Friday, February 26, 2016

Did the Apostles Know They Were Writing Scripture?


Did the Apostles know they were writing Scripture?
By Clark Bates
Posted February 26, 2016

      For the modern day Christian, when we speak of “Scripture” it's generally quite clear that we're referring to both the Old and New Testaments that make up the Holy Bible. However, in the days of Christ and the apostles, “Scripture” meant only the Hebrew Bible, or what we call the Old Testament. So the question is often posed as to whether or not the writers of the New Testament were aware that they were in the act of writing new “Scripture” at the time they were writing and ministering? This is a valid question and one that touches on the heart of how we came by the New Testament at all.


      To begin with, it would be helpful to address the means by which the 26 books of our New Testament came to be accepted as the word of God alongside the Hebrew Bible. A common misconception, furthered by internet rumor and popular film and television, is that the fourth century church compiled all the extant writings regarding Jesus and carefully edited out those that did not point to His deity or to the overall agenda of the church. This is, of course, a fallacious argument, rejected by all serious historians and scholars, but how did the New Testament come to be formed?


      According to Geisler and Nix, a fivefold criterion of selection can be discerned from the writings of the earliest church following the apostles:
  1. Was the book written by a prophet or spokesman of God?
  2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God?
  3. Did the message tell the truth about God, not contradicting established Scripture?
  4. Does the book have the transforming power of God?
  5. Was it accepted by the people of God?1

      To boil this criteria down to a singular phrase, the key factor in New Testament canonicity was it's authorship by an apostle. So determined was the early church in this regard, that we read from St. Ignatius (A.D. 50-115) that, in spite of his authority in the church as an apostolic successor, “[he did] not wish to command you as Peter and Paul; they were apostles.”2 We also read of Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) recording the regular Sunday meeting of the early church to engage in the reading of, “the writings of memoirs of the apostles or the prophets. . .” clearly linking the works of the apostles with that of the Old Testament prophets.3 As early as the beginning of the second century, the writings of the apostles were considered equivalent to the writings of the Hebrew Bible; 200 years before any church council was convened on the matter.


      So, it's clear that the post-apostolic church saw their writings as Scripture, but what of the apostles themselves? Is there any indication that they believed themselves to be writing a new canon? When we examine the writings of the apostle Paul a certain narrative presents itself: the apostle habitually distinguishes in his writings that which is from the Lord and that which is from his own mind. In 1 Corinthians 7:6 Paul writes, concerning marriage, that he desires all believers to be single, as he is, but opens with the phrase, “Now as a concession, not a command, I say. . .”4 When this thought is concluding at verse 12 of the same chapter, the apostle also writes, “To the rest I say (I, not the Lord). . .” clearly indicating that what surrounds this advice comes from his own wisdom and not as a direct message from God. Further into the same letter, at 1 Corinthians 14:37, he writes, “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet , or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are the command of the Lord.” Once again, indicating the things he is writing, at this point, are the words of God.


      In 1 Thessalonians 2:13 Paul writes to the church in Thessalonica that he is thankful that, “when [they] received the word of God, which [they] heard from us, [they] accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.” This passage led Calvin to agree, “Hence we learn from this passage what credit ought to be given to the gospel — such as does not depend on the authority of men, but, resting on the sure and ascertained truth of God. . .”5 The apostle Peter found agreement with Paul in his second epistle, for in 2 Peter 3:15b -16 he writes, “. . .just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. . .which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” In the Greek, the word chosen by Peter is graphe' or “writings”. When used in the plural form within the New Testament and Septuagint translation of the Old Testament it refers to the prophetic writings of the messengers of God. Its use within the pages of holy writ consistently speak of the Scriptures, Old and New, indicating that Peter's position was that the writings of Paul were authoritatively alongside the Law and Prophets.

 
      Lastly, one can find no clearer position on an apostle's own feelings toward his writing than that of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. In Revelation 1:1-3 we read, “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. . . . Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy. . .” The apostle John knew that what he was writing was the very words of God, commended to His church to be obeyed until His return. Did the New Testament writers believe they were writing Scripture? I feel that N.T. Wright has said it best,


It used to be said that the NT writers 'didn't think they were writing Scripture.' That is hard to sustain historically today. The fact that their writings were, in various senses 'occasional'. . . is not to the point. At precisely those points of urgent need (when, for instance, writing Galatians or 2 Corinthians) Paul is mostly conscious that he is writing as one authorized by the apostolic call he had received from Jesus Christ, and in the power of the Spirit, to bring life and order to the church by his words.”6





1Norman Geisler and William Nix, General Introduction to the Bible, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 223-231.

