Blogogetics

Giving an apologia (defense) for the faith we have

The Historical Resurrection of the Christ

Apr 9

Posted by Thomas Moller in Shiny Blue Ducks | No Comments

The Historical Resurrection of the Christ.mp3

The cross is either the liberation of mankind or its subjugation. The call of the Nazarene “come, and I will give you rest”, is either the call of a Savior or a Charlatan. The scandal of the cross is that the answer lies in history not merely in orthodoxy, in the objective, not merely in the subjective, and in precedent not merely in consequent; and the answer to the call is either fulfilled or emptied on that Sunday that is called Good. The cries of the heart covet for the theology at Golgotha to be true but intentions contradict desire. We want to have our longings satisfied but we also want our autonomy and it is the latter conceit that chastises the former hope. Wherein this lays our highest longing, the vessel where the longing is placed is its weakest member. – T.H. Moller

If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us! But passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives is a lantern on the stern, which shines only on the waves behind us! – Samuel Taylor Coleridge

I. Historical

A) Burial of Jesus Christ
“The best established fact of the passion story.” J.A.T. Robinson
1) Buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s personal tomb. Best established fact of the story according to most NT scholars.
2) A Sanhedrin member. The very council that condemned Jesus.
3) Multiple Attestation: More than one source mentions an event.
a. 1 Cor 15
b. Mark 15
4) No other independent burial stories and therefore no competing burial stories.

B) Tomb was Empty
1) Tomb was found empty by women. Women had zero legal credibility at the time.
2) Earliest Jewish polemic presupposed an empty tomb saying the disciples came and stole the body.
3) Early Attestation to both the burial and empty tomb found 1 Cor. 15
i. The words delivered and received are terms descriptive of rabbinic treatment of holy tradition, indicating that this is holy tradition received by Paul.
ii. Several primitive, early, pre-Paulint phrases are used (“the twelve,”, “the third day,” “he was seen”, “for our sins” [ plural ], “he was raised”). These phrases are very Jewish and early.
iii. The poetic style is Hebraic
iv. The Aramaic Cephas is used; this was an early way of referring to Peter.
v. “He was buried” implies the empty tomb and stands between the death and resurrection.
vi. There are four “that” clauses which mirror Mark’s general chronological narrative. The burial anticipates the empty tomb in this formula.
vii. “The third day” points to an empty tomb but since Paul did not actually see the resurrection how did he date it on the third day? Craig argues that the women found the tomb empty which dates the resurrection on the third day.
From J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, p.150 and W. L. Craig The Son also Rises.

C) Groups of people witnessed the appearances. Multiple attestation to the appearances.
Appeared to believers and non-believers alike.
1) 1 Cor 15 again shows that these reports are early
2) The reports are brief and sporadic and sometimes difficult to harmonize.
3) Disciples were slow to believe which casts a negative light on the first leaders of the church. This would be counterproductive to establish their leadership and authority.
4) The reports are reported with characteristic reserve. Compare with the gnostic Gospel of Peter which reports on the resurrection itself as a cross coming out of the tomb and Jesus standing so tall is head disappears into the clouds, although not green resembling a Jolly Green Giant standing above lilliputian Jerusalem.
“In light of these facts, the Gospel story is psychologically sound. The disciples were slow to recognize in Jesus as their Messiah, for by his actions he was fulfilling none of the roles expected for the Messiah.” George E. Ladd, I believe in the Resurrection, pp. 71-72
”It is historically certain that Peter and the other disciples had experiences, after Jesus’ death, in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” Gerhard Luddeman
“The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based.” Norman Perrin, The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, p. 80

D) The Origin of the Christian Church: The earliest disciples came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite every predisposition to the contrary!
1) Their leader was dead and there was no Jewish tradition of a dead messiah.
2) Under Jewish Law, a person executed by crucifixion was cursed by God, a person shown to be a heretic.
3) The Jewish belief and hope had no hope or expectation of anyone rising from the dead before the general resurrection at the end of the world but the disciples came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. They went to their deaths for that belief.
”We have here a belief that nothing in terms of antecedent historical influences
can account for apart from the resurrection itself.” C.F.D. Moule

E) The changed lives of the disciples, including Paul. If one denies the resurrection of Christ then one has to posit an X to explain the origin of the Christian church, and that X has to be big enough to account for the changed lives of the disciples.
1) According to Eusebius, and indirectly corroborated by Josephus, all the disciples, with the exception of John were killed for their belief in the resurrected Christ.
2) Saul was a Pharisee intent on destroying the “cult of The Way”. But Saul who became Paul witnessed the risen Christ, and changed his message and approach as a result.
Acts 9
Gal 1:11-17
Acts 26:9-18
Phil 3:4-6

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Harmonizing the Resurrection

Mar 15

Posted by admin in Shiny Blue Ducks | No Comments

Harmonizing the Resurrection.MP3

Read the accounts of the Resurrection in the four Gospels then harmonize (or reconcile) the different accounts.

