Seeking Truth

Science is one of the few institutions remaining that seeks the truth. It is a highly effective tool that simply wants to figure out how the universe works. It is self-correcting, building on the knowledge of those who went before, and constantly improves on that knowledge as new technology comes along, such as bigger telescopes, or more sensitive instruments that let us see the world in better detail. It is a system that works because it is based on hard evidence.[1]

This quote from the article by Bob McDonald, Science “Trumped”' by belief, highlights the attitude that truth, to those who defer to science is objective and factual. While truth, if tainted by belief is faulty and of no account. I didn’t live in the dark ages, but back enough that when I attended high school I was taught that the atom was the smallest thing there was. At that time, I was taught objective scientific truth, which turned out later to be wrong. To McDonald scientific truth is very elastic, but still better than belief. His praise of science as “one of the few institutions remaining that seeks the truth” is somewhat naïve. Below are some quotes on science:

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science:  They are final, and they are binary.  Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof).  Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final.  There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.  The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.  Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.  No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.^[2]

Black/white absolute truth doesn’t exist in real science. Many people state that science “seeks truth,” and it does, if we do not ascribe moral qualities to the word “truth.” Actually, science seeks evidence to support or refute a hypothesis (or some other scientific principle like a theory). It’s all about the evidence (and the quality thereof), not about proving that it’s either this or that.

Part of the problem, amongst both “pro-science” and anti-science types is that they both think that science is some magical word to either be loved or despised depending on the answer it provides. But science is, in reality, a coherent method to find an answer to a question about the natural universe, but it is not itself the answer. Science is a systematic and logical process, using the scientific method, that finds and builds data, and eventually knowledge, into testable explanations and predictions about the natural universe. It is not a magical word that implies truth, but it is a rigorous process to separate meaningless information from high quality evidence in support or refutation of an explanation of the natural world.[3] 

According to a popular picture, science progresses toward truth by adding true and eliminating false beliefs from our best scientific theories. By making these theories more and more verisimilar, that is, truthlike, scientific knowledge grows over time (e.g., Popper 1963). If this picture is correct, then over time scientific knowledge will become more objective, that is, more faithful to facts. However, scientific theories often change, and sometimes several theories compete for the place of the best scientific account of the world.[4]

Whatever it is, it should come as no surprise that finding a positive characterization of what makes science objective is hard. If we knew an answer, we would have done no less than solve the problem of induction (because we would know what procedures or forms of organization are responsible for the success of science). Work on this problem is an ongoing project, and so is the quest for understanding scientific objectivity.[5]

McDonald writes that science “is self-correcting, building on the knowledge of those who went before, and constantly improves on that knowledge as new technology comes along...” This is of course true, science changes as new evidence comes to light. At the point that new evidence is accepted, the old truth becomes false. So in the words of Pilate, “What is truth?” To those who believe everything science says, truth, is whatever science says, until more evidence comes along to suggest otherwise. McDonald believes that science is objective and true because it is based on hard evidence. There is more than enough hard evidence to suggest that current scientific truths will become obsolete or changed with the finding of newer evidence.

Each person’s previous experiences will have led to the development of particular concepts of things, which will influence what objects can be seen and what they will appear to be. As a consequence, it is not unusual for two investigators to disagree about their observations if the investigators are looking at the data according to different conceptual frameworks. Resolution of such conflicts requires that the investigators clarify for each other the concepts that they have in mind.[6]

With the changes that have taken place in physics in this century, however, the historicality of what counts as a fact in the natural sciences has been made evident and has raised the problem of just what facts are if they can change from time to time.[7]

Roughly speaking, the natural sciences are considered "hard", whereas the social sciences are usually described as "soft".

Precise definitions vary, but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.^[8]

Despite the volume of protestations from climate change scientists, their objectivity is less than perfect. It is obvious that climatic conditions in many parts of the world are changing in some way, but what is not obvious is the cause. Scientists touting anthropomorphic causes are blind to any other option. The foundation of their science is emotionality. Fanatical science is not good science, it is based on fear and panic. It appears that much of the evidence supporting anthropomorphic climate change is actually soft evidence. The statement that “97% of scientists believe that humans are the cause of climate change,” at best is soft evidence, if not deceitful. One of the main factors of evidence becoming hard evidence, is the consensus of scientists within that specific field of study. Which could be translated as, scientists of like mind support each other’s belief. That strikes me as “group think” and possibbly collusion.

