Saturday, May 19, 2012

Brick by Brick

This is a paper I wrote for my Ethics class at Calvary Bible College during the Spring semester of 2012 for Dean Cory Trowbridge. Ethics is one of my favorites areas of study and this class was very interesting. It made me think a lot about Not just finding the problem with a scenario, but also finding the cure for the people involved. I think that that concept of finding the cure, not just the problem, has become integral to my worldview at the moment. That's what has hit me so hard in my study of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, apologetics, and ethics. The point of this paper is developing a biblically ethical system in an atheistic culture. With that in mind, here it is.




ATHEIST TO A THEIST
Introduction
            Ethics is a difficult area of study. The difficulty lies in the birth of ethics in a secular culture. For years ethics was a field of study taught solely by the church. The reason for this is because for centuries theists have been the interpreters of the word of God and how it should relate to society. That is because of the centuries long history of Christianity, recognized even by atheists, that was involved in the creation of the American nation. This has since changed. Ethics is now a required field of study for most universities, as well as high school educations. Christian ethics has been supplanted by the study of secular ethical culture.
            As Richard Dawkins would say, “There is a new wave of reason sweeping across America, Britain, Europe, Australia, South America, the Middle East, and Africa.” People are developing ethical systems that no longer see God as a necessary, or even useful, to develop morality. The purpose of this paper will be to present how I would influence an atheistic culture through a biblical worldview by diagnosing the problem with atheistic ethics, the origin of atheistic ethics, the cure for atheistic ethics, and how this cure will be implemented.
            This is not a field that Christians must run away from. Christians must lead the charge into the fight, and also to carry the wounded back to the throne of grace.
The Problem
            Richard Dawkins said in his book, The God Delusion, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” That is about as to the point as one can say it. This, ultimately, is the great problem to solving an atheistic society. The problem is and always will be sin. Sin is what causes mankind to not only fail in its understanding of ethical society, but also in the birthplace of ethics as a whole.
            Atheistic ethics can find its place in various ethical systems. The decline of ethics begins and ends when one fails to see God as the source of morality. Acknowledgement of God just is not enough to develop a proper ethical system. According to recent polls, almost 95% of Americans acknowledge that God exists. All humans will also acknowledge that mankind has a serious problem. Richard Dawkins even says, “Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.” Atheists decide to deal with this problem through various methods.
            The first is that they try to eliminate God from the equation. This is where an atheist tries to win the argument, ultimately. They try to establish some form of ethical origin that does not involve the Bible, or the God of the Bible. Atheists believe that ethics from the basis of religion is an impossibility since the end goal is pleasing God, getting into heaven, or accessing Nirvana, etc., which is folly because these places do not exist. Basically, the problem for an atheist is living for a purpose that ultimately does not take shape in present form. This is where their will always be a disconnect between Christians and atheists. Godly Christians have no need for present reward since they are to store up treasures in heaven. Atheists, on the other hand, believe that ethics is centered around an end game that can be achieved at some point in this world. But no matter what it is, it is something that can and should be determined by human kind. The crux of this belief for atheists rests upon the foundation of free will. For atheists, ethics is relative because all men have the free will to decide what is right for them but not for anyone else. Absolutes are for bondage thinkers.
            What this means is that culture, behavior, and utilitarian ethics determines what is truly ethical when God is eliminated, if that is even possible. An examination of how each of these core systems impacts atheistic ethics will now take place.
            Cultural relativism believes that the cultures of where we are raised ultimately determines what man holds dear and raises up as ethically acceptable. For example, most people raised in America today believe that God exists. Richard Dawkins would maintain that this would not be the case if most of these people were raised in early century Greece. They would not believe in God, they would believe in Apollo, Zeus, Mars, Ares, or Aphrodite. This is because the culture would dictate what is acceptable and what is not.
            Behavior ethics believes that men cannot help themselves when it comes to how they respond to stimuli. Basically, men are no different from animals. We react off instincts just as animals do. The purpose of ethics becomes pleasurable stimulus to bring about the desired effect from people.
            Utilitarian is the trickiest of atheistic systems. It incorporates a lot of scriptural truth, but without the scriptural purpose. Ultimately, the greatest good stems from the greatest happiness. Thus, if eliminating an entire group of people who believe in the God of the Bible brings about the greatest happiness of all, mass murder becomes the de facto good. Utilitarianism dictates that happiness is good and good is determined by our senses. Rules do not determine right or wrong because rules can only effect intent as opposed to result. Result is the determiner of what is right and wrong. Pain is the greatest evil.
The Cure
            The cure is now the greatest of the problems. Atheism is the worst of all religious systems. Its god is the human intellect. The thing that makes atheism so difficult to combat, is the simple reason that it almost forces Christians to fight on their terms. Christians almost cannot use the Bible, a reference to God, or any apologetic involving a spiritual source or reference point because to an atheist, these simply do not exist. This is a big problem because atheism no longer wishes to simply say that gods, or God, is acceptable just so long as He is not the only way. Atheism wants to eradicate religion completely.
So, how can Christians try to administer a cure to a society that does not really wish to be cured with the cure?
Ultimately, there is not a whole lot that Christians can do in and of themselves. That does not mean that Christians should just give up and call it a day either. Here are some of the best steps that Christians can do in order to save a country imploding on its own brilliance.
1. Pray. Prayer is something that cannot be underestimated in this culture. Prayer is something that atheists cannot do. Prayer is something that an atheist will never be able to partake in and experience the calming nature that prayer and communion with the Father has. Paul commanded Christians to pray without ceasing. Paul commanded believers to pray for all who are in authority no matter what they believe. Prayer is the hammer that God uses to soften the hearts of man(I Thessalonians 5:17; I Timothy 2:1).
