I am pleased to bring you another week of God glorifying, scripture saturated, theologically astute Hip Hop! Jesus is saving men and women from every culture and tongue and it is absolutely beautiful to hear Christ glorified through these different cultural expressions. Where’s the song? It’s coming. (repent of your impatience, :]) The following intro is courtesy of youtube.

C.J.Mahaney says: On a stage in front of 2,800 attendees at the 2010 NEXT conference, I called out my friend Curtis Allen.

On Friday, this is what he sent me:

Verse 1:
Yeah I’m on a mission like a couple spies, and that guys is the reason why I catechize. The good news we almost forgot I recognize, Heidelberg rediscovering the gospel prize. It’s not scripture but the truth in it will mention he, introduction hide and seek the 16th century. Written in a time when your mind was the weaponry, this document is back into the populace shouts to Kevin D. Better than you think not as bad as you remember, purpose driven truth, from Frederick the elector. He would initiate, the 129 questions to illustrate truths like Christ propitiates. All in a document, whose purpose was to teach children, a guide for preachers, and confessions in a church building. And this is all fact The Heidelberg Cat has been around but now it’s seem like it is coming back.

Hook:
We believe in the cross, believe in his life,
We believe in his death, believe he’s the Christ.
We believe that he rose from grave yes it is him
And we read the Heidelberg Catechism

We believe in the after life and we believe nothing’s after Christ, so we stand our ground, cuz the truth’s been around from the word to Heidelberg.

Verse 2:
Year of the Heidelberg resulting in renewed passion, and we could see it in our lives lights camera action. Let’s take a gander and address a few questions from Heidelberg document then look at the answers. But before that make sure that, you know how it’s broken down, in a Q & A format, a few sections. Suggestions how to read this not to sound promotional, but Kevin put it in his book to make it a devotional. Each question each answer has a bit of commentary, so the application of it is not some involuntary. Mystery, the history screams through rings true but I’ll just leave that up to God, cuz that’s between you. to believe, but to believe you gotta read you and then you meditate on all the truths that the Heidelberg will illustrate. What’s that the catechism homey where you been the good news we almost forgot let’s get it in!

Verse 3:
From the word to the Heidelberg, we see that what’s the comfort of life should come first. And in death that I with, body and soul but belong to the savior, commentary from me man, tell this to your neighbor. Moving on, how many things are necessary for thee, enjoying this comfort, to live and die happily? Three, my sin’s misery, deliverance from sin, and gratitude for God is how the answer ends. Let’s stretch it out the Lord’s day 23 the grandaddy of them all, questions 59 and 60. What good does it do to believe in all this? In Christ I am right heir to the promise. Paraphrase, anyways I’m kinda limited I’m just trying to say a couple things my man Kevin did. On the Heidelberg, go and get you one, and by the way CJ homey this was fun.

The following article was written by Chris Bolt @ ChoosingHats.com

Introduction

In April 1518 Martin Luther was called upon by the Augustinian order of Germany to set out and defend his theology at the General Chapter of Heidelberg. While Luther was rather thoroughly surrounded by controversy he would be presenting the theological ideas which had produced this controversy to those who shared much of his Augustinian thinking. The name of the presentation Luther delivered is the Heidelberg Disputation. The Heidelberg Disputation consists of a number of theses divided between philosophical theses and theological theses. The theological theses are explained in much greater detail than are the philosophical theses. Luther actually overlooks further explanation of his philosophical theses and chooses instead to let them stand on their own whereas after initially stating his theological theses he returns to them in order to further explicate and defend them. Perhaps this is a reason that the philosophical theses are largely overlooked in literature written on Luther. It may also be that theologians do not want to interact with strictly philosophical concepts in Luther and by extension Aristotle or that the philosophers who would perhaps be better suited to address Luther’s understanding of Aristotle are simply not generally interested in Luther as a philosopher. Whatever the reason is for the relative silence regarding Luther’s philosophical theses in his Heidelberg Disputation it is evident that Luther’s theology and philosophy are inextricably connected to one another so that a deeper understanding of Luther’s philosophical theses lends greater insight into Luther’s theology and vice versa.[1]

Heidelberg Disputation

The Heidelberg Disputation is of utmost importance “for understanding Luther’s developed theology.”[2]

Here he not only expanded his theology of sin, grace, and free will, but also offered his own positive theological agenda centered in the “theology of the cross” (theologia crucis). In this formulation of theological method we begin to hear Luther’s distinctive contribution.[3]
Sin, grace, and free will had everything to do with Luther’s theses on philosophy because he found the traditional use and abuse of Aristotle by the Catholic Church to be every bit as mistaken as the theology of the Catholic Church in general and for the same reasons.

Luther had come to think that the trouble with the whole tradition that had developed from Thomas Aquinas was that it tended to be dominated by its opening theological moves. Since the existence of God could be shown rationally or philosophically a style of theology developed that moved too smoothly from what could be known and comprehended clearly in creation to the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Though Thomas himself was clear that the saving mysteries could not be known by reason, much of the energy of subsequent theology went into these foundational questions.[4]
Sin has such far reaching consequences that the intellect of humanity is affected by it and hence is not trustworthy when utilized apart from the revelation of God. Grace is necessary not only for salvation but also to free the mind from its mistaken philosophical wanderings. Salvation does not come through human reasoning by way of philosophy operating in accord with itself or in accord with unaided and unregenerate human thought. Luther thus went after those places where the faulty and incomplete views on sin, grace, and free will held by the Catholic Church had resulted in faulty philosophy as well. The Catholic Church was essentially basing their theology upon pagan philosophy. Luther believed this to be a completely backward approach and insisted upon having his theology of the cross as the lens through which both philosophy and theology may be correctly understood and used. To do otherwise is to contradict Scripture.

The theologians of Martin Luther’s day were infatuated with imposing unbiblical ideas upon the doctrine of God and the Bible through secular philosophy.

This could obscure what St. Paul had taught so forcefully: the cross of Christ is not a concept compatible with human wisdom and philosophy, but only with deep folly and offense. The cross is not inspiring but a scandal. Therefore the true theologian is not the one who argues from visible and evident things (following Aristotle), but rather the one who has learned from the cross that the ways of God are hidden (des absconditus), even in the revelation of Jesus Christ.[5]
The Heidelberg Disputation is rather well developed with Luther elaborating upon his philosophy and theology by drawing out conclusions from Scripture and showing how the views of different theologians relate to one another and also his own view.[6]

What emerges in this document is Luther’s radically grace-centered theology that sets the righteousness of God not only against the claims of philosophy for wisdom, but also against all the best moral achievement of humanity. It is an appeal to rediscover the sharp voice of Augustine (especially in his controversy with Pelagius), which apparently had become muted even in the Augustinian order.[7]
Of course, Augustine was hardly Luther’s only resource in theological controversy. The words and works of Luther are saturated with biblical thought and he no doubt had passages of Scripture in mind even while writing out his theses concerning philosophy.

Scripture

In 1 Corinthians 1.18-25 the Apostle Paul writes concerning the Gospel or “word of the cross.” It will be shown that Luther alludes to this passage during the course of presenting his philosophical theses when he speaks of becoming “thoroughly foolish in Christ.” The word of the cross which is the Gospel is not perceived as being wise or even reasonable by those who reject it. Those who have received the word of the cross view it as being the power of God and are being saved by it. It is likely that their being saved by the word of the cross is one of the reasons they do view the cross as the power of God. Meanwhile, those who are not being saved but are perishing count the word of the cross as folly. They consider it foolishness rather than power or wisdom and consider themselves to be wise even in their proclamation that the cross is foolish.