In order of declining value, items on the soft-evidence scale include:

1. Authoritative opinion. (However: remember, even at the top of the soft-evidence scale, it’s still just soft evidence.)
2. Non-authoritative opinion.
3. Random guessing.
4. Seeing who argues the loudest and/or the longest. (This is worse than nothing, because it gives the biggest advantage to the biggest scoundrel, and just encourages bad behavior.)[9]

Science tells of the mini ice age; taking that as a starting point the world has definitely got a lot warmer. There is hard evidence that at one time the islands in the arctic were tropical, they are very much colder now. Egypt was once a fertile area, whereas now it is predominantly desert. The Sahara has been encroaching southward for centuries. I read from some scientist that volcanic eruptions have had little impact on GHG’s. The cause behind the accumulation of GHG is human It seems to me that there are many more questions that need to be answered before accusing humanity of ruining the cosmos. Human activity contributes to GHG production, but to say that it is the only factor or even the major factor is irresponsible and misleading. If the attitudes and practices of climate change advocates were analyzed it would show that the movement is a cult. The hysteria and panic behind the evangelical rhetoric of climate change advocates suggests a fear of being found out. The certainty of their claims, climate change scientists preach, may indicate closed minds rather than reality. It is stated that, peer reviews change theories into hard evidence:

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field… Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. … Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scientific journals, but does by no means prevent publication of all invalid research.[10]

The peer review process is important, and people place great confidence in it. It verifies the process of validation followed by a peer when testing a theory, and is appropriate concludes that the theory is based on hard evidence. Peer review is a valid process in every discipline and all sectors of research. Scientific theories are said to be based on hard evidence through the process of peer reviews. Accordingly, I suggest that there is more hard evidence for creation than evolution. Over centuries scholars and researchers have reached a high level of consensus regarding the evidences of creation, to attest that the theory of creation is based on hard evidence. Like in the field of science, peer review in the field of religion is restricted to its specific field. Evolutionary scientists may not agree with the creationist theory, but they have to accept that it is based on hard evidence, since it has undergone centuries of peer review. Evolutionary scientists say assert that they deal in hard evidence, and creationists rely on faith. Evolutionary scientists cannot accept peer reviews within their field and deny it for creationist in their field; that would be tantamount to saying that, what they say is true, because they say it is true.  Peer review is no more than having other scientists who think alike approve what they collectively believe. Unlike Mr. McDonald, I expect that belief has more to do with what evidence scientists find than that which is produced objectively.

Loeb contends. “One would have naively expected scientific activity to be open minded to critical questioning of its architectural design, but the reality is that conservatism prevails within the modern academic setting.”

In other words, the best possible source of fresh ideas — the youngsters whose brains are not yet fossilized by standard dogmas — are ostracized or bullied if they challenge the prevailing paradigms. And scientists wonder why they have so many problems that stubbornly remain so hard to solve.[11]

Based on hard evidence there was a tower of Babel. Based on biblical research the tower of Babel was the enterprise of people who believed they could do anything, their objective was to build a tower reaching to heaven. The attitude and self-importance of the people engineering the project was idolatry. People who take it upon themselves to improve nature, or interrupt natural processes are in the same class as the designers of the tower. Idolatry is not only bowing to manmade images, it is also self-importance or self-worship. Idolatry can also be the all-consuming investment in a cause. Some groups championing climate change have used deceitful practices and false information to support their cause, stating that the end justifies the means.

                         

Based on the many changes in science, and the acknowledgement of current scientists that present “truths” will change as new evidence comes into play, why should anyone believe the hype of human impact on GHG’s? Behind the hysteria promoting human causes of GHG’s, there may be the need to gain funding for programs in which the scientists are employed. Could it be that their self-interest is driving the cause, not the desire to improve the global climate? It is the flimflam and hysteria around the doom of the world due to CO₂ that keeps Greenpeace and other associations afloat. The evidence that human beings are the cause of climate change is not sound science.

The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on climate is simply a hypothesis, rather than a universally accepted scientific theory. It is therefore correct, indeed verging on compulsory in the scientific tradition, to be skeptical of those who express certainty that “the science is settled” and “the debate is over”.[12]

On “belief”, that which is disdained by disciples of science; I consider belief to be a fundamental constituent of human life. Without belief humanity would become animalistic and degenerate. I don’t just believe in everyday events like the sun coming up in the morning, or that spring follows winter; I believe that God created the universe and everything in it. I believe that Jesus walked this earth as the human representation of God. I believe all people have hope through the sacrificial death of Jesus. I also believe that Jesus said, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”[13] Jesus prayed to God, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”[14] The psalmist and other writers of scripture point to the universe as evidence of God. The collection of scriptures come to us from antiquity. They are not scientific texts, but they mention things, which at their writing, were unknown to people. “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.”[15] The author may have been schooled in the Greek classics, but the concept of atoms did not emerge in modern society until the sixteenth century, interesting.