Matthew 28:1-10
1 Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.” 8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”

Mark 16:1-9 (some manuscripts do not include v.9)

1 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3 And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

9 Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons

Luke 24:1-12
1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. 5 And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” 8 And they remembered his words, 9 and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles, 11 but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. 12 But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and he went home marveling at what had happened.

John 20:1-18

1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. 2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” 3 So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb. 4 Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 10 Then the disciples went back to their homes.
11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. 12 And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. 13 They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” 14 Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher). 17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”—and that he had said these things to her.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tags: , , , , , , ,

7 Rules of Historic Research

Feb 10

Posted by Thomas Moller in Shiny Blue Ducks | No Comments

7 Rules of Historic Research.MP3

“Sometimes the available evidence is such as to eliminate any reasonable doubt about the validity of an interpretation.”
Frederick Copleston, Problems of Objectivity, On the History of Philosophy

“The historian’s real work is the reconstruction in thought of a particular historical event: the geologist’s, the reconstruction in thought of a particular geological epoch at a particular place.”
R. G. Collingwood, “Croce’s Philosophy of History”, Essays in the Philosophy of History

“It is precisely the historian’s goal, using all his critical skills, to determine what happened in the past by reconstructing it on the basis of the evidence.”
W.L. Craig, Reasonable Faith

“Truth is what my peers will let me get away with saying”
Richard Rorty

1. The hypothesis, together with other true statements, must imply further statements describing present observable data.
2. The hypothesis must have greater explanatory scope (that is, imply a greater variety of observable data) than rival hypotheses.
3. The hypothesis must have greater explanatory power (that is, make the observable date more probable) than rival hypotheses.
4. The hypothesis must be more plausible (that is, be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and its negation implied by few accepted truths, and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths) than rival hypotheses.
5. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc (that is, include fewer new suppositions about the past not already implied by existing knowledge) than rival hypotheses.
6. The hypothesis must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs (that is, when conjoined with accepted truths, imply fewer false statements) than rival hypotheses.
7. The hypothesis must so exceed its rivals in fulfilling conditions (2)-(6) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis, after further investigation, exceeding it in meeting these conditions.

C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions“>Justifying Historical Descriptions, in W.L. Craig, Reasonable Faith

Naturalism as an a priori worldview, negates the need to investigate any so-called evidence for dead men coming to life whether it is Christ, Osiris, or Elvis.
T.H. Moller

Tags: , ,

Don’t Know Much About History

Jan 14

Posted by Thomas Moller in Shiny Blue Ducks | No Comments

Dont Know Much About History.MP3

A History of the History of Shiny Blue Ducks (aka apologetics) via historical argumentation

I. From Paul to Isidore

1 Cor. 15

Polycarp-Pupil of John the Apostle (70-156)
“But He who raised Him up from the dead WILL raise up us also”
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter II, An Exhortation to Virtue

Ignatius-Pupil of John the Apostle (67-110)
“He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father WILL SO raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus”
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter IX

Irenaeus – Pupil of Polycarp of Lyons (130-202)
“The power and glory of God shine forth in the weakness of human flesh, as he will render our body a participator of the resurrection and of immortality, although He has formed it from the dust of the earth; He WILL ALSO bestow upon it the enjoyment of immortality, just as He grants it this short life in common with the soul”
Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter III

Hippolytus of Rome – Pupil of Irenaeus (170-236)
“Without protest, Christ endured his passion, he submitted to death and revealed his resurrection. In all these ways he offered his own manhood as the first fruits of our race to keep us from losing heart when suffering comes our way, and to make us look forward to receiving the same reward as he did, since we know that we possess the same humanity.
When we have come to know the true God, both our bodies and our souls will be immortal and incorruptible.”
On the Refutation of All Heresies, Chapter X, 33-34,

Tertullian (160-220)
“The resurrection of the dead is the Christian’s trust.”
On The Resurrection of the Flesh

John Chrysostom (347-407)
“The doctrine of the Resurrection, too, was lame among them: for some of them had no strong belief that there is any resurrection of bodies, having still on them the disease of Grecian foolishness. For indeed all these things were the progeny of the madness which belongs to Heathen Philosophy, and she was the mother of all mischief. Hence, likewise, they had become divided; in this respect also having learned of the philosophers. For these latter were no less at mutual variance, always, through love of rule and vain glory contradicting one another’s opinions, and bent upon making some new discovery in addition to all that was before. And the cause of this was, their having begun to trust themselves to reasonings”
First Epistle Of St. Paul The Apostle, To The Corinthians, Argument 2

Augustine (354-430)
“Is it at this day a thing incredible, that the Body of the Lord rose again from the sepulchre?”
Homilies on the Gospels, Sermon LXVI.

