While of course, it is in no man's authority to make that judgment, being "the big one", the one where we discern who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell, we must rely on God's omniscience, his infinite wisdom to at least remotely grasp some sensible apologetics for this inevitable question. If we believe that God is indeed a good God, then we must also believe that he possesses a perfect and holy judgment parallel to that goodness.
Now first of all, I want to note that oftentimes, leaning on our own understanding is ultimately what keeps us worrying and despairing. One is commanded not to lean on his own understanding for such reasons as these (Proverbs 3:5); yet it is ironic that many tend to do this for some faux sense of security, especially for the skeptic who doubts the goodness of God thus fallaciously doubting the overall existence of God.
God abhors sin because it brought and still brings suffering to all men and women, including tiny infants in large hospital beds who have never done a thing wrong in their short periods on earth. His anti-sinful nature is a direct reflection of his perfect holiness; his perfect holiness is a direct reflection of his omniscient judgment; and his omniscient judgment is a friend rather than an enemy of faithful men and all who trust in him: if you hate the suffering of the innocent, then, as God does, you must also hate sin, the origin of that suffering.
But to answer the initial question, one might safely assert that God knows the mental and spiritual capacity for each individual and what truths each individual is capable of understanding during the time that he or she lives on earth. I do not think that God has a universal age limit where he must judge whether someone will go to Heaven or Hell. Instead, he takes everything into account for each individual: brain capacity, spiritual awareness, genetic bias, opportunities to understand the truth of having faith in Christ before death, and the extent of cultural influence in conflict with one's God-given conscience. Furthermore we can take into account the idea that God also takes into account, as another tool in his omniscient judgments, his all-knowing foreknowledge regarding who each individual would have become if he had lived a longer or mentally stable life. One might never know that a baby who has passed away could have been saved from a long life of misery or pain or confusion or unfairness or anger, hence receiving what, in reality, seems like a quick, simple flight to Heaven.
God judges men from the inside out; men judge men from the outside in. Perhaps to God, an extreme mental patient is doing quite well in going a month without murder, for he fought his chemical imbalance and succeeded; oppositely, perhaps the healthy, able and stable man who has never murdered in his life yet went a lifetime consciously, willingly never loving anyone but himself may then be subject to harsher judgment than the extreme mental patient. It might be so that God will stand for the weak and question the strong.
Thank God that he knows these details for each individual whether the circumstances are healthy, sick, young, old, wise, foolish, pressured, or excluded and personality-wise, genetic-wise, and culture-wise. Although there may be no way for us to discern them by mere mortal perception, God always knows his babies and his psychopaths. It is okay, ultimately, therefore we can release such worries and instead rely on faith in his good and everlasting knowledge, grace, love, and mercy - which is where Christ comes in. With the One, there is no circumstance or burden which he cannot cover and one cannot sequentially bear. The case of where infants, children, and the mentally ill, who cannot comprehend and therefore accept the love of Christ,
go after death is yet another one of the countless reasons Christ died
for mankind. Above all human reasoning, it is not by our own works, but by his works, that we are saved. Therefore, in short, it is safe to say that the grace of Christ, like it covers any sinful yet conscious adult, also covers the innocent infant and the mentally-impaired psychopath.
There is a greater Christian faith than one which settles for the temporal happiness, and that is the augmentation of faith. The more faithful you become, the harder the obstacles get; but the harder the obstacles get, the tougher your spine grows; and the tougher your spine grows, the less dependent you are on man's approval. I came to know this about Christianity when valuing faith before comfort.
Ever since I was dismissed from college in 2010, life has been a roller coaster. Actually, a roller coaster is an understatement; it has been like surfing through Lorentzian wormholes in outer-space. I feel as though my entire future, as I had once understood, took a whole new direction: ranging from not receiving a degree after 5 years to experiencing the loss of a long-term love interest to spending nights sleeping in my car. Surely enough, prior to these incidents, I had prayed that God do whatever it takes to turn me into the man that he wants me to be. Ultimately this is how, in reflecting, I am certain that everything that happened played a part in my recent successes, and I would be a fool to regret any of it. I have changed tremendously in a single year, probably more in one year than I had in all the 23 years of my life. However, like any change, it has its good points as well as bad points.
Even though I always had a huge heart for every individual I would come into contact with, I have been, what I like to call, a "lone ranger" nearly my entire life. My natural tendencies thrive in solitude, hence it is normally not in my system to feel lonely. Solitude is often what I choose, therefore I have no one but myself to blame for my poor social skills. When I previously wrote "bad points", I meant that it is no mystery that my drive is now out of spite, out of indignation rather than out of a more humble motivation. There have been cases in which I unintentionally hurt others in my spoken or written discourses - my tone and my context is at times off key. Like many individuals who have felt continuously beaten down with only a few who genuinely cared, my heart has indeed grown colder, I have become cocky, and I have a lower level of tolerance. As a man who, for the most part, hopes to think and act in the ways that God wants me to think and act, I often reflect on the things that I say or write; I then dissect them in correspondence with my motives: "What was my initial intent in this? What am I trying to convey? How might others perceive this?" My main conclusion rests in the irony of my own philosophy.
My first book Salomé (2011) was partially inspired by a passage from The Four Loves (1960) by C.S. Lewis. It puts into perspective the vulnerability of love and how one should love despite all its potential afflictions, "Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. ... It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation."
After the release of Salomé, I started becoming the very person the book was intended to help due to conflicts in my personal life, and the entire time, I was aware of it. In hours of affliction, a man tends to harden his heart and lose all feeling as a means to cope; therefore I am still recovering from a deep anger at the hands I was dealt, or, when letting my anger speak, lack thereof. For a while I even neglected my first love: singing.
However the good part of the change has been my stretch in mental capacity and all-new dimensions of creativity. I without a doubt know my purpose on this earth and I am not hesitant when putting my gift to use. Not only has my heart become impenetrable, but on the positive end my confidence has also become impenetrable. I am aware that this can at times be a hindrance in distinguishing the difference between a malicious attack and one's intent for constructive criticism - which is a form of discernment that I need to sharpen - but above all, I am most definitely, rapidly becoming the man that God intended me to be.