I believe that death and decay came into the world because of human pride. The cycle of death and decay is as natural as life. It is idolatry, to presume that humans can stop the process of nature, and that we are somehow greater than the Creator. As much as some scientists think they are capable of reversing the natural trend toward decay, they are sadly mistaken. However, believing that the world follows its designed course, does not give people the right to produce things harmful to life on earth, or the environment. Humans are caretakers of the world and must behave responsibly. Special interest groups do not have the right to impose their beliefs on everyone else. Special interest groups use saleable causes to further their own interests. It’s time to put in place checks and balances to prevent special interest groups from pushing their ideals down everyone’s throat. It’s not enough for scientists to have peers vet their proposals; if their theories cannot stand scrutiny from other disciplines they should be discarded. The world and climate are multi-faceted, and no single branch of science should have the right to force its theories on others without serious vetting by all. I think that governments and society should all read Hans Christian Andersen’s, “The Emperor's New Clothes”.

---

[1] Science 'Trumped' by belief: Bob McDonald, CBC News Posted: Jan 20, 2017 3:40 PM ET

[2] Psychology Today, Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”, Satoshi Kanazawa

[3] Science is not based on absolutes–Richard Dawkins proves that, 2013/08/13 The Original Skeptical Raptor

[4] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Scientific Objectivity, First published Mon Aug 25, 2014

[5] Ibid

[6] Scientific American. The ideal of objectivity. By Janet D. Stemwedel on February 26, 2013

[7] https://www.rasch.org

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org

[9] Soft versus Hard Evidence; Appeal to Authority etc. John Denker

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review

[11] Science News, Replacing paradigms requires open minds, by Tom Siegfried

[12] Dr. Patrick Moore, (Founder of Greenpeace) 2015 Annual GWPF Lecture Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London 14 October 2015

[13] Joh 8:31, 32

[14] Joh 17:17 

[15] Heb 11:3  

The Power of Personal Discipleship

I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one,[1]

For centuries people have preached, taught, or written about Church unity. The words from Jesus’ prayer are for many the clarion call for unity; “that they may be one, as we are one.” This particular scripture was key to the ecumenical movement which began with the World Missionary Conference at Edinburgh in 1910. The Catholic Church in the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) officially took part in the ecumenical movement. However, the ecumenical movement has not been fully accepted. There has been token acceptance among some denominations not to see each other as enemies or competitors but as fellow Christians. In opposition to the movement there are theological, political and institutional challenges, from fundamentalist groups as well as mainline Churches. To its opponents ecumenism is a negative term, like syncretism, doctrinal relativism and indifferentism.[2] Facing the issues hindering ecumenism Cardinal Kasper suggests, “Our response to this situation cannot be only and primarily an institutional and organizational one.” Kasper’s comment suggests to me that, the main cause of failure facing the ecumenical movement is the exclusivity of Churches. The language coming from proponents of ecumenism indicates that on a personal level unity is a greater possibility than at the institutional level. Ecumenism is doomed; common sense dictates that the reason there are so many Churches is the same reason there cannot not be unity.

Every Church exists because it offers a, belief, doctrine, or system, which is unique to that body. Every Church possesses exclusive attributes. Every Church holds objections to its neighbours, or believes it is doing a better job of leading people to salvation. These things are obvious, or there would be no reason for every Church to exist. Unity at the Church level is an impossibility. It has been suggested that greater interaction could take place toward ecumenism without betraying faith or conscience. When Church affiliation determines faith and conscience, I don’t see how any interaction can take place. As I think of the “unity” for which Jesus prayed, and look at the myriad of Churches existing today, I wonder if we have downplayed the importance of personal discipleship. Have you ever asked yourself, why you are a member of a particular Church? Why do you attend one Church and walk past another? Have you ever heard the preacher at your Church suggest you should attend a different Church? It would be thoughtful of a preacher to ask some of his congregation to support the effort of a startup congregation, or even a different Church.