Isidore, Bishop of Seville (560-636)
Etymologies – History must be an eyewitness account.
Historical argumentation and research died. The authority of the church is paramount.

II. The Renaissance-The Rise of Historical Consciousness

“The Protestant Reformation spurred the development of the science of history by turning attention to the Patristic age in order to accentuate the Roman Catholic church’s departures from the faith of the fathers.”
W.L. Craig p.161, Reasonable Faith

A. Important Figures in the development of historical argument.

    1. Juan Luis Vives (1543) – began historical reasons for the credibility of Scripture.
    2. Phillipe de Mornay (1581) – Appeals to history to demonstrate Christ rose.
    3. Hugo Grotius (1627)
    4. John Locke (1632-1704) – 1695, The Reasonableness of Christianity, as Delivered in the Scriptures
    5. Charles Leslie (1697) – Short and Easie Method with the Deists; The Historical Proof of the Matters of Fact demonstrate Christianity is true.
    6. Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) – The Testimony of the Evangelists

III. The Rise of Skepticism

    David Hume (1711-1776) -An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

    “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.”

    Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) The Christian Faith, in this he developed what has been come to be know as positive theology. The essence of religion is experience. Kant missed the point of real live religion. The essence of religion lies in our sense of absolute dependence. Jesus was not the God-man but a man that walked so closely with God that you could say God dwelled in him.

    Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

Tags: , , , , , ,

Shiny Blue Ducks

Dec 14

Posted by Thomas Moller in Shiny Blue Ducks | No Comments

It’s been a while since anyone posted here but don’t worry, we aren’t gone yet. While new articles are still in the works, I thought I’d delve into the world of podcasting. Right now I only have one source which is a twice-monthly meeting of Shiny Blue Ducks. Obviously you have no idea what that is becuase its relatively new and very localized and it’s name makes little to no sense. No worries, I’m hear to explain. The name DOES male no sense but the Shiny Blue Ducks (SBD for short) is a local Apologetics group hosted by Tom H Moller.

Rather than get into a long post about this Apologetics Group, let me just point you to last weeks Podcast (assuming this works). Knowledge of Resurrection – 12/8/09

P.S. if this doesn’t work and you know why (or have an idea) please share so we can get this working right.

Big words for little ideas

Dec 20

Posted by Luke Shiras in General Info, Our Roles, Our Sin Nature, Worship | No Comments

I thought it was a good idea to explain some words that tend to get thrown around in theological discussions but I realized, the folks over at Theological Word of the Day (TWOTD) have already done that. So here are some key words (and their meanings) about why we started this site. Hopefully we can have more fruitful discussions if we all used the same meanings when using our big words. Or at least be able to explain what we mean with our big words.

Oh, and if you haven’t already, you might want to subscribe to TWOTD.

Apologetics

(Gk. apologia “an answer”)

Apologetics is the discipline of defending or giving an answer for the faith to those who have questions or objections to the Christian faith. 1 Peter 3:15 says, “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” Significant apologists today include J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Robert Bowman Jr., and Alvin Plantinga, among others.

Theology

Gk. theos, “God” logos “discourse”

A reasoned study of God. Theology is a set of intellectual and emotional commitments with regard to God and man which dictate one’s beliefs and actions. Theology is intellectual in that is provides for a reasoned study and defense of one’s beliefs about God. Theology is emotional in that we approach the subject as humans with deep subjective commitments to our personal experiences and feelings about God.

Propitiation

Also, “expiation”

Propitiation describes the act whereby God’s wrath toward sin is fully satisfied through the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. It is debated among Christians as to whether Christ’s death was a propitiation for all sins of all people, or limited only to the elect. 1 John 2:2 seems to suggest that the propitiation is universal, but this is not without its problems. “Propitiation” translates the Greek words hilaskomai (Luke 18:13 “be merciful” and Heb 2:17 “to make expiation”, hilasmos (1 John 2:2 and 4:10 “expiation” or “propitiation”), and hilasterion (Rom 3:25 “an expiation” and Heb 9:5 “mercy seat”).