2. Apologetics. Apologetics is the study of the defense of Christian faith. The study of apologetics will greatly aid Christians in how they deal with the atheistic worldview of ethics. Apologetics provides the study of the empirical proofs that atheists crave. Apologetics brings Scripture onto the same playing field as whatever atheists can throw at it from a purely intellectual sense, at least. When the empirical veracity of the Bible can be proved to atheist, just enough to recognized as a historical, believable, reliable document. When this happens, Christians can move on from the petulant realm of debate and into the relevant realm of changing the culture through changing the people. This change in people is brought about by the third point to the cure(I Peter 3:15).
3. The Gospel. The Gospel is the message of salvation. When it comes down to it, Christians cannot meet the atheists on their playing field. A sad reality is that most atheists understand their position better than most Christians understand theirs. Christians must then rely on the workings of Christ in the lives of those whom the Gospel is shared with. This is how faith has always been brought about. Faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of Christ. Carl Sagan once said that there is not enough proof to either prove, or disprove the God of the Bible. All that scientists say is that with great claims, comes great demands for evidence. Ultimately, the Gospel is the only thing that can change the culture. Mankind is incurably religious and cannot develop a system of ethics at all because is not something that can exist devoid of God. Now, how must Christians implement this change?
Implementation
            Atheists need empirical proof for everything. Faith is a crutch to all who are not willing to work hard enough to discern what is actual truth, according to the atheist mind. Faith, to atheistic cultures, is the most heinous of all crimes that must be punished. Because of this, the cures listed above must all be expressed through the format of relationship.
One of Christianity’s most iterated, and sadly least kept, principles is the concept of loving our enemies, and blessing those that persecute us. Imagine how far one can go in a relationship with an atheist by proving that the change enacted in the Christian is from God. This is what all atheists want, and ironically, what God wants at the same time. God wants faith with action. Atheists want our faith to match our actions because faith is often the tool of manipulation among the lower, less intelligent classes. That battle starts with Christians praying for those who are our apparent enemies. This even extends to asking those who shun the name of Christ how we can pray for them. Only the staunchest of religious bigots would shun the goodwill of another human, be it from God or not.
Atheists hate Christianity because they are oftentimes the least inquisitive people who have no real reasoning abilities. 99% of all atheists are in fact brilliant people. Their ability to reason and debate from a logical perspective is incredible. This is why Christians must learn apologetics. Christians have a responsibility to learn how to be intelligent thinkers who can defend their beliefs rationally, logically, and most importantly, from the Bible that most claim to know yet do not. Atheists know enough about the Bible to be dangerous, but not enough to interpret most passages accurately. They can find their way to the dangerous problem texts for Christians to interpret who are not well versed in the historical implications of most of these verses. This is why Christians must know how to use their weapons well, and instill doubt in atheists with the mind God gave them. Ultimately, apologetics will not win someone to Christ. Paul Watson once said, “Theistic proofs are great because they rattle cages, but ultimately, they cannot save.” How true this is, as this brings me to my final point.
The Gospel is called the good news for a reason. It shatters the walls of the ignorant, it reaches out to the drowning, and rouses the dead to life. Because ethics cannot be established apart from God, God must be centric in the lives of men. It is God who instills in man the desire for ethical parity that coincides with an established order. That is why ethical systems have problems and are self-defeating when they exist outside the boundaries of God. Cultural Relativism cannot work because it cannot handle the idea of absolute truth. Behaviorism cannot work because it ignores the reason why there are Buddhists converting to Christianity inside the Buddhist community. As Justin Martyr once said, “If you want proof of the reality of God, oh emperor, look at the people!” Justin Martyr believed that the greatest apologetic of God’s existence in ethics was the very fact that the people who followed God were moral and good people. People who lived what they believed, and lived what Christ taught. So many Christians have lost the plot when it comes to this. Christianity is not lived in a bubble. Christ needs His people to get out into the world, into the business world, into the education system, into the universities, into the sports arena, and into politics and live as Christ would have them live. Christians cannot expect the culture to change for the better ethically if the very people who claim to be transformed by the renewing power of Christ do not live any different than those who have not had the same transformation. Every time a pastor is found in his office dying from pornography addictions the atheists have just one more opportunity to blaspheme Christ and turn their backs on Him and His people. Every time a Christian rains fire and brimstone on every unbeliever that comes across their path, the atheist sees nothing more than spiritual racism. I am not saying that we must be passive about sin, we must state when sin is wrong, but we cannot instantly condemn to hell, but rather, attempt to help the same way that Christ did. Present the cure!
That is the only way that the culture can be changed. Bring the cure to the people. We cannot make them confess, but I do not want unsaved people to stand at the judgment seat of Christ and say back to Christ, “Your servant, Ross Harris, never once told me about you.” How terrifying is that thought?
Conclusion
            As stated above, the culture can only change when the source of the culture changes. Since mankind has set up counterfeit gods to replace the One True God, it is the job of Christians to present the ethical solution to corruption by first living out the ethical solution, defending the ethical solution, and presenting the ethical solution. When this is done, it is no longer the responsibility of the Christian, but the responsibility of mankind to respond to the Gospel. When it comes down to it, we are not commanded to change the culture, but to pray for those who can. The culture will change on its own when Christ is the center of culture. This is what all believers look forward to when we come into the millennial kingdom of Christ and His reign for 1,000 years before entering into the greatness of the never ending eternality of the rule of God the Father. What a day that will be. Maranatha.