Are you a Church member? Have you signed or otherwise committed yourself to membership in a Church? Do you recognize that you are expected to conform to the doctrines of that Church? Do you agree with the position your Church takes on, LGBT, abortion, same-sex marriage, divorce, the death penalty, religious tolerance, racial equality, the environment, or Church organization? Do you accept all that your Church teaches? I ask these questions not to be facetious, but to make the point that very few people agree with everything their Church stands for or teaches. Institutional doctrines and policies sometimes conflict with personal values. Look at the questions above and it will be clear that a Church cannot answer any of them in a way that all of its members would be satisfied. It’s highly unlikely that the goal of unity will be achieved at the Church or denominational level. A Church is constrained by its doctrines and limited by its own exclusivity. Church policies, doctrines, or beliefs, set the boundaries of what governs the group. Every Church claims to have biblical support for its doctrines and practices, and that’s a problem. It is absolutely impossible for every Church to have support from the Bible when there are so many diverse interpretations. On the flip side, while it is impossible for all Churches to be right, it is probable that they are all wrong. It’s a scary proposition to count on having the right interpretation of every scripture in order to be acceptable to God. I feel way more comfortable trusting in God’s grace than in my knowledge.

A problem I see is, that people go to Church to be saved, not because they are saved. Church membership has become the means by which people are saved. A Church needs to be a gathering of disciples who are saved. Discipleship is a personal responsibility; discipleship is following Jesus. A disciple has to respond to issues the same way Jesus approached issues when he was on earth. Jesus looked at sinners as people needing help not condemnation. Jesus had the ability to see into the heart, whereas we can only see what’s on the outside. Perhaps that’s why Jesus said we shouldn’t judge. Another reason not to judge because we have sinned. We have no business condemning others, since we are sinners. Jesus died as a sacrifice for sin, mine, yours, and anyone who comes to him. Our task as disciples is to convince sinners that there is hope in Jesus. The most effective way to do that is to let Christ be seen in your life. People must see the influence of Jesus in how you talk, and how you walk. It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. A disciple’s life is his or her picture. Church doctrines and policies have developed over many centuries.

It seems to me that our religious ancestors took a wrong turn somewhere. At some point it was determined that the path they were following needed improvement. To help unify the Empire Constantine insisted on religious unity. He convened the Council of Nicaea which centralized religious power in Roman. Congregations throughout the Empire were subjected to the authority of the bishops in Roman. Congregational autonomy was lost. The right to appoint their own bishops in local congregations was given up to Rome. Approved doctrines originated in Rome. The Roman Church became the official head of Christianity, supported by the Emperor. A sad day in history, when citizens of the kingdom of God were compelled to submit to the authority of the first Church. Up until that point believers assembled in autonomous groups. Disciples were “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people”[3] with the mandate to proclaim the wonders of God in their salvation. True Christianity was driven underground due to the brutal persecution of those who did not submit to the Roman Church. Through the period in which the Roman Church held a monopoly on religion, even during and after the Reformation, I am confident that disciples of Jesus lived as witnesses of God’s enduring love.

I believe in the power of personal discipleship. Jesus was the representative of God on earth, in the way disciples are to represent Jesus. While on earth Jesus was “The Light” personifying God’s love. Disciples are lights reflecting God’s love. Each and every disciple is commissioned to be a light in darkness. The only way for people to know God is for them to know Jesus, and the only way for people to know Jesus is by observing his disciples. Personal discipleship mirrors the example and teaching of Jesus. As a disciple of Jesus I do not have to agree with the lifestyles of LGBT, but I am obligated to love people no matter what lifestyles they choose. To love people is an irrevocable commission. I do not have to condone tax-evasion, or condemn it, I am obligated to love all people. By loving people Jesus can be seen in my life. The apostle Paul wrote, “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.”[4] As a disciple I don’t require policies on the issues mentioned above. Only Jesus is Judge, and Saviour. As a disciple I am limited to loving people, whoever they are, and whatever they have done. There should not be any difference between being a Church member and a being a disciple of Jesus. That however, is not always the case. Some Churches require compliance with their programs, and support of their projects. I believe there are disciples in many Churches, I also believe there are disciples who do not go to Church. The power of personal discipleship is irresistible. When the persecution by Saul broke out, the early converts were scattered. That was not a victory for evil, it was an explosion of faith felt throughout the known world.

The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,[5]

The important phrase here is, “to equip the saints.” The task of gift-endowed leaders was to prepare believers for ministry and building up the body of Christ. The model given was for inspired leaders to train and mobilize the unstoppable force of personal discipleship. The true assessment of a Church is not how many people attend services, but how many people have been equipped to reflect Jesus in their everyday lives.