Polemics

[puh-lehm’-iks]

(Greek polemos, “war”)

Polemics is to engage in conversation, debate, or argumentation with a very aggressive approach. Sometimes this will involve an attack on (or refutation of) the opinions or principles of another. In the church, this often takes place when one argues for a particular theological position about which he or she is passionate. This is to be contrasted with the peaceful approach of “irenics.”

Irenics

[iye-rehn’-ik or iye-ree’-nik]

(Greek eirene, “peace”)

Irenics is a method of discourse in which a peaceful approach of engagement is sought as opposed to a more polemic, war-like approach. In theology, this involves seeking to accurately understand and represent all positions, even when there is strong disagreement among them. The irenic method seeks to engage in disputes with a gentle, peaceful spirit, educating rather than indoctrinating.

Also “irenic theology” or “the irenic method.”

ad hominem

(Lat. ad, “to” + hominem, “the man”)

In rhetorical argumentation, an ad hominem is a method of argumentation in which a person attacks the character of the opponent(s) instead of dealing with the evidence or the substance of the argument. If someone were to attack the credibility of Reformation appealing to the character of Martin Luther as neurotic and incapable of making valid judgments, this would be an attack on his character in order to discredit his argument and, therefore, an example of an ad hominem.

also: argumentum ad hominem and ad hom for short

More [recent] big words from TWOTD.



Hyper-Calvinism

Dec 3

Posted by Luke Shiras in General Info | 1 Comment

You’re probably here because someone accused us (or you) of being hyper-Calvinists.

Hyper-Calvinism is a term of derision that today is often used to negatively label anyone with a strong theological view of God’s sovereignty in the affairs of men. A legitimate understanding of hyper-Calvinism, in its technical sense, appears to be lost today. It seems as if anyone to the right of one’s own theological position is fair game to be labeled a hyper-Calvinist. For example, Arminians regard any who hold to unconditional election as hyper-Calvinists. The four-point Calvinist views the five-point Calvinist as “hyper” because he holds to a limited atonement. We also find five-point infralapsarians referring to five-point supralapsarians as hyper-Calvinists because of their view of the relationship between the fall of man and God’s predestination of the elect.

But there is such a thing as hyper-Calvinism Read What is Hyper-Calvinism? by Jim Ellis for an in-depth study of the issue. His conclusion posted below.

Simply stated, it consists of two fundamental errors: a denial of duty-faith and a resultant denial of the universal call of the gospel. These fundamental errors are a departure from the teaching of Scripture as well as historic Calvinism. These errors were responsible for unbiblical teaching on evangelism and the proclamation of the gospel among 18th century English Baptists. However, as we have seen, the sad effect on evangelism is not the defining error, but a symptom.

On the other hand, in my understanding, historic Calvinism has always maintained that it is the duty of unregenerate men to repent and believe. Calvinism also acknowledges that the gospel is to be preached to all men indiscriminately and that we are to beseech all to individually trust in Jesus Christ and Him alone for salvation.

Finally, I hope it is clear that hyper-Calvinism is not to be considered a legitimate form of Calvinism, for it is not. By the same token, however, it should also be clear that honest theological discussion should refrain from labeling legitimate variations within orthodox Calvinism as “Hyper-Calvinism.”

Six Issues of Separation

Nov 26

Posted by Guest Author in By Others | No Comments

A Refutation of Roman Catholicism

I. An Open Letter to Roman Catholics

II. Six Issues of Separation

III. Cults and Catholicism: Comparison Chart

An Open Letter To Roman Catholic Scholars

The New Catholic Catechism in Section 847 states that non-Catholics who “seek God with a sincere heart” and “try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience” will “ achieve eternal salvation.”

The Catholic Catechism in Sections 839-845 says that sincere people from non-Christian religions such as Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Taoists, animists, etc. will make it to heaven without the necessity of hearing of or believing in Catholicism. As long as they are sincere in their faith and live a good life, they will make it to heaven.

Various modern Popes have also publicly stated that this means that sincere people who have no religious convictions such as agnostics, atheists, skeptics, etc. will make it to heaven without the necessity of hearing of our believing in Catholicism. As long as they are sincere and live a good life, they will make it to heaven.

The Catholic Catechism also says in Section 838 that the Orthodox, Evangelicals, Pentacostals, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc, will also make it to heaven without hearing of or believing the Roman Catholic Church. As long as they are sincere in their faith and live a good life, they will make it to heaven.

