Some people have wondered if they should have been visiting people that they knew were prisoners. One place in the Scriptures that gives ...
ThiS iS hOw wE HAve To coMmuniCAte riGht NOW: Visiting the prisoners:
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Monday, October 24, 2016
Going Against One's Word or Breaking Vows
"Inherent in the problem having to do with breaking a vow that one has previously made (from a Biblical point of view) is the classic distinction between "law" and "grace"....."
(for the rest of the post, click here)- ThiS iS hOw wE HAve To coMmuniCAte riGht NOW: Going Against One's Word or Breaking Vows: .
(for the rest of the post, click here)- ThiS iS hOw wE HAve To coMmuniCAte riGht NOW: Going Against One's Word or Breaking Vows: .
Friday, October 21, 2016
My Doctrine
It has become more and more apparent to me that giving a doctrinal statement somewhere would help my ministry and life efforts, so I am going to freely give it right here. (thankfully, I won't have to write or rewrite a whole creed or confession.) I am hoping that it will help heal schisms, mainly through persons being reconciled to God through Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:18).
My doctrine is Protestant and Reformed. The closest confession or creed to how I actually believe is the Westminster Confession of Faith. I hold to the five points of Calvinism in "tulip" form which are: 1) Total Depravity 2) Unconditional Election 3) Limited Atonement 4) Irresistible Grace and 5) Perseverence of the Saints. I hold to Sola Scriptura and agree the canon is closed. I am noncessationist on the topic of spiritual gifts. The modern giving of prophecy, however, is not equivalent to revelation of canonical importance unless it's mirroring something already said in the scriptures (like what I wrote about here), and in that case since it's already in the Bible, and so then one is not adding to canon in that case anyway. The Scriptures contain sufficient teaching for life, morals, and salvation. I am not the only person with a Reformed Theological stance who is a noncessationist when it comes to spiritual gifts. With me on that viewpoint of noncessationism would also be Vincent Cheung and Wayne Grudem.
My doctrine is Protestant and Reformed. The closest confession or creed to how I actually believe is the Westminster Confession of Faith. I hold to the five points of Calvinism in "tulip" form which are: 1) Total Depravity 2) Unconditional Election 3) Limited Atonement 4) Irresistible Grace and 5) Perseverence of the Saints. I hold to Sola Scriptura and agree the canon is closed. I am noncessationist on the topic of spiritual gifts. The modern giving of prophecy, however, is not equivalent to revelation of canonical importance unless it's mirroring something already said in the scriptures (like what I wrote about here), and in that case since it's already in the Bible, and so then one is not adding to canon in that case anyway. The Scriptures contain sufficient teaching for life, morals, and salvation. I am not the only person with a Reformed Theological stance who is a noncessationist when it comes to spiritual gifts. With me on that viewpoint of noncessationism would also be Vincent Cheung and Wayne Grudem.
Saturday, October 1, 2016
The Nihilism Hypothesis
The Nihilism Hypothesis is a hypothesis which I have generated from current societal observation. My hypothesis is that the epistemological failure of evidential apologists is resulting in philosophical nihilism on the parts of many people in society, perhaps on a grand scale. The essence of the problem is that who would subscribe to a worldview that they cannot know for sure to be true? I myself would not. Yet, I subscribe to a worldview that I know to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not sure that evidential apologists can say that they know their worldview is true to the same capacity as that. I have had online discussions which seem to indicate that that may very well be the case of the matter.
The way that philosophical nihilism is being expressed by the madding crowds is in the form of sayings and platitudes, like "no one cares," and "I don't care." That this point of view would result in people acting and talking like modern Philistines is not surprising. They don't have the right view of themselves and others, so cannot give an honest assessment of anything at all in the realm of knowledge.
I praise God that I can know for sure my worldview is true, and that I can know beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth lived, died on the cross, and resurrected. I know that "saving knowledge" can be held way beyond reasonable certainty.
One could accuse me of arguing from subjectivity, but what do the Scriptures say? "that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." 2 Colossians 2:2-3 NASB
One could accuse me of arguing from subjectivity, but what do the Scriptures say? "that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." 2 Colossians 2:2-3 NASB
Monday, June 27, 2016
Dismantling of Documentary Hypothesis in Favor of Mosaic Authorship of Deuteronomy (Supplemental Approach)
The internal evidence for Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy is in fact, strong, so if you ask my real opinion, the main issue at hand in regards to the question of Mosaic authorship has more to do with faith than evidence or logic. Since the Scriptures are the infallible Word of God, the narrative histories as presented therein are genuine, priceless, and true, as are the various assertions. The original name in Hebrew for this book meant "These are the words..." taken from the first verse of it which says "These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel across the Jordan in the wilderness..." And that preface sentence introduces the whole book? I don't know how unbelievers and liberal theologians find their way around that except for the fact that their foolish hearts are darkened and the scholars have engaged in a strange level of skepticism, rationalism, and prideful conjecture that undermines what should be the primary aims of their field. Nonetheless the documentary hypothesis, one of the main fallback notions for those who reject Mosaic authorship, can be easily disproven and disregarded for the fact that it rests on and finds its impetus from a series of false premises.
Generally, the documentary hypothesis was a theory to explain authorship of the pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). This approach to Scripture dates back to the Age of Reason. These "scholars" argued in favor of at least four different sources for the pentateuch. In this hypothesis, Deuteronomy itself is conjectured as a different "source" from the four other Mosaic books and they thought it was from hundreds of years after the death of Moses. They simply think it was written at the time of the reform of king Josiah in 2 Kings 22. I beg to differ. While the text of 2 Kings indicates that Josiah's staff found the lost and forgotten book of the Law (the Old Testament up to that point), there is no indication that Josiah or his people wrote, rewrote, or revised any of the Scriptures. While I am arguing for Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy in particular, I seek to dismantle this entire documentary hypothesis approach which deals with all five books of the pentateuch. If the hypothesis as a whole is undermined, the the approach to Deuteronomy that it provides is undermined as well, due to the fact that it depends on several essential premises and presuppositions to make it seem right. According to Oswald T. Allis, there were four main areas considered by these critics when supporting the documentary hypothesis: 1) the variations in the divine names in Genesis 2) the secondary variations in diction and style 3) the parallel or duplicate accounts 4) the continuity of the various sources (from Allis, Oswald T. The Five Books of Moses. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1949. p. 22.) My readers might also want to check out several respectable sources on the documentary hypothesis, such as:
http://carm.org/documentary-hypothesis#footnote1_ce4nxrn and http://www.theopedia.com/jedp-theory
Let me begin to discuss here several of the main problems with the documentary hypothesis.
1) HEBREW WRITING AT THE TIME OF MOSES
Those in favor of the documentary hypothesis support it in part from the premise that they think there was no writing at the time of Moses (or let's face it- they're so lacking in faith that they may think Moses never lived even). There's abundant evidence from archaeology that written alphabets existed before the time of Moses indeed. Some examples are:
1- The Code of Hammurabi- from the period of 2000-1700 B.C.
2- a Ras Shamra tablet showing Ugartic alphabet is the same as modern Hebrew
3-water pitcher from city of Lachish from about 1600 B.C.
For the scholarship and references on these three artifacts, see this article on the same subject- https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=36
2) VARYING NAMES OF GOD DOESN'T MEAN DIFFERENT WRITERS
The use of different names for God in the Pentateuch does not lead to, of logical necessity, the conclusion that there must have been a group of different writers or sources. The proponents of the documentary hypothesis use the different names of God present in the writing as the main premise for finding the conclusion that there were different writers or documents. Moses easily could have known these different names of God. He, after all, visited with the Lord face to face as a man speaks with his friend (Exodus 33:11). The different Hebrew names of God used in Deuteronomy have a different meaning, emphasis and import as to God's attributes, but the explanation of this is best explained in the Jewish writings. The use of the different names does not of logical necessity indicate different writers or documents, when it could also be a literary tool to emphasize different attributes and qualities of God. What is more likely the case of the matter is that Moses knew the different names Elohim and Yahweh and used them expressively in the speeches and writing in the five books of the pentateuch. http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Elohim/elohim.html
3) APPEAL TO AGE (BACKWARDS) FALLACY
Implied in the arguments of those who don't support Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy in any capacity, whether it be the supplementary approach, the documentary hypothesis, or otherwise, is a logical fallacy of a backwards appeal to age. The fallacy of appeal to age is supposed to be, generally, assertions that previous generations had superior wisdom to modern man, and thus conclusions that rely on this wisdom are seen as more true. One cannot say if previous generations had better wisdom, knowledge, or information or not until it is tested and proven logically. To say that they did or didn't as an unproven premise is vapid intellectually. I can visit my local hoe-down and give them a six-pence to receive that level of thinking and information. Proponents of the documentary hypothesis and other late authorship theories seem to rely on the basic idea that understanding of the things of God developed and accumulated slowly over time. Their approach to the names of God indicates this intellectual bias. While it is true the Scriptures exhibit a foundational principle of progressive revelation, the first five books of the Bible are rich and deep with the basics of theology. It is not understood all that Moses knew, because only the canonical writings seem to have survived (most other writings can be debunked, such as the Zohar which is considered pseudepigrapha and not trustworthy). The reasoning here is somewhat circular because I am depending on the historical narratives of Scripture for the fact that Moses lived. The question at hand is in regards to authorship, though. A lot of the respected scholarship takes for granted that Moses lived, but those scholars merely seek to answer in their research and writing whether the historical figure Moses wrote Deuteronomy. They're committing a similar mistake, though, by reasoning in a circle, pre-assuming Moses' existence (it's highly implied in their work, typically, I think).
It is better to keep things simple and just say that Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy cannot be debunked from a backwards appeal to age. The book is well attested to in ancient manuscript documentation. It is part of one of the most excellent preserved histories of ancient Israel- which is the Old Testament.