Great philosophers become immortal - they make undeniable impacts on culture. Thankfully, at the age of 24 I have accomplished my goal of becoming a globally respected philosopher; although not to its greatest possible degree, but as long as I am breathing, in my eyes, I am just beginning. Not to mention, merely becoming a respected philosopher was and still is only a part of my true ambition.
Should you not be aware of the things you etch into your faith - for instance, whether or not you speak of a timeless, personal relationship with God before placing a cultural restriction on God?
It is evident that there are boundaries placed on the very God that one loves so much, such as the underestimating emphasis on a tiny corner of the glory of God - a temporary pursuit of happiness that essentially blesses monetarily and materialistically in return for faithfulness and good will. Much of the same doctrine can be found in the self-improvement books located down the aisle from the theology books. However not all individuals treasure and define prosperity by mere domestic comfort and pleasure; not all individuals find reward in forms of entertainment; not all individuals are able to practice their true abilities through cultural definitions of happiness; finally, not all individuals place such value on economic ladders. Now, there is virtually nothing wrong with these things in and of themselves. These days when Christians bicker they exaggerate passion into a legalistic belief and prosperity into a lukewarm belief. But what is God's definition of a blessing to each individual, since after all, it is a personal relationship rather than a cultural relationship?
It is inevitable that there will always be trends. Although, what is most prominent in modern Western Christianity? Better yet, what is success in the eyes of God as opposed to the eyes of man? As of late there has been a deadlock inclination that the work of an individual is fruitless if that work does not produce some sort of monetary profit. Essentially, money is merely a tool, not a goal, especially for one who projects everything, from faith to peace to success, into the hands of God. The more emphasis the desiring hearts of men put on a single tool to succeed, the fewer options he leaves for himself to succeed. Most men think that building a profit or climbing the social ladder is God's primary means of sending a blessing. I find that this is a hindrance to the true potential that God has for man. He is a worker of miracles, a creator, one who has granted great authority to those who are faithful. The man who continuously seeks God delights in creativity, he delights in discovering and witnessing his own strength, without submission to the gods of his time, under the hands of God who is beyond time.
As previously mentioned, the inclination is driven under the assumption that God's sole purpose is to provide little luxuries, which lead only to a rather fickle happiness, for every man that truly confides in his will. On the contrary, there are individuals with a more prophetic perspective; they do not walk in the here-and-now but by legacies for the coming generations. On earth, they might never witness their own successes or prosperities, yet reserved for them are blessings greater than those that which the world itself has to offer. God favors men and women who delight in being made worthy of happiness before the happiness itself. These people ask themselves, "If I were to die this instant, what message, eternally valuable, did I leave behind? How could one find me?" They know that pride and power fall when the person falls, but discoveries of truth form legacies that can be built upon for generations.
First and foremost, the greater good in many cases is to speak of what is sure and profitable in the eyes of eternity, and this is done by clinging onto the example of Christ. He is the only teacher to ever set an irrefutable, timeless example for all cultures and all men. Some men delight in stepping outside of the cultural circle in an attempt to speak for all people. Indeed that is considered overdoing it, however, amplification signifies leadership:
"In winter Diogenes walked barefoot in the snow. In summer he rolled in the hot sand. He did this to harden himself against discomfort. 'But aren't you overdoing it a little?' a disciple asked. 'Of course,' replied Diogenes, 'I am like a teacher of choruses who has to sing louder than the rest in order they may get the right note.'"
How many have a passionate desire, though we will fail again and again, to lead a life following the absolute purity and certainty of the example of Christ? On the other hand, how many have become nothing more than inspirational speakers who focus only on certain highlights meant to emotionally inspire those within one's own culture and time period? Simply put, there were times in history and places on earth where people died or suffered for Christ just as there were times and places where people lived and prospered for Christ. They are both worthy simply because they are both for Christ.
It is quite superficial and safe when a televangelist implies that one must be happy or that he must prosper, by cultural definition, in order to be right with God. I have no problem with God if some of us were meant to suffer on earth in order to bring something worthwhile, something eternal out of us. I for one do not give much when everything is flawlessly moving to my advantage; I am too busy dancing in my selfish, self-righteous pool of ignorance. Sometimes it takes a lowly, title-less man to humble the world. Kings, rulers, CEOs, judges, doctors, pastors, they are already expected to be greater and wiser.
To be sincere, or maybe just believable, about helping others through adversity, one has to have experienced it himself first. This is my strangest prayer, and in this I can never regret a thing. It is a kind of self-sacrificial love, one of life's greatest components. I do not care about happiness simply because I believe that joy is something worth fighting for. Joy lies in one's desire to bear the burdens of others today and tomorrow (Galatians 6:2). It is not a tragedy; the most innocent man in history, Jesus Christ, suffered for the most beautiful event in history. The work of the divine, the act of love is to walk among those less fortunate than oneself. "Good works" is giving to the poor and the helpless, but "Divine works" is showing them their worth to the One who matters. That is the definition of ultimate prosperity, and anything else, although not necessarily wrong, is indeed settling for less.
Ultimate prosperity is one's value within. It takes a man of depth, morality, and charm to be envied yet without a sign of wealth or romance. A passion to prove such inner worth is his permission to achieve whatever he desires. With a hint of good judgment, to fear nothing, not failure or suffering or even death, indicates that you value life the most. You live to the extreme; you push limits; you spend your time building legacies. Those do not die. The walk of Christ in every sense of the phrase - this is the only constant joy, one that timelessly prevails throughout any and every culture. It is simple, as Kierkegaard said, "The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly."
As already mentioned, it is inevitable that those who speak out will often be accused of heresy by various individuals, groups, or denominations who interpret even non-essentials of doctrine differently. In his autobiography Unfinished Work, vocalist Kevin Max wrote, "Christians sometimes think that every believer thinks as they do without taking the time to understand the individual and what makes them tick." Yet unless those unjustly accused of heresy embrace religious legalism before faith in Christ, then such accusations should not always become overly disheartening. If a faithful man has met his calling, it is extremely difficult to convert him, the servant of another (Romans 14:1-4), to a legalistic, systematic tradition learned by rote. Isaiah 29:13 is an effective passage for one's self-evaluation, "The Lord says: 'These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.'"
