himself to something that was not meant for supremacy , and that is supposed to be in a subordinate position. It turns out that although the intellectual is natural, for a man to be intellectual is unnatural; in the same way carnality is natural, but for a man to be carnal is unnatural. The error here is in the exclusive predominance of that which is supposed to be subordinate. When the spiritual reigns supreme in someone, then although this is his exclusive character and attitude, he does not err. This is because, in the first place, spirituality is the norm of human life , and so as a result, being spiritual, he is a real person...