tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57569837989493543242024-02-19T08:37:50.412-08:00The Beginning of Wisdom"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom"Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-16467085184003488412018-03-30T08:44:00.001-07:002018-03-30T08:44:27.815-07:00How I Gained Subscribers the Easy Way // How I Gained Subscribers on You...<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8H-tt3Z_ToA" width="480"></iframe>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-42748587935366150472018-03-08T13:33:00.001-08:002018-03-08T13:33:31.795-08:00Swedish Death Cleaning, Kon Mari And Flylady // Minimalism Regret// 5 Mi...<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/96Bzkw6H2oU" width="480"></iframe>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-91913328962354950772018-03-01T12:56:00.001-08:002018-03-01T12:56:59.075-08:00Master Bedroom Closet Organization / Minimalism / Kon mari Vs Flylady pa...<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7tKmnhuCpGw" width="480"></iframe>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-91680667609894573362018-01-17T07:57:00.001-08:002018-01-17T07:57:58.765-08:00Konmari Method Pantry / Konmari Vs Flylady / Minimalism and Decluttering<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AyJFKcClO2I" width="480"></iframe>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-58702727500758070882018-01-04T09:35:00.001-08:002018-01-04T09:35:35.517-08:00How To (Not) Look Frumpy || What Jewelry To Wear With Sweatpants<br /><br />
<a name='more'></a><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K_n8v-YbW7g" width="480"></iframe>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-11214359073316107712018-01-03T09:52:00.001-08:002018-01-03T09:52:38.748-08:00Bissell Smartclean Robotic Vacuum 1974 || Bissell - Smartclean Robot Vac...<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gSbJGmG_IAU" width="480"></iframe>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-45218672160941889492017-12-04T07:27:00.001-08:002017-12-04T07:27:05.318-08:00Toy Clean Out || Christmas Collab<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9fsvLu1vtAo" width="480"></iframe>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-8337768667761405262017-12-03T09:25:00.001-08:002017-12-03T09:25:00.369-08:00How to Make Egg Salad at Home || Egg Salad Recipe Easy<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mgbPYeOvrsg" width="480"></iframe>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-48118409753561079602017-04-26T06:14:00.003-07:002017-04-26T06:14:40.584-07:00Why Did the Jews Kill Jesus? A Refutation of a Unitarian<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cCEoRqom0Hs/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cCEoRqom0Hs?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-82018837706528482132017-04-21T12:39:00.000-07:002017-04-21T12:39:08.361-07:00A Refutation of Biblical Unitarian John Schoenheit on John 1:1 Part 2<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9mQESC6cVWM/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9mQESC6cVWM?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-37180924428578320502017-04-18T11:50:00.000-07:002017-04-18T11:50:35.421-07:00A Refutation of Biblical Unitarian John Schoenheit on John 1:1; Part 1<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8a9aQeyJbPs/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8a9aQeyJbPs?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<span id="goog_22101276"></span><span id="goog_22101277"></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/"></a>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-74854481351079278192009-07-07T09:45:00.000-07:002009-07-07T09:46:45.587-07:00Some Thoughts on Interpretation<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>What sort of rules are good for interpretation? It seems the best interpretation is the one that captures the author’s intended meaning. With Scripture, we who believe that it is God’s word, as well as human writing, must come to the text with the goal of finding the intention of two authors. Now, most evangelical Christians like me usually take both the human author and God to mean the same thing by a passage. Certainly, there are folks who emphasize the humanness of the Scripture to the detriment of its divine origin, which leads to many speculations about the text without restraint as to any consideration that it is true.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>On the other hand, there are those who do the opposite, seeing the Bible as one book full of the sayings of God and gloss over the literary styles and differences between human authors. In centuries past, this led to extreme allegorizing of the Scriptures, so much so that the plain, surface meaning of the text was unimportant.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The best interpretations come from the best view of the Scriptures. Namely, that it is a book both human and divine in origin. God chose what would be written, so that we can be assured that it is trustworthy, but the men who wrote it still wrote according to their own perspective, style, and culture.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Of the second mistake above, that of removing the human element, I have seen a different sort of expression. As I have interacted with the Jehovah’s Witnesses lately, I’ve found that their literature (and therefore, they themselves) makes a mistake in interpretation that could be seen as a different kind of over-emphasis on the divine element of Scripture. As I said, this view often leads to treating the whole Bible as if it were merely a book of the sayings of God, and not full of different types of literature, such as narrative, poetic, apocalyptic, etc.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This has brought to mind a minor tension I didn’t see before on two rules of interpretation that I hold to be true, both having to do with reading in context.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">1. The interpretation of a single verse must make sense in the immediate context, i.e., the paragraph and book it’s found in.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">2. Scripture interprets Scripture, we should take the whole Bible into account when interpreting a passage. Or, the whole Bible is also a context.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The first rule is designed, I think, to prevent our picking and choosing verses in isolation and building theologies on them. The second, I believe, helps us to address larger, more complicated issues, such as the Bible’s view on hell, predestination, the Trinity, the kingdom of God, grace, faith and works, and so on.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The tension I see comes from the question of which of these rules should have priority. Should we first consider what all of the disparate verses that, say, contain a particular Greek word say? Or, should we first consider each verse in its own paragraph and chapter before applying it to a greater issue? Having considered my discussions with the JWs, I think that the first rule ought to have precedence over the second, and here’s why.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The reader of the Scriptures in the first century, or earlier, with the OT, had limited access to them, and at times only had some of the books. As they read, only the immediate context would be apparent to them. Indeed, though we have the whole Bible, if we read a whole book in it, we are best able to access the immediate context, not the whole of Scripture. Also, it would only make sense in the writing of the Bible that, if a context is needed to understand a passage, then the author of that passage would supply the needed context.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>A perfect example of how the Jehovah’s Witnesses miss this rule is found in their understanding of why the Watchtower is God’s organization. Two of the “rules” that show this for them are that they do not engage in war and that they preach “the kingdom”. What verses do they use?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>Matthew 6:10 “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This is part of the Lord’s prayer, or Jesus’ model prayer that he gives for us to know how to pray. This verse is used by the JWs to say several things. They say it shows that they are the only true religion because they are the only ones preaching God’s kingdom. They also use it to show that there is a ruling class in heaven that will rule over the earth. Now, did you see all of that in this verse when you read it just now? Does looking at the context of the verses around it help? Unfortunately for the Jehovah’s Witness, there really isn’t. While there are some themes that run through the whole of the sermon on the mount, one of them isn’t determining who God’s organization is by means of certain rules. The immediate context is prayer. Jesus isn’t talking about preaching here. He’s talking about how we should pray. In fact, none of the sermon on the mount concerns how we should “preach”. Is there anything in the verse about a ruling class of 144,000 in heaven exercising authority over those on earth? No. Does anything in the immediate context tell us that this is how we should interpret the passage? No. In fact, if I wanted to grant their belief in a special group in heaven, separate from those on earth, I could argue from this verse that “as it is in heaven” means that everything true of those in heaven is true of those on earth, which JWs flatly reject.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>What about their stance on war? What passage do they use?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>John 13:34-35 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The argument goes that in many wars, fellow believers kill each other, which is a violation of the command to love one another. In this case, both the immediate context and the whole Bible can be brought to bear on the issue, but for my purposes here, we’ll just look at the passage itself. Does the passage mention war? Military? Killing? None of these. The application has nothing at all to do with the immediate context. One thing we do have here that was lacking in the first example is an indication of how to know if someone is a disciple. He loves his fellow disciples. Is there anything in the verses surrounding these to give us the interpretation of the Watchtower? These verses come between a prediction of Judas betrayal and a prediction of Peter’s denial. The verses are found in a narrative of a discourse between Jesus and His disciples. Really, nothing more is said on this subject here in this passage, so we cannot build too much into what is said beyond the surface statement “love one another”. The most I suppose one could say is that Jesus is reiterating His statement that all of the commandments are summed up in loving God and loving people. This is also in the context of His leaving, so it could be seen that, while He has loved them during His time with them, they will have to love one another and support each other in His absence. One thing that is not mentioned at all is war. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>For Jesus’ views on military service, you should probably go to His interactions with military men. You’ll notice that He never condemns their service and even commands one to be “content with your pay”, so as not to extort money from helpless people. This certainly implies that He did not consider what he did for his “pay” to be sin.</span></p>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-58825437472932511042009-06-17T08:47:00.000-07:002009-06-17T08:51:09.093-07:00Is Jesus Michael or Jehovah?Another video responding to the same Jehovah's Witness on YouTube. This one deals with the argument they make that Jesus is Michael the archangel. I must say, I'd never looked into it and was really surprised by the shallow reasoning for identifying Jesus with Michael. You'll see that, and a similar argument that Jesus is Jehovah in this video.<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px; white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; white-space: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10px; white-space: pre; "><object width="320" height="265"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/f3K3czRrMyw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/f3K3czRrMyw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="265"></embed></object></span></div>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-77214473093551086172009-06-08T08:42:00.000-07:002009-06-08T08:49:09.046-07:00Video Responses on the Deity of ChristThought this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWIkNXwgXEc">video</a> merited a response. So here's my response in two parts.<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px; white-space: pre;"><object width="320" height="265"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0xOoYvhWzKM&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0xOoYvhWzKM&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="265"></embed></object></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px; white-space: pre;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px; white-space: pre;"><object width="320" height="265"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HzEBQ3vMx1k&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HzEBQ3vMx1k&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="265"></embed></object></span></span></div>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-80711180229810779982009-06-03T09:47:00.000-07:002009-06-03T09:56:04.302-07:00If Jesus is Not God VideoI put this post in video form on YouTube. Here it is.<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" white-space: pre; font-family:Arial;font-size:10px;"></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10px; white-space: pre; "><object width="320" height="265"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xn-qFSIoggw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xn-qFSIoggw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="265"></embed></object></span></div>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-14225838252635960322009-05-30T20:08:00.000-07:002009-05-30T20:39:01.953-07:00The New Testament on the Deity of ChristJust a Video from www.aomin.org that puts some of the best passages in the New Testament to music, showing that Jesus is God.<div><br /></div><div><br /></div><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzRQnkKhTeLOm-pvJhpRbzEWpgPi-D6SEMPPhtIwMNvn_kR8bteTAbBer4bmcsYEbyshaf-NGry2yAGuaE6xQ' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-30484161948959595542009-05-30T19:31:00.000-07:002009-05-30T19:33:18.848-07:00If Jesus is Not God...<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Since merely answering questions isn’t enough, I thought I’d pose some of my own, for Jehovah’s Witnesses and anyone else who denies the Deity of Christ. So here they are:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">If Jesus is not God...</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">1. Then why does Thomas call Him God (ho theos)? John 20:28</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">2. Why did the wise men worship Him? Matt. 2:1-2</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">3. Why did His Disciples worship Him? Matt. 14:33</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">4. Why do all the angels worship Him? Heb. 1:6</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">5. Why does He receive the same honor in heaven as the Father? Rev. 5:11-13</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">6. Why didn’t He ever correct anyone who worshipped Him, unlike every righteous, created being? Acts 14:11-15, Rev. 22:8-9</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">7. How can He be our Savior? Isa. 43:11, 2 Tim. 1:10</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">8. Who is pierced in Zech. 12:10?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">9. How did He create “all things”? Col. 1:15, John 1:3</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">10. How was it that He already existed “in the beginning”? John 1:1</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">11. Why does God call Him God? Heb. 1:8</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">12. Why does Paul call Him God? Titus 2:13</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">13. Why does He claim to be “I am” (ego eimi)? John 8:58</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">14. Why did the Jews try to stone Him for saying it? John 8:59</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">15. Why didn’t Jesus correct their belief that He was making Himself equal with God? John 8:59</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">16. How does He “know all things”? John 21:17</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">17. Why is He prayed to? Acts 7:59, John 14:14</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">18. Why does Peter call Him God? 2 Peter 1:1</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">19. How does <b>“all the fullness</b> of deity” dwell in Him? Col. 2:9</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">20. How did He raise Himself from the dead? John 2:18-22</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">21. How does calling on Him as Lord save us? Joel 2:32, Rom. 10:9</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">22. Who is God speaking to about creating man in “our image”? Gen. 1:26-27</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">23. Who is the “unique/only begotten/only/one and only” <b>God</b> at the Father’s side? John 1:18</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">24. Whose glory did Isaiah see in the temple? Isa. 6:1-5, John 12:37-41</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">25. How does He give life, just as the Father? John 5:21</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">26. Why should we honor the Son as the Father? John 5:23</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">27. Why didn’t He correct the Jews who thought that to claim to be God’s Son made Him equal with God? John 5:18, John 19:7, John 10:33</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">28. Why did Paul call Him the “eternally blessed God”? Rom. 9:5</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">29. How are all things held together “in Him”? Col. 1:17</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">30. How did He exist in the very “form of God” before taking on the very “form of a servant”? 2:6-8</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">31. How is it that Jesus could have the name that is “above every name” and that at the name of Jesus, “every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.” Phil. 2:10</span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><br /></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I think that's good for now. I could ask more.</p>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-55458228689679567492009-05-25T17:29:00.000-07:002009-05-25T17:52:44.596-07:00Answers to Some Questions Asked by a Jehovah's Witness<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">So, it's been a while since my last post, and I've been busy on other areas of life, but I thought this was worth posting.</p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><br /></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">Last week, my wife and I met with a couple of Jehovah's witnesses, and of course the subject of the Deity of Christ came up. I noticed a typed up paper in their materials titled <b>If Jesus is God</b>. This caught my eye and I asked if I could have it. They had multiple copies, so they let me take one home. It was a list of questions with Scripture references that the woman I was meeting with said had been put together by a friend of hers. It was not an official Watchtower publication, but its argumentation is certainly indicative of how the Watchtower Society argues against the Deity of Christ.</p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><br /></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">I told her I would type up answers to the questions and bring it back at our next meeting, so we could discuss it. I thought I'd share them with you, too. So here they are.</p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><b><br /></b></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>1) Why is he called the “firstborn of all creation” and “only begotten son”? Col. 1:15, Rev. 3:14, John 1:14</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></b>The concepts of “firstborn” and “only begotten” as found in Scripture are not exactly the same as what those words mean to us in English. While they often are understood literally, they are also understood to mean “heir”, “pre-eminent one”, or “unique one” Both terms refer to Jesus’ place as the pre-eminent one or ruler of God’s kingdom. This type of usage is common in Scripture, as can be shown by a few examples:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>Exodus 4:22-23</b> Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, <b>Israel is my firstborn son</b>, and I say to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me." If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.'"</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>Jeremiah 31:9 </b>With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back,I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble,for I am a father to Israel,and <b>Ephraim is my firstborn</b>.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>Hebrews 11:17-18 </b>By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up <b>his only begotten son</b>, of whom it was said, “That in <b>Isaac</b> shall thy seed be called...”</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>John 1:18 </b>No one has ever seen God; <b>the only</b> (<i>monogenes, also translated “only begotten”)</i> God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The passages cited in the question can be understood this way, except for Revelation 3:14, which says, “beginning of creation”. The word for “beginning” also can be understood as “origin” or “source”. There is nothing in the Greek that forces one to conclude from the passage that Jesus Himself is created. Instead, it points to the fact that He is the Creator.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>2) Why did he say he did not come of his “own initiative” but was “sent forth”? John 8:42</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Unlike the first question, this is less of a misunderstanding of biblical terms than a misunderstanding of what the doctrine of the Trinity actually teaches. Trinitarians believe that there is one eternal, infinite, all-powerful God, within whose being exist three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal Persons. This equality is one of nature. In other words, The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal as to the fact that they share Godhood equally. There is subordination and submission, however, in terms of authority and roles filled by each divine Person. Only the Father is said to predestine. Only the Son is said to have “become flesh” (John 1:14). Only the Spirit is said to give spiritual gifts and seal believers for eternal life. The distinction of the Son and Father allow for the fact that Jesus submits to the Father and does His will. This is amplified by the fact that Jesus is also fully human. As a man, he does what one would expect a perfect, sinless man to do, such as serving and worshipping God, praying, and submitting to the will of God.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b></b></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>3) Why did Jesus not know the “day and hour” of the Great Tribulation, while his Father did know? Matt. 24:36</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Jesus, being fully man as well as fully God, has fully human characteristics as well as fully divine characteristics. Scripture speaks of these two natures by attributing to Jesus seemingly contradictory attributes. Consider the following:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-weight: normal; "><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguY-F0OrHkMl9P212SBgPYLc_N8xX58davHB8Yk4sZSp8KTMbfzHNDwBPQgFS0KhVO8HnizSy3izUZcDkVfnfMkNT3I0RGlOOJOL8_6kPQg8mceGczFDd0thxBlo13pBlwl270r7Ln4caP/s400/Hypostatic+Chart.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5339928944118881042" style="cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 245px; " /></span></b></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: pre;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Because Scripture speaks so clearly about these two natures, we must believe it, even though it is difficult to picture such a thing in our heads. God is utterly unique, and our experience and limited faculties can only take us so far in understanding Him. Because He is unique, the incarnation, in which God took on a human nature, is also unique. Analogies fail us when we try to understand His nature perfectly, but we can affirm what He has affirmed. Jesus is both God and man.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>4) Whom did Jesus speak to in prayer?</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Again, this shows a misunderstanding of the Trinity, which is common, not only to groups that deny it, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but also to many Christians who have not sought with much diligence to understand the Trinity truly, and have come to see the God as being only one Person, filling several roles, rather than being three Persons in constant communion and sharing one Being. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The simple answer to this question is that Jesus, being fully human and being a separate Person, prayed to His Father, another divine Person, whom Jesus worshipped and had communion with as we would expect any perfect man to do. A right understanding of the Trinity renders this question misplaced. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>It would be right to ask a modalist, who denies the Trinity by insisting that the Father and Son are the same Person, how it is that Jesus prays to Himself. Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is praying to Himself.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>5) Why did Jesus say “the Father is greater than I am”? John 14:28</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This question should be answerable from the information given so far, just by our correct understanding of the Trinity. Jesus occupies a subordinate position of authority, but not nature. As such, He can say that the Father is “greater”, just as I could say that my employer, or the President of the United States, is “greater” than I am, even though I am equal to both of them in nature. We are human beings, all.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Indeed the Greek term, <i>meizon</i>, is used to indicate greater degree, not usually to indicate different, and better, nature. <i>Meizon</i> can be used to indicate nature in some cases, though, and so we must allow for that possibility in this verse. Even if Jesus is speaking of nature in this verse, he can easily be speaking of the fact that He is fully human, and as such has a nature inferior to the Father’s which is divine. This does no damage to the teaching of the Trinity, however, since Jesus can speak from His humanity without diminishing His Deity.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I would say that the first interpretation is probably correct, since there is another Greek term, <i>kreitton</i>, which speaks of the nature of a thing and is used that way throughout Hebrews to speak of Jesus compared to angels <b>(Heb. 1:4)</b>, and to speak of the new covenant compared with the old. <b>(Heb. 7:19, 22; 8:6; 9:23)</b> Hebrews also speaks of a better resurrection. <b>(11:35)</b>. If Jesus had wanted to express that the Father is greater in every way, this word would have done the job far better than the one He used.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>6) Who spoke to Jesus at the time of his baptism, saying “this is my son”? Matt. 3:17</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>It was the Father who spoke. No problem arises unless one misunderstands that the Father and Son are distinct divine Persons.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"> <b>7) How can he be raised to a higher position? Phil. 2:9,10</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Philippians 2:6-11, is known as the <i>Carmen Christi</i>, and is thought to be an early Christian hymn, predating the writing of Philippians itself. Paul quotes it here, so let’s look at the whole passage.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Notice that Jesus was “in the form of God”, and then took on the “form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” Jesus’ nature changed from that of God to man right there in this verse. In fact, the NIV translates this passage “in very nature God” and “the very nature of a servant”. This passage beautifully shows the depth to which Jesus humbled Himself. He went from the height of Godhood to the depth of humanness, even to the lowliest of deaths. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>So, when it says that God “exalted him”, it speaks in reference to that humility. Today, Jesus the man is enthroned in heaven, exalted to the point of having the name above every name. Which is why we confess that Jesus is Lord. He has always been God, but after His obedience, He became the man on the throne of God.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>8) How can he also be the “mediator between God and man”? 1Tim. 2:5</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This verse calls Jesus “the man Christ Jesus”. Does this do any damage to the doctrine of the Trinity as we’ve understood it? Not at all. Jesus is still fully human and in that capacity is our mediator. It might be asked, what better mediator between man and God than one who is both God and man?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>9) How did he “appear before the person of God for us”? Heb. 9:24</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This answer is basically the same as the previous one. Jesus, the human mediator, appears before the Father for us. It should be noted here that the Bible is not a theology textbook, and shouldn’t be treated as such. It does not always use terms in a technical fashion, and shouldn’t be expected to. When speaking of the Trinity, we mean specific things by terms such as “Father”, “Son”, “God”, “Person”, “Being”, and such. Often, the Bible uses terms in different ways that have to be determined by context. To say that Jesus appears in the presence of “God” does not mean that he appears separately before the whole Trinity, but that he appears before the Father. In some contexts, “God” refers to the whole Trinity, but in others, it may only refer to one Person, such as the Father or Son. When we say that Scripture teaches the Trinity, we do not necessarily mean that it teaches it using the exact same words that we use in a technical sense. Much confusion results from trying to pigeon-hole biblical statements with technical rigidity. Trinitarians do not do this.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>10) Why did Paul say that the “head of Christ is God” 1Cor. 11:3</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The passage speaks of marital relationships and our relationship to God. The key concept being discussed is submission or obedience. Wives submit to husbands, who submit to Christ, who submits to God. This fits perfectly with Jesus’ position under the Father. Husbands and wives are a picture of Christ and the the church, or in this passage, the husband as a part of the church. Husbands and wives are of equal nature, but differing authority. Christ and the church, on one understanding are of equal nature, but differing authority, since He and we are equally human. In the same way, Christ and the Father are of equal nature, but differing authority. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>11) Why does Jesus “hand over the kingdom to his God” and “subject himself to God”? 1Cor. 15:24,28</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></b>Again, Jesus subjecting Himself to the Father is not in any way a reference to His nature, but only his voluntary position. It should be noted here that this passage says that Jesus is reigning today and will continue to reign until all of His enemies are conquered. How does this square with the JW belief that it is Satan who rules this world?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>12) Who does he refer to as “my God”? John 20:17, Rev. 3:12</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The answer should be plain by now. He refers to the Father and speaks as a human being.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>13) Who is referred to prophetically at Prov. 8:22-31?</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Many see this as a description of Christ. I have doubts about that for several reasons. Proverbs is obviously all about wisdom, and this chapter personifies it. As it is somewhat of a poetical book, with mysteries and paradoxes within it. I doubt that one can make many strong, technical, doctrinal statements from it. This passage, to me seems to be nothing more than a poetical way of speaking of wisdom. God had wisdom with Him when He created the world. This makes perfect sense without having to believe that a literal person is being spoken of. Also, the person spoken of is female. Read the chapter from the beginning. If the later statements are to be taken literally of a literal person, then shouldn’t that person be female? I would submit that if a divine person is in view, then it would more likely be the “Spirit of truth”, or the Holy Spirit. Statements about being “brought forth” are too vague to necessitate the believe that the one in view was created. In short, perhaps Christ is spoken of here, and perhaps not, but nothing suggests that He is not God.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>14) How does He sit at God’s right hand? Ps. 110:1</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>If the thrust of this question is just, “How can Jesus and God be spoken of as if they are separate Persons?”, then we’ve already answered it. If the question is what this sitting at God’s right hand looks like, I refer the reader to Rev. 7:17, where the Lamb, Jesus, is in the midst of the throne of God. In other words, Jesus occupies the throne, but is also spoken of separately from the “one who sits on the throne”. Only God sits on the throne of God.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>15) Why does John say “no man has seen God at any time”? John 1:18</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This verse actually opens up a whole study on the Deity of Christ that is very interesting. It’s pretty clear that, on a Trinitarian understanding of the passage, John is usually using “God” to refer to the Father, as in “the Word was with God”. Again, the Bible is not a theology textbook, so we have to use the context to give us the meanings of words.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>There are two lines of evidence I can see that show that John here refers specifically to God the Father, and not to the Son or the Triune God as a whole. One line is the verses that speak of people seeing God and how one reconciles these with verses denying that God can or has ever been seen. The other line is in looking at the Greek of John 1:18 itself to show how it encapsulates the first line of evidence into a single statement.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>First, let’s look at some interesting passages that seem to say that God has been seen.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Gen. 17:1</b> Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the <b>LORD appeared to Abram</b> and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be blameless."</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>Gen. 18:1 </b>Now the <b>LORD appeared to him</b> by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>Ex. 6:2-3 </b>God spoke further to Moses and said to him, ‘I am the LORD; and<b> I appeared</b> to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name LORD I did not make myself known to them.'</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>Ex. 24:9-11 </b>Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and <b>they saw the God of Israel</b>; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and <b>they beheld God</b>, and they ate and drank.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>Ex. 33:10</b> Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses<b> face to face</b>, just as a man speaks to his friend...</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>Num. 12:6-8</b> He [God] said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. <b>Not so, with My servant Moses</b>, He is faithful in all My household; with him I speak mouth to mouth, even openly, and not in dark sayings, and <b>he beholds the form of the LORD...</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Acts 7:2</b> And he [Stephen] said, "Hear me, brethren and fathers!<b> The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham</b> when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran....</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The Bible seems pretty clear that people saw God, but let’s look at some verses that seem to say otherwise. In addition to John 1:18, we have these:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>Exodus 33:20</b> But He [God] said, ‘You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!'</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>1 Tim. 6:16</b> [God] who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>John 6:46 </b>Not that any man has seen the Father except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>So, have people seen God or not? If we say no, then it seems hard to get around the passages above that pretty clearly say God was seen. If we say yes, then how are we to understand the verses that say He cannot be seen? If God were a unitarian God, of the sort that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in, this would be very difficult, indeed. There seems to be an answer in the Trinity, however.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Notice that in John 6:46, it is specifically the Father who has never been seen. Since Scripture is not rigid in the word “God” denoting the whole being, it is at least possible in many cases that “God” refers to one or another of the Persons of the Trinity. I would submit that the doctrine of the Trinity solves this dilemma rather nicely. Since it is only the Father specifically named as the one who has never been seen by any man except Jesus, it makes sense to say that it is the Son who has been seen whenever God was seen. Now there is no contradiction and no difficulty.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>In fact, Justin Martyr drew this distinction when he said, "Then I replied, "Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavor to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, — numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world — above whom there is no other God — has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with." (Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, ch 56)</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The second line of reasoning concerns the verse itself. In the King James Version, John 1:18 reads: “No man hath seen God at any time, the <b>only begotten Son</b>, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. The NAS, however, translates the phrase in bold above as <b>“only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father”</b>. The NIV, <b>“God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side.” </b>The ESV says, <b>“the only God, who is at the Father’s side.” </b> In fact, nearly every modern translation uses the word “God” instead of “Son”. Why is this? The answer is simply that modern translators have better, older manuscripts and have been able to determine that the phrase was probably changed to “only begotten Son” in the King James as a result of a scribal error. The King James, though an older translation, is based on more recent and less pristine Greek manuscripts.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Why is this comparison important? The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses renders this verse in the same way as the King James. From a theological standpoint, it makes sense that the Watchtower Society would prefer that reading. The important bit of information is that the NWT is itself a modern translation, and even purports to be based on the same Greek texts as other modern translations, but inserts the word “Son” instead of “God” even though the better manuscripts they used have the word “<i>theos”</i>. Using “Son” was excusable in the KJV, since the translators didn’t have the best manuscripts to work with, but the NWT translators not only had access to the best texts, but even claim to have been translating from them.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Rightly translated, then, what does John 1:18 say? It says that no one has seen “God” (<i>theos</i>), but that the “unique (only; one and only; etc.) God”, who is close to the Father has made Him known. John uses “God” twice in this verse, but since the final “Him” must, contextually, refer to the first usage, John must be speaking of two different Persons here. Since the Father must be God, and “God” is at the Father’s side, the second “God” must not be the same as the first.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The understanding of this verse brings together several concepts we’ve addressed earlier. First, it reaffirms that no on has seen God, but then goes on to say that there’s a “unique God” that has made Him known. When we remember the passage that says that the Father has never been seen, it’s obvious that the first “God” is the Father. Do you remember our brief study of the term “<i>monogenes</i>”, here translated in the KJV and NWT as “only begotten”? The term actually carries the meaning of “unique” or “one of a kind”. That’s why so many translations render it this way. So the second “God” in the verse is unique and has “made known” the Father.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>So, when exactly did this unique God make the Father known? The answer is in the contrast between the unique One and the Father, namely, that the Father has never been seen. The Son, or the unique God, has “made Him known” by being the one that has been seen. This is exactly how Justin Martyr believed it happened.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Indeed, John goes on to say in chapter 12 that it was Jesus who was seen by Isaiah in the temple:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>John 12:37-43</b> Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"> "Lord, who has believed what he heard from us,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"> and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"> Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,<br />"He has blinded their eyes<br />and hardened their heart,<br />lest they see with their eyes,<br />and understand with their heart, and turn,<br />and I would heal them."</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.</b> Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>John is obviously throughout talking about Jesus, and says that Isaiah said what he said in Isaiah 6 because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke of Jesus. If you go back to the event itself, here’s what you read:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>Isaiah 6:1-5, 9-10 </b>In the year of King Uzziah's death <b>I saw the Lord sitting on a throne</b>, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">And one called out to another and said,<br /> "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts,<br /> The whole earth is full of His glory."</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Then I said,<br /> "Woe is me, for I am ruined!<br /> Because I am a man of unclean lips,<br /> And I live among a people of unclean lips;<br /> <b>For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.</b>"...</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">He said, "Go, and tell this people:<br /> 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive;<br /> Keep on looking, but do not understand.'<br /> "Render the hearts of this people insensitive,<br /> Their ears dull,<br /> And their eyes dim,<br /> Otherwise they might see with their eyes,<br /> Hear with their ears,<br /> Understand with their hearts,<br /> And return and be healed."</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Jesus is Jehovah, and was seen and heard throughout the Old Testament.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>16) Why did he ask not to be called “good”, saying “nobody is good, except one, God”? Luke 18:19</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Before we answer this question, let’s look at the verse itself:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>Luke 18:18-19</b> A ruler questioned Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.”</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Now look carefully, did Jesus actually ask not to be called “good”? He did not. Rather, he asked why the man called Him good, saying that only God is good. Instead of denying that He was God, Jesus is pointing out to the man the real import of his words. In effect, Jesus is asking, “Do you really believe that I’m God? Don’t you know that to call me good is to call me God? Jesus question is directed at the motives of the man. “Why do <i>you...</i>” Jesus uses the man’s language as an opportunity to teach him of His own Deity. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I would also ask of the JW. Do you believe that Jesus is good?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>17) Why does Daniel say “to him were GIVEN rulership...”? Dan. 7:13,14</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This is what’s known by many theologians as the “eternal covenant”. In heaven, Daniel sees a vision in which the Father gives to the Son a kingdom. This is the heavenly corollary to the Davidic covenant. (2 Samuel 7:8-16) Here, the Father promises the Son the Kingdom promised to David, as can be seen in the fact that it will endure forever. In order to do so, the Son would have to become human, born in the line of David, and live in fulfillment of all of the prophecies concerning Him.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>There is no confusion this passage at all if one understands the Trinity and Incarnation. One question that could be asked of a Jehovah’s Witness on this point is, “How can rulership of the nations be given to this Son of Man by God unless it was His to give?” This question refutes the idea that it is only Satan who rules the nations of the world, as JW’s believe.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>18) Why did people not die when they saw Jesus? Ex. 33:20</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The answer to this should be plain, from the answer to question 15. Why didn’t Isaiah die when he saw Jehovah? (Isa. 6:1-10)</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>19) How was Jesus dead and God alive at the same time? Acts 2:24</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The short answer to this question should be clear, that Jesus, having a human nature as well as a divine nature, could die as all human beings can. Remember, the doctrine of the Trinity merely affirms all that Scripture affirms. God cannot die, but God can add to Himself a mortal, human nature that is capable of death. Another way to look at this is to ask, “Is God powerful enough to become human while not ceasing to be God? If so, is He powerful enough to remain God if the human nature He has dies?”</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The verse cited is interesting to note, because it says that “God raised him up”. This is true, and affirmed by Trinitarians. Trinitarians also affirm...</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>John 2:18-21 </b>So the Jews said to him, "What sign do you show us for doing these things?" Jesus answered them, "<b>Destroy this temple</b>, and in three days <b>I will raise it up.</b>" The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" But <b>he was speaking about the temple of his body</b>.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Did God raise Jesus, or did Jesus raise Himself? The answer, biblically, is both.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>20) Why did he need someone to save him? Heb. 5:7</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Let’s start by looking at the verse itself.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>Heb. 5:7</b> In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Does this contradict anything that’s been said about the Trinity or Jesus’ human nature so far? It does not. It’s interesting to note that Jesus is behaving exactly as a perfect human would, praying and depending on the grace of God. Since Trinitarians believe Jesus was fully human, no problem can be seen here. I would also note that the verse doesn’t say He “needed someone” to save Him”. Rather it says that God “was able to save him from death” Does the question assume that when Jesus was “heard” that His prayer was answered? That would mean that He didn’t die, which is not believed by any Jehovah’s Witness.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>21) How could he “learn obedience” and be “made perfect”? Heb 5:8,9</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>These verses immediately follow the ones before, and have been answered in previous questions in reference to Jesus’ two natures (#3) and His new place as the pre-eminent human being who sits on the throne of God (#7). The whole passage here in Hebrews is speaking of Jesus as it pertains to His humanity, so it’s not surprising to read these things.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>22) Why did he speak of two separate “wills”, his own and that of the father? Luke 22:42</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>If Jesus and the Father are separate Persons as Trinitarians believe, then it should not be surprising that they have separate wills. There is constant communion within the Trinity, and so they are always in agreement, and so Jesus agrees to do the will of the Father in this verse. This doesn’t mean that they might not have differing thoughts, ideas, or desires. Jesus, being fully human struggled with pain and knew that His death would be agonizing. Jesus had two desires within Himself, just as we often do: to do what would be easiest, or to do the will of God. Jesus willed to do both, but it was a stronger desire on His part to obey the Father. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This objection could only hold water against a modalist, who believes that there is only one Person within God, and that Jesus is somehow talking to Himself in this passage. For a Trinitarian, however, there is no problem.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>23) Why is he called God’s “servant”? Isa. 42:1-5, Matt. 12:18</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Don’t forget to throw Isaiah 53 and Philippians 2 in there, too. Jesus was a man as much as He was God. So he served God, worshipped God, prayed to God, obeyed God, and followed the will of God. None of this is any problem when one correctly understands the Trinity, when one understands what the Incarnation is. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This does not require that one can fully understand every detail and just what it’s like within the communion of the Trinity. It only requires that one affirm what the Bible teaches, that there is only one God, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, and that these three are distinct Persons in communion with each other and filling different roles. It only requires that we attribute to Jesus what the Bible attributes to Jesus, namely: all the attributes of Deity, and all the attributes of perfect humanity.</span></p>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-79001965434235186622009-01-02T13:50:00.000-08:002009-01-02T14:05:49.689-08:00The Doctrines of Grace Part 4: Particular Redemption<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">As you may have noticed, the five points of Calvinism, while not in any logical order, are usually expressed in somewhat of a chronological order with respect to the believer. The first point begins at man’s starting point, expressing his helplessness to rescue himself from his own sinfulness and be saved. Next, we do go back to eternity past to see God’s starting point, choosing His people before the world began. The third point, which I will be focusing on today, is the Particular Redemption of Christ in His work on the cross to secure the salvation of those same elect people. Next, we move forward again to when that work of Christ is applied to those people during their lifetimes, actually making them alive in Christ. The final point affirms the continual work of the Holy Spirit in preserving the elect in faith for eternity, securing their place in God’s kingdom.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Particular Redemption, briefly, is the doctrine that says that Christ, in His life of obedience and His sacrificial death on the cross, successfully atoned for the sins of His people, securing their salvation from God’s Judgment. To say that He atoned for their sin means that He took upon Himself their sins, experiencing the wrath of God that was stored up for His elect people, guaranteeing for them His own righteousness. In His office as High Priest, He then intercedes, or pleads, for all of those for whom He died, based on His own sacrifice. That intercession is always successful, because it always leads to the salvation of those for whom it was intended.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">When most people talk about this issue, the conversation is limited to whether Jesus died for every individual--past, present, and future, or whether He died for His elect people. Many refer to the Reformed view as “Limited Atonement”, but I think that this is a misleading name. In truth, both Calvinists and Arminians limit the atonement of Christ. For Arminians, the atonement is unlimited in its scope, but limited in its effectiveness. In other words, it is intended to make salvation possible for everyone, but is only successful in saving the believers. For Calvinists, the atonement is limited in scope, or not intended to save everyone, but unlimited in effectiveness. It actually accomplishes the salvation of everyone for whom it was made. So, in truth, both sides limit the atonement. The question is, of course, whether the Bible limits it the way Calvinists say or Arminians say.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">As I said, the conversation on this issue is usually limited to the scope of the atonement. This really doesn’t properly address it, since it doesn’t say anything about the nature of the atonement. Just what did Jesus accomplish on the cross? How we answer this question will have a great impact on how we answer the question of scope.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Just an aside, there are some who consider themselves Reformed who deny Particular Redemption. They affirm the other four points of Calvinism, but basically believe the Arminian view on atonement. I think that this is somewhat inconsistent, but we’ll get into that later. Suffice it to say that I think that I fall on the opposite end of the spectrum from these folks, because I not only believe in Particular Redemption, but I think that it is a good starting place to talk about the rest of Reformed Theology. If the atonement really is perfect and effective, then we must limit its scope or become universalists, believing in the salvation of everyone.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>What Particular Redemption is Not</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b></b></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">1. Calvinists do not see the cross as having small or finite value. Some argue that if Calvinists think that Jesus death is not intended to save everyone, then it is somehow not enough to save everyone, or that it is not as great or powerful as the Arminian view. This is a caricature. As seen above and as we will see in the ensuing Scriptures, the Calvinist view of the atonement is that it is powerful enough to actually save everyone for whom it was made. It is of infinite value because it involves the perfect Savior.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">2. While the atonement secures, makes perfect, and redeems everyone for whom it is made, without reference to foreseen faith, it does not make faith unnecessary. Look at it this way. For the non-Calvinist generally, the atonement is made for every person potentially and is then made actual for any given person by that person’s faith. For the Calvinist generally, the atonement is made for the elect and secures their salvation. It is already actual, but it is applied to the sinner at the moment of salvation, which comes through faith. In other words, there are no conditions that must be met by the person in order to secure the benefit of the atonement. Faith only makes the death and resurrection of Christ enter into the life of the person for whom it was made and guaranteed.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">There are several lines of evidence that point to the truth of Particular Redemption. Two of these are from Scripture: The description of the nature of the atonement and some passages that explicitly limit the scope of the atonement. The other lines of evidence are philosophical, just asking some questions that reveal what a person actually thinks about the work of Jesus on the cross.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">First, to get our thought processes going, let’s look at the philosophical issues. There are several views on the atonement still floating around Christian circles, but the most common among Protestants today is still the penal substitution view. This is the view that when Jesus died on the cross, His suffering was as a substitute for ours. In other words, what we deserve for our sin, Jesus endured, in order to place upon us the reward for His perfectly obedient life.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Historically, the early church was not at all of one accord on what the nature of the atonement was. Some believed that it’s purpose was to point forward to the resurrection, showing Jesus’ victory over death. Some even believed that it was a ransom paid to Satan, who rightfully owned us because of our sin. What was held in common, however, was the belief that the atonement had a purpose of bringing us back to God. But the question of how it did so did not have a universally accepted answer.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The Penal Satisfaction view of Anselm later led to what was accepted as the Roman view. Just what it is is a matter of debate, however. In my opinion, the official teaching about Anselm from Rome looks like something that is meant primarily to distance itself from the Protestant view. They do not believe that Jesus’ death was intended to take upon Himself our punishment, indeed it was not punishment at all. Their view is that it was simply so undeserved that God asked Jesus what gift He would like for having undergone such an ordeal. Jesus asked for the salvation of all who would believe, and God granted this request.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Whether this really was Anselm’s view I don’t know, but the view, common among Protestants and evangelical Christians today is derived from the view of the Reformers. This is the substitutionary view, that Jesus died to take our sin and give us His righteousness.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So, one question is, if Jesus really took upon Himself the sins of every person in the world, then what sins are the condemned being punished for? We often hear, “Jesus died for your sins,” or “Jesus died for the sins of all humanity.” What does this actually mean? If it means that He took those sins upon Himself on the cross, taking them away from humanity, then what sins are left to man that anyone should be condemned? The common answer to this is that a person has to accept that sacrifice for it to be applied to him. What this looks like is that Jesus is punished for a person’s sin, but then that person needs to accept or reject Jesus. If he accepts, then Jesus’ death takes away his sin. If he rejects, then the person is still punished for his own sin.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">If he rejects the offer of salvation, then this leads to one of two problems, depending on what one believes about the nature of the atonement. The question is, does Jesus <i>actually</i> take away the person’s sin, or just <i>potentially</i> take it away. If it is actual, and the person rejects it, then we have God the Father punishing Jesus for that man’s sin, and then punishing that man for the same sin. Two people are punished for one person’s sin. This doesn’t sound like justice, does it? The main reason, in my view, for the cross is that it demonstrates God’s justice and mercy at the same time. It allows God to be merciful to us without compromising His justice. If He punishes two for one person’s crime, then where is the justice?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Some have argued that Jesus atoned for all sin except unbelief. We’ll look closer at this as we examine the Scriptures, but I would simply ask where the passage that teaches this is found. Also, doesn’t this limit the atonement, too?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">What if the atonement is just potential? Jesus didn’t actually take away any sin, but potentially took away the sin of all who would believe. This is actually the most common view today that I’ve run across with non-Calvinists. It is often said that Jesus’ death “made a way” or “opened the door”, or “made it possible” for men to be saved if they would just believe. Notice again that this limits the atonement. It makes it merely potential instead of actual. While this is a consistent view with the concept of unlimited scope for the atonement, it has no basis in Scripture. I would simply ask, where do the Scriptures teach a merely potential atonement? Where does the Bible talk specifically about Jesus’ work on the cross or as High Priest as though it were contingent on our belief? I’m not asking about salvation, which is a much larger issue. I’m talking about the atonement. Where does Jesus or anyone else use language like that quoted above to talk about the cross?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">One other issue should be at least addressed briefly about four-point Calvinism, which rejects this doctrine while accepting the other Doctrines of Grace. Aside from the Scriptural evidence and the issues outlined above, the only question I would have is, wouldn’t this introduce a lack of unity in the Trinity? If the Father elects to save some, why would the Son try to seek and save people that the Father never intended to save? How could Jesus die to save the non-elect when the Father has elected only His own?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">This brings us to the Scriptural evidence. For the Calvinist, the scope of the atonement flows from what he believes about the nature of the atonement. What it actually does determines who it’s intended for. I’ve found that, for many non-Reformed, beliefs about who the atonement is intended for are what determine beliefs about its nature. The real question should be what informs the starting point? Is it Scripture? Is it all of Scripture or just a few verses taken alone? Or, worst case, is it a commitment to some other tradition or belief about God that doesn’t even come from Scripture? These questions should be on our minds as we address this issue.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The book of Hebrews is one of the most misunderstood books of the Bible. It was no different in the early church. I believe that if careful study of this book were more prevalent then, we wouldn’t have had so much confusion on the issue of the atonement. One of Hebrews’ major themes is the contrast of the old, Moseic covenant with the new covenant built on the work of Christ. The author’s goal is to show that the new covenant is a better covenant, with a better High Priest, built on better promises, with a better sacrifice. So, many words are spent in explaining the nature of that sacrifice and how it compares to the old sacrifices. I think that there are some important facts about the old sacrifices as well that shed light on this issue, and we’ll get into that, too.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. Hebrews 7:18-19</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The author has been talking about Melchizedek and how he is superior to the Levitical priesthood, and now begins to speak of Christ is even better. The two things I want to point out in these verses are the words “perfect” and “better”. The author will make much of the fact that the old sacrifices and intercessions make nothing perfect. This will be set in contrast with the work of Christ. Just how does Jesus introduce a “better hope”?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>“The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever.’” This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. Hebrews 7:22</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Again we see “better”. And what makes Jesus better? He is a priest forever. The very next verses make this explicit.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7:23-25</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Here, we also begin to see the connection between sacrifice and intercession. The High Priest would always offer the sacrifice and then intercede for Israel. He would be prevented by death from continuing, and so Jesus is a better High Priest because He always lives to make intercession on the basis of His sacrifice.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. Hebrews 9:11-12</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Here we see the sacrifice and intercession connected securely, and they secure eternal redemption.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Indeed, I would go verse by verse in this whole section of the book, because it has so much to say. I think, though, that the most emphatic passage is found in chapter 10.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. Hebrews 10:11-14</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">This is the nature of sacrifice and atonement. It completes the work it sets out to do. Earlier, (vv. 2-4) it is pointed out that, because of the inability of the old sacrifices to take away sin, they must be repeated over and over. This is contrasted with the once-for-all-time nature of Jesus’ sacrifice. Why was it sufficient? It has “perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” Here, in one sentence, is the twofold doctrine of Particular Redemption expressed. It “perfects”, which is not a term of mere potentiality. It doesn’t “make a way” to be saved. It “makes perfect”. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Also, it only perfects those who are being sanctified. Who are they? This phrase is often translated “those who are being made holy”. Holiness often means to us some sort of moral purity. While this is often the result, holiness literally means “being set apart”. The sabbath is to be “holy” or “set apart”. Those who are being “sanctified” are the ones who “are being set apart”. Holiness doesn’t, in every context, refer to the elect. God does tell us to “be holy as I am holy”, and this means to set our own lives apart for Him. However, in this passage, every verb is an action performed by God. It is He who perfects by the work of Christ and it is He who sets apart the ones who will be perfected by that work.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">When we understand the nature of the atonement, seeing that no passage teaches that it is merely potential, and that many passages teach that it is effective in removing sin without any reference to foreseen faith as a requisite, it becomes apparent that it must have a particular intention of saving the elect.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">This can be seen in several other passages, that I’ll just run through pretty quickly.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>...It is God who justifies, who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Romans 8:33b-34</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">How does Paul answer the question, “Who is to condemn?” He appeals to the death, resurrection and intercession of Jesus as evidence enough to remove condemnation. If His work were to be for everyone, wouldn’t everyone be free of condemnation?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out...I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep...I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. John 10:2-3,11,14-15</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The sheep are “his own” and they know the shepherd and are known by Him just as the Father and Son know each other. They are obviously not every person. And the good shepherd lays down His life for “the sheep”.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her. Ephesians 5:25</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Aside from the statement that Christ gave Himself up for the Church, notice also that husbands are commanded to love their wives in the same way that Christ loved those He gave Himself up for. If it was for everyone, then Paul is commanding husbands to love their wives just the same as everyone else, and that’s obviously not what he meant.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>Therefore, he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance... Hebrews 9:15a</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">“So that” tells us the purpose of Jesus mediation, namely that the “called” may receive their inheritance. Indeed, is everyone promised this inheritance? Of course not. God’s promises are kept, and the condemned do not receive this inheritance.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. Luke 19:10</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Notice that Jesus’ intention is not just to make salvation possible, but to actually save the lost. Should we really read this to say that He came to “try” to seek and save, and that He will be unsuccessful most of the time?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>...looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. Hebrews 12:2</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">If Jesus’ sacrifice is unsuccessful most of the time, since most people are not saved, then what is the “joy” that is spoken of here? If He intended to save everyone, then His endurance usually fails in its work. If He only intended to save the elect, however, then His joy is complete. He is always successful in saving those for whom He gave His life.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">One more issue should be raised briefly. Hebrews contrasts the inability of the old sacrifices to atone for sin, while Christ’s sacrifice is successful and takes away sin. If you read about those sacrifices in Leviticus, however, you don’t see them described as types or shadows. They are said to be effective. So, how is this reconciled? If the old sacrifices were effective, then why is Christ’s sacrifice necessary?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The answer, I believe, is that they are both effective, but to different ends, and this casts light on the nature of Christ’s atonement. God’s dealings with the nation of Israel are almost always played out visually and physically in the world. By contrast, the new covenant almost always relates to the old by expressing a spiritual reality that the visual signs (or types, or shadows) of the old covenant pointed to. For example, the old, physical temple was a representation of the spiritual temple of the Holy Spirit that is the church. These sacrifices--especially the sin offering--represented in a visual way the ultimate offering of Christ. This offering also really took away the wrath of God, but in a physical, visual way. It couldn’t take away sin ultimately, but it could turn aside God’s physical wrath against Israel. Notice that the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 28 are all earthly. One of the best examples of old covenant offering in action is in Numbers.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>And when the congregation had assembled against Moses and against Aaron, they turned toward the tent of meeting. And behold, the cloud covered it, and the glory of the LORD appeared. And Moses and Aaron came to the front of the tent of meeting, and the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Get away from the midst of this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment.” And they fell on their faces. And Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer, and put fire on it from off the altar and lay incense on it and carry it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them, for wrath has gone out from the LORD; the plague has begun.” So Aaron took it as Moses said and ran into the midst of the assembly. And behold, the plague had already begun among the people. And he put on the incense and made atonement for the people. And he stood between the dead and the living, and the plague was stopped. Numbers 16:42-48</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Notice that the sins of the people bring about the wrath of God, but it is expressed then and there. The atonement that Aaron makes stops the plague, and “makes atonement” for the people. Does it take away their sin? No. It doesn’t make them perfect, as Hebrews speaks of, but it turns away God’s earthly wrath, the plague. Notice also that no reference to faith or repentance is made. The atonement made by the fire on the censer stops the plague without reference to faith. Indeed, in Leviticus, the sacrifices do the same thing. If a sacrifice is made for sin, it makes atonement. It is not potential, it is always actual. The only difference between the old and new sacrifices is that the old sacrifices only take away temporal wrath, while Jesus’ sacrifice takes away our sin and perfects us, so that there is no longer wrath at all.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So, the nature of the Christ’s atonement is that it “perfects” all for whom it is made. The intention of the atonement is to secure a “promised inheritance” for “the sheep”. The atonement is the work that Christ points to in His intercession for those sheep. It is in these areas that the doctrine of Particular Redemption speaks. When this doctrine is characterized only in the realm of who it’s for, these deeper issues are ignored and a lot of pointless and bad arguments are made. Once the nature of the atonement is understood, the other questions are easily answered.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>Some Objections</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">There really is not space here to answer all of the objections to this doctrine, as there are many. I think the best ones to address are those that come from Scripture. Often Jesus’ death is described as being for “all” or “the world” in Scripture. So, how is this reconciled with what we’ve seen so far? Remember, we can’t just retreat to the potentiality position, since Scripture, in Old and New Testaments, presents the sacrifice as effective in its purpose of turning aside God’s wrath.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I should point out at this point that many objections raised against this doctrine are actually objections against Unconditional Election. I’m not going to go into those, as I think I’ve addressed them adequately in that article. I will try to focus on those objections that deal specifically with the work of Christ.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">“All” and “the world” cannot be automatically taken to mean every individual who ever lived. Just think if this were to be done in the following verses.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>...and you will be hated by </i><b><i>all</i></b><i> for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. Matthew 10:22</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and </i><b><i>all</i></b><i> Jerusalem with him... Matthew 2:3</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>“Come, see a man who told me </i><b><i>all</i></b><i> that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?” John 4:29</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that </i><b><i>all the world</i></b><i> should be registered. Luke 2:1</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in </i><b><i>all the world</i></b><i>. Romans 1:8</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">It is important to note that each time the terms in question are used above, the immediate context of the statement itself does not place limits on “all” or “world”. Romans 1:8 above actually contains “all” twice. The first time, a limiter is right there in the sentence. The second time, however, it is obvious that Paul is not saying that every individual in the whole world has actually heard the Gospel. He is merely saying that it has spread widely. Each time above, there is a hyperbole in use. A hyperbole is an expression that exaggerates the actual intended statement for more dramatic effect.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Christians will not be hated by every single individual. We will be hated by many. Not every person in Jerusalem was troubled, but enough were to make it feel that way. Jesus didn’t tell the woman at the well every individual thing she ever did. He just told her some things He couldn’t have known just from meeting her, and so she understood that he could have told her everything. Now, if these passages don’t mean every single individual thing/person, then we need to apply some common sense to the passages that seem to apply the atonement to every single person, especially since we must not introduce an unscriptural potentiality to the atonement. It is perfect and accomplishes its goal.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! John 1:29</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Who is the world? If it is everyone, then no one can be condemned, for we have the clear statement that He takes away their sin. No sin, no punishment. Often, John uses “world” to point out that the Gospel is not for Jews only but for Jews and Gentiles. The “whole world” means quite often something like “the people, whether Jew or Gentile, in other words, without reference to where you come from”.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Paul puts it this way.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galations 3:28</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">It is likely that John is making reference to “the world” in order to say, “without reference to human distinctions.”</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I believe that this statement, like so many others, can be understood better by understanding the nature of the atonement. What is “propitiation”? The word means the sacrifice that turns away wrath. It is not the sacrifice that “potentially” turns away wrath. So, again, if “whole world” means every single individual, than God’s wrath is turned away from everyone. This we know is not the case. So, what does “world” mean if not every individual?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The context of the passage is the nature of the believer and how we know that we have or haven’t come to know Christ. The one who says he knows Jesus but does not follow him is a liar. (v. 4) The statement above comes between an affirmation that we have an advocate in Jesus and the statement that if we’ve come to know Him, we will keep His commandments. I believe, then that, since Jesus’ advocacy is tied to His sacrifice as we’ve seen, and that the passage is about coming to know Christ, that John is saying that Jesus is not just the propitiation for us (current believers), but also for all those who are going to come to know Christ, but haven’t yet. He is their advocate also.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">There are, of course, many more objections I could address, but this article is already too long. As can already be seen, the Doctrines of Grace are deeply interconnected. The Father’s election is in perfect harmony with the Son’s redemptive work. And as we will see next time, the perfect work of Christ, securing salvation for the elect, is applied by the Holy Spirit to the person, making him alive in Christ, to be kept by the same Spirit until the day of judgment.</span></p>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-20980468745070801562008-11-28T12:55:00.000-08:002008-11-28T13:01:51.235-08:00The Doctrines of Grace Part 3: Unconditional Election<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">In this article, I’ll be addressing what’s called Unconditional Election. This is the belief that God, from eternity past, has chosen some people for salvation, or that he has chosen to give those people mercy instead of justice. It is considered unconditional in that His choice is not dependent on any fact about the person himself. In other words, there is no difference between the elect and the non-elect in terms of their intelligence, spirituality, actions, heart, choices, beliefs, or any other thing that describes all of us.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">As Scripture puts it, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for all are one in Christ. (Galations 3:28) It is therefore, according to this doctrine, not a matter of looking into the future to see who will believe on their own and electing them. For one thing, sin has made them unable to do so. But also, election is according to God’s plan and purpose, not our actions, including belief.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Election is related to another biblical term, “predestination”. These are not the exact same thing. Predestination, roughly defined, is God’s decision beforehand that an event will occur. It relates to election in that, while the recipients of election are people, those people are predestined <i>for</i> some event. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">An analogy to illustrate this difference might be in order. Suppose I want to make an apple pie. I look at my apples and decide which ones to use. The act of deciding which apples I want is like election. It is the purposeful separating of some apples from others. My decision of what to do with them is like predestination. I’ve made that decision too, in this case, when I decided to make pie. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The elect, biblically speaking, is a group of people that God has chosen and he has predestined them to salvation, adoption, conformity to the image of Christ, and so forth.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>What Unconditional Election Is Not</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b></b></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So, as always, my goal is to cut out a lot of wasted argumentation by pointing out, up front, what I’m not saying in the paragraphs above.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">1. Election is not salvation. This is a distinction between biblical Calvinism and some forms of hyper-Calvinism. Some hyper-Calvinists believe in what’s called “eternal salvation”, which basically says that the elect person’s place as a friend of God and an adopted son is an eternal thing. Scripture is clear that all are by nature enemies of God, and while election ensures the eventual salvation of a person, it is really nothing more than a choice in the mind of God. It does nothing for the person in itself. Salvation comes during that person’s life.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">2. “Unconditional” does not mean “arbitrary”. Many claim that if election does not consider any facts about the person, then it can only be arbitrary. This is simply false. “Arbitrary” means without any reason or purpose. God does indeed have a reason for choosing whom He chooses. It is according to the purpose of His plan. We will go into this in more detail as we look at the Scriptures, but suffice it to say here that Calvinists certainly do not believe that God’s election is arbitrary. If someone believes that it must be, then that person must offer an argument for it. Merely making the above claim won’t do. It must be shown that, unless God chooses based on the person, then God’s choice is arbitrary.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">3. Election does not mean that faith is unnecessary. It is often argued that, if there really is such a group as the elect, then it doesn’t matter what we do, since believing won’t save the non-elect, and sin and rebellion cannot condemn the elect. The simple fact is that the teaching of Scripture is that the non-elect will always remain in their sin and rebellion, as we saw in the article on Total Depravity. Also, the elect, though they are by nature rebellious as well, will eventually come to faith. This event is what the fourth point, Irresistible Grace, describes. Every elect person will be saved by grace through faith, just as the Bible teaches.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">4. Similar to the last point, election does not mean that evangelism is unnecessary. We may go into it in more detail, but I’ll just say here that evangelism is necessary because (a) it is commanded by God to preach the Gospel to every creature, and (b) the preaching of the Gospel is God’s chosen means by which He saves sinners. We are to present the Gospel. It is God’s work to save the sinner.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Election is also just a part of God’s plan. It is a part of the sovereignty of God. When a Calvinist talks about the sovereignty of God, he speaks of God’s rule over every detail of His creation. Sovereignty is ruler-ship. If God is sovereign over everything, then He rules everything. For the Calvinist, this means that every detail of every event, whether good, evil, or otherwise, has been decreed by God and is a purposeful part of His perfect plan. The Arminian usually agrees that God rules everything, but quite often defines that rule as being more loose than the Calvinist’s. For the Arminian, everything that happens is under God’s control in that He could intervene at any time, and does sometimes, to change things.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">It is often claimed by Calvinists that Arminians do not believe in sovereignty. If they mean their own definition, then they’re right, but Arminians have a definition of sovereignty that is based on what that word means. A king does not need to actually determine every event in order to be in control of his kingdom. Even God’s rule does not necessitate determining every event, at least not logically.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The real question is this. What does the Bible teach about sovereignty? Does the Bible say that God determines every event? Does the Bible teach that God determines beforehand who will be saved? Calvinists put these things under the term “sovereignty”, but I see no problem saying that both Calvinists and Arminians believe God is sovereign. I just believe that the Calvinistic understanding of how sovereignty actually plays out is more biblical. Let’s look at some examples from Scripture.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>Remember the former things of old;<br />for I am God, and there is no other;<br /> I am God, and there is none like me,<br />declaring the end from the beginning<br /> and from ancient times things not yet done,<br />saying, 'My counsel shall stand,<br /> and I will accomplish all my purpose,'<br />calling a bird of prey from the east,<br /> the man of my counsel from a far country.<br />I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;<br /> I have purposed, and I will do it. Isaiah 46:9-11</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will. Ephesians 1:11</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">From these two passages, and many others, we see that all things from the beginning to the end happen according to the plan and purpose of God. And we also see that He is active in fulfilling that plan. He does not merely know what will happen. He has “declared” it. He “works all things”. He has “spoken” and “will bring it to pass”.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Here in Ephesians 1, we also see that this applies to the salvation of the elect. Paul begins talking about it before verse 11, though.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i> In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. Ephesians 1:3-14</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Now, this passage really does speak clearly, so not much needs to be said, except to point out some important aspects of it. Notice that, right away, we see again the distinction between choosing and predestining. He chose us before the foundation of the world, and he predestined us for adoption as sons. Notice also that in this whole passage, it is God who is the one in action. Almost every verb is something God is doing. The ones that do describe what we do are mostly passive: “have redemption”, “have obtained”, “having been predestined”, “were sealed”, “acquire”.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The only active verb on our part is “believed”. Some may say, “Ah ha! You see? We must believe.” I, of course do not disagree. We must believe. Here is the question. All of these actions of God that came before, does He do all of that for people who don’t ever believe? I cannot see why we should say so, and several reasons come to mind. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">First, the richness of the language, saying that He has “blessed us...with every spiritual blessing”, and “the riches of his grace, which he lavished on us”, does not seem to speak of those who are being condemned by their unbelief. Second, whenever Paul says “us” and “you”, he is speaking of Christians, which we see in that very statement, “you also, when you heard...and believed in Him...”</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Another thing I notice about this passage is that Paul gives us the basis upon which the elect are chosen. Is it foreseen faith? No, it is His “purpose”, “will”. the “riches of His grace”, and “to the praise of His glory”. All facts about God, not us. In fact, the only time faith is mentioned, it does not say all of this is ours “if” we believe. He says that we were sealed with the Spirit “when” we believed.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">God’s reasons for choosing to bless some people with salvation are all found in Him and His plans and purposes. Does all this mean that faith is unnecessary? Of course not. It is mentioned above, and this chapter is followed by the chapter that contains the famous passage affirming our salvation by “grace through faith”. What is clear here is that election is not on the basis of faith.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Two other major passages should be examined on this subject, Romans 8 and Romans 9.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. Romans 8:28-30</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">There are many things to speak about in this passage, but let me point out just a few. The first statement identifies the people who love God with the people called according to His purpose. Obviously, not everyone loves God, so likewise, not everyone is called in the sense that verse 28 says.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Notice also that, from “foreknew” to “glorified”, every verb is one performed by God. Each one is also performed to all of those under the preceding verb. “Those he foreknew, he predestined...those he predestined, he called...justified...glorified.” So if someone is found in the first group, then he is found in the last group.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Of course, some will say of this passage that it shows that God looks into the future and decides to predestine those that foreknows will believe. There are several problems with this. First, there is nothing at all about foreseen faith in the passage. It is inserted in order to maintain the theological system of Arminianism. Second, the objects of God’s foreknowing are not facts (whether people believe; who will believe), but people (the believers themselves). Remember the group that is the object of every verb in the passage? If people are predestined, justified, and glorified, then it is people who are foreknown.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">There is a difference between knowing facts and knowing people, we understand that difference whenever we talk about “really knowing” someone. Some languages, such as Spanish, even use different words when speaking of knowing facts versus knowing people. It is that sense in which God knows beforehand those that he glorifies.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Romans 9 could fill a book, it is so rich with teaching, so I will try to be brief. Let’s look at some sections that apply to this particular issue. First of all, we know that Paul is talking about individual salvation because of how he begins.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>...that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. Romans 9:2-3</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Paul is deeply hurt that his own people, the Jews, have, for the most part, rejected their Messiah. He argues that the God’s promises to Israel have not failed, though (v. 6). This is because belonging to Abraham’s bloodline is not what determines who will be saved. Rather, the true Israel are those, chosen by God “according to promise.”</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Romans 9:10-12</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">This statement may be the most clear, self-conscious expression of unconditional election in the Bible. Election happened when Jacob and Esau had done “nothing good or bad”. Why then? To preserve God’s purpose of election “not because of works but because of him who calls” It is not because of us, but because of Him who calls.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. Romans 9:15-16</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Does it depend on our free will? Literally, verse 16 reads, “Therefore it does not depend on the willing man or the running man, but on the mercying God.” It does not depend on the willing man. It depends on God showing mercy. Salvation depends on whether or not God “mercies” a person. Again, this is not a denial that faith is necessary. It is a denial that salvation ultimately depends on it. Faith, as we are seeing and will continue to see in subsequent articles, depends on election, not the reverse, as those who reject the Doctrines of Grace believe.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? Romans 9:19-21</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">This is a very important passage, because Paul is answering the primary objection to the Doctrines of Grace. If God has determined everything, how can He “find fault”? How can He hold us morally responsible? What is Paul’s answer? Who are you to challenge God? He is our Maker. He is the Potter. He has the right both to determine our destiny and to hold us responsible for our actions. The Scriptures are clear about both. As we seek to understand His ways, we must not deny the Scriptures in order to more easily embrace our favorite side of this coin.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">For many Arminians, God’s election and predestination are denied in favor of moral responsibility. For hyper-Calvinists, responsibility goes by the wayside to preserve election. To be faithful to the words of Paul, and to avoid making the same objection he answers, we must embrace both, for they are both Scriptural.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— Romans 9:22-23</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">And here we find, phrased in the form of a question, the same thing we’ve seen before. We see God deciding the destinies of His creations, and His reasons are given. They sound just like what we saw in Ephesians 1: “to make known the riches of his glory”; to “make known his power”.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">All of this is to point out that the true recipients of God’s promises to save are not just ethic Israel, but all of God’s elect, whom He has called from both Jews and Gentiles.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea,<br /><br /> "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'<br /> and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"<br /> "And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,'<br /> there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'" Romans 9:24-26</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">And just a couple of other snippets that also support Unconditional Election.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. John 15:16</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Is Jesus saying that it doesn’t matter if we choose Him? Of course not. He is just pointing out that their position as “friends” (v. 13) is not based ultimately on their choice but on His.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The believing is based on being appointed to eternal life. It does not say, “as many as believed were appointed to eternal life”. Election determines whether we will believe, not the other way around.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians 5:9</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">God has destined us for salvation. Notice Paul’s use of “us” here, which refers only to God’s people. God has not destined everyone to salvation. Just those He will actually save.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>Some Objections</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b></b></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The primary objection to the doctrine of election is that it makes us “puppets” or that we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions if God determines everything. As I pointed out before, this objection is not foreign to the Scriptures. Paul answers it in Romans 9, saying rather pointedly that it is not our place to judge the actions of God. For him, the truth of God supersedes all of our philosophical concerns. God’s truth shows our reasoning to be in error when our reasoning leads to conclusions that contradict it. Notice that Paul assumes this, and condemns the objection without even answering the question on the basis that the question leads to the conclusion that election is false.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Does this mean that there is no answer? I believe there is, but it will not satisfy those who continue to place the conclusions of their own reason above Scripture. There is indeed a tension between the fact that God rules over every detail of creation and the fact that we are held morally responsible for our actions. Probably the best explanation of an answer to this tension is found in Jonathan Edwards’ work <i>The Freedom of the Will</i>.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Edwards does not deny that there is free will, but he seeks to define it as Scripture defines it, not as Arminians often define it. I will try to capture the essence of the argument. Basically, seeing that Scripture holds us morally accountable for our actions, those actions must be engaged in willfully. We can only be held accountable for what we’ve chosen to do if it was our choice. However, we cannot deny the Scriptural teaching that God determines everything.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So, how is it that we are held accountable? For the Arminian, it is the belief that our moral actions are not determined, which denies the Scriptures we’ve addressed. For the Calvinist, it is that we engaged in those actions according to our own desires. It is our motives in doing what we do that makes our actions “free”. In other words, we do not want one thing but do another simply because God determines it. The fact that we act according to our own desires that makes us free. Not only is this compatible with the fact that God determines everything, but it is also taught in Scripture.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>But Joseph said to them, "Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. Genesis 50:19-20</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Joseph’s brothers “meant” their action of selling Joseph into slavery for evil, but God “meant” that same action for good. Notice that it does not say that God turned it into good, or that he made it good, as if God’s actions were after the fact. It says that God had a good purpose and motivation for selling Joseph into slavery, while Joseph’s brothers had an evil purpose and motivation. The event was just as willful on God’s part as on the brothers’ part.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger;</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i> the staff in their hands is my fury!</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>Against a godless nation I send him,</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i> and against the people of my wrath I command him,</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>to take spoil and seize plunder,</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i> and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>But he does not so intend,</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i> and his heart does not so think;</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>but it is in his heart to destroy,</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i> and to cut off nations not a few...</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he will punish the speech of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the boastful look in his eyes. For he says:<br /><br /> "By the strength of my hand I have done it,<br /> and by my wisdom, for I have understanding...</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it,<br /> or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it?<br />As if a rod should wield him who lifts it,<br /> or as if a staff should lift him who is not wood! Isaiah 10:5-7,12-13,15</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The king of Assyria is like an axe or a saw. He is sent against Israel and there is no indication he has any ability to do otherwise. Why is he then judged? Because judgment against Israel is not what he “intends”. The intentions of the king of Assyria condemn Him.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Finally, there is the crucifixion of Jesus Himself.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. Acts 4:27-28</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Was the execution of the sinless, innocent Son of God a sinful act? Of course. But this event happened exactly according to God’s “hand” and “plan”. Were they able to do otherwise? Not unless they can thwart the plan of God. They were held responsible, not because of their ability to do otherwise, but because they “freely” chose to do what they wanted to do.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">One response to this is to question how we can be held responsible if God determines everything, including our desires in the first place. To that, all the Scriptures say is what Paul says in Romans 9 and some of what is said above in Isaiah 10. God is the potter, the axe-wielder. He has made us and has the right to do with us as He pleases, just as a potter has rights over the clay. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">This doesn’t really answer just how we are responsible. God has not given us a detailed explanation. He has said that our moral responsibility lies in our motives. We know that He steers those, too. If we object, His answer is clear: He is the Potter. We have no right to object to how He runs His world. So, despite our ignorance of the details, if we press the objection, we must deny something that Scripture teaches, either that moral responsibility is found in our motives, or that God has the right to do what He pleases with His created things.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">There are some other objections that mainly have to do with a few verses that non-Calvinists quote, usually without much exposition, that supposedly refute the in-depth, clear passages quoted above. Let’s look at some of these:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">This verse is not usually interpreted much, except to quote it, emphasizing “the world!” and “whosoever!”. But does it really deny election? As for the word “world”, there is nothing in the verse or anywhere that says that we must understand it to mean every single individual person. John uses it several different ways, sometimes to mean this sinful system, sometimes, as I believe it is here, to refer to Jews and Gentiles inclusive. God did not just love the Jews, but loved Jews and Gentiles.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Whatever we say “world” means here, what is important is the next statement. For all of the emphasis on “whosoever”, it is not actually in the Greek. It is added to make it read more like the way we speak in English. A rigid, literal translation of this phrase would be, “that the believing ones in Him should not perish...” On examination, this doesn’t change the meaning, but it shows something very important.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Why did God give His Son? So that all the believers should have eternal life. Not so that the “world” should have eternal life. This passage limits the intention of God’s saving work to a group of people out of the world, the believers. Nothing in the verse says that everyone can believe.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:1-4</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Basically, there are two Reformed interpretations of this that I believe are just as plausible as the Arminian one. I can’t say for sure which one is true, but I lean toward the second. The first is that God’s “desire” here refers to His “will of command”, or “prescriptive will”. This refers to God’s will as expressed in His commands, “do not steal”, “do not commit adultery”, etc. This will of God is obviously not always fulfilled. So we could perhaps infer that God “desires” that we follow His commandments, and so His desire that all people be saved is like that, it doesn’t contradict the fact that His “declarative” will, expressed in statements like “let there be light”, and “I send you against a rebellious people”, does not seek to save all people.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The second interpretation is that God is not speaking of all individual people, but all kinds or categories of people. He prefaces this statement by speaking of kinds of people when He talks about kings and people in authority. It is the same as what He actually accomplishes when we see in heaven people from “every tongue, tribe, people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9). So, on this interpretation, God achieves what He desires. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, ruler nor ruled. Human distinctions and characteristics do not play into who God determines to save. This is just what unconditional election teaches. For this reason, we should pray for everyone and not discriminate, because all of our reasons for doing so are human reasons, not God’s reasons.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 2 Peter 3:9</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Some Calvinists argue that every time Scripture says “all” it means the elect. As we saw with 1 Timothy, not all Calvinists argue this way. With this passage, however, I believe that “all” should mean all of the elect. I think so for two reasons. First, it makes perfect sense in context. Jesus is waiting to return until all of the elect reach repentance. If the Arminian understanding, that this “all” means every person, then when will God stop waiting? If the Arminian says, “until all that God knows will believe actually believe”, then his position turns out to be no different than the Calvinist’s on this verse, except that, for the Arminian, God does not get what He wishes. For the Calvinist, none (of the elect) perish, so God’s plan works out just as He wishes for it to.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The second reason supporting the Calvinist position is that Peter says that God is patient toward “you”. Like Paul, Peter uses “us” and “you” to refer to God’s elect. He doesn’t say that God is patient toward “them”, the unbelievers. God is patiently waiting for all of “you, the elect” to reach repentance.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Obviously, there are more objections to deal with, but space prohibits. Suffice it to say that the clarity of Scripture in affirming the sovereign election of God is plain to see. The strongest objections would have to deal with the passages I’ve raised and many others, in context, without basing the objection on some unscriptural definitions of terms or other concerns.</span></p>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-34688150454098611872008-11-16T10:17:00.000-08:002008-11-16T10:28:32.647-08:00The Doctrines of Grace Part 2: Total Depravity (Inability)<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"></p><div style="text-indent: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">In this second article, I will address the first of the five points of Reformed theology. As this is a blog article, and not an exhaustive multi-volume work, I’ll have to keep it a bit brief, of course.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">And so, briefly, the doctrine of total depravity is this: Due to the fact that sin has corrupted and enslaved the entire nature of man, no one is able to do anything pleasing to God, including obedience and belief.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">This is, just like the rest of the Doctrines of Grace, something that is believed because it is revealed in Scripture. As such, I believe it can only be rejected by rejecting or reinterpreting the Scriptures which so plainly teach it. As I said in the last post, Calvinists are Calvinists because of Scripture, not other philosophical argument. While there are indeed questions to address, they must be addressed in light of Scripture.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; "></span></span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; ">What Total Depravity Is Not<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; "></span></span></span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><br /></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; ">Right away, before we explore the Scriptures on this issue, it should be pointed out, as we will do each time, what this doctrine is <i>not</i>.</span></span></span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><br /></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">1. It is not that man’s nature is corrupted such that he is as bad as he could be. The term “total” in this expression is properly understood to refer to the extent or scope of the corruption, not the severity. In other words, it is not that man is evil to the greatest possible degree, but that all of him is evil. An analogy (and I usually shy away from these) would be adding sugar to water. Add a spoonful to a glass of water, and all of the water is sweet. It is not as sweet as it could be, though, if you were to add more sugar. In a similar way, sin has corrupted and enslaved man’s total nature, but the degree to which a person’s actions exemplify evil varies from person to person.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">2. Similarly, it is not that everything man does is evil in the sense that it falls under a category of sinful acts, such as murder or theft. Rather, it is that everything man does in his natural state is evil because his heart is evil in the act. Even altruism is sinful when done by natural man because of his own sinful motives for it, such as, possibly, elevation of himself as opposed to God in the action. Of course, different situations of different people have diverse ways in which the sinful heart of man is expressed. Keep in mind that because of this, the action itself may be good, such as helping someone in need, but there is always corruption of the heart on some level in it.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">3. It is not that the image of God has been displaced. Scripture is clear that man’s dignity as an image-bearer of God remains for all men, regardless of how sinful that man is.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">4. Also, and perhaps because of the previous point, it is not that man does not have within him the desire to be good or even to seek the truth and find God. That is in his created nature. The doctrine here simply says that, in his natural state, the corrupted sinful nature has enslaved man’s mind and heart and will, so that nothing he does is without a sinful element, and thus everything he does displeases God. When it is pointed out that many unbelievers do many good things, perhaps even better things than a lot of Christians, the definition of “good” must be correctly understood. The concepts of good and evil being employed in Scripture on this issue are those that apply to man from a perfect, holy God. As we will see in the Scriptures, what we think of as a “good person” often falls pitifully short of the goodness of God and of what He is willing to call good in us.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">5. God did not create man with this sinful nature. In the Garden of Eden, everything God created was good, and man especially so. Total depravity is a teaching about our nature <i>now</i>, not as God created us. Ours is a nature that was perfectly morally good in God’s sight, but has been corrupted by sin.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Having said these things, let’s look at what Total Depravity is, and then answer some of the objections to it, perhaps better explaining why it isn’t those things listed above. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So what does the Scripture say about man’s state today?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. Romans 5:12-14</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>The wicked are estranged from the womb;<br /> they go astray from birth, speaking lies. Psalm 58:3</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>We have all become like one who is unclean,<br /> and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.<br />We all fade like a leaf,<br /> and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.<br />There is no one who calls upon your name,<br /> who rouses himself to take hold of you;<br />for you have hidden your face from us,<br /> and have made us melt in the hand of our iniquities. Isaiah 64:6-7</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So far, we can see that, because of Adam’s sin, we are all sinful, and that from the womb. This much is agreed to by most Christians. I do know of some that take a later verse in Romans 5, about “all men” receiving condemnation and “all men” receiving the “justification of life” (Romans 5:18) to mean that the sinful nature has been removed from the same group as received the condemnation. While the language of the verse, taken by itself, does seem to allow this interpretation of the phrase “all men”, the traditional interpretation, not just by Calvinists, but by many non-Calvinists, is that each occurrence of “all men” refers to either all men “in Adam” or “in Christ”. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I think that this is correct for two reasons. First, it follows the entire passage’s contrast between Adam and Christ better. In this sense, it goes with the next sentence better as well: <i>“For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:19)</i> I’ve never heard that “the many” here must refer to the same group. If it did, then everyone “will be made righteous”. Now, unless you’re a universalist, believing everyone will be saved and no one will be condemned, this can’t be true.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">This leads to my second reason, which is that “justification of life” is not a phrase or term that the Apostle Paul uses loosely. When he refers to someone as having been justified, he’s talking, as the following verse illustrates, about being made righteous. It’s about being saved, not just having the sin of Adam temporarily removed in infancy.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">In looking at the Isaiah passage, we see that God considers even our “righteous deeds” to be like a “polluted garment”. That last phrase is actually a bit sanitized in our reading of it. What Isaiah is referring to there is what we would call used toilet paper. Another translation renders it “filthy rags”. Rags were used the way we use toilet paper today, and what Isaiah is pointing out is that even the “good” things we do are like used toilet paper. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Now, it’s one thing to say that if I offer my good deeds to God it is useless. Isaiah is saying that my good deeds are worse than that. They are offensive. Sin has polluted everything, so that nothing we do is anything less than an offense to God.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Worse than this, sin has also corrupted our abilities in other ways.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." John 6:65</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>“...but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” John 10:26-27</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Romans 8:7-8</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So, from Jesus and Paul we know that, because of our sin, we cannot come to Jesus in faith, which is something that anyone would agree is pleasing to God. One particular reason Scripture gives for this inability is that we cannot, in our fallen state, even understand the truth.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 1 Corinthians 2:14-15</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools... Romans 1:21-22</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So, without the Spirit of God, we cannot understand the truth of God in order to turn to Him and be saved. We are futile in our thinking. Other ways that Scripture expresses this inability are in calling us “slaves to sin” (John 8:34) and “dead in sin” (Ephesians 2:1, Colossians 2:13)</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Because of all of this, at the climax of Paul’s treatment of the sinful state of man in Romans 3, he says the following:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>as it is written:</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i> "None is righteous, no, not one;</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i> no one understands;</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i> no one seeks for God.</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i> no one does good,</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i> not even one." Romans 3:10-12</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">No one seeks for God, and no one does good. No one can come to Jesus unless drawn by His Father. No one understands unless he has the Spirit. John Wesley was not a Calvinist, but he understood what these passages meant. He knew that without the work of God in our hearts, they would remain “deceitful above all things” (Jeremiah 17:9). In fact, as I pointed out in part 1, even the first Arminians believed in Total Depravity. Because Wesley did not believe in the rest of the Doctrines of Grace, however, he argued for a concept he called “prevenient grace”. This was something that God gives to every man to counteract the moral crippling effects of sin, so that everyone would have free will and be able to accept or reject the Gospel from a morally neutral heart. It is a kind of grace that does not save, but that makes man able to believe and be saved.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The problem with this concept is that it is nowhere found in Scripture. Reformed folks often refer to “common grace”, which is universal, but only refers to the common blessings in this life that are given to all men, regardless of their standing before God. Jesus referred to it when he said that the rain falls on the righteous as well as the wicked. (Matthew 5:45) This is not the same belief, however, since these blessings do not undo the damage done by sin.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Aside from the absence of supporting Scripture for Wesley’s view, there are other good reasons to reject prevenient grace. First, all of the “sinful man” passages above would not really refer to anyone, since everyone would be rescued from sin’s effects on the heart and mind. Jesus statements about inability in John 6 were meant to explain why the people didn’t believe in him. If they had prevenient grace, His statements don’t make much sense.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Also, every time, so far as I can see, that the rescue from sin’s effects does occur, it happens alongside the actual salvation of a person. The contrast above in 1 Corinthians between the natural and spiritual person alludes to it when it says that the spiritual person is “judged by no one”. A spiritual person is one who has the Holy Spirit within him. He is given mercy, not judgment. No third “in-between” category is ever mentioned.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">From all of this, it can be seen that the will of man is not actually “free”, with regard to being morally pleasing to God. That which is enslaved is not free. Some Calvinists, however, would still refer to a kind of freedom that everyone has. We are all free to act within our own nature. I am no bird, so I cannot fly. It’s not in my nature. God is morally perfect, so He cannot sin. It’s not in His nature. The unsaved person is corrupted by sin, so he cannot believe. It’s not in his nature.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>Some Objections</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So, let’s look at some objections to this doctrine. First, it has been said that children are held up in Scripture as morally pure. We are commanded to become like a child and have “childlike faith”. Even Romans 9, a very clear chapter on other areas of Reformed doctrine, speaks of Jacob and Esau in the womb, “before they had done anything good or bad”.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So, are we sinful from the womb or not? Psalm 58:3 says we are. Romans 5 points out that people still died when there was no law, proving that they were guilty of something. I think these passages do teach that we are sinful from the beginning of life. So what does Jesus mean when he talks so highly of children?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I think that Jesus is not talking about sin or sin nature in those passages. He’s drawing a comparison between the faith of most adults and the faith of children. This isn’t faith in God per se, just the way in which children believe things. There is possibly a connection between that concept and the corruption of sin, but faith is a different subject.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I would submit that Jesus’ command to have faith like a child’s comes from the fact that children are the closest example we have to a morally pure person. They are not aware of all the laws that God has given, and so are not nearly as sinful (see Romans 5:13, Romans 7:7-12). As they grow, their sin nature is given the opportunity to break more and more of God’s law.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So, doesn’t this mean that infants go to hell? It is a common statement by non-Calvinists that we believe that because infants are sinful and cannot believe, they are sent to hell when they die. Scripture is silent on this question. The fact that they die at all should prove that they are not morally perfect, since “death came through sin”, but the question of their eternal destiny is still unanswered. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The Westminster Confession of Faith gives what I think is the best we can do with regard to what the Scripture actually says. It states that “all elect infants” will go to heaven. It implies nothing at all about how many there are. It does not say that all infants who die are either saved or unsaved. Perhaps God has elected to save each and every one. Perhaps not. I prefer to believe that He does save them, but unfortunately, Scripture just doesn’t say one way or the other. So, if any or all of the infants and children who die are elect, then just that many will be saved.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Another objection is that, if we really are unable to come to Jesus, and able only to sin, how can God judge us, since we are only doing what we can do? This question raises some issues that we will look at more deeply as we look at other areas of the Doctrines of Grace. For now, however, I will say two things.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">First, remember what I said earlier about philosophical concerns being subservient to Scripture. Unless some other interpretation can be offered that’s better than the rather simple one I’ve offered above, the doctrine stands on the plain meaning of the Scriptures. If a person rejects the doctrine of Total Depravity because of this philosophical concern, then that person must also reject those Scriptures.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Secondly, this is still a real concern, so here’s a bit of how I believe it to be resolved. As Romans 5 teaches, Adam’s sin brought death to all. Adam really was in a neutral state with regard to his nature. He didn’t have the corruption and death of sin until after he sinned. I believe, that, just as Jesus stands, with His righteousness, as our representative, taking our sin and giving us His righteousness, so Adam was our representative, taking our neutrality and giving all of his descendants his sin. If Jesus work is allowable by God, then so is Adam’s.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">If the objector still thinks God’s judgment of us for our sin is unjust, then I have little more to say. The Scripture teaches that God is a just Judge and that we are rightfully found guilty. It also teaches Total Depravity. So, either I’m wrong in my interpretation of Scripture, or the Scriptures are wrong. A non-Christian could argue against the Scriptures, and our debate would shift to a different topic. A Christian, however, or anyone at all who thinks the doctrine unbiblical, must address the passages above and many more in order to reject this Doctrine.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So, I hope this has been educational and not too difficult to understand. Let me know if you have any questions.</span></p><p></p></span></div><p></p>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-67073725387415836302008-11-08T11:18:00.000-08:002008-11-08T11:29:30.006-08:00The Doctrines of Grace Part 1: An Introduction<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Today, I’m starting a series on the Doctrines of Grace, also known as Reformed Soteriology/Theology or Calvinism. It’s probably silly to think that I could add to the truly enormous volume of, well, volumes written on this subject. It also may seem a bit trite, that the Calvinist blogger writes the obligatory posts on the Doctrines of Grace. Perhaps it’s a rite of passage. Perhaps a necessary step to show those other Reformed folk out there that I know what I mean when I talk about this subject. For whatever reason, I’m writing this series anyway.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I hope to offer something useful and unique, however, so that these posts aren’t just more of the same for like-minded believers. Also, I hope that they’ll be accessible to everyone else, from the person who’s never really investigated these areas of Scripture and theology to the highly educated critic of my beliefs. I’m not looking for a food-fight, so if you disagree, please be respectful in your comments. I welcome debate, but I pray it is in the spirit of bringing everyone closer to the truth, not just bolstering our own position. I am convinced, but that doesn’t mean I have nothing to learn. I hope that any debates that arise from this series would be conducted with that mindset on all sides. Of course, I also welcome questions not intended to start debates, but to clarify issues non-confrontationally.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">First let me lay out the series as I see it unfolding. After this post, I expect, of course, to address the “five points”, each with its own post. I will try to address each point with a minimum of jargon. However, I will mention the terms that are commonly used, and define them, so that if you’re reading someone else on the subject, you hopefully won’t be in the dark about what they’re talking about. In each post, I will offer some things that the belief in question is <i>not</i>, since there is a lot of misinformation out there about just what Calvinists believe.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So, let’s get started. Whether it’s called the Doctrines of Grace, Calvinism, or Reformed Theology, it’s all the same thing. Briefly, Calvinism is the belief in a collection of biblical teachings, or doctrines, including:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"> </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">1. the inability of man to do what pleases God, including belief, due to his own rebellious, corrupted nature;</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">2. the choice of God to rescue some of His hardened enemies based on nothing within that people, but only according to His own purpose and plan;</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">3. the successful, intentional work of Christ on the cross as an actual substitute, punished for the sins of that people;</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">4. the action of the Holy Spirit in bringing about spiritual resurrection at some point in the life of each of those people, thus saving them and restoring their relationship with God;</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">5. and the continual work of God in the lives of His people, based on the previous work done by Christ, to keep them from being lost again and to insure their place in His kingdom.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">While these five points are the traditional outline of Calvinism, they are by no means exhaustive. There is a lot of debate about other issues, such as the sovereignty of God, which is defined differently by different sides of the issues, but basically means God’s rulership over His creation. Also, there are questions concerning God’s love and goodness.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>History of the Doctrines of Grace</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b></b></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">It is the firm position of Reformed believers that the beliefs in question are thoroughly biblical. Historically speaking, then, the basics of the Doctrines of Grace can be traced back to the Apostles, Jesus, and much even to the Old Testament prophets. However, the development of these beliefs into a more organized form, as outlined above, took some time. Therefore, most of the earliest Christians probably didn’t consciously hold to this system of doctrines. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The early Church Fathers can be cited in contradiction of many of these points. This shouldn’t be considered to be any sort of detriment to the truth of the Doctrines of Grace, any more than the fact that the early Church Fathers did not explain the fully developed Trinity should detract from its truth. The fact is, that the earliest Christians often had more pressing matters to discuss in their writings, such as what to do with those Christians who give in during persecution. Also, they often disagreed with one another. Any time you hear someone say, “The early Church Fathers taught that...”, chances are good that that person is oversimplifying the issue.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The most prominent early Christian to hold to much of the basics of these teachings is Augustine. He clearly taught that man is unable, because of his own sin, to come in faith to Christ, and that he must be changed, or born again, before this can happen. He was writing these things in response to a man named Pelagius, who believed that, because God had given man free will, man could, by the exercise of that will, be morally good enough to merit heaven. Augustine’s views on this issue were upheld at the time and Pelagius was condemned as a heretic, or false teacher, but Augustine’s position was not widely held in later centuries during the height of the Roman Catholic church, because they contradicted Rome’s view that grace comes to people through the sacraments of the church.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The biblical nature of Reformed Theology is alluded to, also, by the fact that it was the Reformation that brought it out into a more prominent place among Christians. The push by the Reformers to have the Bible itself read among the people is what directly caused the Doctrines of Grace, still not in any organized form, to be taught widely. Martin Luther’s book, <i>The Bondage of the Will</i>, is a treatment of the inability of man to exercise faith without the freeing work of the Holy Spirit. </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">It was the second-generation Reformer, John Calvin, who most thoroughly organized Protestant thought on these issues, however. It is for this reason that they are commonly called, “Calvinism”. Calvin was not making up something new for the people he was teaching to believe. They already believed it. He just put it in a more systematic way.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">It was later still, that a man named Jacobus Arminius began to teach that free will is necessary for a just system of belief, and so began to teach against the Protestant view. Later, some of his followers put together a propositional paper that was brought before the council of Dort, which had within it five “points” that they believed should be taught in the churches. These points were: </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">1. Conditional election, that God’s choice to save some is based on his knowledge that they will believe;</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">2. Unlimited Atonement, that the atonement of Christ makes salvation possible for every person, without making it actual for anyone;</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">3. Depravity, that man’s sin renders him unable to even believe, but that God has graciously made everyone able to believe.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">4. Resistible Grace, that God’s grace is what makes belief and salvation possible, but that man’s free will in cooperation with grace make salvation actual</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">5. Assurance. The first Arminians believed that nothing outside of the man could remove his salvation from him, but, at the time of the paper, were undecided as to whether the man himself could remove himself from salvation. They said that the issue, “must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind.” So they had doubts about the security of the believer, but were not convinced either way at the time.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">This paper led to the convening of the Synod of Dort, in which the issues were debated. It was decided at the time by that council that the paper put forth by the Arminians was to be rejected, and so the council put together a set of beliefs clearly contradicting each point, which later became known as the five points of Calvinism.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">But, since Protestantism is not, by nature, centralized in power structure, Arminianism simply took root wherever it could and so evangelical Christianity today has both Calvinists and Arminians in it.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>What Calvinism is Not</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">These issues are not uncontroversial. People on both sides often malign and mistreat their opponents and even question their salvation. In an effort to sidestep much of the mud that is thrown, I want to set out some of the things that Calvinism is not, so that we can move forward in clarity, discussing the issues as they are without getting sidetracked by what often amounts to mere name-calling.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">1. Calvinism is not following Calvin instead of Christ. It is a charge I hear from time to time that the main thing wrong with Calvinism is that we’re following a man instead of the word of God. I hope I’ve made clear that the mere fact that it’s commonly called “Calvinism” does not mean that it’s some sort of cult of personality that puts one man above or even on par with the Scriptures. I’m not ashamed to be known as a Calvinist, just as I’m not ashamed to be known to agree with the writings of any other Christian teacher. Or to be known as a Baptist, or Protestant. It does not mean that I, or any Calvinist, thinks that Calvin’s teachings are of equal authority to Scripture. On the contrary, it is their agreement with Scripture that makes them trustworthy.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">2. Calvinism is not the blanket endorsement of all that Calvin said or wrote or did. I believe that baptism is a sign of having already been made new in Christ and saved through faith. This flatly contradicts Calvin. “Calvinism” is a term that is almost always used to describe only those beliefs outlined above, which are consistent with, but not even limited to, Calvin himself. Often, Calvin’s life and actions are attacked by opponents of Calvinism, as if this has any bearing on whether the teachings that did not originate with him but happen to bear his name are true. This is a waste of time. Calvinism is a set of beliefs derived from Scripture, and so must be argued with on a Scriptural basis.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">3. Calvinism is not fatalism. Fatalism is the belief that, since every event is predetermined, human action does not matter. We will get into these issues in more detail later, but for now, suffice it to say that Calvinism, while affirming that God has decided and determined every minute event, also affirms that human decision is of utmost importance concerning the judgment of sinners and the salvation of believers. We are responsible for our actions because we engage in them according to our own desires.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">4. Calvinism is not the rejection of human responsibility. As seen above, Calvinists affirm that we are responsible for what we do. Calvinism does not reject that man has a will and acts according to it. The view of free will held by many non-Calvinists is that the outcome of our choices is not determined at all. That, when faced with a choice, both paths of history are open, and that our choice will determine which path occurs. Calvinism rejects this, affirming that only the one path that God has determined will occur. However, it also affirms that our will is free insofar as our choices are determined by our own desires. We make our own choices, and so we are held responsible for them.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">5. Calvinism is not the rejection of the love or goodness of God. The differences here are differences of just how these concepts are understood. Calvinists vary to some degree on how they express their beliefs on this issue, but in general, God’s love is understood to not be limited to just one kind. Just as we are free, and expected, to love different people differently, such as wives and husbands versus kids and acquaintances, so God is free to love different people differently. It is thought by some that merely quoting that “God is love” is enough to disprove Calvinism. Obviously it is not.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">6. Calvinism does not reject or necessarily lead to the rejection of evangelism. God has commanded us to preach the Gospel. He has chosen this as the method by which He will add to the Kingdom of God. This is not mutually exclusive with the belief that God effectively calls the sinner and successfully brings each of His own to spiritual life. Calvinism affirms belief in causes other than the acts of God. So the preaching of the Gospel is to be taught and believed by all Christians. In point of fact, Calvinists who understand this issue well point out that, for the Reformed Christian, evangelism is an activity that succeeds every time. It is an act of obedience on the part of the evangelist that always saves those whom God is drawing to Himself.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px">7. Finally, Calvinism is not hyper-Calvinism. Often, uneducated people call traditional 5-point Calvinists “hyper-Calvinists”. The term “hyper-Calvinist” was actually created by Calvinists to describe people who draw invalid and unscriptural conclusions based on the beliefs in Calvinism. Many of those beliefs are rejected in the previous points, such as a belief in fatalism and a rejection of human responsibility and evangelism. Many non-Calvinists make the mistake of hearing the term “hyper” and think that it refers to thoroughgoing 5-point Calvinism. It does not, and when people use the term this way, they display their ignorance of these issues. In some cases it is used merely as a pejorative to call Reformed people names. It is not constructive to a pursuit of the truth.</p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px">I could list more things, of course, but these are some of the most common critiques of Reformed Theology that I’ve heard that are based on a misunderstanding of what it is.<br /><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I hope that, as we study these issues, you begin to see just how, well, large this picture of God is. One reason I find this study so important is that much of the attacks leveled against the Christian faith cannot be adequately answered without a God as wise, sovereign and powerful as this.</span></p>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-4615411913207558272008-10-19T09:45:00.000-07:002008-10-19T19:21:55.189-07:00Response to John Loftus on the Problem of Evil Part 7 of 7: Concluding Remarks<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>Conclusion and a Challenge</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b></b></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">At this point, having addressed Loftus’ various arguments on the problem of evil, I want to finish these articles with a more pointed examination of Loftus’ position, going beyond a response to his arguments and challenging his position on the issues of morality, suffering, and the appropriateness of the problem of evil as a weapon in the atheist arsenal. In some ways this will be repetitive, because I will ask some of the same questions. But my purpose here is to dig deeper, beyond the three questions and whether they’ve been answered. I want to look at Loftus’ own moral judgments and put to rest the nagging questions that the reader may have about how Loftus would answer the three questions, if he were to actually, candidly answer them. Finally, I will put the atheistic formulation of the problem of evil into the clearest, plainest language I know, and ask that Loftus, (or any other atheist who thinks that the problem of evil is a good argument against the existence of God) answer where he stands, without dodging or sending me to yet another article he’s written (I do hope that he’s presented his best case in his book).</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>The Three Questions</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b></b></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Does John Loftus believe in objective morality? He’s never answered the question directly. When asked, he’s misunderstood the question to merely be a Christian defense mechanism against the problem of evil. He has skirted the issue, merely pointing out the impropriety of such a defense, should it stand alone. He has not seen that it is a question related to the Moral Argument, a positive argument for God’s existence that Loftus did not address in his book, and to my knowledge, has not dealt with. He has, instead, skirted that issue and said that the Christian has a problem with evil that must be dealt with, a tactic that Loftus himself condemns.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I believe that Loftus does believe in objective morality. The first reason is the one pointed out before, from his ethical system. He attempts to ground morality in rationality and happiness. If someone does not believe in objective morality, then he will not feel the need to justify moral judgments. He won’t need to justify judgments he doesn’t make. Whether anyone can consistently live without morality is debatable, but not relevant here, since it’s not the position Loftus takes.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The second reason I believe that Loftus holds to objective morality is that he makes absolute moral judgments. Here are just a couple:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>There is theological determinism, where God decrees everything that happens for his glory (or hyper-Calvinism). According to Clark Pinnock, ‘One need not wonder why people become atheists when faced with such a theology. A God like that has a great deal for which to answer. </i>p. 232</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">If there’s no moral standard to keep, then there’s nothing to answer for.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>For instance, </i><b><i>it is ethically wrong for anyone, including God, to sadistically kill, maim, or torture innocent people, period.</i></b><i> To someone who claims God can do this to any human being because we are all guilty and deserve this kind of treatment, I simply say, as I’ve already said, that the punishments do not fit the crimes. What they’re describing here isn’t a higher morality, but a different morality. It’s such a different morality that if we treated people like God does in this world through nature, we would be locked up in prison. </i>p. 258 (emphasis mine)</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Add to this his many lists of atrocities, and only one conclusion fits. Loftus believes in objective morality. He never says so in as many words, but he can’t honestly make the judgments he makes unless he believes that there’s some objective standard to base them on.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">All of his bluster about the impropriety of Christians calling him to account for his morality, is, therefore, without merit. Loftus has an objective standard, and so the Christian challenge, concurrent with the moral argument for the existence of God, is fully appropriate...and stands.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">It seems that Loftus knows the necessity of his accounting for his morality because he attempts to do so with his ethic. But it also seems that he knows his ethic does not really answer the challenge. If it did, he’d have a different answer to the challenge to defend his belief in objective morality. He’d say that he <i>can </i>ground morality atheistically, and he’d proudly demonstrate it. His accusations against the Christian when challenged on this issue speak volumes.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Loftus believes in objective morality. The evidence speaks for itself. So my second question needs an answer. How does Loftus account for objective good and evil? So far, as we’ve seen, no satisfactory answer has been given.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">We’ve seen that, if Loftus did not believe in objective morality, then He could only offer an internal, <i>reductio</i> style critique. This is, indeed, what he claims to be doing with the problem of evil. The above quotes, however, show that he doesn’t <i>actually</i> present an internal critique. His actual argument is consistent with his belief in objective morality, if not with his stated goal.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>The Atheist Problem of Evil: A Challenge</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The atheist problem of evil is really just the consequence of the soundness of the moral argument for the existence of God. The moral argument states as a premise that objective moral truths require a perfectly moral God to account for their existence. I’ve already gone into detail earlier of how this works out in terms of God’s nature and his commands, so I won’t repeat that here. It has been my argument--and Loftus’ arguments offer no challenge to it--that an atheistic universe could not contain objective moral truths.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">As I’ve said before, my purpose is not primarily to show Christianity true and atheism false, but to show the impropriety of the problem of evil as used by an atheist. The moral argument shows this perfectly. An atheist can easily subvert the moral argument by denying the existence of objective moral truths. Indeed, most atheists of the past, such as Nietsche and Sartre, did just this. If there is no morality, then there is no atheist problem of evil. Also, an atheist who denies morality will only use a true internal critique if anything at all with respect to the problem of evil. This is not Loftus’ position, however, so the atheist problem of evil requires an answer.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Loftus argues that the existence of gratuitous evil shows that a good God doesn’t exist. We’ve seen that a Christian who believes that God is all-wise, all-powerful, and perfectly good must, logically, reject the existence of gratuitous evil. Loftus, however, defines evil as “suffering”. Now the question of the moral nature of suffering comes up again. Is suffering a moral issue? If it is nonmoral, Loftus faces one problem, that his argument is invalid. If it is a moral issue, then Loftus faces a different problem, the problem of objective morality in an atheistic universe. I submit, therefore, that there is an argument against each of these positions.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">If “gratuitous evil” just means “pointless <i>nonmoral</i> suffering”, then the following is a formulation of Loftus’ argument</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">1. Gratuitous <i>nonmoral</i> suffering exists.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">2. A morally good God would prevent <i>immoral</i> suffering</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">3. Therefore, a good God doesn’t exist.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">This is what Loftus is arguing if he defines gratuitous evil as “suffering”. Remember, he made this move so that he could call evil “undeniable”. There really is suffering, so now it can’t be explained away, right? His problem is that this argument is a <i>non sequitor</i>. It’s invalid. It doesn’t follow. The only thing undeniable about suffering is that it happens. If it is nonmoral, then it is akin to cooking rice. The question of its morality, however, does not have an <i>undeniable</i> answer. Atheists themselves disagree on that answer. The important thing is that, if it is <i>not</i> moral, then it can have absolutely no bearing on the question of whether a good God exists.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">If Loftus does think that gratuitous evil really is a moral issue, and that it is actually, morally evil for God to allow it, and if he does not give an account for moral evil atheistically, then the following <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> can be used to disprove the existence of gratuitous evil, logically.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">1. Gratuitous evil exists</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">2. Therefore, a morally good God does not exist (problem of evil)</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">3. Therefore also, atheism is false. (moral argument)</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">4. Therefore a morally good God exists. (from 3 and moral argument)</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">5. A morally good God exists and doesn’t exist. (from 2 and 4)</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">6. Therefore, gratuitous evil does not exist. (<i>reductio ad absurdum</i>)</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Obviously, Loftus does not think the above is a good argument, but as long as he remains silent on the moral argument, he has not refuted premise 3. Loftus’ use of gratuitous evil, therefore, results in the conclusion that God both does and does not exist! Now, what this shows, really, is that the soundness of the problem of evil and the moral argument are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be right. But unless Loftus or someone else can account for objective morality without God, the moral argument will stand.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Now, Loftus has claimed to be making an internal argument against Christianity. This hasn’t stopped him from arguing from gratuitous evil, though. Because of these facts, another argument can be made to show how his argument doesn’t get the conclusion he wants.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">1. Either gratuitous evil exists or it doesn’t</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">2. If Christianity is true, then gratuitous evil does not exist.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">3. Therefore, either Christianity is false, or gratuitous evil does not exist.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">This is the very best conclusion that Loftus can hope to get with an internal critique. Any attempt to argue evidentially for one side of this disjunction over the other takes his argument outside the realm of internal critiques and requires that he account for real, moral evil in an atheistic universe.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">As I said at the outset, these articles are not intended to prove God exists, though they do contain an argument for that conclusion. The main point has been to demonstrate that, though the problem of evil is a problem that should be addressed by every Christian, it is not a sufficient reason to reject Christianity. In fact, my contention is that it is not even a good argument for the conclusion that God doesn’t exist. As we’ve seen, that conclusion rests on one of two arguments. The first attempts to show that Christian belief is inconsistent with itself, but fails to do so. The second makes an appeal to evidence in the form of gratuitous evil that could not count as evidence if there were no God. Loftus attempts to bolster his argument by adding the evidence of the second argument to the first, but doesn’t seem to realize that this move logically turns the first argument into the second. When challenged to account for this “evil” on his own worldview, Loftus throws up dust, accusing Christians of skirting the issue. Remember his statement in the very argument where he makes that accusation:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>Christians must deal with their internal problem. Atheists must do likewise. I will not skirt my specific problem by claiming Christians have one. I adjure them to do the same. </i>p. 244</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I have not skirted my problem by claiming Loftus has one. So far, Loftus has done just what he says I can’t do. When faced with the moral argument, he says, “but you must deal with the problem of evil.” He has a chance now to show us all why the problem of evil is the best, empirical evidence against the existence of God, as he claims. I adjure him to show us how that is the case. I adjure him to show us why he calls anything at all “evil” without logically abandoning his atheism.</span></p>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-62154679604452813922008-10-18T07:39:00.000-07:002008-10-18T17:42:32.381-07:00Response to John Loftus on the Problem of Evil Part 6 of 7: Loftus' "Atheistic Ethic"<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>John Loftus’ Atheistic Ethic</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b></b></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">In our exchange, Loftus offered up <span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#000099;"><a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/06/atheistic-ethic_13.html">this series of articles</a></span> in response to my three-question challenge to (1) affirm or deny his belief in objective morality and (2) either account for evil on his own worldview if he affirms, or (3) show an internal inconsistency in the Christian defense against his use of the problem of evil if he denies. He claimed after having posted a link to this series that he had “answered” my questions. We’ll look at the series, focusing on areas that might be relevant to the questions I asked.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The series is written in seven parts, and, in the interest of brevity (which I’ve hardly focused on up to this point!), I’ll pass over responding to those areas that don’t address the issue at hand. For example, part 1 of the series is not about his ethic at all, but is a rebuttal of the Christian ethic, as Loftus sees it. No positive presentation of his ethic except to point out that it’s not the same as what he considers the Christian ethic to be. I think he’s misrepresenting the Christian ethic, and I will illustrate that as I look at his positive presentation for his own ethic, so I won’t spend any more time here on part 1 except to point out one quote.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>I’m also going to try to answer as many objections as I can, and offer some reasonable test case scenario’s to show how this ethic can and does describe what we in fact do, </i><b><i>and what we ought to do</i></b><i>. </i>(emphasis mine)</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">For Loftus to claim that his ethic tells us what we “ought” to do, is ambiguous. Does he mean that he will give us some basis upon which to say that his ethical system is the morally correct one? Or does he only mean to say that his ethical system tells us what we ought to do <i>if</i> we think that it’s the right one. Case in point, will it tell me why I <i>as a Christian</i> ought to do what his ethic says to do, or will it merely build a case for why his system’s “command” statements are consistent with his own starting point? If it answers the former of these two either/or questions, then it is claiming to be objectively true. If this is so, then Loftus must account for his belief in his own objective moral truths. If it only answers the latter question in these either/or questions, then it is merely another ethical system to add to the list with utilitarianism, Epicureanism, and the like.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I have my suspicions about which of these two types of questions Loftus hopes to answer, but he is vague about it. If it’s only the second type of question, then Loftus answers it again and again, clearly and unambiguously. I suspect, however, that he hopes to answer the first type of question, and we will examine his ethic to see if it really does.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Part 7 is really just a recap, so I’ll also skip that section.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Part 3 is mainly devoted to Ecclesiastes as a bit of a side-note, so we’ll skip that, too, to stay focused.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">That leaves parts 2, 4, 5, and 6 that really contain Loftus’ case for his atheistic ethic. I’ll try to present Loftus’ ethic as it is, and save my comments and rebuttals until the end, as much as possible.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The root of Loftus’ ethic is what he calls “rational self-interest”. He appeals to this because he says he wants “an ethic based upon some solid evidence about who we are as human beings and why we act the way we do.” (part 2) The ultimate goal of his ethic is happiness. The things that make us happy are “...power, love, friendship, riches, health, freedom, significance, importance, self-esteem, affirmation, approval, knowledge, understanding, long life, safety, good looks, sex, and so forth. We want enough challenges to make us strong and enough pleasures to motivate us to continue wanting to live. These things are undeniable, in my opinion. They are obvious.” (part 2) So, the basis is the way people act. He argues that this is not what the Christian ethic does (part 1), but that this is what everyone, including Christians, in fact do. Loftus claims that those who do not pursue rational self-interested goals are being irrational.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I should say at this point that his description of what people do and why they do it seems true enough to me. I agree that most people do pursue happiness through the means he describes, even Christians. In fact, I think that, for the most part, his ethic is completely compatible with Christianity. In part 1, he claims that the Christian ethic is “fundamentally” self-denying. I disagree. The Bible repeatedly appeals to our desires for happiness and security, saying that we should “store up treasures in heaven”. (Matt. 6:20-21) Self-denial in Christianity is not the foundation, but the means to an end that is even more happy than what we can hope to achieve if we pursue happiness as our primary goal here and now. Self-denial in itself is also condemned as useless:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations-- “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)--according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. </i>(Colossians 2:20-23)</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So, self-denial is not a goal in itself. God has made us in order to express His glory in a relationship with Him and to find happiness in Him. We can pursue other sources of happiness, and they are not necessarily evil, but only by having eternal life can we be truly, ultimately happy.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">This being said, there is a lot to argue with in Loftus’ atheistic ethic, mostly in how he contrasts it with the Christian ethic. But my purpose is more focused here than pointing out every small error. I’m interested in how he answers my three questions.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">It seems to me that there are four separate issues that all ethical systems answer or seek to answer.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">1. What do people do?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">2. Why do people do it?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">3. What should people do?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">4. Why should people do it?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 72.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Every ethical system will have almost the same answer to the first question. On the second, there might be some slight disagreement. For example, Loftus might say that the reason someone does something “wrong” is that he is being irrational, whereas a Christian might point to sinful nature. I say it is a <i>slight</i> disagreement because the Christian would affirm that immorality is irrational as much as Loftus. Christians would just add what they believe to be a more basic cause. The second two questions are the ones I treated in my <span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#000099;"><a href="http://beginningwisdom.blogspot.com/2008/09/ethics-and-objective-morality.html">article</a></span> on ethics and objective morality. The fact is that in most cases, most ethical systems would also agree on the third questions. Most ethical systems condemn murder, incest, rape, theft, and dishonesty. The only question that finds any significant disagreement between ethical systems is the last question. And, actually, in almost any case where they disagree on the third question, that disagreement can be traced back to a difference on the fourth question. Why should people do what an ethical system says?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I would say that Loftus’ articles answer the first two questions well, perhaps better than most writings I’ve read on the subject. Unfortunately, his answers to the third and fourth questions are at best unhelpful. Why do I say this? Unsurprisingly, Loftus’ system, much like most systems that do not contain any direct commands, does not answer the third question directly. He does say:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>I claim that the advantages will never outweight (sic) the disadvantages in unlawfully and unjustly killing someone, period. Give me a scenario and I doubt that rational self-interest will ever conclude the right thing to do is to kill someone (except in self-defense). My position is that people who kill are not acting rationally. </i>(part 6)</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Of course, Christians would agree. Earlier, Loftus says this: </span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>Since I'm arguing that every human being is motivated to act from self-interest, then if these conditions obtain for someone, they will therefore kill. And it doesn't matter what a person's religious or non-religious beliefs are at that point, because these beliefs also factor into whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Whether one is a Christian or not, people will kill under these circumstances. </i>(part 6)</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">If Loftus thinks that this shows a great difference between his ethic and the Christian ethic, then he’s badly misinformed about the Christian ethic. The only difference between his position and the Christian’s is that the Christian has a wider range of advantages and disadvantages to consider. The Christian has the righteous Judge of the universe to take into account.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">The key question for any ethical system is that fourth question. Why should someone do what Loftus’ ethic says he should? Loftus’ answer, as we’ve seen, is twofold: First, everyone wants to be happy and pursues the things on Loftus’ list to do so. Second, doing so is rational, while not doing so is irrational.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So, rationality seems to be the “ground” of Loftus’ ethic. If we don’t pursue what he says, then we’re irrational. I’ve already pointed out that, fundamentally, according to Loftus’ argument, Christians have a rational ethic, even though he claims they don’t. So, everyone wants to be happy, and every rational person pursues that happiness through whatever he believes will bring it to him.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Does this adequately answer the question of why someone should adopt Loftus’ ethic over some other? That really is the practical meaning of that fourth question. Why should someone adopt one ethic over another? There may be many reasons given as an answer to this question. Loftus’ answer is that his ethic is rational. But is there any <i>moral</i> reason to adopt Loftus’ ethic? Is his ethic morally right? Does it accurately encompass objective moral truth? These are all ways of asking the same question. And it is important to note that an answer to this question cannot be simply that his ethic is “rational”. This question goes further than that. One could ask, “is rationality morally required of anyone who is capable of it?” Notice that Loftus does not answer this question anywhere in his ethic. So, his ethic, like many others, becomes merely a way of pursuing happiness. No moral imperatives can be derived from it, only conditional imperatives. “If you want to be truly happy, don’t kill, steal, etc.” I submit that, even if these conditional imperatives are true, you still don’t have a real moral or ethical system, just a pragmatic one.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">It was David Hume who said that you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”. What this means is that no imperative statements or moral commands can be derived from statements about how the world is. The only imperatives that you can derive are conditional, not moral. You just can’t get moral imperatives unless you start with moral imperatives. For Hume and many other skeptics, this has meant that you just can’t get moral imperatives, period. For the Christian, it means that, without a morally perfect God who issues moral imperatives, you can’t get moral imperatives.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Basically, Loftus’ ethic boils down to a form of Epicureanism, the pursuit of the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain over time. Loftus speaks of a “life plan”. (part 7) Epicurus didn’t believe in pursuing fleeting pleasures without counting the cost, and neither does Loftus. It’s just that neither Epicurus nor Loftus offers any reason why someone should be morally obligated to follow his ethic.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">It is for this reason that Loftus’ atheistic ethic does not answer the first of my three questions, “Do you, yourself, believe in objective morality?” As such, it does not, of course, answer the second question, “If you do, then how do you account for it on a naturalistic worldview?” Loftus seems to be attempting to answer this second question when he appeals to rationality, but, as we’ve seen, that doesn’t get you to morality. Without getting to a real, moral “ought”, Loftus can only say, “If you want X (to be rational, to be happy), you should do this...” I’ll go into the issue of whether Loftus really believes in objective morality later, but this is enough to show that his “atheistic ethic” does not answer the question of objective morality for just the same reason that most other ethical systems do not. They offer a list of imperatives and a rationale for those imperatives, but not a <i>moral</i> rationale.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So, to sum up, the “Atheistic Ethic” makes an attempt to ground morality, which shows, at least, that Loftus wants to affirm some kind of objective morality. But since it doesn’t succeed in doing so, Loftus’ ethic ends up as just another way to express Epicurus’ opinions about what people should do if they want to be happy.</span></p>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5756983798949354324.post-91245915916927202962008-10-16T19:15:00.000-07:002008-10-16T20:44:21.881-07:00Response to John Loftus on the Problem of Evil Part 5 of 7: Concluding Review of Loftus' Argument from Evil in Why I Became an Atheist<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; letter-spacing: 0.0px"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>Mysteries</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Loftus also refers to what he calls, “The Ignorance Defense”. He argues that the Christian will finally “punt to mystery” (p. 256). He makes a similar argument <span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#000099;"><a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/08/do-all-dogs-go-to-heaven.html">here</a></span>. Basically, the Christian argues that, since God is all-wise and powerful and good, He has a good reason for whatever happens, even if we can’t see it. The problem with this kind of reasoning, according to Loftus, is that it “presupposes what needs to be shown.”</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">This is a bold claim. He’s arguing that when Christians explain that God is all-wise and in control and that He has only told us parts of His reasons for doing what He does, that we are presupposing things, such as God’s existence and the existence of heaven and hell. If Loftus really understood what an internal argument is (really sorry about this repetition), he’d know that he can’t use this charge in one. An internal argument <i>assumes</i> the truth of the worldview, position, or argument in question in order to derive a contradiction from that assumption. Loftus is completely incapable of supporting the above quote with anything other than either (1) evidence of evil that is external, or (2) some other evidence against God that is unrelated to the problem of evil. If Loftus chooses option (1), then he must account for that evidence on his own worldview. If he chooses option (2), then he’s making a tacit admission that his position is weak (see his comment to David Wood above). The point is, explanation of how the Christian worldview accounts for certain facts is not in any way “presupposing” what one is trying to prove. If it is, then Loftus is guilty of the same thing every time he explains some feature of his worldview in order to defend it.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Loftus then argues against hell, attempting again to do it internally. His basic argument is that the “punishments don’t fit the crimes”. (p. 256, or same argument <span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#000099;"><a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-i-dont-believe-bible-is-gods-word_12.html">here</a></span>) He also says that the reality of the majority of people suffering in hell is “incompatible with the theistic conception of a good God.” (p. 256)</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I had to read that statement a couple times. The Christian theistic conception of God holds that He does condemn some people to hell. What “theistic conception of a good God” is Loftus talking about here? It’s not the Christian one. If the Christian conception of a good God conflicts with Loftus’ conception of a good God, or anyone else’s for that matter, so what? I know he’s trying to make it an internal argument by claiming there’s an incompatibility, but he keeps jumping outside the Christian worldview when he says things like, “the punishment doesn’t fit the crimes.” I have to ask, “by what standard?” Not the Christian one, so which one? And why is that standard true?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Loftus later attempts to address Plantinga’s argument about inscrutable evils. His only response?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>I’ve already argued that God could’ve easily done differently. </i>p. 257</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I’ve already shown that, just because Loftus can think of situations that he <i>thinks</i> would involve less suffering, it doesn’t do anything to address the defenses of the Christian who appeals to an all-wise God. If God has a purpose for a given suffering, then He will not prevent it. Loftus’ fantastic stories of flying, water-breathing people are completely irrelevant to this argument. Those stories only work if Loftus knows better how to make a good world than God <i>could</i> know.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Loftus then tries to address Stephen Wykstra’s CORNEA defense, which is just a more technical way of arguing that God has a good reason for every event. It focuses on arguing that, given God’s omniscience and the nature of His reasons, we shouldn’t expect to know what they all are. Loftus’ response is telling. I’ll take most of these numbered responses in turn.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 18.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>Even if this CORNEA defense works, it must additionally be shown that the theistic God exists, who knows the reason why there are such evils. </i>p. 257</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Loftus has said this before, but has not argued for it. It seems that when he can’t offer any actual rebuttal of a Christian defense, he retreats to demanding that the Christian prove God exists on some other grounds. He leaves the realm of the problem of evil entirely. As we’ve seen already, he’s offered his own response to that type of argumentation in his talk with David Wood when he said, “That just tells me that you can’t defend the problem of evil in and of itself<i>.”</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">By Loftus’ own standards, he is admitting that he can’t defend his position on the problem of evil in itself. This actually comes as no surprise. I’ve mentioned Loftus’ sloppiness several times, and this is just another example. When faced with a Christian <i>defense </i>on the problem of evil, he responds that a Christian has to prove God exists before he can defend against the problem of evil. Imagine if I told him that he must show that there’s no God before he’s allowed to address the moral or transcendental argument for God’s existence. The standards that he demands of his opponents are actually too high for he himself to meet.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">On the whole internal/external issue, it should be noted that even if an external argument is leveled at a position, it is <i>never</i> logically necessary to require the defender of that position to prove that his <i>whole position </i>is true <i>before</i> he can defend against the current argument. The reason Loftus has not given an argument to support his requirement is that it is a requirement that he has made up. There just is no reason why anyone should have to abide by it. Besides, if I actually tried to defend against the problem of evil by arguing for God’s existence, Loftus would accuse me of “resorting” to my worldview and then, according to him, I would be unable to defend against the problem “in and of itself”.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 18.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>If it works, it merely argues that it’s possible there’s a reason for pointless suffering. But we’re talking about probabilities here. In Dr. Weisberger’s words, there are “many improbably possibilities.” It’s possible there are Martians who live beneath the surface of Mars. It’s possible that I am dreaming right now. But what we’re talking about is plausibility not possibility. </i>p. 257</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Loftus’ argumentation often moves into this realm of talking about what’s plausible vs. what’s possible. While there’s nothing wrong with this if we’re attempting to look at evidence objectively and then ask which worldview best fits the evidence, an internal critique must assume one worldview at the outset for the sake of argument. Because Loftus keeps trying to make both arguments at once, it’s hard to tell what he means here. We’ll address these issues more comprehensively at the end of these articles.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Statement (3) is essentially a restatement of (2), and so the same concerns apply. Also, it is the same basic argument he makes here:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>If we cannot understand God’s ways, then there is no reason to think God’s ways are good, either. And since that’s true, their whole position is also unfalsifiable, because the only way we can empirically test whether or not God is good is by looking at the evidence in the world.</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color:#002d99;"><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i><a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/emotional-problem-of-evil_28.html">http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/emotional-problem-of-evil_28.html</a></i><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#339966;"><i><a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/emotional-problem-of-evil_28.html.">.</a></i></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">As for which way the weight of evidence points, I just disagree with Loftus about where that evidence points. Notice, though, that Loftus is again leaving the realm of the problem of evil to make his point. He’s talking about the majority of evidence now in a general sense when he says that this defense could be used if “the majority of evidence” (p. 257) pointed away from God. It’s no longer the question of the amount of suffering and how the Christian explains it. Why does he feel he needs to do this, if the problem of evil is such a strong case?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 18.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>The truth is that it seems very likely that we should see God’s reasons for allowing suffering since theists also claim God wants us to believe in him. This is Theodore Drange’s argument. p. 257</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Also here:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>The truth is that it seems very likely that we should see God’s reasons for allowing suffering since theists also claim God wants us to believe in him. See Theodore Drange’s work on this. (from comment thread at (<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; text-decoration: underline; letter-spacing: 0px; color:#002d99;"><i><a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/emotional-problem-of-evil_28.html">http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/emotional-problem-of-evil_28.html</a></i></span></span>)</i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I’ve dealt with this before. I believe, actually, that, generally, the evidence is compelling for God’s existence. I also believe that those who do not believe are actively suppressing the knowledge of God, inventing mental ways around the evidence. (Rom. 1) Also, this particular point is not relevant to my worldview, or any other Calvinist or Reformed Christian, because we do not believe that God merely “wants” us to believe in Him and that he’s just trying to make the best case He can. He saves perfectly everyone He intends to save.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 18.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>Finally, the theistic response here cuts both ways. We’re told God is so omniscient that we can’t understand his good purposes, and this is true; we can’t begin to grasp why there is so much evil in the present world if a good God exists. But if God is omniscient as claimed, then he should know how to create a better world, especially since we do have a good idea how god could’ve created differently. </i>pp. 257-258</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Also here:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>Finally, this cuts both ways. We’re told God is so omniscient that we can’t understand his purposes, and this is true, we can’t begin to grasp why there is so much evil in the world, if God exists. But if God is as omniscient as claimed, then he should know how to create a better world too, especially since we do have a good idea how he could’ve created differently. </i>(from comment thread at<i> </i><span style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#000099;"><i><a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/emotional-problem-of-evil_28.html">http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/emotional-problem-of-evil_28.html</a></i></span><span style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i><a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/emotional-problem-of-evil_28.html">)</a></i></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">We’ve seen this argument before, and Loftus has to assume some pretty incredible things in order to know for sure that his own “better” world would actually be better, both in terms of the affects of his changes on other aspects of the world and the long-term effects. God sees the whole picture, and He knows why this course of history is best suited to His purposes.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">There is just one more statement in this chapter that I want to deal with before moving to an earlier section of his book that addresses the problem of evil. It is his final quote from Ivan in <i>The Brothers Karamozov</i>.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>“Tell me yourself--I challenge you: Let’s assume that you were called upon to build the edifice of destiny so that men would finally be happy and would find peace and tranquility. If you knew that, in order to attain this, you would have to torture just one single creature, let’s say a little girl who beat her chest so desperately in the outhouse, and that on her unavenged tears you could build that edifice, would you agree to do it? Tell me and don’t lie!” </i>p. 259</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Aside from the already-mentioned impropriety of comparing God’s position and rights over us with our position and rights over each other, I find it very interesting that Loftus should use this quote. The similarity to the Gospel story of the death of Jesus is obvious. The little girl is meant to exemplify innocence. Jesus was perfectly innocent. So does the Christian really believe that a situation like the one described is what God has done? Only if all that is considered is the innocence of the one suffering. But what if it’s the decision of the one suffering to do it for everyone else? To this some have argued that no man could possibly know how much suffering would be necessary to take God’s wrath for all mankind. The Christian response is that Jesus is God, and He knew exactly what He was doing when He accepted the whips and the cross.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">As to how Dostoyevsky’s scenario relates to all of the other human suffering, I can say that we are not that innocent. It is for God to decide what punishments fit what crimes. We do not see what God sees, and so we are not in a place to judge Him. We do not have “unavenged” tears. We reap what we sow, and if we are enemies of God, then we will reap the consequences of having rebelled against Him. If our suffering is not a direct result of our own sin, then we can trust that God has His reasons, and we may be so lucky as to catch a glimpse of those someday, but, because He is truly good, we know that His reasons are good.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b>The Question of Moral Superiority</b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">In an earlier section of <i>Why I Became an Atheist</i>, Loftus has some sections devoted to questions of whether Christians have any superior position rationally or morally than others. Loftus correctly identifies the Christian position, that Christianity, as a worldview, accounts for the existence of moral goods and evils, and offers motivation for being morally good. Also, atheism lacks all of these features. There is nothing within atheism to account for the existence of objective moral truths, only patterns of behavior. There is also no motivation within atheism for doing good, other than self-interest. However, under atheism, those goods cannot be considered objectively good in any sense except that they promote one’s self-interest.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Let’s look at his first argument against the Christian position.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>Before we move on to the philosophical arguments for this claim, let’s pause and ask first why there is no evidence for what Craig claims. If he is correct, we should see billions of non-Christians acting consistently according to this logic. There should be great mayhem in this world, the likes of which should send the rest of us into the asylum. In other words, why don’t non-Christians act consistently? ... Do theists like Craig want to claim that nearly all non-Christians are mentally challenged...that the overwhelming majority of us don’t live consistent lives with what we believe? The evidence is overwhelmingly against this claim. </i>p. 37-38</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i></i></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">This argument once again demonstrates Loftus shallowness when dealing with Christian worldview issues. Why, he asks, don’t atheists actually act lawlessly, as Christians say atheism leads to? The reason is simple according to Scripture. Men have the “law written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.” (Rom 2:15) Loftus’ scenario would only be true if atheism itself were true. The point of the moral argument is to say that the evidence of moral truths point to a good Creator, not that atheists all act like animals. Consistent, biblical Christians in fact <i>do</i> believe that the vast majority of people don’t live completely consistent with what they say they believe. Today in America, there are more people than ever denying objective moral values, but at the same time there are more than ever suing each other over their differences. Yes, people are inconsistent all the time. In fact, it is impossible to really consistently act as if there are no moral truths. This is because there are objective moral truths.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Another example of Loftus’ sloppiness can be found in this section when he addresses the basis for Christian ethics. He claims that the only two forms of Christian ethic are the divine command theory and natural law. (p. 38) He then goes on to discredit the divine command theory before pointing out that now, Christians don’t use that theory anymore, but a modified divine command theory, which he then goes on to show is very different from the divine command theory. If it is really so different, which I agree it is, then why not include it in his list of bases for Christian ethics? The answer is simple. Either Loftus is just not careful with his argumentation, or he wants to attribute to Christians a theory that has been largely discredited, even though they don’t believe it. This is straw-man argumentation again.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So, just to make some important distinctions clear, we’ll look at the divine command theory and exactly how Christian ethics are different from it. Loftus, like most people who address this issue, traces this theory back to the <i>Euthyphro</i>, a dialogue written by Plato in which Socrates is asking, “What is piety?” The answer he gets is, “fidelity to the gods”. In other words, we are pious, or good, when we do what the gods command. Socrates then asks, “Are those things pious because the gods command them, or do the gods command them because they are pious?” How this is answered has great ramifications. Socrates argues that it must be the latter because of some of the attributes of the gods. They are fickle, changing their minds. They disagree with one another. They do things constantly that people consider immoral. Only their power keeps them from being brought to justice. Loftus argues that if we say that something is right because God commands it, then right and wrong are arbitrary. (p. 38-39) Loftus asks the <i>Euthyphro</i> question by considering whether something “is right because God commands it”, concluding that if it is, then it makes God’s commands “arbitrary”, saying that horrible evils could be declared “good” by such a God.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">There are two mistakes Loftus makes here, if he thinks that his argument in any way applies to Christianity. First he fails to note the distinction between <i>why a command is moral</i> and <i>what we are commanded to do</i>. Christians, as I’ve said and as Loftus will admit when he addresses the modified divine command theory, do not say that an action is right merely because God commanded it. We say that it is right because it conforms to the perfectly good moral nature of God. We are, however, obligated to do what God directly commands. His moral nature does not consist of His commands. His commands flow from and are consistent with His nature. There is an important difference. This is why Loftus’ charge of arbitrariness in God’s commands must logically be directed at something other than Christianity. So why is this relevant? God’s commands are not arbitrary. They conform to His nature. This is also why Loftus’ strange statement about God “creating” morality like he created the universe is false. God didn’t <i>create</i> morality. He <i>commands</i> it in conformity with His nature.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">So, it’s true that our “moral duties are determined by God’s commands” as Loftus quotes William Lane Craig. (p. 39) But that is different than saying that our moral duties are <i>grounded in</i>, or are <i>derived from</i> those commands. Those commands are not the starting point for morality, but their starting point--God’s nature and His status as our Creator--make them binding on us.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Loftus argues that the modified command theory is actually no different than a “secular ethic” (p. 40), and that:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>It’s at this point where both the modified divine command ethic and a secular ethic share the exact same grounding. Why? Because then with Pojman, we must ask what difference it makes whether or not the same ethical principles came from “a special personal authority (God) or from the authority of reason?” </i>p. 40 also verbatim <span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#000099;"><a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/01/christian-illusion-of-moral.html">here</a></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I must say that I’m at a loss as to how Loftus (or Pojman) comes to this conclusion. Is Loftus seriously saying that Christians who ground their ethic in the nature of God are grounding it in the same thing as secularists? It seems that they think that grounding ethics in anything other than the commands of God constitutes some kind of admission of defeat for the theist. Loftus doesn’t offer any argumentation to support this claim, other than the statement that those who accept the modified divine command theory have to reject the original divine command theory. He doesn’t even begin to show why it is that this somehow puts the Christian on equal footing with the atheist. He just asserts that they are now somehow the same.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I would submit that Loftus doesn’t understand the difference between an ethical system and how one grounds an ethical system. One could say that an ethical system is a list of moral imperatives. It answers the question, “What shall we do?” The justification, or grounds, of an ethical system answers a different question. It gives an answer to, “Why is this list the right one?” Loftus shows his ignorance of this issue when he lists out some of the different systems that have been devised.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i>Besides, there are several ethical systems of thought that do not require a prior belief in God, like social contract theories, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, Kantianism, and John Rawls’s theory of justice. </i>p. 40 also verbatim <span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#000099;"><a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/01/christian-illusion-of-moral.html">here</a></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS; min-height: 14.0px"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">I’ve examined these issues in more detail <span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#000099;"><a href="http://beginningwisdom.blogspot.com/2008/09/ethics-and-objective-morality.html">before</a></span>, but I’ll just say here that the choice between one ethical theory and another, without some objective moral standard, can only be arbitrary. What <i>moral</i> reason can be given for accepting utilitarianism over Kantianism? People who decide, for example, that utilitarianism is more moral will almost certainly appeal to some utilitarian principle in doing so. Without something objective to ground morality in, a person has nothing but personal preference to tell him which ethic to adopt.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px Trebuchet MS"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px">Loftus does not succeed in showing any weakness in the Christian ethic in this portion of his book. In fact, he rarely argues for any of the assertions he makes, some of which are surely false. With thoughts of ethics and morality fresh in our minds, we will close Loftus’ book, and turn our attention next time to our final section of Loftus’ thoughts on this subject: his series of blog articles called “An Atheistic Ethic”.</span></p>Andrew Schumacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06553828200280746250noreply@blogger.com11