Paul quotes from the Old Testament that God will destroy the “wisdom of the wise.” In Paul’s context the “wise” at least includes the Greeks. Aristotle, whom Luther is writing about in his philosophical theses, is thus numbered among the wise of Paul’s passage. In verse 20 Paul asks rhetorically, “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” In verse 21 Paul appeals to the wise counsel of God as ultimately behind the placement of human reason in God’s redemptive plan. It is not possible for someone to come to know God through wisdom. Wisdom might be taken to refer more specifically to human wisdom, reasoning, or philosophy. God has determined that the world will not know Him through wisdom. Perhaps the reason for this is the weakness of humanity’s reasoning, the arrogance which often accompanies human wisdom, the uneven inclinations people have toward philosophical understanding, or something else along these lines. Not surprisingly Luther appeared to ground the folly of using reasoning as a path to God in the inability of humanity resulting from sin. The verse does not give a reason for God’s having determined that human wisdom would have the place that it does in His redemptive plan. What the passage does state is that it was wise of God to make things this way. It is “in the wisdom of God” that the world “did not know God through wisdom.”

Paul goes on in verse 21 to explain that while wisdom is not a route to the knowledge of God foolishness is for “it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” Paul is following verse 18 and presenting his case from the perspective of those who are perishing and believe that the “word of the cross is folly.” Paul and the Apostles preached what is considered folly, not wisdom, because they preached the Gospel message which is the word of the cross. God is nevertheless pleased in saving those who believe this message that is considered foolishness by the standards of even the wisest reprobate.

Verses 22 and 23 describe Greeks or Gentiles as seeking wisdom but finding the preaching of Christ crucified to be folly. What is true for the Greek of Paul’s time is no less true for the earlier Aristotle or any other number of other people for whom the message of the cross is foolishness as compared to the human wisdom some attempt to use in order to come to know God. All people come to the saving knowledge of God not through the means of human wisdom, but through belief in the Gospel. In verse 18 those who see the word of the cross as the power of God are those who are being saved, in verse 21 those who are being saved are those who believe the word of the cross, and in verse 24 those who see Christ as the power and wisdom of God are those who are called from both the Jews and the Greeks. The difference between those who see the cross as foolishness and those who see it as power and wisdom is that the latter are saved while the former are not. The reason that some are saved while others are not is because the saved have believed on Christ. The reason that some Greeks believe while others do not is not because of wisdom, but because of God’s call based in His gracious election. People are ultimately saved not because they are wiser than others, but because they are chosen by God. (1 Corinthians 1.27) Hence the route to the knowledge of God according to the Bible is by grace through faith. (Ephesians 2.8)

Philosophy

In his 29th thesis Luther writes that, “He who wishes to philosophize by using Aristotle without danger to his soul must first become thoroughly foolish in Christ.”[8] In this statement Luther does not dismiss philosophy as such or even Aristotelian philosophy but rather makes a qualification for its use. Failure to qualify the use of Aristotelian philosophy in the way Luther suggests results in danger to one’s soul. In order to both use Aristotelian philosophy and avoid danger to the soul one must “become thoroughly foolish in Christ.” It seems that Luther is here alluding to 1 Corinthians 1.18-25. The prerequisite to using Aristotelian philosophy is becoming foolish in Christ. The interpretation is that while Aristotelian philosophy will not deliver one’s soul it is still useful. Becoming foolish in Christ is having faith in Jesus. Interpreted in slightly broader terms faith in Christ Jesus precedes a right use of reason. This broader interpretation is warranted given the nature of the philosophical theses in the Heidelberg Disputation, the context of Luther’s other works, and the arbitrariness which would be entailed by suggesting that Luther rejected Aristotle alone or thought that other philosophers could be used without danger to the soul and without faith in Christ. While Luther emphasizes the foolishness of following Christ he also points out problems in Aristotle’s philosophy and if nothing else establishes that Aristotle’s philosophy is inconsistent with Scripture. Luther highlights that God has destroyed the wisdom of the wise as exemplified in Aristotle.

Luther continues his philosophical theses by stating in his 30th thesis that, “Just as a person does not use the evil of passion well unless he is a married man, so no person philosophizes well unless he is a fool, that is, a Christian.”[9] That “becoming foolish in Christ” is properly understood as exercising “faith in Christ Jesus” as mentioned earlier is confirmed by the thirtieth thesis in that Luther states that his use of “fool” is synonymous with “Christian”. Here Luther uses an analogy of a married man. The analogy pertains to the use of philosophy.

Conceivably there are many things that a married man is able to “use” well that an unmarried man is not able to use well. Luther provides the example of the “evil of passion.” That philosophy in general is in view is clear in this thesis and confirms the conclusions drawn from the previous thesis. In order to philosophize well or in order to be a good philosopher one must be a fool which Luther here explains is a Christian. Luther’s use of “fool” mimics the Bible, but it also matches Luther’s tendency to revel in paradox and antithesis. Luther is implying that the fool is wise. It is not just that one cannot use philosophy without danger to the soul without being a Christian, but it is also that the Christian actually uses philosophy better and does so through faith. Presumably faith is the lens through which everything else must be viewed. To put it another way; faith precedes reason and gives way to its rightful use. Philosophical reasoning which is predicated upon faith is something which is useful, does not damn the soul, and can be done well. Over against this the person without faith will find philosophy useless (even if he or she is not cognizant of this fact), damning, and poorly done. These contentions match quite well with the testimony of the passage provided above. Luther is likely attempting to argue from what he has read before in the Bible concerning the philosophical wisdom of the world.

Luther does not argue for his assertions philosophically but he has no need to. If philosophical theses are inconsistent with what Scripture has to say concerning philosophy then they are to be rejected. Luther is showing that traditional philosophical theses accepted by the Catholic Church as a part of tradition are at the very least in many cases inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture. Luther provides a number of examples in Aristotle. Luther writes, “It was easy for Aristotle to believe that the world was eternal since he believed that the human soul was mortal.”[10] In this 31st thesis Luther moves on to argue against specific allegedly Aristotelian ideas and starts with Aristotle’s belief that the world was eternal. Luther contends that it was “easy” for Aristotle to believe that the world is eternal. The human soul, by contrast, is mortal. Whatever else this means; Luther is highlighting that Aristotle’s understanding of the world as eternal is in some way consistent with Aristotle’s position that the soul is mortal. For Luther, both the proposition that the world is eternal and the proposition that the soul is mortal are false. Christian theology would have it that the world was created and so is not eternal and that the soul will go on after death. Luther at the very least argues that Aristotle’s views on the nature of the soul and world, while possibly consistent with one another, are nevertheless inconsistent with Christian theology.[11]

Luther next calls the implications of Aristotle’s theory of forms into question in the 32nd thesis. In Aristotle’s theory there are material forms. Luther points out that if the number of material forms is the same as the number of created things then it follows that all created things are material.[12] Following Luther; accepting Aristotle’s theory of the forms appears to lead to accepting that all created entities are material entities. If this is correct then it is certainly inconsistent with particular tenets of Christianity. Luther also mentions that, “Nothing in the world becomes something of necessity; nevertheless, that which comes forth from matter, again by necessity, comes into being according to nature” before moving on to another important point in Aristotle.[13]