The idea that the book seems too ancient to have been preserved and transmitted across generations very well is similarly fallacious. One cannot assume that it was not preserved just because it is an ancient text. It does not follow of logical necessity that it is impossible that the original text has been preserved and transmitted accurately just because it is an ancient text purportedly from the time of Moses. One possibility is that the original text has been preserved perfectly, and that is the viewpoint I adhere to. [An understanding of cold hard propositional logic is necessary to understand what I'm saying here. I am not employing mathematical probability or historical understanding, just propositional logic].
4) THE RATIONALISM AND LIBERAL SCHOLARSHIP INVOLVED ARE THEMSELVES MERELY A PHILOSOPHY
Generally, the documentary hypothesis is outdated pseudo-scholarship with deep philosophical biases from doubt, atheism, secularism, and unbelief. From such a starting point as that, there is no way for scholars to trust the authority of the Scriptures, as well as the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures. To apply literary criticism and textual criticism to try to reconstruct the writing of the pentateuch would obviously result in an intellectual travesty and the scandalous of undermining of the faith of many. Simply taking a historian's approach to the document "Deuteronomy," I do not think there really is a problem with treating it as generally what it appears to be (by and large the words of Moses to his people). See my previous blog post about extra-biblical evidence for the link to the "truthbomb apologetics" article on how historians examine ancient documents. http://thereformerblog.blogspot.com/2016/03/extra-biblical-evidence-for-historical.html Even though this article is primarily about New Testament scholarship, the same problems exist in terms of a great need to bridge people's thinking across disciplines in order to see that there are perhaps other valid scholarly approaches to Scripture besides those approaches maintained by unbelieving scholars and believed by their deceived followers. The documentary hypothesis was supposed to be just that- a hypothesis, not a fully proven theory. The unbelieving atheistic philosophy of the original scholars shaded and darkened their approach to the Scriptures a great deal.Their approach, their intellectual tools, and their hypothesis is a worldly philosophy, and shouldn't be a considered a respected academic research. Since the hypothesis is old and kind of outmoded, it is fun for me to "pick on," but I don't think there will be many proponents of it who will be very concerned. There a variety of other theories and models that they rely on. I might touch upon a few of these others in a future blog post here.
5) PARALLEL/DUPLICATE ACCOUNTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY EVIDENCE FOR DIFFERENT SOURCES
The name Deuteronomy means "the second law" and is derived from the language of the Septuagint- an ancient version of the Old Testament in Greek (Latinized form of the LXX title). This is a misnomer, however, because the book is simply the words of Moses giving the same law again to a second generation- those who had not died in the plague in the wilderness on the journey to the promised land (Deuteronomy 4:3 and Numbers 25). Twenty-four thousand people died in the plague mentioned in Numbers 25. The words of Moses in Deuteronomy were originally intended for the remaining people- the next generation, ostensibly, who found themselves old enough at that point to receive Moses's reiteration of God's law. The different and new audience could definitely explain the differences in style and voice from the previous books. Moses's love and care for them, that they receive and understand what God expected was outstanding and excellent. Since Moses was reiterating Israel's history and God's law, promises, and covenant to a people group whose membership had significantly changed (though a lot of them were there before, just young), we can expect a change in style and voice which is well-put and tailored to that group receiving and understanding. Add in to the equation the fact that by that point Moses had a greater amount of leadership experience compared to the time of the Exodus.
The book of Deuteronomy details the giving of the law again to a next generation of Israelites who had survived the plague. It is repetitive with previous material for that reason. To miss that point in scholarly endeavors is really asinine. When scholars postulate such theories as the documentary hypothesis, what they actually seem to cover over and hide is God's love, care, and concern, and Moses's care and concern for his people in making sure they understood God's law and what would be expected when they finally took the promised land.
If repetitive passages at the micro-level are the concern, it is known that Deuteronomy contains chiastic structures which are simply a literary device. There is no evidence to say that Moses couldn't have known how to use chiasms by the end of his life. There is evidence to say he did in fact know about them, because chiasms are used in the book of Genesis even.
I support the viewpoint that Deuteronomy is largely the work of Moses himself, but there could easily have been a redactor or secretary involved in penning the autograph. I tend to think that second person was a contemporary of Moses's. The intro in 1:1-5 and the account of Moses's death could easily have been written by such a person.This viewpoint fits into what scholars call a "supplementary" approach or hypothesis, and would actually be very acceptable academically, I think.
Generally, the documentary hypothesis was a theory to explain authorship of the pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). This approach to Scripture dates back to the Age of Reason. These "scholars" argued in favor of at least four different sources for the pentateuch. In this hypothesis, Deuteronomy itself is conjectured as a different "source" from the four other Mosaic books and they thought it was from hundreds of years after the death of Moses. They simply think it was written at the time of the reform of king Josiah in 2 Kings 22. I beg to differ. While the text of 2 Kings indicates that Josiah's staff found the lost and forgotten book of the Law (the Old Testament up to that point), there is no indication that Josiah or his people wrote, rewrote, or revised any of the Scriptures. While I am arguing for Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy in particular, I seek to dismantle this entire documentary hypothesis approach which deals with all five books of the pentateuch. If the hypothesis as a whole is undermined, the the approach to Deuteronomy that it provides is undermined as well, due to the fact that it depends on several essential premises and presuppositions to make it seem right. According to Oswald T. Allis, there were four main areas considered by these critics when supporting the documentary hypothesis: 1) the variations in the divine names in Genesis 2) the secondary variations in diction and style 3) the parallel or duplicate accounts 4) the continuity of the various sources (from Allis, Oswald T. The Five Books of Moses. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1949. p. 22.) My readers might also want to check out several respectable sources on the documentary hypothesis, such as:
http://carm.org/documentary-hypothesis#footnote1_ce4nxrn and http://www.theopedia.com/jedp-theory
Let me begin to discuss here several of the main problems with the documentary hypothesis.
1) HEBREW WRITING AT THE TIME OF MOSES
Those in favor of the documentary hypothesis support it in part from the premise that they think there was no writing at the time of Moses (or let's face it- they're so lacking in faith that they may think Moses never lived even). There's abundant evidence from archaeology that written alphabets existed before the time of Moses indeed. Some examples are:
1- The Code of Hammurabi- from the period of 2000-1700 B.C.
2- a Ras Shamra tablet showing Ugartic alphabet is the same as modern Hebrew
3-water pitcher from city of Lachish from about 1600 B.C.
For the scholarship and references on these three artifacts, see this article on the same subject- https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=36
2) VARYING NAMES OF GOD DOESN'T MEAN DIFFERENT WRITERS
The use of different names for God in the Pentateuch does not lead to, of logical necessity, the conclusion that there must have been a group of different writers or sources. The proponents of the documentary hypothesis use the different names of God present in the writing as the main premise for finding the conclusion that there were different writers or documents. Moses easily could have known these different names of God. He, after all, visited with the Lord face to face as a man speaks with his friend (Exodus 33:11). The different Hebrew names of God used in Deuteronomy have a different meaning, emphasis and import as to God's attributes, but the explanation of this is best explained in the Jewish writings. The use of the different names does not of logical necessity indicate different writers or documents, when it could also be a literary tool to emphasize different attributes and qualities of God. What is more likely the case of the matter is that Moses knew the different names Elohim and Yahweh and used them expressively in the speeches and writing in the five books of the pentateuch. http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Elohim/elohim.html
3) APPEAL TO AGE (BACKWARDS) FALLACY
Implied in the arguments of those who don't support Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy in any capacity, whether it be the supplementary approach, the documentary hypothesis, or otherwise, is a logical fallacy of a backwards appeal to age. The fallacy of appeal to age is supposed to be, generally, assertions that previous generations had superior wisdom to modern man, and thus conclusions that rely on this wisdom are seen as more true. One cannot say if previous generations had better wisdom, knowledge, or information or not until it is tested and proven logically. To say that they did or didn't as an unproven premise is vapid intellectually. I can visit my local hoe-down and give them a six-pence to receive that level of thinking and information. Proponents of the documentary hypothesis and other late authorship theories seem to rely on the basic idea that understanding of the things of God developed and accumulated slowly over time. Their approach to the names of God indicates this intellectual bias. While it is true the Scriptures exhibit a foundational principle of progressive revelation, the first five books of the Bible are rich and deep with the basics of theology. It is not understood all that Moses knew, because only the canonical writings seem to have survived (most other writings can be debunked, such as the Zohar which is considered pseudepigrapha and not trustworthy). The reasoning here is somewhat circular because I am depending on the historical narratives of Scripture for the fact that Moses lived. The question at hand is in regards to authorship, though. A lot of the respected scholarship takes for granted that Moses lived, but those scholars merely seek to answer in their research and writing whether the historical figure Moses wrote Deuteronomy. They're committing a similar mistake, though, by reasoning in a circle, pre-assuming Moses' existence (it's highly implied in their work, typically, I think).
It is better to keep things simple and just say that Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy cannot be debunked from a backwards appeal to age. The book is well attested to in ancient manuscript documentation. It is part of one of the most excellent preserved histories of ancient Israel- which is the Old Testament.
The idea that the book seems too ancient to have been preserved and transmitted across generations very well is similarly fallacious. One cannot assume that it was not preserved just because it is an ancient text. It does not follow of logical necessity that it is impossible that the original text has been preserved and transmitted accurately just because it is an ancient text purportedly from the time of Moses. One possibility is that the original text has been preserved perfectly, and that is the viewpoint I adhere to. [An understanding of cold hard propositional logic is necessary to understand what I'm saying here. I am not employing mathematical probability or historical understanding, just propositional logic].
