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."
To a degree, I have a cold shoulder towards a number of detective shows and the daily press, or, I could say, the "inflated" daily press. The reason is simple - they frequently portray quiet individuals as crime suspects, as though introversion is a negative connotation, the drive behind a sinister agenda. In an extroverted society, the difference between an introvert and an extrovert is that an introvert is often unconsciously deemed guilty until proven innocent. Not to ramble, but here is a word from Kierkegaard on the daily press, "On the whole the evil in the daily press consists in its being calculated to make, if possible, the passing moment a thousand or ten thousand times more inflated and important than it really is. But all moral elevation consists first and foremost in being weaned from the momentary. There has never been a power so diametrically opposed to Christianity as the daily press." My mind is more stimulated watching children's shows than political news. The former brings back all the basic, undeniable truths that may then be built upon; the latter is flooded with biased drivel thus giving me this strange feeling that I did my mind a huge disservice. While a person should most definitely feel free to indulge in such, as entertaining or important as it may be, as well as inevitable to assimilate in most cultures, one must maintain a sound foundation.
One must keep in mind that an over-indulgence of anything, even something as pure as water, can intoxicate, and in this case, in a way which develops unhealthy thinking habits since the mind seems to be only truly affected when slowly penetrated. Seemingly minor yet persistent things penetrate the mind over time making it difficult to ever realize the impact; hence, though quite unfortunate, the most dangerous forms of corruption are those that are subtle and below the radar. I find technology in general to be a strong force in this assertion. In the age of technology, there is constant access to vast amounts of information. The basket overflows; people get overwhelmed: The eye of the storm is not so much what goes on in the world; it is the confusion of how to think, feel, digest, and react to what goes on.
To get to the central points, it is evident that normal introverts of today, who are genuinely virtuous yet show the affections in a different manner, cannot even take a dump without being accused of dropping a bomb (pun intended). It is paradoxical that, when confined to nothing more than human judgment, the majority of people fear and doubt the unknown, thereupon an emotion by way of ignorance. Now, I am aware that everything at some point has been declared the root of all evil. But if ignorance is not the root of all evil, as Plato is often credited for saying, then explicitly so, it is very much the water to the roots. Ephesians 4:18, "They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart." The result of ignorance is false and potentially malicious judgment. For instance, when it comes to judging individuals, I do not like remarks such as "too good to be true." They speak as though one is rewarding the nature of evil. Yet, ironically, we still wonder where all the good people have gone. Oftentimes such cognitive habits leave little beauty to be seen in the individual, therefore isolating his very essence: If a man cannot understand the beauty of life, it is probably because life never understood the beauty in him.
It seems as though some cultures have evolved in ways which convince one that he is mentally unstable if he is naturally more productive when flying alone. In turn, it steers him into a hole; he feels bullied for personality traits which are very difficult to steer. In result, he begins to feel and think as an enemy to other people; he is filled with a cultural guilt (which is not necessarily a moral guilt). This is why it is understandable that one can sympathize with villains and underdogs - they are obviously wrong, but it continues because, by the holiest standards, good people are not as good as they think they are. But, of course, giving or finding sympathy is not the answer - an obsession with sympathy expands, and I often say that, like crying wolf, if you keep looking for sympathy as a justification for your actions, you will someday be left standing alone when you really need help.
Now some of the most common arguments against this particular area of non-prejudgment may (inadvertently) influence a detachment - the greater solutions from the problems. You get hit the hardest when trying to run or hide from a problem. Like the defense on a football field, putting all focus on evading only one defender is asking to be blindsided. One's own functionality begins when pinpointing the lethargic solutions that influence him to remain lethargic, as these are the most brutal of human oppositions, for example, "That's the reality of it. Deal with it. Mysterious people are more likely to commit crimes." Yes, the assertion can be made, but assuredly, is not that way of thinking also what separates genius from mediocrity? As Einstein said, "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." In recent years, the problem is not so much the individuals behind the atrocities, those further made infamous in a stereotypical caricature, rather it is the reaction of the general public towards those being negatively caricatured. When it comes to world news, attitude is what marks the distinction between justice and vengeance. Justice is pure, but vengeance brings more ruin. In Mere Christianity (pg. 118), C.S. Lewis wrote: "The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything - God and our friends and ourselves included - as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred." Denying safety and precaution is asinine; albeit, such conceptions, in their rights, do not veritably come from man. In times of doubt, God should be sought when among the alleged perilous. If one is meant to know, as it is written, proper judgment will swiftly come and the true securities of the individual will be of solid assurance for having faith in God, James 1:5, "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him."
As a side note, the theistic philosopher has a tendency to devalue insufficient worldviews, ideologies, and quite often common sense for the greater good, and in such cases, one should not be discouraged when seen as a bad guy. When good people consider you the bad guy, you develop a heart to help the bad ones. You actually understand them. To some, this is a calling. Luke 6:26 says, "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets." If he stresses over man's perception of a righteous heart, then he has given his heart to man. But know that, for positive results, if you have to say or do something controversial, aim so that people will hate that they love it and not love that they hate it. It is never ridicule, but a compliment, that knocks a philosopher off his feet. He is already positioned for every possible counter-attack, counter-argument, and retort...only to find a big bear hug coming his way. Many great and memorable philosophers, scientists, theologians, poets, artists, writers, and musicians were at odds with the majority during their times - not simply because they sought to be rebels or revolutionaries - but because they utilized a gift; and for this they are now highly respected.
For instance, one of my great philosophical influences, Søren Kierkegaard, in some way related to such according to selected writings in his journal, "People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me." From personal experience, as a child, introversion is generally considered, as a natural trait, cute, but as one ages into young adulthood, the introversion starts to become a burden to the introvert. Others will at times judge him, label him incompetent or untrustworthy. In attaining job promotions, as well as finding a mate, a natural introvert must work twice as hard as a natural extrovert must work: In an extroverted society, most people seem to have empty restaurant syndrome, "There must be some kind of an issue there, so let's move on to the next one." In an extroverted society, one's outgoing tendencies are more desired than one's skills.
Albert Camus, yet another influential philosopher, similarly stated, "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." As an introvert, I am actually rather appreciative of this. At times, what I lacked socially, I would compensate for it by perfecting my talents. I like solitude. It is when you truly hear and speak your natural, unadulterated mind, and out comes your most stupid self as well as your most intelligent self. It is when you realize who you are and the extents of the good and the evils which you are capable of. Einstein puts into perspective an introvert's purpose in an extroverted society, "Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value." For some people, quite frankly, life is not always about trying to be different when understanding that that is actually a burden. Life can go from living to survival looking for where one belongs, therefore my dominant reminder in this case is that, as long as one allows them to, personal difficulties, in result, accentuate an individual's ingenuity; therefore, the weakness is the cause of the strength.
~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."
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 and will be wrong at some points. Those theological assertions you write, say, or live by that you later feel foolish about, it means God still lives in 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.
Reason is not necessarily a contradiction of faith. I want to elaborate on one of my previous passages:
