Home » Posts tagged 'God' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: God
Eras of Miracles and Divine Interventionism
Where my wife and I are staying, we have waited at one spot four different times for someone to pick us up and every time there on the top of a short brick wall sat a tiny toy figure. Three different days and four rides the same toy person was there. I guessed it was a Star Wars figure. Looking more closely, it seemed a young woman in a Star Wars-like outfit. In what I know of the Star Wars story, it was probably a jedi and maybe the one the story calls “the last jedi.”
If you don’t know the Star Wars story, because you’ve seen none of it, good for you, but let me explain. In a fictional cosmos, the jedi are warriors with supernatural power, who fight for what is called the light side of the force as opposed to the dark side. This fiction hearkens to God on the light side and Satan on the dark side. According to the fiction, the force connotes to something like a pantheistic view of God in which he is not a person, but some kind of mystical power. The fiction speaks of an existence of God, albeit a false one. This supernaturalism is crucial to the explanation of everything that happens in Star Wars fiction.
In the Star Wars story, only a few characters possess supernatural power to use either for evil or for good. Those without that power find themselves often in need of the abilities or gifts of those special individuals. Over aeons of time, certain ones through the story uniquely, even more greatly tap into the light side or the dark side of this supernatural force. These individuals come along once in a very long time with very special significance and they are usually prophesied. The needy natural ones place their hope in the coming of those to deliver them.
Fictional prophet-like characters predict the coming of the few supernatural characters, very often just one, with very special power. These prophets receive revelations from the same supernatural power, which is apparently God, and they know what will happen in the future. The spread of these prophesies over a fictional cosmos results in its people looking for the coming of these superior, supernatural figures, which will change the course of history.
I write all this to say that in general people who know the Star Wars story accept eras of supernatural intervention in their fictional cosmos. It makes sense to them. They agree both with the existence of supernatural power that works through men and that once in a great while this same supernatural power raises up a prophesied person who can use the power. In other words, they accept eras of miracles. They recognize the continuity of a natural world accompanied by rare times, moments, periods, or ages of supernatural intervention.
In a fictional Star Wars world, the divine always works to maintain and sustain, but also intervenes in a unique way. An unprecedented person comes along, who is not normal. He is far from normal and no one has been seen like him in ages. The maintaining and sustaining are continuity. They are normative. The rare one, however, is not. This is discontinuity.
Scripture gives (see especially 2 Peter) as a major reason for apostasy, a departure from the faith and the truth, the scarcity of evidence of divine intervention. God gives every good thing. He always intervenes in a providential manner, His good graces seen everywhere and at all times. God also though intervenes at times in unique ways. Men say because of the sparsity of the latter, they can’t receive the Lord. He must show Himself more to their liking. I call these showings, crown performances. If God doesn’t bring them a crown performance, they have their excuse for not believing.
God has intervened in a special, unique, and miraculous way throughout history. However, this kind of dealing is far less frequent. The word “miracle” is most often the same Greek word translated “sign.” Something isn’t a sign if it is the same as anything else that occurs on an everyday basis.
Through scripture, you can see eras of miracles. They mark extraordinary times and people, and these occasions, which are very rare through history, make a unique point, one that stands out very much. Certain names are associated in the Bible with these eras, including Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, and the Apostles.
One figure stands out above all of those functioning with supernatural power in an era of miracles: the Lord Jesus Christ. If these operations were normal occurrences, they would not stand out, and neither would Jesus. Jesus must stand out and He does stand out. He will show Himself in even greater glory when He comes the second time and in fulfillment of further prophecy. He is the greatest figure in all of world history.
Millions of Muslims are NOT Becoming Christians Because of Dreams!
Many sources report that, in the words of Roman Catholic conservative Dinesh D’Souza, “Millions of Muslims are Converting to Christianity After Having Dreams and Visions of Jesus Christ.” Charismatic sources agree with the Catholics about millions of Muslims becoming Christians through dreams and visions. So do Southern Baptist mission agencies.
These visions and dreams clearly prove that:
1.) Continuationism is true and cessationism is false. God is continuing to give revelatory dreams and visions today. We have lots of testimonials, and testimonials can’t be wrong.
2.) Any passages of Scripture that seem to teach the cessation of revelation with the completion of the canon must be reinterpreted in light of the overwhelming proof from the dreams and visions.
3.) If this can happen in Muslim lands, it can happen here. Instead of the hard work of teaching people to skillfully preach the gospel, and working so that they grow spiritually to the point where they love to go house to house, we should encourage people to seek after signs, wonders, and dreams, because that is how there will be millions of new converts here in our country as well.
Right?
Wrong.
Why?
Scripture is the sole authority for the believer’s faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Scripture is more sure than any experience–even hearing the audible voice of God Himself (2 Peter 1:16-21). Scripture, therefore, must never have its teaching ignored, altered, overlooked, or changed because of what someone claims he experienced. Indeed, even if everyone in the whole world said something was true, but Scripture said otherwise, the Bible would be right and everyone would be wrong: “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).
Scripture teaches cessationism, as the studies linked to here clearly demonstrate. There are no Apostles today or apostolic gifts (Ephesians 2:20), the canon of Scripture is complete (1 Corinthians 13:8-13), and God Word is His completed revelatory speech.
Furthermore, Scripture teaches that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17); conversion comes through Scripture (John 15:3). Men are “born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Peter 1:23). So nobody has been born again because of a dream. The Holy Spirit produces the new birth as sinners, enabled by grace, respond to the gospel recorded in the Word of God. This is “thus saith the Lord.” I don’t care what someone says happened in his dream. God’s Word is infinitely more reliable than someone’s dream, and Scripture teaches that people are born again through hearing the gospel, not having dreams and visions.
So how do I explain the dreams? I don’t need to explain people’s dreams. The Bible tells me to live by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), but it never tells me that I need to explain what someone said he saw in a dream. I don’t need to explain dreams of people who say they left Islam and rejected Allah and the Quran for Christianity. Nor do I need to explain the dreams of people who say they left Christianity for Islam after having a dream. How am I supposed to know what is going on in someone else’s head when he is sleeping? The vast majority of the time I can’t even remember my own dreams. Yet I need to explain what someone tells me happened in his dream, or what someone tells someone else who tells someone else who tells someone else who prints an article with no documentation in a charismatic magazine about a dream?
I am suspicious that these “millions” of converts are allegedly taking place in lands far, far away where it is impossible to verify anything. For example, in the Dinesh D’Souza video above, there are no sources provided and no way to verify anything. This is typical–indeed, D’Souza is a scholarly man who tends to document his material far better than does the average charismatic magazine. With these millions of alleged converts to Christianity, true churches–independent Baptist churches–should be overflowing in Muslim countries, as Islam is allegedly collapsing and true Christians are allegedly becoming a huge percentage of the population. But are these people-if they even exist–becoming true Christians, or leaving Islam for other demonic religions, like Roman Catholicism or Oneness Pentecostalism? What would someone leaving one false religion for a different false religion prove? Scripture teaches that we see Christ by faith, enabled by the Spirit, in the Word (2 Corinthians 3:18), and all images of Jesus Christ are idolatrous violations of the Second Commandment (see the relevant resources here). So are they seeing the real Jesus in a dream? Also, where are all these people? Why is this only (allegedly) happening in places far, far away where we can’t actually verify it? I think of how Jack Hyles claimed that through “God’s power,” allegedly in conjunction with carnal promotion and marketing techniques that manipulated people and are found nowhere in Scripture, he had far more “saved” in one day than the Holy Ghost did on the Day of Pentecost, although not even one person was added to First Baptist of Hammond, Indiana on that day through these “saved” people, and people close enough to the situation to investigate claimed that the vast majority of these “saved” people were just as lost as before. I think of how Keswick continuationist John A. MacMillan, who is promoted among Independent Baptists at schools like Baptist College of Ministry. MacMillan claimed to have an amazing technique for casting out demons, which was copied by him and promoted at one of the yearly Victory Conferences at Baptist College of Ministry and Falls Baptist Church–but people who were close to the situation claimed, on the contrary, that the demons were in control of everything. I think of how Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn-Lewis, with their dreams and visions, destroyed the 1904-1905 Welsh revival. Scripture is sufficient, so even if I were confronted with signs and wonders of the quality that the Antichrist will perform in the Tribulation, I would still go by sola Scriptura–Scripture alone. But the alleged evidence for these dreams and visions seems to be woefully lacking. They aren’t like the real revelatory miracles in the Bible before the miraculous gifts ceased.
Note that the question is not if God is powerful enough to give people dreams. The question is not one of God’s power. It is one of what He has said He would do in His inspired revelation, the Bible–and in that revelation He has said that the giving of revelation through dreams has ceased. Nor is there a category of “non revelatory” dreams that are infallibly from God. If God gives infallible truth, then it is revelation. If it is not infallible truth, then God is not speaking in the dream, for God cannot lie, but only speaks and reveals infallible truth.
What if I come across someone who actually is serving the Lord faithfully in a true church, but who says that having a dream was part of how he became a Christian? Doesn’t that mean that I need to reinterpret Scripture? No. God is sovereign, and He can use all kinds of things to get people thinking about religion or about His Word. I know someone who is a faithful Christian who, before his conversion, liked to watch creationist videos while smoking pot. That doesn’t mean I commend the pot smoking. I know someone else who called on a ghost (likely a demon) to come to him, and then says that the ghost came at night and almost killed him. The demonic intervention led this person away from agnosticism to openness to the supernatural, and years later he became a Christian. That doesn’t mean I support agnostics calling on ghosts or demons. So if someone says he had a dream and that led him away from Islam to Christianity, I’m glad if he trusted in Christ, while everything contrary to Scripture that took place in his life–including the alleged revelatory dreams–are chalked up to God’s merciful and providential grace, and need no further explanation. (This is even apart from the fact that we cannot see people’s hearts, and even in true churches people without the new birth can enter and appear to be genuine believers for a time, so I cannot rule out the possibility that the person who claims to have been born again after seeing a dream is not a true child of God.)
So are millions of Muslims being born again because of dreams? No. Nobody is being born again because of a dream. Are Muslims having dreams that lead them to all kinds of religious experiences? Very possibly. Why? There could be all kinds of reasons. I do not need to speculate.
What I do need to know is what Scripture teaches. The Biblical truth of cessationism is being weakened in some independent Baptist churches because people are not thinking Biblically, but are allowing what people say is happening in their dreams to justify changes to Biblical beliefs on charismata. You are dreaming if you think it is right to change one’s doctrine and practice from what Scripture teaches because of what some other person says he saw when he was sleeping.
Never change or set aside God’s Word because of an experience or what someone says. That was part of Satan’s original technique that caused the Fall in Genesis 3. Go with Scripture–not the dreams. As Christ said, “thy word is truth” (John 17:17). Give Muslims gospel truth, such as in The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible pamphlet. Reject the dreams. Do not be deceived.
What Is Atheism?
According to the Bible, no one is an atheist. Proverbs 14:1 reports that a fool says in his heart that there is no God, but that doesn’t mean he believes it. Romans 1:18 says he knows God and suppresses that knowledge. So atheism is not someone believing there isn’t a God. Atheism is living like there isn’t a God. Many more people do that than the typical polls show. In other words, on the atheist front, we’re in worse shape than you think.
Someone just wrote about this at the Big Think, entitled, “Atheism is not as rare or as rational as you think.” Will Gervais in the article makes at least the point in my first paragraph here, and even more. The Bible says this, so it must be true, but I find it by experience.
As I write this on a Saturday after out evangelizing for a couple of hours, I talked to an “atheist” today, who graduated from Vanderbilt, and he is affiliated with Weber State here. He announced he was not interested, because he is an atheist. He also said he did not want to argue at his door, but he did talk awhile, which is very often the case with “atheists.”
I asked the “atheist” if he thought, all this around us came about by accident. I find no one wants to say, yes, to that, because they know it isn’t true, which means they aren’t atheists. Then he said with a bit of a smirk, that after the Big Bang happened, everything came out of that.
The Big Bang is apparently a throw-down, trumping all else. In fact, a Big Bang says there is a beginning. It doesn’t help an atheist to stay that way, if he believes in a beginning. Some kind of explosion though still will not explain the amazing complexity all around. I didn’t bring that up, because I assessed that it would end the conversation. I took the tack, as I often do, that air, plants growing, all these did not come by accident, but people take these, and as Romans 1:21 says, are unthankful. These are atheists. God exists. They’re just unthankful He does.
An atheist is someone who doesn’t want a God. He has one. He just denies it. An atheist tries to block God out in part by saying he’s an atheist. He knows he’s wrong.
Gervais portrays many atheists, and it’s true, as appraising themselves as intellectually gifted individuals. Their position is intellectually bankrupt. They reject the truth based on their own lust (2 Peter 2-3).
Many atheists will say that those who carefully weigh things do it with science, all natural criteria, which is very intellectual, really Ivy League. No. The world did not appear and has not been sustained by merely natural means.
In his piece, Gervais uses science to show how professing atheists are stupid. Stupid is another word for “fool,” which bring us back to Psalm 14:1 again. The fool says he’s an atheist. He’s not being smart.
Since every atheist just denies God against his own knowledge, who are the real atheists? They live like God doesn’t exist. I think we could go further than that. They form a god, which allows them to live like that want. Evangelicalism is full of atheism. They deny the true God because they don’t like His requirements or expectations, which are against how they want to live. They’re worshiping themselves as Romans 1:25 says, and yet they say they worship God or follow God’s ways.
If atheism is denying the one, true God, there are far, far more atheists than any of us can give a percentage.
Christianity: Pro-Racism, Pro-Slavery White Man’s Religion–Reject it for Atheism!
I have written a pamphlet dealing with attacks upon the Bible and Christianity from its (alleged) racism and (alleged) support of chattel slavery, compared with the (alleged) anti-racism and anti-slavery position of atheism. It deals with the objection that “Christianity is the racist white man’s religion” and, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation claims, “[W]hite supremacy [is] interwoven with Christianity … inextricably intertwined.” (Sources for all quotes are in the pamphlet.)
Click here to read the pamphlet Biblical Christianity vs. Atheism on Racism and Slavery
You may think that such claims are so ridiculous that they do not deserve a refutation. You are correct about them being ridiculous—and, as Bethel Baptist Church, where I serve the Lord, is not majority white now and has not been for a very long time, reflecting the ethnic diversity of the area, it is indeed a very foolish claim. However, sadly, in secular college campuses and in liberal media these egregious falsehoods are regularly propounded. Not that long ago a very angry black man at a place where I was passing out gospel literature said that all white Christians were supporters of white nationalism. (He also said, ironically, that they all denied it when he said that to them. Hmm… ). He said he had a degree in religious studies. (Perhaps they should give him his money back.) In any case, the attack on Christianity from its alleged racism and pro-slavery position is very much out there.
The pamphlet demonstrates that:
1.) The Bible rejects racism.
2.) Christian churches in Bible times rejected racism—for example, the church at Antioch had a leader in the category of “prophet and teacher” whose name was “Simon the Black” and another born in Africa, while the rest were all from Asia; an African whose family became close to the Apostle Paul helped Christ carry His cross; etc.
3.) Christian churches and the wider realm of Christendom were profoundly impacted by Africa. Did you ever think about the fact that possibly the two most influential people in the history of Western Christendom were from Africa—namely, Tertullian and Augustine? Furthermore, the ancient Anabaptist movements, the Novatians and Donatists, were both led by African Anabaptists. Did you know that the Baptists were the first group of churches in the American South to come out against slavery?
4.) Christianity very rapidly spread from Israel to Africa to China to India to Britain.
5.) Ancient paganism was pro-slavery while Christianity was pro-slave (since it taught that “All Lives Matter,” and therefore the lives of slaves, people of darker and lighter skin, etc. all matter), and Christian influence, unique among world religions, led to the abolition of slavery.
6.) Modern racism actually stems from the Enlightenment and its rejection of Biblical Christianity, combined with the anti-creation philosophy of biological evolution. (This fact should be taught in all public schools, and at the very least every student in Christian schools needs to know this. Did you know it?)
7.) Slavery exists today in atheist countries such as North Korea and China, in accordance with the racism of people like Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Hegel, and David Hume. Everyone should know that Darwin anticipated genocide by whites of “lower races”:
“The … Caucasian races have beaten … [others] in the struggle for existence. … [At] no very distant date … the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
Everyone should know Marx said:
“Let us … speak of the beautiful side … of the slavery of the blacks in the East, in Brazil, in the Southern States of North America. … [S]lavery is an economic category of the highest importance. Without slavery … you would have … the complete decadence of modern commerce and civilization. … [S]ave slavery … [c]onserve the good side of this economic category.”
8.) The pamphlet then explains how spiritual slavery is the worst problem people suffer today. It illustrates that the root causes of racism (pride) and slavery (covetousness) are sins that the reader has been guilty of, and how, through the ransom payment of Christ, they can become spiritually free from the control of the sins that lead to racism and slavery now and eternal hell fire in eternity.
I would suggest reading the pamphlet yourself, keeping the link or a few copies on hand for people who run into this objection when preaching the gospel. I would also suggest that Christian schools, in history class, when they teach the Enlightenment and the impact of evolution and its pre-and post-Darwinian influence in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, make sure students know that modern racism came from these movements. Missionaries in Africa, the Caribbean, and, frankly, on most of the globe should know these things and share them with those to whom they minister.
Cancel culture should cancel Darwin, cancel Marx, cancel Biblical skepticism, cancel evolution, cancel atheism, and cancel agnosticism.
Everyone should recognize Christianity is the best friend of those who are against racism and slavery.
Click here to read the pamphlet Biblical Christianity vs. Atheism on Racism and Slavery
–TDR
John 20:28 and the Watchtower Society
John 20:28 is a very difficult passage for the Watchtower Society or so-called “Jehovah’s Witnesses” to explain away. The Watchtower, in its New World “Translation” that was made by seven “translators” who did not know Hebrew or Aramaic, and only one of which had ever taken a single course in New Testament Greek in his life, egregiously mistranslates John 1:1 to affirm that the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, was “a god,” supporting a form of polytheism in the Watchtower, where their god Jehovah, who is different than the true Jehovah God of the Bible, is allegedly the Almighty God while Christ is a secondary true god, a “mighty god.” The Watchtower Society claims that their deity is “the God,” and only the true God is called “the God,” while Christ is merely “a god,” a secondary true god. Their mistranslation of John 1:1 is awful, but, in my opinion, is not the first place to go to in order to show members of the cult their error. While the facts are not at all on their side in John 1:1, it is too complicated in Greek for them to believe you; they will believe their cult over what you say.
However, their misinterpretation of John 1:1 leaves them with a huge problem in John 20:28. In John 20:28–the climax of John’s Gospel–we read the following. Notice John 20:28:
John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 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.
In Greek, the Apostle Thomas calls Christ “the Lord of me and the God of me”–so Christ is called “the God” in the climactic section of the gospel of John! Christ then says that Thomas is “blessed” for having confessed the Lord Jesus as “the God” (v. 29), and then the Apostle John explains that this confession is involved in believing on Christ to receive life in His name (vv. 30-31).
Here are pictures of John 20:28 from an interlinear Greek New Testament. I recommend that you download or take a picture of these pics and keep them on your phone or other electronic device. Then, when you run into a member of the Watchtower Society, you can tell him that you noticed this in the Bible and would like to get his explanation.
The interlinear here is J. P. Green’s Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, 4 vol. ed., the volume on the New Testament. I believe Green’s interlinear, based on the Textus Receptus, is the best interlinear that is out there. I personally do not need to use an interlinear because my Greek has passed that stage, but on whatever occasions I would need to use one, I use Green’s (I have a leather-bound version of the NT portion of his interlinear and a big one-volume work that has the OT and NT. I am not sure if the leather-bound version is still in print.) If you want an interlinear, here are (affiliate) links to where you can get it on Amazon:
New Testament:
One volume edition Old and New Testament (bigger book and smaller print):
Four volume set:
Usually people in the Watchtower will refuse to talk to you if they are aware that you know what you are talking about–they seek to prey on the Biblically ignorant, not show their (alleged) truth to those who know God’s Word, because once you know the Bible well you are not going to get sucked into their cult. So it is wise to ask questions of members of the Watchtower when you seek to evangelize them, because as soon as they know you understand Scripture, they probably will not want to talk to you any more.
So what can you ask a member of the Watchtower? Something like the following (which also includes their very feeble attempts to explain the text away):
In John 20:28, at the climax of John’s Gospel, the point to which the whole Gospel has been building after the prologue of 1:1-18 and before the epilogue of chapter 21, Thomas answers and says to Jesus, “The Lord of me and the God of me” O Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou (John 20:28), addressing Jesus Christ as “the” God. Christ commends Thomas for this statement, saying he was blessed, and that those who similarly confess and believe that Jesus is “the God of me” are blessed (20:29). Why do you think Thomas calls Christ “the God of me”?
The only explanations from members of the Watchtower that I have heard are the following:
1.) Thomas was taking God’s name in vain, like people who say “Oh my G**,” because the Apostle was surprised at Christ’s resurrection appearance. However, Christ would not have commended the Apostle for taking God’s name in vain. One of the Apostles taking God’s name in vain is the climactic confession of the whole Gospel of John? That “explanation” is ridiculous.
2.) Thomas was not really speaking to Christ when the Bible says Thomas “answered and said unto him.” But that also is to read into the Bible what it does not say, rather than drawing from the text what it does say. The “him” in 20:28 refers to Christ in 20:27. That is simply what the grammar requires. Thomas “answered” and “said unto” Christ, “him” of 20:28 who had appeared to Thomas. It cannot possibly be speaking about God the Father.
One Watchtower elder told me that only the “the Lord of me” was addressed to Christ while “the God of me” was addressed to the Father. However, looking at all the NT verses where the construction of John 20:28 appears, in all 61 instances, the same person gets the whole address (Matthew 11:4; 12:39, 48; 15:3, 23, 28; 16:17; 17:11; 19:4, 27; 21:21, 24, 27; 25:26, 37, 44; 26:33; Mark 6:37; 7:28; 9:12, 38; 11:14, 29; 12:17, 34; 14:48; Luke 1:19, 35; 3:11; 4:8; 7:22; 8:50; 10:41; 11:45; 13:8, 15; 17:20; 20:34; 24:18; John 2:19; 3:10; 4:10; 5:11, 19; 6:26; 7:16, 21, 52; 8:14, 33, 48; 9:20, 27, 30, 34; 10:25, 33; 12:34; 14:23; 18:5; 20:28). So this attempt to evade what sure looks like the plain sense of John 20:28 also fails badly. Thomas called Christ both “the Lord of me” and “the God of me.” Thomas answered and said to Jesus, “the Lord of me and the God of me.”
Because this text is so difficult for the Watchtower to explain away, they attempt to conceal from their members that Christ is called “the God” in John 20:28 (as He is in Hebrews 1:8). The Watchtower hopes that their “Jesus is a god, but not the God” explanation for John 1:1 works and that nobody notices that Christ is called “the God of me” in John 20:28. That is why this fact is very helpful and something worth pressing a Watchtower witness on.
The original audience who got the Gospel of John would have concluded that Thomas was “the Lord” and “the God” of Thomas, and that those who similarly believed were blessed (20:29). The Apostle Thomas was blessed when he confessed Jesus to be “the Lord of me and the God of me,” and I am blessed to make the same confession, 20:29. If members of the Watchtower repent, they also can make the same confession and receive eternal life through repentant faith alone in the one God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and who is in all three Persons possessed of the glorious Name “Jehovah.” (Matthew 28:19).
You can learn more about the blessed truth of the Trinity by clicking here.
–TDR
My Acceptance of Hell
Hell is a common atheist argument, usually made with disdain. It’s even got a name, “The Problem of Hell.” You’ve got to say it in mocking tones, because scorn is part of the argument. It can be done in one statement something like this: “You’ve got to love God or else He’ll torture you in Hell.” Or, “If God is so insecure, that He needs everyone to love Him, or He’ll send them to Hell, I wouldn’t believe in Him even if He did exist.”
The Hell argument against Theism sets the atheist up as morally superior to Bible believers and God Himself, justifying atheism. It could be a kind of dress rehearsal for an argument before God Himself at the final judgment. It could too serve as an emotional appeal to support a bankrupt position. Others will cheer this on.
Someone is judging in his judgment of Hell. What is this standard for judgment in a random world of matter and motion, atoms colliding with one another? How does someone put even two related thoughts together by a cosmic accident of naturalism? He doesn’t. How does naturalism cause the ability to provide a nuance of disdain? It doesn’t. The atheist mocking Hell borrows from theism by using words, which are abstract, nonmaterial ideas. He constructs a moral system to account for behavior that doesn’t exist in the arbitrary world of the naturalist.
Even so, Hell could at least feel difficult to defend in the world in which we live. The atheist frames it as though you enjoy the future pain and anguish. For that reason among others, people won’t talk about Hell. They call it perhaps eternal death or just eternal separation from God. Knowing how offensive it might sound, thinking it might just shut down a conversation, it’s given little mention, even though Jesus was the one who talked about it more than anyone. There is a Heaven. There is a Hell.
How some people have dealt with Hell is eliminating almost any opportunity for anyone to go there except for someone almost everyone thinks deserves it. Hitler comes to mind. A general audience might choose for a child molester or a serial killer. Almost everyone else goes to, you know, “a better place,” even if they don’t know what or where it is or why that person will go or should be going there. It’s not helpful to give someone false assurance related to Hell. Assigning someone to a better place, when he’s really on his way to Hell, hurts him in an eternal way.
I’ve titled this, my acceptance of Hell, because in a personal way, Hell is acceptable to me. There are general reasons for acceptability. The Bible teaches Hell. Jesus taught Hell. It is also taught in so many different ways. The opposition to Hell isn’t persuasive. It amounts to “I don’t want it” or “I don’t like it,” which is a version of rejection of justice for sin.
Here are my personal reasons for acceptance of Hell.
One, how bad we are.
People just don’t think they deserve Hell. This is very common. When I’m evangelizing, it’s the second greatest stumbling point. I ask, “Do you think you deserve Hell?” 90 plus percent answer, “No.” The idea here is the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. It’s way too severe, reflecting on the nature of God, His righteousness, and His justice. People do not think they’re bad enough to deserve Hell. That’s for very bad people, and few think they’re that bad.
I say I deserve Hell, and I accept that, because I do think I’m bad. How bad we are starts with the nature of God. The Bible compares us to God. I fall very far short of the glory of God. It’s not an accident. I also do the things offensive to God and then just don’t please God on a regular basis.
God created me for His purpose and not only do I not fulfill that, but I don’t want to do it. I want to serve myself. I can give many examples of this. Today at church, while someone was praying, I caught myself thinking about something else. I was thinking about something temporal and superficial and suddenly I awoke out of that trance, not even hearing what someone was praying. I’ve done that many times.
God’s judgment turns us over to our own lusts. Romans 1 uses the language of “gave them up” (vv. 24, 26, 28). God lets people have what they want. He lets them go. They’re getting what they want. They don’t want God. They don’t want what He wants. If you get that, it ends in Hell, because that path leads to where God isn’t. His love is absent from Hell. Where God isn’t, it’s a very terrible place. That’s how the Bible describes it. Hell is the final destination for those God gives up.
I think of this aspect too. In going my own way, I disobey, even ignore, the great command, to love Him with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. God loves me. No one is better to me than Him. It’s not even close, but I live for myself.
Two, it’s a necessary motivation.
Sin ruined man. It ruins men. Men easily live for themselves. They move from one lust to the next. This is all so strong, that Hell is a necessary impetus to reject that.
I know there’s all the positive too: Heaven, God’s goodness, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and the truth of the Bible. That’s all important. I still see Hell as necessary motivation in spite of all those good things, on the negative side. The flesh is that strong. Human desire is that strong.
You could call all that the world offers, what Jesus calls, gaining the whole world. Even if man doesn’t gain the whole world, the whole world is still out there offering its invitation. The eternal loss of a soul counteracts the lie of the world. It’s a nagging reality. Even if someone wants to block it out, it disquiets and afflicts.
When Jesus told the story of the rich man in Hell, someone sees a man who did have everything in his short lifetime, who would gladly give it all up for even a drop of water, while he’s in Hell. If there’s one thing he wants to do, even when he can’t escape Hell, it’s to get a warning to his brothers. This is a warning to all the living.
Hell is not over the top. Even with it, people still choose to go there with the knowledge of its existence. As severe as it is, it’s still not enough for a vast majority of people. Many atheists would rather mock Hell and God than receive the Lord, despite the reality of Hell.
Hell makes total sense to me personally for these two reasons.
The Conflicting, Perplexing Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will (Part Two)
Calvinists say that other systems limit God’s sovereignty or control. Apparently when those systems assign to man free will, they limit God’s sovereignty. Instead of God being in total charge, man is partly in charge. Calvinists would also say this means that in salvation, ostensibly man is getting involved to the degree that it’s not salvation by grace anymore, but salvation by works.
When I listen to Calvinists, trying to believe them, and they refer to all the passages they use to prove their point, saying them in very earnest, serious tones, getting hearty “Amens” from their adherents, I am not convinced. They are stretching and reading into the passages, sometimes changing the meaning of the words to get their conclusions.
For most of my adult life, I’ve said that “God is sovereign over His own sovereignty” (here and here). Sovereignty isn’t more or less than what God says it is. What we believe about sovereignty must come from all of scripture and not proof texts. The word sovereignty itself is part of the system, because it’s not a word in the Bible. Our understanding of sovereignty should arise from the Bible.
Because God is in control, possesses all power, He can accomplish what He wants in any way that He wants. Very often in scripture is the word, “will,” and for this doctrine, significantly, “the will of God.” God uses His power to accomplish His will. That doesn’t mean God determines everything. The Bible doesn’t read that way.
I’m not saying that God couldn’t determine everything. He has the power to do anything He wants to do. Everything can be in His control without His controlling everything. If God is not controlling everything, that doesn’t mean He isn’t in control. God is in total charge. Many verses teach this. However, it’s also easy to see that He exercises that sovereignty, that charge or control, by also allowing man free will.
Calvinists divide between natural will and free will, free will only possessed by believers, true Christians, or truly converted people. They say the unbeliever does not enjoy free will. There are verses they use to surmise this point, and I see how they get the point if those were the only verses that applied to their view, but there is much more.
I think that I believe on sovereignty as much as it can be believed. I am attempting to believe exactly what the Bible says, no matter what the cost. Salvation is of the Lord. I believe that faith is a gift. God alone keeps me saved. I can list other beliefs I have that relate to the sovereignty of God.
Many Calvinist debates or heated discussions, I ‘ve witnessed, see the Calvinist accusing the non-Calvinist of not believing his verses of scripture. He also alleges that his foe does not believe in grace. This person doesn’t believe in the sovereignty of God. He limits God. Somehow then too, God isn’t getting the glory.
One avenue, strategy, or technique — I don’t know which of those it is — is expressing the peace, the joy, and the strength one derives from a true understanding of the Calvinist’s view of sovereignty. During hard times, just think this particular view of God and it will make you feel good. I think this during those expressions: “It doesn’t make me feel better if it’s not true.” I get as much peace as I can get from the truth.
In the extreme, the Calvinist says this person does not have faith. He does not believe in the grace of God. He is not giving God the glory. In essence, he also rejects scripture.
A browbeaten person might, usually a professing Christian, because the Calvinist will not do this with an unbeliever, someone who does profess faith in Christ might finally relent. He recruits Christians to his position of Calvinism. When they finally become a Calvinist, they finally have the key that opens the scripture, as if it is inculcating a hermeneutic.
Passages Used to Deny Free Will
Crucial in a right interpretation and even application of scripture is going as far as the text and also not going further than the text. The Apostle Paul in Ephesians 1:11 says that God “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” To prove that God determines everything, a Calvinist points to the words, “all things.” Indeed, God determines or controls every single happening of all time. That’s what the verse is telling us. This is an example of a Calvinist going further than the text to conform to the system.
I think you could look at that verse and say that God has His will and He works all things to accomplish His purpose and will. That isn’t determining everything. He is in charge and in control, but that isn’t controlling everything. This important verse to Calvinists doesn’t say as much as they read into it.
To elaborate on what I see it saying in light of everything else the Bible says, I say that God’s will is His end or His purpose. He makes sure occurs what He wants to occur. He must have power over everything in every moment to accomplish that. God must have vast wisdom. He must be able to be every place at once. He must know the past, present, and future like it is a kind of eternal present.
God in His sovereignty and power gives free will to man. He allows men to make choices. He still works everything to the end that pleases Him, that He wants. God either allows or causes every single thing that happens, so He is involved with everything.
I am not going to deal with every single verse a Calvinist might use. He may say there are better ones than what I’m listing. Another one is Genesis 50:20:
But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
Passages that Present a Problem with the Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
The Conflicting, Perplexing Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will
As I started to write this post, I thought about whether I decided to write it or whether God predetermined my writing it. After the smoke exited and cleared my ears, I started writing again. Are my fingers typing on their own?
The Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will
Does Calvinism Square With Scripture?
Why is the Holy Ghost the “Holy” Spirit?
A few weeks ago on 9/17/2021 we answered the question “Why is the Holy Spirit named the Holy ‘Spirit'”? We learned that the answer to that question is that, most fundamentally, the Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit” because He proceeds from the Father and the Son in a manner comparable to being breathed forth, just as the Father and the Son are Father and Son because the Son is eternally begotten by the Father.
What about the “Holy” in this most frequent designation of the third Person in the Trinity? Just as we saw in the last post that the Holy Ghost is not in His essence “Spirit” in a sense any different than the Father and Son are Spirit, so the Father’s essence is infinitely holy, the Son’s essence is infinitely holy, and the Spirit’s essence is infinitely holy (for the three possess the identical undivided essence, as they are homoousios), so the Holy Spirit is not in that sense any more or any less holy than the infinite holiness that is a glorious attribute of the Father and the Son.
So why, then, the “Holy” Spirit?
First, the Holy Spirit is so called because He possesses the infinite Divine holiness, in contrast to all created spirits (and it should not surprise us that the Holy Spirit is the immediate Agent of Christ casting out unclean spirits.) Second, as One who is utterly transcendent and pure in His being, and One who is to the highest degree consecrated to and in the closest union with the Father and the Son–that is, as One who is holy, and in accordance with the order of operations in the Trinity where the Divine acts are from the Father, through the Son, and by the Spirit, because the Son is eternally of the Father, and the Spirit eternally from the Father and the Son, the Spirit is the Divine Person who immediately acts in making men holy. In other words, He is called the Holy Spirit because His nature is holy and His operations or works are holy and produce holiness in redeemed creatures.
So the title “Holy” is not expressive in particular of the Spirit’s procession or spiration from the Father and the Son; the Name expressive of the Spirit’s manner of subsistence in the Trinity is “Spirit,” as “Father” and “Son” are the Names expressive of the first and second Person’s manner of subsistence. “Holy” is not indicative of His ontological personal property, but “Spirit” is indicative of ontology, like Son and Father. “Holy” instead is a title frequently adjoined to the personal Name “Spirit” of the third Person in a manner somewhat comparable to the way in which “Lord” is affixed to the name “Jesus.”
Since the Spirit is eternally from the Father and Son, He draws us into fellowship with the Father and the Son. He is termed the “Holy Spirit” because He is infinitely consecrated to the Father and Son, perfectly holy in His own essence, and set apart from created spirits as possessor of Divine holiness to the highest degree, who is holy the way only God is holy. Proceeding from the Father and the Son, He is the One who applies the work of Father and Son He makes us holy.
John Owen in his Pneumatologia: A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit provides a helpful explanation (pgs. 55ff., Owen, Works vol 3):
Again; He is called, by way of eminency, the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost. This is the most usual appellation of him in the New Testament; and it is derived from the Old: Ps. 51:11, רוּחַ קָדְשְׁךָ, “The Spirit of thy Holiness,” or “Thy Holy Spirit.” Isa. 63:10, 11, רוּחַ קָדְשׁוֹ,—“The Spirit of his Holiness,” or “His Holy Spirit.” Hence are רוּהַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ and רוֹּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ, “The Holy Spirit,” and “The Spirit of Holiness,” in common use among the Jews. In the New Testament he is τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἄγιον, “That Holy Spirit.” And we must inquire into the special reasons of this adjunct. Some suppose it is only from his peculiar work of sanctifying us, or making us holy: for this effect of sanctification is his peculiar work, and that of what sort soever it be; whether it consist in a separation from things profane and common, unto holy uses and services, or whether it be the real infusion and operation of holiness in men, it is from him in an especial manner. And this also manifesteth him to be God, for it is God alone who sanctifieth his people: Lev. 20:8, “I am Jehovah which sanctify you.” And God in that work ascribes unto himself the title of Holy in an especial manner, and as such would have us to consider him: chap. 21:8, “I the Lord, which sanctify you, am holy.” And this may be one reason of the frequent use of this property with reference unto the Spirit.
But this is not the whole reason of this name and appellation: for where he is first so mentioned, he is called “The Spirit of God’s Holiness,” Ps. 51:11, Isa. 63:10, 11; and in the New Testament absolutely “The Spirit of Holiness,” Rom. 1:4. And this respects his nature, in the first place, and not merely his operations. As God, then, absolutely is called “Holy,” “The Holy One,” and “The Holy One of Israel,” being therein described by that glorious property of his nature whereby he is “glorious in holiness,” Exod. 15:11, and whereby he is distinguished from all false gods, (“Who is like unto thee, O Jehovah, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness?”) so is the Spirit called “Holy” to denote the holiness of his nature. And on this account is the opposition made between him and the unholy or unclean spirit: Mark 3:29, 30, “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” And herein first his personality is asserted; for the unclean spirit is a person, and if the Spirit of God were only a quality or accident, as some fancy and dream, there could no comparative opposition be made between him and this unclean spirit,—that is, the devil. So also are they opposed with respect unto their natures. His nature is holy, whereas that of the unclean spirit is evil and perverse. This is the foundation of his being called “Holy,” even the eternal glorious holiness of his nature. And on this account he is so styled also with respect unto all his operations; for it is not only with regard unto the particular work of regeneration and sanctification, or making of us holy, but unto all his works and operations, that he is so termed: for he being the immediate operator of all divine works that outwardly are of God, and they being in themselves all holy, be they of what kind soever, he is called the “Holy Spirit.” Yea, he is so called to attest and witness that all his works, all the works of God, are holy, although they may be great and terrible, and such as to corrupt reason may have another appearance; in all which we are to acquiesce in this, that the “Holy One in the midst of us will do no iniquity,” [Hos. 11:9], Zeph. 3:5. The Spirit of God, then, is thus frequently and almost constantly called “Holy,” to attest that all the works of God, whereof he is the immediate operator, are holy: for it is the work of the Spirit to harden and blind obstinate sinners, as well as to sanctify the elect; and his acting in the one is no less holy than in the other, although holiness be not the effect of it in the objects. So, when he came to declare his dreadful work of the final hardening and rejection of the Jews,—one of the most tremendous effects of divine Providence, a work which, for the strangeness of it, men “would in no wise believe though it were declared unto them,” Acts 13:41,—he was signally proclaimed Holy by the seraphims that attended his throne, Isa. 6:3, 9–12; John 12:40; Acts 28:25, 26.
There are, indeed, some actions on men and in the world that are wrought, by God’s permission and in his righteous judgment, by evil spirits; whose persons and actings are placed in opposition to the Spirit of God. So 1 Sam. 16:14, 15, “The Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him. And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.” So also verse 23, “The evil spirit from God was upon Saul.” So chap. 18:10, 19:9. …
To return; As he is called the Holy, so he is the Good Spirit of God: Ps. 143:10, רוּחֲךָ טוֹבָה תַּגְחֵנִי;—“Thy Spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness;” so ours:—rather, “Thy good Spirit shall lead me;” or, as Junius, “Spiritu tuo bono deduc me,”—“Lead me by thy good Spirit.” … So Neh. 9:20, “Thou gavest them” רִוּחֲךָ הַטּוֹבָה, “thy good Spirit to instruct them.” And he is called so principally from his nature, which is essentially good, as “there is none good but one, that is, God,” Matt. 19:17; as also from his operations, which are all good as they are holy; and unto them that believe are full of goodness in their effects.
Bavinck (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2 pg. 277) summarizes why the third Person is called “Holy” and called the “Spirit”:
And although the divine being we call God is “Spirit” (John 4:24) and “holy” (Isa. 6:3), in Scripture the term “Holy Spirit” is still a reference to a special person in the divine being distinct from the Father and the Son. He owes this name to his special mode of subsistence: “spirit” actually means “wind,” “breath.” The Holy Spirit is the breath of the Almighty (Job 33:4), the breath of his mouth (Ps. 33:6). Jesus compares him to the wind (John 3:8) and “breathes” him upon his disciples (John 20:22; cf. 2 Thess. 2:8). The Spirit is God as the immanent principle of life throughout creation. And he is called “holy” because he himself exists in a special relation to God and because he puts all things in a special relation to God. He is not the spirit of humans or of creatures but the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit (Ps. 51:11–12; Isa. 63:10–11).
You can learn more about the true God, the Triune God, in the class here.
–TDR
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Postmodernism, and Critical Theory
People in general don’t want to be told what to do. This arises from the sin nature of mankind, a cursed rebellion passed down from Adam. So people won’t have to do what an authority tells them, they disparage the credibility of it. They especially attack God in diverse manners so He won’t hinder or impede what they want.
Premodernism, Modernism, Postmodernism, Critical Theory, and Epistemology
The premoderns, even if some did not view themselves or the world correctly, related everything to God. Truth was objective. They knew truth either by natural or special revelation of God. If God said it, it was true, no matter what their opinion. Many invented various means to deal with their own contradictions, but God remained God.
Modernism then arose and said revelation wasn’t suitable for knowledge. Modernists could point to distinctions between religions and denominations and the wars fought over them. Knowledge instead came through scientific testing, man’s observations, consequently elevating man above God. Man could now do what he wanted because he changed the standard for knowledge. Faith for sure wasn’t good enough. With modernism, faith might make you feel good, but you proved something in naturalistic fashion to say you know it. Modernism then trampled the twentieth century, producing devastation, unsuccessful with its so-called knowledge.
Premoderns had an objective basis for knowledge, revelation from God. Moderns too, even if it wasn’t valid, had human reasoning, what they called “empirical proof.” Postmoderns neither believed or liked scripture or empiricism. This related to authority, whether God or government or parents, or whatever. No one should be able to tell somebody else what to do, which is to conform them to your truth or your reality. No one has proof. Institutions use language to construct power.
Postmodernism judged modernism a failure, pointing to wars, the American Indians and institutional bias, bigotry, and injustice. Since modernism constructed itself by power and language, a postmodernist possesses his own knowledge of good and evil, his own truth, by which to construct his own reality. No one will any more control him with power and language.
Critical theory proceeds from postmodernism, but is ironically constructed to sound like modernism. It’s not a theory. Theory is by definition supposed to be rational and associated with observations backed by data. Critical theory criticizes, but it isn’t a theory, rather a desire. People desire to do what they want and don’t want someone telling them what to do, so they deconstruct the language to serve their desires and change the outcome. In the United States especially, theorists criticize white males, those who constructed language and power for their own advantage. According to their theories, white men kept down women, all the other races, and sexual preferences.
The postmodernism behind critical theory procures its knowledge with total subjectivity. Those proficient in theory based on their own divination know what’s good and evil, making them woke to this secret knowledge. They have eaten of the tree. White men are evil. The patriarchy is evil. Anyone contesting gender fluidity and trangenderism is evil.
Epistemology is a field of study that explores and judges how we know what we know and whether we really know it, that it is in fact knowledge. What is a sufficient source of knowledge? You can say you know, but do you really know? The Bible uses the term “know” and “knowledge” a lot. Biblical knowledge is certain, because God reveals it. You receive knowledge when you learn what God says. You can’t say the same thing about what you experience or feel.
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
In Genesis 2 (vv. 9, 17), what was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? In the same context, Genesis 3:5-7 say:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
If Adam and Eve depended on what God knew, they would not have eaten of the forbidden tree. Instead they trusted their own knowledge. The tree wasn’t the tree of the knowledge of good. God provided that knowledge. Just listen to Him. Eating of the tree brought the knowledge of evil. The knowledge of evil, what someone might call, carnal knowledge, reminds me of three verses in the New Testament.
1 Corinthians 5:1, It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
Ephesians 5:3, But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints.
Romans 16:19, For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
Recent Comments