4) THE RATIONALISM AND LIBERAL SCHOLARSHIP INVOLVED ARE THEMSELVES MERELY A PHILOSOPHY
Generally, the documentary hypothesis is outdated pseudo-scholarship with deep philosophical biases from doubt, atheism, secularism, and unbelief. From such a starting point as that, there is no way for scholars to trust the authority of the Scriptures, as well as the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures. To apply literary criticism and textual criticism to try to reconstruct the writing of the pentateuch would obviously result in an intellectual travesty and the scandalous of undermining of the faith of many. Simply taking a historian's approach to the document "Deuteronomy," I do not think there really is a problem with treating it as generally what it appears to be (by and large the words of Moses to his people). See my previous blog post about extra-biblical evidence for the link to the "truthbomb apologetics" article on how historians examine ancient documents. http://thereformerblog.blogspot.com/2016/03/extra-biblical-evidence-for-historical.html Even though this article is primarily about New Testament scholarship, the same problems exist in terms of a great need to bridge people's thinking across disciplines in order to see that there are perhaps other valid scholarly approaches to Scripture besides those approaches maintained by unbelieving scholars and believed by their deceived followers. The documentary hypothesis was supposed to be just that- a hypothesis, not a fully proven theory. The unbelieving atheistic philosophy of the original scholars shaded and darkened their approach to the Scriptures a great deal.Their approach, their intellectual tools, and their hypothesis is a worldly philosophy, and shouldn't be a considered a respected academic research. Since the hypothesis is old and kind of outmoded, it is fun for me to "pick on," but I don't think there will be many proponents of it who will be very concerned. There a variety of other theories and models that they rely on. I might touch upon a few of these others in a future blog post here.
5) PARALLEL/DUPLICATE ACCOUNTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY EVIDENCE FOR DIFFERENT SOURCES
The name Deuteronomy means "the second law" and is derived from the language of the Septuagint- an ancient version of the Old Testament in Greek (Latinized form of the LXX title). This is a misnomer, however, because the book is simply the words of Moses giving the same law again to a second generation- those who had not died in the plague in the wilderness on the journey to the promised land (Deuteronomy 4:3 and Numbers 25). Twenty-four thousand people died in the plague mentioned in Numbers 25. The words of Moses in Deuteronomy were originally intended for the remaining people- the next generation, ostensibly, who found themselves old enough at that point to receive Moses's reiteration of God's law. The different and new audience could definitely explain the differences in style and voice from the previous books. Moses's love and care for them, that they receive and understand what God expected was outstanding and excellent. Since Moses was reiterating Israel's history and God's law, promises, and covenant to a people group whose membership had significantly changed (though a lot of them were there before, just young), we can expect a change in style and voice which is well-put and tailored to that group receiving and understanding. Add in to the equation the fact that by that point Moses had a greater amount of leadership experience compared to the time of the Exodus.
The book of Deuteronomy details the giving of the law again to a next generation of Israelites who had survived the plague. It is repetitive with previous material for that reason. To miss that point in scholarly endeavors is really asinine. When scholars postulate such theories as the documentary hypothesis, what they actually seem to cover over and hide is God's love, care, and concern, and Moses's care and concern for his people in making sure they understood God's law and what would be expected when they finally took the promised land.
If repetitive passages at the micro-level are the concern, it is known that Deuteronomy contains chiastic structures which are simply a literary device. There is no evidence to say that Moses couldn't have known how to use chiasms by the end of his life. There is evidence to say he did in fact know about them, because chiasms are used in the book of Genesis even.
I support the viewpoint that Deuteronomy is largely the work of Moses himself, but there could easily have been a redactor or secretary involved in penning the autograph. I tend to think that second person was a contemporary of Moses's. The intro in 1:1-5 and the account of Moses's death could easily have been written by such a person.This viewpoint fits into what scholars call a "supplementary" approach or hypothesis, and would actually be very acceptable academically, I think.
Sunday, May 29, 2016
Known "Socialist" Sanders Commits Economic Fallacy in Speech...
Recently, known "socialist" Bernie Sanders, as part of his 2016 presidential election campaign, stopped in San Pedro, CA to give a speech and committed a well-known economic fallacy called ...ThiS iS hOw wE HAve To coMmuniCAte riGht NOW: Known "Socialist" Sanders Commits Economic Fallacy...:
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Christianity was not invented at the Council of Nicea
Despite the fact that we are in the age of information, there are still people who think that Christianity was invented at the Council of Nicea. (?) No, Christianity was not invented at the Council of Nicea. I found this great and informative video created by the director of the Ratio Christi Club at Cal State Fullerton outlining church history in regards to what is called the first council of Nicea. I am sorry that all this will be a news flash for some people.
https://youtu.be/JHi3RbtF7Zk?list=UUUNOVDpnXxNYqEO8sjvqU1A
https://youtu.be/JHi3RbtF7Zk?list=UUUNOVDpnXxNYqEO8sjvqU1A
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Proof we're on the leading edge
This is just proof that The Reformer is on the leading edge. I've released several physical copies of the first print issue on the "downlow" and look what gets written in The Week magazine three days later! It's talking about reforming the jail system which is what I (the editor-in-chief) wrote about in the print edition of The Reformer.
http://theweek.com/articles/618960/how-26yearold-white-woman-died-horrible-death-american-jail
It just goes to show you that we at The Reformer are on the leading edge.
http://theweek.com/articles/618960/how-26yearold-white-woman-died-horrible-death-american-jail
It just goes to show you that we at The Reformer are on the leading edge.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Say What You Will About Liberation Theology....
Say what you will about Liberation Theology people- at least they have an ethical basis for wanting to be treated right as people! The person in this video (with the youtube/hangouts username "psycho") is an atheist. Where is his ethical basis for fair treatment if the Bible is casually and calmly disregarded?
The Christian in the video is James (all4Hisgloryalone) from our third street apologetics ministries. I enjoyed the video.
In the May issue of The Reformer Magazine I address the issue of how/could/would/should the Biblical principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" be applied to current criminal justice systems such as that of the United States of America at the state and local levels. (notwithstanding the rich historical implications as our current system has some Biblical derivation.) See http://reformermagazine.webs.com/issues
Links about liberation theology-
http://www.theopedia.com/liberation-theology
http://www.britannica.com/topic/liberation-theology
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/liberation_theology.aspx
http://www.gotquestions.org/liberation-theology.html
The Christian in the video is James (all4Hisgloryalone) from our third street apologetics ministries. I enjoyed the video.
In the May issue of The Reformer Magazine I address the issue of how/could/would/should the Biblical principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" be applied to current criminal justice systems such as that of the United States of America at the state and local levels. (notwithstanding the rich historical implications as our current system has some Biblical derivation.) See http://reformermagazine.webs.com/issues
Links about liberation theology-
http://www.theopedia.com/liberation-theology
http://www.britannica.com/topic/liberation-theology
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/liberation_theology.aspx
http://www.gotquestions.org/liberation-theology.html
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Argument from Moral Conscience- Islam
In regards to my last post, some may wonder why I'm presenting information which proves that there's no way around a literal interpretation of the Qur'an if I don't want Muslims committing horrific acts of violence. Let me reassure people that the tension is not within my own worldview, but that of the followers of Islam. Everyone meets on the common ground which is God's created world with God-given conscience, and that is one of the main points of contact Christians have with the unbelieving world. Our Bible explains creation, conscience, and morals, and is consistent on all points, including God's commands. If one follows the teachings of the Qur'an and adopts Islam as his or her worldview, then one will be subscribing to a worldview in conflict with what one knows in one's conscience to be acceptable moral behavior. There will be no way to ever resolve that internal tension in one's thought system for as long as one is professing Islam as one's worldview. It looks like the writer of the article I was commenting on, Nabeel Qureshi, got bend out of shape for a long time during his life in trying to resolve that internal tension, and then finally abandoned Islam for Christianity. You cannot ask me, Mr. Black, to help others resolve it any other way. There is no other way out of it- the foundational doctrines of Islam were set down long ago even. Furthermore, the teachings of Islam are not the truth of the matter. People are being sold a bill of goods which is actually a pack of lies. This pack of lies says, among other things, that all paths lead to God and all paths lead to heaven. Not true. (and that type of universalism and relativism is not supposed to be a teaching in Islam at all! They just tend to talk that way!)
If there is some kind of difficulty here, it is the various dilemmas involved in how to get the necessary truths out to people when those truths are going to have a reprehensible quality to them due to the fact they've already bought into a pack of lies. I would agree that not all truths are worth speaking. Some truths are worth speaking, though. The flawed doctrines of Islam have to be exposed for what they are so that people can see properly what they've been asked to believe in, follow, endorse, etc. Morality is on my side in these arguments, as Islam, when properly examined and exposed, will be shown to endorse, condone, sanctify and justify immoral and unconscionable behavior. Conscience does not allow for the type of senseless and needless violence supposedly commanded by "Allah" in the Qur'an.
If there is some kind of difficulty here, it is the various dilemmas involved in how to get the necessary truths out to people when those truths are going to have a reprehensible quality to them due to the fact they've already bought into a pack of lies. I would agree that not all truths are worth speaking. Some truths are worth speaking, though. The flawed doctrines of Islam have to be exposed for what they are so that people can see properly what they've been asked to believe in, follow, endorse, etc. Morality is on my side in these arguments, as Islam, when properly examined and exposed, will be shown to endorse, condone, sanctify and justify immoral and unconscionable behavior. Conscience does not allow for the type of senseless and needless violence supposedly commanded by "Allah" in the Qur'an.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Quran Interpretation and the Attack in Brussels
I was not surprised to hear that the attacks in Brussels were conducted by Muslims. This is an interesting article from USA Today-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/22/radicalization-isil-islam-sacred-texts-literal-interpretation-column/81808560/
Now Mr. Qureshi (writer of article), what about the doctrine of abrogation in Islam, based on Surah 2:106 which says, "None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? (Y. Ali) . Aren't the more peaceful verses of the Qur'an which conflict with the more violent verses supposed to be abrogated by the more violent verses which conflict with them? There is no way around proper interpretation of the Qur'an as "literal" in regards to the violent verses. (but obviously I'm not agreeing people should follow the violent verses, either. They should receive Jesus in their heart and follow Him as God, Lord, Christ). A realize that Mr. Qureshi is on the same side as me in this, and that his testimony could help take Muslims by the hand and lead them to the Lord.