---

[1] Joh 17:20-22

[2] See, The ecumenical movement in the 21st century, 18 November 2005, Cardinal Walter Kasper

[3] 1Pe 2:9

[4] Rom 13:8 

[5] Eph 4:11, 12

The Kingdom of God is Inside You

Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is inside you."[1]

The Greek word translated in the quote “inside” you, can also be translated “within” you.[2] There are arguments for both renditions. The only other place where the Greek word is used in the New Testament, it is translated “inside”. The concept of the kingdom of God inside the human heart is supported by prophecy.

The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt--a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.[3]

Know, ἐντός:

The simple meaning, to know, is its most common translation out of the eight hundred or more uses. One of the primary uses means to know relationally and experientially: it refers to knowing or not knowing persons (Gen 29:5; Exo 1:8) personally or by reputation (Job 19:13).[4]

The language of prophecy indicates a future personal relationship with God: covenant, my law within them, written on their hearts, I will be their God, they shall be my people, they shall all know me, and I will forgive them. Everything about the future covenant was to be personal as well as relational. God pointed out that he had a non-reciprocal relationship with Israel and Judah, saying, he had been a husband to them. That motif is further developed in the book of Hosea. Through Jesus, believers are in the family of God. God is Father to the faithful. As a result of Jesus’ sacrifice, believers are his siblings, and God is the Father.

What we do see is Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels. Because of God's wonderful kindness, Jesus died for everyone. And now that Jesus has suffered and died, he is crowned with glory and honor! Everything belongs to God, and all things were created by his power. So God did the right thing when he made Jesus perfect by suffering, as Jesus led many of God's children to be saved and to share in his glory. Jesus and the people he makes holy all belong to the same family. That is why he isn't ashamed to call them his brothers and sisters.[5]

At Moses’ first encounter with God, after Israel left Egypt, he was told, “Now if you will faithfully obey me, you will be my very own people. The whole world is mine, but you will be my holy nation and serve me as priests.[6] The people of Israel did not fully obey God, and as a result did not succeed as his nation of priests. In the gospel of John we read, “The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”[7] Through the prophet Jeremiah God said the new covenant would be different to the one given on Sinai. John provides the most significant difference between the covenants; the old covenant was based on works done by the people, the new covenant is based on God’s grace. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God--not the result of works, so that no one may boast.”[8] Peter affirmed that believers by God’s grace are his chosen people. “…you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”[9]

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.[10]

Jesus used the term Abba when praying in Gethsemane[11]. In no sense was Abba used disrespectfully; by using Abba Jesus was confirming he was the Son of God. In the New Testament Abba is only used when addressing God. Paul used Abba in his writing to demonstrate that through Jesus we are adopted as children into God’s family. From the time of its construction by Solomon to its destruction, the temple represented God’s presence among his people. Since Jesus, the temple of God is not a building, but “…you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?”[12] Some teach that the reference to the body being the temple in Corinthians supports the organization of the Church; it does not! Some suggest that the Church is the kingdom of God on earth; it is not! Jesus said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is inside you.”[13] The kingdom, the ἐκκλησία, the covenant, have no physical representation, other than the lives and actions of believers. That is what it means to be lights in the world; always reflecting the love and grace of God the Father.

The covenant and religion of Israel involved the temple, sacrifices, and ceremonial festivals. The covenant ratified by Jesus focuses on the individual because it is relational and personal. To some degree or another all Churches reflect the religion of Israel. The new covenant foretold by Jeremiah had God instilling his law into individual hearts. There is no place for religious hierarchies under the new covenant. In the new kingdom we are all God’s special people, we are all priests, and we are all holy. The word βασιλεία translated kingdom, according to Thayer’s Greek Definitions is always used “…in the N.T. to refer to the reign of the Messiah.” The kingdom of Israel was limited to the land promised to Abraham, but when the New Testament speaks of the kingdom, it is the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven. Jesus told Pilate that he was born to be king, but that his rule was not earthly –his kingdom is spiritual.

The kingdom is inside us, Christ resides in us, the covenant has been written on our hearts; and yet, we seek the comfort of belonging to some institution, of seeking physical connection through ritual, and of having someone interpret the covenant for us. I wonder if this was the reason for believers going back to the Old Law, demanding male circumcision, special foods, and various Sabbaths.

---

[1] Luke 17:20, 21

[2] Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

[3] Jer 31:31-34

[4] The Complete WordStudy Dictionary

[5] Heb 2:9-11 (CEV)

[6] Exo 19:5, 6

[7] Joh 1:17 

[8] Eph 2:8, 9

[9] 1Pe 2:9 

[10] Gal 4:4-7

[11] Mar 14:36

[12] 1Co 3:16 

[13] Luke 17:20, 21