Friday, May 18, 2012

Radical Obedience

This is a paper I wrote for our Great Christian Thinkers class at Calvary Bible College for my Spring semester in 2012 during my Sophomore year. This paper was written for Mr. Tim Smith. This class was devoted to the study of the circumstances and the theology surrounding the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. This is one paper of many that each of the students were required to write. I was fortunate enough to have the chance this paper about a topic that I am so personally fond of. The concept of incredible obedience to God for seeing something worthwhile in the unsalvageable. Bear in mind that I do not agree with everything that Dietrich Bonhoeffer believed, but I cannot disagree with his love for God, his desire to obey at all costs, his belief in the Lordship of Christ, his love for humanity, and his desire to fix people through the grace of Christ. So, here you go.




Radical Obedience
            There is no point in sugar coating any statement made by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He has not given theology students that luxury. What students must realize is that they are dealing with a man who has such a proper view of the God of the universe and how small he, and every other being is. Bonhoeffer is a rare man. Many people seek to find faults in mankind and with any system, but Bonhoeffer strove to find remedies to the faults. This could be seen in the way he preached and the way he stressed the sovereignty of God in all facets of life. Perhaps the greatest of these areas was when it came to discipleship.
            The first two chapters looked at describing what grace and the call to discipleship looked like. The next three chapters focus on obedience to that irresistible call. What was obedience to Bonhoeffer? Obedience was something that one did because Christ had done a work in that person’s life. Obedience, for Bonhoeffer, could cover salvation in response to Christ’s call, or it could cover the sanctifying process. For Bonhoeffer, obedience was and always will be tied directly to faith. The faith of man is never better on display than when it is demonstrated through the obedience to Christ.[1]
“Again, when Peter was called to walk on the rolling sea,
he had to get up and risk his life. Only one thing was required
in each case¾to rely on Christ’s Word, and cling to it as
offering greater security than all the securities of the world.”[2]
            For Bonhoeffer, the word of God is something far more than a plea to live for righteousness. It is a command from the incarnate God-Man. Scripture never makes a request of the unrepentant. Scripture never seems to reason with the lost so as to negotiate a peaceful surrender. These are not the actions of the God of all creation. The Apostle Paul states in Acts 17:30,31 a command from God that all men are to repent. The question must then be asked, what is this repentance?
            For Bonhoeffer, repentance was nothing less than radical obedience.
“But no, he went away sorrowful.
Because he would not obey, he could not believe.”[3]
            This is a sobering truth for all Christians. John 3:18 says that those who do not believe in Christ have already received their judgment. Obedience to Christ’s calling is never in control of the decisions of man. Christ never asked mankind to obey Him legalistically. Christ has not asked of Christians to sell all their possessions because material wealth is of the devil. He has asked for radical obedience, obedience that does not require material wealth, obedience that does not require potential followers to cross items off of their bucket list before taking up the cross for the first time, obedience that is so dedicated to the incarnate God-Man that it radiates a love that is so bright that the evil hate it and the righteous flock to it, obedient love that is so devoted to Christ that it almost comes across as hate since a Christian’s love must pale in comparison to the radical obedience to Christ.
The Subtle Joy
            Christians are called to be like Christ. That is a truth that cannot be argued. Though it is true that Christians cannot be like Christ in His perfections, Christians must be like Christ in how they live and act. This is most beautifully expressed in how the incarnate God-Man suffered and was rejected.
“Had He only suffered, Jesus might still have
been applauded as the Messiah. All the sympathy
and admiration of the world might have been focused
on His passion.”[4]
            What Christians must understand is that Christ did not just suffer pain physically during His passion week. The people rejected Christ as an outworking of their father, the devil, whom Christ accused accurately the Pharisees of being just a short time ago. This was ultimately what Satan had done to God. He rejected Christ, and the sovereignty of God, and was used by God to cause Christ to suffer and be rejected at the hands of His creation. This is the relationship that Bonhoeffer tried to stress with dying to Christ. Dying on the cross necessitates being despised and rejected by men.[5] If suffering and rejection is what makes Christ the Christ, then suffering and rejection is what makes a disciple a disciple since we are to be crucified with Christ. The suffering and death of Christ is so integral to the theology of the Church. Christians need the death and resurrection of Christ for salvation as empirical proof against a world gone mad as it drowns in a quasi wave of “reason.” The fact that so many churches were trying to disprove the resurrection of Christ proves that the Suffering Servant at its very nature, is a scandal to most churches.[6] But it is this very suffering and rejection that is a source of joy for the believer.