Reason is not necessarily a contradiction of faith. I want to elaborate on one of my previous passages:
"Truly reason is a large cut of what directs one to a reasonable God apart from the uncultivated mentality - one in which is driven by fear of philosophies and scientific data. Ironically, would not the creator be both the paramount definition of knowledge and the source of logic? Lasting is the irrational conflict between men of science and men of faith, yet there is an analogy by astronomer Robert Jastrow that nails the primary difference between the two: Men of science hike the mountain 'round and 'round in search of truth. This will inevitably lead back to the Author of truth. Eventually, upon nearing the top, they will realize that men of faith have been standing there for centuries."
Several respected theologians, such as Tozer and Kierkegaard, have implied that faith is where reason cuts off, and this is a necessary absurdity. In The Fellowship of the Burning Heart, Tozer wrote, "So, all down the line, faith is an organ of knowledge. And the man who believes is having knowledge that the man who merely thinks can't possibly have. Our poor little old brain can come staggering along like a little boy trying to keep up with his dad - coming along on his little, old, short, stubby legs, trying to reason." There was a time when skepticism was an act of rebellion. Since to a degree I both believe in evolution and have faith, I can only conclude that, as prophesied, to have faith will someday be an act of rebellion (Jeremiah 5:31). As stated in both the beginning analogy and by Tozer, men of faith are intellectually beyond men of science (Proverbs 9:10). Scientists are at high-risk of being directed towards the Author of truth due to the probability of evidence for God (however, it is important to note that tangible proof of God is not scientifically justifiable because he is spiritually beyond the universe). What one truly does upon receiving this evidence is God's distinction between the faithful man and the skeptic. If one's heart is hardened, an idea or thing can rest in front of him but he will deny it out of pride, while on the inside knowing, in this case, that there must be a supernatural origin for his existence. Consequently, the universe continues to appear more complex, and the more complex something becomes, the more evidence one has that it was not an accident.
From the theistic standpoint, reason exists yet will be inferior to faith. Tozer also said, "Faith never goes contrary to reason; faith simply ignores reason and rises above it." To elaborate on the relationship between this and the phrase "reasonable God", I must make it clear that the following reasons are different from those of scientific standards. The theist has reasons for faith in God: a transformed life, miraculous happenings, positive revelations, gifted abilities, and Christ himself within history. These reasons require a degree of faith in order to be comprehended, but are in fact reasons for one's faith in God; therefore, the phrases "reasonable faith" and "reasonable God" are not unbiblical.
There are a number of denominations who openly reprimand the inclusion of God and science in the same sentence. God, on the contrary, permitted man the sciences as a means to seek, discover, to use, and to relish. Ultimately, God's magnitude is made evident, in the physical dimension, as strong advocates of science so desire, when exploring such a voluminous and complex universe, and whether conscious of it or not, man, in addition, honors God when doing such. Yet many highly and predominantly religion-oriented sects are contemptuous of knowledge seekers, as though God scorns those who delight in studying, in experiencing his own creation. However, what truly matters is that a man who does this through his own conscience is fallen.
Psalms 19:1-6, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat."
~Disasters work like alarm clocks to the world, hence God allows them. They are shouting, "Wake up! Love! Pray!"
~Isaiah 45:7 says, "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things." It is indeed controversial; yet it is truly effective in all its authoritative, sovereign implications of the foreknowledge of God; it is a source of fearlessness and endurance for those of faith. Calm in calamity: one asks himself, "Who is in control no matter what?" Although, on the other hand one might ask whether such calamity indicates a malevolent God. But by that he is dealing with subjective emotions rather than objective truth. The objective is quite the contrary, and easily mistaken, it is not about a love for adversity, it is about knowing a strength and a faith so great that adversity, in all its adverse manifestations, hardly even exists. By this one does not hesitate to progress through the face of adversity. His faith, in its most correct form, never removes responsibility; it removes fear of responsibility. The results are complete opposites with the greater saying, "God's will is my delight." I often find that people confuse inner peace with some sense of insensibility whenever something goes wrong. In such cases inner peace is a permit for destruction: The unyielding optimist will pretend that the forest is not burning either because he is too lazy or too afraid to go and put the fire out. Ironically, to him adversity is an intimidating giant.
~Just as an unexpecting child is awakened to find an ocean of gifts surrounding his bed, through faith in the goodness of God one awakens to the gifts of patience, wisdom, and courage. So, when understanding calamity, one should not limit God according to his own understanding; it results in a failure to acknowledge the sovereignty and the justice of God. As Octavius Winslow wrote, "justice is the fire of love." He is God; he is love; he is sovereign. In some cases, what seems bad to man is good in the end and what seems good to man is nothing but filth. Men are commanded to pray and love, to unify and work, but instantly labeling what is or is not God's will can reach dangerous grounds because by this, obsessively, one is fabricating his own god.
~As no servant is greater than the master, I want to note that God is the commander, thus all else are messengers; Proverbs 1:32-33 says, "For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them; but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm." The messenger that attempts to replace the commander is both wayward and complacent, yet consequently, the original sin was channeled through the desire to be like or greater than God. What is it that leads one astray from the most viable path? It is not a rare flaw in which only a select few struggle. Ultimately, it is a disposition to form our own paths, and while this is evidence of desire, that desire is bound to be more substantial when aimed in the best possible direction - this direction is one in which God reveals.
~I am aware that the following is likely a regurgitation of some of my previous writings, but regardless it is essential. God is sovereign to so far a degree that he is not an impoverished deity, with insubstantial weaponry, merely set out in an attempt to defeat evil. It is not a threat to him or his kingdom. While 
he abhors sin and we are commanded to do so as well, in his absolute holiness and sovereignty, he holds both good and evil in the palm of his hand (Isaiah 45:7). He allows short term evils in order to carry out long term good [C.S. Lewis; Mere Christianity]; therefore, he is ultimately good and impossible to truly oppose. Yet the extent of such an authority is perfectly consistent with the holiness of God. With our simplistic cognitive reasoning, some things are first perceived as negative before we get to witness the positive results. But by God's foreknowledge, he envisions the evils that will ultimately result in goodness, as written in Isaiah 46:10, "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please."