Since Catholic scholars teach that non-Catholics can make it to heaven without converting to Catholicism, why do Catholics continue to try to convert us to their church?
Read the rest of this entry »

Controversy

Nov 21

Posted by Duane Smets in General Info | No Comments

What do you do when two “scholars” or “theologians” or “pastors” or “people” disagree on something? What do you do with controversy? There are three main views. 1) Balance. Some think the truth is always somewhere in the middle. 2) Unity. Some think truth pertains only to the things there is no disagreement. 3) Conviction. Others think truth must be worked for by considering both positions and settling on one with a full conscience.

Our Motivations

It is difficult to separate this discussion from the issues of the heart and its motivations. For no doctrinal or theological or intellectual issue is really just a head matter but our past experiences, biases, and sometimes sinful inclinations effect the way we think about or handle an issue. Our personal presuppositions matter.

Often times the vie for balance is motivated by either laziness or disillusionment. That may sound harsh but usually a person who always thinks the truth is in the middle really has not took the time to thoroughly study both viewpoints (laziness) and feels overwhelmed by the amount of information or disagreement on the subject so they preemptively conclude neither position can be wholly true.

Often times the vie for unity is motivated by a fear of conflict or confrontation. Most of us don’t like the feeling of strife or contention. It is uneasy and unsettling and when people are not getting along whether you are on the inside or outside of it, it is uncomfortable. Thus, many try to approach life by avoiding difficulty and disagreement at all costs and consider the only things to be true, to be the things which are for the most part universally accepted.

It is my contention that we must be a people of conviction. 1 Thessalonians 1:5 states, “…our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.” We are to each be “fully convinced in (our) own mind (Rom 14:5).”

Such a thing takes a lot of work. To be honest and consider something from both viewpoints and only have a motivation for what is actually true, even if it means we have been wrong up is to approach controversy with true humility. It is a false humility which says one position cannot be correct.

Consider the words of John Piper on controversy:
“Can controversial teachings nurture Christlikeness? Before you answer this question, ask another one: Are there any significant biblical teachings that have not been controversial? I cannot even think of one…As much as we would like it, we do not have the luxury of living in a world where the most nourishing truths are unopposed. If we think we can suspend judgment on all that is controversial and feed our souls with only what is left, we are living in a dreamworld. There is nothing left…Besides that, would we really want to give to the devil the right to determine our spiritual menu by refusing to eat any teaching over which he can cause controversy?”

Those are good words from Pastor Piper. Throughout the Bible it seems one of the enemy’s chief tools is to mix a little bit of truth with untruth in order to create controversy so people end up wandering away from the faith. Instead we must hold the Bible firm in our hand and work hard to work it out.

Adiaphora

“Adiophora” means matters of indifference, tertiary, or secondary issues. Perhaps you have heard it said that there are essentials and non-essentials or closed-handed and open-handed issues in the Christian faith. This idea, as far as I can tell, originally comes from the debate of Calixtus and Calovius in the early 17th century. You can read about it here: (www.theresolved.com/downloads/essentials.pdf).

Calixtus sought to unite the Lutherans, Reformed, and Rome based on unity in fundamentals (”consensus quinquesaecularis”), he was the first ecumenicist. Calixtus thought systematic theology was too specific and devisive. Calovius said we need clarify or elaborate on what the first fundamentals are, which leads to secondary fundamentals needed to protect us from doctrinal error because uniting when there is disagreement in some areas can lead to compromise in bigger ones. Calovious thought such openness would eat away at the Christian faith and that all doctrines are related in some way.

I think there are two dangers and Calixtus and Calovius both make good points. The first danger is making your doctrinal acceptance so narrrow there is no room for an individual’s growth and you end up spending most your time fighting with other Christians about minut points. Which is what happened in the scholasticism era when theologians started arguing about things such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The other danger is not making your doctrine clear and providing acceptable boundaries. Which is what happened in the theologies of 19th century liberalism, when it was thought that inerrancy could be dismissed. I agree, like Calovius that if push it far enough we can see that everything connected to our salvation in Jesus Christ. Then must we require everyone accept every point of our doctrine for church membership? I don’t think so. I think what we are really after in membership is people who put their faith in the blood of Christ for their sin and not their own works and that they are people who are humble and willing to learn, grow, follow leadership and be on mission.