Here's a good resource on abrogation in the Qur'an: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/10/the-islamic-doctrine-of-abrogation And another one- http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Abrogation_(Naskh)
Trust me, I understand muslims tend to follow the leaders of their mosques and always refer me to them for answers, because they count on their imams for interpretation (or how to deceive unbelievers as to how they're interpreting). I'll be heading over to a mosque one of these days to just ask a few questions.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/22/radicalization-isil-islam-sacred-texts-literal-interpretation-column/81808560/
Now Mr. Qureshi (writer of article), what about the doctrine of abrogation in Islam, based on Surah 2:106 which says, "None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? (Y. Ali) . Aren't the more peaceful verses of the Qur'an which conflict with the more violent verses supposed to be abrogated by the more violent verses which conflict with them? There is no way around proper interpretation of the Qur'an as "literal" in regards to the violent verses. (but obviously I'm not agreeing people should follow the violent verses, either. They should receive Jesus in their heart and follow Him as God, Lord, Christ). A realize that Mr. Qureshi is on the same side as me in this, and that his testimony could help take Muslims by the hand and lead them to the Lord.
Here's a good resource on abrogation in the Qur'an: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/10/the-islamic-doctrine-of-abrogation And another one- http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Abrogation_(Naskh)
Trust me, I understand muslims tend to follow the leaders of their mosques and always refer me to them for answers, because they count on their imams for interpretation (or how to deceive unbelievers as to how they're interpreting). I'll be heading over to a mosque one of these days to just ask a few questions.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
A Vision of Hell
A lot of people that know me wonder why I act as I do and place emphasis on things in life such as my blogs, and why I prioritize the way I do. To tell you the truth several years ago I was shown a vision of hell, by the hand of God I'm sure. I did not have a near death experience and go to hell. I did not experience hell in a dream world. I was simply shown an extensive vision of hell in my mind's visual field. I have seen such a vision on two different occasions. All this is quite aside from the details of my preparation to run this blog.
It is not really necessary to share the full extent of my vision here- the vision falls into the category of "spiritual experiences." The vision didn't contradict the scripture's teachings on hell. There were simply a lot of small details in the vision that the Bible is silent on. When I tried to tell others, the details of the vision caused disputes. Therefore, it would only cause division and arguments to describe everything I saw in the vision in this post. The bible tells me to avoid endless and needless arguing. But not only would I be speaking in some respects where the Scriptures are silent, also my investigation subsequent to the vision took me into some territory and terrain where it is hard to say for sure if I am right. I was even, at the time, looking into Bob Morey's book Death and the Afterlife, and was able to confirm several more things from the vision from that book.
Jesus taught extensively about hell, as the Bible inerrantly records. What we know from Jesus's teachings in the scriptures is that:
1) you can't leave hell if assigned there (Luke 16:19-31)
2) God gave humanity sufficient warning as to how to avoid hell (Luke 16:27-30)
3) it's a fiery furnace (Matthew 13:42)
4) there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:42)
5) it's a place of outer darkness (Matthew 8:12)
6) it is punishment for eternity (Matthew 25:46, Revelation 14:9-11)
7) it's a place of torment (Luke 16:23)
8) worms don't die there (Mark 9:43-48)
9) it is comparable to a fiery garbage pit called "gehenna" (Matthew 5:29 for example)
10) there are differing levels of punishment in hell (Matthew 11:20-22)
This is just a short list of information about hell from Jesus's teachings. I can tell you from examining the biblical evidence that the vision I saw probably really actually is what the different levels of hell look like (different levels of punishment). Jesus taught with a high level of class and dignity (with perfection actually), when he talks about hell- his language is loaded with enough information to warn us that hell is a bad place we would not want to go to. However, he does not over-indulge in all the finer details of the various types of torment people will undergo here. It is simply a smattering of the right type of detail- with precise language. I just say this because the vision I saw was very much an atrocity [that is not to say God is unjust. I can't find a better word that encapsulates all of it from a human point of view], and gave me the feel that hell is a place that no one in their right mind would want to go to. Have faith in Jesus to save you from that destination.
To bring the discussion back around to where I began, I've seen what hell looks like. The experience has influenced me and contributed to the way I order my life.
It is not really necessary to share the full extent of my vision here- the vision falls into the category of "spiritual experiences." The vision didn't contradict the scripture's teachings on hell. There were simply a lot of small details in the vision that the Bible is silent on. When I tried to tell others, the details of the vision caused disputes. Therefore, it would only cause division and arguments to describe everything I saw in the vision in this post. The bible tells me to avoid endless and needless arguing. But not only would I be speaking in some respects where the Scriptures are silent, also my investigation subsequent to the vision took me into some territory and terrain where it is hard to say for sure if I am right. I was even, at the time, looking into Bob Morey's book Death and the Afterlife, and was able to confirm several more things from the vision from that book.
Jesus taught extensively about hell, as the Bible inerrantly records. What we know from Jesus's teachings in the scriptures is that:
1) you can't leave hell if assigned there (Luke 16:19-31)
2) God gave humanity sufficient warning as to how to avoid hell (Luke 16:27-30)
3) it's a fiery furnace (Matthew 13:42)
4) there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:42)
5) it's a place of outer darkness (Matthew 8:12)
6) it is punishment for eternity (Matthew 25:46, Revelation 14:9-11)
7) it's a place of torment (Luke 16:23)
8) worms don't die there (Mark 9:43-48)
9) it is comparable to a fiery garbage pit called "gehenna" (Matthew 5:29 for example)
10) there are differing levels of punishment in hell (Matthew 11:20-22)
This is just a short list of information about hell from Jesus's teachings. I can tell you from examining the biblical evidence that the vision I saw probably really actually is what the different levels of hell look like (different levels of punishment). Jesus taught with a high level of class and dignity (with perfection actually), when he talks about hell- his language is loaded with enough information to warn us that hell is a bad place we would not want to go to. However, he does not over-indulge in all the finer details of the various types of torment people will undergo here. It is simply a smattering of the right type of detail- with precise language. I just say this because the vision I saw was very much an atrocity [that is not to say God is unjust. I can't find a better word that encapsulates all of it from a human point of view], and gave me the feel that hell is a place that no one in their right mind would want to go to. Have faith in Jesus to save you from that destination.
To bring the discussion back around to where I began, I've seen what hell looks like. The experience has influenced me and contributed to the way I order my life.
Future of The Reformer
My long term plan for this blog is to transition to a print magazine with a staff of writers, and continue this blog as a place where I publish my "inklings," opinions, and short articles. The print magazine will be a Christian worldview publication covering a wide variety of topics. I will have to keep it newsletter-length at first to keep it affordable for people, and while we're pulling together advertisers. The original vision of The Reformer was to have a Christian print magazine at the level of class and quality of writing of Harper's or The New Yorker. It will not happen overnight, but steps can be taken in that direction.
I will obviously keep the audience of this blog apprised of news in regards to progress on the print magazine. Suffice to say, this blog will continue.
I will obviously keep the audience of this blog apprised of news in regards to progress on the print magazine. Suffice to say, this blog will continue.
Thursday, March 17, 2016
A Hard Question for Muslims
In reference to the video- A Muslim Tries My Question from TheReformedapologist youtube, this blog's writer.
A lot of hard questions for Muslims will have to do with scriptural preservation and Qur'an preservation. The main question I asked the muslim in this video was, "Why (in his belief system) did God (Allah) preserve the Qur'an and not the Bible?" There are internal contradictions in the beliefs of muslims concerning this point, and it is made more complicated by the fact that the Qur'an may or may not imply that we should find that the New Testament was corrupted. According to this person, the Qur'an never claims the injil (gospel or New Testament) is corrupted - Qur'an Contradiction... A different muslim was telling me in comment boxes on youtube that the Qur'an implies corruption of the New Testament text in what appeared to be Quran 5:72-73. Either way, those who believe in the Qur'an will have trouble answering the question. If they accept that the New Testament was never corrupted, then how are they then going to resolve the obvious contradictions between the Bible and the Qur'an? If they believe the New Testament was corrupted, then how will they deal with the internal contradictions in the Qur'an, because of the various verses dealing with the injil (gospel) and how Allah preserved the "message sent down." And if that verse (Qur'an 15:9) only means the Qur'an was preserved, then why did Allah, (being sovereign over the possible preservation of texts in their point of view), preserve the Qur'an and not the Bible (in Muslims' points of view)?
Not to mention the fact that the Qur'an also says that God's revealed words cannot be changed (Qur'an 6:115, 18:27, 10:64). See also the Sam Samoun article on this. This would seem to be in contradiction with the beliefs of most Muslims that that New Testament was changed, because the Qur'an teaches that the injil (gospel) is from Allah.
I don't think it can be said, either, that the Qur'an depicts that there was a separate different "injil" given to Jesus from what the Christians had at the time, and that this "injil" just got lost, not corrupted. If that was the case (that the original injil was just lost) then why didn't God preserve this, but preserved the Qur'an? If it was the same as the Qur'an, why is it called "injil," a different name and talked about in such terms as Qur'an 3:3, as if there's an old and new testament, a law and a gospel? No, it is talking about the Bible. Qur'an 3:3 and other verses (13:38, 53:36-37, 87:19, 4:163, 17:55, 21:105) seem to say that the law and the gospel were a separate previous revelation from the Qur'an. Sam Shamoun also wrote an article about the Qur'an confirmation of the Bible There is very much evidence to say that the Qur'an affirms the Bible as we know it now as God's word.
I've written down the serious of questions I asked in the above video and the way muslims should be answering below, because it sets up the final question well about scriptural preservation.
1. Does the Qur'an speak of the Bible?
Muslim: Yes (see http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/onbible.htm) (note- though Qur'an 29:46 and others are supposed to be "abrogated" verses.)
2. Does it speak of the Gospel?
Muslim: Yes. (Qur'an 5:46, 19:30, 3:3)
3. Did God give the gospel in the Bible to Christians?
Muslim: Yes (Qur'an 5:47, 5:68, 6:114, 48:29
4. Did God give the Qur'an?
Muslim: Yes (Qur'an 44:1-3, 97:1, 2:185, 17:106)
5. Is Allah sovereign over the preservation of the Quran?
Muslim: Yes (Qur'an 15:9) The Qur'an also says that God's revealed words cannot be changed (6:115, 18:27).