~Imperative is the passion to improve one's personal walk with and faith in Christ, and in result, the obsessive contemplation of temporary afflictions cease. This is also to seek his will before adhering to a certain confirmation bias that tends to dictate the human perception of right and wrong, as I have previously quoted this of Kierkegaard, "The proud person always wants to do the right thing, the great thing. But because he wants to do it in his own strength, he is fighting not with man, but with God." All must be still and know that he is God (Psalms 46:10), and in result they will mesmerize with an illumination of ravishing colors to those with eyes to see and ears to hear the truth of Christ.
~Finally while on the subject of seeking God's will, or the discovery en route to both emotional and spiritual value, I want to add an important observation; however in this case, it is regarding one of many reasons for stress within the self-driven busybody. In The Knowledge of the Holy, A.W. Tozer recovered nicely the principles of strong faith over contemporary misconceptions thus writing, "I fear that thousands of younger persons enter Christian service from no higher motive than to help deliver God from the embarrassing situation his love has gotten him into and his limited abilities seem unable to get him out of. Add to this a certain degree of commendable idealism and a fair amount of compassion for the underprivileged and you have the true drive behind much Christian activity today."
I would rather my descendants have greater abilities and a greater knowledge of the love of Christ than I do, much like standing on one's shoulders in order to get a clearer view of the valley. How can one do this?
1 Corinthians 13:1-2: "I may be able to speak the languages of human beings and even of angels, but if I have no love, my speech is no more than a noisy gong or a clanging bell. I may have the gift of inspired preaching; I may have all knowledge and understand all secrets; I may have all the faith needed to move mountains but if I have no love, I am nothing."
Sometimes the problem is not so much what one is preaching, but rather how he is preaching it.
When a man has a gift in speaking the truth, brute aggression is no longer his security blanket for approval. He, on the contrary, spends most of his energy trying to tone it down because his very nature is already offensive enough. So, should there not be a balance between the drill sergeant and the amiable teacher? In this context, I want to focus on the former. When the drill sergeant-like approach becomes customary to a congregation, the congregation, over time, grows insensitive to the coming wrath thus potentially raising the bar for truly fearing God and understanding what it means to fear God. In result, individuals are negatively affected because, out of cynicism, it will then take a deeper effort to instill a true passion for Christ and the purity in which he stands. Of what benefit is there when, seemingly, apathy is shown from the teacher towards the sincere troubles of each individual's heart?
Colossians 4:3-6: "And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should. Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone."
Time and time again the evangelist must stop and ask himself, "Whose judgment is superior, God's or my own?" The legalistic evangelist will intuitively evangelize on his own watch, whether inadvertently or intentionally, rather than on God's watch. Any truth, when passing through the hands of man, can be transformed into an entrapping lecture apart from, in this case, the beauty of Christ, and such a displacement can leave falsehoods to be purged by the mercy of God. When communicating with rebellious men, do not all things have a more effective time, place, and method in which to be communicated? Indeed it is essential that Christ is being taught regardless of incentive (Philippians 1:18), but because God finds great pleasure in observing the growth of his messengers, why should any evangelist remain merely a heckler to the public who mutilates by legalistically professing the Christian ethic? Alternatively, upon desiring growth in Christ, many are prophets who mutilate the coarse patterns of both oneself and a fallen humanity by use of the Christian faith.
There is a difference between evangelism motivated by legalism and evangelism motivated by faith in Christ, and I feel that the distinction is repeatedly ignored. The legalistic method is one in which the evangelist shares his faith through feelings of obligation or as an act of charity, whereas the prudent evangelist shares his faith to appointed individuals under the influence of the Spirit. Just as God sees the individual, his followers must strive to do so as well. Kierkegaard said, "Spiritual superiority only sees the individual. But alas, ordinarily we human beings are sensual and, therefore, as soon as it is a gathering, the impression changes -- we see something abstract, the crowd, and we become different. But in the eyes of God, the infinite spirit, all the millions that have lived and now live do not make a crowd, he only sees each individual."
I do understand that this can be misinterpreted as a position irrespective of the belief in sharing the Gospel by some (thus "trying to shut believers up"). Oppositely, the acknowledgment of the concept of effective timing by adjusting one's focus on the ingenious patience of God is the only sure and profitable position. Yielding to God's judgment is certainly not an act of compromise to man; instead, it is the greatest form of wisdom. This is so because there are natural tendencies of impatience undeniably instilled in most prideful humans during a fast-paced era - quite often must one feel pre-eminently in the right of each and every moment. Whereas, God has been sustaining rebellious men for millennia, therefore he is very much aware of one's potential reactions towards the ultimate truth during any given situation and time of day. The truth without the harmony of God is not a truth fully manifested, it is frightening words from a reckless man's mouth, as radical skepticism, out of pride, hates and fears the possibility that it is not in absolute control of its own eternity. Rather, it surrenders to the works and securities of its own hands (Isaiah 2:8). The Holy Spirit must be present in order to overcome such a nature. Therefore I do not much trust the man who cares solely to inspire - he does not really inspire me - only the man who cares to tell the truth, whatever that may do. For when the man who cares to tell the truth happens to inspire, I, in addition, find it easier to believe that he in fact does his homework on how and when one should truly inspire (e.g. by way of the Spirit).
Concerning the subject of a virtuous faith, it is easy to concur with Diogenes, "Discourse on virtue and they pass by in droves. Whistle and dance the shimmy, and you've got an audience." Regardless, if an individual is indeed led to further seek the will of God, should a mission ever end at its very beginning? Realistically The Sinner's Prayer is no secret code to those during the age of information. Throughout much of humanity, the value of repentance has been reduced to an unsubstantiated ritual. I call this way of repentance lip service - it is made religiously provisional in substitution of a lasting and humble passion for Christ. Yet what is merely lukewarm, according to scripture, will be spit from the mouth of God (Revelation 3:16). One must remember that discipleship is both guidance and friendship, therefore the nurturing of the individual is essential to any new-found walk with Christ.
