Category Archives: Uncategorized

Not By Works

Posted on by
Reply

It’s dreadfully sad how quickly works-based gospel can creep into the thinking of committed Christians. I’ve really enjoyed reading some of the articles on ApologeticsPress.org. They’ve got some good apologetics articles. 

When I was reading their review of the movie, God’s Not Dead, I ran across this near the end of the article (WARNING – spoilers) :

Furthermore, the movie completely misrepresents how God has commanded people to be saved. The clearest example of this false teaching comes at the end of the movie. In a tragic accident, the atheistic professor is struck by a car and is about to die. It just so happens that a denominational minister is on the scene. The minister begs the atheistic professor to call on the Lord, say a version of the “sinner’s prayer,” and receive Jesus into his heart. Yet such teaching is never found in the Bible (Lyons, 2004; Jackson, 2014). God requires faithful obedience to the Gospel plan of salvation in order to receive the gift of salvation

 

After reading a little further into what Lyons considers the requirements for receiving the gift of salvation, he is apparently only including the obedience of baptism…not works as is sometimes understood.

In truth, it would be possible to go to any number
of verses and pick out a single thing that the verse says
saves a person. According to the Bible, love, repentance,
faith, baptism, confession, and obedience are but a few
examples of the things that save. However, it would be
dishonest, and poor Bible scholarship, to demand that
“only” repentance saves, or “confession alone” saves,
or that “baptism by itself” has the power to save. In the
same sense, one cannot (justifiably) pick the verses that
mention faith and belief, and demand that a person is
saved by “faith only” or “belief alone.”

Growing up, I went to a southern baptist church, and the idea of salvation was complete with confession, repentance, and faith in the saving sacrifice of Jesus. Baptism was seen as the first step of obedience of a new Christian. Now we attend an independent Christian church, and one of the central teachings is that water baptism is point at which a person receives the gift of salvation.

Scripture is clear on the issue of whether a person can be saved by works. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, so that no one can boast.”

So the question is whether baptism is part of “Calling on the name of Lord Jesus Christ” or is it the first step of obedience that a Christian does to publicly show that his faith is genuine. My own story is that I confessed and repented at age 10, but I was baptized at age 18 in recognition that it was part of my Christian obedience. 

While I’m not convinced that baptism is the saving action, it is clear that one cannot receive the gift of salvation by good works or by being good enough. 

 

Jesus Was NOT a Good Man

Posted on by
Reply

History’s greatest character was not a good man. It is simply not an option. Jesus could not be a good man, because he claimed to be Almighty God. That’s a pretty big claim, and this assertion carries big repercussions with it. So did Jesus really claim to be God? Let’s see…

Who is Elohim (God)? Genesis 2:4 identifies the Creator God as Yahweh. In verse 7 and 22 of the same chapter, Yahweh created the first man and woman respectively along with the rest of creation. Yahweh is the Creator

Moses writes of his first encounter with God Almighty in Exodus 3. When at the burning bush, Moses asks the Almighty how the Israelites will know that Moses speaks on God’s authority, God replies, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you…Say this to the people of Israel: Yahweh, the God of your ancestors–has sent me to you.”

So, we’ve got a pretty good picture of who God is through the words of Moses. Moving forward 1500 years to Jesus’ claims in John 8:58, we read, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” The Jews knew that Jesus was identifying himself as the Creator God, and “they picked up stones to stone him.” Jesus didn’t just claim to be a prophet or rabbi or just a good man with good teachings. He claimed to be the same Elohim, who 1) created Adam and Eve, 2) made a covenant with Abraham, and 3) spoke to Moses. 

So the claim is there, and now there are only three options for us today. 

  1. We can believe that Jesus claims are true. He is the Creator God.
  2. We can believe that Jesus lied. Jesus knew he was not the Creator God, but he wanted other to believe it.
  3. We can believe that Jesus was loony. Jesus only thought he was the Creator God.

Jesus was NOT just a good man. He was and is the Creator God. He was either a liar or a lunatic, which would have made him unqualified as a good man…or he was the Creator God. Don’t get me wrong about his human form. He lived this earthly life as a man, and as a man he lived in perfect harmony with the Father. And as a man, he died the most cruel death in history. Living as a man was the only way that he could have served as a kinsman redeemer for mankind.

In the end, he validated his claim as the Creator God by coming back to life after being crucified. He fulfilled hundreds of old testament prophesies about his existence and life. He lived before Abraham, and he lives today in the lives of who invite him into their lives. Those who believe option one (John 3:16), who repent of their sin (2 Peter 3:9), and invite Jesus to be Lord of their life (Romans 10:9-10) will be saved from eternal death.

 

You Know What They Say About Assuming?

Posted on by
Reply

Have you heard that the earth is older than the Bible says, and scientists can prove it with ice cores drilled from Greenland and the Antarctic?

I’ve heard that too, but it appears that their proof is grounded in multiple assumptions.

Although uniformitarian scientists would acknowledge that their flow models implicitly assume an old earth, they would argue that this assumption is justified, partly because the ages assigned to the ice cores agree with the expectations of a popular theory for ice ages called the astronomical or Milankovitch theory

 

Because secular scientists assume the solar system is billions of years old, they believe they are free to extrapolate these motions backward hundreds of thousands of years into the supposed “prehistoric” past.

 

Although the astronomical theory is currently popular, it is actually a theory from the 1800s, has a number of serious problems, and was previously rejected by meteorologists long ago.

 

One of the many problems for those who would reject the Bible’s authority is that the depth of ice packs for Greenland and Antarctica are easily explained within a Biblical timeframe.

Even if one grants the assumption that average high-latitude snowfall rates have been roughly constant throughout time, the Greenland ice sheet would need (in the absence of melting) only about 5,000 years to form, and the Antarctic ice sheets would require only about 10,200 years.1 Although these numbers are greater than the roughly 4,500 years since the Flood, they are easily compatible with the biblical model that predicts much higher snowfall rates during the post-Flood Ice Age.

 

There’s no reason to reject Biblical authority in favor of assumptions, because you know what they say about assumptions?

Satire – Teaching Tool With Impact

Posted on by
Reply

People have different learning styles. Some are visual learners. Some can learn from others while another set of people need to experience things for themselves to truly learn. 

Satire is another learning tool that can help people to see the shortcomings of a strongly held position. 

I found this article from Creation.com that I thought would be interesting to share.

Now you don’t have to cross out all the parts of the Bible contradicted by modern science

Does modern science contradict the Bible, or is it the presuppositions of methodological naturalism that is contradictory to the scriptures?

The Bible is being compromised by well-meaning but deceived Christians at the expense of God’s Word. When the Guide for Christians is re-interpreted to accommodate godless myths, then you can end up with all kinds of compromises.

Can’t Teach an Old Earth Creationist New Tricks

Posted on by
2

After scanning a few apologetics blogs today, I came away with the impression that many of them are content with the idea that Old Earth Creationism is a legitimate position to take with regards to the authority of God’s Word. This worries me because taking God’s Word as mythological when it is clearly teaching history will deteriorate the foundation of scripture. Once the foundation is mythologized, is it really even necessary anymore. The next thing you know, the Christian church will be ordaining homosexual ministers…ooops.

Unfortunately, none of the bloggers could adequately defend their belief. One of the bloggers simply referred dissidents to Hugh Ross’s website instead of engaging in the arguments. Another thought it was more appropriate to attack the character of young earth creationists. There were also a few that thought it a good idea to accuse young earth creationists of being ridiculous when rejecting the “proven” age of the earth at almost 14 billion years.

But I’ve never heard good hermeneutical arguments for converting to OEC. Below are some questions that need to be dealt with by OECers within the framework of scripture:

  • What was the writer’s intent in Genesis? 
  • Since the chrono-genealogies of Genesis limit the amount time between creation and Abraham to under 3000 years (even with liberal interpretations of missing names), how can OEC account for this time limitation?
  • Where in scripture does it say that there was death of the nephesh before Adam sinned? 
  • What did Jesus mean when in Mark 10:6 “At the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” ?  Since mankind was created at the beginning of creation, according to the Creator, how does this fit with the OEC view that mankind has come into existence at the end of the old earth timeline of billions of years?
  • The YEC view fits nicely with what scripture teaches without contradictions or epicycles. Using only scripture, how could one build a case for OEC at the exclusion of YEC?

This would be a good start for an enterprising OEC apologist to answer. 

Jesus. Myth or Historically Verifiable

Posted on by
Reply

If the only sure things in life are death and taxes, can we be sure that Jesus actually lived on Earth? The Bible says he paid taxes (Matthew 17:24-27), and it goes into graphic detail about his death (Mark 15, John 19), but for some, the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life are not enough. What about the countless personal testimonies from people whose lives have been changed by giving their lives to Jesus? Nope. Still not good enough for some.

So, can a person look at historical documents besides the Bible to see whether Jesus really lived? Is there enough evidence to overcome the obstacle that would keep someone from salvation? **

While I enjoy history, I’m not really a true historian. But I came across this article that should help those interested in researching the historical viability of Jesus to see the Bible as accurate.

Thallus (52AD)
Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient his writings don’t even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who previously tried to explain away the darkness occurring at Jesus’ crucifixion:

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

– See more at: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/

Tacitus (56-120AD)

Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)

Phlegon (80-140AD)

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)

Suetonius (69-140AD)

Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)

Celsus (175AD)

Josephus (37-101AD)

Jewish Talmud (400-700AD)

The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD)

This is not a comprehensive list of the historical sources, but it is a good start for someone interested in checking on the Bible’s veracity.

The followup question on Jesus’ historicity would be, “Well, just because he existed, it doesn’t mean that he is God. How can we know that he was truly the God?”

This question is actually not as difficult as it appears, because Jesus claimed to be God (John 8:58). Since he made the claim to be God, he was either telling the truth, he was a liar, or he was crazy. Those are the only three choices.

  • If he told the truth, then He is deserving of worship. The truth of his claim is verified mostly in the fact of his resurrection and his fulfillment of hundreds of old testament prophecies.
  • If he knew that he was not the eternal Creator God, but he wanted others to believe this, then he was a liar. Liars are not generally regarded as good men, and because of his resurrection, he possesses a great deal of leverage to his divinity claim.
  • Was Jesus crazy, delusional, wacko? Did he unfortunately believe that he was the eternal Creator God? Again, he would not be regarded today as a good teacher if he believed something was was sheer lunacy, and because he backed up his claim with his prophecy-fulfilling miracles and resurrection, it is certain that he was not a lunatic.

Just understanding the historicity of Jesus is not enough. If Jesus truly lived and he really is God, what does that mean for you? You are certainly paying taxes, and you certainly will die. I can’t get you out of the taxes dilemma, but you can have life without end.

UPDATE: This is a good article from the same guy that wrote Cold Case Christianity.

Ignatius and Polycarp were direct students of the Apostle John; Clement was a direct student of the Apostle Paul. These students later became leaders in the early Christian Church and wrote their own letters to local congregations.

 

Even if people disregard the historical veracity of the Bible, Jesus still appears in historical writings.

 

**Disclaimer: The authority of God’s Word is the basis for being able to know anything. In other words, if the God of the Bible is not true then we cannot know anything for certain. Because He has revealed Himself, we have the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. So believing that God is the Creator and his word is true must be the foundation of our faith. If researching historical documents and seeing the evidence of creation helps someone overcome the obstacles of unbelief as a step towards salvation, I’m more than happy to help lay out the case for a historically verifiable account of the Bible.

Yikes!

Posted on by
1

A new friend relayed a story to me, and I’m very troubled by his response. See, my new friend is a youth minister with the daunting task of living as somewhat of an authority figure on the Bible and the things therein.

The story:

One of the kids from my youth group went off to college to major in some science. He called me one day saying that his geology professor convinced him that the Bible was wrong. His geology professor told him that there was no evidence for a worldwide flood, so that Bible could not be correct. The young college kid was really distressed. So, I told him not to worry. The writer of this passage was probably a shepherd in a pre-literate civilization and he just got that story wrong.

I listened to his story with utter disbelief. What is this young college student now to think about the authority of scripture? When someone next challenges the youth about the prophecies of Daniel, what can he learn from this exchange? Well, Daniel was a slave in a pagan culture, so he surely would have embraced mysticism. His mystical writings about dreams can be ignored. What about the resurrection of Jesus? Since the accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus was written by a crooked sellout accountant, a quitter evangelist, a historian, and a man who saw visions of dragons, can they be trusted? Should we expect them to understand the scientific impossibilities associated with someone coming back to life after being beaten, scourged, crucified, and impaled? That is…if they can be believed in their account at all.

It’s a slippery slope to doubt the source of the Bible. Is the Bible the inspired and inerrant Word of God or it is a collection of pre-literate shepherd’s ramblings? The answer has profound implications for your faith. Our understanding of the veracity of scripture will be a foundation upon which to build our faith. Will that foundation be built with mythological sand or trustworthy granite?

Since God is pre-supposed as the ultimate authority, then the absolute truth of his written revelation to us in the form of the Bible is a necessary precondition for intelligibility. 

Is Evolution Dangerous to Christianity?

Posted on by
5

More and more I see the walls of Christendom open their gates to evolution in the hopes of gaining intellectual credibility. Is the hope of gaining intellectual credibility worth the risk of apostacy? The well-known antitheist, Richard Dawkins has spawned a new idea called the Clergy Project. The idea is that those clergy who have come to see the “truth of evolution” and no longer retain their faith in the Bible can find support from their apostate peers.

So, as Christians, how should we view the introduction of evolution into our theology? Should we be receptive to pastors who are preaching the accommodation of evolution into their views of Genesis?

It seems like the obvious question: ‘Well, did evolution happen, and if it did, how does it square with the account in Genesis?’ It seems to me that that’s the elephant in the room. And what Orthodox intellectuals would do would be to consider the question so abstractly that the question was left unanswered. When I was teaching Genesis myself in seminary, I was able to perform the same kind of magic trick—a sort of distraction: ‘Well, I’m going to talk over here, and it’s all going to sound very smart, but it’s not actually addressing the question.’

I had a conversation this morning with a Christian friend who felt that evolution is okay and should not be resisted. His only explanation in our short conversation was that I need to read the Bible appropriately. If we had more time to discuss, I’m sure that he is referring only to Genesis 1. I’d like to hear how the evolutionary worldview fits with the understanding of Genesis 3, Genesis 6-9, Genesis 11, Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:15-17, Matthew 24:35-39, Mark 10:6, Acts 17:26, Romans 5, Romans 6:23, Romans 8, I Corinthians 15, I Peter 3:20, II Peter 3:5-6.

If Genesis 1 needs to be read as mythology (apparently counter to the writer’s intent), what about the other passages? Do they need to be read as mythology too? If we have to read the historical parts as mythology to accommodate the evolutionary paradigm, which parts can we read as the writer intended?

Can Christians safely compromise the historical veracity of the Bible? I contend that in the hopes of achieving intellectual credibility, when the Biblical Creation account is mythologized, Christians have lost both intellectual credibility and biblical credibility.