“Only the man who is dead to his own will
can follow Christ.”[7]
            Every command of Christ is a desire to put to death the desires of the flesh and to put on the actions of the regenerated man. Christ demands radical obedience because the Father answered Christ’s prayer to have the “cup” taken from Him by having Him pass through the ordeal. So also, Christians will have the “cup” of tribulation taken from them as they live through it.
Personal Attention
            When Christ described Himself as the Good Shepherd, He stated that if one were wandering astray, he would leave the others and go out looking for that one lost sheep. This begs the question, how does discipleship occur on a personal level?
“Through the call of Jesus men become individuals.
Willy-nilly, they are made to decide, and that decision
can only be made by themselves. It is no choice of their
own that makes them individuals: it is Christ
who makes them individuals by calling them.”[8]
            Paul wrote to the Corinthian church that he determined to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified. This is what Bonhoeffer was trying to get at, at its core. Man is at a state of hostility with all of creation, whether God or man. Man needs an mediator who can restore relationship to the King of Glory. Only a fait accompli action of Christ can separate man, as a disciple, from a world of material and relational chaos. This is what happens when the words of Christ are no longer an ideal or an ethical system, but rather, as the words of Mediator who restores relationship to the hearers of the call to discipleship. It is this call, that severs ties to the world and places Christians into relationship with the God-Man. To love one an exterior relationship more than the relationship to Christ, is to hate Christ, according to Bonhoeffer.[9]
            Some may say that since Christ has paid the penalty of the sin of Christians that they need not worry since Christ has established relationship with them, they can go back to the relationships they just left. What many Christians forget is that this is the same world that crucified the King of Glory. When Christians embrace this, they embrace merely a justification of sin, and not the sinner.[10]
Conclusion
            As we can see in this section of The Cost of Discipleship, Bonhoeffer was stressing how the outward change meets the inward change in the life of the believer. This is such an important concept to understand for the Christian community today. We live in an era where most accusations of legalism are, in actuality, someone just trying to encourage someone to abide to a standard of holiness. This is the point that Bonhoeffer tried to stress. Faith is so much more than a mere mental assent, as most in the church see it today. Faith is obedience, and obedience is faith.
            I believe that the church should study this book since we live in an age of Christianity where discipleship is in most circles, vague. Most people view discipleship solely as a man-to-man relationship. This is what Bonhoeffer was trying to get away from. As always, he got back to the root of the issue. Discipleship is a vertical relationship first, and a horizontal relationship second.
            The church must realize that we are facing an epidemic of believers who do not understand that they are clinging to ties that separate them from a firm relationship with Christ. This could be the form of anything that supplants the King of Glory in the life of a believer. Christ does not desire acquaintance. He desires intimate, personal relationship.
“…the same Mediator who makes us individuals is also
the founder of a new fellowship. He stands in the centre
between my neighbour and myself. He divides, but He also unites.
Thus although the direct way to our neighbor is barred, we now
find the only real to him the way which passes through the Mediator.”[11]


“Radical obedience
begot radical relationship,
                                                which will beget radical joy.”


[1] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 64.

[2] Ibid., 79

[3] Ibid., 80
[4] Ibid., 86-87

[5] Ibid., 87
[6] Ibid., 87

[7] Ibid., 90

[8] Ibid., 94
[9] Ibid., 97

[10] Ibid.,
[11] Ibid., 100

Monday, March 12, 2012

Scripture and foreknowledge...

This is a paper I wrote for Dr. Neil Nelson during the Spring semester of my Sophomore year at Calvary Bible College in 2012 for our class on Romans. The paper had to deal with the interpretation of the word "foreknew" in Romans 8:29-30. Did this word refer to omniscience, or to pre-love(election). Here's some of my findings. May you be blessed by it.