2Ignatius, “Ignatius' Epistle to Trallians,” Anti-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers, Ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1867), 3.3.

3Justin Martyr, “Apology,” Anti-Nicene Fathers, Ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 1.67.

4All Scriptural citations come from the English Standard Version of the Bible.

5http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom42.vi.iv.iv.html

6N.T. Wright, The Last Words: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture, (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2005), 51.


The Resurrection as an Apologetic





Dr. Mike Licona on the Resurrection of Jesus

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Book Review: Dr. Donald Arlo Jennings' "Genesis Revisited: The Creation"


Dr. Donald Arlo Jennings, Genesis Revisited: The Creation, Bloomington, IN: WestBow Press, 2013.

Review by Clark Bates M.Div.
                   Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary


            Having authored many articles and contributed to multiple works on healthcare technology, Dr. Donald Arlo Jennings seeks to apply his knowledge and writing ability toward the biblical book of Genesis in his newest volume, Genesis Revisited: The Creation.  Consistently affirming his strong Christian faith and commitment to a literal rendering of the creation epic in Genesis 1 and 2, the author states that his main purpose is to present a new way to look at the creation.  In his own words, Dr. Jennings believes, "we are not alone in this vastness called space," and is convinced that this belief directly affects how one should interpret the Genesis narrative.[1]

            Heading each chapter with a particular Bible verse that the author feels was given to him during prayer for this writing, Dr. Jennings proceeds to approach the opening chapters of Genesis with an expository flair, opening with the order of creation and carefully moving to the building of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11.  As he moves through each section of Scripture, the author muses about various difficulties that the text presents.  Pondering on such dilemmas as Cain's wife, the creation of something from nothing, and the statistical difficulty of populating the earth, Jennings attempts to piqué the interest of his readers for his predetermined resolution, aliens.

            By the fifth chapter of his work, the author feels that he has presented enough textual dilemma to present his theory of alien colonization of the planet earth.  Dr. Jennings reaffirms that his belief in God as Creator of all things includes His creation of human-like alien beings  on other planets.  Seeing this as a desirable and plausible solution to the aforementioned difficulties of Cain's wife, and post-diluvian repopulation, he even suggests that the aliens in question were possibly criminals sent to earth, meaning that, "Earth might have been a penal colony, a forced encampment of criminals from other worlds."[2]  This postulation resolves, for the author, the source for sin and death in the world, citing Cain's murder of Abel in Genesis 4 as a key premise.

            Moving from this thesis, Dr. Jennings seeks to find evidence for alien encounters within other biblical texts, happily falling upon the first chapter of Ezekiel.  Citing Erich von Daniken's earlier work, Chariots of the Gods and recognizing that he is not alone in this interpretation, the author recites the prophet's encounter with the heavenly, mobile-throne chariot, as seen through the lens of a UFO occurrence.  Jennings finds great support through various internet resources on UFO sightings even seeing fit to reinterpret Psalms 79 and 146 as indicative of his alien penal colony theory.  He then closes his writing with a call to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, reaffirming his orthodox belief in Scripture, satisfied that his hypothesis has intrigued and challenged his readership. 

            It would seem that Dr. Jenning's writing style is an attempted homage to the introspective works of C.S. Lewis, but his grammatically challenged prose reads more like the ramblings of a community college student's wandering mind than of an accomplished, PhD-holding author.  There is no consistent, logical or thematic flow to each chapter.  Information affirmed in Chapter 1 regarding the potential survival of others outside the Ark during the flood of Genesis 6, is later contradicted by an affirmation that no one could have survived the flood  apart from the Ark in chapter 11.  The author expends an excessive amount of thought to conjectures admittedly developed from science fiction television rather than utilizing that time to engage in an educated manner with the existing cosmology surrounding his theory.

            The author continues to affirm his premise alongside opposing factual hypotheses on the basis of it being "two separate opinions," leaving the reader to assume that the author is unaware that all opinions are not created equal.  Dr. Jennings uses the word "probably" 75 times in this writing in relation to his own suggestions, while also using the  word "assume" 125 times, even in relation to biblical texts in which clear positions are stated without room for assumption.  This, coupled with the author's reliance on wikipedia and answers.com as bibliographic sources for his position leave very little reason for any reader to take this work seriously.