6. Why did Allah preserve the Qur'an and not the Bible?
?
The discussion went into the nature of God, because at the time I knew that the Qur'an says that "Allah is the greatest of the deceivers" (Qur'an 3:54, cf. 8:30) (see also Sam Shamoun's article on this.) which means that the very nature of the Allah of the Qur'an is different than the nature of the God of the Bible.
The above questions bring to light a set of contradictions in documents and beliefs which are a very big mess, but the mess is in Islam. Also, all of this is just the beginning of the discussion. I published a followup video after the first video "A Muslim Tries my Question" on TheReformedapologist, linked here: Question for Muslims, part 2 In this video I followed all the thinking through to its logical consequences.
A lot of hard questions for Muslims will have to do with scriptural preservation and Qur'an preservation. The main question I asked the muslim in this video was, "Why (in his belief system) did God (Allah) preserve the Qur'an and not the Bible?" There are internal contradictions in the beliefs of muslims concerning this point, and it is made more complicated by the fact that the Qur'an may or may not imply that we should find that the New Testament was corrupted. According to this person, the Qur'an never claims the injil (gospel or New Testament) is corrupted - Qur'an Contradiction... A different muslim was telling me in comment boxes on youtube that the Qur'an implies corruption of the New Testament text in what appeared to be Quran 5:72-73. Either way, those who believe in the Qur'an will have trouble answering the question. If they accept that the New Testament was never corrupted, then how are they then going to resolve the obvious contradictions between the Bible and the Qur'an? If they believe the New Testament was corrupted, then how will they deal with the internal contradictions in the Qur'an, because of the various verses dealing with the injil (gospel) and how Allah preserved the "message sent down." And if that verse (Qur'an 15:9) only means the Qur'an was preserved, then why did Allah, (being sovereign over the possible preservation of texts in their point of view), preserve the Qur'an and not the Bible (in Muslims' points of view)?
Not to mention the fact that the Qur'an also says that God's revealed words cannot be changed (Qur'an 6:115, 18:27, 10:64). See also the Sam Samoun article on this. This would seem to be in contradiction with the beliefs of most Muslims that that New Testament was changed, because the Qur'an teaches that the injil (gospel) is from Allah.
I don't think it can be said, either, that the Qur'an depicts that there was a separate different "injil" given to Jesus from what the Christians had at the time, and that this "injil" just got lost, not corrupted. If that was the case (that the original injil was just lost) then why didn't God preserve this, but preserved the Qur'an? If it was the same as the Qur'an, why is it called "injil," a different name and talked about in such terms as Qur'an 3:3, as if there's an old and new testament, a law and a gospel? No, it is talking about the Bible. Qur'an 3:3 and other verses (13:38, 53:36-37, 87:19, 4:163, 17:55, 21:105) seem to say that the law and the gospel were a separate previous revelation from the Qur'an. Sam Shamoun also wrote an article about the Qur'an confirmation of the Bible There is very much evidence to say that the Qur'an affirms the Bible as we know it now as God's word.
I've written down the serious of questions I asked in the above video and the way muslims should be answering below, because it sets up the final question well about scriptural preservation.
1. Does the Qur'an speak of the Bible?
Muslim: Yes (see http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/onbible.htm) (note- though Qur'an 29:46 and others are supposed to be "abrogated" verses.)
2. Does it speak of the Gospel?
Muslim: Yes. (Qur'an 5:46, 19:30, 3:3)
3. Did God give the gospel in the Bible to Christians?
Muslim: Yes (Qur'an 5:47, 5:68, 6:114, 48:29
4. Did God give the Qur'an?
Muslim: Yes (Qur'an 44:1-3, 97:1, 2:185, 17:106)
5. Is Allah sovereign over the preservation of the Quran?
Muslim: Yes (Qur'an 15:9) The Qur'an also says that God's revealed words cannot be changed (6:115, 18:27).
6. Why did Allah preserve the Qur'an and not the Bible?
?
The discussion went into the nature of God, because at the time I knew that the Qur'an says that "Allah is the greatest of the deceivers" (Qur'an 3:54, cf. 8:30) (see also Sam Shamoun's article on this.) which means that the very nature of the Allah of the Qur'an is different than the nature of the God of the Bible.
The above questions bring to light a set of contradictions in documents and beliefs which are a very big mess, but the mess is in Islam. Also, all of this is just the beginning of the discussion. I published a followup video after the first video "A Muslim Tries my Question" on TheReformedapologist, linked here: Question for Muslims, part 2 In this video I followed all the thinking through to its logical consequences.
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
"Weak Atheistic Arguments" Video
James (all4Hisgloryalone on youtube) did an excellent job responding to atheist objections in this video and should be absolutely commended for...
To read the whole article and the watch video click on the link- TheReformedapologist blog- "Weak Atheistic Arguments Video"
To read the whole article and the watch video click on the link- TheReformedapologist blog- "Weak Atheistic Arguments Video"
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Perky Muslim and Lackadaisical Atheist Video
Article link: TheReformedApologist: Perky Muslim and Lackadaisical Atheist (video): Video link: Perky Muslim and Lackadaisical Atheist (video) From TheReformedapologist, featuring this blog's writer. The muslim ...
Monday, March 14, 2016
Core Godly Values, Practices, and Beliefs Not Taught by Our Culture
1. Seeking God in prayer for long stretches of time
Sure, prayer is somewhat acceptable to the culture, but we're taught to think about praying a quick prayer that shouldn't take more than a few minutes. Then we're supposed to go about our work and business as usual. Seeking God in fervent prayer longer than one hour is not often talked about or taught, and if one is seen doing that, people think there's something wrong. Seeking God in prayer for long stretches of time is largely a lost idea in our culture. It is something followers of Christ should be doing, though. 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 says, "rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus." In Luke 11:5-10, Jesus said to his disciples, “Suppose one of you has a friend, and goes to him at midnight and says to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves; for a friend of mine has come to me from a journey, and I have nothing to set before him; and from inside he answers and says, ‘Do not bother me; the door has already been shut and my children and I are in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.’ I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs.
"So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened."
There is nothing wrong with being persistent in prayer in order to seek God and strengthen our relationship with Him.
Just as an aside, the delegates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention sought God in prayer for help and guidance at Benjamin Franklin's suggestion. See- http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=144096
There were also prayers done by the "founding fathers" at the Continental Congress as well. See- http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/continental.html
2. God as Top Value and Priority
The culture is teaching that work and money are supposed to be our top value and priority in our personal value systems. Jesus taught in Matthew 6:24 that "no one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." (see also Luke 16:13). Moreover, Jesus taught in Matthew 22:46-40 that the greatest commandment was "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." (quoting Deuteronomy). People are even being to taught to feel wrong now if work and money are not the top thing in their value systems (in counseling establishments, educational institutions, you name it). The proletariat would need to be strengthened, I guess, if there was somehow a slowly encroaching communist/Marxist/socialist agenda being forwarded in America (to be somewhat sarcastic).
3. Exercising Spiritual Gifts
No, you'd have to actually go to specific types of churches to even hear about that. Paul told Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:6 "to fan into flame the gift of God which is in you [him]." Everything should, of course, be done with a sense of order and decency in its appropriate time and place. How often does anyone ever talk about God's healing power, as well? Then everyone gets all bent out of shape over their health benefits and wonder what's wrong with everything. People will tend not to hear about God's healing power from the culture.
4. Holiness
The holiness of God and living a holy life are basics in the Scriptures. The Bible verses are too many to even list- just open up to almost any page of the New Testament. Of course our sanctification comes from God through Christ Jesus and is made thorough and a complete work by the Spirit of God and with Christ.
5. That God is triune (is a trinity).
To simplify, God is one in essence and three in persons- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity is a doctrine found throughout all the Scriptures- Old Testament and New. Not taught by the culture. The divinity of Jesus is something that most people know that followers of Christ believe (I think).
6. Salvation is Christ alone
Jesus said in John 14:6, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through me." Salvation is found through Jesus alone and there is no other way. Acts 4:12 says that "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." That would be the name of Jesus. The world and the culture will teach you that all paths lead to God. That is incorrect. The other non-Christian paths lead to not-God and to hell in the afterlife.
Sure, prayer is somewhat acceptable to the culture, but we're taught to think about praying a quick prayer that shouldn't take more than a few minutes. Then we're supposed to go about our work and business as usual. Seeking God in fervent prayer longer than one hour is not often talked about or taught, and if one is seen doing that, people think there's something wrong. Seeking God in prayer for long stretches of time is largely a lost idea in our culture. It is something followers of Christ should be doing, though. 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 says, "rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus." In Luke 11:5-10, Jesus said to his disciples, “Suppose one of you has a friend, and goes to him at midnight and says to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves; for a friend of mine has come to me from a journey, and I have nothing to set before him; and from inside he answers and says, ‘Do not bother me; the door has already been shut and my children and I are in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.’ I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs.
"So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened."
There is nothing wrong with being persistent in prayer in order to seek God and strengthen our relationship with Him.
Just as an aside, the delegates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention sought God in prayer for help and guidance at Benjamin Franklin's suggestion. See- http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=144096
There were also prayers done by the "founding fathers" at the Continental Congress as well. See- http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/continental.html
2. God as Top Value and Priority
The culture is teaching that work and money are supposed to be our top value and priority in our personal value systems. Jesus taught in Matthew 6:24 that "no one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." (see also Luke 16:13). Moreover, Jesus taught in Matthew 22:46-40 that the greatest commandment was "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." (quoting Deuteronomy). People are even being to taught to feel wrong now if work and money are not the top thing in their value systems (in counseling establishments, educational institutions, you name it). The proletariat would need to be strengthened, I guess, if there was somehow a slowly encroaching communist/Marxist/socialist agenda being forwarded in America (to be somewhat sarcastic).
3. Exercising Spiritual Gifts
No, you'd have to actually go to specific types of churches to even hear about that. Paul told Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:6 "to fan into flame the gift of God which is in you [him]." Everything should, of course, be done with a sense of order and decency in its appropriate time and place. How often does anyone ever talk about God's healing power, as well? Then everyone gets all bent out of shape over their health benefits and wonder what's wrong with everything. People will tend not to hear about God's healing power from the culture.