In his 34th thesis Luther writes, “If Aristotle would have recognized the absolute power of God, he would accordingly have maintained that it was impossible for matter to exist of itself alone.” It is important to realize that Luther did not believe that Aristotle had come to recognize the absolute power of God. This fact points again to the inability of humanity to come to a saving knowledge of God by way of pagan, faithless philosophy. If Aristotle himself did not make it to the God of the Bible then how can one following Aristotle without first placing his or her faith in Christ ever hope to reach the God of the Bible in his or her own conclusions? Aristotle maintained that matter actually existed of itself alone. The material world had always existed. If it is actually the case that matter has always existed then it is obviously possible that matter has always existed of itself alone. Luther points out that Aristotle’s view that it is possible for matter to exist of itself alone is actually inconsistent with a Christian view. Once the absolute power of God is recognized one cannot continue to hold as Aristotle did that it is possible for matter to exist of itself alone. The world in Aristotle’s view is self-existent while in Christianity only God is self-existent. God alone has always existed and does not depend upon the world in any way. Thus to ascribe eternality to the world is to attempt to attribute to the world characteristics that God alone possesses. Luther continues to find fault with Aristotle in his 35th thesis where he writes, “According to Aristotle, nothing is infinite with respect to action, yet with respect to power and matter, as many things as have been created are infinite” and in his 40th thesis which states that, “To Aristotle, privation, matter, form, movable, immovable, impulse, power, etc. seem to be the same.”[14] Interestingly, Luther gives credit to other philosophers and criticizes Aristotle for having found fault with them. Thus in the 38th thesis Luther pits Aristotle against the pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides and claims that the “disputation of Aristotle lashes out at Parmenides’ idea of oneness (if a Christian will pardon this) in a battle of air.”[15] Luther takes another swipe at Aristotle in his 39th thesis by criticizing him for not thinking that Anaxagoras was the “best of the philosophers” if it was in fact the case that “Anaxagoras posited infinity as to form.”[16]

Luther contends in his 36th thesis that “Aristotle wrongly finds fault with and derides the ideas of Plato, which actually are better than his own.”[17] Here Luther not only criticizes Aristotle, but praises Plato. He does so again in the 37th thesis not by first criticizing Aristotle, but by praising the Pythagoreans. The Pythagoreans who developed mathematics and held to the principles of mathematics as making up matter itself (“mathematical order of material things”) are said to have “ingeniously maintained” their philosophy. Obviously Luther was not a stranger to ancient Greek philosophy. He recognized the cleverness of the Pythagorean philosophy and gave Pythagoras credit for it but only as a precursor to exalting Plato’s doctrine of the interaction of ideas as being “more ingenious” than the observations of Pythagoras. In praising Plato in this way Luther implicitly reaffirms the more Platonic teachings of Augustine over against the more Aristotelian teachings of Thomas Aquinas while in the midst of his fellow Augustinians.

Theology

Luther’s theology is not wholly separate from his philosophy, and it may be argued that the two are very closely related to each other. Luther views philosophy through his theologia crucis. Parallel to the reasoning of humanity are the works of humanity which Luther explicitly addresses in his theological theses. It is not out of line with Luther’s contention in his theses to take his words pertaining to human ability to be just as applicable to reason as they are to other human works. Luther’s statement that “he who acts simply in accordance with his ability and believes that he is thereby doing something good does not seem worthless to himself, nor does he despair of his own strength” may be modified by replacing “strength” with “reason” without complaint from Luther.[18] Some indeed “strive for grace in reliance on” their own reasoning.[19] That this is not an unjustified move is confirmed by the 19th thesis where Luther writes, “That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened [Rom. 1:20].”[20] Here Luther is explicitly addressing what he also addresses in his philosophical theses. Luther believes that recognizing the invisible things of God does not make one “wise” as Paul still calls the “theologians” of Romans 1.22 “fools”.[21] Heino O. Kadai comments on this 19th thesis.

The “invisible things of God,” His eternal power and deity, cannot be properly derived from a knowledge of things. Luther clearly rejects the Thomistic type of natural theology. But he does not reject a “natural” knowledge of God. As far as Luther is concerned, to move from below to above, from creation to the Creator via analogia entis is not sound theology.[22]
Instead, the person who is to be called a theologian “comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.”[23] Again the folly of the cross is set in opposition to the wisdom of the world. Kadai explains, “Here a contrast is established between the invisible nature of God and His majestic attributes (see Rom. 1:20) on the one hand, and His visible back side of humanity, weakness, and foolishness (1 Cor. 1:25) on the other.”

Further contrast emerges between knowledge of God from His works and from His suffering. A true theologian seeks God were God Himself has hidden His revelation: in the foolishness, humility, and shame of the cross.[24]

Luther continues to develop this insight in his commentary on the 20th theological thesis.

Luther understands 1 Corinthians 1.25 to teach that where humans misused their knowledge of God that they had through works, God provided knowledge of Himself through suffering, and this is how God has destroyed the wisdom of the wise.[25] People must come to know God on His own terms and this is why one must become foolish in Christ prior to using Aristotle properly without danger to the soul. According to Luther, “it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross.”[26] One will not reach God through his or her own ability to reason as, “true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John 10 [John 14.6]: ‘No one comes to the Father, but by me.”[27] The attempt on the part of those who would endorse the philosophy of Aristotle as the means of knowledge of God to know God on their own should be contrasted with the knowledge of God which God has already made available.

Using his reasoning power man may seek to know God by way of philosophical reflection or contemplation of created reality. In such cases the goal is the knowledge of God as He is in His naked majesty. Luther knew that such a quest was doomed to failure. Man simply cannot bear exposure to the glory of divine majesty.[28]
God has made Himself available to know through Christ Jesus. Where the “theologians of glory” were seeking knowledge of God through their own works and their own secularized philosophical thinking Luther turned to Scripture and warned that God had made Himself known in Jesus Christ. Knowledge of God is obtained by way of what God has done, and God uses that which the world deems folly to make Himself known.[29] In his 22nd thesis Luther argues that the love of wisdom comes as a result of not knowing yet hating the cross and that the desire for knowledge is only encouraged by the acquisition or pursuit of wisdom but is not satisfied by it.[30] The desire to become wise must be put away if one is to know true wisdom.

In other words, he who wishes to become wise does not seek wisdom by progressing toward it but becomes a fool by retrogressing into seeking folly. Likewise he who wishes to have much power, honor, pleasure, satisfaction in all things must flee rather than seek power, honor, pleasure, and satisfaction in all things. This is the wisdom which is folly to the world.[31]
Conclusion

It is clear just from a brief look at the philosophical theses of the Heidelberg Disputation that Luther did not wholly dismiss reason from theology. Luther’s view of the relationship between reason and faith is quite complex and addressing it ranges well beyond a discussion on the philosophical theses. Bernhard Lohse notes that Luther “could speak very harshly of the arbitrariness of human reason over against revelation.”[32]

Nevertheless, all his theological work reflects an established as well as extensively developed view of reason and its application, so that it will not do simply to emphasize the contrast between reason and revelation. Further, on the basis of Luther’s statements it is necessary to distinguish reason’s tasks within the scientific sphere and the sphere of temporal authority, and reason in view of the relation to God.[33]
Just the brief look at Luther’s philosophical theses show that while he is extremely critical of Aristotle and philosophy in general he also leaves room for them to be used once one has become completely foolish in Christ, as “The service of the ratio is indispensable and necessary, but the danger of overstepping its bounds is always present.”[34] What Luther wants to prevent is giving in to the temptation to set reason up as dealing “autocratically with God’s Word.”[35] Lohse nicely summarizes Luther’s view.

