I have found, in the last decade, among humanity generally a certain measure of resistance to the use of reason and logic. Perhaps thinking is an unnecessary inconvenience in our emotionally charged “feel good,” self-absorbed generation. Maybe our confidence in our own ability to think is being called into question. I think, also, that we are too lazy to put forth the effort, and desire only that others do the thinking for us. In the church, particularly, these forms of resistance are present, as well as the assumption that the use of reason and logic is (somehow) “secular” and (somehow) contrary and destructive to the faith.

It is true that the Age of Reason (though not necessarily logic) has been the underpinning of the attacks against the church for over a century, and often for good reason (no pun intended). When the (so-called) sciences accuse the church of being unreasonable and perpetrators of naive myths and legions, the church unreasonably responds by declaring reason unfaithful and the enemy of faith. I (for one) refuse to accept that, because I am of the faith I am, and must be, somehow unreasonable. Furthermore, I declare that faith demands logic. I insist that there must be (and is) a logic to faith, by definition of “faith.”

Biblically, the word “faith,” in the Greek, is pistis: Being persuaded, convinced; belief. It is concerning confidence or trust in a thing. Faith is an intellectual assent to certain truth statements, which may or may not include experiences of such truth statements. What I would add to this definition is that there is no such thing as a (so-called) “leap of faith” or “blind faith.” By definition, faith is not an irrational “blind leap.” Strictly speaking, if one “leaps” or follows “blindly,” then that one is operating out of something other than “faith.” Such a one could easily be religious, but void of any faith, in fact. The logic of faith is found in the fact that, whatever emotional response that may accompany it, faith is an “intellectual assent” – it is necessarily reasonable, and something, first, done with the mind.

“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God” (John 1:1 – CEB). “Word,” here, in the Greek is logos: Spoken reason (it is where we get our word “logic”). Now, John was proving a different point in the text, but the context doesn’t change the fact that what John says is: “In the beginning was the spoken reason and the spoken reason was with God and the spoken reason was God.” Thus, God is the source and fount of all thought and Jesus Christ is the spoken reason of God to humanity. Our ability to reason and think logically comes from God. Therefore, faith necessitates the reason (and logic) of God found in Christ; and reason (and logic) necessitate the faith of Christ, for they originate in God.

For the Apostle Paul, the mind is precisely where faith actively transforms a person (Rom. 12:2). The mind, for Paul, is deep in the core of one’s being – a compound of the spirit, the conscience, and the seat of thought. In fact, without faith, the compound is inactive and reason becomes a tool of human depravity that works against God’s worldview in ironic ignorance (Rom. 1:28; 7:23, 25; 8:6-7, 27; 11:34).

So, when reason is used against the faith it becomes illogical – it contradicts the fount and source of reason. Likewise, when the church attempts faith without reason it abandons “the Word” of God – the mind of God. However, reason will always reveal the hypocrisy of (so-called) faith when it acts illogically, and rightly so. And the church must utilize reason in order to secure the faith, or risk being found contrary to God’s worldview. Faith transforms how one thinks. When the church (or any other agenda-organized entity) tries to advance a blind leap of adherence to a thing, preventing or perverting thought, reason and logic stand faithfully on guard. The logic of faith is that there is no faith without reason, and reason absent of faith is illogically depraved and ironically uninformed. One cannot remove reason from faith. The logic of faith is irrefutable – it is the mind of God.

Many are confused. The gospel accounts speak heavily of the Law, while Paul’s letters tell us the law doesn’t apply. Can we make sense of this (apparent) contradiction? Yes! In the form of two questions: First, “When did the New Testament begin?” and, secondly, “To whom was each (Paul, Matthew, John, Peter, etc.) speaking when he wrote?” The answers to these questions will lead us to a clear understanding of the apparent contradiction.