4. Holiness
The holiness of God and living a holy life are basics in the Scriptures. The Bible verses are too many to even list- just open up to almost any page of the New Testament. Of course our sanctification comes from God through Christ Jesus and is made thorough and a complete work by the Spirit of God and with Christ.
5. That God is triune (is a trinity).
To simplify, God is one in essence and three in persons- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity is a doctrine found throughout all the Scriptures- Old Testament and New. Not taught by the culture. The divinity of Jesus is something that most people know that followers of Christ believe (I think).
6. Salvation is Christ alone
Jesus said in John 14:6, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through me." Salvation is found through Jesus alone and there is no other way. Acts 4:12 says that "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." That would be the name of Jesus. The world and the culture will teach you that all paths lead to God. That is incorrect. The other non-Christian paths lead to not-God and to hell in the afterlife.
Friday, March 11, 2016
Saving Knowledge Through Spiritual Experiences?
Since my post on March 8th, 2016 about the so-called "Insufficiency of General Revelation," I saw this article posted on The Poached Egg- Is Religious Experience Evidence?
To start with I shouldn't have to say anything more, as it is not an attack upon my position. When one discusses natural theology, one is talking about nature/creation in the relatively uniform ordinary state of affairs. Supernatural is that which is not natural.
It appears the writer Travis Dickinson is using the word "evidence" to mean information that people are gathering which is enabling them to believe. If that is happening- that people are having miraculous experiences and then believing, then it is possible that those experiences are becoming part of their testimony and the apologetic evidence they submit to others. There is nothing that wrong about this- if they have truly come to saving knowledge! If they came to saving knowledge, then it must be that the spiritual experience that they had just pointed to the Scriptures and the truth of the Scriptures, or gave them knowledge which is also in the Scriptures. (Although it is in excess of what is necessary. The Scriptures and the work of the Holy Spirit are enough to impart saving knowledge. The apologia we give doesn't necessarily need the extraneous "spiritual experience," either, but everyone knows that we go outside the Scriptures usually to give a defense, anyway). In order to accumulate saving knowledge through a personal spiritual experience, one would have to see or be told the ministry, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus in said experience (Philippians 3:10-11, though there's much more to the discussion of what comprises saving knowledge, let's keep it simple here and say it is knowing our spiritual condition and the salvation found in the Lord Jesus). While that's possible though a dream perhaps, the Bible is where one would cross-check one's facts after that. (And no, I will not address the absurd proposition of someone having saving knowledge from a dream and never looking in the Bible. The regenerate person thirsts for God's Word, Matthew 5:6). Faith generally comes from the preaching of the Gospel, as is implied by the reasoning of Apostle Paul in Romans 10:14, which says, "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" But also, Jesus wanted people to know the Scriptures and the power of God, as He criticized them for not knowing (Matthew 22:29). So when we have come to saving knowledge of the Lord, we know him both ways- His power as he is revealing it (miraculous or not, either way), and through the Word of God the Bible. We don't see the world from a darkened mind as unbelievers do. We, God's children, look upon the glory of creation and mankind as constantly testifying to and revealing God's power.
Our generation could learn a little bit from history, as well, in regards to spiritual experiences and church practices. In early America (during the First Great Awakening), the Puritan churches in Massechusetts required their congregants to submit a "conversion narrative," documenting the testimony of their "conversion experience." That was fine for the first generation, however, the religion was endangered in the second generation when their kids just didn't have the same experiences as mom and pop. That is the danger of placing too much emphasis on personal subjective spiritual experience in churches. The sufficiency of the Scriptures alone for life, morals, salvation must be remembered and emphasized among God's people.
For people's further edification, I will share a video from the Reformedapologist where my associate James is speaking with someone who claimed to be seeing Jesus every day.
Video- Breakfast at Jesus's
Then there's this one- Suppose God Had Coffee with Donald Trump...How would that go? (haha!)
To start with I shouldn't have to say anything more, as it is not an attack upon my position. When one discusses natural theology, one is talking about nature/creation in the relatively uniform ordinary state of affairs. Supernatural is that which is not natural.
It appears the writer Travis Dickinson is using the word "evidence" to mean information that people are gathering which is enabling them to believe. If that is happening- that people are having miraculous experiences and then believing, then it is possible that those experiences are becoming part of their testimony and the apologetic evidence they submit to others. There is nothing that wrong about this- if they have truly come to saving knowledge! If they came to saving knowledge, then it must be that the spiritual experience that they had just pointed to the Scriptures and the truth of the Scriptures, or gave them knowledge which is also in the Scriptures. (Although it is in excess of what is necessary. The Scriptures and the work of the Holy Spirit are enough to impart saving knowledge. The apologia we give doesn't necessarily need the extraneous "spiritual experience," either, but everyone knows that we go outside the Scriptures usually to give a defense, anyway). In order to accumulate saving knowledge through a personal spiritual experience, one would have to see or be told the ministry, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus in said experience (Philippians 3:10-11, though there's much more to the discussion of what comprises saving knowledge, let's keep it simple here and say it is knowing our spiritual condition and the salvation found in the Lord Jesus). While that's possible though a dream perhaps, the Bible is where one would cross-check one's facts after that. (And no, I will not address the absurd proposition of someone having saving knowledge from a dream and never looking in the Bible. The regenerate person thirsts for God's Word, Matthew 5:6). Faith generally comes from the preaching of the Gospel, as is implied by the reasoning of Apostle Paul in Romans 10:14, which says, "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" But also, Jesus wanted people to know the Scriptures and the power of God, as He criticized them for not knowing (Matthew 22:29). So when we have come to saving knowledge of the Lord, we know him both ways- His power as he is revealing it (miraculous or not, either way), and through the Word of God the Bible. We don't see the world from a darkened mind as unbelievers do. We, God's children, look upon the glory of creation and mankind as constantly testifying to and revealing God's power.
Our generation could learn a little bit from history, as well, in regards to spiritual experiences and church practices. In early America (during the First Great Awakening), the Puritan churches in Massechusetts required their congregants to submit a "conversion narrative," documenting the testimony of their "conversion experience." That was fine for the first generation, however, the religion was endangered in the second generation when their kids just didn't have the same experiences as mom and pop. That is the danger of placing too much emphasis on personal subjective spiritual experience in churches. The sufficiency of the Scriptures alone for life, morals, salvation must be remembered and emphasized among God's people.
For people's further edification, I will share a video from the Reformedapologist where my associate James is speaking with someone who claimed to be seeing Jesus every day.
Video- Breakfast at Jesus's
Then there's this one- Suppose God Had Coffee with Donald Trump...How would that go? (haha!)
Thursday, March 10, 2016
David Black- "Medicine Fight" song re-release March 24th, 2016
Link: ThiS iS hOw wE HAve To coMmuniCAte riGht NOW: David Black- "Medicine Fight" song re-release Marc...: My song "Medicine Fight" will be re-released to most digital channels on March 24th, 2016. People will find it interesting that...
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Violence in the Bible vs. the Quran
I would say "dictum simplicitur" to the people who wrote this up for they have committed the fallacy of speaking to simply - http://s.oregonlive.com/8CQyOoU And these people, too- http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/02/20/researcher-finds-that-the-old-and-new-testament-are-both-more-violence-than-the-quran/?repeat=w3tc
Analysis may find that the Bible is more violent than the Quran indeed, because it is a document which has lengthy and accurate historical narratives while the Quran does not. If one looks in the literary genre of the Quran even a little bit, one will find that it is a completely different animal. Muslims will tell you, such as what this site says, that they consider it "prophecy," or words directly from God. Indeed, the genre of the Quran seems to be a unique style of "rhymed prose." So if the Bible has lengthy and accurate historical narratives, wheras the Quran does not, then we would expect to see that there is indeed much violence in the Bible, and probably more than in the Quran. Since the Bible is true to history, like my previous posts assert, it contains more violent accounts than the Quran.
I did a previous video blog about the literary claims of Muslims concerning the Quran (which is a highly related topic): Video- Qur'an Literary Claims- Analyzed and Rebutted- TheReformedapologist It was a very thorough workup.
And no, this is not the place where I am going to address the specific commands in the Quran for Muslims to go commit violence, and how such commands don't exist in the Bible.
Analysis may find that the Bible is more violent than the Quran indeed, because it is a document which has lengthy and accurate historical narratives while the Quran does not. If one looks in the literary genre of the Quran even a little bit, one will find that it is a completely different animal. Muslims will tell you, such as what this site says, that they consider it "prophecy," or words directly from God. Indeed, the genre of the Quran seems to be a unique style of "rhymed prose." So if the Bible has lengthy and accurate historical narratives, wheras the Quran does not, then we would expect to see that there is indeed much violence in the Bible, and probably more than in the Quran. Since the Bible is true to history, like my previous posts assert, it contains more violent accounts than the Quran.
I did a previous video blog about the literary claims of Muslims concerning the Quran (which is a highly related topic): Video- Qur'an Literary Claims- Analyzed and Rebutted- TheReformedapologist It was a very thorough workup.
And no, this is not the place where I am going to address the specific commands in the Quran for Muslims to go commit violence, and how such commands don't exist in the Bible.
Extra-Biblical Evidence for the Historical Reliability of the New Testament
There was an article this morning on Truthbomb apologetics called "How Historians Examine the New Testament Documents" I don't assume the world revolves around me, so I can't conclude that this person is reacting to what I wrote, or that people are just having similar thoughts at the same time, or reacting to the same other sources talking about the same topics.
As Chad mentions through quotations on Truthbomb apologetics, historians approach the documents of the New Testament differently than the average skeptic or unbeliever. The whole discussion is over what the approach should be to all the extra-biblical evidence and sources that further corroborate and vindicate the historical reliability of the Bible. On his blog Chad gives an excellent list of non-Christian sources from within 100-150 years of Jesus's life. One of the books that I had mentioned in my blog post- The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell has great lists of sources like this, and in particular it has a list of the extra-biblical sources attesting to Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person.