What is a prudent prophet? In my lifetime and throughout history, there have been several, what some might call, "end of the world date-setters" that have dedicated not only their own lives but also the lives of others to spreading news of world-devastating calamity or rapture both nationally and internationally. As expected, much of the world becomes intrigued, whether comically or sincerely, by the matter - some Christians are convinced, others skeptical; some atheists mock, others simply ignore the prophecies in sheer disbelief - and as evident in my ability to write this, as the world continues beyond every date that has been set thus far, all of the prophecies were indeed false.
Why is this? False prophecies come from men who believe that faith is nothing more than a stubborn emotion felt in the heart - the equivalent of wishful thinking. On the contrary, doubt is a question mark; faith is an exclamation point. The most compelling, believable, realistic stories have included them both. Doubt asks, "Is it possible for me to have too much faith, to the point of being just plain foolish and impractical, or is it evil trying to convince me so?" Then the answer, resting in the motive and the source of his faith, catches him either off-guard or when the time is right. That is suspense. The false prophet prophesies according to his own understanding, his own calculations, his own interpretations, and in this, he is opposing the will of God. A prophet will be false in his every prediction when his judgment is empowered by mere faith in himself, or other sources, rather than by faith in God. Matthew 24:36 says, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in Heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." It is ironical that by this we know it will not be the end of the world as long as man disobediently attempts to calculate the end of the world. God's commands are very much necessary and based upon reason: Prophets proven to be blatantly wrong are merely humoring skepticism pertaining to the existence of God. The destruction caused seems to be far worse than the earthquakes prophesied, and strangely enough, the aggravation caused by the prophet is the very thing wrongfully fulfilling his own prophecies of destruction.
All in all we are called to further seek the will of God before claiming the will of God. But thankfully, as C.S. Lewis once stated, "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." I believe the same concept applies to the failures of evangelists and prophets. God still possesses the sovereignty and the knowledge to reverse a man's mistakes for his own glorification. His work is magnified when repairing the destruction afflicted by men, however, it is not always so easily comprehensible, according to our own understanding, the many ways in which he does this. At times, an individual may react disdainfully towards the truth of Christ, yet when the Spirit wills it, the planted seed grows when the time is right. An individual may mock and ridicule theism after witnessing a failed prophecy, yet he still does it with an unadmitted interest in the actual truth value of the overall belief system he mocks. God's relationship with man does not work in a way in which man stumbles and then God has to drop what he is doing in order to lift him up; rather, man stumbles so that God can lift him up. Hence it is utterly impossible to truly diminish his glory.
At the start of one of his "Does God Exist?" debates, Dr. William Lane Craig stated [roughly quoted], "First off, I want to say that we need not spend all our time and energy arguing for (or about) God, but rather enjoying our relationship with him."
My purpose for beginning with Dr. Craig's words is to remind the apologist to prioritize his personal relationship with Christ first and foremost. Yet I do understand that this is a way in which many theistic philosophers continue to experience God - one discourses on virtue in order to stimulate the minds of individuals of all ideologies and not only that of the highly insurgent skeptic. It is not to convince or to persuade, but instead it is to encourage men to search willfully and extensively under the law of God. However, a number of activist non-believers radically censure supernatural-related doctrines; one can merely approach him with such and he builds reason for a more intense disdain. In what ways should this be conversed, with civility, in order to effectively reach out to the self-proclaimed intellectuals of the new age (e.g. radically anti-theistic iconoclasts, skeptic philosophers, humanistic scientists, etc.)? I must note that this question by no means implies compromising the nature or the law of God in order to "persuade" skeptics - the theist should understand the great distinction between "compromising the truth" and "tonality and the truth". Moreover, consistently does one expound under both logically and scientifically strong convictions for skeptic ideologies, hence those constantly active among these fields must remember that even the sun shines into cesspools and is not polluted [Diogenes].
Secondly, it must be noted that one's stressing over such is futile. A message of encouragement regarding patience and the steady effort of diligence can be found in Proverbs 25:15, which says, "Through patience a ruler can be persuaded, and a gentle tongue can break a bone." Patience is a commonly forgotten gift, often replaced by recklessness and ungodliness, and the reason for this is because God is patient.
Controversies regarding the vitalities of non-essential doctrine, cultural immoralities, and taboos, and their precedences to salvation, are ongoing within the theistic community. While these should never cease acknowledgment, are they not held, in negligence, as diversions from one's active realization of the authority of Christ? Intellectuals of modern skepticism begin with disfigured premises regarding God's cause due to the case that so many of his earthly representatives misrepresent his great cause. Truly, reason is a large cut of what directs one to a reasonable God apart from the uncultivated mentality - one in which is driven by fear of philosophies and scientific data. Ironically, would not the creator be both the paramount definition of knowledge and the source of logic? Lasting is the irrational conflict between men of science and men of faith, yet there is an analogy by Robert Jastrow that nails the primary difference between the two: Men of science hike the mountain 'round and 'round in search of truth. This will inevitably lead back to the Author of truth. Eventually, upon nearing the top, they will realize that men of faith have been standing there for centuries.
Yet it is axiomatic that there are different callings 
for Christians in correspondence with personal strengths and weaknesses, just as a military has different tasks for soldiers. A number of individuals will appear to be devil's advocates as interpreted by the self-governed conscience of man. Constructive accountability of the philosophical and social areas of Christianity and its truth wholly for the glorification of God has lamentably become a repulsive role to a number of modern fundamentalists. Beware: open-mindedness will often say, "Everything is permissible except a sharp opinion." Would it not be of great exigency to support faithful men who productively challenge the ethos of modern Christianity for the manifestation of its true, essential values? Personally, I like finding problems because I like solving problems. Nothing is more depressing to me than cheerfully sweeping things under the rug. It reminds me of passive individualism. I would rather have strong enemies than a world of passive individualists. In a world of passive individualists nothing seems worth anything simply because nobody stands for anything. That world has no convictions, no victories, no unions, no heroism, no absolutes, no heartbeat. That world has rigor mortis. This is not to justify the instigation of unnecessary conflicts, but rather to defend truth from future turmoil. Needless to say, one should avoid passivity when negative extremists represent hatred or falsehoods as regularities within the body of Christ (e.g. the infamous Westboro Baptist Church). The motive behind criticism often determines its validity. Those who care criticize where necessary. Those who envy criticize the moment they think that they have found a weak spot. In Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin effectively explained the Church's interaction with the state of the times (or cultures); firstly, love should be one's guide before tradition. As previously mentioned, determining the tone of one's beliefs does not necessarily entail altering and/or compromising one's beliefs:
"I mean that the Lord has in his sacred oracles faithfully embraced and clearly expressed both the whole sum of true righteousness, and all aspects of the worship of his majesty, and whatever was necessary to salvation; therefore, in these the Master alone is to be heard. But because he did not will in outward discipline and ceremonies to prescribe in detail what we ought to do (because he foresaw that this depended upon the state of the times, and he did not deem one form suitable for all ages), here we must take refuge in those general rules which he has given, that whatever the necessity of the church will require for order and decorum should be tested against these. Lastly, because he has taught nothing specifically, and because these things are not necessary to salvation, and for the upbuilding of the church ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age, it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones. Indeed, I admit that we ought not to charge into innovation rashly, suddenly, for insufficient cause. But love will best judge what may hurt or edify; and if we let love be our guide, all will be safe."