Though the literature of the New Testament begins with Matthew’s account of the life of Christ, it is not the New Testament paradigmatically or historically speaking. The debate over which Gospel – Mathew’s or Mark’s – is older notwithstanding, none of the gospel accounts are technically the New Testament. Jesus walked the earth in the gospel accounts fulfilling the requirements of the Jewish Messiah (Old Testament). As a rule He came for the Jews (Matthew 15:26; Mark 7:27). He was divinity in the flesh, born a Jewish man, who lived according to Jewish law, and He was the Jewish Messiah who necessarily had to hold completely the Jewish Law (or fail the qualifications thereof). Also, as a rule, Jesus spoke to the Jews, and the Gentiles were simply incidental over-hearers. The Law was the identifier for Jews, but was no such thing for Gentiles. Though the gospel accounts are, biblically speaking, “Christian” articles, they are still very much Old Testament and very much Jewish.

Likewise, it was established at the (so-called) “Jerusalem Council” (Acts 15) and subsequently in the letter to the Galatians, that Peter was the apostle to the Jews (Gal. 2:8); James was equally concerned with Jews (Gal. 2:12-14) and, in fact, James, Peter, and John were known as “The Pillars of the Jewish Church” (Gal. 2:9). Quite simply, the letter of James is written to Jewish Christians; it is the Jewish Gospel, if you please (Gal. 1:6-9). The letters of Peter and Jude, for the most part, bear no resemblance to the gospel accounts, but deal with practical issues of the recipients – mainly Jews. It can be argued that the three epistles of John are directed to Gentiles (for instance, the “Gaius” in III John is arguably the same “Gaius” the Macedonian – Acts 19:29, who hosted Paul in Corinth – Rom. 16:23, who was a recipient of one of the rare baptisms that Paul performed – 1Cor. 1:14, and who accompanied Paul to Ephesus – Acts 19:29). But all letters bearing John’s name were written three decades after the Apostle Paul’s.

For the Apostle Paul, whose letters were the very first collected as a whole, the Gospel of Grace does not begin before the Cross of Christ. The reason is that he was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and as such, the Gentiles would have known nothing about any Mosaic Law, save that it was Jewish tradition. Furthermore, Paul (at best) only alludes to the earthly life of Christ; as the apostle to the Gentiles, it would be the Resurrection Life of Christ that would concern the pagan nations. His theology demands conformity to the death of Christ (Phil. 3:10), not the earthly life of Christ. For Paul, the fact that Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses only concerned Gentiles because of His sinless life and, therefore, His ability to be the Gentile Savior.

However, as important as the Cross of Christ is to Pauline Theology, the crucifixion is not the beginning of the New Testament. It is the Acts 2 account of the Day of Pentecost where the paradigmatic and historical New Testament began. It is not until the Holy Spirit is the indwelling power-plant that the church is born, resulting in the dawning of the New Testament era.

So, with all that being established, though the gospel accounts appear first in the Scriptures, they were written after the Day of Pentecost but deal specifically with events before it. We see in the gospels the Law as the norm because they are still of the Old Testament paradigm. And we see in the letters generally, and Paul’s specifically, that Jesus Christ is the norm because the Day of Pentecost has occurred, shifting Testaments to the “New.” What makes the New Testament distinct from the Old is the Resurrection Life of Christ, rather than the attempted best efforts of humanity (and Israel, specifically). Being the New Testament church, our lives are hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3) – the Resurrection Life of Christ – and not a part of the ministry of death contained in the killing letters of the Law (2Cor. 3:7).

While baptism is the means by which one enters the membership role of his/her local church, it is in actuality entrance into the identifiable “Catholic” (i.e. Universal) Church – the Body of Christ; which is both, visible and invisible, and earthly and at the same time heavenly. So, yes, baptism is technically a joining of the church, though not simply the local but the Universal; which traces itself back to the original disciples and those who had “the faith of Abraham” before the Cross of Christ.

Baptism, first and foremost, is an act of God’s grace more than a human action. It is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual/mystical truth. God has made water the way for humanity to be re-identified with Him. As such, the mode of baptism makes no difference. Whether sprinkled or dunked (and smothered, covered, or chunked; or I’ll hold you under until I get tired), baptism is about God and our identity in His Son, not by what means we are baptized. However, the act of submersion is a better analogy of God’s grace at work. In the sign of baptism, we are first buried with Christ (enter into the water) and then we die with Christ (go under the water). Upon coming up out of the water it is Christ that is raised. We, our old fallen natures, are still buried under the watery death. It is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us – the Resurrection Life of Christ as our life for living.