Most of us are not historians, so we are dealing more with the question of how to convey the Bible's historical veracity to unbelievers we encounter and engage with in discussions. As I mentioned before, I always tend to take more of a presuppositional approach, and I tend to start with what is evident from the Scriptures themselves. As you could see, I did not even mention the non-Christian or extra-biblical sources in my post on historicity at first (and that's okay actually). I just added the one mention this morning after I saw the above article (I added just that one sentence about the Josh McDowell book having some of those sources). I think it is okay to explain to people the way that historians analyze the Bible's narratives as historical documents- I have no problem with one doing that if one is in a discussion where that is warranted and needed. Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:22, "I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some." We have to be flexible in our defense of the faith and bend a little to what it is needed. I have no problem switching into evidentialism mode in a discussion if that is what is really going to help someone.
By all means everyone should check out the excellent list of non-Christian sources linked above.
As Chad mentions through quotations on Truthbomb apologetics, historians approach the documents of the New Testament differently than the average skeptic or unbeliever. The whole discussion is over what the approach should be to all the extra-biblical evidence and sources that further corroborate and vindicate the historical reliability of the Bible. On his blog Chad gives an excellent list of non-Christian sources from within 100-150 years of Jesus's life. One of the books that I had mentioned in my blog post- The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell has great lists of sources like this, and in particular it has a list of the extra-biblical sources attesting to Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person.
Most of us are not historians, so we are dealing more with the question of how to convey the Bible's historical veracity to unbelievers we encounter and engage with in discussions. As I mentioned before, I always tend to take more of a presuppositional approach, and I tend to start with what is evident from the Scriptures themselves. As you could see, I did not even mention the non-Christian or extra-biblical sources in my post on historicity at first (and that's okay actually). I just added the one mention this morning after I saw the above article (I added just that one sentence about the Josh McDowell book having some of those sources). I think it is okay to explain to people the way that historians analyze the Bible's narratives as historical documents- I have no problem with one doing that if one is in a discussion where that is warranted and needed. Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:22, "I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some." We have to be flexible in our defense of the faith and bend a little to what it is needed. I have no problem switching into evidentialism mode in a discussion if that is what is really going to help someone.
By all means everyone should check out the excellent list of non-Christian sources linked above.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Insufficiency of General Revelation and "Inescapable Revelation"
In regards to a remark I made about "inescapable revelation" in the post "Even the Name of Jesus Implies the Gospel Message and Exclusivity" from Saturday March 5, 2016, I am posting here a previous video blog that I delivered in 2011 on TheReformedapologist YouTube Channel about General Revelation and the Insufficiency thereof. In theology, general revelation, or natural revelation, refer to knowledge about God and spiritual matters, discovered through natural means, such as observation of nature (the physical universe), philosophy and reasoning. People cannot come to saving knowledge of God through unaided reason and observation of the natural world.. However, we don't live in a vacuum where the gospel is never heard either, so the concept of "inescapable revelation" holds much force.
Anyway, why re-blog something I already blogged?
Video- Insufficiency of General Revelation- TheReformedapologist
And the video I am referring to (Systematically Dismantling Atheism!!!!!) (gotta love it!):
Anyway, why re-blog something I already blogged?
Video- Insufficiency of General Revelation- TheReformedapologist
And the video I am referring to (Systematically Dismantling Atheism!!!!!) (gotta love it!):
Historicity of the Bible
I saw this article posted recently by someone on facebook-
Is the Bible a Reliable Historical Source?
Yes, the Bible is a reliable historical source- it is inerrant and infallible. Inerrancy basically means all statements therein, as recorded, are accurate (the Bible is historically accurate). Definitions of inerrancy in regards to the Scriptures are normally highly qualified remarks with many "ifs, ands, and buts"- usually limiting inerrancy to the original autograph manuscripts and referring to information as yet to be uncovered in the future. The following page (link given) from Theopedia has an excellent discussion of inerrancy as opposed to infallibility: Inerrancy of the Bible . Also, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is considered an excellent and time-tested explanation of inerrancy of the Scriptures. It reminds us to consider genre and literary conventions when looking at passages.
"So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed." - The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
It should be obvious to people when they reach historical narrative parts of the Bible that they are reading accurate narrative accounts of history.
Also, concerning the level of perfection required for inerrancy:
"The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions." - The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
I first read about the distinction between inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures in the book The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel in which Strobel interviews Daniel B Wallace, Ph.D. on the unbeliever challenge that "the church tampered with the text" of the Bible. His response, statements and definitions are much like I have given here, but he gives more detail and information. Overall it is an excellent interview/chapter and definitely worth the read and the purchase.
I remember the first night I ever answered questions publicly in open-air preaching, a very angry man approached the "heckler microphone" and asked, "How is the Bible true?"
"By the lack of anything untrue," I replied, and then began to discuss the particular ins and outs of inerrancy and infallibility as I understood it. Questions on inerrancy and Scriptural preservation are guaranteed to come up in forums where open confrontation is going on between people of different worldviews. Keep in mind that for some, no explanation, no matter how short or long will ever be enough. They simply do not have the Holy Spirit and will not be enabled to believe. That does not mean that Christians should not try to get the truth across to people and argue for their position, though.
For information on Scriptural preservation the reader will want to look into the area of textual criticism, and indeed the aforementioned Lee Strobel book is a good place to start. Just to state the basics here, there are some 24,000 extant New Testament manuscripts from antiquity. The internal consistency of New Testament manuscripts is counted by scholars as being at a 99.5% accuracy rate. The book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell provides very much similar information for people to be able to give evidential arguments about manuscript evidence and preservation (as well as extra-biblical sources attesting to Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person).
Not only does the Bible comport with science and history, but archaeology as well. Archaeologists are continually finding new artifacts that vindicate information in the Bible. I remember it being mentioned in The Case for the Real Jesus that a new archaeological discovery had been made around the time of the interview, vindicating the historical existence of the Old Testament biblical people group the Hittites (which I guess, up until that point had been called into doubt by scholars). A great resource that many people appreciate is the Archaeological Study Bible. Only $4.99 on kindle, it contains commentary and notes on the archaeological information that corroborates the Scriptures, on every page, alongside the verses themselves. Archaeological data just further verifies, vindicates, and testifies to the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Inerrancy of the Scriptures seems to be an idea that has been largely forsaken and forgotten by our generation. I don't hear the idea being rampantly discussed whenever I hear others discussing the Bible. It is, however, an idea that I hope our generation can reclaim and prize. Not only is the Bible historically accurate, it contains historical narrative accounts for events of history (such as the creation or the life of Jesus) about which there is no better historical record in existence.
Is the Bible a Reliable Historical Source?
Yes, the Bible is a reliable historical source- it is inerrant and infallible. Inerrancy basically means all statements therein, as recorded, are accurate (the Bible is historically accurate). Definitions of inerrancy in regards to the Scriptures are normally highly qualified remarks with many "ifs, ands, and buts"- usually limiting inerrancy to the original autograph manuscripts and referring to information as yet to be uncovered in the future. The following page (link given) from Theopedia has an excellent discussion of inerrancy as opposed to infallibility: Inerrancy of the Bible . Also, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is considered an excellent and time-tested explanation of inerrancy of the Scriptures. It reminds us to consider genre and literary conventions when looking at passages.
"So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed." - The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
It should be obvious to people when they reach historical narrative parts of the Bible that they are reading accurate narrative accounts of history.
Also, concerning the level of perfection required for inerrancy:
"The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions." - The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
I first read about the distinction between inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures in the book The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel in which Strobel interviews Daniel B Wallace, Ph.D. on the unbeliever challenge that "the church tampered with the text" of the Bible. His response, statements and definitions are much like I have given here, but he gives more detail and information. Overall it is an excellent interview/chapter and definitely worth the read and the purchase.
I remember the first night I ever answered questions publicly in open-air preaching, a very angry man approached the "heckler microphone" and asked, "How is the Bible true?"
"By the lack of anything untrue," I replied, and then began to discuss the particular ins and outs of inerrancy and infallibility as I understood it. Questions on inerrancy and Scriptural preservation are guaranteed to come up in forums where open confrontation is going on between people of different worldviews. Keep in mind that for some, no explanation, no matter how short or long will ever be enough. They simply do not have the Holy Spirit and will not be enabled to believe. That does not mean that Christians should not try to get the truth across to people and argue for their position, though.
For information on Scriptural preservation the reader will want to look into the area of textual criticism, and indeed the aforementioned Lee Strobel book is a good place to start. Just to state the basics here, there are some 24,000 extant New Testament manuscripts from antiquity. The internal consistency of New Testament manuscripts is counted by scholars as being at a 99.5% accuracy rate. The book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell provides very much similar information for people to be able to give evidential arguments about manuscript evidence and preservation (as well as extra-biblical sources attesting to Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person).
Not only does the Bible comport with science and history, but archaeology as well. Archaeologists are continually finding new artifacts that vindicate information in the Bible. I remember it being mentioned in The Case for the Real Jesus that a new archaeological discovery had been made around the time of the interview, vindicating the historical existence of the Old Testament biblical people group the Hittites (which I guess, up until that point had been called into doubt by scholars). A great resource that many people appreciate is the Archaeological Study Bible. Only $4.99 on kindle, it contains commentary and notes on the archaeological information that corroborates the Scriptures, on every page, alongside the verses themselves. Archaeological data just further verifies, vindicates, and testifies to the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Inerrancy of the Scriptures seems to be an idea that has been largely forsaken and forgotten by our generation. I don't hear the idea being rampantly discussed whenever I hear others discussing the Bible. It is, however, an idea that I hope our generation can reclaim and prize. Not only is the Bible historically accurate, it contains historical narrative accounts for events of history (such as the creation or the life of Jesus) about which there is no better historical record in existence.