Getting Dirty

So, say you’ve been convinced and now you want to dig in and get dirty. How do you go about doing that? One misnomer is the view of the “scholar” or the expert. Sometimes certain positions are advocated by saying that “this is the only reasonable thing to think” because this is what the scholars say. Essentially this is a viewpoint advocating trust in a person rather than a position. If there is anything worth believing, I’m sure there are not simply people who are “too stupid to get it.” Besides, for nearly every controversial belief there are “scholars” on both sides if you take the time to look. We must remember that whether the person is a “scholar,” a “pastor” or some other expert, they are still a fallible human being who could be wrong.

Here is my advice…

- Multiple Viewpoint Books: At least in the arena of theology, for nearly every controversial belief there are books which contain multiple viewpoints from the advocates of certain positions. Some are better than others but usually the way it goes is…each author presents his case, the other viewpoint authors respond, and then the author has a final response to them all. This way you can avoid being intellectually dishonest and get a fair view of the lay of the land and the issues involved so that you can become fully convinced in your own mind.
- Do your own study: Even without having extensive training a person can do a pretty good job at studying an issue or a passage of Scripture in the Bible. This is easier than ever before with the amount of free tools available on the internet today. You can often do just as good of study or better than most Bible commentators and in then you might have reason to actually agree or disagree with them. For an example of my personal study methodology and some good resource guides you can read this post: www.theresolved.com/?p=326
- The Bible is the Final Arbitar: Whatever the Bible says is our ultimate and final authority. When it comes down to it all of our consciences ought to be held captive by the Word of God. If the Bible says it we believe it and if it doesn’t we do not. All controversy ends with what the Bible says. We must adhere to the clear and present declaration of 2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”
- Practice Humility and Grace: A humble and gracious spirit is imperative for the Christian when in the midst of a debate or disagreement. Too often have Christians, perhaps from being cast out and dismissed so much of the time, have spoke in harsh tones and words.

Jonathan Edwards writes, “The proud enjoy to speak in the most harsh, severe, and terrible language…they say we must be plain hearted and bold for Christ, we must declare war on sin wherever we see it, we must not mince the matter in the cause of God and when speaking for Christ…(this) is to overthrow all Christian meekness and gentleness…and defile(s) the mouths of the children of God…under a cloak of sanctity and zeal and boldness for Christ.”

R.C. Sproul too speaks so wisely about the spirit of humility versus an argumentative spirit. He writes, “It is so easy to disagree and debate. There is no way we are always going to agree with everybody on everything. But if we do disagree we should have a certain attitude in the context of disagreement an attitude of charity. Disagreements can be over important issues. There is nothing wrong with a godly agrument..when it is to get at truth. But it is one things to have a good, healthy, positive argument. It is another to have an argumentative spirit that seems to thrive on disunity, discord, and conflict. Pride is seen where we are not interested in anybody else’s opinion and where we just assume that anybody that disagrees with us must be wrong. We need to be teachable…(and have) convictions based on a humble heart and humble attitude. Humility is being able to listen to people and give an honest hearing and consideration to what they are saying.”

Conclusion

Let us be a people of conviction. Let us be striving and holding to the truth with a humble spirit of grace and submission to Jesus’ book. Let us not be awash in the pools of friction and disbelief but plant our feet with surety that God’s Word is true. Let us give others the room to grow and grant them grace to learn not just from our words but from the character with which we carry the truths breathed out by God’s Holy Spirit.

Assurance

Nov 14

Posted by Guest Author in By Others | No Comments

Once of the greatest aspects of true Biblical religion is that it puts forth the position that a believer can have a true and full assurance of his personal eternal salvation. We can know without a shadow of a doubt that we have been chosen by the Father, purchased by the Son and sealed with the Spirit. Blessed God three in One!

That this is the Biblical position on assurance can be seen from the example, command, and precept of the Holy Scripture.

We find many examples in Scripture of believers who possessed an absolute assurance of their eternal salvation. They knew that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth who were on their way to the celestial city of heaven.

Did not Mary express her assurance that God was her Savior in Luke (1:46-59)?

Didn’t Stephen face death with the absolute confidence that his spirit would ascend to heaven at death to be with Christ in (Acts 7:56-59)?

Is it not true that the Apostle Paul give us in his epistles many expressions of his assurance in (Romans 8:38, 39; Philippians 1:21-23; 2 Timothy 1:12; 4:7, 8)?

We not only find the above examples of assurance in Scripture, but we are also commanded and exhorted by the apostles to seek personal assurance.

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall (2 Peter 1:10)

And we desire that every one of you do show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end (Hebrews 6:11)

Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water (Hebrews 10:22).