            His desire to demonstrate a reasonable comingling of cosmology and faith is respectable, as is his desire to deliver the gospel at the close of his book, however even these moments of positivity cannot substantiate the poor scholarship fraught throughout this text.  Citing the dilemma of Cain's wife, which has persisted for generations, the author foregoes any discussion on possible solutions in the hope that his "alien seeding" theory will become more believable.  In regards to this dilemma, a common response is Adam's 930 year lifespan and the potential for multiple offspring as a result.[3]  Regardless, of the validity of even this response, an author writing under the auspices of a PhD should avail himself of contemporary research before forming and presenting a position.
            A similar biblical slip comes in chapter 11 in which the author, speaking of God meting out divine punishment, states that Sarah was Lot's wife, infamously turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at the wicked city of Sodom and Gomorrah.[4]  Given that the following chapter of Genesis details the account of Abraham and Sarah with Abimilech, one is left awestruck as to how such a mistake could be made initially as well as make it to print.  While many other gaffs in Scriptural citation and cosmological speculation abound within this volume, there is not adequate space to dissect them all.  It is unfortunate that so little of value exists within this work when such a wealth of scholarship is available for engaging and educational discussion regarding the biblical creation account.

            The orthodox interpretations of the opening chapters of the book of Genesis are diverse.  Whether one approaches the epic from a young earth perspective, the day-age view, the Schofield restoration view or a literary framework view, an abundance of literature awaits for those seeking a deeper study on the matter.[5]  It is always difficult to critique the writing of a fellow believer in such a negative manner, but it is equally important that writing such as this, long on speculation and short on verification, be revealed as they are.  Dr. Jennings work leaves the reader feeling as though they sat through a discussion with a new believer postulating every fanciful theory that came to mind.  What makes this even more difficult to embrace is the author's ambivalence to the Scriptures he cites and the scholarship available outside of an internet search engine.  Because of these egregious errors this book cannot be recommended for any reader, or for any purpose.  It serves as a lesson of the dangers of open speculation without clear biblical foundation, and the worst of what is available on the writings of the book of Genesis.

Clark Bates is a graduate of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and manages an apologetics and theology blog at http://www.exejesushermeneutics.blogspot.com.




I received this book free from WestBow Publishers as part of their BookLookBloggers.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”




[1] Donald Arlo Jennings, Genesis Revisited: The Creation, (Bloomington, IN: WestBow Press, 2013), Section 162.
[2] Jennings, Genesis, 1225.
[3] Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask? (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 37.
[4] Jennings, Genesis, 2325.
[5] For a summary of each view it is recommended that you seek out works like Gregory Boyd and Paul Eddy's Across the Spectrum, Hugh Ross' Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy, and J.P. Moreland's Three Views on Creation and Evolution.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Book Review: Wayne Grudem's "The Gift of Prophecy"




Book Review: Wayne Grudem's The Gift of Prophecy

"The foundational premise of Grudem’s work is thatthe exercise of the gift of prophecy in the New Testament church entails reporting in human words some­thing that God spontaneously brings to the mind of the believer. He distinguish­es the exercise of this gift from the activi­ty of both the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles. . ." 

Monday, February 22, 2016

The Holiness of God



God's Holiness Notes

Metaphysical Holiness

Hebrew: godesh, which means “apartness” or “sacredness”
              gadosh translated “sacred” or “holy”

Greek:  hagios which means “righteous”, “holy” or “pious”

These are used with two meanings in Scripture; first, to be holy in the metaphysical sense, as in being utterly transcendent or above and beyond all creation, and second, in the moral sense, to be utterly unique and the standard of all right behavior.

Meant to inspire a deep sense of awe (Is.29.23) and a perpetual state of worship (1 Chron. 16.29; Rev. 4.8)

One of the great verses of Scripture extolling the holiness of God is Ex. 15.11

Also,  1 Sam. 2.2 and  Rev. 4.8

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty.”  In the Greek, and in the Hebrew, there are no words that function in the way our English adjectives do.  So when the writers are trying to convey the importance of a matter, the word will be repeated.  Much in the way that many of Jesus' sayings begin with “Truly, Truly” the author is conveying that what Jesus is saying is absolutely true.  So when we ready that God is “Holy, Holy, Holy” the author is telling us that there is nothing holier.

The psalmists and the prophets often speak of God dwelling in His high and holy place (Is.57.15; Ps. 3.4; 11.4; Ezek. 28.14).

Even the very name of God is holy.  Ps103.1

In Paul's admonishment to the Corinthian church about sexual sin he says this, “Flee from sexual immorality.  Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.  Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?” (1 Cor. 6.18-19)  Where God dwells is Holy and He dwells in you.

Moral Holiness

Just as the tools used in service to God in the temple were holy and the temple itself was holy, so to are those who know Jesus Christ as their Savior, because the One who dwells within us is holy.

Ps. 89.35, establishes that it is because God's holiness that He does not lie.

Speaking of Jesus Christ, the author of the book of Hebrews re-iterates the moral purity of God, Heb. 7.26-28

1 Pet. 1.15-16 quotes the book of Leviticus affirming that the very reason we are called to live holy lives is because of God's example.
           In what we call the Old Testament “Holiness Code”, or the moral law, we find that God wanted His people to be separate from other peoples and to worship Him in purity alone.  Repeatedly in the Holiness Code, the Lord reminds Israel that these regulations are given because of His holiness and His desire to be holy (Lev. 19.2; 20.3).  In the New Testament as well, God demands of His people moral purity, and the standard of that purity is God Himself.  We saw this in 1 Peter, but it is also reiterated in 1 John 3.2-3 that one day believers will be like the Lord  when He returns and need to live holy lives even now.

The prophet Isaiah saw the Lord and cry “I am a man of unclean lips!”  No one is said to be able to look upon the holiness of the Lord and live.

You often here secularists boldly proclaim that were they to come face to face with God they would challenge Him at His own ethic.  They would boast of all the atrocities in the world and shame God for His wickedness.  The reality is that they will one day come face to face with the Lord but they will be able to do nothing but bow.  Paul wrote to the Ephesians that “every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”



Sunday, February 21, 2016

Thursday, February 18, 2016

New Atheism and the Problem of Evil Part 3

New Atheism and the Problem of Evil

A Christian Response to the Deductive Argument
Posted by Clark Bates
February 19, 2016

          The basic premise of this intellectual argument against theism is that the Christian attributes of God cannot logically co-exist with the presence of evil.  Therefore, since it is ludicrous to suggest that evil does not exist, what must be demonstrated is that the Christian God, in all His divine attributes, can logically co-exist with evil.

        Christian doctrine teaches that while God did not create evil, in His act of divine creation He allowed for the free will of sentient beings (angels and humans) wherewith they might choose to enter into accord with Him, but also might choose to turn away.  In so doing, God created the possibility of evil for the greater benefit of eternal relationship (Gen. 2.15-16).  The Bible teaches that mankind's original descendants, Adam and Eve, chose to act selfishly and, in so doing, brought evil into the world God created (Gen. 3). As a result of mankind's fall, both moral and natural evil persist and exist as part of God's greater plan of redemption; both of mankind and the world.

        On this basis, a simple reworking of the syllogism above resolves the perceived logical contradiction contained within the deductive problem of evil.  According to Alvin Plantinga, "A good God will  eliminate evil as far as he can without either losing a greater good or bringing about a greater evil."[1] This quote in syllogistic form would look thusly:

        1.  An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God created the world.
        2.  God created a good world in which evil was possible and became actual and had a good reason for doing so.
        3.  Therefore, the world contains evil.

By phrasing the defense to the deductive problem in this way, it becomes logically possible for God and evil to co-exist, thereby eliminating the claim of contradiction within the Christian faith.

       
While the atheist may balk at the insertion of "free will" they cannot continue to claim incoherence, for the implicit reasoning behind the deductive argument is that God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for evil to exist.  "But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent."[2]  This reasoning is often introduced as the "greater good defense".

          In accordance with the Genesis account, all that God created is "good".  While sentient beings were created with the freedom of will to choose God or oppose God, their creation and character at the point of initial creation was good.  For the Christian then, evil is a privation.  It exists, not as a direct creation of God, but comes about through human mismanagement of people and their environment.  "Nevertheless, some moral goods are impossible apart from responding to particular evils."[3] 

        Examples for this exist in the realm of both natural and moral evils.  The admirable trait of courage cannot exist without danger or risk of life; sacrificial love  cannot be understood without the pain of emotional loss.  In the realm of natural disasters, drowning exists only because the necessity of water upon the earth's surface, which does not exist as the primary residence for mankind.  Likewise, while the tragedy of lives lost in earthquakes all over the world causes us to weep and cry out for emotional remuneration, such seismic activity is necessary for planet Earth to maintain the delicate balances of atmospheric conditions mandatory for the existence of human life.[4]  With these considerations, there can be no logical objection to the Christian belief in the simultaneous existence of both God and evil. 


In the Last Part of this Series a we'll approach a Christian response to the inductive problem of evil. . .






[1]               Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 19.
[2]           William Lane Craig, "The Problem of Evil," Reasonable Faith,  http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-problem-of-evil#ixzz3I54NzzjD (accessed November 3, 2014).
[3]               Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downer's Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 637.
[4]               Sandra Dimas, "Are Earthquakes God's Fault?," Reasons to Believe, http://www.reasons.org/blogs/take-two/are-earthquakes-god-s-fault, (accessed November 6, 2014).

Do Those Who Leave the Faith Go to Heaven?



Do Those Who Leave the Faith Go to Heaven?
 
Posted by Clark Bates
February 18, 2016


I recently read an article of a Methodist minister who had turned from Christianity to embrace atheism. Raised in a Southern Baptist home and feeling called by God at the age of 6, she sought to fulfill that calling in the ministry. The pastor recognized some of the disparities in the Baptist teaching of Scriptures regarding women in the pastorate, but found a home within the more permissive UMC. However, the pastor states, she felt as though she was serving a “taskmaster God who's standard she never quite met.”1 Setting these concerns aside, she persevered but found that when she asked the truly difficult questions, religion could not give her an answer. In her own words:
 
" 'I just kind of realized — I mean just a eureka moment, not an epiphany, a eureka moment — I'm an atheist,' she says. 'I don't believe. And in the moment that I uttered that word, I stumbled and choked on that word — atheist. . . . But it felt right.' ”2

There is more to this minister's story but the article led me to consider the age old question, “Do Christians that leave the faith remain saved?” In more theological language, this has been known in the church as the Eternal State of the Apostate, or the Lapsed. In most Christian circles the way in which this question is answered relies heavily on the particular theological bent of the believer. There is the “once saved, always saved” ethos, while on the other end there is the “never was saved to begin with” formula. I will say there is biblical truth found in both these positions but let's examine Scripture on the matter.3


In Luke 8 Jesus gives the “Parable of the Sower” in which He relays a story of the spreading of the gospel and how it is received by various hearers. In verse 6 He says that “some fell on the rock, and as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. . .”4  Jesus then explained this parable with the following statement, “The ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away.”5 There are those that would argue that this passage speaks of true believers who depart from the faith into apostasy, but given the differentiation between this group and the last in verse 15 (Having an honest and good heart) it seems to speak of nominal Christians; those who appreciate Jesus but have not taken Him into their heart. In this way, Luke would be in agreement with John's first epistle in which he writes, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. . .”6


Paul, in his letters, writes of fellow believers that have fallen away in a similar fashion: Demas7, as well as Hymaneus and Alexander8; and James, brother of the Lord, writes, “if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death. . .”9 seeming to indicate that a believer in Christ can not only leave the faith but be brought back.


While it might be possible to interpret the preceding passages to say that only nominal Christians leave the faith and therefore were never truly saved to begin with, there is still the haunting message of Hebrews 6, “For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God. . .”10


Committed reformed theologian Thomas Schreiner recognizes the great difficulty in maintaining a “once saved, always saved”, or eternal security, theology in light of this passage, “If I were not convinced of unconditional election, I would surely be an Arminian. The warning passages are so strong that I can understand why many think that believers can lose their salvation. What is interesting to me is that there are so many believers who reject unconditional election and yet they hold on to eternal security.”11 Therefore, for Schreiner to make sense of passages like these, the apostasy described must serve as a warning sent by God to be used as a means by which to prevent the believer from leaving the faith, thereby ensuring their perseverance and eternal security.


For the Arminian, the exact opposite is true. Arminian theology maintains a belief in corporate election and corporate security, meaning that the church as a whole is guaranteed by God to persevere, but this in no way promises the individual believer that they, themselves, will. For the Arminian, passages such as Hebrews 6 say exactly what they appear to, that those who leave the faith lose their salvation. “The possibility of apostasy posits the corporate nature of the election. The Scriptures bear witness to actual instances of apostasy and abound with solemn warnings against the peril, which (contrary to the assumptions of some) is real rather than hypothetical.”12


Others, like philosopher of science William Lane Craig, seek to resolve this conundrum by appealing to God's nature.
 
But it seems to me that here the Calvinist . . . is confusing two quite distinct questions:
Will any elect person fall away, and can an elect person fall away?. . .one is a modal question and the other is a de facto question. . . . Perhaps what you are seeing here is that beneath the surface and surfacing now is this old debate between divine foreknowledge and human freedom. This fatalistic idea that if God knows what will happen then everything happens necessarily. . . that equation is simply logically fallacious. Even if God knows that you will not apostatize, it doesn’t follow that you cannot apostatize. You could apostatize but you won’t. So God’s assuring you that you will not is in no way incompatible with your ability to fall away.”13

Regardless of which path we seek to resolve this difficulty, confusion tends to abound. How, then, do we answer this practically? The early church father, Cyprian, wrote of the desire of believers who had apostatized to avoid persecution or martyrdom and subsequently wished to return to the church. In his Epistle IX he admonished the clergy for being too hasty in bringing them back,

. . . and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion: now with their time still unfulfilled, while persecution is still raging, while the peace of the Church itself is not yet restored, they are admitted to communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the eucharist is given to them. . .”14

In so doing, he warned the church that a seemingly repentant apostate must be observed and tested for a season, before returning to the church in full brotherhood. However, later in his Epistle X, Cyprian affirmed that such a restoration was possible, “. . . and to the lapsed indeed pardon may be granted in respect of this thing. For what dead person would not hasten to be made alive? Who would not be eager to attain to his own salvation?”15

 
Cyprian's words are similar to those of James in which it is encouraged that the church seek to restore those who have wandered from the faith. What remains important for you and I is to acknowledge that an individual's eternal state with God rests solely on their confession and repentance in Jesus Christ. The true and saving work of justification is not an outwardly visible one in many respects. Such a change can be evidenced often in the manner in which a believer carries themselves, but this is not always a certainty. Therefore, rather than dispute about an apostate's eternal state, we must continue in the admonition of our Lord to be known by our love.16 This is not a permissive love that ignores the sins of a former brother or sister in the Lord, but a love which causes us to come alongside them, when possible, listen to their doubts, their anger and their struggles, and encourage them to return to their first Love.

In the case of the Methodist pastor mentioned above, she felt as though she served under a demanding God and as a result of this misconception of God, her struggle evolved into doubts that went unanswered and eventually led to an abandonment of faith. She was not serving the One who said, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly of heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my burden is easy and my yoke is light.”17 Far too often we enter into the theological side of this debate only to justify the condemnation of those to whom we feel superior. Christ has called us to a better way, a way of unconditional love. Yes, a tree is known by its fruit, so prove where your roots lead by producing fruit for the kingdom and love even your wayward brethren.






3 I will state from the very outset that this discussion is far too lengthy for a simple blog post and that for every Scripture listed another can be presented for the opposing side. Because of this I recommend readers seek more study from theologians such as Thomas Schreiner, Darrel Bock, Douglas Moo, William Lane Craig, Craig L. Bloomberg and Mike Brown. All have written on this subject from their various perspectives and provide excellent information to consider.

4 Luke 8:6.

5 Luke 8:13.

6 1 John 2:19

7 2 Tim. 4:10

8 1 Tim. 1:19-20.

9 James 5:19-20.

10 Hebrews 6:4-6.

11 Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Spring 1998, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 32-62. See http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/2.1_article.pdf (Accessed February 18, 2016).

12 Robert Shank, Elect in the Son (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publisers, 1989), 49.




16 John 13:35.

17 Matt. 11:29-30.

Sunday, February 14, 2016

God is Unchanging



GOD IS IMMUTABLE NOTES

Immutable = changeless

God does not change; he is the same yesterday, today and forever.  The doctrine of God's immutability has historically been a great comfort to believers, for it means that we can rely on God's consistency and faithfulness.

Ps. 102.25-27 says that God will remain the same even after all things change.

Mal. 3.6 in which God says, “I the LORD do not change.”

Jam. 1.17: “Every good and perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights in whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.”

Eph. 1.11:  God's purpose doesn't change. 

Ps. 103.17:  God's mercy is never-ending, i.e. changeless. 

Prov. 19.21 and Ps. 33.11: His counsel “stands forever”. 

Is. 14.24: God says, “I have planned it, so it will stand.” 

1 Cor. 1.20: the promises of God do not change.

God does not change in His:

1.                  Being
2.                  Character
3.                  Purposes
4.                  Mercy
5.                  Counsel
6.                  Promises

God doesn't change in who He is, and what He determines to do.

There are still passages that seem to say that God does change.  

 Ex. 32.10-14 God wants to destroy Israel, yet Moses asks God for mercy and God is said to relent and not bring the disaster he had threatened.

 Similar passages that say God repented or changed from a decision such as this are Jud. 2.18; Jer. 26.19; and Jon. 3. 10

Probably most peculiar of all is 1 Sam. 15.10-11 contrasted with 28-29.  How can it be written in the very same chapter that God repented of choosing Saul, and then say that God does not change His mind?


Anthropomorphism = human attributes are applied to God, so that we might have a baseline of understanding when thinking of Him.

While inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Bible is written by humans, to humans, and therefore we should expect it to speak from a primarily human perspective.  

This can be the case for when we read of God “repenting” or “changing His mind”, because, from our perspective it's as if God ceased from being angry and become appeased.

In Rom. 1.18 we read that he wrath of God falls upon the godless and wicked.  In 1 Jo. 1.9 we also read that if we repent of our sins, God will forgive us and cleanse us from unrighteousness.  We know that this is always the case, because God doesn't change in relation to His character.

God has decreed that He will judge the unrighteous and love the righteous.

We read in Scripture that the fervent prayer of a righteous man accomplishes much.  In the case of Moses, we have his prayer covering the sins of his people, but it is not bringing about a change in God, rather it is bringing the people from the side of God's wrath over to the side of His forgiveness and love.  The same can be said of King Saul in 1 Samuel.  His actions brought him under God's wrath and judgment, therefore Samuel was not wrong or hypocritical in saying that God does not change, for His character remained consistent, as Saul went from following the Lord to turning away.

Is This Really a Comfort?

For many people, the idea that God doesn't change is anything but comforting.  They argue that a God that doesn't change can't be related to.  That He couldn't possibly care about us, and what's more there's no point in even praying to Him because you can't change His mind!

1.                  God does care for us, and that does not change.  He cared enough to send His Son to die on our behalf, and this decision took place before creation even began.

2.                   Prayer is not meant to change God's mind.

A.        Think of the Lord's prayer in Matt. 6:  “Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name.  Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”  At no point does Jesus tell us to pray my will be done.
B.         Prayer is like being in a small boat near shore, and grasping the bank with a boat  hook to pull you there.  When you do this, you're not pulling the shore to you, but   pulling yourself closer to the shore.  In the same way, prayer is not bringing God to you and your will, but causing you to be brought in line with His will and closer to Him.

What about the Incarnation?  Doesn't the fact that God became man constitute a change?

1.                  We've already seen that Scripture clearly teaches that God doesn't change in His being, nature or character.
2.                  The nature of the incarnation is a mystery in many ways, because we cannot fully understand how it takes place. 
3.                  Where Scripture is clear, we must give way to it, even if there exists one aspect that we don't fully understand.

Phil. 2. 5-8:  He [Jesus] “emptied” himself and took upon the form of a servant or human being.

Jesus Christ had a human nature and a divine nature.  100% God and 100% man.

The divine nature of the Son of God never changed.  He possessed all the attributes, unchanged that God possesses.

How Then Should We Live?

God is and always will be our refuge.  He will always receive us as believers and seek His will in our lives.

It can bring us caution as well, when we consider the context of a passage like 2 Tim. 2.13.  It's one of those passages we like to use for encouragement, but in reality Paul is saying that if we disown God He disowns us, and when we are faithless, He is faithful, in the sense that He will judge.

It is because of God's immutability that we can know that our salvation is secure.


The promise is that those who believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved and this is a promise made by God.  In the same way that we saw God's faithfulness to Israel in Jeremiah because His promises do not change, so too does His promise stand for us.  It doesn't rely on our works, because the promise isn't based on performance but on the unchanging character of God.  And that is something everyone of us needs to be very thankful for.

Monday, February 8, 2016

Defending the Reliability of The Scriptures

Image result for bible translations

"First of all, it’s not true we’re dealing with “a translation of translations of translations,” as if the original Greek first went into Chinese which went into German which went into Polish and finally we got around to putting it into English. No, we’re able to translate directly from the original Greek and Hebrew, so at worst we’re dealing with a translation, full stop. . .

The Reliability of Scripture

Saturday, February 6, 2016

New Atheism and the Problem of Evil Part 2

New Atheism and the Problem of Evil







The Problem of Evil Cont.

Posted by Clark Bates
February 6, 2016


            Two forms of the problem of evil are presently in circulation today.  The first, known as the deductive problem of evil, aims to show that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with one or more of the major tenets of the Christian faith."[1]  In syllogism form this argument appears as follows:

        1.  God exists.
        2.  God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
        3.  God created the world.
        4.  Yet the world contains evil.
        5.Therefore,

         a.  God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, and not              omnibenevolent; or                   
                
         b.  God does not exist.

 It is argued that God has the power to do anything, such as defeat evil;  He has the knowledge to do so; and supposedly loves His creation and should want to defeat evil.  Yet evil exists.  Therefore, "If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to.  God, therefore, is either impotent or evil."[2]  If this can be proven, and a contradiction with the attributes of God listed above can be found to be inconsistent or contradictory with the existence of evil in the world, Christian belief is necessarily false and must be abandoned.