Sunday, March 6, 2016
Fulfilling the Apologetics Commands
An article was posted on Twitter recently by The Poached Egg in which Pastor Matt Rawlings explains his position that pastors can be trained in apologetics without formal training. Having had a mix of formal and informal training myself (though I'm not the pastor of a church, yet), I tend to think that pastors can and should prepare to defend the faith informally (if not formally) in the way that Mr. Rawlings describes. They should at least be made aware of apologetics (and its importance) in their preparatory studies to be a pastor, though. Too often people go out to evangelize on a Friday night and come to find out that they have to take part in heavy arguments that no one ever taught them to handle. Taking a look around bookstores, libraries, churches, and the internet one can see that there is a wealth of resources out there, and that it is just a matter of committing and taking the time to utilize them.
I would add to what is being said, and say that apologetics (defense of the faith) is not optional, but is actually commanded in Scriptures. It is not just for pastors, but for their congregants (the people in the pews) to do as well. Take 1 Peter 3:15, for example, where we are told "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." In no way should only pastors be learning to defend the faith. I do understand though, that the concern expressed in the article is because pastors especially need and must do it (and because of the writer's disagreement with William Lane Craig, which seems to have originally been over whether pastors have time to equip themselves with apologetics studies or not). So, I don't think Mr. Rawlings was wrong simply for taking that focus. Many more churches should be offering classes in apologetics to their congregants in order to prepare people to be "Christian soldiers" in the literal war of ideas taking place in the world. Classes should provide hands-on training (applied studies) as well.
The Greek word for "defense" in that verse is apologia which not only means "a reasoned statement or argument," but has the connotation of arguments such that attorneys would make in court (Strongs G627). The word appears in a number of other places in the Greek text of the New Testament including: Acts 22:1, Acts 25:16, 1Co 9:3, 2Co 7:11, Ph1 1:7, Phl 1:16, and 2Ti 4:16. Not all those relate specifically to defense of the faith, obviously. Another verse dealing with defense of the faith is 2 Cor. 10:5 which says, "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ." So, not only should we defend our own position, "the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints" (from another apologetics verse, Jude 3 which says "contend for the faith"), but we should dismantle the worldviews and religions which are in the way of people receiving the truth- whether it be Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, atheism, agnosticism, or any ungodly worldview.
I am obviously aware of different apologetic methods and approaches, and since I have sought a Biblical one, I favor presuppositional apologetics. However, most of us employ the tools and strategies from all the different apologetic methods. Since defending the faith (for the people of God), is not just optional but is commanded in Scriptures, Christians should prepare to do so first from the Scriptures themselves, and then seek to be equipped further by any good means available. Pastor Matt's article mentions several resources, and I can definitely recommend others in future posts on this blog.
I would add to what is being said, and say that apologetics (defense of the faith) is not optional, but is actually commanded in Scriptures. It is not just for pastors, but for their congregants (the people in the pews) to do as well. Take 1 Peter 3:15, for example, where we are told "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." In no way should only pastors be learning to defend the faith. I do understand though, that the concern expressed in the article is because pastors especially need and must do it (and because of the writer's disagreement with William Lane Craig, which seems to have originally been over whether pastors have time to equip themselves with apologetics studies or not). So, I don't think Mr. Rawlings was wrong simply for taking that focus. Many more churches should be offering classes in apologetics to their congregants in order to prepare people to be "Christian soldiers" in the literal war of ideas taking place in the world. Classes should provide hands-on training (applied studies) as well.
The Greek word for "defense" in that verse is apologia which not only means "a reasoned statement or argument," but has the connotation of arguments such that attorneys would make in court (Strongs G627). The word appears in a number of other places in the Greek text of the New Testament including: Acts 22:1, Acts 25:16, 1Co 9:3, 2Co 7:11, Ph1 1:7, Phl 1:16, and 2Ti 4:16. Not all those relate specifically to defense of the faith, obviously. Another verse dealing with defense of the faith is 2 Cor. 10:5 which says, "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ." So, not only should we defend our own position, "the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints" (from another apologetics verse, Jude 3 which says "contend for the faith"), but we should dismantle the worldviews and religions which are in the way of people receiving the truth- whether it be Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, atheism, agnosticism, or any ungodly worldview.
I am obviously aware of different apologetic methods and approaches, and since I have sought a Biblical one, I favor presuppositional apologetics. However, most of us employ the tools and strategies from all the different apologetic methods. Since defending the faith (for the people of God), is not just optional but is commanded in Scriptures, Christians should prepare to do so first from the Scriptures themselves, and then seek to be equipped further by any good means available. Pastor Matt's article mentions several resources, and I can definitely recommend others in future posts on this blog.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Even the Name of Jesus Implies the Gospel Message and Exclusivity
I was pleased to see this link this morning reposted from "the poached egg":
Jesus Is the Only Way to Heaven because God is the Only Way to God
It reminded me of my studies in the names of God and how Jesus's name implies not only the Gospel message, but its distinctness from other religions, and the exclusivity of Christianity (for lack of a better way to say that). From "Behind the Name.com," I have cut and pasted the meaning and history of Jesus as a name:
"English form of Ιησους (Iesous), which was the Greek form of the Aramaic name Χ™ֵΧ©ׁΧ•ּΧΆַ (Yeshu'a). Yeshu'a is itself a contracted form of Yehoshu'a (see JOSHUA). Yeshua ben Yoseph, better known as Jesus Christ, was the central figure of the New Testament and the source of the Christian religion. The four Gospels state that he was the son of God and the Virgin Mary who fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah. He preached for three years before being crucified in Jerusalem."
See the meaning and history of "Joshua" in the same source:
"From the Hebrew name Χ™ְΧ”Χ•ֹΧ©ֻׁΧΆַ (Yehoshu'a) meaning "YAHWEH is salvation". Joshua was one of the twelve spies sent into Canaan by Moses, as told in the Old Testament. After Moses died Joshua succeeded him as leader of the Israelites. As an English name, Joshua has been in use since the Protestant Reformation."
So basically, tracing Jesus's name back to "Joshua" and Yehoshu'a, it means "YAHWEH is salvation," or to put it more simply, "God saves."
Now let's reason through this. Why would God need to save unless people are in trouble and cannot save themselves? Why would God save people of his own grace and mercy unless he loved them? Would an unloving, ungracious, unmerciful God do this? People with alternative views of Jesus should examine what his name means. The name is saying something heavy laden with historical meaning and understanding. If God is our salvation, we don't depend on ourselves- our own behavior, works, meditation...anything for our own salvation. A feature which makes the Christian faith distinct from other religions is that very component- God's saving grace and work is of and from Him, not us.
A brief word about exclusivity. God wanted to bring us, humanity, back into relationship with Him, because He loved us. That was impossible as it was because we were/are wicked, and He is just, holy, and righteous. He, therefore, sent His son Jesus to die on the cross as a propitiation, an appeasement, to reconcile us back into relationship with Him. How is that going to work if we deny Jesus or that any of this happened, or deny that that's what the reason was that the crucifixion happened? That would defeat the whole purpose. God wants us to be in relationship with Him.
To quote Scripture, "Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.
The argument from Jesus's name not is an airtight argument to prove the Gospel true, it is just that His name's meaning is a strong witness to who He is and His work on the cross for our salvation- it bears witness to the Gospel, itself. I often put it like, "inescapable revelation" to borrow a phrase from Greg Bahnsen. You can run, hide, and even bend and contort yourself to try to deny the Gospel and the truth of God's word, but the proof of the truth for the whole thing is right where you are.
Friday, March 4, 2016
You'll say to me, "How can you do that and be a novelist also?"
ThiS iS hOw wE HAve To coMmuniCAte riGht NOW: You'll say to me, "How can you do that and be a no...: Shouldn't I just be writing fiction in my blogs , I might think in reply to you. Well, the mold was already broken by none other th...
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Are There Different Genres In Scripture?- video from oneminuteapologist
This particular explanation sounds more helpful and comprehensible to the uninitiated if we view at as the answer to a specific objection, question, attack, etc. For example, it would have to be talked about to those who claim the Genesis creation account is myth, legend, or symbolism in complete disregard of the fact that the text is clearly historical narrative with some interesting Hebrew stylistic traits.
If oneminuteapologist's explanation could have been longer than one minute, I'm sure he could have gone more into the richness of the variety of different genres in the Bible and more specifics of what they are.
-David Black
If oneminuteapologist's explanation could have been longer than one minute, I'm sure he could have gone more into the richness of the variety of different genres in the Bible and more specifics of what they are.
-David Black
News Flash- Marriage across race lines is not itse...
ThiS iS hOw wE HAve To coMmuniCAte riGht NOW: News Flash- Marriage across race lines is not itse...: I have encountered people in my life who hold to the dogmatic notion that marriage across racial lines is immoral according to "The ...
Noetic Effects of Sin (It's not how smart you are!...
ThiS iS hOw wE HAve To coMmuniCAte riGht NOW: Noetic Effects of Sin (It's not how smart you are!...: "The Noetic Effects of Sin" means simply, the negative effect on people's intellects due to the the Fall of Man in general ...
Personality Types and the Fall of Man Argument
ThiS iS hOw wE HAve To coMmuniCAte riGht NOW: Personality Types and the Fall of Man Argument: There will be some who will want to say that I was being illogical or unbiblical when I wrote the post about how personality differences ...
Punishing People Doesn't Atone for Their Sin
ThiS iS hOw wE HAve To coMmuniCAte riGht NOW: Punishing People Doesn't Atone for Their Sin: Little do some people know, punishing others for their sin will not atone for their sin, abrogate their sin, take care of their sin, or cl...
How Did Love Get a Bad Name? I don't think it was ...
ThiS iS hOw wE HAve To coMmuniCAte riGht NOW: How Did Love Get a Bad Name? I don't think it was ...: The song "You Give Love a Bad Name" has lyrics we can use to talk about what love means today. It is people's bad behavior a...
Welcome!
I am setting up this blog to be an apologetics and theology site whereas my main other blog, "this is how we have to communicate right now" is more about current events, issues, politics, and the legal system. Come to think of it, I will try to re-post relevant material from that page over to here.
Thanks for visiting!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)