Testing God is not the same as seeking Him


An atheist writer wrote that he honestly attempted to believe in God but ultimately found that the evidence did not stack up. I believe woven into his words is the reason he failed.

Ephesians tells us, “…it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” Doesn’t this tell us that attempts to try to believe in God, or lean on our own understanding to form an argument for God are doomed to fail if saving faith is the goal?

James tells us if your motives are wrong, you won’t receive.  There’s a difference between testing God, and seeking Him. Could this be the reason some folks who are rich in intellect allow their own understanding to become a stumbling block?

What are your thoughts?

Is God obligated to heal disease?


I was asked if God could cure a person with social anxiety disorder.  I was a bit surprised when they laughed at my response.  God can cure any disorder, but does one need to be cured of anxiety to be in God’s will?

Nowhere in the Bible does it say we will be without pain or suffering; at least not before the second coming.  Consider that Paul asked God three times to take away his thorn in the flesh.  God responded by telling Paul, “My grace is sufficient…” Paul had what he needed even without being delivered from his thorn in the flesh. In fact, Paul went on to write, that he would delight in weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions and difficulties.  I believe 2 Corinthians tells us Paul’s weaknesses led him to depend on God, and thus, made him stronger in spite of his initial assumption that he needed to have his thorn removed.

Can someone ask why God cannot do such-and-such without assuming they know what God should do?

I’m very interested in reading your responses. Please post them below or on the station’s Facebook page.

When love is called hate

Floyd Rogers

Do Christians hate people who reject the Bible?  This may sound like a strange question, but there are people who would have you believe that Christians hate anyone who doesn’t follow God’s teachings. Is this a fair way to portray all who believe disobeying God’s word is harmful? Could what they see as hate be a sign of something quite the opposite? Think about this as we consider something that has nothing to do with religion.

I know a few health-food nuts. They eat a very restrictive diet and they are convinced that anyone who doesn’t do the same is harming themselves. At times they seem very motivated to warn their friends about what they perceive as self-destructive behavior. If one of them told you that you were putting yourself in danger by eating a cheeseburger, would your first thought be that they must hate you? Would you assume they hate anyone else who consumes junk food? Would it be rational to refer to promoters of healthy eating as a hate group? The point I’m making with this analogy is that warning someone about a hazard is a sign of love, not hate. It doesn’t matter if you are talking about health food or sin.

History has taught us that hate is often disguised as protection.  Governments have hidden their oppressive policies under this banner. Because of this, it’s important to question anyone who asks for help enforcing protective actions. But there is a very important difference between forcing others to be safe and warning others about potential dangers caused by the choices they make. It’s easy for those who are eager to find malice in their opponents to overlook this distinction. It’s also something that can be purposely ignored by anyone motivated to deceive. Consider that some who spend an excessive amount of their time, money and resources trying to convince you that people of faith are hateful, just might be the ones who need to check some of their own hate at the door.

Deception is not a sign of love. Warning others of danger is not a sign of hate.

What are your thoughts?

God supplies our needs

Floyd Rogers

The Old Testament tells us how God provided food for His children and the New Testament tells us not to be anxious for food. So why do some Christians starve? The fact that Christians can starve to death could appear to be in conflict with the idea of God providing all our needs.  Do these ideas conflict, or are we overlooking something?

I think it’s easy for non-believers to assume the existence of starving Christians is proof that God fails to provide if they assume that death is the end-game. But if the Bible’s message is true, then death certainly is not the end.  When you consider how long eternity is, I would say death is only the beginning.  When I consider how brief our lifespan is compared to deep time, our suffering here is momentary.  But why does God provide food for some, but not all? The answer seems to lie within the difference between needs and wants.

I believe God’s children in the Old Testament were given food because they needed it to fulfill His purpose for them. But the Book of Luke tells us about the beggar who died in poverty even though he was in God’s will.  It’s no small thing that Luke records that when the beggar died he was carried away by angels to Abraham’s bosom.  His suffering, by the way, was the result of a perfect creation that had become imperfect as a result of sin. I know of no scripture that tells us we will never go hungry, or that we will not starve. The pain and suffering we endure is caused by sin.  It’s not caused by God. It’s not only the result of our sin, but by all sin which caused God’s creation to become corrupt.  We have an appointed time to leave all of this and be with Him.  We have no need to be anxious that we won’t have what we need before that time. God is in control. When a Christian dies, even from things like starvation that exists because of sin, they go to be with our Lord. We do not need to live beyond our appointed time to die, nor should we want to. This world has nothing to offer compared to eternity with God.

I’m certainly open to consider any scripture you feel conflicts with what I’ve written above.  Please leave comments below if you additional scriptural evidence about God supplying our needs.

Preachers who fail affirm God’s word

Floyd Rogers

It’s common to see those who oppose our faith post articles about preachers caught doing something wrong. These kinds of stories make up the majority of posts on some atheist websites. But while non-believers consider them proof the Bible is false, I see them as affirmation of God’s word.

For one, they affirm God’s warning against false prophets.  And a minister does not need to be a false prophet to sin.  Roman’s makes it clear that all have sinned, even preachers.  

Consider King David got a woman pregnant and had her husband killed to cover up his guilt. Yet two times the scripture calls him a man after God’s own heart. Not because of his sin, but because he sought to please God even though he had major failures.

Our failures may be mocked, but they are not proof that God’s word is false. They affirm its warnings and they should never keep us from turning back to God.