Spirituality Guide

The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture by Rene Pache scrutinizes and presents facts regarding the inerrancy of the scripture. It addresses such baffling question as how can a fallible man produce an infallible Bible? Then it examines the Bible closely with regards to its views on revelation and its inspiration. It delves on the testimony on the Bible given by Christ and the church centuries ago. Pache then sums up theories brought up regarding the Scripture and finally discusses the supernatural qualities which provide evidence to the divine origin of the Scripture and which back up its authority on the word of God.

The first chapter of the book tackles the Revelation from God. It posed some really important, thought-provoking questions to the readers. “Man on earth is placed in a paradoxical situation. Endowed with intelligence and logic, he seems intended to know the reason for his existence and the meaning of it, as well as the origin of the universe and the person of his Creator. Actually, however, he finds himself surrounded by mysteries. Left to his own devices, he is incapable of answering the questions which press in on him so closely.”

Among these questions that baffles mankind is the infallibility of the Bible. Some people accept the idea that the Bible is the inspired Word of God to some extent. To what degree is the Bible an inspiration of God’s Word? Does it extend to every word?
To this question, Pache has an answer. “The doctrine of plenary inspiration holds that the original documents of the Bible were written by men, who, though permitted to exercise of their own personalities and literary talents, yet wrote Linder the control and guidance of the Spirit of God, the result being in every word of the original documents a perfect and errorless recording of the exact message which God desired to give to man.” (The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, p. 173).

Sometimes biblical writers use a specific phrase or quote or even a single word to prove their point that the Bible is completely God inspired. For instance in Galatians 3:16 the apostle Paul cites Genesis 13:15 and 17:8 when God said to Abraham, “Unto your seed (descendent) will I give this land”. Paul’s whole argument is due to the fact that in this particular line, God uses singular descendant rather its plural noun. Rene Pache, in The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (p. 77), gives an explanation to this idea. He said that “very often the meaning of a whole passage rests entirely on one word, a singular or a plural number, the tense of a verb, the details of a prophecy, the precision of a promise and the silence of the text on a certain point.”

The inspiration and authority of the Bible are one of the important considerations in learning the truths about God, Christ and salvation. That is why knowing the scope of inspiration in every book and every word of the Scripture is of massive. The way to getting to the heart of the matter however is contained in the pages of the document in question itself, the Bible.

The authority of the Bible then stems from the fact that the Bible is an inspired revelation from God. Pache delves on the questions of revelation and inspiration with regard to the Bible. And by doing so, as he manages to address those questions and establish the source of inspiration, then it necessarily addresses the issue of authority also. In short, by proving its inspiration, the question of authority has been settled. How one looks at the issues on revelation and inspiration will determine how he perceive the Bible’s authority.

Since the written revelation contained in the Bible comes from God and has been recorded under the Spirit’s guidance which makes them “the very breath of God,” it naturally follows that what they contain are therefore authoritative. They gain authority by virtue of the fact that they come from the One Authority on the topic. In essence, this would lead us to conclude and give us the necessary assurance that when thumbed the pages of the Bible, we see and read the inspired Word of God.

We need to keep in mind that the authority of Scripture could not possibly be separated from the authority of God. What the Bible affirms, it follows that God affirms too. And what the Bible affirms (or denies), the affirmation (or denial) is clothe with the authority of God. Theologian Rene Pache states this in his book, as he observes that “if God entirely inspired Scripture (as we have seen that He did), then Scripture is vested with His authority.”

I received a shocking news three days ago that my cousin passed away. She was only 49 years old. She lost her battle to diabetes after years of struggles. She left behind an eleven-year-old boy.

To receive such depressing news a few days before Christmas does not seem fitting let alone heartening. Why? Why her? Why at Christmas?

The theories I have long delineated here are finally put to test. Faith, hope and love seem all foreign, as the death of a loved one stare us squarely in the face. These virtues offer no respite, no escape from the excruciating reality. It seems to me that there is no greater loss than the loss of a loved one.

So I turned to the Bible for comfort as I wont to do in times of utter confusion.

As I leafed through the pages, I keep lifting up my thoughts, prayers and questions to God. Why her? I found myself asking.

Then like a bolt of lightning it struck me. God’s words filled me like a whiff of fresh air and nourished my grieving heart.

I realized that our bodies are akin to the favorite clothe we wear - over and over again. Some wear their clothes for hundred (100) years. Others for a mere ten (10) years. Still others, like my cousin, wore the same dress for forty-nine (49) years.

It does not matter how long we wear our bodies. We all will come to shed it off one day. And our real bodies - our Spirits - will finally be liberated from its contrictions. What passed away therefore is not our real loved ones but the clothes they wear while here on earth.

We take comfort in the fact that they may have left their bodies or their temporary abode but they never actually left us in spirit. The real journey to eternal life has just began.

‘The Genealogy of Morals’ by Nietzsche is a discussion that involves philosophy, psychology and linguistic theory. It views morality in three different ways. The first essay expounds on the concept of good and evil as good and bad. Nietzsche uses the master and slave morality to demonstrate this. The slave refuses the ideas of the master, consequently it lead them to appreciate things that will not enable them to gain power.

The second essay tackles conscience and guilt. Then he relates this to the invention of gods. The third essay takes a look at ascetic views. Nietzsche attempts to explain where the great philosophers of the past committed mistakes.

I believe there is no Utopian Society for Nietzche based on his writings. This is so because he wrote three various essays that tackle morality but not really expound on how morality should be practiced and what are its basis. Unlike Plato who specifically delineates his ideal community, Nietzsche does not propose an ideal community or how an ideal community should function. Instead, he merely outlines and differentiates morality.

Kant, Grounding for Metaphysics of Morals talks about the need for morality to be universality. Morality should be sought for its own end and not for any other personal interests or self-serving objectives. Kant defines “metaphysics” as the study of pure concepts as they relate to moral or physical experience.

According to Kant, morality must be based on reason as opposed to culture or personality. The moral law to be adhered to is to act only in such a way that you could want the maxim (the motivating principle) of your action to become a universal law. Since it applies in all situations, reason’s basic moral law is then called “categorical imperative”. The basis for our need to be moral is the idea of freedom or free will.

A Utopian society befitting Kant would be a society governed by morality based on reason and freedom of will. Morality is at the core of our actions. And this morality should come from pure motives and respect of the moral law irregardless of consequences or personal gain.

Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature is a treatise on the true nature of man, being one that is based on feelings. He argues that basically our ideas are derived from impressions we gain thru our senses. Since we cannot experience God and hence, derive no direct impressions from it, then it is not possible that He exists. Even passion and morality are based on feelings of pain and pleasure which are derived from impressions.

Hume believes that morality should be based on feelings effectively separates morality from reason, removed the importance of God and questions the very foundation of various religious beliefs.

A number of philosophers rejected Hume’s during his time, even to this day. His views on giving unparalleled importance to feeling made some philosophers wary of his basis and the validity of his claims particularly religious leaders who believe that morality is based on free will and reason not on emotions or passions.

Looking at it in this context proposed by Hume, we can tell that the Utopian society he was suited for would be one where feelings, senses and impressions rule. Morality and questions of grave importance will only be given due consideration in the context of feelings. This kind of Utopia is probably in direct contrast with Rene Descartes idea where rationalism is expected to abound and is encouraged.

Meditations on First Philosophy subtitled In which the existence of God and the real distinction of mind and body, are demonstrated is a philosophical piece by René Descartes first published in Latin in 1641.

The treatise consists of six meditations serves as the threshold of modern Western philosophy. In it, Descartes tackles several Aristotelian doctrines and questions its basic concepts. Descartes tears apart the Aristotelian concept that all knowledge stems from the senses and that mental states merely resemble them.

Descartes started his Meditations with the idea of skepticism. Then, he progressively showed the need to recognize senses and imagination as part of the mental processes. Descartes concluded that mind and body do not have anything in common. Our mind is made to think and the body merely extends our thoughts. Also, the perception of God is innate, which means it was there by the time we were born and must be put there by a Higher Being.

A number of philosophers find Descartes ideas acceptable although his theory on the mind-body link is still subject to heated debate to this day. A number of adherents to mind-body link believe that the mind greatly affects the body as opposed to Descartes separate function of mind and body and his assumption that the one could not affect the other.

The utopian society for Descartes would be one where the improvement of thinking, senses and imagination or, the mental faculties is encouraged. Being a rationalist, Descartes believe that clarity of perceptions of intellect is the best way to gain knowledge. The information derived from the senses merely helps us to live in a practical manner.

Utopia is based mostly on Plato’s Republic. In The Republic, Plato expounds on his idea of an idea society. The society is basically characterized by an abundance of equalism and a general pacifist attitude. The citizens are however ready to wage battle should the need arise. Poverty and misery are non-existent. Laws are reduced to the basics. There are no lawyers. Citizens do not need to go to war. Instead mercenaries from neighboring states are hired in the hope that they would be extinguished in their missions thus reducing the evils in the world.

Plato’s Utopia is a religious one. In The Republic, Plato expounds his belief in the Form of the Good which actually refers to God. He compares the Form of the Good to the sun. He says that just as the sun radiates light, so the form of the good radiates truth. Plato believes that the highest form of knowledge is the form of the good, from which all things that are considered just derives their worth. Humans are bounded by duty to find the good, but no one can hope to achieve this without philosophical reasoning.

This view on the good life however is in direct contrast with what Socrates, Plato and Aristotle preached. For Socrates, Plato and Aristotle however engaging the senses particularly sex is not of prime importance in attaining the ‘good life’. Truth or arriving at the truth through reason is the essence of a good life.

Socrates preaches that in the truth one can find the highest good of man. It was the truth that he loved, desired, and believed in. According to Socrates, what is considered a good act is not good because it is what the gods proclaimed to be, but it is good because it is helps us in our efforts to attain a better and happier life. The good life therefore is a useful life – one that will lead to happiness and growth.

The good life or the highest form of good according to Plato is the exercise of reason. Plato believes that if ever, the pleasure gained from senses, is at the very bottom rung of the ladder, the lowest aspirations that can lead to a good life. The next step, higher than sensual pleasures, is the spirit or courage. The reason occupies the highest rung. Phenomena refer to appearances. The ideals are the ultimate reality. Ideals are superior to phenomena. Senses belong to phenomena and are limited. Ideals are ruled by the soul.

Aristotle preaches the need for self-actualization which, like his colleagues, exhorts the use of reason over desires. He believes in the four major causes as the core of his teachings: material cause, efficient cause, formal cause and final cause. He believes that the essence of human soul is reason. And that the desires that come in conflict with reason must be curtailed because these desires are focused on the present alone. The reason lets us see beyond what is here and now, and help us attain a better future. Self-realization is the continuous pursuit of perfection.

The ‘good life’ in contemporary advertising rarely if ever espoused the same views held by the ancient philosophers. They do espouse the need to take care of our physical selves though. As far as similarities go, that is where it all ends. Contemporary advertising does not take the ‘good life’ to the next or higher level which is the nurturing of soul.

“The unexamined life is not worth living.” – Socrates

Contemporary advertising depicted the good life emphasizes the indulgence of the senses. The ‘good life’ is having fame and fortune. There is always a sexual connotation in the way contemporary advertisers depict the ‘good life’. Cars, cigarettes, personal care products and others featured beautiful women and the hint of sex in order to attract attention and sell.

The ‘good life’ as bombarded by contemporary advertising is one that offers luxuries, sensual pleasures and the attainment of physical desires. There seems to be a concerted effort to focus on the here and now, what is immediate, what is visible. ‘He, who has the most toys, wins.’ Materialism is perceived to be at the core of contemporary advertising. It persuades people to spend more and acquire more.

Things are easier said than done though. Man, after all, does not believe in simple things. There is something fishy in simple things. It prompts man to ask ‘what’s the catch?’ Man’s complex mind and insatiable hunger for knowledge do not prepare him to accept the simplicity of attaining salvation.

Faith is not an acceptable solution. Man has not attain all those fantastic scientific inventions and technological advancements to end up justifying so simple a term as faith. No. It doesn’t happen that way.

Sin is a complex probable that requires complex solution. He has issues on faith. How to get man out of his OWN way is probably the biggest challenge that man needs to conquer. It is the puzzle that defies human logic. So man is back to square one and the quest continues….