God in His mercy has also given us a passage of full mention on the doctrine of assurance so that we might learn this doctrine by way of precept as well as by way of example and command. Of course, I am referring to the epistle of 1st John.

The Apostle John tells us his reason in writing his letter in 5:13.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life.

Some have thought mistakenly that John’s statement in I john 5:13 only referred to the two verses immediately preceding it.

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the son of God hath not life.

But a close analysis of verse 13 reveals that this is John’s statement of purpose in writing the entire epistle. Thus the entire book was written in order to instruct Christians how to obtain a true and full assurance of their eternal salvation.
This understanding of 1 John 5:13 is further strengthened by the observation that throughout his epistle John is concerned to tell us by what standards we can judge ourselves and others to be true Christians. Thus we find him writing, “Hereby we do know that we know him, if…” (1 John 2:3, etc.)
John’s concern that believers would be assured on their salvation arose out of his desire that they could experience the fullness of joy and fellowship with God. Thus he states in 1 John 1:3, 4,

That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

And these things we write unto you, that your joy may be full.

Assurance is not just a theoretical issue in Christian doctrine but it is one of the most important issues of the Christian life. It is the main stream from which flows the spiritual dynamic of the Christian faith. Until a believer possesses true assurance, can he really worship God as his Father with all his heart while doubting his salvation at the same time? Can he apply all the commands and duties to himself if he doubts his sonship? Can he give himself to service in the world if he does not know if he is yet saved? Can he excel in any aspect of Christian living if he does not know if he is a Christian? Will not his witness to the non-Christian be robbed of its power and effectiveness because of his own inner insecurity of salvation?

When God the Holy Spirit gives the precious gift of assurance to a believer, the change in the believers life is so powerful and dynamic that it is often confused with conversion, a deeper life experience or a second work of grace. Why? Assurance causes holy joy to well up in the believers heart and to put boldness and power in his walk and witness.

Because of all of the benefits to be desired from true assurance, the Westminster Confession states,

It is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure; that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance (XVIII, III).

Each one of you here tonight should ask yourself, “Am I sure of heaven? Do I know that my sins are forgiven? Have I been born of God? Upon What grounds do I base my assurance of my own personal salvation? Am I really saved or deceived?”

Despite the multitudes of professing Christians in our day who would quickly respond that they have assurance of salvation, a true Biblical understanding of assurance is actually a rare jewel! It is a pearl of great price which is not owned by many in our day. Indeed, in the light of the present times, we are warranted in saying that the 21st century church has, by in large, suffered itself to be decked with the cheap imitation jewelry of false teaching on assurance instead of adorning herself with the beautiful jewels of Biblical truth.

Let’s begin with a call of self-examination for God’s Word tells us in 2 Corinthians 13:5,

Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? –unless indeed you are disqualified.

Also in 1 Corinthians 11:20,

For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

Self-examination is very neglected in these days and much denied and resisted. This has happened because self-examination is humbling to the fleshly nature of man. When we examine ourselves, we look into the mirror of God’s Law and see ourselves as we really are. This is a painful experience and many would rather go their way and forget their condition before God. James 1:22-25 states that only the true believer can abide in spiritual duty of self-examination.

22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

With an attitude of self-examination, let us turn to a study of 1st John in order to discover true Biblical assurance.

I. The Test of Assurance

Throughout his letter, we constantly find the Apostle John giving us ways to test the reality of validity of a profession of faith. The tests at first center on one’s personal profession of salvation and whether or not you can consider yourself a true believer. At other times John gives us tests by which we examine the professions of others to see if they are truly saved.

First John calls us to examine our FAITH. And John stresses that there are two distinct areas of faith which we must examine to determine if we are the children of God or the children of the devil.
First of all, John tells us to examine the CONTENT of our faith. Faith in this sense is used in its noun form as the object of faith, i.e. the doctrines which constitute our beliefs.
John tells us that we must believe in the essential biblical doctrines concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ. Thus if you are believing, then you have passed the first test. John emphasizes this in the following passages.

4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world

4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God

5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.

If a person denies the fundamental doctrines of the person and work of Christ, John says that their profession and assurance of salvation is to be rejected. Thus if you are denying what you should be believing, you have failed the first test.