There is a certain role for a number of theists, and surprisingly enough, one in which is not to condemn in the name of doctrinal principles. Instead, it is to provide reasonable direction for one to ruminate on Christ, love, and virtue as manifested through scriptures, but first, let me explain: I feel that some individuals, forgotten individuals, more confidently relate to this approach. There is a presupposition that says, "Oh, it's from the Bible, whatever," and then there is the alternative, "I've never thought of this that way. It's starting to make more sense." Scripture in its purest interpretation is the one and only reliable foundation of all teachings worth teaching, yet every individual requires an amount of deconstruction in his grand search for truth. I want to make it clear that this does not imply something as contemptuous as provoking the loss of one's conscious state of mind. Veracity is within all people, however the challenge is sorting through one's own nonsense. Those who speak of progression but are afraid of change are self-repressed and therefore unable to reach any further than their eyes can already see. In Job's hardships, he shaved his head and tore his robe saying, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I must return (Job 1:21)."
I think it is healthy to, every once in a while, combat everyday inclinations in order to inspire evaluation of one's own potentially biased ideologies, whether it is for the theist or the atheist. It is like a reflection that rearranges the pieces in the mirror; surely the questioning of faith, rationality, opinion, and ideology is an effective self-evaluation. In result, if it was ever true faith in the beginning (more than mere opinion or belief), the right questions can only make that faith stronger under the discovery of more refined answers. When one serves as a planter of seeds for the glorification of God, the remainder of the vision is placed in his sovereign hands. With this an endeavor cannot be any more valuable whether the results are comprehended by man or not.
The well-prolonged debate regarding the alleged conflict between predestination and free will is often examined while completely disregarding the foreknowledge of God (1 Peter 1:2). The Molinistic philosophy is plausibly one of the most accurate descriptions to date, which is most contemporarily advocated by philosopher William Lane Craig, logically explaining the compatibility of free will ("optional love") and preordination ("forced love") without contradicting the concept of a loving God.
The wisdom of God is both crafty and omniscient, thus retaining 3 types of knowledge: a natural, middle, and free knowledge. It is vital to remember that his wisdom is beyond time, and by this, he already knows, predetermines, and owns his elect before formation in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5); however, man remains "freely" accepting of the gift of salvation in a time-bound, contemporary sense. Philosophically, the 3 knowledges are commonly defined as:
1.) Natural knowledge - God's knowledge of all possible truths, logic, and moral truths.
2.) Middle knowledge - God's knowledge of counterfactuals, or what a person would do during any given situation.
3.) Free knowledge - God's knowledge of the creation itself.
Contrary to popular belief, there is a compatibility between predestination and free will when referring to a God with knowledge that is not governed by time or duration due to the idea that omniscience does not entail manipulation, rather it entails precise measurement.
"Theological fatalism" can at times seem to be counterproductive when not discussed among firm believers. This is not an implication that it is invalid, however, God is "too simple to be simplified" into philosophies that may spiritually exclude the potential of any individual accepting the gift of salvation. Regardless, divinity for the sake of the simple-minded is beautiful. One is bound to make doctrinal mistakes, and in like manner, even the greatest thinkers have been and will be wrong at some points. Those theological assertions that you write, say, or live by, and later feel foolish about - that feeling could perhaps be the grace of God, still living inside you enough to tell you that they were indeed foolish. By mistakes you know you are alive.
I also want to make it clear that while no one should ever cease the will for understanding, when these controversies are continuously debated among great intellectuals for centuries no matter the supposed veracity of any given logic, the ultimate conclusion does not appear to be provable. The Bible thoroughly imparts what is necessary for salvation and to teach The Law of Faith - one is saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8). Kierkegaard once said, "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." A solid answer to everything is not necessary. Blurry concepts influence one to focus, but postulated clarity influences arrogance. Hence, in the flesh we are not expected to precisely explain with absolute assurance the more seemingly complex ways of God without God-given revelations, nor can we take such authorities as to say who is not capable of salvation when all are simply instructed to confess and be saved.
Think outside the box? Indeed. But to add balance to that, one should not in the process forget what the inside of the box looks like as well. Those who are best at thinking outside the box do it not to puff themselves up, but to see how small they really are. As a contented fish in its fish tank appears to have a small, boring existence to us, imagine a larger, more perceptive kingdom (even by scientific taxonomy) to whom our contented existences may appear to be small and boring. This is where true creativity and massive perceptive abilities spawn a sense of intellectual humility; the kind which God adores.
For God to prove himself on demand, physically, would be a grave disappointment, and the strongest Christians should be considerably grateful that he chooses not to do so. The skeptic endlessly demands proof, yet God refuses to insult the true intelligence of man, the "6th sense", the chief quality, the acumen which distinguishes man from the rest of creation, faith.
In response to the opening rhetoric, I will raise the alternative, "Who are you to say that there is nothing more than the universe?" Would not a fish be a fool to assume that all existing entities exist within the fish tank merely because that is all that he can perceive? Imagine the reality of a fish, next, imagine the massive world that surrounds the fish tank. Now, recall our own reality and consider the massive universe that surrounds the earth. Fish have a much shorter lifespan than humans but are content having no perception beyond this, and are confined to a much smaller space but are content having no perception beyond this. In other words, we do exist beyond the fish's space and time as perceived by the fish and the fish alone.