According to Luther, not only in the person prior to the revelation but in the Christian as well the ratio is continually in danger of becoming autocratic and of wanting to judge God’s activity according to its own criteria. This made it impossible for him to describe the spheres of ratio and revelation as merely supplementing each other. His ambivalence concerning a possible natural knowledge of God or its impossibility ruled out the notion that the ratio can as it were develop ideas regarding the doctrine of God that could serve as basis for ideas derived from revelation. Nor can the spheres of ratio and revelation be set in mere opposition to each other. The danger of the ratio’s autocracy exists prior to as well as following revelation.[36]
In the end a discussion of reason in Luther is perhaps somewhat beside the point when it comes to the philosophical theses. What Luther is after in both his philosophical theses and his corresponding theological theses in the Heidelberg Disputation is the necessity of avoiding a theology of glory and striving instead to be a theologian of the cross.

Original article located @ http://www.choosinghats.com/?p=1520

——————————————————————————–

[1] Martin Luther. “Heidelberg Disputation (1518),” in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings: Second Edition. ed. Timothy F. Lull. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 47.

[2] Ibid. 47.

[3] Ibid. 47.

[4] Ibid. 47.

[5] Ibid. 47.

[6] Ibid. 47.

[7] Ibid. 47.

[8] Ibid. 49.

[9] Ibid. 49.

[10] Ibid. 49.

[11] Ibid. 49.

[12] Ibid. 49.

[13] Ibid. 49.

[14] Ibid. 50.

[15] Ibid. 50.

[16] Ibid. 50.

[17] Ibid. 50.

[18] Ibid. 57.

[19] Ibid. 57.

[20] Ibid. 57.

[21] Ibid. 57.

[22] Heino O Kadai. “Luther’s Theology of the Cross,” in Accents In Luther’s Theology: Essays in Commemoration of the 450th Anniversary of the Reformation. ed. Heino O. Kadai. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1967), 241.

[23] Luther, Heidelberg, 57.

[24] Kadai, Accents, 241-242.

[25] Luther, Heidelberg, 57.

[26] Ibid. 57.

[27] Ibid. 57.

[28] Kadai, Accents, 240.

[29] Ibid. 240-241.

[30] Luther, Heidelberg, 58.

[31] Ibid. 58.

[32] Bernhard Lohse. Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development. ed. Roy A. Harrisville. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999), 196.

[33] Ibid. 196.

[34] Ibid. 204-205.

[35] Ibid. 204.

[36] Ibid. 203.

Moving on… another challenge was by Choi. He argued that the TAG defender needs to demonstrate that *all possible* a priori, a posteriori or conventionalist ways of justifying the laws of logic fail. Of course, maybe you can show all of these methods depend on a false claim. Bahnsen states that non-christian justifications depend on the presupposition that ‘christianity is false’. However, Bahnsen (and you..) need to demonstrate that ‘christianity is false’ is what makes all non-christian worldviews false. This is only possible if you i) show that all the possible non-christian worldviews have ‘christianity is false’ as the only possible proposition in common (if there are other propositions that are shared, how can you state this one as the one that creates the ‘false-ness’?) and ii) showing that christianity is not false. Obviously, if you succeed with ii) the TAG argument now becomes useless. And for i) you need an understanding of every single non-christian worldview.

First of all, it is true that in the CT(Christian) worldview, all ~CT’s(non-Christians) share the proposition of “Christianity is false”. But, this is not unique to the CT worldview. This holds true for all worldviews. Let’s say I am an unbeliever who adopts worldview “A”. This would make any worldview, including Christianity, that differs from my worldview “A”, or is “~A” to be seen as false. This is because it is irrational to say that “A” is true and “~A” is true at the same time. Now I’m not saying that people don’t think this way, I’m just showing that it is irrational to do so. Just remember though, that since the CT worldview differs from “A” it is therefore included in ~”A”. Just like “A” differs from CT and is therefore included in ~CT.

Secondly, this unbeliever says that I “need to demonstrate that ‘christianity is false’ is what makes all non-christian worldviews false’. I completely agree with this, and this is what TAG does. As Christian’s we believe that in Christ, all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden. (Col. 2:3). So, the ~CT worldview does not find all treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Christ and therefore is false. The Christian says that only the CT worldview can provide the preconditions of intelligibility because only the Triune God of the Bible can provide the preconditions of intelligibility. This is to say that any worldview that is contrary to this belief which we say is ~CT or  a worldview where the Triune God of the Bible not transcending all things, is impossible.

The unbeliever than says, “this is only possible if you show that all the possible non-christian worldviews have ‘christianity is false’ as the only possible proposition in common.” I strongly disagree with this. Based on his worldview, yes, this is the only way to show a worldview sufficient, but this is to assume that the presuppositions that cause him to make such an objection are ultimately true. We must ask ourselves, on what basis is the unbeliever making such a demand. What is he assuming when he makes such an objection. In what worldview is he standing?

The unbeliever here is assuming that there are a multitude of possible worldviews. But this is based on his presuppositions and ultimate authority (~CT) and not mine (CT). First we will look at what determines possibility for the unbeliever and then what determines possibility for the Christian.

I) Possibility for the unbeliever is determined by chance and autonomy. See, to the unbeliever, there is always a chance that their worldview “A” could be wrong and that a worldview ~”A” could be right. This is because the unbeliever has come to the conclusion and conviction of their worldview autonomously. So, if autonomously they ever find a worldview ~”A” that is more convincing, than that will be there new worldview. When you are your own ultimate authority, you determine what is truth and what is error. But, this line of thinking leads to subjectivism and ultimately to irrationality. If truth and error is determined by each 6.8 billion persons individually, than no one person has the authority to say their worldview is any more right than anothers. Therefore, this specific unbeliever could not demand such explanations from me in defending the truth of my worldview over his. But, he does demand this, in which he is assuming that his worldview and ultimate authority (himself) is the right and true one which all worldviews must be measured against.

II) To the Christian, possibility is determined by the Triune God. God is sovereign, eternal, immutable, transcendent, perfect, sufficient, just, holy, good, merciful, gracious, powerful, infinite, and true. God transcends all things and “is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Num. 23:19). So possibility is what God says is possible making what is possible eternal and unchanging.

Based on this distinction it would be a foolish mistake for the Christian to answer this question without addressing this vast difference in presuppositions. If one were not to show this distinction, they would be forced to abandon the authority of God, who says there is only one possibility and therefore answer the question based on the authority of the unbeliever which is autonomy.

As Christians remember that we “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.” (Prov. 26:4). To the unbeliever, it is necessary to use deduction to falsify all other possible worldviews because all other worldviews are possible when autonomy is your ultimate authority. To the CT though, there are only two worldviews and two possibilities, CT (what God, the creator, says is possible) and ~CT (what man, the creation, says is possible). No matter what name you give ~CT, ie. Muslim, Hindu, Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, Mormonism, etc. they all have a commonality that is antithetical to CT which is, they do not depend on the Triune God for the preconditions of intelligibility. If the Christian answers such a question without acknowledging this, then they abandon the former (what God says is possible), and is forced to answer only based on the latter (what man says is possible) and therefore is being just as foolish as the unbeliever. Indeed, the Christian cannot answer the question appropriately without the authority of the Triune God.

Therefore, if we “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Prov. 26:5), all the Christian must do, is show that when an individual abandons the authority of God, all his/her thoughts are reduced to absurdity. This eliminates the idea that the Christian must go around and prove each and every worldview false individually. If each and every worldview has the abandonment of authority from the Triune God in common, than all the Christian needs to show is that this abandonment reduces human experience to absurdity. By doing this, the CT has shown all ~CT worldviews as false since they all have this commonality.

As far as his last demand, “and ii) showing that christianity is not false. Obviously, if you succeed with ii) the TAG argument now becomes useless”, shows his lack of an understanding of TAG. The point of TAG is to show that it is impossible for CT to be false. TAG states simply that if CT is false that we could not know anything and that all human experience would be reduced to absurdity. But, we do know things, and all human experience is not absurd so ~CT is impossible, therefore CT. Our experience as humans is a testament to the truth of Christianity. This is the essence of TAG so by showing this we are doing exactly what TAG was manifested to do and it does not make it useless.

Yo, what the deal wit’ this, voice cryin’ out in the wilderness/ “make the ways of the Lord straight, no hills in it”/ level out the valley’s make plains, He’s revealed to kids/ prophesied by Isaiah, He’s fulfillin’ it// spirit of Elijah with the same clothes killin’ it/ Camel hair and a leather belt no frills in it/ What did you expect to see, some kind of silkiness?/ not a reed bent easily he was built for this// More than a prophet, he’s a man on a pilgrimage/ the messenger, written of in Malachai, spillin’ it/ “Repent of your sins, He can cleanse all your filthiness/ There’s a new era comin’ through, can you deal with this///

Hook: The Kingdom of Heaven’s at hand (get with it)/ Repent, the Kingdom of Heaven’s at hand (get with it)/ and switch, the Kingdom of God is at hand/ (get with it) ya dig? the Kingdom of Christ is at hand (get with it)//

Check the hype bruh, cats call John “the Baptizer”/ wild style vow since a child, Nazerite stuff/ cousin of the Son, born of parents that are righteous/ leapin’ in the belly when the fetus of the Christ comes// Mary and Elizabeth can identify, “the/ Spirit of the Lord is in here” que the choir/ not a lot of singin from the pops Zechariah/ vocalizin’ doubts had him silent for the nine months// neighbors get floored when the Lord broke his silence/ couldn’t even chat, now the cat prophesies stuff/ all that God’s done got ‘em wonderin’ the kind of/ man he’s gon’ be, a strong beast from the wild cuz// fast forward, John’s at the Jordan spittin’ fire/ “b3ar fruit…axe is at the root…brood of vipers”/ there’s a new steeze and you’ll see the Messiah/ is comin’ next, I’m just here to prep till his time ’cause//…

Hook

Peep the drama, Christ comes just like he taught us/ John baptizes little cousin in the water/ Dove drops with a little ac’ from the Father/ sayin’ that He’s pleased with Him, leavin’ ‘em awestruck// dudes must’ve missed when he spit what his job was/ seein’ that when Jesus baptizes, all come/ upset, thinkin’ He’s a threat to what John does/ not so, John got low, givin’ props up// “i need to shrink so that he can be honored/ He holds the mic, I’m the hype man, I’m not much/ He get’s the Bride, I’m the side groom it’s not dumb/ i’m gon’ rejoice at his voice, I’ll be all done// same team, say the same thing, see the plot bruh?/ last words lotta cats heard ‘fore he got plucked/ later on he fades from the pages he’s got one/ scenes left, he will see death, but it’s fine ’cause//…

Hook

End the saga, foul plot, mouth got ‘em locked up/ there for a while, so His doubts start to pop up/ sent a couple cats just to ask “was I wrong cuz”/ came back, tellin’ of the acts He’d accomplished// After peeps left Jesus was rep’ed for’em hard bruh/ sayin’ he’s the greatest man born of a mama/ wonder what the reason they seized him at all was?/ let me go back, show the wackness upon us// Herod wil’ed took the spouse of his Mom’s son/ John put him on blast sayin’ it was wrong but/ He’s shook, knowin’ peeps took him for a prophet/ but she’s not, fiendin’ for the opp just to squash ‘em/ chance comes, he received a dance from her daughter/ “anything you want will be yours” is the offer/ mama says, “bring me John’s head on a charger”/ but he’s just a finger, the Kingdom of God comes//

Verse 1:
Theres commotion in my brain, strange is the notion
Words cannot explain my range of emotion
Im speechless, my flaws exposed and my weakness
Each breath draws me closer to a deep test
Its month number seven, its been ten days
Ive been awake all night reflecting on my ways
A threat to my peace in this greatest of moments
Because Im the High Priest and its the Day of Atonement
The LORD is so holy and perfect, Im nervous
Im floored that He chose me to worship through service
Dont ask me why the God who crafted the sky
Drafted this weak guy from the clan of Levi
Preceding generation taught me to read the regulations
Deep meditation on decreed revelation
Extreme trepidation breeds hesitation
Yet I must lead and be the representation
My occupation- to intercede for the nation
But indeed my own sins need expiation
The wrath of Jehovahs grim, sin is no joke to Him
The hope is slim for unholy men coming close to Him
Hes spoken in His Word the proper way of approach to Him
Nadab and Abihu got it wrong and He roasted them
These things I weigh as I sigh
This could either be the greatest day of my life or the day that I die!

Chorus:
So you say that you wanna know the LORD?
Do you really wanna stand before the LORD?
Do you know what it takes to meet the LORD?
God is an all-consuming fire
So you say that you wanna know the LORD
Do you really wanna stand before the LORD?
Do you know what it takes to meet the LORD?
Be careful what you desire

Verse 2:
For now, no time to focus on my sinning
I bathe in the laver though it seems extreme
I put on the holy coat made of white linen
Craving His favor- Im ceremonially clean
I check to inspect- no tangible faltering
Next I must collect the animals for the offering
A spotless ram and a bull- the components
God gives to make atonement for my own sins
This part of the ritual makes me real cautious
Because the very sight of blood makes me feel nauseous
Still I proceed by snatching him close, slashing his throat
when his blood splashed on my coat
Reacting, I choke- gasping thats when Im grasping
Gods reaction that sin provokes
I take a moment to reflect on the blood spilled in this
Staring at the goat to be sent into the wilderness
Ill confess Israels sins with my hands on his head
Symbolizing guilt transferred instead
to a substitute the living God provided and stamped
guilty of our sin, driven outside the camp
This beautiful picture of hope and grace motivates
And I dont want my fear to make this dope occasion go to waste
Change my outer garments, slow my pace- yo I brace
myself to stand before Jehovahs face in the Holy Place

Chorus:
So you say that you wanna know the LORD?
Do you really wanna stand before the LORD?
Do you know what it takes to meet the LORD?
God is an all-consuming fire
So you say that you wanna know the LORD
Do you really wanna stand before the LORD?
Do you know what it takes to meet the LORD?
Be careful what you desire

Verse 3:
The time has come, the great moment has arrived
About to enter in- what a lonely enterprise
Look at the other priests, they speak only with their eyes
Rope tied around my ankle just in case I dont survive
I enter through the first curtain to a dark room
Im standing in the Holy Place, my thoughts consumed
Im caught off guard, Im unraveling at this stage
My heartbeat so hard its rattling my ribcage
Feeling like Im disintegrating and I cant stand
Comforted by the light emanating from the lampstand
This helps my vision- I can see the showbread
I think of Gods provision, that helps me go ahead
I need courage to worship! Man, this is intense
I take burning coals off the altar for the incense
The sweet aroma fills the room
The smoke protects my eyes- one sight of Jehovah seals my doom
Its no mere coincidence Im here surrendering
With fear and trembling Im nearly entering
I feel like running scared, hoping Im not unprepared
Stunned with fear- no one comes in here but once a year
Nevertheless Im at the point of no return
Besides, I dont want my anointing to be spurned
After counting to three, next time I inhale
Im in the Holy of Holies beyond the veil!
The first thing I realize is Im thrilled that Ive
entered into Gods presence and yet Im still alive
Im awestruck by the weight of His terrible beauty
Its almost unbearable but I must fulfill my duty
Approach the ark, the first part of my works complete
when I sprinkle blood seven times on the mercy seat
Quickly I exit, impressed with the Hesed
that rescues the wretched and left us accepted!

1:20 – 1:54 “Logic Serves two different purposes. One is descriptive and the other is prescriptive.” “Logic is descriptive of the universe…a representation of how things behave, a model of reality” “Logic is also prescriptive for human beings. It instructs us on how to think and how to process in a way that matches reality.”

If we are prescribed logical principles from the universe, on what basis do we assume that how the universe acts is what is logical? One cannot argue that we should act as the universe acts because such is logical without presupposing that the universe itself is adhering to a logical authority. This argument also assumes that autonomously we could all come to the same conclusions by observing the descriptive logic of the universe. If it is not universal and abstract than being logical is whatever I say it is based on my observations of the universe and whatever it is to you based on your observations. For example, when I mix the same two chemicals twice and get two different results, do I *observe* that I did the experiment wrong and messed up some type of measurement or do I *observe* that universe contradicts itself ? This of course is ridiculous and logic is not arbitrary nor is it autonomous, otherwise I could justify contradictions by saying “Well that’s how I understand and interpret  the universe.”

2:23-2:34 “The behavior of existence isn’t informed by logic, it informs logic, and logic in turn informs us.”

My question to someone making a claim like this would be “If this is true could the universe exist and not exist in the same time and same sense?”

In a universe of random chance where anything can happen how come there is uniformity and absolute laws? You also must consider whether logic is dependent on the universe, which I would argue it is not. Logical absolutes are not found in matter or motion and the universe could not exist and non-exist if matter and motion ceased to exist. Furthermore, how do you know that the computations of your brain are logical if indeed those computations are the very thing defining what logic is. This is viciously circular reasoning.

2:37-2:50 “Existence behaves consistently with itself, it just does. Things that exist reliably behave in a certain way and they just don’t behave another way.”

Wow!!! What a ground breaking philosophical argument he’s presented. The universe acts logically and in uniform because it just does? This sir, is not an account for the principles of logic. “They just don’t behave another way..” Well, why not, who or what says they don’t? Maybe because the triune God of the Bible made the universe to behave in a certain way and it is impossible for it to behave any different than how He has sovereignly commanded it to? “NO! of course not, lalalalala *fingers in ears*” says the unbeliever, because “it just does” is a perfect account for why it behaves that way. Now we are getting the presuppositions of the unbeliever.

2:53-3:00 “If you go back far enough there’s going to be a set of basic pre-conditions to existence that just behave the way that they do.”

He is talking about pre-conditions or pre-suppositions ultimately being self-authenticating and all world views have these. I would completely agree with this statement. The problem of granting this is now the unbeliever still has the burden of accounting for how this is possible in a world view that does not allow for ultimate authorities outside of themselves and their observations of the material world. This argument is inconsistent with the conditions of the unbeliever’s world view and in order to make such an argument, he must depend on borrowed capital, the Christians capital. Only the Christian world view can account for such an ultimate authority. It is true that all world views, when stripped to the simplest form, have self-authenticating authorities. This is not a problem for the Christian though. The Christian world view can account for such an authority that say’s that “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Rom. 11:36).

4:00-4:06 “The consistency for existence that logic was created to represent is not man-made.”

I agree! But, based on your world view, who or what is making it “consistent”?

3:53-3:58 “Logic is man-made in either world view.”

&

5:03-6:05 “The Christian world view doesn’t equip you to demonstrate that the law of non-contradiction is true” “Nothing about Christianity aids you proving that the law of non-contradiction is absolute” “Nothing in scriptures says that something can’t be A and non-A at the same time. Nothing in the physical universe verifies (logical absolutes)” “When it comes to identifying logical absolutes, (the Christian) is in no better of a position than I am, you must rely on subjective observation.” “The Christian is no closer to knowing with certainty what (logical) absolutes are.”

He claims that the Christian, like the unbeliever must depend on subjective observation in order to identify laws of logic. This shows he simply doesn’t understand the Christian world view. Logic is given to us by the Creator God who himself is a logical being and commands His creation to be logical. Logic and the ability to reason that it gives us presupposes God. He grants that his argument cannot account or justify the uniformity evident by the logical existence of the universe. He then claims that neither can the Christian.

I’m so glad he said this, cause now I can “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Prov. 26:5)

Law of Identity A is A.
God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you’(Ex. 3:14).

Law of Contradiction A is not non-A.*
But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no (2 Co. 1:18 NASB).

“God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Num. 23:19).

“A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies. ” (Prov. 14:5)

“For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, ‘Seek me in vain.’ I the Lord speak the truth; I declare what is right.” (Isa. 45:18-19)

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” (John 16:13 )

“So when God desired to show more convincingly to ithe heirs of the promise jthe unchangeable character of his purpose, khe guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which lit is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope mset before us.” (Heb. 6:17–18)

Law of Excluded Middle Either A or non-A.
He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters (Mt. 12:30).

6:23-6:40 “God’s consciousness, of which logical absolutes are a mere reflection, is itself unaccounted for by your world view”

It is accounted for in scripture which is the revelation of the Triune God. The Christian does not autonomously come to any conclusions, but rather takes “every thought captive” (2 Corinth. 10:5) to the authority of Jesus Christ. The unbeliever depends on autonomy for all the answers to problems within his world view, and it is obvious that man’s autonomy does not have all the answers to make human experience intelligible.

6:47-6:57 “You can’t account for why God exists instead of not existing” “You can’t account for why God has the traits and qualities that He has instead of other traits and qualities.” “You can’t account for why God’s will is effective instead of ineffective.”

Yes I can, God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary. There is no other world view that can make sense of human experience by accounting for metaphysics, epistemology, and moral absolutes. The contents of these things point directly to the Triune God of the Bible which transcends all things. The fact that human’s can be logical, depend on induction, have moral absolutes points to the existence of a good and holy God.

8:10:8:18 “I’m not the one making the argument that things like God’s existence or logical absolutes need to be accounted for in order for a world view to be valid.”

Great! Than why are you making this video? If my world view can be valid without being able to account for God’s existence than why the debate?

8:25-8:47 “I understand that no matter which world view one subscribes too, there will always be, if you go back far enough, a set of basic pre-conditions to existence that just are what they are. In mine it’s what you call logical absolutes and in your’s, it is God’s existence and qualities and nature.

God differs as an ultimate authority in a great many ways than logic does. Logic cannot account for the other unjustified things in your metaphysics, epistemology, and morality. I know the Triune God of the Bible can. You can’t atomize your ultimate authority picking and choosing, you aren’t arguing in accordance with your presuppositions if you take this approach. This attempt is fail.

Why does logic not allow for the properties I just  mentioned? Let me explain. You don’t know what you know because of logic – you think logically due to a sound epistemological foundation for logic. Logic is not self-contained, absolute, personal, and revelatory, it’s a product of something else – so it can’t be final and it can’t be self-referential, it can’t *tell* you anything, of itself and it can’t justify itself so it too needs an authority. God is that authority : )

Logic is not omniscient and sovereign accounting for all things. Logic cannot account for why it is wrong to rape children for fun, or why the past repeats itself (induction). So therefore logic (as well as other immaterial laws and concepts) needs an authority to make it absolute and secure it’s uniformity (and this is where your world view is found wanting). That authority would be the Triune God and logic reflects the rational thinking and character of the Triune God, the character He has revealed to us in scripture. Since He created this universe it is in submission to Him to operate to His standards.

Verse 1
Dear LORD, hear my repentance supplication
I’ve behaved like a condemned and lustful pagan
I deceived your Word-I admit I did it again
Please return-I’m sick of living in with sin
My breath, it groans, as my flesh erodes
Transgressions are startin’ to stretch my clothes
The infection grows, this sickness is visible
This Christian’s despicable, my addiction is pitiful
Lust is a poison, it plagues the soul
Makes it cold, breaks and reshapes its mold,
Then it fades + rusts, I didn’t live the Commandments
I obeyed my lusts-and took forgiveness for granted
This sin is implanted: this kid was conceived in it
I’m Mr. Deviant and disobedient,
My flesh literally loves filthiness
“O God, deliver me from blood guiltiness”

Hook:
I cheat on You daily, but You take me back
To celebrate Your Love, we made this track
I defiled Your sanctuary, abused Your Grace
This vessel’s useless, LORD renew this place

Verse 2
This sheep has gone astray on an evil rotten way
The grief has brought dismay, I need to stop and pray!
My sweetness is sour, I’m weak in my power
I’m doubting Thomas combined with Peter the coward
If saints were tried, to see if we’re sanctified
I’d of disgracefully walked the plank and died
And if Your standard was the Sears Tower-
I fell short of Your Glory by the 40th story
Your Law convicts me
but You have awesome pity
I’m forgiven, even when my paws are sticky
Everyone’s sauced and tipsy, it’s awful risky
Living in this modern Sodom– it’s Gotham City
I don’t deserve to be blessed, I squirm to wrestle
this earthly vessel, Determined to murder my flesh
I’ve forsaken You, I lie and say it’s true
But You’re faithful to forgive so this praise is due!

Hook:
“Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity”
I’m adoring Thee for forgiving me
“Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity”
I’m adoring Thee for forgiving me!

Verse 3
I’ve been subtle and hush that I struggle with lust
It makes me smuggle disgust, when I huddle and fuss
I’m just a puddle of slush-my bubble will bust
I should be smothered and crushed to rubble and dust
But Your Love is a must, there’s no other to trust
Jesus you cuddle with us when we’re covered in puss
I disobeyed, but You patiently amazingly
Took my punishment and felt the pain for me!!!
You suffered for my own misbehaving
I so wish to praise Him for PROPITIATION
I should be fried and burned for my lies and slurs
But Jesus took the wrath that I deserve
I praise You gleefully for your leniency
And for inconceivably REDEEMING me
My verse will tell of how I cursed and fell
You give me Grace, but all I deserve is Hell.

This song “Killa” is amazing. Not only is the production and sound tickling to the ears, but the message is extremely sobering. Lecrae raps about sin. Choosing sin over choosing wisdom. He raps about proverbs 5 as well as other texts. The female singing in the hook represents sin and she is all so seductive and alluring. I can definitely relate to battling her alluring whispers in my ear. But no matter how seductive she is, I must remember that she’s a killa!

For the lips of a forbidden woman drip honey,
and her speech is smoother than oil,
but in the end she is bitter as wormwood,
sharp as a two-edged sword.
Her feet go down to death;
her steps follow the path to Sheol;
she does not ponder the path of life;
her ways wander, and she does not know it. Proverbs 5:3-6

(Killa 7x)
Uh, I know it’s going to kill me but I just can’t let it go
And the taste so appealing it’s got a grip upon my soul
These honey dip lies mesmerize me
Pride’s got its crooked fingers twisted all inside in me
Fools walk the path I’m on, never to be seen again
Sipping on seduction while we eating on some secret sin
(No one will ever know) says the whisper in my ear
And I know I should be over this, but I ain’t seeing clear
And I ain’t leaving here, unless somebody save me
Walking to my grave letting evilness enslave me
Evil looks so lovely covered in her lace of lies
And the silky smooth seduction just manipulates my mind
Her fabrical fabrication is fueling my fascination
While I’m intoxicated she starts her assassination
I’m losing all my honor and my years to the merciless
Giving all my life away but I’m just so immersed in this (Killa)

Hook:
Baby this is innocent (Killa) it won’t even hurt a little bit (Killa)
I’m only here for your benefit (Killa) I’m your every wish (Killa)
Come on and let me in (Killa), baby this is innocent (Killa)
And it won’t even hurt a little bit (Killa) Close your eyes and let’s get lost tonight
(Killa) It’ll be alright? You’ll see I’m (?) (Killa)

Her feet go down to DEATH, so don’t let her consume you
Even though her heart is black, her exterior’s beautiful
She’ll take your life away, strip away your joy
Pretends that she gon build you up but she’s just gon destroy you
My friends fell low, when they was so high
Got me running scared of myself, no lie
And I know I’m gon die, I tried cold turkey
But when I’m feeling worthy, Satan’s sure trying to merk me
I’m doing myself dirty, flirting with what’s perverted
I should follow the word but I guess I’d rather be murdered
(Eh-hreehmm) —Excuse me I mean martyred ‘cause I’m killing myself
My sin conceived a baby, and we gon name it death, breath
(Gasps) —Taken, she take my breath away
Replaces it with poison and I’m so swept away
I need some bread today hope I wake up
Before they start my wake up somebody make me break up
I’m dating a (Killa)

ENJOY!

Spoken:
Yeah, this is the testimony of our conscience (This is my heart)
That in holiness and Godly sincerity
Not in flesh and wisdom have we been above reproach
Especially, towards you, 2nd Corinthians baby.

Verse 1
This is my heart upon the letter, I had a burden since the last time we were together
The God of comfort will comfort me and comfort others, a suffering shouldn’t keep us from loving on our brothers
We had a sentence of death within ourselves, but God gave comfort and grace and gave an escape
A physical affliction is that of Christ’s glory
It’s for us to relate and share in faith
Have not my conduct with you, been above reproach
And those who question my heart, they’re pretty much a joke (that they are)
Reaffirm your love through unconditional acts
Be forgiven and restore the sinning man back
To those in Christ we are the aroma of life
But, the aroma of death to the perishing type (ok)
Do we need you to commend our works? (no we don’t)
Have we not been there to heal your hurt? (yes we have)
Our recommendations is that your souls be redeemed
You’re being transformed into the image of the King
They want you vial, condemned in the dark
But you received the spirit and it’s written on your heart

Spoken:
But thanks to God man (this is my heart upon the letter)
Who always leads us in triumphs in Christ
Manifest through us the sweet aroma of knowledge in him
For we are not like many, we do not pet on the word of God
But from sincerity
But as from God we speak in Christ and the sight of God
Yeah we will reaffirm our love towards you (this is my heart upon the letter)
Yo (this is the heart of a minister)

Verse 2:
Renounce the hidden things because of the shame
It’s sad cuz I wanna do this because of the fame
And they say that are message is veil
That’s because they’ve been blinded with the passions of hell (that’s sad man)
We hold his treasure in Earth in well (by his grace)
So we can be crushed and not despair (still by his grace)
We relate in the body with his death so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our flesh
The pain on Earth, yes it brings out an urgency (yes it does)
Not to be compared with our glory for eternity (never will it be)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not boasting in I,
I’d rather die, than be in the presence of Adonai
But we are now, as Ambassadors on the earth
For on this world, our embassy is the Church
Don’t take in vain, the grace of him who received us
And do not be bound together with unbelievers
(come on baby)
Give them no reason to discredit your worth
For what fellowship does the world have with the Church? (not at all)
Hold no grudge, we can not spare to rot in it
If this song leads to repentance then glory to God
Yeah man

Spoken:
The momentary light of affliction is producing in us an eternal weight of glory, far beyond all comparison
(this is my heart upon the letter)
For I say I’d rather to be absent from the body then to be at home with the Lord (this is my heart upon the letter)
For we must all appear at judgment seat of Christ
So that each one may be recommenced for his deeds in the body according to what he’s done on the Earth (this is my heart upon the letter)
Whether good or bad, show ourselves to prove
(this is the heart of a minister)
Let’s go

Verse 3:
I have comfort hearing a view in your repentant
But let not these teachers hinder you when u given
Churches are eager to help in ways that are for natural
My prayer is that you would eagerly follow their example
I boasted of your readiness for a year
Give him your heart and not the pressure of your peers
They say I’m bold in letter, meek in face
If I begin to boast, I boast in grace
If they can boast, then I can boast in position
If they can boast, then I can boast in tradition
I can boast on my physical condition
Stoned and beaten but to God’s glory my affliction
I can also begin to boast in division the glory of paradise, which I saw with precision (this is my heart)
But if I saw the vision then God made a decision to put a thorn in my side but his grace is sufficient
So if I’m unimpressive it’s for the glory of the Lord
Me being humble is the whole purpose of the thorn
And if you want evidence of my power in the Son
Next time I come, I will not spare anyone
Test yourselves, to see if you are of the faith
Cuz a runner knows he’s runnin’ if that run is in the race
Finally brothers be complete and like-minded
The love and peace of God will keep us united

Spoken:
For he said my grace is sufficient for you (this is my heart upon the letter)
For power is perfected in weakness
And I’d rather boast about my weakness (this is my heart upon the letter)
And let the power of Christ may dwell in me
I mean whether in weakness, insult or stress whatever, persecution it doesn’t matter (this is my heart upon the letter)
For when I am weak he is strong
And I become foolish for yourselves compel me, actually, I should have been commended by you
(this is the heart of a minister)

Yeah I feel the need to commend myself
I just boast in the grace of God
For it is sufficient (Minister, Minister, Minister..)
That’s all I got to say
This is my heart upon the letter

When I hear the word “truth”, I think of when Jesus was talking to Pontius Pilate in John 18.

Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” John 18:37-38

What is truth? Men and women have been asking this question for generations. It is not a new concept that Generation X sparked. If you, as a Christian, have ever gotten into a discussion or debate about truth then this song will sound very familiar to you. Lecrae goes through some of the most popular arguments held by moral relativists and the like. This song actually reminds me of a very interesting “discussion” me and my friend Lubee had with three atheists/former seeker sensitive youth group kids outside of a Starbucks one Sunday. I believe I heard every one of these arguments from them.

[Spoken:]
Bring it drums (Yah)
This song right here
Is for everybody out there looking for truth
Who says, you know
We all in the same boat
Yeah, Christians and Muslims, everybody like that, huh
Yow, you lookin’ for truth
Oh, I’ve got some answers man
So good to be
Ah, let’s get into it

Verse 1:
Let’s go
Night and Day I ain’t scared to say that we different
They play the prostitute but they like to say they just intimate
And Idols in their heart, they can’t seem to lose their grip on it
See them walkin’ in the direction that King Agrippa went
Our World is different like Whitley and Wayne man
They say we look the same but we ain’t chasin’ the same thing
It all boils down to they think everythings relative
Jesus might as well be a South American president
Very evident, they say that Jesus was heaven sent
They lifestyle reflects they worship themselves instead of Him
They don’t acknowledge the Christ if they did they wouldn’t worship themselves by the way that they live
All these rappers say they got guns that spray off 16
I’ve got a Luke 9 that can take all 16
That’s the Bible the one they quote
But they don’t care about the author they think he’s a joke.

[Spoken:]
“Man, It’s just some folks say, “All truth is relative, it just depends on what you believe.” You know, “hey man, ain’t no way to know for sure who God is or what’s really true.” But that means you believe your own statement; that there’s no way to know what’s really true. You’re saying that that statement is true. You’re killing yourself. If what’s true for you is true for you and what’s true for me is true for me, what if my truth says your’s is a lie? Is it still true? Come on man! ”

I promise everybody is asking the same questions
“Who am I? What is my purpose and my direction? ”
Y’probably believe that you exist for no other reason
Than Self-satisfaction, hedonism and pleasing things
Life’s about you getting’ yours and bein’ happy
Even if it means a divorce and switchin’ families?
Your job, your house, your car, your spouse
It’s all for the glory of you, Elsh-u-ou
You go to school get y’ degrees and get a job
So you can make a whole lotta’ cheese cause’ lifes hard
You never thought of livin to please a real God
And that’s the reason he made you
See, he gave you breathe to breathe the chest to breathe it.
So you can taste and see He’s the best, believe it
He made us for His glory and not for your own homey
Our God is Holy. You should repent and die slowly

[Spoken:]
“See, there’s this thing called “Secular Humanism”, it says man is the source of all meaning and all purposing. You know what I’m saying? We’re just the result of a big cosmic explosion. We don’t really have a purpose or meaning, so we just come up with our own purpose. We’re the source of our meaning and our purpose. How can a man, which is the product of chance, a finite being be the source of purpose and meaning? You can’t! You’re created with purpose man! Get with The Creator yo! ”

Man, everybody got a problem with God
And when you mention the Christ
Then they really get to turning the nod
But some say they roll with Christ
But some rappers made it seem like He was cool
With all the sin in their life
NO!
But then some say “How can God exist when
All this evil stuff in the world keep persistin’?
Wrong question. Ask again.
“How come God ain’t’ let you feel the wrath from sin? ”
What you thought last night deserved a first class flight
To Hell where God doesn’t dwell. You got that right
But He bought back life, on a cross that night
Christ died, you ain’t know that he crossed that price?
All of God’s anger poured on His Son
Then together, through all of eternity. Now He was shunned.
Praise God for the life that was won for us
Ain’t got a beef with God because the Son was crushed

[Spoken:]
You look man, “Some people say that God ain’t real ’cause they don’t see how a good God can exist with all this evil in the world. If God is real then He should stop all this evil, ’cause He’s all-powerful right? What is evil though man? It’s anything that’s against God. It’s anything morally bad or wrong. It’s murder, rape, stealing, lying, cheating. But if we want God to stop evil, do we want Him to stop it all or just a little bit of it? If He stops us from doing evil things, what about lying, or what about our evil thoughts? I mean, where do you stop, the murder level, the lying level, or the thinking level? If we want Him to stop evil, we gotta be consistent, we can’t just pick and choose. That means you and I would be eliminated right? Because we think evil stuff. If that’s true, we should be eliminated! But thanks be to God that Jesus stepped in to save us from our sin! Christ died for all evilness! Repent, turn to Jesus man! ”