Christ showed us the way through the examples He set. Faith, Hope and Love are the three great virtues man should attain according to Jesus. Among the three, Love is the greatest. Faith leads us to Hope and Hope enables us to feel Love for others and for ourselves.

Because of Love, Christ died for us. Because of Love, we are connected to each other. Because of Love, we become brothers. And it is the same Love that will lead us to what all of us want all along – inner peace and true happiness. Christ’s call for Love echoed through the ages for more than 2,000 years. But who is listening?

Fortunately though, God has given us a leeway in the person of His son Jesus Christ. Humans may have transgressed God’s laws through the attainment of knowledge and were forever cast out of paradise, but the promise of redemption by the Son of God has bridged the widening gap. It must have taken a lot of courage for God to sacrifice His only begotten Son to get us out of the deep rut we carved ourselves in.

In Milton’s Paradise Regained, Jesus’ was tempted by Satan in the wilderness and was able to resist the Devil’s wiles. This passage is the turning point or the first step in man’s quest for salvation as it presented a very familiar scene - Satan tempting an unsuspecting human. Jesus’ triumphed against Satan’s temptations represents succeeding on behalf of humanity the trial which Adam and Eve failed.

Christ success teaches us that we do not earn redemption by attaining perfection. Redemption is achieved through faith. Faith in God; faith in the healing and restorative power of Christ’s crucifixion. Through Christ we are given the chance to redeem ourselves in God’s eyes. It offers a new lease on life. We have a choice not to end up a failure, after all.

Mystery or problem - the conflicting view poses more questions rather than answers. No wonder, Gandhi espoused the “middle way” as the best way. A life of moderation is the best way to live. Blending the East’s fatalism with West’s need for action could provide the best solution for us.

Yes, at times we cannot fathom the mystery of life and we better leave it at that, rather than attempt to solve it. But sometimes, we are also required to be more in control of our lives - to make conscious decision on what is good and right for us. The trick is to know when to stop questioning and start living. The view on moderation is apparently shared not just by Gandhi but also his Christian counterparts as Christ himself advised us not to concerned ourselves with too much joy or sorrow.

God is one of the mysteries we may never be able to fathom. I personally believe in the presence of God wholeheartedly. But in the end, the purpose of religion is not to engage in endless debate whether or not there is really a Supernatural Being who made us, rather religion is intended to make us BETTER persons. If it has done so, whether you are a Christian or Muslim or Jew, then it has served its purpose. Even if one is an atheist - if one becomes a better person because of it - then the absence or presence of religion becomes irrelevant.

Faith is not in believing what we can comprehend but in knowing for certain what we don’t know for sure. It is an inner state where we accept things for what they are and not the way we want them to be. Knowledge sometimes could not be discerned through the mind but revealed through the heart.

“Life is either a mystery to be lived or a problem to be solved.” This saying presents two opposing yet prevalent views in the East and West which are: passivity versus action, respectively. This also presents an interesting slant to the arguments presented here, and that is, the quest for knowledge is the root of evil.

Man is insatiable. Just like his quest for knowledge, man’s needs are endless. Sometimes it all boils down to who gets the most toys. Science is commendable for it has achieved great strides in promoting mankind. At the same time, it has also managed to reduce us to mere creatures of comfort. Look at the number of gadgets science has invented to facilitate our lives and speed up work – computers, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens and so many others. Yet, how come we never find the time to be with our loved ones. How ironic could that be?

Communication is supposedly getting better these days. What with computers, internet, cell phones, television, dvd’s, voice over internet protocols (voip) technology and all other gadgets. The world is getting smaller and more connected. Yet how come many still feel alienated more than ever? Probably because we all want talk but nobody wants to listen. No wonder there is a rising tide of marriage meltdowns and relationship break-ups these days.

Knowledge has twisted our lives, our relationships, our ideas of God. God was right. The best punishment was not death but the knowledge of right and wrong. We end up punishing each other. We choose our punishment. Too much knowledge did not liberate us as expected. It serves to imprison us some more as our wants and needs evolve.

Our need to acquire more and know more distract us from the very reason why we are here which is to live a life close to God. We concern ourselves too much with the non-essentials that we fail to grasp the beauty of basking in (and not in unraveling) the mystery. That mystery is best lived by faith.