The given premise is based on what we do know about the brain capacity of a fish. We know that animals "higher up" have more advanced cerebral cortices, such as humans and chimpanzees as opposed to frogs and fish. The level of brain complexity plays an important role as to what we are content with in our existences.
Again, suppose there is a kingdom (even by scientific taxonomy) far beyond us and our current perception who, on average, lives 10x longer, is 10x larger, has 10x more space on their planet, and is 10x smarter (more complex brains). In our cluelessness of this, we are perfectly content with our "small" existence, whereas from their perspective we are the "fish". This is also a touch on the saying "ignorance is bliss". It basically sums up the statement about the contentment of fish, and can be applied to most of the animal kingdom. Animals in the zoo can be depressed in their confinement and long to play in the open fields, however they are more intellectually complex than fish. Even higher on the intellectual scale, humans are certainly depressed when locked in, and we tend to want even more than open fields but also to travel.
Figuratively, how could one ever prove to a fish human reality, or better yet, how could one prove human reality to bacteria? It is a being far beyond the microscopic, bacterial perception. Other than the fact that it is incomprehensible to bacterial cognition, it would also be extremely difficult if on their own volition, "being" remained limited to their perception of being. In comparing the universe to a fish tank, God would be much more great in size thus beyond our space and time having created such a massive universe.
Are there any defining factors that prove the human reality is existentially exempt from that of a fish's reality (but simply on a larger scale than fish)? One could respond under the notion that scientific perception defines "being", yet in that case, one is precisely exhibiting the aforementioned fish tank analogy. A fish conjecturing that the contents of its tank are all that exist because the contents of its tank are all that it can verify by means of its own analysis is in denial of acknowledging its limitations. One can believe that the fish is a fool when superior to its tiny existence, likewise, one is also truly analogous to the words of God, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'," (Psalms 14:1). In the same manner, God is superior to the human existence. I want to note again that the analogy of fish in a fish tank is not meant to be taken literally but rather in a metaphorical sense. Having said that, if fish did have the mental capacity to either believe in a higher power or deny a higher power, and this belief varied among fish, it can figuratively correspond to that of humans on a less intellectual level. We know that fish have limited cognitive reasoning behind the things they physically see. This means that they either could or could not comprehend our existence, even after they see us through the tank, when consuming the food dropped into the tank. However, we have more advanced capabilities, such as the ability to reason, the ability to comprehend the vitality of faith; thus we can subsequently operate with more than physical senses. God tests, but he does not tempt. Indeed all of humanity would believe in God, although not necessarily love God, if he could physically see God waving from the heavens, but it is quite complimentary that God gives more credit to man, his creation, than to thoughtlessly drop food from the skies in order to be comprehended.
Quite often does the radical physicalist postulate the "human perception = perception of all in existence" methodology, hence I wanted to focus on the phenomenal question, "Is there more than this life?" If one was to make this judgment according to his own dimensions, by the scientific method, he would have to go by what is known about this life in order to conclude another life, or lack thereof. Contrary to popular belief, the amount of strength for other existing realities or dimensions exceeds the amount of strength for this reality existing as the one and only reality.
Indeed it is faithful to merely assume multiple existences of such, however, assuming there is only one when the cause of one's own existence is not proven requires a great deal of faith and to an even higher degree. An orphan unaware of their biological parents would be very faithful to assume that they had no biological siblings when there is absolutely no declaration for the supposition. Conclusively, assuming whether or not this is the only reality is merely half the battle for both arguments, yet, as the orphan argument demonstrates, the opposing argument is the position founded upon ignorance.
Even if one did not believe in a creator, but rather any theoretical origin of the universe from either an accidental cause or absolutely nothing, there is nothing more to declare that the accident cannot happen in other instances into other universes apart from the current universe. The existence of the present reality, from either an accident or nothing, is a piece of evidence for the existence of other realities as there are no defined restrictions that determine such a chance singular. Apart from any chance-based theories, intelligent design is quite self-explanatory in one's considering of the potential existence of other dimensions.
Martin Heidegger's phenomenological assertion about death, or mortality, implies that "death does not come as an end"; however, if conclusively one is once nonexistent to this reality, yet he forms a state of being to this reality, how is it that he will someday become nonexistent to this reality as interpreted by biological science? Some might argue that imaginary pink unicorns are nonexistent to this reality, but provided is no evidence that they are existent in another. However, pink unicorns were not born into a conscious being of this known reality as humans were, hence those of being mysteriously cross this reality as unicorns do not. A tangibly existing thing, such as a conscious human, becomes a part of this reality, and passing through (from birth to death) is support for other realities. This is so because one does not have an immortal existence as defined by the properties of this life, yet one is indeed a being in itself that, apparently, moves into and from this life. Further provided is evidence that this universal reality is limited to and from specific properties that other local realities, such as humans, are capable of losing and/or gaining.
The only premise one has for the conclusion that the current reality is the one and only reality is based on the fact that one cannot consciously comprehend or perceive any other realities. For those who limit existence to perception, this is a contradiction because one cannot comprehend not existing in a reality of some sort. In other words, the human comprehension, in its incomprehension of not existing, inherently directs the mind to a future reality. Often used is the common notion, "Perceiving things is how we know they exist." In that case, and on the contrary, it is more so humanly logical to conclude that there are other realities by one's incomprehension of not being. Putting this idea to the test, one should try imagining not existing at all. It is impossible because there is a disposition thus imagining blindness, muteness, numbness, and deafness, which under such circumstances, would still be some form of existence no matter the combination. Human senses do not define existence; they merely detect certain properties of this universe. Because one cannot comprehend not existing beyond the current reality but will indeed move beyond it someday, by the common physicalist notion that human perception defines existence, one "perceives" that one can only move somewhere else rather than into nothingness.
Quite understandably yet irrationally, naturalist Charles Darwin was one of many who felt a rejection from God at the loss of a loved one (his daughter Annie). According to biographers, the incident served as fuel to his departure from faith in God:
"Annie’s cruel death destroyed Charles’ tatters of beliefs in a moral, just universe. Later he would say that this period chimed the final death-knell for his Christianity...Charles now took his stand as an unbeliever," [Desmond, Moore; Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist].