2:22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

2:23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

4:3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

Evidently, John would never have anything to do with universalism. For John’s doctrine does divide. It divides the children of God from the children of Satan. This division is good and must be urged all the more in a world which chooses to ignore doctrine and to seek unity in either service or experience over truth.
Second, John tells us to examine our COMMITMENT of our faith. This is faith used in its verb form, i.e. as the activity of believing. It is not enough to understand and give assent to orthodox doctrine but you must also put your personal trust and faith in Christ Jesus Himself as well as in the Biblical truths concerning His person and work.
It is also important to point out that the Apostle John always emphasizes the present tense character of true saving faith, i.e. faith is never viewed as a decision made in the past and now over with or completed.
Faith is an ever-present exercise of the soul in receiving all that Christ gives to spiritually hungry sinners and saints. Thus John says in 5:1,

5:1 Whoever believes (is believing) that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves (is loving) Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.

Throughout the Gospel of John, John emphasizes this present tense character of faith in such places as John 3:16.

3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes (is believing) in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

The proper question is not, “Did you believe and receive Jesus Christ one time in the past?” John does not once refer to past decisions as having anything to do with true assurance.
The proper question is, “Are you believing in Christ right now? Are you trusting Him for salvation right now?”
What evidence is there in your life today- right now- that leads you to believe that you are truly saved?

The second general area to which John would direct our self-examination is the area of our LIFE.
John first calls upon us to examine the OUTWARD WALK of our life, i.e. to examine our lives to see if we are conforming ourselves to God’s Law.
John tells ust o stand before the mirror of the Law and to ask ourselves,

“Do I purposely attempt to keep God’s Law? Do I delight in God’s Law? Or, do I purposely disobey the Law and look upon it as grievous?”

Not only must we be believing what we should be believing but we must also be doing what we should be doing. Namely, seeking to conform out lives to the standard of the Law of Christ.
John is not demanding perfect obedience before assurance is attainable for none can say that they are without sin (1 John 1:8-10). He is talking about purposeful obedience, i.e. the intent of the heart, the general bent of the will and affections is toward God and His Law. In this sense he states that obedience to God’s Law is necessary for true assurance.

1 John 2:3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.

2:5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him.

2:6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.

3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous.

3:9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

3:10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

3:18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.

3:19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him.

5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

How many present day “converts” live a life of willful disobedience and rebellion against God’s Law? They want to live “under grace” and “not law” in order to feed their lusts. The Apostle John’s appreciation and presentation of the use of God’s Law in discovering the children of multitudes of profession Christians who abound on every hand. Oh, that God would raise up men who boldly proclaim the precious truths of 1st John.
John also tells us to examine our EMOTIONAL FOCUS of our life, i.e. to discover the objects of our desires and feelings.
As a wise theologian, the Apostle John does not deal with every emotion of the human heart but he deals with the two major emotions from which all other emotions flow: Love and Hate.

Love and hate are like the engine of a train. Where love goes, we see all the other virtues follow. If we love we will find all the elements of 1 Cor. 13 present on the train. In the same way, if we hate, all of the evil emotions follow where hate goes. If we hate then we find the works of flesh (Galatians 5:19-21). Thus John deals with the focus of ones love and hate to determine if one is truly a child of God. If we love what God loves and hate what God hates, the we have passed this test. Thus John says that the true Christians love fellow believers and hate the world of sin.

2:10 He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him.

2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

3:11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another,

3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death.

4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.

4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

4:12 No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us.

4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.

4:21 And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.

But if we hate Christians and love the world, we reveal that we are not born of God.

2:9 He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now.

2:11 But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

4:8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

4:20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

II. The Spiritual Application of Assurance

Self-examination even along the lines of Biblical tests of assurance, will not automatically give anyone assurance for assurance is the personal sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. John points this out in his epistle,

1 John 3:24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

1 John 4:13 By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.

But listen carefully, the Holy Spirit does not give assurance to those who fail to manifest the Biblical evidences of salvation. Instead, John combines the evidence of saving faith with the work of the Holy Spirit in 1 John 3:24.

The Spirit may give us assurance by making us realize that our life and faith meet the Biblical tests for it is “the Spirit who bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God” (Rom. 8:16). Thus no amount of personal introspection or mental syllogism will automatically produce true assurance. The sovereign Spirit is the Lord of Assurance and He gives it to whomever he wishes.

Q-Is assurance part of saving faith? Can a person be a Christian and still lack assurance?
A-1st John was written to believers to call them to have assurance of their salvation, so yes.

Q-Can we possess assurance and then lose it? And may we regain it?
A-Assurance is not a “thing” which is given to the believer and then he has it for good. Assurance is that personal ministry of the Holy Spirit to the heart of a soul of a believer. When we grieve or quench the Holy Spirit by unconfessed sin in our life, the personal ministry of the Holy Spirit in assurance may be taken away from us along with the other fruit of the Spirit (Eph 4:30)

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE