Dedicated to the devotional, exegetical and philosophical study of theological paradox in Conservative, Thoroughly Biblical, Historically Orthodox, Essentially Reformed theology . . . to the glory of God alone!

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

My Goodness, What a Paradox! Part 3

In parts 1 and 2, we have looked at and partially explained the paradox presented by Biblical affirmations that certain people are good, in light of Jesus' thrice-repeated statement that only God is good. We have explained this by relegating man's goodness to a secondary and dependent reflection of God's own goodness. God alone is the source and fountain of any and all goodness that exists.

But how does God's goodness get into us? How can we receive and reflect His goodness? How can we become partakers of it to the extent that we can be called "good"? And how can we practice Biblical balance on this issue? Let's look at the Scriptural examples of good people for some clues...

GOOD PERSON #1 - Joseph of Arimathea

Luke 23:50-52 And a man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council, a good and righteous man (he had not consented to their plan and action), a man from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was waiting for the kingdom of God; this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

GOOD PERSON #2 - Barnabas

Acts 11:22-24 The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch. Then when he arrived and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord; for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord.

In both cases, there were inward and outward evidences of faith. Joseph's inward evidence was that he was “waiting for the Kingdom of God.” The outward evidences were that he “had not consented to” the council's decision to kill Jesus, and he offered Jesus a decent burial in his own tomb. Barnabas was inwardly “full of the Holy Spirit and of faith,” and he outwardly evidenced joy, encouragement, recognition of grace, and evangelistic zeal. Both of these “good” men had clear testimonies of faith according to the Scriptures. They became good by grace through faith, and not by works or merit.


In part 2, we discussed man's dependence on God. Taking it a bit further, dependence can be divided into two related concepts. There is the objective fact of dependence, which is NEED. And there is the subjective response to dependence, which is FAITH. After all, what is faith but a voluntary dependence on God, and a willingness to receive what He gives us? Our need for God is a fact; faith is an acknowledgment and response to that fact, in light of the full sufficiency of God, Himself, in His character, acts and ways.

Sin is the opposite of faith. It is a refusal to gratefully receive the good that God gives, and it is a rejection of that good. Sin leaves us blind to God's goodness. It is an attempt to find good within ourselves apart from Him. “And whatever is not from faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23)

When God grants repentance, our hearts begin to see the futility and emptiness of sin. We begin to loathe sin and HUNGER for God's goodness. Hunger is a KNOWLEDGE OF EMPTINESS and a NEEDY DESIRE to be filled. As we desire God's goodness, seek His goodness, and receive His goodness by faith we become filled with His goodness. “He has filled the hungry with good things.” (Luke 1:53) ... “For He has satisfied the thirsty soul, and the hungry soul He has filled with what is good.” (Psalm 107:9) ... “O taste and see that the Lord is good!” (Psalm 34:8). Through faith, God's goodness fills us. Notice that the good man Barnabas was “full of the Holy Spirit and of faith.” From the very beginning, it has been God's intention to fill human beings with nothing less than Himself. He does not fill us because we are good, He fills us to make us good.


Notice these two very similar verses:

Matthew 7:11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

Luke 11:13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?

NOTE: Jesus makes a sweeping generalization about all of His listeners: "You are evil." The message is directed to His followers, among others, and yet He makes no distinction whatsoever. All are evil. By nature, we are depraved, and if we follow the sinless Son of God we will have to face ourselves. Some would see this as terrible news. But Christ so embodies the remedy for our sin that believers can receive these words with surprising joy and gratitude. These words are TRUTH, and they have the power to show us our need for Christ. They awaken us from our false sense of personal and inherent goodness and move us to seek good outside of our natural selves. All people are well served by Christ's enlightening phrase, "You are evil."

In these verses, “What is good” is parallel to “the Holy Spirit.” That is, the Spirit Who indwells and fills believers, for “we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (I Cor. 12:13)

We are characterized by that which fills us, as the book of Romans illustrates in three places:

Romans 15:13-14 Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another.

This passage refers to believers, and says they are full of goodness (Greek AGATHOSUNE, the noun related to AGATHOS).

Romans 1:28-29 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness ...

This passage refers to fallen humanity, and says they are filled with all unrighteousness.

Romans 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh ...

This verse is found in the middle of Paul's testimony of struggle with sin. Paul is aware that indwelling sin is not good, and he says so, but notice that he immediately qualifies the statement by saying, “that is, in my flesh.” Sin dwells in his flesh, but Christ dwells in his spirit, so he is not utterly devoid of good. In one sense he is filled with sin, but in another sense he is filled with God! Is it any wonder there's a struggle going on inside him? And do we think we are any different?

Because we cannot be perfectly and purely filled with God in this present life, believers are never perfectly and purely good – at least not yet. Presently, there is always a mixture in us. We are saints who are sinners, redeemed people who are partly filled with God and partly filled with sin. However, by faith we partake of God's goodness and share His virtue. To the extent that we are filled with what is good, we are good.


Seeing that God's goodness is primary, and ours is secondary, we must make a deliberate choice regarding emphasis. What Scripture emphasizes as primary, we should also emphasize as primary. It is not wrong to call a believer with a solid testimony a “good person”, but it is improper to emphasize human goodness more than divine goodness. It is also dangerous to ignore the balancing truth that believers are still sinners, and could only be full of evil apart from God's intervening grace.

We must heavily contrast God's goodness and man's depravity. When speaking of believers, we must consider their faith-based goodness in Christ and also the residue of depravity that remains in them. There is no Scriptural account where any believer calls himself a good person, but there are plenty of occasions where believers humbly refer to themselves as sinful or unworthy. This is especially true when they have encountered a revelation of God. So, in practice, the insistent rant of “Christian” psychologists who advise us to tell ourselves we are good people is directly contrary to Scripture, not because there is no goodness in us but because this is NEVER the focus of New Testament teaching.

Overall, there is much more Scriptural emphasis on believers “doing good” than “being good”. Some of today's liberal Christians have famously said we should focus less on being “right” and more on being “good”. This is a category mistake, similar to saying a work of art should be less painted and more picturesque. One depends on the other, and both are at the discretion of the artist. Not that we have to be right about every detail of doctrine, but we need to know and believe the essentials of the faith. Let's have no more of this nonsense about trying to be good. The real need is to magnify the goodness of God, and conform ourselves to it in thought and deed. Doctrine versus practice is a false dichotomy. God expects us to be fully devoted to BOTH, as Paul commanded in I Timothy 4:11-16, Prescribe and teach these things ... show yourself an example of those who believe ... give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching ... do not neglect the spiritual gift within you ... take pains with these things, be absorbed in them, so that your progress will be evident to all. Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things...” Do you see the way Paul flips back and forth between doctrine and practice in this passage? Biblical practice flows out of Biblical doctrine, proves Biblical doctrine, demonstrates Biblical doctrine - but it never replaces doctrine. It never makes doctrine irrelevant. And practice that is not firmly grounded in doctrine creates a void that is likely to be filled by error. Faith is demonstrated by deeds, but it comes from hearing the Word.

When speaking of unbelievers, we should bear in mind that they are fallen, depraved, sinful, and devoid of goodness – but also that this depravity is not absolute or irreversible. It is only because sin separates the unrepentant from God's goodness that unbelievers are “not good”. It is only by being filled with God's goodness that believers are in any sense good. Keeping this balance will help us to view ourselves and others properly and Biblically. It reminds us that in some senses we are no different than unbelievers, and the real difference is a result of God's working, not our own merit.

In part 4, we'll examine a few more pertinent Scriptures on the topic of divine and human goodness. May God's Word and Spirit guide us.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Divine Grace VS. Human Pride and An Answer to Phil Johnson's Question

I'm reluctantly breaking up the current series of posts on divine and human goodness with this one because it is current and relevant to the topic. Phil Johnson has been in Jacksonville this week, teaching at a conference hosted by Grace Community Church. Last night, I was privileged to hear him preach at another local fellowship, Changed By Grace Community Church. The sermon had some great insights for our present study on goodness. This is definitely worth hearing. Here is a link:

Phil is the Executive Director of John MacArthur's "Grace to You" broadcasts, and he is also the editing genius behind many of MacArthur's books. He has edited 50 of these books over the last 25 years! This has required him to go over MacArthur's sermons and writings continuously with an eye for the details of what is being said. In other words, Phil Johnson has been swimming in a sea of Mega-Gospel-Truth-Saturation for the last 25 years - and it comes out in his teaching! He also contributes to the Pyromaniacs blog.

I was able to speak with Phil for a few minutes after the service, and he asked me a provoking question about Theoparadox. In essence, he wanted to know if I believe Biblical paradoxes are actual contradictions or apparent contradictions. Is truth essentially contradictory, or is there a logical coherence to reality? This question is one I've been pondering for the last few weeks, and here's my best answer:

By definition, paradoxes are apparent logical contradictions. Some Biblical paradoxes can be solved quickly and easily by just about anyone who takes the time to think and pray over them. Others have been explored and argued for centuries and have never been fully explained. Many paradoxes fit somewhere inbetween. Ultimately, though, every paradox CAN be solved logically and coherently. I contend that paradoxes are designed to humble and amaze us, because God has not given fallen man the mental capacity to solve many of them. The Trinity and the two natures of Christ would be two examples of humanly unsolvable paradoxes. Our logical faculties are too limited to solve them, but God's mind is not limited. To the Infinite God, every paradox makes perfect logical sense and contains no contradiction whatsoever. We, as finite beings, are called to believe, practice and proclaim God's Word, not to unravel it. So truth is perfectly coherent to God, but it is apparently contradictory to us in some cases. Truth is infinitely logical, but we are limited to finite logic and therefore partially left in the dark.

I should add that God has given us clear light on everything we NEED to know. Sometimes it's blindingly clear! Now there's a paradox.

Part of my introduction to the idea of paradox came through John MacArthur. Several years ago I heard him on the radio doing a question and answer session. Someone pressed him on the issue of divine sovereignty, election, and human responsibility. MacArthur responded, (and I'm paraphrasing here), "It's a paradox. Christian theology is full of them. How can you explain the Trinity, or the two natures of Christ, or many other key doctrines, without understanding them as paradoxes?" That was a great answer, and it opened my mind in ways I never expected. The cracks it put in my cherished Arminian ideas ultimately contributed to the utter collapse of my man-centered theology. Thank God for His grace!

If anyone disagrees with me on the nature of truth being non-contradictory, please chime in. I'm open to reason (or should I say "un-reason" in this case?).

Thursday, September 11, 2008

My Goodness, What a Paradox! Part 2

We're looking at the paradox presented by some Biblical statements concerning the goodness of God and man. On one hand, we have statements from Jesus declaring that only God is good. On the other hand, we have Luke describing two different people as “good.” Let's look at four common responses to paradox as they relate to this issue:


The Skeptical or Agnostic response: “There! That proves it! The Bible contains contradictions and cannot be trusted. Throw it away.”

The Imbalanced response: "Jesus said only God is good. His testimony is greater than Luke's, so we can ignore Luke's mistaken perceptions." One finds this type of imbalance in those who would pit the words of Christ against Paul, or the New Testament against the Old Testament. Such an approach assumes the Scriptures to be unreliable. Alternately, an imbalanced approach might say, "Of course people are good. We're all God's children and there's nothing wrong with any of us. Isn't that what the Bible says?"

The Rationalistic response: "There is a very simple explanation. A word can have more than one meaning. When referring to a human being, goodness means one thing. When referring to God, it means another. There's not the slightest bit of contradiction or paradox in this!"

The Faith/Paradox response: “There is an underlying principle here. The Holy Spirit allowed this apparent contradiction to get our attention and point us to something deeper. God wants us to meditate on this, search the Scriptures and discover His wisdom in the matter. Since God does not lie or contradict Himself, and since He is not reckless with His words, there must be an explanation that is reasonable but not overly simplistic. And one that will affect our hearts by revealing God's glory.”

Embracing paradox doesn't mean the rules of logic no longer apply. Instead, it forces us to realistically face the limits of logic and humbly accept God's wisdom in place of our own

NOTE: In this case, the rationalistic response does have some validity. There are instances where semantic variations in a word's meaning create a false contradiction. However, in this case I believe that explanation falls short. The danger is, in our pride of "knowing the answer" we often jump to conclusions and settle for an easy explanation. In this way, we sometimes miss things that can only be found by searching further in the Scriptures.

Let's start by affirming both sides of the paradox without equivocation. God alone is good. Some people are also good. This the undeniable testimony of Scripture. So how do we handle it?


Ultimately, I believe this paradox points to our dependence on God, and to two categories of goodness: primary (or source) goodness, and secondary (or reflective) goodness. These categories describe separate manifestations of the same goodness. In other words, there is ONE goodness – God's - and sometimes it exists in people. Whatever goodness a person may have is actually God's goodness in him. Jonathan Edwards describes the way in which all of man's good - and by implication, man's goodness - depends on God:

The several ways wherein the dependence of the one being may be upon another for its good, and wherein the redeemed of Jesus Christ depend on God for all their good, are these, viz. That they have all their good of him, and that they have all through him, and that they have all in him: That he is the cause and original whence all their good comes, therein it is of him; and that he is the medium by which it is obtained and conveyed, therein they have it through him; and that he is the good itself given and conveyed, therein it is in him.” (God Glorified In Man's Dependence, Jonathan Edwards – Representative Selections, edited by Clarence H. Faust and Thomas H. Johnson, New York: Hill and Wang, 1962) The moon makes a great illustration, and this is an illustration of it. Can you see the light yet?

Man's goodness is reflective, secondary, and dependent - not primary. Our goodness relates to God's goodness in the same way that moonlight relates to sunlight. To the extent that the moon receives and reflects the sun's light, it too is a light. But the moon bears no light on its own. Apart from the sun, it would be completely dark. At its best, the moon is fifty percent darkness. “God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night...” (Genesis 1:16)

The moon is almost always half dark and half light, but it rarely appears this way from our perspective

In the same way, man's goodness is nothing more than a reflection of God's goodness. You and I, at our very best, are “lesser” lights. When sin gets between us and God, it effectively eclipses His light and leaves us devoid of good. That is depravity. But when we come into the light of God's goodness, we receive and reflect His goodness.


When God created the heavens and the earth, and all that they contain, he noted several times that what He created “was good.” (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). At the end of the 6th day, the day on which man was created, He said it was “very good.” This has been construed by some to mean that man has a special goodness not shared by the rest of creation. But let's look at Genesis 1:31 and see what it says: “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.” This is not singling out mankind as the best of the best, for the “very good” encompasses all that God created. Nevertheless, man was a unique creation with a special status. Adam and Eve were certainly created “good” and were part of what was “very good”. But the reason for man's special status is found in Genesis 1:26, where God says, “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” Man is good only to the extent that he bears the image of God.

Image” is a reflective term. An image is merely a representation of something else. I have a picture of my wife, which I cherish, but I am not married to that picture. The picture is beautiful only because it conveys the image of a beautiful person. The paper on which it is printed is common stock – worth nothing at all compared to my wife. Likewise, we are not the source of God's image, only bearers of it. The fall removed that image from us, but in the lives of Christians it is being restored because Christ is in us and shines through us.

God is good with a goodness that is measureless and incomparable. He is infinitely, intrinsically, and inherently good. Believers begin to be good the moment they are united to Christ. We display His goodness as we show His characteristics through our attitudes, words and deeds. Our goodness is real, but it is never independent. God's goodness can exist apart from ours, but ours cannot exist without His. In this way, God alone is good, but believers are also good in Him.

In part 3, we'll delve deeper and look at some specific ways in which man reflects the goodness of God. Then in part 4, we'll wrap it up with a consideration of some key Scripture passages. Now that we've started exploring the paradox in detail, feel free to comment, agree/disagree, offer your own explanation, etc.

Saturday, September 06, 2008

My Goodness, What a Paradox! Part 1

A perfect example of a Biblical paradox:


Luke 18:18-19 A ruler questioned Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.”

Matthew 19:17 And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is {only} One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

NOTE: In these passages, Jesus is not denying His deity. Rather, He is challenging the questioner to clarify the matter in his own mind. Part of the reason this man did not follow Jesus' advice was because he didn't believe Jesus was the all-wise Son of God. For our discussion, the main point here is Jesus' statement that God alone is good.


Luke 23:50-52 And a man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council, a good and righteous man (he had not consented to their plan and action), a man from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was waiting for the kingdom of God; this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

Acts 11:22-24 The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch. Then when he arrived and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord; for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord.

One of the first questions that would be asked by any good Bible college or seminary student is this: “Are the Greek words the same?” Answer: YES, exactly the same. In each of the verses above, the word translated "good" is the Greek adjective AGATHOS.

As to the first assertion, that God alone is good, there can be no argument from those who embrace the Biblical doctrine of the total depravity of fallen humanity. But how are we to interpret the descriptions of particular human beings as good? Does this force us to alter the doctrine of total depravity? To lessen its severity or tone it down a bit? Does it imply that Christians – or at least some Christians - no longer have indwelling sin? Only Biblical balance can help us to avoid serious error in answering these questions.

A crowd this size might NOT be a good thing - it depends on what is being preached. Is it the GOSPEL OF CHRIST, or something different?

There are those today who would preach much to us about our own goodness, and little about God's. I've heard enough sermons from Joel Osteen and read enough of his writings to have my self-esteem inflated for the rest of my life (that's two sermons, and about 40 pages, by the way). Osteen seems hell-bent on building my self-esteem, but I've heard him say next to nothing about God. Considering the fact that he reaches more people in a week than most pastors will speak to in a lifetime of sermons, I think he ought to at least consider using his platform to preach the Gospel of Christ's cross. Everything I have heard him say about God is directly related to my self-image. Isn't that backwards? Who depends on Whom? This is not a Joel Osteen bashing party, so I'll stop there. It's too easy to see the faults of others and ignore our own.

I've also heard preachers much closer to my own theological view who are so legalistic that they only leave their listeners hungry for salvation – never captivated with the joy and grace of a Christ Who so loved us that He died in our place. That is as much a problem as Osteen's message, but it will never draw the same crowds.

We're now facing two seemingly contradictory Scriptural ideas. In parts two, three and four, we'll take a further look at the paradox of divine and human goodness. Let me assure all of my readers that there is no real contradiction here, only a need to dig deeper and understand what God is saying to us in His Word. Feel free to comment, but I request that you refrain from offering explanations until you read the next post.

Grace and peace.

Monday, September 01, 2008


The following is an excerpted portion of the testimony of A.S.A. Jones, a former hard-core skeptic who became convinced of the truth of the Gospel through an understanding of Biblical paradox (and, obviously, a sovereign work of grace). I have highlighted some portions in bold text for emphasis. I probably don't need to add this disclaimer, but lest anyone should think otherwise: this is NOT an endorsement of the philosophies represented by Friedrich Nietzche or Zen Buddhism. I believe Jones is using these as illustrations, not recommended reading. You can read his entire article here.

"A paradox is that which appears to contradict, but upon closer examination, really does not . . .

I prided myself on pure intellect and logical thinking and 'spiritual' things didn't make any sense to me. I discounted spiritual matters as emotional matters and I had made myself as unemotional as I could in order to avoid having emotions interfere with my rationality of thought. When I began reading the bible differently, I no longer saw contradictions of logic, but paradox after paradox. Being confronted with paradox forces one's mind to think ABOVE logic but not against it. For example, examine the statement, "Never less alone than when alone". If you break this sentence down into its components, logically it cannot make sense. Yet this phrase describes a very real type of individual; it is describing a person who considers himself to be his own best company. It tells of an individual who is content to spend hours lost in his own thoughts. You have to examine the paradox in the context of what you know to be true about human nature in order to understand it. It is assumed by the author that the reader will not be ignorant of this information.

All the way from beginning to end, the bible contains paradoxes that push one's mind to look beyond what is written to that which is being implied. Skeptics view these paradoxes as errors but if they are indeed errors, they are consistent in the writings of the more than 40 men who authored the books of the bible. I find it strange that men who were intelligent and literate enough to write in that early time could be so ignorant of their own culture and religion to have made mistake after mistake after mistake in issues regarding it. Instead, I think it is more probable that the skeptics are ignorant of the matters about which these men wrote and unable to grasp their culture and way of thinking. Many of these alleged errors are due to poor reading comprehension and the inability to grasp what is being said within the context of the whole.

Some of these paradoxes are presented as a unit, making them unlikely errors. For example, Proverbs 26:4-5 states, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." A contradiction in logic would render these two statements as meaningless but there is a truth to be found in them (See "The Games Skeptics Play"). Other paradoxes are not so obvious and do not occur in close proximity to each other.

A second type of paradox deals with morality. Paradoxes of this nature deal with the law and push the reader into the spirit of the law (See 'Why I Believe God is Real') in order to understand them. Examples of moral paradox include issues of divorce, adultery (Deut 24:1-4 vs Mark 10:2-12), and God setting Himself above His own commandments. What appears to be ambiguity or contradiction or nonsense in the 'absolute declaration of law' can be reconciled or deemed as irrelevant when the reader understands the spirit of the law.

Not all of the paradoxes contain meaning, but serve as arrows to direct the reader toward higher meaning. The accounts of the death of Judas and many other alleged discrepancies are irrelevant to the truth of God, yet they serve as stumbling blocks to those who are shallow or legalistic in their thought. In this way, the Word of God becomes a sieve, separating its readers through a series of screens. Paul describes this sieve in 1 Cor: 1. Those who have made themselves too big, get trapped in the holes, while those who have allowed themselves to be made small, pass through to see the hidden truth. Jesus Christ makes reference to his own device of conveying God's truth in parables (Luke 8:10) so that "...though hearing, they may not understand."

If you are a skeptic, you are probably scoffing at the above. I would like to take this opportunity to point out to you that Friedrich Nietzsche, poster boy for existentialism, was very fond of intentionally using words that would be misinterpreted by careless, superficial readers. Walter Kaufmann, who edited Nietzsche's 'Ecce Homo', included this in his introduction:

"Nietzsche had an almost pathological weakness for one particular kind of ambiguity, which, to be sure, is not irremediable: he loved words and phrases that mean one thing out of context and almost the opposite in the context he gives them... The former is bound to lead astray hasty readers, browsers and...nonreaders."

When a man does this type of thing, it is considered a matter of genius. When similar devices are employed in the bible, there is no reason to discount them as foolishness. Of course, it is not the 'hasty' reader that is being sifted out in the Bible, but the spiritual Pharisee who is being left in the dark.

The reason for doing this can be found in the Zen philosophy. The Masters of Zen don't seek to enlighten their students with the truth; they seek to confound them in order that they discover the truth for themselves. Herein lies the difference between knowing how to do multiplication and merely memorizing and regurgitating multiplication tables. If the truth about God could be told, we could know ABOUT Him, but in seeking and finding Him for ourselves, we can KNOW Him. For me to have been so profoundly changed through a minute faith in Jesus Christ is a miracle. Psychology tells us that the hardest thing to change in a person is their personality; we can modify our behavior, but our nature remains. The words of Christ didn't TELL me how to change. Like a Zen Master, He gently led my mind to experience truth. That's why the changes were so powerful."