First and foremost, the principle that truly matters in spiritual security is the Law of Faith. This is faith in the work of Christ and not oneself (Galatians 3:22-26). In terms of one's salvation, a strong emphasis must be put on the Law of Faith. However, when deviating from such spiritual linguistics, one can often contemplate the sincere questions: What happens after that? Why do some lose confidence in the goodness (or even the existence) of God? Whether salvation is instantaneous or a process, which is an ongoing debate among believers, faith in the work of Christ is always, of course, the key (if not only) ingredient. Here, I will be providing both perspectives on faith and salvation. Neither, in this instant, is assumed superior to the other; rather, this is a general attempt and honest approach to the complexities of both positions.
In the case of individuals who denounce their faith, it might be easier to understand salvation as a gift from God only for those whom He, through His foresight, delights in their level of authenticity with regards to faith. Perhaps if God already knew that one's faith was not even the size of a mustard seed, nor will ever be such, He does not save them in the first place ("save" meaning "grant salvation"). This is a general approach to the doctrine of instantaneous salvation.
Now, taking the position of salvation as a process, a great number of individuals are under the impression that God's sole purpose is that of a magician, thus heedlessly and immediately relieving all problems and granting all wishes. Realistically, the majority of people have been given an efficient amount of strength to endure emotional problems; hence, the revealed method of God is to first meet one at halfway point rather than by force (Revelation 3:20) or by way of winning hearts over by frequently and negligently subsidizing inane material things and performing tricks. However, the only ingredient for "meeting God halfway" is by having faith in the goodness of God no matter how severe the situation. There are no required tasks, deeds, practices, or rituals. Jeremiah 29:13 states, "You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart." Due to the idea that man was made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), in many cases, one can use human emotions to metaphorically represent those of God: The reasonable guardian delights in seeing the guarded grow. This involves the volition of the guarded to grow in his faith rather than urging the need for confinement or some form of "moral captivity".
Hence, salvation, according to this logic, may constitute more than a simple transaction in which all wrongs immediately become rights. Rather, it is a process that spans beyond a single moment thus remaining an unceasing commitment. Philippians 2:12 says, "...continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling," as the continuity of surrender to Christ is a necessity in order for the work of Christ to be further manifested. "Process salvation" asks these questions: Would not the paramount gift, as all gifts, have both a giver and a receiver, consequently, one in which must be received and carried by the recipient in order to ultimately prosper? One's faith in Christ is of key importance, yet he must know that his
own life was never promised to become a complete heaven on earth.
Having said that, I want to add that human inclination, as it is gone astray from God, is an adherence to sin. Is it so that a number of wildlife species kill (not always for food or protection, but potentially due to rage), steal, and, by human rationale, rape? Because wildlife defines the idea of "nature", it can, in such cases, be used to mirror that of human nature. This does not serve as a justification for humans to act accordingly due to the fact that humans hold other advanced capabilities that exceed sheer instinct, such as reason and the potential acquisition of morality. Partially, faith serves as a development of these properties, under the work of Christ and not one's own, as well as an endeavor to improve negative tendencies for the glorification of a holy God. The old saying "actions speak louder than words" can be applied to this concept for times when inactivity molds an idle liar. If one does not carry such a commitment, God does not force His ultimate blessing onto those who truly do not accept it.
"Unanswered" Prayers: The common man prays, "I want a cookie right now!" And God responds, "If you'd listen to what I say, tomorrow it will bring you 100 cookies." It is only human to understand one's frustration when it comes to prayer, and though many have frequented the following explanation, it remains essential. One should be aware of the disposition to forget that "no" is an answer, or that "yes" does not necessarily promise immediately, but in time - days, weeks, months, even years. Indeed it initially sounds as though it is merely a cop-out of an explanation, however, the given are the primary linguistic interpretations when it comes to prayer. Realistically, one does not listen by direct and physical, vocal responses when communicating with God. The responses in which one receives are the happenings in one's life, yet a "blank incident" is logically impossible.
God's will with regard to prayer operates by a foreknowledge of all things (e.g. what one wants, what is best, what will happen, and how all will react), and to a timeless, foreseeing Spirit, the outcome determines the answer to the prayer. God's "incidental silence" is equivalent to "my will be done", and "my will be done" is equivalent to either "no" or "not yet". This does not mean that God will not answer "yes", it only means that, by His foreknowledge, He knows what one wants and what is best beforehand (hence, Jesus instructs us to pray "God's will be done" in Matthew 6:10). By this we know that every prayer has an answer because "silence" is both an indirect statement and a coming answer when there is a plan by God (there is always a plan by God, both universally and personally). Common is the saying "be careful what you wish for", hence we live under the implication that a "yes" can be harmful to one's self, or another, proving an unconsciousness of decisions beyond the personal realm; alternatively, God's ultimate pre-eminence is one's great security.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'" ~C.S. Lewis
In light of the words of C.S. Lewis, I want to add that showing favor for God's judgment before one's own ultimately results in receiving the desires of the heart. Yet having made these assertions, I also want to note that it is simply not wrong to pray for one's desires. When, first and foremost, the will of God is acknowledged, He is more delighted in hearing one's prayers (Psalms 37:4). In result, the relationship is strengthened. However my purpose, in this context, is to show reason in that God has no obligation to comply to prayer that defies His will. Quite often the things which one prays for are inherently imagined to be the best solutions, and even more often are they driven by personal desires; thus it is common in prayer that one expects God to lower Himself for such desires rather than uplifting oneself to God's desires. Similarly, St. Thomas Aquinas stated, "It is clear that he does not pray, who, far from uplifting himself to God, requires that God shall lower Himself to him, and who resorts to prayer not to stir the man in us to will what God wills, but only to persuade God to will what the man in us wills." When desiring the will of God before that of oneself, it is significant that one reminds himself, because through fear and doubt it is easy to forget, that the pieces of cause and effect can always be placed in order to comprehend God's countless and glorious responses to prayer. It is then made evident that He is indeed in great favor of the faithful man.
