Defense and Confirmation

Wycliffe: The Morning Star of the Reformation

2011-09-01T06:45:00.002-04:00

I had the privilege of teaching the following lesson on John Wycliffe at the 2011 Grace Impact Family Bible Conference in Chicago this past July. In this study we consider the history of English Bible translation before John Wycliffe. Particular attention is also given to Wycliffe's career at Oxford, his legal and political career, as well as his anti-papal beliefs. Lastly, we study the translation, distribution, and impact of the Middle English Bible that bears his name.

For a PDF copy of the notes click here.

For the PowerPoint click here.

Inerrancy and the King James Bible

2011-08-26T12:30:00.003-04:00

Last month, at the 2011 Grace Impact Family Bible Conference, I was asked to teach a seminar on the subject of Inerracy and the King James Bible. My task was simple and straight forward, answer the following question, "is it possible or proper to claim inerrancy for a translation of Scripture?" As one might except many in our day would say no, only the original manuscriptes were inerrant. While this is a popular claim in our day, it does not prove anything since we no longer possess the originals. Matters are complicated for supporters of the King James when one considers the various editions between 1611 and the standardization of the text in 1769.

The following video contains what I believe to be the Scriptural answer to this difficult problem. Interested parties should be sure to consult the accompanying PDF notes because they contain an entire section on the history of the doctrine of inerrancy that was not covered in the video due the constraints of time. Moreover, the PowerPoint has also been included below to make it easy for people to read and follow along with the examples contained in the video.

Lastly, I have also included links to the sources I used to prepare this lesson. This is very important subject that anyone interested in the King James Bible should find useful.

For a PDF copy of the notes click here.

For a copy of the PowerPoint click here.

To access the audio file click here.

Supplemental Materials

Bratcher, Dennis. The Modern Inerrancy Debate.

Geisler, Norman. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980.

Norton, David. A Textual History of the King James Bible. Cambridge University Press, 2004. (One should pay particular attention to Appendix 8)

Perry, John. Dissolving the Inerrancy Debate: How Modern Philosophy Shaped the Evangelical View of Scripture.

The Language and Readability of the King James Bible

2011-07-29T09:11:00.003-04:00

My fourth message from the 2011 Great Lakes Grace Bible Conference was on The Language and Readability of the King James Bible. In this study we cover new ground regarding the history of the English Language as well as the cultural and linguistic setting in which the King James translators came of age. Learn how the English Language itself was crowing achievement of the English Renaissance. Discover how the King James Bible is the pinnacle of written English prose. Study with us as we consider how the loss of a common English Bible has negatively impacted the Body of Christ. You will not want to miss this important message. Note: There is a lot of detailed information contained in the notes that I was only able to summarize in the message. You may want to consider looking at them.

For a PDF copy of the notes click here.

For a copy of the PowerPoint click here.

The Product of Preservation

2011-07-23T14:11:00.002-04:00

My third message at the 2011 Great Lakes Grace Bible Conference was on the Product of Preservation. In this study we define textual criticism and explain the difference between the critical text and the preserved text. In addition, we offer a Scriptural critique of the Westcott and Hort theory of textual criticism in order to demonstrate that it is not in line with the viewpoint of faith. Moreover, we demonstrate by comparing key texts in both the KJB and modern translations that there are fundamentally only two different Bible and that the differences are serious. Lastly, we briefly consider the modern viewpoint on subject of inerrancy and demonstrate who the King James Bible is God's Word for English speaking people.

For a PDF copy of the notes click here.

For a copy of the PowerPoint click here.

The People and Process of Preservation

2011-07-13T09:40:00.002-04:00

My second message at the 2011 Great Lakes Grace Bible Conference was on the process and people of preservation. Study with as we consider how God's promise to preserve his word was executed. In addition, learn about the men to whom the process was entrusted. The view point of faith demands that we believe what the Bible teaches about itself. Learn why the original manuscripts are not the issue with God.

For a PDF copy of the notes click here.

For a copy of the PowerPoint click here.

What is Truth?

2011-07-06T07:08:00.003-04:00

At the 2011 Great Lakes Grace Bible Conference I preached on the topic of What is Truth? This was a fitting message to begin a conference on the 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible. Most in our day view truth as totally relative to the individual and not absolute. Please watch the following message where we deal with inadequate views of truth and offer a defense for the absolute nature of truth. In addition we address the question of whether or not supports of the KJB engage in circular reasoning when stating our position. Please note there is singing for the first couple minutes of this video.

To view the PDF notes from this message click here.

To view the PowerPoint click here.

2011 Great Lakes Grace Bible Conference

2011-06-14T15:22:00.003-04:00

Over memorial day weekend my family and I had the privilege of attending the 2011 Great Lakes Grace Bible Conference in Wilmot, Ohio. We had a wonderful time visiting with old friends and meeting new saints. The conference was a celebration of the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible. Over the weekend, I had the honor of preaching four times on a variety of topics related to the supremacy of the KJB.

All of the audio from these meetings can be found on theKJV400.com website. In addition, I would like to make my notes and PowerPoints available for further study for anyone who might be interested. The following is a listing of my messages in the order in which they were preached.

What is Truth? (PDF Notes)
What is Truth? (PowerPoint)
The People and Process of Preservation (PDF Notes)
The People and Process of Preservation (PowerPoint)
The Product of Preservation (PDF Notes)
The Product of Preservation (PowerPoint)
The Language and Readability of the KJV (PDF Notes)
The Language and Readability of the KJV (PowerPoint)

Please enjoy these notes and audio from all the messages from this important meeting.

History of the King James Bible

2011-05-20T19:44:00.002-04:00

Thomas Nelson Publishers working in conjunction with the History Channel Magazine have created a website commemorating the 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible. The following short videos on the History of the King James Bible are simple and straightforward. A visit to KJV400celebration.com is a must for any advocate of the King James Bible. Also be sure to listen to their daily KJV400 podcast. This collection of 400 podcasts is designed to present a different historical nugget regarding the impact of the KJB on the English speaking world.

Begat: The King James Bible & the English Language

2011-04-26T18:02:00.004-04:00

In commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible a host new books have been published celebrating the effect this legendary translation has had on the history, culture, and language of English speaking people. One such book published late in 2010, by Oxford University Press, is entitled, Begat: The King James Bible & the English Language by David Crystal. I came across this book while preparing for my message at the 2011 Great Lakes Grace Bible Conference titled The Language and Readability of the KJV.

While there are many books currently available discussing the various popular idioms derived from the King James Bible, Crystal's book is unique. Crystal started by reading through his King James Bible two times solely for the purpose of locating all the idioms commonly used in modern English. Next, since the King James translators were explicitly instructed to follow the Bishop's Bible where the truth of the original would permit as well as to consult other 16th century translations i.e., Tyndale's, Matthews, Coverdale's, Great, or Geneva Bibles where they agreed better with the Greek text, Crystal consulted these sources to see where each idiom's true origin could be found.

According to Crystal, the King James Bible carried many of the idioms found in previous translations forward and popularized them. Moreover, Crystal offers a total for the number of idioms truly originating in the text of 1611. To find out how many there are you will either have to listen to the interview with Crystal provided below or attend the 2011 Great Lakes Grace Bible Conference. Better yet get the book and read it for yourself it will fascinate you.

I don't normally support NPR but this is a good interview.

For a list of 122 everyday phrases that have a Biblical origin click here.

The Making of the King James Bible

2011-04-25T18:00:00.002-04:00

In 2003, Adam Nicholson a British historian, published God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible under the original title Power and Glory. Now in commemoration of the 400 year anniversary of the King James Bible the BBC has utilized Nicholson's scholarship to produce a documentary commemorating the translations landmark anniversary. Portions of Nicholson's book are available online for free and are worth reading. Please take the time to watch this informative documentary about the historical setting in which the King James Bible was produced.

To learn more about Adam Nicholson click here.

The Place of Preservation Part Two

2011-04-13T18:43:00.003-04:00

Unfortunately the YouTube version of this message is not available, however, the PDF notes and PowerPoint are. Please read through the notes concluding our Final Authority: Locating God's Word in English study. Discover that despite claims to the contrary, the differences between the King James and modern versions are serious and due affect basic doctrines of the faith. In addition, learn how the new Bible obscure dispensational truth.

For access to the audio of video please click here.

For a PDF copy of the notes click here.

For a copy of the PowerPoint click here.

The Place of Preservation Part One

2011-03-23T19:15:00.003-04:00

In The Place of Preservation Part One, we begin to apply the five points in the logic of faith to the historical record in an attempt to locate God's Word in English. In this study we cover the following critical points:

What is textual criticism?
Differences between the Preserved Test and the Critical Text
Summary of the Westcott and Hort theory of textual criticism

In the end, we offer a Scriptural evaluation of the critical approach as well as looked at textual differences in an attempt to demonstrate that there fundamentally only two Bibles. Don't miss this important study.

For a PDF copy of the notes click here.

To view the PowerPoint click here.

To view the chart on the Critical Text click here.

To view the chart on the Preserved Text click here.

The People of Preservation

2011-03-08T17:41:00.003-05:00

In the last posting we looked at the process of preservation. Not only has God promised to preserve his Word, but He did so through a multiplicity of accurate reliable copies that are just as authoritative as the original autographs. In this study, we consider the men who were entrusted to over see the copying and transmission of God's Word. Discover the God ordained role that the tribe of Levi and the New Testament prophets played in the preservation process.

To download the audio from this lesson click here. (Message dated 1/24/10)

For a copy of the PDF notes click here.

For a copy of the PowerPoint click here.

The Process of Preservation

2011-02-18T15:39:00.003-05:00

In this study we consider what the Bible teaches regarding how God is going to preserve his Word. Study with us and consider why the original never were the issue with God. Discover how God has promised to preserve his Word through a multiplicity of accurate reliable copies that are just as authoritative as the originals. Join us we follow the next step in the logic of faith.

For a PDF copy of the notes click here.

For a copy of the PowerPoint click here.

What is Preservation and Why is it Necessary?

2011-01-21T17:11:00.003-05:00

In this study we consider the long over looked doctrine of preservation. Modern doctrinal statements have much to say about inspiration but little if anything to say about preservation. Inspiration without preservation is incomplete. The same God who perfectly inspired every word of Scripture is perfectly capable of preserving that which He inspired. Study with us as we take the next step in explaining the logic of faith and demonstrate why preservation is necessary.

To view the PDF notes click here.
To view the PowerPoint click here.

What is Inspiration?

2011-01-07T15:43:00.002-05:00

As 2010 gives way to 2011, many English--speaking Christians will be celebrating the 400^th anniversary of the King James Bible. Initially known as the Authorized Version, this translation has had a profound effect upon the English Language as well as Western cultural history. Throughout 2011, Defense and Confirmation will be commemorating the publication of this influential work by presenting various videos and essays highlighting critical issues of the modern version debate. Moreover, we will consider the impact the King James Version has had upon the language, culture, and history of Western Christianity. We hope you will join us as we articulate the Viewpoint or Logic of Faith and how it should impact our search for God's Word in English.

Defense and Confirmation desires to shed the light of truth upon the modern version debate as well as to address many of the misconceptions that supporters of modern versions have used to bolster their position. Our goal is to speak the truth in love on this issue without the verbal assaults and character assassination that have all too often characterized both sides of this debate.

The first video presented below is the opening message in a series entitled, Final Authority: Locating God's Word in English preached in January and February of 2010 at Grace Life Bible Church in Grand Rapids, MI. Please enjoy watching What is Inspiration?

For a PDF copy of the notes click here.
For a copy of the PowerPoint click here.

Summer Update

2010-08-06T05:48:00.001-04:00

It is hard to believe that the first week of August is almost over already. Some of you may have noticed that I have not done much blogging this summer. As a school teacher, I try to take a break from the routine of life and make sure I spend a lot of time with my wife and kids during the summer. Between family, ministry, and work responsibilities September through May are often quite crazy. It is good to be able to slow down for a while.

The summer of 2010 has been great thus far. Becky and I have been able to accomplish many projects around our house that have needed our attention. In addition, we have spent a lot of time with our boys. In June, I had the privilege of teaching the teens at our first summer camp. On July 1^st, Becky and I celebrated our 10^th wedding anniversary. It was an honor once again to speak at the Grace School of the Bible Summer Family Bible Conference this past July. My message entitled I Reckon Myself Dead and Alive was well received which was encouraging. After the conference, thanks to my parents, Becky and I were able to sneak away for a couple of days for anniversary in Galena, IL. Thanks to the support of the saints, we sold out of our entire stock of books from the printing ministry. Two weeks from now Grace Life Bible Church will be hosting its first ever Vacation Bible School event. Moreover, planning is underway for the 2010 West Michigan Grace Bible Conference at the church October 8-10.

As you can see, I have not had much time for writing this summer. However, I have been doing a lot of reading to prepare for my Sunday School class on Church History beginning September 12. I have decided to call the class Church History: A Tale of Two Churches. The class is designed to trace the history of the loss and recovery of Pauline truth. Once school starts again and my daily routine stabilizes, I plan on picking up my weekly writing schedule once again. Until then, I hope everyone has a great conclusion to their summer.

The Scientific Argument against Evolution, Complete Artical

2010-06-29T07:01:00.002-04:00

A few weeks ago, at the end of May and beginning of June, I had written a series of articles on the issue of science and Evolution. Recently, I took those individual postings and edited them to read like a single essay. A PDF copy of the revised essay is now available on the Grace Life Bible Church web page. Discover that Evolution is a religion which requires more faith to believe than Creationism.

If you would like a copy of The Scientific Argument against Evolution, please click here.

2010 Teen Summer Camp

2010-06-22T07:27:00.003-04:00

Last week, my family and I had the honor of being involved in the 2010 Summer Teen Camp at Forth Faith Camp in Morely, MI. This camp was a collaborative effort on the part of Shorewood Bible Church, Grace Life Bible Church, and Canton Grace Fellowship. Mike and Marlene Taylor, of Shorewood Bible Church, did an excellent job of planning and running the camp. About 15 teens form the churches listed above enjoyed the week's festivities. There were many different activities including paintball, river tubing, capture the flag, basketball, and the 300 foot water slide.

Brother Alex Kurz taught during the morning chapel sessions on basic issues regarding salvation and right division. I spoke during the evening session on The Four Freedoms of Grace. The teens really seemed to enjoy the Bible teaching and by all accounts were challenged to grow in their faith and dig deeper into God's Word.

I promised the teens to make the PowerPoints I used available on the Internet. A PDF copy of my notes as well as the PowerPoint presentations are now available on the Grace Life Bible Church web site. Please use the following links to access the notes. Please disregard any typos or grammatical mistakes in my personal notes.

The Freedom to be Different (PDF)
The Freedom to be Vulnerable (PDF)
The Freedom to be Vulnerable (PowerPoint) After you click here scroll down and click.
The Freedom to be Candid (PDF)
The Freedom to be Candid (PowerPoint) After you click here scroll down and click.
The Freedom to Make Mistakes (PDF)
The Freedom to Make Mistakes (PowerPoint) After you click here scroll down and click.

Thanks to all the counselors who took time out their busy lives to spend time with the teens. I am already looking forward to next year. Thanks to everyone for a great week.

The Scientific Argument against Evolution, Part Four

2010-06-11T20:31:00.001-04:00

Darwinism, like all nontheistic worldviews borrows from the theistic worldview to make its own position intelligible. How so? Darwinists continually emphasize the superiority of reason over faith. Reason requires that the universe is reasonable, which presupposes order, logic, design, and truth. But order, logic, design, and truth can only exist and be known if there is an unchanged objective source and standard of such things.(1) "To say something is unreasonable, Darwinists must know what reasonable is. To say something is not designed, Darwinists much know design is. To say something is not true, Darwinists must know what truth is, and so forth."(2)

Many currently believe that "science is the only sourse of objective truth." While a statement such as this claims to be objective, it is certainly not scientific. The statement is philosophical in nature and cannot be proved scientifically. Therefore, it is self-defeating. In fact there are many truths that cannot be proven scientifically that all rational people accept:

Mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them)
Ethical judgments (one can't prove by science that the Nazis were evil because morality is not subject to the scientific method)
Aesthetic judgments (the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven)
Science itself (ironically, the belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself).(3)

This leads us to one of the most important lessons we can learn from considering the scientific arguments against evolution. Science is built on philosophy. In fact, science is a slave to philosophy.(4)

"Bad philosophy results in bad science, and good science requires good philosophy."(5) Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, co-authors of I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, offering the following to substantiate this point:

Science cannot be done without philosophy. Philosophical assumptions are utilized in the search for causes, and therefore, cannot be the result of them. For example, assume (by faith) that reason and the scientific method allow us to accurately understand the world around us. That cannot be proven by science itself. One can't prove the tools of science—the laws of logic, the Law of Causality, the Principle of Uniformity, or the reliability of observation—by running some kind of experiment. You have to assume those things are true in order to do the experiment.
Philosophical assumptions can dramatically impact scientific conclusions. If a scientist assumes beforehand that only natural causes are possible, then probably no amount of evidence will convince him that intelligence created the first one-celled or any other designed entity. When Darwinists presuppose that intelligent causes are impossible, then natural laws are the only game in town. Likewise, if a creationist rules out natural causes beforehand, then he also risks missing the right answer. However, a scientist who is open-minded to both natural and intelligent causes can follow the evidence wherever its leads.
Science doesn't really say anything—scientists do. Data is always interpreted by scientists. When those scientists let their personal preferences or unproven philosophical assumptions dictate their interpretation of the evidence, they do exactly what they accuse religious people of doing—they let their ideology dictate their conclusions. When that's the case, their conclusions should be questioned because they may be nothing more than philosophical presuppositions passed off as scientific facts.(6)

The evidence simply does not support the Darwinian worldview or Darwinists would not have to borrow from the theistic worldview to make their case. "Intellect, free will, objective morality, and human rights as well as reason, logic, design, and truth exist only if God exists."(7) Evolution assumes some or all of these realities when articulating their naturalistic view. In short, Naturalists cannot have it both ways.

Endnotes

Norman Geisler. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 130.
Ibid., 130.
Ibid., 126-127.
Ibid., 127.
Ibid., 127.
Ibid., 127-128.
Ibid., 132.

2010 Great Lakes Grace Bible Conference

2010-06-08T07:52:00.006-04:00

This past Memorial Day weekend, Becky and I had the privilege of attending the Great Lakes Grace Bible Conference in Wilmot, Ohio. This meeting sponsored by Ohio Grace Ministries was an excellent weekend of scenery, food, and fellowship around God's Word. In addition, to seeing old friends, I had the privilege of meeting many saints who are new to "right division" from all over the country.

I had the honor of preaching twice on the subject of Prayer for Today. Brother David Reid, one of the conference organizers, gave me challenging task of discussing how we should pray today during the dispensation of grace not how we should not pray. As I prepared for this conference it became apparent that it is much easier to tell someone how not to do something (negative) than it is to give clear instruction on how it should be done (positive). The fruit of my studies on this topic is summarized in the notes and PowerPoints I used to present these messages. I am pleased, as promised, to make these notes available for further study on this important topic. Please select from the following links.

While Becky and I were in Ohio, the saints of Grace Life Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan put on a yard sale to raise money for our upcoming Bible conference in October. I am pleased to announce that through their hard work we raised almost all the money we need to cover the expenses of the conference. My heart rejoices to be part of a Grace Church where there is life and vitality. I love all the members of my church family.

Finally, if you have not already done so please consider attending the 2010 West Michigan Grace Bible Conference in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This year's theme is The Grace Life at Home. Study with us as we seek to practically apply Grace doctrine to all aspects of family life. Even if you aren't married or don't have kids, you will not want to miss this weekend of practical application and edification. Please visit the conference website for complete details.

The Scientific Argument Against Evolution, Part Three

2010-06-04T07:41:00.003-04:00

Whether one is discussing the origin of the universe, origin of the first life, or new life forms, there are fundamentally only two options. Either everything came to be as the result of natural causes as evolution teaches or an intelligent supernatural cause is responsible for all things. For the sake of brevity, let us consider the origin of new life forms as a means of proving our overall point. Evolution maintains that new life forms developed through natural selection without any intelligent intervention. Conversely, the Bible teaches that all life forms came into existence by special creation through the work of an intelligent designer (God).[i]

In order to prove his hallmark doctrine of natural selection, Darwin compared the selection that supposedly occurred in nature and which was devoid of intelligent intervention with the artificial selection practiced by breeders.[ii] Take for example the breeding of dogs. While there can be no doubt that breeders are able to selectively mate dogs to achieved a desired outcome, this by no means proof that one species becomes a totally different species. A breeder’s ability to mate a Golden Retriever with a Poodle to create a Golden Doodle, which does not shed and is hypoallergenic, is an example of artificial selection. As elementary is it may seem, one should note that the result of this type of selective breeding is still a dog. When the discussion is framed in these terms, it is clear that the human action of selective breeding is not analogous to the blind action of natural selection but directly opposite.[iii]

Man has an aim or end in view; natural selection can have none. Man picks
out the individual he wishes to cross, choosing them by the characteristics he
seeks to perpetuate or enhance. He protects them and their issue by all
means is in his power, guarding them thus from operation of natural selection,
which would speedily eliminate many freaks; he continues his active and
purposeful selection from generation to generation until he reaches, if
possible, his goal. Nothing of this kind happens, or can happen, through
the blind process of differential elimination and differential survival which we
miscall natural selection.[iv]

Once again, anywhere design can be observed, as in the case of the breeding of dogs, one should always look for intelligent causes.

Over three centuries ago, Isaac Newton stated, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”[v] Christian philosophers and theologians for centuries have long held to the Teleological Argument for the existence of God. Steaming from the Greek word telos, which means design, the Teleological Argument states:

Every design had a designer.
The universe has highly complex design.
Therefore, the universe had a Designer[vi]

William Paley (1743-1805) popularized the argument through his common sense observation that every watch requires a watchmaker.[vii] “Imagine you’re walking along in the woods and you find a diamond-studded Rolex on the ground. What do you conclude is the cause of that watch: The wind and the rain? Erosion? Some combination of natural forces?”[viii] God forbid! There would be no question in your mind that some intelligent being made the watch and some unfortunate person accidently dropped it on the forest floor.[ix]

There can be no doubt that the universe resembles the design found in our misplaced diamond-studded Rolex, only infinitely more complex. Scores of examples could be provided to document the highly ordered design that is present within creation. For time’s sake, consider just one. If someone took apart a watch and threw all the pieces in their dryer, what are the chances that after one hundred cycles the parts would have reassembled themselves into a fully functioning watch? About the same chance that 1,000 monkeys with typewriters have of writing Romeo and Juliet. The greater and more intricate the design, the greater the intelligence of the designer.

In the end, the ordered and complex nature of the world around us leads to only one plausible conclusion, God, an intelligent primary cause, is creator of all things. One need not read even one verse of Scripture to know that it is totally absurd to believe that nothing made something. God is the uncaused cause who created the universe out of nothing by the word of his power. The words of Romans 1:20 rings powerfully true, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Man does not suffer from a lack of evidence. Rather, it is man’s sinful heart that wishes to escape accountability before almighty God. “The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.”[x]

Endnotes
[i] Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990), 227.
[ii] Ibid., 227.
[iii] Ibid., 227.
[iv] Ibid., 227-228.
[v] Isaac Newton. “General Scholium,” in Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687) in Great Books of the Western World. (Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica), 369.
[vi] Norman Geisler. The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 714-720.
[vii] Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 95.
[viii] Ibid., 95.
[ix] Ibid., 96.
[x] Psalm 14:1

The Scientific Argument Against Evolution, Part Two

2010-05-27T05:05:00.001-04:00

Last week we considered the difference between primary and secondary causes as well as operation science and origin science. In doing so we concluded that evolution is seeking to apply the principles of operation science to explain things that by their very nature only happened once. This week we want to consider the question of whether intelligent primary causes are possible.

Origin science is not restricted to secondary causes (the natural causes that operate the universe); therefore, origin science sometimes finds evidence that suggests an intelligent primary cause.(1) Previously we considered the example of the detectives and medical examiners on the television show, CSI. These law enforcement personnel have to determine for each death whether they are looking for a natural cause of death or a murderer—an intelligent cause. More often than not it is concluded that an intelligent being has intervened to bring about the victim's demise.

In the case of the origin of life, what type of evidence is needed to safely suggest the handiwork of an intelligent being? Noted evolutionist, Carl Sagan, has said that a single message from outer space would confirm his belief that there is extraterrestrial life.(2) Unwittingly, Sagan has admitted that some normal events such as communication require an intelligent cause. Do you remember Alphabets Cereal? It's that sugary kid's cereal where the pieces are shaped like the letters of the alphabet. Suppose you awoke one morning to find the following message spelled out on the table in cereal, "Good morning, honey. I hope you have a good day at school today. Love, Mom." Your first inclination is not to assume that the box of cereal tipped over and the characters randomly assembled themselves to deliver you a message. Rather, your first reaction would be to perceive that some intelligent source, in this case your mother, has purposefully arranged the bits of cereal to deliver a message.

The type of order necessary to spell out messages in cereal is known as specified complexity and it always points to an intelligent primary cause. Specified complexity is more than simply design or order; it is order of a complex nature that possesses a clear and specific function.(3) Consider the following three types of order.

Orderly (repetitive) and specified (GIFT GIFT GIFT GIFT). Example: crystal, nylon
Complex (unrepeating) and unspecified (TGELDHT TBWMHQC PUQHBT). Example: random polymers.
Complex (unrepeating) and specified (THIS SENTENCE CARRES A MESSAGE). Example: DNA(4)

Only one of these three types of order is the result of intelligent intervention. "It is obvious that wherever we see a clear and distinct message—a complex design with a specified function—it was caused by some form of intelligent intervention imposing limits on the natural matter that it would not take by itself."(5)

To bring the point home let us consider two geological formations. As we make this comparison, we need to remember that origin science is a forensic science based upon the principle of uniformity, which maintains that causes in the past are similar to the causes we observe today.(6) In order to illustrate the point, consider the following question, "What caused the Grand Canyon?" Even though we were not there to see the formation of the Grand Canyon, we can observe the natural process of water erosion causing canyons today and see the results produced, which are similar to the Grand Cayon. Therefore, we can surmise that the Grand Canyon was formed through the natural process of water erosion even though we did not directly observe its origin.(7)

In contrast, no reasonable person consistently applying the principle of uniformity would look at Mount Rushmore and conclude that it was the result of the natural process of water erosion. "Since we never observe natural laws chiseling a highly detailed sculpture of a president's head into stone at the present time, we rightly conclude that natural laws couldn't have done it in the past either."(8) In the present, we observe that only intelligent beings are capable of carving detailed sculptures out of rock. "As a result, we rightly conclude that, in the past, only an intelligent being (a sculptor) could have created the faces on Mount Rushmore."(9)

The implications of these conclusions are magnified when one considers the extraordinary complexities of human life. Recall that Darwin theorized that all life emerged form a one-celled organism through spontaneous generation alone (natural process). This is the height of absurdity when one considers that a single strand of DNA contains the equivalent of 1,000 encyclopedias worth of complex information. "Natural laws have never been observed to create a simple message like 'Drink Coke,' much less a message 1,000 encyclopedias long."(10) Spontaneous generation of life according to the Darwinian model has never been observed. Rather life only arises from similar existing life.(11) Ironically, any experiment that seeks to prove the spontaneous generation life suffers from the intelligent intervention of the scientist conducting the study.

We have seen that it is valid science to look for intelligent primary causes to events that show signs of intelligence. Archeology is based on this principle. When archeologists discover pottery or arrowheads they rightly conclude that some intelligent being produced it.(12) Likewise, present experience tells us that intelligent causes should be sought anytime we find specified complexity. "This gives us a criteria to show when an intelligent cause is operating and when it is not."(13)

Even the noted atheist, Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker, acknowledges that life bears evidence of design. Dawkins writes, "Biology is the study of completed things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."(14) Despite acknowledging "the intricate architecture and precision-engineering"(15) in each of the trillions of cells in the human body, Dawkins rejects the notion that any form of life is the product of design. All of this highlights the point Norman Geisler and Frank Turek make in I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, "the creation-evolution debate is not about religion verses science or the Bible verses science—it's about good science verses bad science."(16)

Since evolutionary biologists can offer no support for spontaneous generation, either empirical or forensic, it appears the "scientific" deck has been stacked against creationism by ruling out intelligent primary causes in advance. Phillip Johnson, author of the essay, The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, states "Darwinism is based on an a priori (prior) commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses."(17) Physicist Hurbert Yockey confesses, "The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously form nonliving matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology."(18)

Yockey highlights the dirty little secret naturalists don't want the public to know. Naturalism is a religion. It takes more faith for a reasonable person to believe that life spontaneously arose from nonlife than it does to believe that God, an intelligent cause designed the created order.

Endnotes:

Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990), 216.
Ibid., 216-217.
Ibid., 217.
Ibid., 217.
Ibid., 217.
Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 117.
Ibid., 117-118.
Ibid., 118.
Ibid., 118.
Ibid., 118.
Ibid., 118.
Geisler and Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences. 217.
Ibid.,218.
Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker. (New York: Norton, 1987), 1.
Ibid., 3.
Geisler and Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. 120.
Phillip E. Johnson. "The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism," First Things (November 1997): 22-25.
Hubert Yockey. Information Theory and Molecular Biology. (Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 284.

The Scientific Argument Against Evolution, Part One

2010-05-20T05:57:00.001-04:00

Most modern Americans associate the theory of evolution with the publication of On the Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin, in 1859. In reality, many nontheists prior to Darwin believed the universe was eternal or uncaused. Darwin's pivotal contribution was the notion of natural selection, which provided a mechanism to make evolution work beginning with matter alone. According to Darwin, life began as the result of chemical relations in a "warm little pool."(1) Over time, through the process of natural selection, new life forms evolved as organisms adapted new characteristics to meet the challenges of their changing environment. Darwin appealed to the fossil record to prove his theory that species that adapted survived while those who did not passed into extinction.

For Bible believers this naturalistic explanation for the origin of life does not pass the scrutiny of Scripture for a number of reasons. Adam was created as a fully functioning adult male made in the image and likeness of God. Moreover, Genesis one reports that the myriad of life observable in the biosphere was created in fully developed adult form and reproduced after their own kind. Lastly, the Bible is explicitly clear that God alone is responsible for the complex design of the crated order:

Genesis 1:1—"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
John 1:1-3—"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2) The same was in the beginning with God. 3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

The observant reader will notice how God's word clearly teaches that the universe is not eternal since it did not exit before God created it. Consequently, at every turn the Bible stands against the unproven theoretical suppositions of evolutionary theory.

Unfortunately, the prevailing thought in modern culture is that something is only true if it can be proven scientifically. In fact, many suppose that science alone is the only source for truth in modern life. This thinking is that if something cannot be subjected to intense scientific experimentation then it is not true. Statements such as, "science is the only source of objective truth" claims to be an objective truth, but it's not a scientific truth.(2) Believers should never allow themselves to be deceived by this sort of philosophical "tomfoolery." How can science be the only source of truth when statements such as this cannot be scientifically proven? In short, the statement is philosophical in nature—it can't be proven by science—therefore it defeats itself.(3)

The verses quoted above speak of "the beginning" of which God was the cause. Consequently, it is impossible for the universe to be eternal since everything that has a beginning has a cause. In this case, the eternal God is the originator of time and life. Obviously, these Scriptural realities stand in direct opposition to modern teaching on evolution. While the Bible has sufficient basis to reject evolution simply because it is repeatedly repudiated by the Scriptures, even those how disbelieve the Bible should reject evolution since there is abundant scientific evidence to disprove it.

This reality can be seen by comparing two different types of science, origin science and operation science. "All science is based on the notion of causality, every event has a cause."(4) Since things don't happen willy-nilly, even if we do not know the specific cause of some event, we can surmise what kind of cause it must have been because of the kinds of effects we see today. "The idea that whatever caused some effect in the past will cause the same effect in the present is called the principle of uniformity. All science is based on finding cause using these two principles: causality and uniformity."(5)

During the Scientific Revolution when men such as Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, and William Kelvin were developing the Scientific Method, they made as distinction between primary and secondary causes.(6) "A primary cause was a first cause that explained singularities—events that only happened once and had no natural explanation."(7) In contrast, secondary causes were thought of as being natural causes and laws that govern the way things normally function.(8) Just as it is wrong for supernaturalists to explain ordinary events such as earthquakes, tornados, and hurricanes using primary causes, it is also wrong for the naturalists to explain all singularities by natural causes.(9)

The result of distinguishing between primary and secondary causes has led to the development of two different types of science: origin science (forensic) and operation science (empirical).(10) Operation science deals with the way things normally operate; it studies things that happen over and over again in a regular and repeated way.(11) "Operation science seeks answers that are testable by repeating the experiment over and over, and falsifiable if the cause does not always yield the same effect."(12) For this reason, operation science seeks out natural (secondary) causes for the events it studies. This repeatability allows the scientist to project the outcome of future experiments.

Despite naturalistic claims to the contrary, origin science is not just another name used by those who teach creationism. Rather it is an entirely different kind of since. Dr. Norman Geisler, author of When Skeptics Ask, offers the following definition of origin science:

Origin science studies past singularities, rather then present normalities. It looks at how things began, not how they work. It studies things that only happened once, and by their nature, don't happen again. It is a different type of study that requires a difference approach. Rather than being an empirical science like physical or biology, it is more like a forensic science.(13)

The hit television show, CSI, is an example of origin science in action. A person's death is a singular event, meaning it cannot be reproduced through experimentation in a laboratory. Therefore, the detectives and medical examiners on CSI investigate a past singularity (a person's death) by examining the effect and than deducing what could have caused that event.

Mechanically, origin science works on different principles than operation science. Since past events cannot be presently repeated, origin science utilizes comparisons between cause and effect relationships observable today with the effect being studied. In this fashion, a medical examiner is able to determine if someone died from natural causes or if some other cause (murder, accident) is responsible for the effect. The bottom line is this: just as operation science recognizes that some events demand intelligent causes, origin science also makes allowances for intelligent causes when the evidence calls for it.(14)

Herein lies the basic scientific argument against Evolution, namely it has taken the wrong approach. Evolutionists have applied the principles of operation since to the study of origins. Consequently, they are seeking regular and repeated causes for an event (creation) that occurred only once. Naturalists have endeavored to use the operations that are presently observable to explain how the world got here in the first place. However, in order to properly understand origins, we must use origin science, not operation science.

Next week we will consider the evidence for intelligent primary causes.

Endnotes

Charles Darwin. On the Origin of the Species. (London: John Murray, 1859).
Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Book, 2004), 127.
Ibid., 127.
Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book, 1990), 213.
Ibid., 213.
Ibid., 213.
Ibid., 214.
Ibid., 214.
Ibid., 214.
Norman Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 567.
Geisler. Why Skeptics Ask. 214.
Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 568.
Ibid., 568.
Ibid., 568.

Calvinism, Arminianism, and Dispensationalism

2010-05-13T05:40:00.006-04:00

Watch the videos first before reading my commentary.

Calvinism and Arminianism as described in the above videos are both wrong and typify extreme view points. Theologians would have you think that these are the only options that exist. In reality, the only answer to these theological extremes can be found in rightly dividing the word of truth according to the Pauline model.

Calvinism is a theological superstructure based on the five points, commonly summarized by the acronym TULIP. If one can disprove any of these five points, the entire flower wilts despite some Calvinistic claims to the contrary. In other words, four point Calvinism is also scripturally unsustainable. Works such as The Other Side of Calvinism by Lawrence Vance or The Power of God unto Salvation by Joel Fink have already demonstrated in voluminous detail the interconnectedness and spurious nature of Calvin’s theological framework. Consequently, our goal here is not to write a lengthy dissertation rehashing information that has already been addressed. Rather our purpose is to offer a few key points demonstrating that mid-Acts dispensationalism is the answer to Calvinistic confusion.

I Timothy 2:4—“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” The express stated will of God is that all men be saved. This stands in direction opposition to Calvinism which teaches a limited atonement for the elect only.

II Corinthians 4:4—“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” Despite the fact that God’s will is that all men be saved, the reality is that all men will not be saved because some will reject the gospel. This causes a theological problem for the Calvinist who believes that the sovereign will of God can never be thwarted. II Corinthians 4:4 teaches that Satan is actively thwarting the will of God by blinding the minds of the lost. Satan knows that the preaching of the gospel of grace has the capacity to turn on the light of understanding in the minds of the lost, and therefore, he actively works to silence the clear preaching of the cross work of Christ. Furthermore, this verse highlights the true nature of the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity. Rather than simply teaching that man cannot save himself, Total Depravity teaches that man is totally unable to respond to gospel on his own and needs the Irresistible Grace of God to regenerate him so that he can believe. This theological double speak stands in direct contradiction to the verse. The preaching of the gospel turns on the light of understanding in the mind of a lost man at which point he is perfectly able to decide for himself whether or not he is going to believe.

Matthew 20:28—“Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” At face value, this verse as well as Mark 10:45, seem to be teaching a Limited Atonement. This is a prime example of why the word of God needs to be rightly divided. Historically, as of Matthew 20:28, according to all the information that God had progressively revealed up to this point in history, the atonement was limited to Israel first and any gentile who would identify himself with Israel. John 1:11 states, “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” Matthew 1:21 reads, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” Moreover, in Matthew 15:24, Christ states, “. . . I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” According to the Apostle Paul, in “time past” the gentiles were, “strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.”(1) Moreover, Paul clearly states that during his earthly ministry, “. . . Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.”(2) Consequently, during Christ’s earthly ministry, He came to atone for the sins of his people (Israel) as well as any gentile who associated himself with God’s nation. Therefore, in “time past,” the atonement was limited.

I Timothy 2:5-7—“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 7) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.” Paul in I Timothy Two teaches the exact opposite of what Christ taught in the upper room in Matthew 20:28. Notice that Paul says that Jesus Christ gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. In other words, when the time was right in the outworking of God’s plan, further information about what Christ accomplished at the cross was made known and revealed to humanity. Verse seven confirms that Paul was made a preacher and an Apostle of this due time message. As a result, in Paul’s epistles the atonement is revealed to be unlimited.

Romans 3:22—“Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.” According to Paul, salvation is being offered today “unto all” people. In other words, the atonement is unlimited in its potential application; Christ offered his life’s blood for the sins of all of humanity. However, the actual application of the righteousness of God is only “upon all them that believe.” That is to say, the only requirement to have the righteousness of God imputed to your account is to believe that Christ died, was buried, and rose again as the only complete payment for your sins. Christ did not just die to pay for the sins of the elect as Calvinism teaches with its Limited Atonement doctrine. Rather, Christ shed his blood to pay for the sins of all humanity. However, not everyone is going to chose to believe.

Ephesians 1:4—“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.” When a Calvinist reads this verse, they insert the word “to be” before the phrase “in him” which results in the following reading, “According as he hath chosen us to be in him before the foundation of the world.” This misreading of the passage greatly alters its meaning. We are not chosen or predestinated for anything until we by faith chose to get into Jesus Christ, i.e. we are chosen in him. In other words, God chose Jesus Christ(3) before the foundation of world, and we are chosen also because we by faith have been placed into Jesus Christ. If I board a plane in Michigan this afternoon heading for Florida the destination of that plane is predetermined, baring complications or disaster. However, no one forces me to board the plane. The choice to board or not board is left to my own volition (free will). So, it is with salvation. We are not forced on to the plane or into Christ against our will. Rather, when we willing believe the gospel the Holy Sprit baptizes and seals us in Jesus Christ. Then once placed into living union with the head of the body of Christ, we are chosen, elected, and predestinate to a glorious future in him.

Therefore, we see that the doctrine of Calvinism is completely inconsistent with the scriputures.

Endnoes
1) Ephesians 2:11-12
2) Romans 15:8
3) Isaiah 42:1

The Anatomy of Heresy, Complete Essay

2010-05-07T06:11:00.004-04:00

All of the postings form the past three weeks on the issue of Heresy have been combined and edited to read as a single essay. Study with us a we explore Heresy as one of the works of the flesh in Galatians 5.

Please click on the picture to the left for access to this file in PDF format.

If you are finding these studies beneficial please let us know. Moreover, feel free to share this essay with those who might find it interesting.

The Anatomy of Heresy, Part Three

2010-04-29T05:33:00.002-04:00

Over the past couple of weeks, we have been discussing the issue of heresy as a work of the flesh. Before leaving this subject, there are a couple more issues that merit discussion. Last week, we saw in I Corinthians 11:19 that heresies would not only be prevalent but also were necessary for manifesting the approved of God within a local church.

In II Timothy, one can observe the extensive impact that the proliferation of heresies had upon the preaching of the word of God rightly divided. At the end of his life and ministry Paul wrote, "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes."(1) The apostasy and departure from the truth was in full effect while Paul was still alive. When one considers the churches that Paul either personally established or instructed in the region of Asia (Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, Ephesus, and Colossae), his statement in II Timothy 1:15 demonstrates how quickly heresy can spread.

II Timothy 4:3 offers further insight into the mindset of those who would teach and give ear to heresy. Paul states, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." Thus far, we have Biblically defined heresy as the teaching of false doctrine with the goal of establishing a personal following of disciples. II Timothy 4:3 is important to our discussion for two reasons. First, it tells us that heresy cannot exist without people who are willing to listen to false doctrine. Second, it demonstrates that those who heap teachers unto themselves "having itching ears" are motivated by their own lusts, thereby clearly associating heresy in either the mind of the teacher or the hearer with the work of the flesh. In short, heretics cannot prosper without an audience of willing participants. The end result, of heresy is clearly stated in II Timothy 4:4: "And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." People are turned away from the truth through the telling of stories, which constitutes the bulk of modern preaching.

One thing is clear from the verses we have looked at over the past few weeks. Heresy finds its roots in the flesh's desire for importance and prominence. During the course of preparing these blog entries on The Anatomy of Heresy, I have been forced to evaluate my own ministry motives. Frankly, why do I write this blog? Am I writing it as a means of promoting my own abilities and advancing my own standing within the greater group of mid-Acts teachers? I would like to think I write to advance the truth in some fashion by clearly articulating in written form the precepts of the mid-Acts position. Personally, this study was a wake up call to constantly evaluate my motives for ministry. Paul writes the following in Galatians 1:10, "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." As soon as we find ourselves being motivated by a desire for the praise and adulation of men we are on the brink of heresy.

A few years ago, a respected older pastor shared with me his belief that every preacher needs to be aware that his flesh based ego desires attention and adulation. According to this brother, our pastoral ego is what drives us to stand up and publicly teach the word of God. As a young minister, I know this is true. I have a burning desire to be the best teacher of God's word that I can be. I want, "all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." I want to teach the scriptures clearly and powerfully. Here-in lies the danger of heresy as one of the works of the flesh. Jeremiah 17:9 teaches, "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperate wicked who can know it." The flesh has the capability to deceive the minister as to the purity of his own motives. At one point in my study on this subject, I actually considered the possibility that I needed to leave the ministry because I was continuously being motivated by the flesh. Then it occurred to me that the adversary would like nothing more than to silence me as a minister of God's word rightly divided. The bottom line is this: we all need to be skeptical of our own motives and seek to continually realign ourselves with God's word, according to Romans 12:2.

I worry sometimes that we have created a culture that is destroying the greater mid-Acts community of believers from within. I fully support the continued study of the Scriptures with the goal of recovering further truth and insight into the word rightly divided. However, I fear a situation has developed where some jockey for position and influence by striving to demonstrate either their deep understanding as evidenced by some great new truth or their preaching prowess. If honesty is the order of the day, I have found myself being pulled in this direction on multiple occasions. If personal advancement in the mid-Acts community depends on being perceived as weightier in word and doctrine than someone else, then we have created a breeding ground for heresy since the flesh will always desire a greater position of prestige than the one it currently possesses.

Another work of the flesh identified by Paul in Galatians 5:20 is emulation. According to Webster's 1828 Dictionary, emulation means:

The act of attempting to equal or excel in qualities or actions; rivalry; desire of superiority, attended with effort to attain to it; generally in a good sense, or an attempt to equal or excel others in that which is praise-worthy, without the desire of depressing others. Rom.11. In a bad sense, a striving to equal or do more than others to obtain carnal favors or honors.

An ardor kindled by the praise-worthy examples of others, inciting to imitate them, or to equal or excel them.
Contest; contention; strife; competition; rivalry accompanied with a desire of depressing another.

Since Paul is discussing the works of the flesh in this passage, he clearly has the negative aspect of this definition in mind. When preachers strive to out perform their colleagues with the goal of obtaining carnal favors and honor, heresy is lying in wait.

While some might not like my candor on this subject, I feel it is accurate. While calling out people individually may not be productive, we need to have an honest understanding of the forces at work within our midst. Incidentally, many of my friends in the ministry have echoed many of the sentiments discussed in this posting. As ministers of the gospel of the grace of God, we need to walk in the spirit so that we do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. In the end we must always remember, "but we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us."(2)

Endnotes:

II Timothy 1:15
II Corinthians 4:7

The Anatomy of Heresy, Part Two

2010-04-22T18:07:00.001-04:00

Having observed last week that heresy is one of the works of flesh it behooves all Bible believers, teachers, and preachers to acknowledge that all of us are only a couple fleshly decisions away from heresy at all times. As we saw last week, the Biblical definition of heresy is multifaceted, consisting of both false beliefs (doctrines) and their propagation with the intention of removing disciples away after oneself. Having its root in our natural flesh programming, heresy has the potential to be just as common as hatred, strife, wrath, or envy in the believer's life. Consequently, heresy is not something that we should view as a rarity. In contrast, we should acknowledge heresy as an ever present threat to any community of believers.

The Apostle Paul instructed the Corinthians that heresy would continually be present within their midst. Paul penned the following in I Corinthians 11:19, "For there must be also
heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." Not only does Paul speak to the common frequency of heresies within their assembly, he also teaches that their very presence would be an opportunity for the Corinthians to see who was approved and who was not. We learn two things from this verse. First, heresy, as a work of the flesh, would be both common and necessary. Second, the reason heresies are necessary is because without them it is difficult for believers to know who is approved and who is not.

Moreover, it is interesting to connect the word "approved" in I Corinthians 11:19 with the word "approved" in II Timothy 2:15. This connection between heresy and who the approved of God are must not be overlooked. II Timothy 2:15 states, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." The approved of God do not need to be ashamed because they rightly divide the word of truth in their study. In short, the approved of God are workman who have no reason to be ashamed because of how they approach the study of God's word.

By comparing I Corinthians 11:19 with II Timothy 2:15, important conclusions about the anatomy of heresy emerge. First, the presence of heresies in a local church is common because it is a work of the flesh. Second, the existence of heresy is necessary because it serves as an occasion for the approved of God to be made manifest to an assembly. Third, the approved of God are those who rightly divide the word of truth and are thereby able to answer the heretical teaching. Therefore, heresy in Paul's view is any doctrine that is contrary to the word rightly divided.

This is clearly demonstrated by considering the context of II Timothy. Immediately following Paul's admonition to rightly divide the word of truth, Timothy is instructed to ". . . shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness."(1) Timothy is given the same instructions that the Ephesians elders were in Acts 20, namely, not to listen to those speaking profane, vain, or perverse things. In II Timothy 2:17, Paul identifies Hymenaeus and Philetus as the source of these profane and vain babblings and compares the effect of their teaching to that of a canker. According to Webster's 1828 Dictionary a canker is "a virulent, corroding ulcer; or any thing that corrodes, corrupts or destroys. Sacrilege may prove an eating canker." Paul compares heresy to having a corrosive disease that eats away the very structures of ones faith.

Verse eighteen identities the specific details of the heresy being promoted by Hymenaeus and Philetus. These men were teaching that "the resurrection is past already." Herein we see the first component of heresy according to our working definition, the false belief that the resurrection had already occurred. Furthermore, it is clear that these men fulfill the second part of our definition by seeking to draw away disciples after themselves. This is obvious because they publicly promoted their error to the extent that they overthrew the faith of some.

How does one combat destructive doctrinal errors of this nature? The answer is clear, by rightly dividing the word of truth. Who rightly divides the word of truth? Approved workmen who need not to be ashamed. Why must there be heresies according to I Corinthians 11:19? So that "they who are approved might be made manifest". Once again, Paul's definition of heresy is any doctrine that subverts the word of God rightly divided. Likewise, only the rightly divided word can demonstrate the spurious nature of heretical beliefs and motives.

Heresy is not something that was determined by church councils or the Roman Catholic Inquisition. We need to remember that Paul wrote writing his epistles and identified heretics in the middle of the 1^st century, over one hundred years before the organized church identified any of the traditional heresies associated with the Christian faith. Therefore, we should not allow church tradition to form our definition of heresy. Furthermore, while believers are admonished to instruct those who oppose themselves in meekness "that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will,"(2) heresies are not to be tolerated indefinitely. Titus 3:10 states, "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject." After two unsuccessful attempts to share the truth with those who hold spurious views, Paul teaches that they are to be rejected, marked (identified as in the case of Hymenaeus and Philetus), and avoided.(3)

Simply stated, a heretic is one who believes and promotes heresy. A short investigation into the word heretic in Titus 3:10 yields important insight into the behavior and motives of heretics. According to Strong's Concordance, a heretick is defined as one who is schismatic, factious, or a follower of a false doctrine. Websters's 1828 Dictionary defines someone who is factious as being:

1) Given to faction; addicted to form parties and raise dissensions, in opposition to government; turbulent; prone to clamor against public measures of men. No state is free from factious citizens.

2) Pertaining to faction; proceeding from faction; as factious tumults; factious quarrels.

Recalling from last week the relationship between heresy and the formation of sects, one should not be surprised to learn that a heretic is given to faction and dissention since that is fundamentally what they are attempting to do. Heretics seek to cause division by rallying people to their cause in support of false beliefs. In addition, they vehemently attack those with whom they disagree. In doing so, they also demonstrate numerous other works of the flesh identified in Galatians, namely variance, strife, and seditions.

Stay tuned next week for more on this topic.

Endnotes:

II Timothy 2:16
II Timothy 2:26
Romans 16:17

The Shroud of Turin: Real or Hoax

2010-04-20T13:23:00.006-04:00

The week before Easter the History Channel aired the following two hour documentary on the Shroud of Turin called, The Real Face of Jesus. Experts in computer graphics have created a computer generated likeness of the image found on the Shroud. While I do not need the Shroud to be authentic to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I found this program to be fascinating. Not only is this the most fair minded "Christian" documentary I have seen the History Channel produce, but it also makes a compelling argument for the authenticity of the Shroud. I encourage everyone to view the following segments without commerical interruption and decide for yourself if the Shroud is the burial cloth of our Lord. Be sure to read my comments at the end.

I Corinthians 15:3-4 states, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again, the third day according the to the scriptures." As I said before, I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ because the scriptures say that he rose again on the third day. In short, I believe that the Bible is more sure than anything we can experience through our fives senses. Having been an eyewitness to the majesty of Christ, in addition to hearing the voice of God the Father at the mount of transfiguration, Peter states that he has more faith in God's written word than in what he saw and heard (II Peter 1:16-19).

Is the Shroud real? In the end I don't know, nor does it ultimately matter, because there is enough other evidence for the empty tomb. According to noted Christian Apologist, Norman Geisler the Apologetic value of the Shroud is limited. Geisler states, "As far as the apologetic value of the Shroud, the matter of its authenticity is not really relevant. All the essential evidence to defend Christanity is in fact apart fromt he Shroud. It it is authentic, it provides no essential evidence for Christ's death and resurrection that we do not already possess elsewhere. And if it not authentic, then we risk using a bad argument for a good cause and loose credibility for Christian apologetics. . . The miracles of Jesus confirm that he is the Son of God. Both Jesus and supernatural prophecy are sufficient to support the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. No other evidence is needed. Christanity does not stand or fall in any sense on the question of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. (Baker Encycyopedia of Christian Apologetics, 706)"

Any thoughts?

The Anatomy of Heresy, Part One

2010-04-14T11:03:00.003-04:00

The Apostle Paul writes the following in I Timothy 4:1-2, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2) Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” While one cannot know for sure whether we are living in the last days of the dispensation of grace, it is clear that the incidence of believers departing the faith has increased in recent days. Regardless of the issue- the, house church, annihilationism, universalism, timing of the rapture, titles for leadership in the local church, or the out right abandonment of dispensational truth for covenant theology - the cause of all departures from the faith is the same, i.e. the work of the flesh.

Paul teaches, in Galatians 5:19-21 that all heresies stem from the work of the flesh:

19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred,
variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21) Envyings,
murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before,
as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not
inherit the kingdom of God.

Strong’s Concordance offers the following definition of the Greek word translated heresies in Galatians 5:20: “a body of men following their own tenets, or dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims.” The Greek word “hairesis” is found nine times in nine verses in the King James Bible, of which five times it is rendered “sect” in English:

Acts 5:17—Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,
Acts 15:5—But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Acts 24:5—For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
Acts 26:5—Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Acts 28:22—But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.

The word “sect,” according to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, carries the following meaning:

A body or number of persons united in tenets, chiefly in philosophy or religion,
but constituting a distinct party by holding sentiments different from those of
other men. Most sects have originated in a particular purloin, who taught and
propagated some peculiar notions in philosophy or religion, and who is
considered to have been its founder. Among the Jews, the principal sects were
the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. In Greece were the Cynic sect, founded by
Antisthenes; and the Academic sect, by Plato. The Academic sect gave birth to
the Peripatetic, and a Cynic to the Stoic.

In addition, to its usage in Galatians 5:21, the remaining three occurrences of the Greek word “hairesis” are translated as heresies or heresy by the King James translators:

Acts 24:14—But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
I Corinthians 11:19—For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
II Peter 2:1—But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Heresy, according to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, is “a fundamental error in religion, or an error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine of religion.” Consequently, according to the Bible, fundamental errors in religious thought or belief (heresies) lead to the establishment of sects which are characterized by shared tenants of false doctrine. As a result, it seems to follow that heresies are the intellectual foundation for sects.

The sect of the Sadducees identified in Acts 5:17 stands out as a clear Biblical example of the connection between heresies and sects. It has often been said that the Sadducees were “sad you see” because they denied the resurrection of the dead. Luke 20:27 states, “Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him.” The heretical beliefs of the Sadducees centered around their denial of resurrection. This constitutes their fundamental error in religious belief and doctrine. Unfortunately, this error was widespread as there was an entire faction or sect within Israel’s leadership that held this heretical view. Since all heresies are the work of the flesh according to Paul, it is imperative to realize that pride or the possibility of self advancement motivates those who hold spurious doctrines to promote their views in an attempt to draw away disciples unto themselves, thus forming sects.

This pattern mirrors Paul’s warning to the Ephesians elders in Acts 20:28-30:

28) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which
the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath
purchased with his own blood.
29) For I know this, that after my departing
shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30) Also of
your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples after them.

Paul issues two warnings in this passage. First, in verse twenty-nine, he cautions these overseers about outsiders seeking to enter their midst seeking to sow discord and confusion amongst the brethren. Second, in verse thirty, he warns about men from within their own assembly that would arise speaking untruth in an attempt to create their own personal following. Sects are formed as men are drawn away from the truth by those speaking perverse things, i.e. heresies. After Paul left the region of Galatia, the Judaizers came in and sought to bring them back under the bondage of the law. In Galatians 4:17, Paul reveals the true motives of these people when he writes, “They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them.” It seems that the fleshly desire for disciples is one of the main motivators for those who would teach heresy.

It is fascinating to consider how all those who depart the truth of God’s word rightly divided find it necessary to berate and disparage those who hold the mid-Acts position. For many mid-Acts dispensationalists who depart the faith, the entire focus of their ministry becomes to assassinate the character and beliefs of their former allies as they actively promote the scriptural authority of their new found system of belief. Under the guise of demonstrating the error of their former theological system, they activity promote their new paradigm in an attempt to rescue the deceived from error. What is the primary force motivating this type of behavior? It is the flesh’s desire for importance and significance. Paul makes it clear that the main goal of false teachers is to draw away disciples unto themselves.

Historically, those who have entered into heresy may have been convinced they were correct or more accurately articulating the precepts of the faith. In theory, one does not believe something unless there is good reason for doing so. For example, I have often been accused of believing I am right on a particular issue. To which I offer the following rebuttal, “Duh, I would not believe something if I thought it was wrong.” In reality, since no one is omniscient or infallible we all possess thoughts about scripture that are not correct. This mere fact alone does not make someone a heretic. Over the past ten years, I have changed my position on many issues that I had taught publically. This past Sunday I used the word vicarious when I meant to say precarious which changed the meaning of what I was saying. If that makes me a heretic, then every preacher who has ever misspoke, mispronounced a word, or later changed his mind must also be branded a heretic.

So then, what makes someone a heretic? First, they must hold some doctrinal belief or position that is contrary to the clear teachings of God’s word rightly divided. Notice that scripture is the final authority in this case and not the church. On occasion, I have been uncomfortable with my mid-Acts brethren who cite “the collective wisdom of the group” as justification for a particular doctrinal position. Let me be clear lest I be misunderstood. We ought to hold those who have long labored on behalf of the truth in high regard. I respect the views of my co-laborers in the ministry and would have to seriously and prayerfully consider any grave points of doctrinal divergence. However, group think cannot replace scripture as our final authority. In the end, every man is accountable to the word of God and his own conscience.

Having established that we all hold beliefs that may not be correct, what makes someone a heretic? Biblically, it seems that heretics not only hold spurious beliefs but actively promote those beliefs with the goal of establishing followers. One betrays their motives when they depart one doctrinal position only to begin ordaining men in a new one. In such cases, truth was never the motivator for personal action: personal position, prestige, and adulation were.

Stay tuned next week for part two.

Parenting by the Principles of Grace, Part Three

2010-04-01T05:59:00.001-04:00

The Three Needs of Every Child

What is the goal of grace-based parenting? Scores of parenting books line the shelves at Christian book stores all claiming to offer new insight and practical tips. When we shut out all the noise, and use our own relationship with Christ as the model for how we should parent our own children, three core issues emerge. Above all else our kids have three basic needs: 1) a secure love, 2) a significant purpose, 3) a strong hope. These three needs summarize what God the father freely provides each believer the moment they place their faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. As members of the body of Christ we have been forgiven and made accepted in the beloved (secure love), ambassadors in Christ's stead (significant purpose), and given a blessed hope (strong hope). It thrills my heart that my boys fundamentally need the same things I do and that the grace message I hold so dear meets all these needs in abundance. As parents, our job is to communicate, live, and demonstrate the doctrines of the Grace Life to our children.

A Secure Love

"At the core of grace is love—a love that delights in us in spite of our sin and comes to us free of charge."(1) In Romans 5:8, Paul offers perhaps the greatest expression of this type of love, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The cross is the greatest expression of God's love for humanity. When we were dead in trespasses and sins, God loved us enough to send his son to die on our behalf so that we could be reconciled to God.(2) Furthermore, the gospel of grace teaches that salvation is a nonmeritorious gift bestowed freely upon the sinner through simple faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.(3)

If God loved us enough to die in our stead when we were yet sinners, how much more does God love us now that we have been saved?(4) Ephesians 1:6 states, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." Having been given redemption and the forgiveness of sins based upon Christ's work on our behalf, believers are at peace with God,(5) sealed with the holy spirit of promise,(6) adopted into the family of God as adult sons,(7) and seated with Christ in the heavenly places.(8) Does that sound like a secure love to you? Romans 8:35-39 confirms the security of God's love for us:

35) Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36) As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

37) Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

38) For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39) Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Consequently, when we sin, we don't fall out of grace rather we fall into grace--"where sin did abound grace did much more abound."(9) Only in Christ can the deepest longing of our soul for unconditional love and acceptance be totally, completely, and continually meet.

This is the steady and sure love that needs to be written on the hard drive of our children's souls.(10) This is the kind of love that will confidently carry our children into the future and successfully defend their hearts when they are under attack. We all know there is a difference between desiring to love our children and actually loving them in such a fashion that they develop a secure love. In Ephesians 5:25, Paul offers Christ's sacrificial love for the church as a picture of the love a husband ought to have for his wife. Likewise, the secure love we possess in Jesus Christ is the same love we need to communicate to our children.

Incomplete Love

My wife constantly reminds me that the decisions I make demonstrate what is really important to me. Our kids are perceptive little people. They intuitively know when they are being dismissed or demoted on our priority list. In Grace-Based Parenting, Tim Kimmel acknowledges that the love we communicate to our children is often incomplete when they feel they constantly have to compete for it.(11) Kimmel writes, "We tell them we love them and then they watch us make decisions regarding careers, our friends, or our pastimes that directly undermined our ability to invest the time in them that love requires."(12) To be clear, working and paying the bills is part of the Pauline parenting paradigm:

I Timothy 5:8—But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
II Thessalonians 3:10—For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Most children understand that work is necessary for the well being of the family. However, they also know when we make deliberate choices to take something from them that they vitally need so we can enhance our careers. When parents make selfish choices, they communicate an insecure love to their children. While children may not question that we love them, they simply feel like we love other things more.(13)

There is a second way that parents communicate incomplete love to children according to Tim Kimmel. Our parental love is incomplete and violates the principles of grace when we make our kids feel like they have to earn it.(14) "They figure out that they receive praise and pride when they do things that make us look good or make our jobs as parents easier. These are kids, who have to process a lot of guilt before they can find approval."(15) Does this sound like the unconditional love and acceptance we enjoy in Jesus Christ described above? As parents we need to remember that any time we find ourselves operating on the basis of a system of performance-based acceptance, God the Holy Spirit is not leading us to function in that fashion. Galatians 5:18 makes this vividly clear, "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law."

Definition of Love

Without launching into a lengthy dissertation on the various Greek words that are translated charity or love in the King James Bible, most believers know that love is not primarily a feeling but a choice. As Christ faced the cross on the eve of his crucifixion, it was not warm romantic feelings that compelled him to willingly be tortured and die on our behalf. Rather, it was a love that chose to be submissive to the will of the father. In the late 1970s Christian musician Don Francisco sang "love is not a feeling it's an act of your will."

Accordingly, Tim Kimmel offers the following definition of love in Grace-Based Parenting:

Love is the commitment of my will

to your needs and best interests,

regardless of the cost.

Line one expresses the reality that doing what is loving often does not come naturally. We must muster the strength to place our feelings in check and make decisions based upon the commitments we have made before God and to our families. The Apostle Paul touches upon the reality of line two in Galatians 5:13, "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." The liberty grace has provided sets us free to serve others before ourselves. "Love see our needs as a "B" priority compared with the interests of the person we are called to love . . . Love is about meeting their actual needs, not their selfish needs."(16) Consequently, we are not demonstrating love when we indulge our children in what they want or when we attempt to circumvent the consequences of sin in their lives. Lastly, secure love acknowledges that loving someone is often inconvenient and painful. Loving our kids costs money, time, sleep, and often careers. Christ's love for us cost him his own life and stands out as the ultimate expression of the cost of providing a secure love.

Practical Tips for Making Love Secure

"We've got to love them (our kids) in the way that God loves us—when they're unappreciative, when they don't deserve it, when it's inconvenient, when it is costly to us, even when it's painful." The following three statements when administered consistently build an authentic secure love in the hearts of our children that will help stabilize them into adulthood: 1) children feel secure when they know they are accepted as they are, 2) children feel secure when they know they are affiliated with a loving and honoring family 3) children feel secure love when they receive regular and generous helpings of affection.

While points two and three seem like no brainers, point one requires further explanation. To be clear, because our children are born sinners in Adam, there are many thoughts and attitudes our kids possess that we do not have to accept. "Selfishness, disrespect, deceit, and any other sinful action do not have to be condoned or tolerated." However, when I speak of acceptance, I am talking about those things that are part of our children's personal makeup. "These are the unique things that make them individuals—the emotional, intellectual, and physical DNA. These are also the things that have no moral problems affixed to them. Many of our kids do things that annoy, frustrate, or embarrass us but they are not wrong. Every time we point these things out, we tell them that they don't measure up. This builds insecurity in them."(17) Kimmel writes the following to illustrate his point:

Boys are often berated because they are noisy, messy, or aggressive. Girls are often criticized for being too emotional, picky, or overly sensitive. Some kids are criticized for being slow, forgetful, or inquisitive, or for saying whatever pops into their heads. They have a hard time getting up, struggle in certain subjects in school, and are often taunted regarding physical features like eyes, nose, teeth, neck, knees, feet, voice, hair texture, or their completion.

Boys are criticized for liking girls; girls are criticized for liking boys. Some boys don't like sports. Some girls don't like to play house. Teenagers need more sleep . . . Kids go through awkward times where they don't' think they're attractive, smart, or interesting.(18)

As parents we need to be communicating nothing but acceptance for the unique characteristics of our children. Under grace, God accepts all of our uniqueness without requiring us to conform to some arbitrary standard, parents should follow suit with our own kids. When parents treat their children in same way God treats, us we demonstrate in real terms the acceptance God for all of our unique characteristics.

Endnotes:

Tim Kimmel. Grace-Based Parenting. (Nashville, TN: W Publishing Group, 2004), 46.
Romans 5:10
Ephesians 2:8-9
Romans 5:9
Romans 5:1
Ephesians 4:30
Galatians 4:5, Romans 8:14-17
Ephesians 2:6
Romans 5:20
Kimmel. Grace-Based Parenting. 46.
Ibid., 49.
Ibid., 49.
Ibid., 50.
Ibid., 51.
Ibid., 51.
Ibid., 52.
Ibid., 55.
Ibid., 55

Parenting by the Principles of Grace, Part Two

2010-03-24T16:30:00.002-04:00

How We View God Determines How We Parent Our Children

After being a father for five years, I am convinced that parenting is one of the most difficult challenges believers face. None of us wants to mess up our kids. We all want our children to believe the gospel of grace for their eternal salvation. Moreover, it would also be nice if our kids would embrace the message of grace and remain in the doctrine for the duration of their lives. Yet, many of us worry we are screwing up our kids. In fact, many are burdened with guilt over past failures and fear of future mistakes. Many of us fall back on our default setting, and parent our children similarly to the way our parents raised us. As we all know, this type of copy cat parenting is not always good.

How can we offer gracious leadership for our kids in the midst of a culture that has gone berserk? Culture relativism and postmodern philosophy challenge the very nature of absolute truth. Where lying, cheating, stealing, and pushing your weight around at the expense of someone else used to be recognized as wrong, now they are accepted if the situation calls for it. Where the word of God used to be the box top people used for guidance in assembling the puzzle pieces of life, now the notion that any absolute standard of truth exists is viewed as close-minded and exclusive.

Ineffective Parenting Models

In Grace-Based Parenting, author Tim Kimmel discusses seven common evangelical parenting models that he believes to be deficient. According to Kimmel, the proof of an effective parenting model lies in how prepared our children are to enter the world of adulthood and not be intimidated by those who do not share our Biblical worldview. Kimmel writes:

The proof that any model of parenting is effective is not how the parents and children get along. It isn't even how well they treat and respect each other after they are all grown up. Even nonreligious families can accomplish this. The real test of a parenting model is how well equipped the children are to move into adulthood as vital members of the human race. Notice I didn't say "as vital members of the Christian community." We need to have kids that can be sent off to the most hostile universities, toil in the greediest work environments, and raise their families in the most hedonistic communities and yet not be the lest be intimidated by their surroundings. Furthermore, they need to be engaged in the lives of people in their culture, gracefully representing Christ's love inside these desperate surroundings.(1)

Grace based parents ought not measure the effectiveness of their parenting by comparing their kids to others, for this will surely led down the path of legalism. II Corinthians 10:12 states, "For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise."

Kimmel submits the following seven models as ineffective for demonstrating grace to our children. Grace-Based Parenting discusses these seven parental mindsets in descending order beginning with the most prevalent.

Fear-Based Parents—are scared of Hollywood, the Internet, the public school system, Halloween, drugs, alcohol, rock'n'roll, rap, unbelieving softball teams, and liberals. "Fear based parents assume that obedience to a stricter and tighter standard will somehow help them raise better children.(2) As a result, fear drives these parents to erect unnecessary defenses around their children under the misguided notion that God's favor for having done so will protect their kids. "Fear based parenting is the surest way to create intimidated kids. It's also the surest way to raise Christian kids who either don't have any passion for lost people, are indifferent to the things of God, or out-and-out rebel against their parents, their church, and the Lord."(3)
Evangelical Behavior-Modification Parents—"this is an offshoot of fear-based parenting that assumes the proper environment, the proper information, the proper education, and the absence of negative influences will increase the chances of a child's turning out well. This parenting plan works from two flawed assumptions: 1) the battle is primarily outside the child (it's not); and 2) that spiritual life can be transferred onto a child's hear much like information is placed on a computer hard drive (it can't)."(4)
Image-Control Parents—adhere to a checklist method of parenting that is part of the seduction of legalism. "Image—control parenting assumes that people will know you are a good Christian parent raising nice Christian offspring by your church attendance, they way you dress (or don't dress), they way you cut your hair (or don't), the words and expressions you sue (or don't use), the schools you attend (or don't attend), the movies you see (or don't see), or the amount of Scripture you can quote."(5) In short, all decisions are made based on how the family will appear to others.
High-Control Parents—"There is a vast difference between parents who keep their children under control and parents who control them. High-control parenting happens when we leverage the strength of our personality or our position against our children's weaknesses to get them to meet our selfish agenda. This form of parenting is fueled by a combination of toxic fear, toxic anger, toxic bondage, toxic shame, and toxic strength." "High-control parents are blind to how they are treating their children because high-controllers can always morally justify every move they make. Because they are so convinced that their controlling tendency is right, they can't see how destructive it's effect is on their children."(6) These parents are easily frustrated when their children fail to conform to their standards. Moreover, they are almost never willing to admit when they are wrong.
Herd-Mentality Parents—"these are parents who follow the crowd . . . These parents aren't known for thinking as individuals. Instead they follow the fads in how they eat, dress, vacation, educate their kids, and worship." Rather than knowing their children individually and applying God's word to each situation, Herd-Mentality parents look around and parent like everyone else.(7)
Duct-Tape Parents—"rather than figure out how to fix their parenting issues, these families cope by patching their problems. Temporary solutions are sought when crisis arise. These families are usually running on empty—to busy, too many bills, and too focused on the immediate rather than the permanent."(8)
Life-Support or 911 Parents—"these homes are much like the duct-tape families but with the added feature that a particular crisis is dominating their focus. They may be consumed with a medical or economic crisis. Or the crisis maybe the result of the deterioration or collapse of a marriage."(9)

While Kimmel is not a mid-Acts dispensationalist and therefore lacks the theological support structure for his teaching on grace, it is clear that he does understand some of the practical aspects of grace-based living. After articulating the seven defective parenting models described above, Kimmel offers the following summation of why they are lacking:

All the parenting styles listed above have this in common: they are the result of a parent's theology. Their theology is a combination of the way they view God and the way they think He views them. If we have flawed theology regarding God's attitude towards us, it can automatically crate a chain reaction of flawed decisions in how we raise our children. It can also set up our children to miss the joy of God, the heart of God, and the power of God in their personal lives. This is a recipe for the child to rebel and reject a parent's primary belief system.

This is a powerful truth: how we view God determines how we parent our children. For those of us who call ourselves grace believers, and claim to be living the grace life, we need to consider this question: do we truly apply what we say believe about God's grace when we deal with our children? What are we teaching our kids about God through how we parent them? Much of what our children believe about God in their early years is formed through the type of leadership we provide for our children. In short, we need to parent our kids the way God deals with us, in grace.

Judgmental and Legalistic Parents

Kimmel articulates two overarching attitudes that mark the defective parenting styles outlined above. Judgmental and legalistic parents fail to communicate to their children the unconditional love and grace of God. Please consider the following descriptions:

Judgmental Parents—"spend most of their time making sure their family is better than the ones around them. They live to monitor everyone else. Their children are supposed to support their concerns about what is wrong with everyone around them. If you were to see them in action, you would notice them pointing their fingers at others and having little to do with anyone who doesn't see life their way. They can be especially hard on children who don't accept their narrow view of life." Their advice to their children is a mixture of: 'God is watching you, and so am I,' and 'You may be bad, but you're better than so-and-so.' "When it comes to boundaries, their exhortation to their children would be: "if it feels good, it's probably wrong!" When it comes to God, they are so distracted by looking down on other families that don't see life their way, they don't really enjoy God much."(10)
Legalistic Parents—"spend most of their time trying to make sure their family does everything right. They live to keep score of their own good deeds. Their children are supposed to help them stack up "brownie points" with God. If you watch them in action, they appear burdened and stressed out. They are especially hard on children who don't toe the line." Their advice to their kids is a combination of: 'You owe God so you better get busy,' and 'You may be bad, but if you try harder, you can ultimately please God.' "When it comes to boundaries, their exhortation to their children would be: "if it feels good, stop it!" They assume that what God demands of them should be their primary business. When it comes to God, they feel they need to reimburse Him.(11)

Children who are raised by judgmental parents come of age with a sense of spiritual superiority. Whereas kids raised in legalistic homes tend to leave home feeling inferior and guilty. Often the offspring of legalistic homes rebel and live their lives in stark contrast to the oppressive values of their parents.

Grace-Based Parenting

Contrasted with judgmental or legalistic parents, those who rear their children with grace as their model are inherently unafraid of the evil that surrounds them. Grace-based parents understand their own propensity toward sin. As a result, the grace and forgiveness they have received from Christ motivates them to love and good deeds for the right reasons. Not motivated by the needed to do penance, grace-based families don't stand in judgment over struggling people. Rather, they see themselves in struggling people and understand how much of God's love they have received. Consequently, kids reared in a Grace-based home are daily recipients of the same grace their parents rejoice in. Grace-based parents offer the following advice to their children: 'you are a gift from God; go make a difference,' and 'you may struggle doing the right thing sometimes, but you're forgiven.'(12) When it comes to boundaries, grace-based parents teach, "if it feels good, examine it in light of God's word rightly divided."

As we discussed last week, grace does not exclude obedience, respect, boundaries, or discipline, but it does determine the atmosphere in which these important parts of parenting are carried out. Grace allows us to tailor our parenting style and decision-making process around the unique bent of each child. Grace helps us determine what rules need to be written in pencil and which ones should be written in blood.(13) In short, God's word draws boundaries for acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Grace allows these boundaries to be enforced without crushing the spirits of our children.(14)

Endnotes:

Tim Kimmel. Grace-Based Parenting. (Nashville, TN: W Publishing Group, 2004), 9.
Ibid., 13.
Ibid., 13.
Ibid., 13.
Ibid., 14.
Ibid.., 14-15.
Ibid., 15.
Ibid., 15.
Ibid., 15-16.
Ibid., 16-17.
Ibid., 17-18
Ibid., 19-20.
Ibid., 22.
Ibid., 19-20.

Parenting by the Principles of Grace, Part 1

2010-03-19T18:44:00.001-04:00

Confessions of a Tent Making Grace Preacher

Let me begin this journey by telling you a couple of things about myself. First, my wife, Rebekah, and I have been married for almost ten years. Three weeks after we got married, I began preaching at West Side Grace Church in Muskegon Heights, Michigan at the ripe old age of twenty-three. Still in college, I struggled to juggle my marital, ministry, and academic responsibilities. In 2002, I completed my undergraduate studies with a dual bachelor's degree in Secondary Education and Religious Education. That same year I was ordained by Berean Grace Church in Genoa City, Wisconsin and officially installed as the Pastor of the Muskegon Heights assembly.

In 2003, I landed my first full time job as a high school social studies teacher at a public charter school in Cedar Springs, Michigan. In the meantime, having purchased our current home, Becky and I decided it was time for us to begin our family. After almost two years Andrew, our first son was born in January of 2005. In December of 2006, I began working on my Masters Degree in Military History in order to retain my teaching credentials with the state of Michigan. Prior to beginning this eighteen month accelerated program, Becky and I decided that we would wait under after I was finished to have a second child.

In June of 2007, only seven months after beginning my Masters Degree, Becky unexpectedly was pregnant with our second son. In the meantime, things with our assembly had taken a turn for the worse resulting in my resignation in October 2007. The very next week, a core group of saints met and began forming our current assembly, Grace Life Bible Church. December of 2007 brought even more change as I finally landed a teaching job at a large public high school in Greenville, Michigan after five years of searching. That same week Becky's beloved grandfather died after a long struggle with cancer. In addition, Daniel, our second son was born two days after Christmas.

To recap, heading into 2008, I was trying to balance a new child, new job, new ministry, to finish my Master's degree, and to see to the needs of my wife and eldest son. Needless to say, my cup was running over and making a mess all over the floor. Throw in a colicky baby and the resulting lack of sleep, and it's a miracle Becky and I survived. Not very gracious I know.

It is now 2010. Thankfully, the pressure cooker of life has released some of its steam. Needless to say, life remains a juggling act between marital, parental, ministerial, and work responsibilities. Looking back, it is easy to see how being in survival mode for such a long period of time adversely impacted my family, particularly my wife and oldest son. Throughout our ordeal, Becky struggled with my being gone to teach other people the truth about God's grace while I was struggling to make spiritual connection with her. Likewise, rather than offering gracious leadership for Andrew, my parenting resembled something of a duct tape approach. Rather than addressing the spiritual issues that lay at the heart of my son's struggles, I offered a legalistic discipline that was designed to solve the latest crisis that was distracting me from my list of priorities.

In her wisdom, my wife knew that the inertia of life was pulling us down the wrong path. Desperate to right the ship, she reached out to one of her Christian friends who recommend the book Grace-Based Parenting by Tim Kimmel. Michelle shared with Becky how Mr. Kimmel's book had helped her in dealing graciously with her two children. Knowing in my spirit that things needed to change, I immediately purchased the book and began reading it with Becky. Instead of offering instant liberation, we felt condemnation as we both came face to face with the mistakes we were making. Rather than suffer any more heartache, the book was placed on Becky's dressed where it collected dust and remained untouched for the next nine months.

Meanwhile, time marched on, and Andrew celebrated his fifth birthday in January of this year. While relationships at home improved as life slowed down, things Andrew would say to me caused me to wonder how he viewed God. For example, after Andrew would be disciplined for not listening to Becky or me, he would say things like "Jesus doesn't love me anymore." Initially, my reaction was to ignore this as an attempt to get my goat after having punished him. However, as these exchanges continued over time and were coupled with more interest in Spiderman than evening Bible reading, I began to worry that the way in which I was correcting my son was impressing a legalistic view of God upon his little mind.

Two steps ahead of me as usual, Becky dusted off Grace-Based Parenting and began reading it without me. Finally, after weeks of ignoring the spirit's work in my inner man, I picked up the book and began reading it on my own. It was so insightful that I finished the entire book in one week. Mr. Kimmel's common sense grace approach offered a new perspective on my job as a parent as well as what my parenting style had been communicating to my son.

While some might find it scandalous that a grace preacher would struggle in demonstrating grace toward his children, I submit that I am not alone in this short coming. I rejoice that grace gives me the ability to be candid about my own failings. The bottom line is that we as parents, particularly grace parents, need to deal with our kids the same way God deals with us. While some might argue that my son's struggles are typical for five year olds, I know in my inner man that Grace has not been the driving force behind the way I deal with my sons. Rather, I have been more concerned about what people in my family or church would think of my wife and me if our kids behaved in certain ways. Just as grace gives us the freedom to be different, candid, vulnerable, and to make mistakes, we need to extend the same freedom to our children without crushing their spirits and turning them off to the truth of God's word rightly divided.

Children need boundaries. Grace does not promote or give one license to sin as many have suggested. Rather, grace teaches us how to live "soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world," according to Titus 2:11-12. Paul, using the language of grace, reiterates the moral standards God included in the Ten Commandments. For example, Paul's writings prohibit idol worship, use of the Lord's name in vain (corrupt communication), stealing, lying, adultery, murder, a covetous spirit, and promote children obeying their parents. In fact, only the command to honor the Sabbath is not restated by Paul as a moral standard for the body of Christ. In short, true Biblical grace does not tolerate untruth or sin. Likewise, we should not turn a blind eye to these behaviors in ourselves or our children.

At this point you might be wondering why I am so frank with sharing my parental shortcomings. The simple answer is that I know that I am not the only one that struggles with these issues. Human nature and the human experience is universal. For those of you who haven't noticed we have a serious challenge of keeping the second and third generation of Grace kids in the doctrine. I personally believe that one of the reasons for this phenomenon is the double standard that exists within so many grace homes. Our kids grow up listening to messages about grace but then don't experience grace in any meaningful way at home. This disconnect between what we teach and how we act does not go unnoticed by our children. Herein lies the reason why I have chosen to write on this topic - I want to share some of the practical tips I learned for reading Grace-Based Parenting.

As I post these articles over the coming weeks, I am by no means claiming to be an authority of the subject of Grace-Based parenting. Rather, I am trying to generate some honest dialogue about this sensitive and often overlooked aspect of the Grace Life. Please feel free to share your own successes and defeats. It is my prayer that all our homes can be a refuge of grace for our children as we raise them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

The Truth About Angels: Basic Facts About the Angelic World

2010-03-17T05:49:00.003-04:00

Are Grace Lifers Deists? Complete Articel

2010-03-13T13:50:00.005-05:00

Many have accused those who believe in the principles of the Grace Life with being Deists. In our most recent series of postings I set out to prove that Grace Lifers are not Deists. All of the individual postings in this series have been combined and edited to read like a single essay. Click here to obtain your copy of Are Grace Lifers Deists? Learn how Grace Lifers enjoy the most intimate relationship with their heavenly father that is humanly possible. Be sure to share these life changing truths with others who will listen. If you would like to see this essay professionally printed please contact Grace Life Bile Church to contribute to an effort to get it printed.

Are Grace Lifers Deists? Part Four

2010-03-04T05:49:00.002-05:00

Grace Lifers Are Not Deists

Now that we have explored the basic beliefs of Grace Lifers and Deists, we are ready to answer the central question possessed by the series of postings — are Grace Lifers Deists? Simply stated, Grace Lifers are not Deists. There are many reasons why those who hold the principles of the Pure Grace position are not Deistic in their theology.

First, Grace Lifers as they have been defined in this series of articles, believe in the concept of divine revelation. In addition to God's general revelation through creation,(1) Grace Lifers adhere to the belief that God inspired(2) and preserved(3) every word of Scripture. By holding this position, supporters of the Grace Alternatives are in direct opposition to one of the fundamental tenets of Deism, which asserts that any belief in divine revelation is spurious.

Second, because the Bible is God's revelation to humanity, Grace Lifers believe every single miracle recorded in Scripture. To the author's knowledge, there is not one Pure Grace teacher who doubts or questions the veracity of any miraculous event record in the Bible. In fact, Grace Lifers are emphatic that one must believe in the greatest miracle of all, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, to receive justification, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins. Once again, the facts demonstrate that the Pure Grace principles stand in direct contrast with the beliefs of Deists.

Third, unlike Deists, Grace Lifers maintain the orthodox belief in the Deity of Jesus Christ. Supports of the Pure Grace position hold that Jesus Christ was the second member of the Godhead incarnate in human flesh.(4) Logically, it follows then that Grace Lifers would also hold a Trinitarian view of the Godhead unlike the Unitarian view typically espoused by Deists.

The results of our investigation are clear. It is impossible to rightly call Grace Lifers Deists since they are at odds with the fundamental beliefs of a Deistic worldview. Despite this clear testimony, Grace Lifers maintain positions on how God is working in time that may appear Deistic to those who are unfamiliar with them or have chosen not to give the Pure Grace position a fair hearing. Unfortunately, this writer believes one contributing factor is that teachers of the Grace Alternatives have not always articulated their views clearly.

Grace Life Position on God's Working in Time

Scripture is clear that God created an orderly universe that functions according to natural laws. For example, universal gravitation is responsible for the movement of the planetary bodies through the cosmos. The tilting of the earth on its axis combined with these gravitational relationships has resulted in seasonal changes upon the earth. Genesis 1:14-19 reports these facts:

14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18) And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19) And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Please note that when God garnished the heavens with the sun, moon, and stars, he placed them in such as fashion to communicate information to the inhabitants of the earth. Specifically, it is by the earth's rotation on its axis that days are counted. Likewise, not only is one revolution of the earth around the sun how we account for years, but it is this earth-sun relationship that also brings about the passing of the seasons. For the Bible believer there can be no doubt that God created an orderly universe that functions in accordance with natural laws that God established.

Grace Lifers, along with the rest of orthodox Christianity, assert that the same God who created the laws upon which creation functions is capable of intervening within them. As stated earlier, supporters of the Grace Alternatives believe every miraculous account of God's intervention recorded in Scripture. The question is not whether God has intervened physically in the past, or even could God intervene miraculously during the dispensation of grace, because the Bible is clear that God has done so in the past. Rather, the real question is whether God works in this fashion today during the church age.

Above all, Grace Lifers believe that God has complete integrity to his word. In this sense God places limits upon his own actions. For example, God certainly still possesses the power to destroy the world again through a flood. However, God promised humanity through the Noahic Covenant that he would not do so.(5) Titus 1:2 states, "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began." If God exercised his omnipotence to destroy the world through a flood after promising he would not, God would violate his own word thereby making him a liar. Since Hebrews 6:18 tells us that God cannot lie, a second global flood is clearly not an option for God even though his power to do so has not subsided. Consequently, despite traditional claims to the contrary, God cannot do whatever he wants whenever he wants since he has complete integrity to his word.

As we saw in the second posting in this series, the Pure Grace position holds that God deals with humanity in accordance with the nature of the dispensation that is in effect. During the current dispensation of grace, God is forming a spiritual body of believers in which all physical divisions have been removed.(6) Hence, all the blessings that the body of Christ receives are spiritual in nature according to Ephesians 1:3, "blessed be the God and Father or our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ." According to Ephesians 1:4-9, believers received the following spiritual blessings the moment they trusted Christ: predestination unto the adoption of children, acceptance in the beloved, redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, wisdom and prudence in abundance, and knowledge of the mystery of his will. Moreover, believers are said to be spiritually seated with Christ in the heavenly places as we wait for the Lord's return to catch away the church.(7) In short, the salvation and blessings of the body are all spiritual in nature, and our destiny is heavenly in location.

In accordance with the nature of this spiritual body that God is forming in his Son, Paul describes Christ's relationship with the members is body in II Corinthians 5:16-17. He writes, "wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." Paul teaches that as new creatures in Christ our relationship with Christ is not based upon the flesh. Believers are placed into a living spiritual unity and relationship with the head of the body of Christ. As a result, God's entire relationship with believers today is based upon their spiritual union with Christ.

Just as God cannot destroy the world again through a flood and maintain his integrity, he also cannot deal with his spiritual body in a fleshly way. It is paramount to realize that when Grace Lifers teach that God does not intervene physically during the dispensation of Grace we are not limiting God's potential power to work in this fashion. Rather, we are recognizing that God has chosen to work with the body of Christ differently from how he worked with Israel in time past. In short, it is not a question of whether God could work in this fashion but whether He is.

As stated earlier, Grace Lifers are not Deists because they believe every miracle recorded in Scripture. Herein lies the difficulties for those who believe God is still working in a miraculous physical fashion. First, it is not in line with everything Paul teaches about the nature of the body of Christ's relationship with its head. Second, upon what authority are we to conclude which events can be attributed to God? Without an objective standard outside of ourselves how is one to judge which events in human affairs stem from the hand of God, which from mankind's own stupidity, and which from the lying wonders of the adversary?

Ultimately, one is left to rely upon human experience and stories rather than upon divine authority. Even the Apostle Peter who was an eyewitness to the events of Christ's earthly ministry said that he had more confidence in "the sure word of prophecy"(8) than what he saw with his own eyes. Mid-Acts dispensationalists chide the Pentecostal movement for its insistence that divine revelation continues today through the functioning of the sign gifts. This scolding is based upon the notion that none of these so-called "words from God" can be substantiated by the testimony of scripture. Yet, the same people who chide the charismtics practice the same type of unscriptural thinking when it comes to attributing human events to the sovereign will of God for which they have no scriptural proof.

On the surface this author can see why Grace Lifers have been accused of being Deists. The insistence of the Pure Grace position that God does not intervene physically within creation during the present dispensation does appear to be Deistic. However, such a conclusion fails to understand how God is working in the world today. To be clear, Grace Lifers do believe God cares about his saints and is actively working in the world during the dispensation of Grace. In accordance with the spiritual nature of the body of Christ, God is working today in the inner man of believers as we are conformed to the image of Christ through the written word of God.

The moment a lost sinner places faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ and his resurrection from the dead as the only complete payment for sin, God the Holy Spirit baptizes that individual into the body of Christ(9) and seals them unto the day of redemption.(10) In Galatians 3:27 Paul writes, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Having put on Christ, the believer is instructed to let Christ be formed in them. Again, writing to the Galatians Paul states, "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you." It was with great travail and spiritual pain that Paul desired that the Galatians recover themselves from legalistic bondage and allow Christ to be formed in them. This process of spiritual transformation whereby Christ is formed in the believer is one of the reasons why God revealed the mystery of the church age to begin with. Consider Colossians 1:25-27:

25) Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; 26) Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27) To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

The riches of the mystery is Christ's desire to be formed in the believer and live his life out through the believer. This is precisely Paul's point in II Corinthians 4:11, "For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh."

Since our relationship with Christ is not based upon the flesh and since Christ's desire is to manifest his life through our mortal flesh, it logically follows that God's working in time would also be spiritual in nature. Notice what Paul teaches about where and how God is working during the dispensation of Grace:

Ephesians 3:16-20—That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17) That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18) May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19) And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. 20) Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
Philippians 2:13--For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
I Thessalonians 2:13—For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

The testimony of the preceding verses is clear about where God is working. God is at work on the inner man of the saint to conform him into the image of Christ so that Christ's life can be lived out through the saint's mortal flesh. I Thessalonians 2:13 is equally clear about how this work is being accomplished. The same Holy Spirit that inspired every word of Scripture seals and indwells the believer. When the believer, by faith applies God's written word to the details of his life, the power of the Holy Spirit is released in his inner man.

Today, humanity man does not witness the power of God through miraculous physical interventions. Rather, the power and life of God is demonstrated to the world through the transforming power of the gospel of grace and the working of God's word in the lives of believers. As God's word edifies and changes believers from the inside out, the power of God is on display to a lost and dying world. Remember that God chose to work using signs and wonders with Israel in time past because they required them.(11) How unfortunate it is when mid-Acts dispensationalists who understand the difference between Israel and the body of Christ insist that God is still in practice operating as if Israel's program were still in effect.

In time past Israel was physically very close to the presence of God. The glory of God dwelt between the cherubims on the top of the mercy seat in the tabernacle and later in the temple. Yet, spiritually Israel was far from God. The high priest was only allowed into the presence of God in the holy of holies once a year under penalty of death for violating priestly protocol. How much closer to God are members of the body of Christ to God compared to Israel under the law! Rather than living in the holy of holies, God has chosen the saints as his habitation during the church age. Paul clearly teaches that believers are God's habitation through the spirit:

I Corinthians 3:16-17—Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17) If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
I Corinthians 6:19—What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
II Corinthians 6:16--And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Ephesians 2:20-22—And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21) In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22) In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Instead of believing in a God of no concern as the critics of the Pure Grace position have insinuated, Grace Lifers maintain an intimate view of God's relationship and care for his children. Not only has God established a residence within his saints, but he has adopted us and placed us as full adult sons into the family God.(12)

Having been fully justified, redeemed, forgiven, chosen, predestined, sealed, seated, abounded toward in wisdom and prudence, accepted in the beloved, adopted, inhabited, given an inheritance, and blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places what else must God do to demonstrate his intimate love and care for the body of Christ? Grace Lifers do not believe in a Deistic God of no concern. Rather, we believe in a God who established the most intimate relationship possible with his children and actively works in their lives through to power of his written word.

While the body of Christ has received all of the spiritual blessings that Israel is still waiting for, God has asked believers today to wait for the physical redemption of our bodies. Ephesians 1:14 makes clear that the redeemed of God will experience a yet future redemption for which the Holy Spirit has been given as a down payment. Paul writes the following regarding this redemption in Romans 8:22-25:

22) For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23) And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 24) For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?25) But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

In exchange for the exalted spiritual position we have been given in Christ, God asks us to wait for the redemption of our bodies. Here in lies our hope. As we groan and travail in this life under the bondage of corruption we have a future assured hope that one day "this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."(13) The real problem with desiring God's direct physical intervention now is that we are being impatient. After all if God were to grant us our physical redemption now what would we have to hope for?

Conclusion

Grace Lifers are not Deists. We do not believe in a God no concern. On the contrary, we believe in a God who has placed us into a loving, living, and active union within himself based on merits of the cross work of Christ. Consequently, we maintain that Christ deals with us not according to the flesh but according to the spirit. Therefore, God works today in the believer through the word of God as it is by faith applied to the details of life. God's work is accomplished today as the life of Christ is made manifest in the mortal flesh of the believer. It is the prayer of this author that all believers will learn to appreciate the riches of God's grace that have already been extended toward us.

Endnotes

Romans 1:20
II Timothy 3:16, II Peter 1:21
Psalm 12:6-7
John 1:1-3, 14, Philippians 2:5-8
Genesis 9:11-15
Galatians 3:28
Ephesians 2:6
II Peter 1:16-19
I Corinthians 12:13
Ephesians 4:30
I Corinthians 1:22
Galatians 4:6-7, Romans 8:15-17
I Corinthians 15:53

Are Grace Lifers Deists? Part Three

2010-02-26T05:38:00.003-05:00

What is Deism?

Definition of Terms

Many modern Americans are familiar with the terms Deist or Deism as it relates to the ongoing debate over the religious beliefs of the nation's founders. As products of the Enlightenment, men such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and possibly others, relied heavily upon the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Voltaire, Baron de Montesquieu, and Jean Jacque Rousseau in forming the philosophical foundations of the American form of government. Recent years have seen a massive debate emerge amongst historians over whether George Washington was a Deist or a Christian. Revisionist historians have tried to portray Washington as a card-carrying Deist. In 2006, Peter A. Lillback, wrote a massive book titled, George's Washington's Sacred Fire, in which he seeks to document using Washington's own journals and correspondence as well as other primary sources our first president's deeply rooted Christian faith.

For those unfamiliar with the term, Deism is derived from the Latin word dues which means God. Similarly, theism comes from the Greek word theos which also means God. As the entomology of the word implies, Deism is a form of theism that maintains the belief in a creator God unlike atheism which does not. John Orr, author of English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits, outlines the historical connection as well as the point of divergence in how the terms deism and theism have been utilized:

Prior to the 17^th century the terms (Deism and Deist) were used interchangeably with the terms "theism" and "theist," respectively . . .Theologians and philosophers of the seventeenth century began to give a different signification to the words. . .Both (theists and deists) asserted belief in on supreme God, the Creator. . . and agreed that God is personal and distinct from the world. But the theist taught that god remained actively interested in and operative in the word which he had made, whereas Deists maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then abandoned it to the operation of these powers acting as second causes.

In summary, Deists are theistic in the sense that they believe in a higher power responsible for creation. However, they are not Christian because they deny God's miraculous intervention within the created order.

To ensure accuracy it is important that we correctly define our terms. Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language offers the following definitions for Deism and Deist:

Deism: The doctrine or creed of a deist; the belief or system of religious opinions of those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny revelation: or deism is the belief in natural religion only, or those truths, in doctrine and practice, which man is to discover by the light of reason, independent and exclusive of any revelation from God. Hence deism implies infidelity or a disbelief in the divine origin of the scriptures.
Deist: One who believes in the existence of a God, but denies revealed religion, but follows the light of nature and reason, as his only guides in doctrine and practice; a freethinker.

Utilizing the definitions presented above, Peter A. Lillback, offers the following expanded definition of Deism: "a Deist is one who believes that there is a God, but He far removed from the daily affairs of men. God made the world and then left it to run on its own. The Deist's God does not take an active interest in the affairs of men. He is not a prayer-answering God. Praying to Him has no value. Deism is in some ways the natural outworking of the exalting of reason alone—that is, human reason apart from define revelation."

Historical Development

Deistic thinking has existed since antiquity. "Insofar as deism involved a negative destructive criticism of both supernatural revelations and miracles, it springs from the ancient pagan writers like Celsus and Porphyry." Also fitting Deistic conceptions of the divine was the notion of God as the logos or supreme rational principle that governs the universe as taught by Heraclitus. Likewise, Plato described God as the Demiurge or craftsman.

Despite the presence of Deistic ideas in the ancient world, Deism today is best understood as a movement toward natural theology or freethinking that occurred in 17^th-century Europe. Before 1500, scholars generally decided what was true or false by referring to an ancient Greek or Roman author or to the Bible. Few European scholars challenged the scientific ideas of the ancient thinkers or the church by carefully observing nature for themselves. The publication of On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies, by Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543, began a slow process of questioning old assumptions about knowledge. Based on his observations of the movement of planetary bodies, Copernicus concluded that the sun was center of our solar system and not the earth. Later, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei used mathematics to prove that the heliocentric theory postulated by Copernicus was correct. Eventually, the work of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo developed into a logical procedure for gathering and testing ideas known as the scientific method under the leadership of Francis Bacon.

Building upon the work of his predecessors, Isaac Newton helped bring together their breakthroughs under a singe theory of motion. Newton's discovery of universal gravitation explained the behavior of objects here on earth and in the heavens. The result was a universe that was controlled by the laws of nature. Theologically, a new way of viewing God emerged. God created the universe to be controlled by natural laws and then retired from the scene just as a watchmaker designs his watch to run on its own. Christian apologist Norman Geisler agrees that this is how modern Deistic concepts emerged. Geisler writes, ". . . a philosophical movement, deism borrowed the theist concept of God and understood it in terms of the mechanistic model (e.g. watchmaker) of the new scientific outline springing form Bacon and others." Consequently, as the growing explanatory power of natural law grew, skepticism about the veracity of miracles (i.e. violations of nature law) and books that reported them, such as the Bible increased.

Basic Tenets of Deism

As with any intellectual movement, there is diversity of belief amongst those who historically have identified themselves as Deists. On the other hand, all Deists do share a commonality of belief on a couple key issues. As we have already seen, a Deist is defined as one who believes there is a God beyond the world who created the world but that the world runs by natural law without supernatural interference. According to Geisler, there are three central tenants of a Deistic worldview, to which we now turn our attention.

"The first premise of a Deistic worldview is that there is a God who created the universe." In contrast with atheism, Deists maintain it is necessary to posit a God as the author and architect of the universe because there must be a first cause beyond the natural world who authored all natural processes. Unlike, pantheism which teaches that God is all, Deists maintain that God is separate from his creation. For example, the world is different from God as the painting is from its painter. Just as the painting reflects the nature and attributes of its painter, so too does the creation demonstrate the nature of its designer. In short, Deists view God as eternal, unchangeable, impassable, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, true, just, invisible, and infinite. In summary, "there is a God who created, regulates, and sustains the world. And this world is dependent on God, not God on the world."

"The second major premise of deism is antisupernaturalism." Simply stated, miracles do not occur. Many Deists argue that a perfect God would not make an imperfect universe that demanded miraculous intervention or repair. Others assert that God set up the laws of the natural world and he cannot (or, will not) violate the laws he established in the natural world. Therefore, since natural laws are immutable, miracles are inconsistent and impossible within the Deistic worldview. Such an insistence magnifies nature of the perfect Mechanic that he made the machine of nature to run without constant need or repair. "For deists all miracle accounts are the result of human intervention or superstition."

"The third major tenet of Deism is a Unitarian concept of God that involved the denial of the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Christ." This premise is consistent with the first and flows necessarily from the second. "If no supernatural event occurs then assuredly Christ was not a supernatural being and definitely not Deity incarnate." Since a denial of the deity of Christ necessitates one also deny the Trinitarian nature of God, Deism is Unitarian in its view of God.

Being a natural religion, Deism maintains that all revelation as well as religions whose truth claims rely on revelation (Christianity) are spurious. While the three tenets discussed above encapsulate the fundamentals of Deistic thinking they are by no means exhaustive. For example, most Deists hold the following beliefs in some form: the existence of moral law, the good life in accord with natural moral law, and a future life of rewards and punishments.

Degrees of Deism

As with any philosophical or theological paradigm, people vary in how far they are willing to go in the application of their models' fundamental ideas. According to Peter A. Lillback, there is a difference between hard and soft Deists. Lillback suggests that a Hard Deist not only rejects God's revelation through Scripture but also denies that God acts in history at all. Consequently, Hard Deists reject the notion of God's hearing and answering of prayers. In contrast, Soft Deists believe in prayer and providence but deny the Bible as a revelation from God.

Rather than disguising between Hard and Soft Deists, Norman Geisler recognizes four distinct forms of Deism that center around God's concern for the world and the existence of an afterlife for human beings. These four types of Deism include: The God of No Concern, The God of No Moral Concern, The God of Moral Concern for This Life, and The God of Moral Concern for This Life and the Next.

The God of No Concern: The first type of Deism was largely of French origin. According to this view, God is not concerned with governing the world he made. He created the world and set it in motion, but has no regard for what happens to it after that.
The God of No Moral Concern: In this second form of Deism, God is concerned with the ongoing happenings of the world but not with the moral actions of human being. Man can act rightly or wrongly, righteously or wickedly, morally or immorally. It is of no concern to God.
The God of Moral Concern for This Life: The third type of Deism maintains that God governs the world and does care about the moral activity of human beings. Indeed, God insists on obedience to the moral law that God established in nature. However, there is no future after death.
The God of Moral Concern to This Life and the Next: The fourth type of Deism contends that God regulates the world, expects obedience to the moral law grounded in nature, and has arranged for a life after death, with rewards for the good and punishments for the wicked. This view was common among both English and American Deists.

Conclusion

While modern Deistic groups still exist, even this theistic view waned in popularity under the force of Darwinian evolution. Now that we have identified the basic teachings of the Pure Grace position and defined the basic tenets of Deism we can direct our attention next week toward answering our fundamental question—are Grace Lifers Deists?

Are Grace Lifers Deists? Part Two

2010-02-19T18:28:00.003-05:00

What Are Grace Lifers?

At the outset, in order to ensure clarity, it is imperative to define our terms and identify the various doctrinal positions that will be discussed in this series of postings. Due to its use in a multiplicity of contexts, the expression "the grace life" is somewhat difficult to define. Teachers such as Bob George have used the term to describe the system of identity based living that stems from the fact that the old man is dead through the believers' identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.(1) Often called the "exchanged life," supporters of this position stress the grace of God in giving believers a new identity in Jesus Christ. According to this view, believers struggle against their natural flesh programming to function fully in their new identity. Believers are instructed to view themselves as God views them, i.e. as completely new creatures in Jesus Christ.

Much of what Bob George and his school of thought teach is in line with Pauline theology and the views espoused by those holding the Pure Grace position. Personally, this author and his family have benefited greatly from reading the writings of those who are associated with this branch of Grace Life thinking. However, George and his followers fail to properly root their position in a dispensational understanding of the scriptures. By failing to fully recognize the distinctive message and ministry of the Apostle Paul, advocates for the exchanged life are ultimately confused in their attempts to reconcile statements of Jesus in the gospels with those in the epistles of Paul.

Herein lies a key distinction that is necessary for the reader to understand. When this writer speaks about the Grace Life, the Grace Alternatives, or Pure Grace, he is referring to a specific system of belief whose origins are rooted in a mid-Acts dispensational interpretation of scripture. Mid-Acts dispensationalists maintain that the body of Christ did not begin in Acts two as the majority of professing Christendom believes but in the middle portion of Acts with the salvation and ministry of the Apostle Paul. While there is great diversity of belief amongst those who would identify themselves as mid-Acts dispensationalists, generally all of them hold the following beliefs:

Literal, normal, or common sense reading of the Bible.
Comparative principle of Bible study, comparing scripture with scripture.(2)
Dispensational reading of the Bible which seeks to answer the following questions: Who wrote it? When was it written? To whom was it written?
A difference between prophecy (that which was spoken since the world began),(3) and mystery (that which was kept secret since the world began).(4)
The unprophesied nature of the current dispensation of grace,(5) during which time God is reconciling both Jews and Gentiles to himself in one body by the cross.(6)
Through unbelief Israel fell from the privileged position she enjoyed in time past so that God could have mercy upon all and send salvation to the gentiles apart from Israel.(7)
The Apostle Paul is the apostle of the gentiles(8) and received by direct revelation from Jesus Christ a gospel, message, and apostleship distinct from that of Peter and the Twelve.(9)
Salvation is a free gift of God's grace imparted to a sinner upon his placing saving faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the only payment for sin.(10)
The gospel of the grace of God, the message Paul calls "my gospel"(11) was separate and distinct from the gospel of the kingdom(12) and the gospel of the circumcision(13)preached by Peter and the twelve.
Believers of the gospel of grace are spiritually baptized into the body of Christ by God the Holy Spirit the moment they place saving faith in Jesus Christ.(14) This is the one baptism that constitutes the unity of the faith in Ephesians 4:5. Therefore, water baptism needs to be left where it belongs as part of Israel's earthly program. As a result, water baptism has no significance for the body of Christ despite denominational demands to the contrary.
God the Holy Spirit seals believers into the body of Christ until the day of redemption, thereby eternally securing their position in Christ.(15) Moreover, this work of the Holy Spirit serves as the earnest of our inheritance as we wait for the redemption of our bodies.(16)
Prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, otherwise known as the sign gifts, functioned on a temporary basis during the early stages of the body of Christ.(17) While there is great diversity of opinion amongst mid-Acts dispensationalists about what actually caused the cessation of these gifts, it is generally agreed that they are no longer in effect. It should also be noted that the majority of mid-Acts dispensationalists still believe that the gifts of pastor, teacher, and evangelist are still being given today.(18)
There is a distinction between the Lord's bodily return back to planet Earth (Second Coming)(19) and his return to meet the saints in the air.(20) The later is known as the rapture of the church and is believed to be pretribulational in its timing. In addition, the catching away of the saints referred to in I Thessalonians 4 is also a portion of the revelation of the mystery given to the Apostle Paul.(21) Not only does the rapture occur before the 70^th week of Daniel begins (which is part of the prophetic program), but it also ends the current dispensation of grace.
The 70^th week of Daniel, commonly referred to as the tribulation period, or the time of Jacob's trouble, will resume the prophetic time schedule that was interrupted when God revealed the mystery of the current dispensation of grace. It is during this time that numerous prophetic events will occur on earth.
After the tribulation period is completed, Christ will return bodily back to earth with the armies of heaven to destroy the forces of the adversary. Satan will be chained and confined to the bottomless pit for a thousand years and the millennial reign of Christ will be instituted.(22)

Admittedly, the preceding list is not an exhaustive statement of the doctrines held by mid-Acts dispensationalists. However, it does encapsulate the major differences between mid-Acts dispensationalists and the teachings of Bob George, as well as the rest of professing Christendom. Consequently, for the purpose of answering the central question purposed by this series of postings--are Grace Lifers Deists?--we will be limiting the use of term Grace Life and its related descriptors to a specific group of believers who hold to the basic doctrines of mid-Acts dispensationalism listed above.

Simply stated, all Grace Lifers are mid-Acts dispensationalists but not all mid-Acts dispensationalists are Grace Lifers. As one might expect, this division within the mid-Acts camp has generated much friction. In fact, the charge of Deism against those who believe in the principles of Pure Grace has been levied most forcefully by their fellow mid-Acts brethren.

The fundamental source of the argument between the Grace Life and Non-Grace Life camps of the mid-Acts dispensationalism centers on how and to what extent their dispensational model affects God's working in time during the present dispensation of grace. Supporters of the Grace Alternatives argue that their beliefs are simply the logical implications of the mid-Acts position when taken to its theological conclusion. Detractors have accused Grace Lifers of espousing an extreme position resulting in Deism if not outright heresy. What is it then that Grace Lifers believe that would illicit such a charge from their would be doctrinal allies?

In the introduction to Things That Differ, arguably the most influential work articulating the mid-Acts position, Pastor C.R. Stam writes the following:

As we send these studies forth we humbly pray that they may prove a substantial contribution to our readers' understanding and enjoyment of the Scriptures, and a distinct help in their services for Christ. As the days grow darker may God lead us all further into the light of His truth so that we may be more intelligently and effectively used, 'to the glory of His grace.'(23)

Grace Lifers maintain that they have followed the basic truths presented in Things That Differ to their logical conclusion. If the gospel, the beginning of the body of Christ, baptism, and the sign gifts are dispensational issues, then why are issues such as the confession of sins, intervention, healing, God's will, spiritual gifts, chastening, and prayer not also affected by the mid-Acts paradigm?

Grace Lifers believe that God works in accordance with the nature of the dispensation that is in effect. During the current dispensation of grace, God is forming a spiritual body of believers in which all physical divisions have been removed.(24) Hence, all the blessings that the body of Christ receives are spiritual in nature according to Ephesians 1:3, "blessed be the God and Father or our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ." In Ephesians 1:4-9, believers received the following spiritual blessings the moment they trusted Christ: predestination unto the adoption of children, acceptance in the beloved, redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, abounded toward in wisdom and prudence, and knowledge of the mystery of his will. Moreover, believers are said to be spiritually seated with Christ in the heavenly places as we wait for the Lord's return to catch away the church.(25) In short, the salvation and blessings of the body are all spiritual in nature while our destiny is heavenly in location.

In II Corinthians 5:16-17, Paul encapsulates the main argument of the Grace Life view. He writes, "wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." Paul teaches that as new creatures in Christ our relationship with Christ is not based upon the flesh. Believers are placed into a living spiritual unity and relationship with the head of the body of Christ. This explains why Paul tells the Colossians that their circumcision was not made with hands.(26) God's entire relationship with the believers today is based upon their spiritual union with Christ.

In contrast, Israel's relationship with God in time past was based upon the flesh. In fact, Paul informs the Ephesians that the fundamental feature of time past is a distinction between those who were "gentiles in the flesh" and those who were "called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands."(27) Genesis 17:13 tells us that God gave the seed of Abraham the rite of circumcision as a fleshly token of the physical blessings God had promised them in Genesis 12. As a result, God dealt with his physical nation according to the flesh. For example, Israel was delivered physically from the hands of the Egyptians through the Red Sea.(28) Signs were utilized all throughout God's dealings with Israel because without them they would not believe.(29)

Just as mid-Acts dispensationalists maintain a clear distinction between Israel and the body of Christ, Grace Lifers observe a clear distinction between how God deals with each group. These differences have led Grace Lifers to the following conclusions regarding how God is working today in the dispensation of Grace:

Believers have the total forgiveness of all their sins: past, present, and future.(30) Through the justification that is in Christ Jesus believers have peace with God.(31) Therefore, the keeping of short accounts or the daily confession of sins according to I John 1:9 is unnecessary and a misuse of the verse.
Believers presently possess the complete redemption of their soul and spirit (inner man). Moreover, the saints are asked to wait for the redemption of their body(32) and have been given the indwelling Holy Spirit as the assurance of this future redemption.(33) Consequently, God is not presently choosing to heal people from their physical infirmities.
Because believers are at peace with God, they are not physically chastened like Israel was in time past. However, they are chastened and corrected through God's written word.
Paul's revelation completed God's Word according to Colossians 1:25. Once the word of God was fulfilled, all spiritual gifts including pastor, teacher, and evangelist ceased being given. While pastors, teachers, and evangelists are still needed they are no longer being given as supernatural gifts of the Spirit. Paul was already speaking of these gifts in the past tense when he penned Ephesians 4:11, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"
God does intervene during the dispensation of grace but not the in physical sense that he did in time past with Israel. God works today through his word working in the lives of the saints as they by faith apply God's word to the details of their lives. This is viewed to be in accordance with the nature of our relationship with Christ not being after the flesh but after the spirit as taught in II Corinthians 5:16-17.
Prayer also functions in accordance with the dispensation that is in effect. Many mid-Acts dispensationalists acknowledge that prayer is a dispensational issue when they teach that the Lord's Prayer is not for today. Likewise, many teach that unlike Israel in time past, members of the body of Christ do not need to confess their sins in order for God to hear from heaven because we have peace with God through the shed blood of Christ.

The above list is not intended to be an exhaustive articulation of Pure Grace principles. Rather, it serves as a brief summary of the main differences between Grace Lifers and their mid-Acts brethren. Furthermore, it serves to frame the central question that we are seeking to answer.

The observant reader will have noticed that Grace Lifers articulate a different paradigm for how God is working during the dispensation of grace than has traditionally been taught. This seemingly hands off approach is difficult for many believers to swallow because it is not rooted in a traditional Calvinistic framework. Not everything that happens is part of God's will or His action within creation according to Grace Lifers.

Because the Pure Grace position views God as active only through his word in the lives of believers and not intervening physically in human affairs, the charge has been made that Grace Lifers are Deists. In order to accurately assess whether this charge is correct, it would be helpful to clearly understand what Deists believe. In our next posting we will direct our efforts towards exploring what Deists believe?

Endnotes:

Romans 6
I Corinthians 2:13
Luke 1:70, Acts 3:21
Romans 16:25
Ephesians 3:1-5, Colossians 1:25-27
Ephesians 2:13-18
Romans 11:11, 30-32
Romans 11:13
Galatians 1:11-12
Romans 3:24, I Corinthians 15:3-5, Ephesians 2:8-9
Romans 16:25,
Matthew 4:23, 9:25, Mark 1:14-15
Galatians 2:7
I Corinthians 12:13
Ephesians 4:30
Ephesians 1:14, Romans 8:23
I Corinthians 13:8
Ephesians 4:11
Revelation 19
I Thessalonians 4:17
I Corinthians 15:51
Revelation 19-20
C.R. Stam. Things That Differ. Introduction.
Galatians 3:28
Ephesians 2:6
Colossians 2:11
Ephesians 2:11
Exodus 15
I Corinthians 1:22, John 4:48, Exodus 4:1-10
Ephesians 1:17, Colossians 1:14
Romans 5:1
Romans 8:23-25
Ephesians 1:14

Are Grace Lifers Deists?

2010-02-10T12:39:00.001-05:00

Introduction

Recent events in Haiti have once again fueled discussion regarding the extent to which God is active within his creation. Atheists and skeptics cite these events as support for their classic argument against God's existence, the problem of evil. Supporters of this view assert that a loving all powerful God would not allow the carnage, suffering, and selfishness witnessed in Haiti over the past couple of weeks. The very fact that God did not prevent these events is proof enough for many atheists that God does not exist or if he does, that he is not all powerful, all knowing and loving. On the other side of the coin, religious leaders such as Pat Robertson have suggested that the Haitians are merely reaping the fruit of an ill-fated pact with the forces of darkness. According to this line of thinking, God intervened physically to punish the Haitian people for their past transgressions.

While many Christians might balk at or ridicule Robertson's views as extremist, the fact remains that many believers, even grace believers, are theological and philosophically committed to the notion that God is sovereign and everything happens for a reason. According to prevailing Christian orthodoxy, God is in control, and his immutable will is being executed daily in the details of life. Consequently, all events small or great, good or bad, find their origin in the sovereign will of God. Even though humanity cannot see God's purpose in such events, most evangelicals are confident that God has a higher purpose for everything that happens. Still others, perhaps sensing the implications of such a view on the character of God, try to skirt the issue by saying that God did not actively cause the Haitian earthquake, but merely allowed it.

Let us consider what God has to say about the issue. In II Timothy 2:4, the Apostles Paul writes, "who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." God's will is clearly stated in this verse that all men come to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, this will not happen because Satan is actively engaged in blinding the minds of the lost "lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."(1) In other words, the stated will of God for all men to be saved through the light of the gospel is being actively thwarted by Satan's attempts to blot out the gospel's witness in the minds of the lost. But this is not what the prevailing Calvinist-influenced orthodoxy would have you believe.

Think with me for a moment about the theological implications of suggesting that God has orchestrated what has occurred in Haiti. Is there anyone who thinks that all of the people who died in the Haitian tragedy were saved? Unfortunately, the majority of the people who perished probably had not trusted in the shed blood of Jesus Christ as the only payment for their sin. Consequently, if the Haitian disaster is the will of God, then God is the active agent in sending countless people to eternal judgment and separation from him. Sound theological reasoning will not allow a Bible believer to reach such a conclusion, because it would violate God's stated his will that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

There is another option for the believing Bible students to consider. The existence of evil in the world is not proof that God does not exist. Possessing the gift of self determination Adam exercised his freedom(2) and disobeyed God, thereby bringing sin into the world. Romans 5:12 states, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." The reason people die whether by natural disaster, war, murder, accident, or old age is because of sin. In Romans 6:23, the Apostle Paul encapsulates mankind's sin problem when he writes, "for the wages of sin is death." Humanity was not the only portion of God's creation that was negatively affected by Adam's rebellious choice. According to Romans 8:22, ". . . the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now," as a consequence of Adam's sin. The explanation for the earthquake in Haiti, and other natural disasters is that the very ground of the earth itself has been cursed as a result of the fall.(3) Tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, mudslides, and every other type of natural disaster are caused by sin's effect upon the created order. In short, until the curse is removed, natural disasters and human calamities will continue to plague mankind. However, events such as these ought not to be attributed to God's intervention within his creation.

What God does today is work through his word rather than through direct physical intervention like he did with Israel in time past. This logically follows from the mid-Acts dispensational viewpoint. The view has been referred to by different names in different parts of the world, including The Grace Alternative, the Grace Life, and Pure Grace. Many believers, even grace believers, are uncomfortable with this view of how God works. As one might expect, the old guard within the so-called Grace Movement is less than thrilled with many of the teachings of the Grace Life movement on prayer, confession of sins, God's will, intervention, and chastisement to name a few.

Critics of the Pure Grace position have accused those who believe in the principles of the Grace Life of being Deists. The purpose of this new series of postings is to consider whether or not supporters of the Grace Alternatives are in fact Deists. In order to pursue this analysis, we will first outline the fundamental differences between supporters of the Grace Life doctrines and other mid-Acts dispensationalists. Second, we will define and explain the basic tenants of Deism. Third, we will compare the beliefs of the Grace Life with those of Deists in an attempt to answer out fundamental question: are Grace Lifers Deists?

Endnotes:

II Corinthians 4:4
Genesis 2:16
Genesis 3:17

By Him All Things Consist

2010-02-03T09:21:00.004-05:00

In Colossians 1:16-17, the Apostle Paul writes, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." According to Paul, not only did Christ create all of the governmental structures of heaven and earth but by Christ all things consist. Webster's 1828 Dictionary, offers the following definition for the word consist, "to stand together; to be in a fixed or permanent state, as a body composed of parts in union or connection. Hence, to be; to exist; to subsist; to be supported and maintained." Jesus Christ continues to support, maintain, or hold together that which he created. In other words, Christ is the connective glue that holds the universe together according to the revelation given to Paul.

Have you ever heard of Laminin? Laminin is the protein enzyme that holds the human body together. It holds your bones together and keeps your skin from sliding off your body. Last fall, one of the saints from our assembly send me the link to the following video. I have been saving it for a week when I did not have much time to write. Please watch this video in light of the doctrine presented in Colossians 1:16-17. I think you will be amazed.

I am aware that Louie Giglio is not a mid-Acts dispensationalist or a supporter of the King James position.

The Psalmist is still correct, "the fool hath said in his heart there is not God." Not only did Christ preexist his creation, but it is only through him that all things consist. Once again science proves the Bible to be correct.

Stay tuned next week for the beginning of a new series of articles titled, Are Grace Lifers Deists?

What is History? Complete Paper

2010-01-27T08:10:00.005-05:00

Over the past four months, the postings on this blog have been devoted to discussing how believers should view history. Our journey began by summarizing the difference between the chaotic, cyclical, and linear views of time. In short, we conclude that chaotic and cyclical time alone where not sufficient models for conceptualizing history. In addition, we demonstrated how linearism is the main Biblical paradigm for historical investigation. Furthermore, we studied how God is the author of seasonal cyclicality, as well as time's linear progression toward His prophesied end. In summary, we argued that any historical paradigm that does not account for both linearism and cyclicality is incomplete.

The second part of these postings was dominated by a discussion of whether or not history can be objectivity known. In this section, we surveyed commonly held objections to the knowability of history. Answers to these objections were also provided in this section, proving that history can be objectively known.

Finally, we summarized the importance of history to the Christan Worldview; in addition to proving the historical reliability of the Biblical documents themselves. In the end, all of these individual postings were combined and edited to read like one continuous essay, complete with a title and works cited page. If you would like access to the entire essay please click on the title link below.

What Is History? How Should Believers View History? by Bryan C. Ross

What is History? The Historical Reliability of the Bible, Part 3

2010-01-20T08:09:00.001-05:00

The Incredible Accuracy of Luke

In last week's posting, we demonstrated by comparing scripture with scripture, that the book of Acts was the second part of a two part history addressed to Theophilus. In Luke 1:1-3, we read the following:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2) Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

A careful reading of this passage ought to highlight the following points. First, Luke interviewed eyewitnesses who were present from the beginning of the events recorded. Second, Luke's goal is to present a chronological record of the events as they were commonly believed. While the Gospel of Luke is written to present Christ as the son of man, it also doubles as a chronological history of the life of Christ. When coupled with Acts, the Gospel of Luke takes its reader from the annunciation of the Christ's birth all the way through to Paul imprisonment in Rome in Acts 28. Considering that Luke did not write by his own will or in his own words, but rather the words of God under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,(1) the foolishness of doubting these events becomes clear.

Despite the insatiable cries of Biblical skeptics and correctors, Luke's reliability as a historian is unquestionable. Merrill Unger, author of Archaeology and the New Testament, informs his readers that archeology has authenticated the gospel accounts, particularly the writings of Luke. Commenting on the book of Acts, Unger writes, "The Acts of the Apostles is now generally agreed in scholarly circles to be the work of Luke, to belong to the first century and to involve the labors of a careful historian who was substantially accurate in his use of sources."(2) Likewise, after conducting thirty years of research into the accuracy of Luke's writings, historian Sir William Ramsay concluded that, "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy. . .this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians."(3)

Classical scholar and Roman historian Colin Hemer chronicles Luke's accuracy as a historian in his landmark book, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Hemer identifies eighty-four facts in the last sixteen chapters of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archeological research:

the natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5)
the proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13)
the proper location of Lycaonia (Acts 14:6)
the unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra (14:6)
the correct language spoke in Lystra—Lycaonian (14:11)
to god known to be so associated-Jupiter and Mercurious (14:12)
the proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use (14:25)
the correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates (16:1, cf. 15:41)
the proper form of the name Troas (16:8)
the place of a conspicuous sailors' landmark, Samothrace (16:11)
the proper description of Philippi as a Roman colony (16:12)
the right location of the river (Gangites) near Philippi (16:13)
the proper association of Thyatira as a center of dyeing (16:14)
correct designations for the magistrates of the colony (16:22)
the proper locations (Amphipolis and Apollonia) where travelers would spend successive night on this journey (17:1)
the presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica (17:1)
the proper term "politrarchs" used for the magistrates there (17:6)
the correct implication that sea travel is most convenient way of reaching Athens, with the favoring east winds of summer sailing (14:14-15)
the abundant idols in Athens (17:16)
the reference to the synagogue in Athens (17:17)
the depiction of the Athenian life of philosophical debate in the Agora (17:17)
the use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul, a babbler (spermologos, 17:18) as well as the court Areopagus (17:19)
the proper characterization of the Athenian character (17:21)
an altar to the "unknown god" (17:23)
the proper reaction of Greek philosophers, who denied the bodily resurrection (17:32)
Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court (17:34)
a Corinthian synagogue (18:4)
the correct designation of Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth (18:12)
the bema (judgment seat), which overlooks Corinth's forum (18:16)
the name of Tyrannus as attested from Ephesus in first-century inscriptions (19:9)
well-known shrines and images of Diana (19:24)
the well-attested "great goddess Diana" (19:27)
that the Ephesians theater was the meeting place of the city (19:29)
the correct titled grammateus for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus (19:35)
the proper title of honor neokoros, authorized by the Romans (19:35)
the correct name to designate the goddess (19:37)
the proper term for those holding court (19:38)
use of the plural anthupatoi, perhaps a remarkable reference to the fact that two men were conjointly exercising the function of proconsul at this time (19:38)
the "regular" assembly, as the precise phrase is attested elsewhere (19:39)
use of precise ethnic designation, beraiaios (20:4)
employment of the ethnic term Asianos (20:4)
the implied recognition of the strategic importance assigned to the city of Troas (20:7)
the danger of the coastal trip in this location (20:13)
the correct sequence of places (20:14-15)
the correct name of the city (21:1)
the appropriate rout passing across the open sea south of Cyprus favored by persistent northeast winds (21:3)
the suitable distance between these cities (21:8)
a characteristically Jewish act of piety (21:24)
the Jewish law regarding Gentile use of the temple area (21:18)
the permanent stationing of a Roman cohort at Antonia to suppress any disturbance at festival times (21:31)
the flight of steps used by the guards (21:31, 35)
the common way to obtain Roman citizenship at this time (22:28)
the tribune being impressed with Roman rather than Tarsian citizenship (22:39)
Ananias being high priest at this time (23:2)
Felix being governor at this time (23:34)
the natural stopping point on the way to Caesarea (23:31)
whose jurisdiction Cilicia was in at the time (23:34)
the provincial penal procedure of the time (24:1-9)
the name of Festus, which agrees precisely with that given by Josephus (24:27)
the right of appeal as Roman citizens (25:11)
the correct legal formula (25:18)
the characteristic form of reference to the emperor at the time (25:26)
the best shipping lanes at the time (27:5)
the common bonding of Cilicia and Pamphylia (27:4)
the principal port to find a ship to Italy (27:5-6)
the slow passage to Cnidus, in the face of the typical north-west wind (27:7)
the right rout to sail in view of the winds (27:7)
the locations of Fair Havens and the neighboring site of Lasea (27:8)
Fair Havens as a poorly sheltered roadstead (27:12)
a noted tendency of a south wind in these climes to back suddenly into a violent northeaster (27:13)
the nature of a square-rigged ancient ship, having no option but to drive before a gale (27:15)
the precise place and name of this island (27:16)
the appropriate maneuvers for the safety of the ship in its particular plight (27:16)
the fourteenth night—a remarkable calculation, based inevitably on a compounding of estimates and probabilities confirmed in the judgment of experienced Mediterranean navigators (27:27)
the proper term of the time for the Adriatic (27:27)
the precise term (Bolisantes) for taking soundings, and the correct depth of the water near Malta (27:28)
a position that suits the probable line of approach of a ship released to run before an easterly wind (27:39)
the severe liability of guards who permitted a prisoner to escape (27:42)
the local people and superstitions of the day (28:4-6)
the proper title Publius (28:7)
Rhegium as a refuge to await a southerly wind to carry them through the straight (28:13)
Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae as correctly placed stopping places on the Appian Way (28:15)
appropriate means of custody with Roman soldiers (28:16)
the conditions of imprisonment, living "at his own expense" (28:30-31)(4)

The accuracy of the preceding list is quite astounding when one considers that Luke recorded these details without the aid of modern GPS, maps, or nautical charts. Can there be any doubt that Luke was an eyewitness to the events he records or at least possessed access to eyewitness testimony, not to mention the knowledge of the Holy Spirit himself? In short, Luke's use of geographical details, specialized knowledge of nautical details, and specific local knowledge testify to the historical reliability of his writings.

Simply stated, the historicity of the book of Acts is confirmed by overwhelming evidence. As one might expect, this reality makes skeptics rather unconformable. In the same book that Luke reports eighty-four historically confirmed details, he also records a total of thirty-five miracles. To make matters worse for the skeptics, many of these miracles are recorded in the second half of the book of Acts within the same historical narrative that has been verified extra Biblically. For example, Luke records the following Pauline miracles:

temporarily blinded a sorcerer (13:11)
cured a man who was crippled from birth (14:8)
exorcized an evil spirit from a possessed girl (16:18)
performed many miracles that convinced many in the city of Ephesus to turn from sorcery to Jesus (19:11-20)
raised a man from the dead who had died after falling out a window during a long-winded lecture (20:9-10)
healed Publius's father of dysentery, and healed numerous others who were sick on Malta (28:8-9)(5)

Dr. Norman Geisler offers the following assessment of the situation, "in light of the fact that Luke has proven accurate with so many trivial details, it is nothing but pure anti-supernatural bias to say he's not telling the truth about the miracles he records."(6)

Nothing from antiquity compares with the amount of detailed confirmation that exists for the historical reliability for the book of Acts. Not only does this offer direct confirmation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, it also indirectly proves the historical reliably of the Gospel of Luke. Paralleling Matthew and Mark, the evidence suggests that all three of the so-called synoptic gospels were written before 60 A.D., within thirty years after the death of Jesus.(7)

It is only a foolish heart attitude that would doubt the historical reliability of the Bible. As we said in Part One of this posting two weeks ago, "if Christians can demonstrate that the Bible is truthful in all areas in which it can be validated, we have before us the most powerful and compelling evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity."(8) After weighing the evidence, any reasonable person must accept the Bible as God's chosen medium for revealing spiritual truth to humanity. The Bible alone can sustain its truth claims in any area in which it can be investigated; therefore, it is reasonable to trust the Bible in the arena of spiritual truth.

Endnotes:

II Timothy 3:16, II Peter 1:21
Merrill, F. Unger. Archaeology and the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1962), 24.
William Ramsay. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), 222.
Colin Hemer. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990).
Norman Geisler. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 260.
Ibid., 60.
Norman Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 8.
Dan Story. Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Tough Questions. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1992), 34.

What is History? The Historical Reliability of the Bible Part 2

2010-01-14T08:18:00.002-05:00

Reliability of the New Testament

When it comes to the historical reliability of the New Testament, the bibliographical evidence alone is astounding. There are more extant (existing) manuscripts that bear witness to the readings of the New Testament than for any other document from antiquity. More than 24,000 partial and complete New Testament manuscripts are in existence today compared with only 643 copies of Homer's Iliad.(1) Other famous works from antiquity have even less textual evidence than Homer. For example, the writings of Plato, Pliny the Younger, Thucydides, Herodotus, and Caesar have fewer than two dozen surviving copies.(2) "In addition, to the Greek manuscripts themselves there are over 86,000 patristic (church fathers) quotations from the New Testament and several thousand lectionaries (early church-service books containing selected Scripture readings) dating from the earliest centuries of the church."(3) In fact, from these sources alone, one is able to reconstruct the entire text of the New Testament with the exception of only eleven verses from materials that date within 150 to 200 years of the life of Christ.(4)

Not only does the available manuscript evidence for the New Testament dwarf secular works, the amount of time that transpired between the events themselves and their written record is incomparable. The time span between authorship and extant copies for the New Testament is shorter than for any other document from antiquity. While scholars differ on when the New Testament documents were written, there is virtually unanimous agreement, including even the most liberal scholars that all the books of the New Testament were written by 100 A.D., approximately 70 years after Jesus death.(5) Christian apologists have referenced the fact that Luke does not discuss in the book of Acts the destruction of the temple in 70A.D. by the Romans as proof that Acts was completed in the early 60's A.D.(6)

Using the traditional dating presented by Ussher in The Scofield Reference Bible, Luke finished the book of Acts in 63 A.D. This date is significant for many reasons. First, most of Paul's epistles were written during the Acts period including the Prison Epistles which he wrote under house arrest in Rome as recorded in Acts 28. This is significant because it dates the documents by the New Testament's most prolific writer within thirty years of the life of Christ. Second, according to Acts 1:1, the book of Acts is the second portion of a two part history addressed to Theophilus. By comparing scripture with scripture, it is clear that the first edition of this treatise addressed to Theophilus was the book of Luke. Luke 1:3 records the following, "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus." If Luke finished the book of Acts in 63 A.D. that means that the gospel of Luke had to have been written first, thereby conclusively proving that the gospel accounts themselves were written within 30 years of the death of Christ. Based upon the authority of Colossians 1:25, this author believes that when Paul penned his last epistle, II Timothy, in 66 A.D. that the cannon of the New Testament was complete.(7)

Once again, no other religious document compares to the New Testament in terms of the space of time between when the events occurred and when they were first written down. For example, "the teachings of Buddha were not recorded until five hundred years after his death."(8) Likewise, when one compares the amount of time between the events recorded and the earliest available textual witnesses, the New Testament is infinitely more historically reliable than any other work of antiquity. Consider that Homer's Iliad was originally written in 900 B.C. while the earliest surviving copy dates around 400 B.C., resulting in a time span of 500 years. On the other hand, the New Testament which was written between 40-90 A.D. depending on whose dating you use, has early textual witnesses that date around 125 A.D., a time span of less than 100 years.(9) In The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell documents the same reality for eight other leading ancient works. Dan Story offers the following summation of the situation, "In the case of the New Testament, unlike other ancient works, whether secular or religious, not enough time elapsed between when Jesus spoke and when His words were recorded to allow for misrepresentation or the development of legendary material about him."(10) The central point here is that despite the attempts of heretics in the 1^st century to corrupt the word of God (II Corinthians 2:17), when compared with other classical works, the Bible stands alone in terms of the time gap between when the events recorded occurred and their manuscript witnesses.

The fact that the New Testament was written by eyewitness to the events recorded stands out as a third proof for the historical reliability of the New Testament. In short, the New Testament possesses primary source value. "The New Testament Gospels were written either by eyewitnesses to the events in Christ's life (Matthew and John) or by men who knew and interviewed eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke)."(11) Paul, having seen the risen and glorified Christ, along with the other authors of the New Testament, was careful to note this first-hand, eyewitness testimony as verification of authenticity. Consider the following examples:

Luke 1:1-3--
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2) Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
John 19:35--
And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
John 20:30-31--
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31) But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Acts 10:39-42--
And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: 40) Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; 41) Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. 42) Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
I Corinthians 15:6-8--
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7) After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8) And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
I Peter 5:1--
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
II Peter 1:16-- For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
I John 1:1-3--
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2) For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

In addition, the New Testament writers appealed not only to their own observations but also to those of their readers and listeners even when the witnesses were hostile (Acts 2:22, 26:24-28).(12)

Paul and the other New Testament writers appealed to the testimony of eyewitnesses because people who knew Jesus and had observed his miracles were still alive when the New Testament was being written. This allowed critics and skeptics to openly refute the truth claims of the Biblical writers. The fact that not a single piece of historical information surfaced during the first century to refute the miraculous birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is proof that the New Testament documents are historically reliable.13)

Have you ever noticed how no one questions whether Plato, Caesar, or Homer have been properly understood? Yet the Bible is criticized by academia as being historically inaccurate and unreliable. All of this demonstrates the bias of unsaved scholarship against the Bible and its central message. Simply stated, the Bible is the most trustworthy historical document from antiquity. "If the Bible is thrown out as unreliable and the critics' standards remain constant when evaluating the truth-claims of other ancient books, then virtually all other books from antiquity must be discarded as unreliable."(14) In conclusion, "there is more evidence for the reliability of the text of the New Testament as an accurate reflection of what was initially written than there is for any ten pieces of classical literature put together. . . [the Bible is] also in better textual shape than the thirty-seven plays of William Shakespeare written in the seventeenth century, after the invention of printing."(15)

Endnotes:

Josh McDowell. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 34.
Ibid., 38.
Dan Story. Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Though Questions. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1992), 38.
Ibid., 38-39.
Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 235.
Ibid., 237-239.
Colossians 1:25—"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God." The word "fulfil" in this verse means to complete. Given the immediate context, Paul is saying that when the revelation of the mystery concerning the Dispensation of Grace is finished, the word of God will also be fulfilled or complete. Therefore, according to the witness of God the Holy Spirit, Paul's writing complete the New Testament cannon not John's.
Story. Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Though Questions. 40.
McDowell. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. 38.
Story. Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Though Questions. 40-41.
Ibid., 43.
Ibid., 43.
Ibid., 44.
Ibid., 47.
Josh McDowell. A Ready Defense. (San Bernadino, CA: Here's Life, 1990), 24.

What is History? The Historical Reliability of the Bible Part 1

2010-01-06T08:18:00.008-05:00

Christian apologists and historians have spilt much ink documenting the historical reliability of both the Old and New Testament. Works such as Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, among scores of others, have adequately and conclusively documented the historical reliability of the Bible. Dan Story, author of Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Tough Questions, summarizes the evidence documented by McDowell by observing: “If Christians can demonstrate that the Bible is truthful in all areas in which it can be validated, we have before us the most powerful and compelling evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity. Every apologetic argument rests on the reliability of the Bible, including the deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”(1)

Reliability of the Old Testament

In the interest of brevity, we will look at the arguments presented by Dan Story as a tool to summarize the reams of information available on this topic. Story offers the following three proofs for the reliability of the Old Testament: the transmission of the text, archeology, and fulfilled prophecy. Old Testament scribes from the Hebrew tribe of Levi knew they were copying God’s word and therefore went to great lengths to ensure accuracy by counting every line, word, syllable, and letter.(2) Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, the oldest existing Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic Text dated around 900 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated almost a thousands years earlier than the Masoretic Text, around 150 B.C. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain two complete copies of Isaiah as well as fragments from virtually every other Old Testament book, were word for word identical to the Masoretic Text in over 95 percent of the readings.(3) The minimal variations that did exist were comprised of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.(4) For believers in God’s providential preservation of the scriptures the preceding information is historical proof of preservation, our Old Testament is exactly the same as it was when originally inspired by God.

Nelson Glueck, author of Rivers in the Desert, informs his readers that “no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.”(5) Time and again, the archaeologist’s spade has confirmed Biblical events, customs, cities, and nations mentioned in the Old Testament that skeptics had dismissed as mythological.(6) Dan Story offers the following summary of the archaeological reliability of the Old Testament:

Archaeology has proven that Israel derives its ancestry from Mesopotamia, as the Bible teaches (Genesis 11:27-12:24).
Archaeology suggests that the world’s languages likely arose from a common origin, as Genesis 11 teaches.
Jericho, and several other cities mentioned in the Old Testament, previously thought to be legendary by skeptics, have been discovered by archaeologists.
Bible critics used to claim that the Hittite civilization mentioned in Genesis did not exist at the time of Abraham because there was not record of it apart from the Old Testament. However, archaeology has discovered that it not only existed but lasted more than 1,200 years. Now you can get a doctorate in Hittite studies from the University of Chicago.
Social customs and stories in the Old Testament credited to the time of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) are in harmony with archeological discoveries, casting additional light on the historical accuracy of the Biblical record.(7)

In short, every time the Bible has been checked against extra-biblical sources, the scriptural report has been corroborated, thereby proving the accuracy of the Bible.(8)

“One of the strongest evidences that the Bible is inspired by God is its predictive prophecy.”(9) Unlike any other religious documents, the Bible offers over two thousand fulfilled prophecies that validate its historical claims. The specific nature of these predictions cannot be ignored. They deal with the birth, life, and death of Jesus Christ, the nation of Israel, gentile nations (Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome), cities (Jerusalem, Sidon, and Babylon), and individual people (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus). In The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell chronicles 61 Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ.(10) In his book reviewed by the American Scientific Affiliation, Science Speaks, Peter Stoner comments on the mathematical probability that any man up to the present time might have fulfilled just eight of the sixty-one prophecies covered by McDowell. Stoner writes, “We find the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 1017. That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000.” In order to comprehend this staggering probability Stoner offers the following illustration:

If we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will
cover all the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars
and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man
and tell him that he can travel as far as he wished, but he must pick up one
silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance does he have
of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets had of
writing eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from
their day to the present time, providing they wrote them according to their own
wisdom.(11)

When one considers the probability of forty-eight Old Testament prophecies being fulfilled in one person, the odds increase to 1 in 10157, according to Stoner.(12) Compared to the Biblical prophets, the highly revered seer Nostradamus can only be viewed as a false prophet. Contrary to tabloid claims, Nostradamus never predicted the place or year of a single earthquake nor do his vague prophecies regarding the rise of Hitler compare to the astounding accuracy and specificity of the Biblical prophets.(13)

Based upon the available manuscript and archeological evidence, as well as the compelling testimony of fulfilled prophecy, there is no reason for any fair-minded person to doubt the historical reliability of the Old Testament.

Endnotes:
1) Dan Story. Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Tough Questions. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1992), 34.
2) Ibid., 35.
3) Gleason L. Archer. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1974), 25.
4) Ibid., 25.
5) Nelson Glueck. Rivers in the Desert. (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969), 31.
6) Story. Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Tough Questions. 36.
7) Ibid., 36.
8) For additional reading on the archeological evidences for the historical reliability of the Bible, consult the following works, Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Clifford A. Wilson, Rocks, Relics, and Biblical Reliability, Edwin Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scriptures.
9) Norman Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 1999), 609.
10) Josh McDowell. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 168-192.
11) Peter Stoner. Science Speaks. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1963), 100-107.
12) Ibid., 109-110.
13) Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 615.

The Case For Christmas with Lee Strobel

2009-12-20T19:38:00.007-05:00

Bryan is aware that Lee Strobel is not a King James Bible believer or a mid-Acts Dispensationalist. However, Bryan finds many of his apologetic arguments interesting and useful. Please enjoy these video clips from Lee Strobel's presentation on The Case For Christmas. Merry Christmas from the saints at Grace Life Bible Church.

What is History? A Response to Historical Relativism, Part 2

2009-12-17T04:59:00.001-05:00

Note: This is part two of the article posted from last week.

Response to the Metaphysical (Worldview) Objections

While every historian has a worldview through which he interprets events, this reality alone does not render objective history impossible.

Response to the Problem of Arranging Materials

The past is not distorted simply because the historian must arrange his materials. Since neither the historian or the geologist was present for the original events, it is necessary to reconstruct the past based upon the available evidence. However, reconstruction does not automatically equate with revision. It is true that every historian needs to arrange his material, but this can occur without neglecting significant matters. As long as the historian incorporated consistently and comprehensively all the significant events in accordance with the way things really were, then objectivity would be lost.(1) Objectivity is distorted when facts are either neglected or twisted on purpose by the historian. Simply arranging materials does not undermine objectivity assuming it is done honestly.

Response to the Problem of Structuring Materials

"Those who argue against the objectivity of history apart from an overall worldview must be granted the point, for without a worldview it makes no sense to talk about objective meaning."(2) Without a context meaning cannot be determined, and context is provided by the worldview and not the mere facts themselves. All of this points to the necessity of establishing a worldview in order to achieve objectivity. Without a metaphysical structure, one is simply arguing in a circle regarding the assumed causal connection and the attributed importance of events.(3) To assert that facts have internal arrangement begs the question, "How does one know the correct arrangement?"

As we have already seen, since historical facts can be arranged in at least three ways (chaotic, cyclical, and linear), it is fallacious to assume that one of these structures is the way the facts should be arranged without the aid of an overriding worldview. Consequently, objective meaning in history cannot be established without appealing to a particular worldview for guidance.(4) If facts alone could produce objectivity the best they could do is provide only the what of history. But objective meaning deals with the why of these events, which is impossible apart from a structure of meaning in which the facts may find significance. Dr. Norman Geisler offers the following proof that objective meaning apart from worldview is impossible:

Nevertheless, granted that there is justification for adopting a theistic worldview, the objective meaning of history become possible, for within the theistic context each fact of history become a theistic fact. Given the factual order of events and the known causal connection of events, the possibility of objective meaning surfaces. The chaotic and cyclical frameworks are eliminated in favor of the linear, and within the linear view of events causal connections emerge as the result of their context in a theistic universe. Theism provides the sketch on which history paints the complete picture. The pigments of mere fact take on real meaning as they are blended together on the theistic sketch. In this context, objectivity means systematic consistency; that is, the most meaningful way all the facts of history can be blended together into the whole theistic sketch is what really happened—historical facts.(5)

Response to the Problem of Miracles

Despite having proven that objective history is possible, many historians object to any history that contains miracles, which is a problem for the Christian view of history. The famous skeptic David Hume wrote that no testimony about alleged miracles should be accepted if it contradicts the uniform testimony of nature.(6) If one defines a miracle as a special act of God, and God does exist, than miracles are possible. Therefore, any alleged historical paradigm that excludes miracles is faulty.(7) Second, Hume's assessment assumes a naturalistic interpretation of all historical events. Hume's is a methodological exclusion of the possibility of accepting miracles in history which in the end reaches too far.(8) According to Richard Whately, Hume's uniform dismissal of the possibility of miracles not only excludes the possibility of miracles but any unusual events from the past.(9)

For the purpose of illustration, consider the following regarding the career of Napoleon Bonaparte. There can be little doubt that the odds against Napoleon's success were extremely high:

His prodigious army was destroyed in Russia, and a few months later he led a different army in Germany that likewise was ruined at Leipzig. However, the French supplied him with yet another army sufficient to make a formidable stand in France—this was repeated five times until at last he was confined to an island.(10)

While no one doubts that this chain of events is highly improbable, there is no compelling reason to doubt the historicity of Napoleon's exploits. Contrary to scientific demands, history is not dependent upon universal and repeatable experimentation. Rather it stands on the sufficiency of good testimony for unrepeatable events. Likewise with miracles, it is an unjustifiable mistake in historical methodology to assume that no unusual and particular event can be believed no matter how great the evidence for it. An honest historian must be open to the possibility of unique and particular events in the past whether they are miracouls or not.(11)

While God is not currently working miracles during the Dispensation of Grace, miracles have happened in history but are not the result of history. This reality is consistent with a theistic worldview and does not subvert historical objectivity.

Response to the Psychological Objection

Critics of the New Testament constantly assert that the religious motivations of the Gospel writers cancel their ability to present an objective historical report. As we saw previously, the gospel writers are routinely accused of creating the words of Jesus in their own terms rather than simply reporting them. Dr. Geisler offers the following ten reasons for why this assertion is without foundation:

First, there is no logical connection between one's purpose and the accuracy of the history he writes. People with no religious motives can write bad history, and people with religious motives can write good history.

Second, other important writers from the ancient world wrote with motives similar to the Gospel authors. Plutarch (46 A.D.), for example declared, "My design was not to write histories, but lives."

Third, complete religious propaganda literature, such as some critics see the New Testament, was actually unknown in the ancient world.

Fourth, unlike other early accounts, the Gospels were written, at a maximum, only decades after the events. Many other secular writings, such as those of Livy (59/64 B.C.-A.D. 17) and Plutarch, were recorded centuries after the events.

Fifth, as shown above, the historical confirmation of New Testament writings is overwhelming. So the argument that their religious purpose destroyed their ability to write good history is simply contrary to the facts.

Sixth, the New Testament writes take great care to distinguish there words from the words of Christ. . . This act of distinguishing reveals their honest attempt to separate what Jesus actually said form their own thoughts and feelings on the mater.

Seventh, in spite of the religious purpose of Luke's gospel (Luke 1:4, Acts 1:1), he states a clear interest for historical accuracy, which has been overwhelming corroborated by archaeology (see Luke 1:1-4).

Eighth, the existence of religious bias is no guarantee of historical inaccuracy. A writer can recognize his own bias and avoid its crippling effects. If this were not so, then even people with nonreligious (or anit-religious) biases could not write accurate history.

Ninth, the New Testament is confirmed to be historical by the same criteria applied to other ancient writings. Thus, this criticism either misses the mark or else it destroys all ancient histories.

Tenth, if the historicity of an event must be denied because of the strong motivation of the person giving it, then virtually all eyewitness testimony from survivors of the holocaust must be discounted. But this is absurd, since these people provide the best evidence of all. Likewise, a physician's passion to save his patient's life does not negate his ability to make an objective diagnosis of his disease, nor do an author's religious motives nullify his ability to record accurate history.(12)

Response to the Hermeneutical Objection

There are several basic reasons why this argument completely fails to demonstrate that objective history is not possible.

The Relativity Argument Presupposes Some Objective Knowledge

There is a big difference between arguing about the interpretation of historical facts and quit asserting that there are no historical facts to argue about. Historical relativists presuppose objective knowledge while arguing that objective knowledge does not exist. First, in speaking about the need to select and arrange the facts of history, subjectivists imply that the facts represent objective knowledge in and of themselves.(13) Second, "the very fact that relativist believe one's worldview can distort how one views history implies that there is a correct way to view it."(14)

Total Historical Relativity is Self-Defeating

How does one know that history is completely unknowable without claiming to know something about it? How could one know that all historical knowledge was relative without possessing some objective knowledge of it? Having seen the logical end of relativism, some historians have hedged slightly by arguing that history is only partially relative. Once one opens the door to even partial objectivity, one cannot claim to have eliminated in principle the possibility that the Christian claims are historically knowable.(15) Moreover, partial relativism does not eliminate the historical verifiability of Christianity since there is more evidence for the central truths of Christianity than for almost any other event from the ancient world. In summation, total historical relativism is self-defeating, and partial historical relativism admits verifiable truths.(16)

Conclusion

The details of many other arguments against historical relativism could also be cited, but the core of these positions has already been examined and found wanting. These arguments include the following: historical relativists attempt objective history themselves, an ability to recognize bad history implies objective knowledge, and historians employ normal objective standards. Some may be wondering why we went through all the trouble to outline and respond to objections against the objectivity of history. Believers must always remember that Christianity is a historical faith that is built upon the historicity of Christ's life, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection. As we said in the article entitled, The Importance of History to the Christian Worldview, our faith rises or falls based upon the historicity of the New Testament documents. As believers we need to be prepared to give a defense when our faith is skeptically challenged. We ought not to allow those who would reject the knowablity of history to thwart the defense and confirmation of the gospel. While charges of myth are often levied against the Christian view of history, these charges need not trip believers up. As we have demonstrated, history can be as objective as science.

Endnotes:

1) Norman Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 194.

2) Ibid., 194.

3) Ibid., 194.

4) Ibid., 195.

5) Ibid., 195-196.

6) Norman Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 327.

7) Ibid., 327.

⁸⁾Ibid., 327.

9) Richard Whateley. Historical Doubts Concerning the Existence of Napoleon Bonapart.

10) Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 327.

11) Ibid., 327.

12) Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One. 199-200.

13) Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 328.

14) Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One. 201.

15) Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 328.

16) Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One. 201.

What is History? Response to Historical Relativism Part 1

2009-12-11T07:49:00.001-05:00

Over the past two weeks we have discussed the objections levied against the objectivity of history by the historical relativists. While the outlook for the knowability of history may look bleak at this point, the door is by no means shut on this question. Problems abound within the arguments postulated by historical subjectivists, and over the next two weeks we will focus our attention on answering the objections raised by the historical relativists. In the end, both the knowability of history and the historicity of Christianity will be vindicated.

Response to the Epistemological Objections

In seeking to deconstruct the assertions made by those who argue that history is not knowable an elementary mistake in reasoning becomes apparent. How can the relativist really know that everyone's knowledge of history is not objective unless one had an objective knowledge of it, by which they could determine that all other views were in fact not objective? As a result, it is not difficult to see that the basic premise of the relativist's entire argument is self-defeating. It does not pass its own standard for determining truth. One cannot claim that objective history is not possible without also asserting to have an objective knowledge of history.

Response to the Problem of Unobservability of Historical Events

How one defines the word objective is very important in answering those who doubt that history can be objectively known. If by objective one means absolute knowledge, then no human historian writing under his own power can be objective. However, if objective means an accurate and adequate presentation that reasonable men and women should accept, then the door is open to the possibility of objectivity.(1)

If one accepts the latter definition presented above, than history is no less objective than some of the other so-called empirical sciences. For example, paleontology or historical geology, a science which deals with physical facts and processes of the past, is widely considered one of the most objective of all the sciences.(2) This is somewhat curious since the events represented by the fossil record are no more observable or repeatable than historical events are for the historian. Dr. Norman Geisler offers the following assessment of the situation:

The fossil is a mechanically true imprint of the original event and the eyewitness of history may be less precise. But natural processes also can mar the fossil imprint. At least if one can determine the integrity and reliability of the eyewitness, one cannot slam the door on the possibility of objectivity in history any more than on objectivity in geology.(3)

A scientist might counter that the processes of the past can be repeated by experimentation in the present whereas historical events cannot. Once again this argument is not entirely correct since we have shown earlier that while God is advancing history forward in linear fashion towards its prophesied end, cyclical patters do occur along history's linear plane. Therefore, history does repeat itself to some degree. "In short, the historian no less that the scientist, has the tools for determining what really happened in the past. The lack of direct access does not hinder one more than the other."(4)

Finally, it should be noted if either the historian or the geologist takes "fact" to mean the original event than neither possess any facts. As a result, "fact" must be taken to mean information about the original event and as such they are not the subjective imaginations of the historian. Facts are objective data whether anyone reads them or not. Consequently, there remains both for science and history a sold core of objective facts because whatever meaning or interpretation one chooses to ascribe to the facts, the data is not eliminated. In fact, if there where no objective historical facts, one could not distinguish between good history and propaganda.(5) Geisler offers the following summation of this point:

If history is entirely in the mind of the beholder, there is no reason one cannot decide to behold it in any way he desires. In this case there would be no difference between good history and trashy propaganda. But historians, even historical subjectivists recognize the difference. Hence, even they assume an objective knowledge of history.(6)

Response to the Problem of Fragmentary Accounts

The fact that the historical record is fragmentary does not render history unknowable anymore than the fragmentary nature of the fossil record destroys the objectivity of geology. Fossils, like primary sources, represent only a small percentage of the history of all living things. However, this does not keep the geologist from reconstructing a picture of what happened in the past based upon the fossils available in the present. How is this different from the process of writing history? In fact, geologists have been known to reconstruct entire animals and people from only a single bone. One should not be quick to demand that every piece be present before reconstruction is attempted. If one possess key pieces of evidence reconstruction can occur with a measurable degree of probability.(7) "For example, by the principle of bilateral similarity one can assume that the left side of a partial skull would look like the right side that was found."(8)

Despite the recent controversy, history like science is subject to revision only if the discovery of new facts warrants a reinterpretation of events. New finds may provide new facts which call for new interpretations. Consequently, interpretations can neither create facts nor can they ignore them if they wish to remain objective. Therefore, one can conclude that history is not any less objective than geology simply because it depends upon fragmentary accounts.(9) "Scientific knowledge is also partial and depends upon assumptions and an overall framework which may prove to be inadequate upon the discovery of more facts."(10)

In conclusion to this point, consider the following summation by Dr. Geisler. He writes:

Whatever difficulty there may be, from a strictly scientific point of view, in filling the gaps between facts, once one has assumed a philosophical stance toward the world, the problem of objectivity in general is resolved. If there is a God, then the overall picture is already drawn; the facts of history will merely fill in the details of its meaning. If the universe is theistic, the artist's sketch is already known in advance; the detail and coloring will come only as all the facts of history are fit into the overall sketch known to be true from the theistic framework. In the same sense historical objectivity is most certainly possible within a given framework such as a theistic worldview. Objectivity resides in the view that best fits the facts consistently into an overall theistic system which is supported by good evidence.(11)

Response to the Axiological (Value) Objection

Just because everyday language is laden with value judgments does not automatically eliminate the possibility of writing objective history. Objectivity means to be fair in how one deals with the facts; it means to present what occurred in the past as accurately as possible. Furthermore, objectivity means that when the historian interprets why events unfolded as they did, language should ascribe to these events that value they had in their original context. When this is accomplished objectivity is achieved. When viewed in this fashion, historical objectivity demands the making of value judgments. The real question here is not whether value language can be objective but rather whether value statements objectively portray the events the way they really occurred.(12) According to Geisler, "Once the worldview has been determined, value judgments are not undesirable or merely subjective; they are, in fact, essential and objectively required. If this is a theistic world, then it is not objective to place anything but a proper theistic value on the facts of history."(13)

Response to the Methodological Objections

Historical objectivity is not canceled out simply because every historian must employ a methodology when composing history.

Response to the Problem of Historical Conditioning

Every human being does occupy a relative place in the changing events of the spatio-temporal world. As a result, in at least a limited sense, each historian is a product of his time. However, it does not follow that because the historian is a product of his time; his history is also purely a product of the time. Just because a person cannot avoid their relative place in history does not mean they cannot achieve a meaningful degree of objectivity. This objection confuses the content of knowledge and the process one uses in attaining it.(14)

Moreover, if relativity were inevitable, historical relativism is self-defeating, because this view would either be historically conditioned and therefore unobjective or it is not relative but objective. If the latter is correct, the historical relativist must admit that objective history is possible. On the other hand, "if the position of the historical relativism is itself relative, it cannot be taken as objectively true—it is simply subjective opinion."(15) In summary, "if it is a subjective opinion it cannot eliminate the possibility that history is objectively knowable, and if it is an objective fact about history, then objective facts can be now about history."(16) The bottom line is that objectivity is possible, if the first seneario is true objectivity is not eliminated and in the second relativism is self-defeated.(17)

In the end, is not the constant historical revisionism undertaken by modern historian predicated on the assumption that objectivity is possible? In short, there is no basis for doubting the possibility of a high degree of historical objectivity.

Response to the Problem of Selectivity of Materials

Every day in the United States jurors make judgments about the guilt or innocence of their fellow citizens "beyond reasonable doubt" without having all the evidence. One need not know everything in order to know something. No scientist possesses all the facts yet objectivity is routinely claim and applauded. As long as the historian considers the relevant and critical evidence without overlooking important facts, history is no less objective than science. What is necessary is that facts be selected and reconstructed within the context in which the events represented actually transpired. Selectivity is necessary because no historian can account for everything available on a particular subject. As a result, selectivity does not imply distortion.(18)

In the end, since the evidence for the historicity of the New Testament is greater than for any other document from antiquity, it could easily be argued that if the events recorded in Scripture cannot be objectively known, then it is impossible to know anything else from that time period.(19)

Endnotes:

Norman Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 323.
Ibid., 323.
Ibid., 324.
Norman Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 190.
Ibid., 190-191.
Ibid., 191.
Ibid., 191.
Ibid., 191.
Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 324.
Ibid., 324.
Ibid., 325.
Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One, 192.
Ibid., 192.
Ibid., 192.
Ibid., 193.
Ibid., 193.
Ibid., 193.
Ibid., 193.
Ibid., 193.

What is History? Objections to the Objectivity of History Part 2

2009-12-02T08:12:00.002-05:00

Previously, we examined the objections to the objectivity of history raised by historical relativists. Epistemological, axiological, and methodological objections were explored in last week’s posting. This week, attention will be given to three other types of objections: metaphysical, psychological, and hermeneutical.

The Metaphysical (Worldview) Objections

Simply stated, the various metaphysical objections to the objectivity of history steam from the notion that one’s worldview colors his perspective of the past.

The Need to Structure the Facts of History

One of the epistemological objections we studied last week dealt with the fragmentary nature of existing historical documents. For the historical subjectivist, this observation leads to the conclusion that our partial knowledge of the past necessitates that we to fill in the gaps or connect the dots between events with our own imagination. Dr. Norman Geisler illustrates this criticism by comparing it with a connect the dot game often found in children’s activity books. Just as the child starts with dot number one and draws lines connecting each dot, thereby rendering a complete image, so too does the historian. However, unlike the child’s activity historians utilize only their imagination in connecting the fragmentary facts, according to historical relativists.(1)

Second, historical subjectivists make a distinction between a chronicle and history. A chronicle is the unrefined source material used by historians to construct history. Here in lies the problem according to the relativist-the historian is not content to tell his readers what happened but feels compelled to explain why it happened. As one might expect, relativists argue that these connective explanations are influenced by the worldview of the historian and therefore are not objective.(2)

The Unavoidability of Worldviews

The second metaphysical objection is similar to the first. Objectivity is compromised because every historian interprets the past within the framework of his own worldview. As discussed in a previous posting there are only three philosophies of history from which the historian can choose, chaotic, cyclical, and linear. Relativists charge that facts occupy a secondary role compared to the philosophy of history chosen by the historian. Rather, one’s faith and philosophical preferences skew their choice of philosophical paradigm. Facts therefore are not allowed to speak for themselves but are given voice based upon the worldview of the historian.(3) Consequently, “if there are several different ways to interpret the same facts, depending on the overall perspective one takes, then there is no single objective interpretation of history.”(4)

The Problem of Miracles

“Even if one grants that secular history could be known objectively, there still remains the problem of the subjectivity of religious history.”(5) Subjectivists argue that since miracles are supernatural there is no way to objectively verify them. This, of course, presents a potential problem for Bible believers because scripture records many miracles including the resurrection of Christ as historical facts. According to relativists, spiritual history has no connection with the spatiotemporal continuum of empirical events, thereby relegating miracles to the category of myths. As a result, any worldview which accepts miracles as valid would render history written from that vantage point not objective. Therefore, relativists argue that “the historian, like the scientist must adopt a methodological skepticism toward all alleged events in the past for which he has not parallel in the present—the present is the foundation of our knowledge of the past.”(6)

The Psychological Objection

At this point the attentive reader has no doubt noticed similarities among the arguments asserted against the knowability of history. The psychological objection is no exception. This argument is once against biased against anyone writing history from a religious point of view. In simple terms, the psychological objection asserts that history written by persons with religious motives cannot be trusted because their religious passions obscure their objectivity. Supporters of this position will commonly say that the New Testament writers cannot be trusted because they sought to recreate what Jesus said and not simply report His sayings. As a result, the Gospels are more reflective of the experiences of Christians than they are an accurate recording to the words and life of Jesus.(7)

The Hermeneutical Objection

In his book, Metahistory, author Hayden White claims that history is poetry. According to this view, history should be treated in the same manner as any other piece of literature. White argues that no history can be written apart from some unifying concept which can only be chosen from one of the following archetypal plot structures: romance, tragedy, comedy, or satire. Since one of these poetic plot structures is not better than the others but merely different, White views all debate about how history should be written as a matter of stylistic variation thereby rendering the entire discussion of historical objectivity moot.(8)

All the objections considered in the last two articles have one thing in common-they all seek to overthrow Christianity by challenging the validly of the faith’s historical underpinnings. Next week, we will begin to present a defense for the objectivity of history against its detractors.

Endnotes:

1)Normal Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 322.
2)Ibid., 322.
3)Norman Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 186.
4)Ibid., 187.
5)Ibid., 187.
6)Ibid, 188.
7)Ibid., 188-189.
8)Hayden White. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-CenturyEurope. 41-42.

What is History? Objections to the Objectivity of History Part 1

2009-11-24T15:27:00.002-05:00

In last week’s posting, we looked at the importance of history to the Christian worldview. Christianity is a historical faith that rises or falls on the validity of the historical record presented in scripture. Moreover, it was demonstrated that many modern historians have questioned the knowability of history by arguing that objective history is not possible. While historical relativism is embraced by skeptics, agnostics, and atheists for Bible believing Christians it is simply untenable. The purpose of this posting is to begin summarizing the arguments made by those who assert that history is unknowable. After setting forth the views of the historical relativists, we will demonstrate the false nature of their assertions.

According, to Dr. Norman Geisler, many arguments have been advanced that history cannot be objectively known.(1) One ought not take these challenges lightly, for if they are correct they would render the historical basis for Christianity both unknowable and unverifiable. Historian Charles A. Beard, author of The Noble Dream: the Quest for Objectivity in History, is by far the most prominent historical relativist. Beard’s afore-mentioned essay has served as the foundation for the modern push to view history as unknowable.(2) Geisler clarifies the objections to the knowablity of history into six categories: epistemological, axiological, methodological, metaphysical, psychological, and hermeneutical.(3)

The Epistemological Objections

Epistemology deals with how one knows anything, and relativists believe that objective truth does not exist in any sense. Specifically, historical relativists maintain that the very conditions by which one knows history are so subjective that one cannot have an objective knowledge of history.(4) Consequently, historical relativists offer three main epistemological objections to the notion of objective history.

The Unobservability of History

Proponents of historical relativism argue that the substance of history, unlike that studied by the empirical sciences, is not directly observable. In other words, history does not deal with past events but with statements about past events.(5) As a result, the historian is able to deal with facts in an imaginative way when attempting to reconstruct events he or she did not observe.(6) Consequently, historical facts exist only in the mind of the historian, according to historical relativists. Relatives contend that historical documents do not contain facts, but are, without the historian’s understanding, mere ink lines on paper.(7)

Two explanations are offered to explain why historians have only indirect access to the past. First, relativists assert that, unlike scientists, the historian’s world is comprised of records and nonrepeatable events. Consequently, the historians work is really of product of the present because the historian must interject his own understanding in any attempt to recreate the past.(8) Second, the empirical scientist has the advantage of repeatability through which he can subject his views to falsification, while the historian cannot. In contrast, the unobservable historical event is no longer verifiable. Therefore, what one believes about the departed past is more the product of subjective imagination, making objective history impossible.

The Fragmentary Nature of Historical Accounts

The second epistemological objection to the knowability of history centers around the documents available to the historian. Relativists suggest that a historian can ever have a complete understanding of past events due the fragmentary nature of the historical evidence. Beard and others state, that the available documents cover only a fraction of the events recorded, thereby leaving holes and blinds spots in the understanding available to the historian that prevent the reaching of final conclusions.(9) Moreover, the available documents are skewed because they disseminate what occurred in the past through the perspective of the one who recorded them, thereby rending them tainted and unreliable. This perspective is observable in Edward Hallett Carr’s book What Is History, in which he states the following regarding documents available to historians, “what really happened would still have to be reconstructed in the mind of the historian.”(10) In summary, because the documents are so fragmentary and the events so distant objectivity is not possible. Not only does the historian not have all of the puzzle pieces but the pieces the historian does possess are distorted by the mind of the person that recorded them.(11)

The Historical Conditioning of the Historian

This objection maintains that objectivity can never be attained because the historian plays too prominent a role in the historical process. Relativists claim that historians are a product of their time and are therefore subject to the unconscious programming of their era. According to this line of thought, historical synthesis depends upon the personality of the writer as well as social and religious forces that may influence one’s thinking and cloud their interpretive lenses.(12) One generation writes history only to have it rewritten by the next, thereby rendering neutral history impossible. Some historical relativists go so far as to say that one must study the historian before one can study their history.

The Axiological (Value) Objection

Historical relativists further assert that objective history is unobtainable because historians cannot avoid making value judgments.(13) Value judgments are used in the selection and arrangement of materials as well as in the selection of titles, chapters, and sections that are used in organizing historical compositions. In addition, relativists are quick to point out that historical subject matter often consists of events such as murder, betrayal, oppression and the like that cannot be described in morally natural words. For example, whether one historian chooses to classify a particular ruler as a dictator or a benevolent ruler is a value judgment and therefore subject to personal opinion. In short, for the subjectivist, objectivity is not possible because there is no way for the historian to keep himself out of his history.

The Methodological Objections

Generally speaking, methodological objections deal with the manner in which history is done.

The Selective Nature of Historical Methodology

We have already seen in the section on the epistemological objections to objectivity that historians do “not have direct access to the events of the past, but merely to fragmentary interpretations of those events contained in the historical documents.”(14) Relativists argue that objectivity is further compromised because historians must now choose from a fragmentary number of reports to build their interpretation of past events. Subjectivists are quick to point out that the sources utilized by the historian are influenced by many relative factors such as personal prejudice, availability of materials, knowledge of languages, as well as personal beliefs and societal convictions.(15) Edward Hallett Carr summarizes the popular modern view regarding the facts of history when he writes, “The facts speak only when the historian calls on them; it is he who decides which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context.”(16) In short, the original facts perished long ago, rending an objective discussion of them in the present a moot point.

The Need to Select and Arrange Historical Materials

At the risk of redundancy, historians select from surviving fragmentary documents only those that fit their over-all purpose. Historians then provide an interpretive framework that is tainted by the worldview and generational vantage point of the historian, according to relativists. Simply stated, the dice are loaded against objectivity before the historian ever sets pen to paper. “The final written product will be prejudiced by what is included and what is excluded from the material. It will lack objectivity by how it is arranged and by the emphasis given to it in the over all presentation.”(17) Consequently, all hope for objectivity is eternally dashed, according to the subjectivist.

For further reading on modern views of historical methodology this author recommends reading What is History by Edward Hallett Carr and The Idea of History by R.G. Collingwood. Stay tuned for part two of the objections to the objectivity of history.

Endnotes:
1) Norman Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 181.
2) Josh McDowell. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 676.
3) Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One. 181-182.
4) Normal Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 320.
5) Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One. 182.
6) Ibid., 182.
7) Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. 321.
8) Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One. 182.
9) Ibid., 182.
10) Edward Hallett Carr. What is Hisory. (New York, NY, Vantage, 1961), 20.
11) Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One. 183.
12) Carr., 31.
13) Ibid., 158-159.
14) Ibid., 184.
15) Ibid., 184.
16) Carr., 32.
17) Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One. 185.

What is History? The Importance of History to the Christian Worldview

2009-11-19T05:22:00.001-05:00

Simply stated, Christianity is based on historical events. Christians believe that the basis for their entire worldview appeared in human history some two thousand year ago. The theological reality that "Christ died for our sins" is also a fact of history. David A. Noebel author of Understanding the Times: The Story of the Biblical Christian, Marxist/Leninist, and Secular Humanist Worldviews, writes "Christianity is rooted in history and without its historical roots there would be no Christian worldview."(1) According to Noebel, the Christian view of history can be summarized by the following landmark historical events:

the revelation of God (primarily His intelligence and power) through the creation of heaven and earth—Genesis 1:1
the special creation of male and female as body, soul, and spirit (Genesis 1:26-27)
the rebellion of mankind against his creator (Genesis 3:1-15)
the revelation of God through the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and Israel (Old Testament, Gospels, and Early Acts)
the crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 13)
the appearance of God in history in the person of Jesus Christ to redeem mankind from sin (John 1:1-2, 14)
the resurrection of Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 15)
the revelation of God through His Church, the Body of Christ (Paul's Epistles)
the judgment of the world (Revelation 19-20)
the establishment of the new heavens, new earth, and new Jerusalem for the redeemed of all ages (Revelation 21).(2)

A careful reader will note that the events listed above occurred only once, thereby adding further credibility to our previous conclusion that linearism is the primary model for understanding Biblical history.

Noted Christian apologist Josh McDowell offers the following insight regarding the close relationship between Christianity and history. McDowell writes:

There is no doubt that much of the evidence for the validity of the Christian faith is rooted in history. Christianity is a historically founded faith. Its validity, or credibility is based on Jesus Christ literally living in history. The resurrection is rooted in time-space history. Everything that Jesus lived, taught, and died for is dependent upon His literal historical resurrection.(3)

Consequently, Christianity stands or falls based upon the veracity of certain historical facts according to Dr. William Lane Craig.(4) While some might view this assertion as scandalous, Dr. Craig points out that this reality makes Christianity unique amongst the world's religions, because if one can prove the truth of the historical record one would also thereby establish the validity of the Christian faith.(5)

Supporters of Christianity are not the only ones to observe the vital relationship between history and Christianity. Skeptics, atheists, and humanists have sought to undermine the faith by arguing that history is unknowable. Historical relativists claim that there is no such thing as objective history. David A. Noebel highlights the challenge posed by historical relativism when he writes, "to shatter Christian doctrine and the Christian worldview, one need only shatter its historical underpinnings."(6) This is precisely what the historical relativists are attempting to do, according to Dr. Norman Geisler:

Unlike some religions, historical Christianity is inseparably tied to historical events, including the lives of Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus. These events, especially those of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, are crucial to the truth of evangelical Christianity (I Corinthians 15:1-9); without them, it would cease to exist. Thus, the existence and knowability of certain historical events are essential to maintaining biblical Christianity.

The knowability of history is important not only theologically but also apologetically, for the overall argument in defense of Christianity is based on the historicity of the New Testament documents. Hence, since the objective knowability of history is strongly challenged by many contemporary historians, it is necessary to counter this claim in order to secure the defense of Christianity.(7)

Now more than ever, as the attacks increase on the reliability of the New Testament documents, believers need to be ready with answers for historical relativism. Consequently, part two of our study on how believers should view history will be focused on a discussion of the objectivity of history. First we will look at the assertions of the historical relativists, that history is unknowable to understand their position. Second, we will refute historical relativism and demonstrate that objective history is possible. Finally, we will examine the historicity of both the Old and New Testament documents, thereby offering conclusive proof for the veracity of the Christian Worldview. Apologist Dan Story offers the following assessment of the uniqueness of the Christian worldview and its relationship with history in his book, Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Tough Questions. Story writes, "Christianity is not a mystical religion, such as many Eastern religions and their New Age clones. Neither is it a mythical religion with idols and man-made gods. Nor is Christianity a misinformed religion, such as the various cults. Rather, Christianity is an historic religion, and its truth-claims are grounded on objective, historical facts."(8)

Endnotes:

David A. Noebel. Understanding the Times: The Story of the Biblical Christian, Marxist/Leninist, and Secular Humanist Worldviews. (Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Press, 1991), 764.
Adapted from Noebel's list page 764.
Josh McDowell. The New Evidence the Demands a Verdict. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 673.
Ibid., 673.
Ibid., 673.
Noebel. Understanding the Times, 764-765.
Norman Geilser. Systematic Theology: Volume One. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 181.
Dan Story. Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Tough Questions. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 17.

Law of Human Collapse Diagram

2009-11-11T10:39:00.003-05:00

Due to formatting problems with the blogger program this diagram needed to be posted separate from the article that explains it. For a more detailed description of this diagram please read the next posting, What is History? The Biblical View of History.

What is History? The Biblical View of History

2009-11-11T10:16:00.013-05:00

Throughout the current series of postings we have been working towards being articulating a complete Biblical paradigm for conceptualizing history. We have ruled out both the chaotic view of time and pure cyclicality alone as workable models. In addition, a brief historiographical survey, beginning with the Greeks, was presented which served to demonstrated that since the beginning of written history time has been articulated by either cyclical or linear constructs. In contrast to the cyclicality of the Greeks, the Christian theologian and philosopher St. Augustine used the historical realities of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection to postulate a linear paradigm of history in The City of God. As a result, Augustine viewed history as moving along a line with a clear beginning, middle, and end. Despite the clear preeminence of linearism, especially to mid-Acts Grace Believers, it was further demonstrated that God was is also the author of the cyclical.

In the article Reconciling the Cyclical with the Linear, we traced the origin of seasonality in an attempt to explain the nearly universal embracing of cyclicality by the gentiles. In this study we saw how after humanity fell into sin and that Satan moved to distort the seasonal patterns God established at creation to deceive mankind into worshiping the creature more than the creator. Consequently, we concluded that God was the author of the cyclical as well as the linear.
Now having established that both cyclicality and linearism are in fact Biblical concepts, all that remains is for them to be combined into one workable paradigm. Consider the chart at the top of this posting.

The preceding chart seeks to combine linear and cyclical concepts into one complete Biblical model for understanding history. As we have said many times throughout the current study, linearism must remain the primary model for understanding history since the Pauline perspective on right division of the scripture demands it. When we speak about how God has worked in the past (time past), how God is working in the present (but now), and how God will work in the future (ages to come), we are utilizing a strictly linear view of history. Time originated in Genesis 1 and is advancing forward in linear fashion toward a prophesied end, the establishment of the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21:1). When the Dispensation of the Fulness of Time (Ephesians 1:10) arrives the purpose for which God created time will have been fulfilled. Accordingly, Mid-Acts dispensationalists ought to be the most linear thinkers around.

Meanwhile, as time progresses towards its prophesied end, the cycles of seasonality are also turning. The above chart attempts to reflect this reality within the confines of a linear construct through the circles that represent seasonal cyclicality. As the chart states, economies expand and contract, civilizations rise and fall, and mankind vacillates between periods of rejection and reception of God’s truth. The Apostle Paul is keenly aware of these seasonal realities when he instructs Timothy to “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.”(1) Placing seasonal cyclicality within a linear construct is necessary because without doing so, history would never get anywhere. This is simply not an option for any mid-Acts Grace Believer since we wait with hopeful anticipation for the catching away of the saints that will occur at the end of the Dispensation of Grace. Each day that passes brings us one day closer to the rapture of the church, the 70th week of Daniel, the return of Christ in glory to set up his kingdom, and the centering of all governmental authority in both heaven and earth under the headship of Jesus Christ (the Dispensation of the Fulness of Time).

Now that we have combined cyclical and linear concepts into a single explanatory model of history, only one detail remains for the articulation of a complete paradigm. The chart presented above does not take into account the Law of Human Collapse. For accuracy’s sake, the trajectory of linear progression is best illustrated by a downward sloping line. Drawing the line in this fashion sets the Christian view of history apart from other linear progressive models discussed in previous postings. Unlike the evolutionary or Marxian views of history, humanity is not improving but finding new ways and methods to rebel against God. In Romans Chapter One, Paul summarizes how the reprobate mind works when he reports that human beings are “inventors of evil things.” For the purposes of illustration, please consider the diagram that is depectied in posting above titled Law of Human Collapse Diagram.

As the diagram suggests, Daniel Chapter 2 stands out as the premier example of the Law of Human Collapse in the Bible. In this passage, Nebuchadnezzar sees the image of a man with a head of gold, chest of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron, and feet and toes of iron and clay mixed. Moreover, the king sees in his dream a “stone cut without hands” that smashes the feet of the image causing it to crumble and break in pieces. Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and tells him that each part of the statue represents a gentile kingdom beginning with the head of gold, which is his own kingdom of Babylon. In addition, Daniel informs the king that when the “stone cut without hands” topples the image that “the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed.” Within Nebuchadnezzar’s dream we see the entire duration of the times of gentiles politically foretold in stunning detail. The only thing not foretold in Daniel Two was that God was going to interrupt the progression of gentile power at the ankles on the image and usher in an unprophesied period of grace and peace, namely the Dispensation of Grace. The mineral degeneration seen in each part of the statue reflects the Law of Human Collapse. Mankind has no hope without God. It is only the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second advent to establish his kingdom that stops humanity’s descent into oblivion.

In short, a complete Biblical view of history must contain the following three characteristics. First, it must reflect the God-ordained method of Bible study by adhering to linearism as its predominant explanatory model. Second, it must recognize that God is also the author of the cyclical and make room for seasonality as God’s linear plan unfolds. Third, the linear progression and imbedded cyclicality must be understood to progress along a line that is downward slopping in its trajectory, thereby taking into account the Law of Human Collapse.

Endnotes

1) II Timothy 4:2

What is Hisory? Imperial History of the Middle East

2009-11-10T14:26:00.007-05:00

A colleague of mine recently shared this interactive map with me. If fits perfectly with the last posting in the What is History series. Click on the button below to see the rise and fall of civilizations that have dominate the Middle East throughout history. This map clearly illustrates the main point for the previous posting, every nation including God's nation Israel that has risen to prominence has fallen into memory.

Unfortunately this map needed to be condensed to fit spacial limitations of this blog. To view a full size version of this map click on the following link. Imperial History of the Middle East

What is History? Reconciling the Cyclical with the Linear Part 2

2009-11-05T18:22:00.004-05:00

In last week's posting, we studied how God created the universe to follow a cyclical pattern of seasonality. In addition, we saw how the gentiles followed the course of this world charted by Satan which included the usurping and perversion of God's seasonal order. Therefore, it was concluded that while linearism remains the predominant model for conceiving Biblical history, cyclicality needs to find its place within linearism. In short, any paradigm that emphasizes the cyclical over the linear is spurious, just as any linear model that totally excludes the cyclical is incomplete. God is the author of both the linear and the cyclical.

Secular Examples of Cyclicality

Examples of cyclicality abound in the secular world. Historically, one could discuss the rise and fall of great civilizations, or the cyclical nature of the Chinese dynastic cycle. Economists discuss the business cycle in an attempt to describe the alternating periods of economic contraction and expansion. Seasonality and cyclicality can be used to describe many things that occur in the world around us. Christian relationship expert, Dr. Gary Chapman, utilizes the metaphor of seasonal differences to describe the life cycle of marriage in his book The Seasons of Marriage. According to Dr. Chapman all relationships go through different seasons: spring (growth), summer (love, cooperation, and nurturing), fall (drifting apart and disconnection), and winter (cold distance during which thoughts or discussion of divorce may arise). Seasonality and cyclicality persist as explanatory models within our culture because all humans understand seasonal vacillations as they are common to our earthly experience.

Currently, Americans have become reacquainted with cyclicality through the ongoing economic recession of the past eighteen months. Economist Charles Wheelan famously said that economies "proceed in fits and starts."(1) Wheelan is referring to the recurring periods of growth and decline in economic activity that all economies experience.(2) Economists call this recurring pattern the business cycle.

Traditionally, the business cycle consists of four phases. These phases include a period of growth and a period of decline, as well as turning points that mark the shift from one period to the next. A period of economic growth is known as an expansion. During an expansion, real GDP increases along with inflation as unemployment generally declines. Eventually, a period of economic expansion will reach a peak or point of maximum output. At its peak an economy's GDP stops increasing while unemployment stops decreasing, thus indicating a decline in economic activity. Immediately following the peak comes the contraction phase of the business cycle. During a contraction, a period of economic decline, real GDP falls as unemployment is rising just as we have seen in our current economic downturn. Eventually, a contraction will reach its lowest point called the trough. Consequently, the trough represents the lowest point of economic output prior to a new period of expansion as the cycle renews itself. While the term business cycle implies a regular rhythm between peak and trough, business cycles are irregular in terms of both length and magnitude.(3) See the diagram of the Bussiness Cylce at the top the right hand margin.

Students of world history are familiar with Edward Gibbon's seminal work, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or William L Shirer's similarly titled, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. Works such as these try to explain the reasons for one of world history's most glaring realities, namely that great civilizations and empires rise and fall only to be replaced by new civilizations or empires which in turn follow the same progression. In fact, one could argue that history's great societies have progressed in exactly the same fashion as the business cycle outlined above. A well-rooted and established culture seeks to take advantage of its surrounding less sophisticated neighbors. Perhaps peaceably at first, often followed by military conquest, one society emerges and expands their power base by subjecting their enemies until they reach a summit of sustainable power. While some cultures where able to maintain their zenith longer than others, corruption and entropy ultimately creep in leading to slow decline and decay. Eventually through the combination of both internal problems and external threats, the civilization falls only to be replaced by a new society that follows the same progression.

Ancient China provides a fascinating case study to demonstrate how the cyclical concepts we saw in the business cycle formed the basis for the Chinese conception of history. The ancient Chinese possessed a cyclical understanding of history which is clearly visible by looking at the Dynastic Cycle. It would start with a powerful family claiming what the Chinese called the Mandate of Heaven, or heaven's blessing, thereby giving them the right to rule and establish a dynasty. Each new dynasty demonstrated they possessed the Mandate of Heaven by accomplishing the following things: bringing peace, rebuilding infrastructure, giving land back to the peasants, and protecting the people from forgiven invaders. As time went by the new dynasty became an old dynasty and demonstrates their signs of age by over taxation, decaying infrastructure, unfair treatment of the populace, and an inability to protect and secure national boarders. As a result, the old dynasty lost the Mandate of Heaven which was revealed to the Chinese people through natural disasters, peasant revolts, bandits raiding the countryside, and invasion by foreign enemies. As one might expect, during this time of political and social upheaval, a new family would inevitably emerge claim the Mandate of Heaven and keep the dynastic wheel turning. See the diagram of the Chinese Dynastic Cylce at the top of the right hand margin.

Eventually, the Mongolian hordes lead by Genghis Khan initially and then his successor, Kublai Khan, subjugated most of China under the authority of a Mongolian Khanate thereby disrupting the pure dynastic cycle of ancient China. After establishing the greatest united land empire in world history, the great Mongolian Empire fragmented and collapsed. Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Byzantium, Mongolia, China, Ottomans, Mayan, Aztec, Incan, Spanish, and the British Empires have all followed the same circular pattern. Through a period of expansion they reach a power zenith only to contract, crumble, and pass into memory.

Why should the United States be any different? For the purposes of comparison, most western historians like to gauge the footing of modern America by comparing it with that of the Western Roman Empire at the time of its collapse. Generally speaking, ten leading theories have emerged within the historical community to explain why Rome fell, which include:

Barbarian Invasions
Decline in Morals and Values

Environmental and Public Health Problems
Excessive Military Spending to Defend the Empire
Inferior Technology
Inflation
Political Corruption
Rise in Christianity
Unemployment
Urban Decay

Virtually all historians hang their explanatory hat on some combination of the theories listed above. If indeed Rome is a fair comparison for all her Western progeny than even a cursory reading of this list ought to make every American squirm. There is no reason to think that our civilization can escape the clearly established historical pattern.

Biblical Example of Cyclicality

All mid-Acts dispensationalists know that historically God created only one nation, Israel. At this point an inquisitive Bible student might be wondering, where if at all can one observe the type of cyclical progression describe above in Biblical history? First, the Bible records the history of the rise and fall of gentile nations from the vantage point of the nation of Israel. However, the question remains can cyclicality be observed with God's nation? The answer is yes, as the book of Judges stands out as a clear example of Biblical cyclicality.

According to Nelson's Complete Book of Bible Maps and Charts, the book of Judges is organized thematically rather that chronologically. "The book opens with a description of Israel's deterioration, continues with seven cycles of oppression and deliverance, and concludes with two vivid examples of Israel's depravity."(4) The book's authors (who are unnamed for some reason) offer the following elaboration:

The theme of deterioration is highlighted as Judges begin with short-lived military successes after the death of Joshua but quickly turn to the repeated failure of the people to drive out their enemies. The primary reasons for their failure are a lack of faith and a lack of obedience to God (2:1-3).

Repeated deliverance by God are described in the middle section of the book (3:5-16:31) which presents seven cycles of apostasy, oppression, cry for deliverance, salvation, and rest. Israel vacillates between obedience and apostasy as the people continually fail to learn for their mistakes.(5)

J. Sidlow Baxter author of Explore the Book, presents a similar structure to his readership. Baxter outlines Judges by presenting six apostasies, servitudes, and deliverances that reoccur in the following four-stroke rhythm: sin, suffering, supplication, and salvation.(6)

In order to accurately assess the validity of the two schemata presented above, we need to turn our attention to the text of Judges itself. Judges 2:10-19 outlines the cyclical pattern that rest of the book of Judges follows, the passage states:

10) And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel.

11) And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim:

12) And they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD to anger.

13) And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.

14) And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies.

15) Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for evil, as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed.

16) Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.

17) And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so.

18) And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.

19) And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way.

In verse 13, Israel does evil in the eyes of the Lord by serving Baal and Ashtaroth. As punishment for their idolatry, Israel is enslaved at the hands of their gentile enemies, according to verses 14 and 15. Discomforted by their enslavement, Israel cries out for deliverance from the hands of their oppressors. Verses 16 and 18 report that God heard the cries of his nation and in his grace raised up a series of judges who deliver Israel from gentile enslavement. Israel's peace was only short-lived according to verses 18 and 19, for after each judge was dead they "returned again and corrupted themselves more than their fathers." In short, Judges Chapter 2 establishes a cyclical pattern that is played out multiple times throughout the duration of the book. Please consider the diagram at the beginning of this posting:

So where does all of this leave us? First, we have seen that God is the author of both the linear and cyclical. Second, the nations do follow the cyclical patterns of seasonality because they have been usurped as part of Satan's lie program to bring worship to the creature rather than the creator. Third, as a result, cyclicality is observable virtually everywhere from the highs and lows of the business cycle to the rise and fall of civilizations. Fourth, even the nation of Israel experienced life according to a cyclical pattern laid out in the book of Judges. In fact, if one views the kingships of David and Solomon as the pinnacle of Israel political power, it is not difficult to make the argument that the nation entered into a contractionary decline when the split between the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. Eventually, both Israel and Judah were conquered by gentile powers thereby ushering in the times of the gentiles politically and completing Israel's fall into political irrelevance due to her habitual unbelief. Despite having succumbed to the same cyclical collapse as the gentile nations surrounding Israel, time marched on. The linear was driven forward by the covenants and promises that God made to his nation that have not yet come to pass. Therefore, while the nations are rising and falling in predicable fashion, history is being pulled along a linear plane towards God's prophesied end.

Endnotes

1) Bill Bosshart. Econ Alive: The Power to Chose. (Palo Alto, CA: Teachers Curriculum Insitute, 2010), 266.

2) Ibid., 266.

3) Ibid., 266-267.

4) Nelson's Complete Book of Bible Maps and Charts. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996), 76.

5) Ibid., 76.

6) J. Sidlow Baxter. Explore the Book. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1960).

What is History? Reconciling the Cyclical with the Linear Part 1

2009-10-28T09:05:00.004-04:00

In a previous posting, we saw that linearism is the accepted historical paradigm amongst Christian philosophers, historians, and theologians. We also demonstrated how linearism is rudimentary to a dispensational understanding of the scriptures. Consequently, mid-Acts grace believers should have no difficulty recognizing the importance of linear thinking to their theological construct. Now that we have demonstrated that linearism is fundamental to the Christian worldview, we can now investigate whether there is room within the Christian worldview for cyclical thinking.

A careful reading of the previous posting reveals an interesting piece of information: virtually all gentile societies have viewed time as cyclical in nature. Regardless of their geographic location or despite their lack of contact with each other, pagan cultures all possessed a circular view of life linked to the seasonality observable in nature. In fact, it was only Judaism, followed by Christianity, that embraced any semblance of linear thinking. Pagan holidays and festivals coincided with seasonal occurrences such as the winter and summer solstices as well as the spring and autumnal equinoxes’. After the so-called conversion of Emperor Constantine to Christianity in 312 A.D., the Roman Catholic Church slowly began the process of trying to Christianize pagan holidays. As a result, the Church positioned Christmas, Easter, and All Saints Day or All Hollows Eve to coincide with pagan festivals that celebrated the seasonal changes of nature. Where did the gentiles obtain this seasonal celestial view of the universe?

What Did Humanity Know and When Did We Know It?

The notion that early men were primitive (e.g., cave men) is an evolutionary supposition that Bible believers should reject. Adam, the first man, was not a half man/half animal creature as evolutionary pseudoscience teaches. Rather, Adam was created in the image of God as a fully functioning adult male possessing superior physical, mental, spiritual, and emotion faculties as you or I.(1) Moreover, Adam was placed into a mature, fully functioning, and perfectly created environment. Adam was given a charge to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over . . . every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”(2) Adam was given the job of dressing and keeping the Garden of Eden in which he enjoyed unbroken fellowship and communion with God.(3)

Before God created Adam and placed him in the Garden of Eden, He created the planetary bodies of the universe. Genesis 1:14-19 records this event:

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the
day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days,
and years: 15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give
light upon the earth: and it was so. 16) And God made two great lights;
the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he
made the stars also. 17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give
light upon the earth, 18) And to rule over the day and over the night, and to
divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19) And the
evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Note a few significant details. First, the alignment and position of the planetary bodies serve the purpose of providing light upon the earth. Second, the relationship between the earth and the celestial bodies of the firmament would not only account for the differences between day and night but would also serve as a mechanism for rendering seasons as well as for counting days, weeks, and years. Third, the dividing of day and night, seasonal differences, and the counting of days and years were designed in verse 14 to serve as signs to the inhabitants of the earth. According to Strong’s Concordance, the Hebrew word translated “signs” in the King James Bible means “a signal, a distinguishing mark, banner, remembrance, miraculous sign, omen, or warning.” Therefore, Adam was placed in an environment in which the planetary bodies served as signs of God’s existence and handiwork.

The daily rotation of the earth on its axis would bring day and night. Likewise, the combination of the earth’s yearly revolution around the sun along with the tilting of the earth’s axis at 23 1/2 degrees would produce the yearly seasonal differences. All of these natural phenomena were designed by God to serve as a sign and testimony to his existence and creative genius. Consequently, God placed Adam in an environment that had been intentionally designed to bear witness to the glory and splendor of God. Genesis further reports of humanity’s fall into sin, which not only wreaked havoc on God’s pristine creation but also clouded and distorted man’s willingness to see God’s handwork in the natural world.

In Romans chapter one, the Apostle Paul reports how mankind’s fall into sin distorted his willingness to see the witness God placed within creation. Paul wrote:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed
it unto them. 20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21) Because that, when they
knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain
in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22) Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23) And changed the glory of the
uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and
fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Romans 1:19-23

The following points about post-fall man are clearly observable from this passage. First, mankind clearly knew who God was through his creation. Second, based on the testimony of creation alone, mankind is without excuse for not desiring to retain God in his knowledge.(4) Third, the ultimate result of not glorifying God as God, lack of thankfulness, and vain imaginations is the changing of the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man. In short, mankind took the witness of God through creation and perverted it in an attempt to escape accountability. The end result was that humanity changed the truth of God into a lie (5) for which “God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.” (6)

Therefore, from the very beginning mankind was aware of the seasonal nature of God’s creation. After the fall, the sons of Adam, in an attempt to remove God from their knowledge, took the signs and seasonal markers God established when he created the planetary bodies and hijacked them as part of their religious systems. Herein lays the explanation for why virtually all pagan societies in the ancient world viewed time as cyclical. They were simply following the course of this world, a perverdion of the knowledge of God authored by Satan and his lie program. This is precisely what E. W. Bullinger argues in his landmark book The Witness of the Stars, namely, that the Zodiac is a satanic distortion of the witness God placed in the heavens when he garnished them with the various celestial bodies.
Pagan Calendar: Note the cyclical structure and polar positioning of the winter and summer solstice as well as the spring and autumnal equinox. See the examples of Pagan Cyclicality at the top of the right hand margin.

This author believes that the giving up of the gentiles to a reprobate mind that Paul speaks of in Romans 1 took place in Genesis 11. It was at Babel that God “suffered the gentiles to walk in their own way,” because in Genesis 12 God calls out Abram and made a covenant with him to bring from him a great nation that would be formed from Abram’s seed. When God allowed the gentile nations to follow after their own foolishness, he did not reorganize or restructure the physical mechanisms of his creation. Rather, God still uses the seasonality of his creation as a testimony to the nations of his existence. Consider what Paul says to the inhabitants of Lystra in Acts 14:16-17, “Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” Notice that God left the signs of seasonality in place to serve as a witness to the gentiles of his existence despite their perversion of it.

Rather than God setting up the nations to follow a cyclical seasonal progression, the nations chart their own course that follows Satan’s distortion of God’s created order. In other words, seasons continue not because pagan religious rituals bring about their passage but because God ordained his universe at creation to function in this fashion. Sin has not disrupted the seasonal patters of creation but has instead distorted mankind’s understanding of them. In Genesis 8:22, Moses says the following regarding the cyclical functioning of the seasons: “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” The famous passage from Ecclesiastes 3 concurs with Moses’ statement:

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2) A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up
that which is planted; 3) A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break
down, and a time to build up; 4) A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to
mourn, and a time to dance; 5) A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather
stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 6) A
time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; 7) A
time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 8)
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Initially, the passing from day to night, winter to spring, and year to year were designed as sings to manifest the genius of almighty God, but Satan’s lie program utilizes this cyclicality to promote worship of the creature rather than the Creator.

While linearism remains the predominant model for understanding history, we must also recognize that God is also the author of cyclical seasonality. Consequently, to arrive at a complete paradigm of history, we must embrace the reality that as time moves forward linearly towards its prophesied end, cycles are also occurring. A proper understanding of cyclicality is necessary to arrive at a complete Biblical paradigm of history. Stay tuned for more on this in our next posting.

End Notes:
1) Genesis 1:26-27.
2) Genesis 1:28.
3) Genesis 2:15.
4) Romans 1:28.
5) Romans 1:25.
6) Romans 1:28.