“Why water?” you ask. “Water represents judgment,” I say. Water is the sign through which God destroys that which alienates us from His-self. It is through water baptism that creation is first identified with God in the Creation Deluge (Gen. 1:1-2). It is through water baptism that primitive humanity is re-identified with God in the Noahic Deluge. In the first, creation is baptized under Adam, being made from that which was created; signifying their identification with God. In the second, humanity is baptized under Noah, repopulated from his family; signifying their identification with God. Likewise, the Israelites were baptized through the Red Sea under Moses (1Cor. 10:2), signifying their identification with God (and not Pharaoh). And under the water baptism of Christ all humanity is identified, finally reconciling us to God, through His Baptism of Death (of which the previous water baptisms were precedents).

Thus, baptism is not so much a cleansing as it is a killing; a killing of our old nature of depravity – inherent from Adam, passing along through Noah (and Moses), and unified in the baptism of Christ and crucified on the Cross of Christ – and the Resurrection Life of our new nature in the Resurrected Christ; identified with Christ (as God’s exact image) and identifiable as the church (Christ’s express image), reconciling us to the original baptism of creation and its subsequent goodness in God (Gen. 1:4).

“How is Jesus the rescuing act of God?” is a question to which we each need a concrete answer. God’s rescuing act of humanity through the improbable possibility of Jesus Christ – God in human form; a virgin impregnated and birthing a child – is but a part of this work. The life of Christ is completely alien in purpose without the death of Christ. The cradle is pointless without the cross. Chromatius of Aquileia, a 5^th century Bishop, writes, “Though Jesus was merely a whimpering infant… [The magi] perceived one thing with the eyes of their bodies but another with the eyes of their minds. The lowliness of the body he assumed was discerned, but the glory of his divinity is now made manifest… A cradle the world cannot hold.”

Because Jesus descended from heaven and was placed (as it were) into the womb of Mary He was born, then, of a virgin (being that Joseph and Mary didn’t have sexual relations). As such, He was without the nature of depravity that plagues all humanity. Without this nature of corruption, Jesus lived life perfectly, fulfilling all of God’s requirements for humanity. In perfection Jesus was able and equipped to carry all of humanity’s depravity (though, without containing it Himself) onto His cross, thereby making Himself a sacrificial substitution (in the Old Testament sense). Completely and utterly God, yet completely and wholly human is the way (the only way) that one – namely, Jesus – could pull this off.

This sacrificial death on the cross – one life for all lives, one perfect human for all imperfect humans – is the redemption that humanity needed so badly. It is through the perfect death of the perfect Christ that all humanity is redeemed. There was a debt owed by humanity to God; a debt that humanity could not pay. As a result of the inability to pay, the penalty was alienation from God for all humanity. Thus, Jesus came – descending from heaven, born of a virgin – to free humanity from the debt and the penalty, on the cross of Christ. That day Christ took upon Himself the debt of and the penalty owed to all humanity. And He satisfied God, on behalf of humanity, to the point of death.

But, humanity being redeemed is but half of the dilemma. Now, in Christ’s death, humanity is no longer in debt nor under the penalty of the debt. But humanity is still not reconciled to God. Is it possible that redemption without reconciliation is a worse situation? If Christ is rotted, laid still in the earth, then not only are we still cruelly separated from God, but neither is Jesus who we claim; neither is He who He claimed – God incarnate.

However, on that Sunday morning all those years ago, the flip side of the same coin landed. Jesus Christ rose in Resurrection Life! Not only that but, He ascended back to heaven; thus, bringing reconciliation for humanity – reconciliation with God, one another, and self. He died for our redemption and was resurrected for our reconciliation. In the Resurrection Life of Christ God offers life for living throughout humanity. Understand this: In the death of Christ all humanity has died (whether we know it or not). In the resurrection of Christ all who believe live in the Resurrection Life of Christ (whether we know it or not). If we do not believe on the death of Christ, obviously then, we do not live in Resurrection Life, and are simply a rotting corpse crucified with Christ 2,000 years ago (whether we know it or not). Though redeemed, not reconciled; if not reconciled, then not redeemed. The sacrificial suicide is, then, yours to keep.