          The second problem of evil is known as the inductive problem of evil or the problem of gratuitous evil.  In many cases, this version of the problem finds more adherents, because it touches on the life experiences of many.  In syllogism form it looks as follows:

        1.  An all-good God must have a good purpose for everything.
        2.  But there is no good purpose for some (i.e. gratuitous)                 suffering.
        3.  Hence there cannot be an all-good God.[3]

The common defense against the deductive problem of evil is referred to as the "greater good defense" and will be discussed in detail below.  The power of the inductive problem of evil is that if it can be proven that gratuitous, or purposeless, evil exists in the world, there is no greater good that it can serve. As Nash states,

        "What if the world contains gratuitous evil. . .?  If this is so, the appeal to greater good would collapse and with it, apparently, would also fall the claim that God permits evil because it is a necessary condition for some greater good or the avoidance of some greater evil."[4]
The Naturalist's Response to Evil
           
What then is the naturalists solution to this problem?  While some might suggest the plausibility of an "evil" God, this claim is easily dismissed as such a god would not constitute a being worthy of worship, which is inherent in the definition of "God".  The most common response, held by new atheism is that neither good nor evil exist upon any grounds outside natural selection and social considerations.  Subsequently, there need not be any speculation as to why such things occur or any need to seek supernatural basis for the collective remorse felt from the suffering evil causes.  In his writing, Sam Harris has especially promoted this position saying,

        "For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing, there    need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in this world.  If there are psychological laws that govern human well- being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality."[5]

      While not considered part of the "four horsemen" of new atheism, skeptic and author Michael Shermer  also shares this sentiment and speaks for many in the new atheist movement when he writes,

        "Think about it this way: evolution created moral sentiments and concomitant behaviors over hundreds of thousands of   years, so that today even though we agree that humans  created morality and ethics, it is not us who created the moral sentiments and behaviors, it was our Paleolithic ancestors who did so in those long-gone millennia."[6]   
   
        If the advice of Shermer, Harris, and the like, is to be embraced, and God is removed from the equation of morality, the moral authority, if one can be surmised, is found only in mankind.  While not going so far as to suggest individual morality, Harris promotes a solution to any possible ambiguity surrounding how such a naturalistic morality could be grounded,

        "Only genuine moral experts would have a deep understanding of the causes and conditions of human and animal well-being. . . .Many people's reflexive response to the notion of moral expertise is to say, “I don't want anyone telling me how to live   my life."  To which I only respond, “If there were a way for you and those you care about to be much happier than you are now, would you want to know about it?”[7]

        This, then, is the challenge: Theism in general and Christianity in particular cannot reasonably or coherently account for the presence of evil, be it natural, moral, or gratuitous, while maintaining the existence of a sovereign, loving God.  Because of this, it is more rational to embrace the existence of evil as without cause or purpose, and the moral response to it as an out-flowing of evolutionary growth that may be maintained through societal processes and intuitive "morality" existing within all of humanity.

            Such a challenge looms heavily upon those who seek to maintain Christian belief in light of the world that surrounds it.  This attack is a summation of the atheistic rejection of God, evil and freedom, and it is legitimate to claim that theism's account of these items is inadequate.  But, as will be demonstrated below, it is illegitimate for the atheist to claim that a theist cannot solve the problem of evil on such a basis.[8]  If the theist, within his worldview, can resolve the problem of evil in his system, then that system is internally consistent, regardless of whether the atheist likes the intellectual commitments it may involve. . .

Next time we'll begin to address the Christian response to the deductive problem of evil...





[1]           Ronald H. Nash, “The Problem of Evil” in Beckwith, Francis J., William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland,
 To Everyone and Answer (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2004), 213.
[2]               Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), 55.
[3]           While there are many derivations of this syllogism, I have used Norman Geisler's version for its more accessible phraseology.  Norman L. Geisler, If God, Why Evil? (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2011), 46.

[4]           Ronald H. Nash, “The Problem of Evil”, in Beckwith, Francis J., William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland,
 To Everyone and Answer (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2004), 218.
[5]               Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation  (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), 23-4.
[6]           Michael  Shermer, The Science of Good & Evil (New York: Henry Holdt, 2004), 18-9.
[7]           Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010), 36, 202.  Such a closing statement is ironic considering this is, in many ways, the spiritual argument leveled at Harris for his unwillingness to accept the existence of God or the redemption offered through Jesus Christ.
[8]           J.S. Feinberg, "Evil, Problem of" in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter A. Elwell ed., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 414.