FOR KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM
Introduction
            The doctrine of foreknowledge is a very controversial issue for many in the Christian church. The interpretation of this word in Romans 8 affects heavily the views of other doctrines. This word affects how one views God’s omniscience, sovereignty, and soteriological work. It is important to have a proper interpretation of this word so that one has a proper view of God. If one does not have a proper view of God, it will be hard to have a proper view of Scripture, let alone, a proper interpretation of Scripture.
            The purpose of this paper will be to present the context of the passage it is in, the differing interpretations of foreknowledge, what foreknowledge entails, and what the interpretation really is and how it should affect the lives of Christians.
Interpretation through context
            The letter to the Romans was written by Paul to the Jew and Gentile believers of the church in Rome. This is a letter Paul wrote, most likely, so that he may encourage the believers in Rome. The purpose of the book was multifarious: 1. To prepare for a visit so they could minister to him in kind. 2. To present systematically the truth of the Gospel so as to unite the Jewish and Gentile believers. 3. There is a clear apologetic purpose to the book. Paul often uses arguments that most likely have been posed to him, reasoning against himself, before refuting the arguments with Scripture that corroborates the rest of the revealed canon. 4. Paul wanted to make sure the church was prepared to preach just in case he was unable to visit.
Paul uses his unique writing style to present his points. His writing style here, especially here, helps the reader to interpret the truth of the word foreknowledge. He begins the book with a presentation of how mankind is sinful. This takes place between chapters 1-3. Chapters four and five relate to justification of the unbelievers, thus making them believers. Chapters 6-8 deal with salvation and sanctification and how God renews His people daily. It is in this context that the word foreknowledge must be interpreted.[1] The key to all of this must be what the endgame goal is of God’s foreknowledge. The only answer can be the glory of God, to which all of history points.[2]
The differing schools of thought
            There are multiple views on the meaning of the word foreknow. They are interpreted one of two ways: To know in advance, or to know something more pointed such as to choose ahead of time or to pre-love.
There is the belief that only believers are those who are foreknown or pre-loved by Christ. This does not refer to knowledge of what believers will do, as far as coming to Christ, but simply knowledge or election of believers. The key is that this is referring solely to a select group of individuals since not all of humanity will be justified, and glorified.[3] This is not the doctrine of actions but rather of predetermined allegiance. By this it is meant that God does not rely on the actions of people to choose Him. This pre-knowledge, or foreknowledge is what has been involved in establishing a meaningful relationship, not simply an acquaintance. This is simply the doctrine of how God fulfills His saving purpose.[4] The key to this relationship is that this relationship comes with the goal of the relationship in mind.[5] Paul appears to imply in the passage that God’s foreknowledge was not related to something about us, but rather He knew us. Anyone can know about celebrities, but it is an entirely different thing to know them personally. It is almost insulting to the character of God that He would need to look down a tube, so, to speak, and see who would turn their heads to Him so that He might choose them. This can, and must refer only to Christians. This is a unique love that God has reserved for the believer. This foreknowledge speaks of a predetermining to love His children to salvation.[6] There are other instances where the word can refer to omniscience, but there are more proofs for the pre-love position.
The second view to this word pertains to how God simply knew that humanity would respond in faith. This key clearly rests in God’s knowledge of the faith of believers as the object of God’s foreknowledge and this is the basis of His predestination. This could also refer to the superb state of morality of the believer’s life.[7] This interpretation does seem to coincide with Acts 26:5 and 2 Peter 3:17. The verbs in all of these sentences clearly refers to a “knowing beforehand.”[8]
What one must come to grips with when one interprets foreknowledge in this light is this: God is not the arbiter of who will be saved and who won’t. This interpretation is quite popular because it does away with the arbitrary nature of God in how he deals with others.[9] This view would be popular with the Arminian position since it states that man can choose to either accept or reject God based on the means of prevenient grace. What someone has to come to terms with who holds to this position is the simple fact that one must believe God is a reactionary potter.
What foreknowledge entails
Now that the basic definitions have been presented, the truth must now be explained.
If foreknowledge were to mean only knowing the future actions of Christians, then this eliminates the sovereignty of God. This would go completely contrary to the nature of God as displayed in Jeremiah 18 with the analogy of the potter and the clay. Under the belief of this interpretation, one must picture God saying to Jeremiah that He shall form the nations as He sees fit, but only after they tell Him what they wish to look like. This is the commonly skewed perception of Jeremiah 18. The potter is in complete control of the clay and needs no input from the clay and receives no opinion from the clay in how it should be crafted, be it a vessel for wrath, or for honor. This viewpoint seems to diminish the doctrine of Total Depravity.
If foreknowledge means that God chose before time began what the fate of all mankind would be then one must sacrifice entirely the free will of man. When one advocates this position one must realize that God has chosen and His word is final and that there are those whom He wills into heaven and those whom He wills into hell. To accept this view one must acknowledge that Pharaoh’s actions were predetermined by God. This is not because God looked into the future and saw what Pharaoh would do in response to the request of Moses. This is because God Himself hardened the heart of Pharaoh and made sure that the world could see the glory of God manifested through the wonders of God. Man was not consulted in Genesis 1 and 2 when God formed all things. Christians seem to think that God did just fine in creating everything good without their help. Why would they want a say when it comes to something as important as salvation?
Conclusion
How does this word help Christians interpret the sovereignty of God? If one holds to a worldview where the potter in the analogy of Jeremiah 18 gives a say to the clay, then one must believe that God is only knowing how things are going to happen. The God of this interpretation does not make the final decision. He only provides the options for the clay. This, of course, would be an understanding very popular among Arminian circles. One treads a treacherous path when they begin to travel down this road. Anytime one thinks that they can make a conscious effort to choose God, then that person has no accurate understanding of the Gospel.
               If one holds to a worldview where the potter in Jeremiah 18 has total control and mastery over the intent, the design, and the completion of that clay, then one must believe that God is sovereign in all He does and chooses to do with what is His freely, justly, and greatly. Some scriptures that corroborate this belief are Genesis 18; Exodus 33; 1 Samuel 2; Psalm 18; Proverbs 9; Jeremiah 1, Hosea 13; Amos 3. It is clear and easily seen that everything that God did was done with a planned and ordained step by step process that will be accomplished for the good of all believers. This saving foreknowledge is completely an act of what God Himself will do, and He alone.[10] When all is said and done, Christians must come to the realization, when studying Romans 8, that God chose us to glorify Him for a specific purpose. He chose us because He knew us intimately. He chose us because He came and got man via predestination.[11] There are those who say that man cannot love a God that they could not freely give themselves to serve. The people who say this are not those who read their Bibles. The Apostle John says that those who love are born of God, and know God. Those that do not love do not know God, for God is love. We love because Christ planted love in us. This would corroborate the analogy Jesus gives of the Good Shepherd. The sheep know the shepherd’s voice, and they come when he calls. In Scripture, wolves never become sheep, but the followers of God are always the sheep because they have been pre-loved since before time.


[1] Neil D. Nelson. Romans Outline(Romans Class Personal Notes: 2012)

[2] Alva J., McClain Romans: The Gospel of God’s Grace (BMH Books: Winona Lake, Indiana. 1973) 168.

[3] Douglas J. Moo. The Epistle to the Romans(William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1996) 532
[4] Robert H. Mounce. The New American Commentary: Romans (Broadman and Holdman Publishers: No location listed, 1995) 188.

[5] John Witmer. The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Victor Publishing: Colorado Springs, Colorado, 2004), 474.

[6] John MacArthur. The MacArthur Study Bible, NASB-U (La Habra, California: Thomas Nelson, 2006), 1676

[7] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans. 532.

[8] Thomas R. Schreiner. Romans (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1998) 452.

[9] Ibid., 452.
[10] D.M. Lloyd-Jones. Romans (Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1975) 234

[11] McClain, Romans, 168.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Teleios and the gifts.


Teleios
            BDAG defines teleios as something pertinent to meeting the highest standard of things, of persons who are fully up to standard in a certain respect and not satisfied with half-way measures. Perfect, complete, expert. Jesus became perfect human, mature, full grown, adult, referring to an initiation into mystic rites. Fully developed in a moral sense. Pertaining to God(perfect), God is a role model for unlimited display of beneficence, attainment of likeness to God, restoration in a corrupt context, perfection, completeness. In contrast to elementary knowledge. This is coming from 1 Corinthians 13:10.
            Mcreynolds defines teleios as complete.
            Liddell, Scott, and Jones define it under sacrifices. Perfect of full tale and number, of victims without spot or blemish.
            Hatch Redpath states that Noah was blameless(Genesis 6:9), Exodus 12:5 speaks an unblemished lamb, Deuteronomy 18:13 states that the people shall be blameless before God.
            TWOT uses the word shelem which means, be complete, be finished, to complete, restore or deliver. This is derived from a Chaldee word. Additional notes on this point also taken from Strong’s.
            Moulton and Milligan define teleios as, having reached its end, full grown, mature, of persons. It was also used in the time of Augustus to refer to marriage ,or a contract. It was used in classical Greek around 186 A.D. proving that women who have attained maturity are witnesses of their persons, and can remain with their husbands or not as they choose. It can also refer to hens laying eggs in perfect condition, or a complete lampstand, or even a final verdict.
            Louw/Nida lists that it is something pertaining to being perfect in the sense of not lacking moral quality. James 3:2; Matthew 5:48 can be compared with being mature in one’s behavior. Mature, grown up as a mature person to measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ(Ephesians 4:13). It is also possible to interpret this word as meaning perfect also in Ephesians 4:13. It is also possible that in Matthew 5:48 it means maturity of behavior, though usually interpreted as being perfect since it refers to God.
            Kittel lists it as sacrifices without blemish as well. Homer uses it as complete, no part outside, nothing left out, in the Septuagint it always refers to unblemished, undivided complete, whole. In the NT it often means totality. It is that from which nothing is missing.
Conclusion
            I believe that this passage is speaking of the eternal state when it comes to the word teleios. First, Paul uses two different words to refer to prophecy and knowledge, and tongues. The former will be done away, while the latter will cease. The latter will not end by the coming of the perfect for they will already have ceased. The perfect must be the eternal state since we will have preachers and teachers in the Kingdom. It won’t be the completion of the canon since we still see operation of those two gifts. The sign gifts will cease on their own since their whole purpose was a proof to unbelievers that they spoke the Word of God. With the whole revelation of God now revealed through His word, the sign gifts are not necessary anymore.

Propitiation: A matter of Scripture and Perspective


           This is a word study that I did for Greek I during my sophomore year at Calvary Bible College during the Fall semester 2011. Dr. Nelson had us do this just before our finals and I found the studies to be very enlightening. May you be blessed by it.


Hilasmos

            BDAG defines the word hilasmos as an “appeasement necessitated by sin, or expiation. In these cases we have the plural probably referring to the individual actions to be expiated(which in this case would most likely be the sins of the unbelievers). This is seen in the Greek “eis i emoi” which means “for my expiation.
            This word can also refer to an instrument for appeasing, or sacrifice to atone, a sin offering. It was used in this sense in the 1st-2nd century  by Plutarchus at least.
            MecReynolds finds the word “hilasmos” in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10. The first passage refers to Christ being the atoning sacrifice as well as in 4:10.
            Liddell, Scott, and Jones define hilasmos as a means of appeasing, atonement, or a sin offering like one seen in Leviticus predominately as well as a good deal of the Old Testament.
            Hatch Redpath sees the word in the following passages: Leviticus 4:8, 24, 33; 5:9l 25:9; Numbers 5:8; Ezekiel 44:27. The Leviticus passages speak of the sin offerings. This carries with it obviously the idea of atonement. The Numbers passage speaks of the idea of restitution for atonement. The Psalm passage speaks of forgiveness. The Ezekiel passage speaks of a sin offering also.
            TWOT lists hilasmos as a word that often refers to the trespass offerings in Leviticus and Numbers. The Hebrew word for this is ‘asham, which refers to a guilt over a trespass but a guilt of sin that must be atoned for in a specific manner. Asham, a derivative of the word refers to the offering for the sin. Abimilech referred to it in Genesis 26:10. The word is used 22 times in Leviticus. I find this very interesting since the way that sin was atoned for was always the death of something else. I believe in the doctrine of unlimited atonement because of what I see in the Bible in 2 Peter 2:1 and Acts 17:30,31. These passages speak of the fact that Christ died for souls that will go to destruction, while the Acts passage has God Himself commanding all men everywhere to repent.
            Moulton and Milligan state that is a reference to the words soterion or charisterion, which refer to votive offerings.
            Louw/Nida states that hilasmos is the means by which sins are forgiven, the means of forgiveness expiation. Christ Himself is the means by which sins are forgiven(1 John 2:2). Hilasmos and hilasterion denote forgiveness rather than true propitiation. Propitiation is essentially a process by which does a facor to a person in order to make him or her favorably disposed, but in the NT God is never the object of propitiation since He is already on the side of the people.
            Kittel lists hilasmos as coming from hilaskamai which is the action by which God is propitiated and sin expiated. A cultic expression from both Greek and Hebrew refers to how sin is made ineffective., It can also refer to God’s purging of sin as God’s work in man.
Conclusion
            Propitiation clearly means that it is an appeasement of God’s wrath. Now the question must be asked, why did Christ say on the cross “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” Now, what exactly was this forgiveness? How are we to forgive each other “just as Christ also has forgiven us?” Propitiation most assuredly appeased God’s wrath. 2 Peter 2:1 proves to be a tricky problem for proponents of limited atonement. We have someone who goes to destruction being bought by Christ, and we have the elect being bought by Christ. What then is the difference in the forgiveness? Both are bought, but only the elect partake in the benefit of it. This would reinforce the belief that repentance must take place with faith for there to be salvation. The forgiveness granted to the non-elect was merely a staying of God’s wrath for a later date. I believe this word, hilasmos, clearly defends the teaching of unlimited atonement when compared with other passages in the Bible such as Acts 17:30, 31; John 3:16; Romans 3:23; 2 Peter 2:1. When left to stand alone, 1 John 2:2 can(though under argument) be seen as a defense for the limited atonement position, but when compared with the Bible holistically, I believe that the universal death of Christ is portrayed by the word hilasmos

Monday, February 6, 2012

A Tale of Humor and Lessons Learned.

This is an essay I wrote for my College Composition class at Calvary Bible College during my sophomore year in the Spring semester of 2012. It recounts an argument I had with my fiancee(at the moment) Emily about a few weeks after we got engaged. It basically stresses the point, in a humorous way, that men often don't think about how what and how they say something affects their loved ones. This is told in the narrative perspective. Hopefully it's entertaining and humorous for you as it is for Emily and I now that we look back on it. :)


MEN NEED TO WATCH WHAT THEY SAY
Introduction
            The life of the engaged man is a joyous and exciting time in one’s life. It is also a time when one must be even more careful of what is said than before. Most men do not think about how what they say affects the lives of the women they love. What sounds like a rational thought process to a man may sound as though you have just told her that you are, in fact, a serial killer so-to-speak to a woman. Listen to this story of how this foolish man said the absolutely wrong thing at the absolutely worst time.
The Setting and Scene of the Crime
            The student lounge is a great place for young college students. It is a place where one can make lifelong friends and lifelong memories. Any student could spend hours in a place with games, relaxing ambience, and friends. It is this ironically placid setting that frames the scene where this important lesson takes place.
            The offender in this story is a young man named Ross. He is a sophomore in college and 24 years of age. One would think that he would have some shred of common sense being an older student. Granted, Ross does have some ability to lead and can think through things logically as most men can. He is, however, still a man and sometimes speaks before thinking. He is sitting right now on a loveseat in the student lounge next a young woman, his fiancée.
            Her name is Emily. She is a beautiful, intelligent woman who is lovelier than the greatest concerto, more florid than the most brilliant sunset, and feistier than Rocky Balboa in the 10th round. Although she normally is a happy person, she looks clearly distraught at the moment. Her hands are fidgeting uncontrollably as she toys with the zipper on her green varsity jacket. Ross could see small tears beginning to work their way out into the open. Ross begins to open his mouth and use his stunning intellect and smooth words to try to allay the fears of his beloved fiancée.
How to offend women in five syllables or less
            “Do you see why this is so important?” Ross said imploringly.
            “I wish I did. I just wish sometimes that you would explain it better to me. I just don’t understand why everything has to come back to some relevant doctrinal dissertation.”
            “I’m quite sure that I explained it adequately. There is no reason for you to get all upset just because you don’t understand.”
            This is an interesting strategy from Ross. He seems to be attacking the problem with aggression and foisting the guilt upon her. Emily has become noticeably upset. Ross sighs deeply as it appears he realizes his first mistake.
            “I didn’t mean it like that. I just think that we really need to work out these beliefs that we seem to disagree on before we go any further.” Ross said.
            “But I thought that we did talk these things out.” Emily said trying to fight back tears from frustration.
            “I did too! It seems like our opinions have changed or we just aren’t understanding each other’s terminology. Either way, we need to work this out. We can’t move forward till we get it done.”
            “Why do you keep saying that? About us being together?”
            Ross glances away as it dawns on him what he actually said. This would be mistake #2 for those keeping score.
            “I didn’t mean it like that, Em.” he said trying to think of how to smooth this over. “I know, let’s talk this out in the morning. We’re both tired and not thinking straight. We’ll inevitably say something we don’t mean. I think it would help us both out.” Emily nodded slowly. Ross could tell that this answer did not satisfy her. He had no idea what else to do. Everything he said simply managed to dig himself a deeper hole. Ross stuck his hands in the pockets of his black jeans and began to walk towards the door with her.
            “How am I gonna smooth this over?” Ross thought to himself.
            He would have to come up with something quick. They were at the door.
Some things are better left unsaid.
            Ross looked back and saw that the countenance of this beautiful woman that he loved had noticeably fallen. Ross placed his hands on her shoulders and could feel her shaking. He knew that there was something that was terrifying her. Ross wished he could communicate through will power alone since all his other attempts at talking were failing miserably. His eyes darted to and fro as they always did when he was deep in thought. His concentration was disrupted when Emily began to speak.
            “Ross, why are we having all these arguments lately? It’s like we can’t agree on anything.”
            “I don’t know, Em. Maybe God is allowing this stuff to test how committed we really are to each other. Maybe it’s a sign that we’ve been putting each other before Him. Maybe He’s allowing this to show us things that we need to work out before we get married.”
            “Yeah, I’ve thought of that. I just wish there was an easier way of doing things.” she said.
            “I think that important issues are always difficult to work out. I think that’s the way that God has always worked. The important issues and how we respond to them shape our lives and our devotion and love for God.” he said. He could see that Emily was getting calmer more and more. Minutes passed by as they searched for the right thing to say. Ross could see a thought developing in Emily’s eyes. She began to fidget more. Her breathing became deeper.
            “Here it comes. This is the issue that she’s really been wrestling with.” Ross thought.
            “Ross, I just don’t want to lose you.” she said as she fought back tears.
            This was Ross’ moment. This was the time he had been waiting for to say the perfect thing that would calm her down and let him go to bed with absolute peace and comfort. He paused for a moment, took a deep breath, and smiled as gently as he could. He knew he picked the right thing.
            “Emily, Emily, you haven’t lost me…yet.” he said.
            The word only had three letters. Ross knew that as soon as he decided to say one more word it was all over. He would swear to this day that he heard glass shattering as soon as he said that. The expression of happiness and joy that he assumed would sweep across Emily’s visage was replaced with the most fearful and distressed look he had ever seen in a human being in his life. He knew it was strike #3, you are out. Oh, he tried to act ignorant and play it off.
            “Why are you crying, Em?” he said weakly.
            “Why would you say that?!?!” Emily said. He could not blame her for her tone. He knew what a heel he had been. Ross’ shoulders sagged as he tried to think of what to say. He realized what needed to be done. He probably should have said this from the beginning. He looked into her eyes and said as genuinely as he could, “I’m so sorry.”
            Ross gave her a hug and for once let his silence do the talking. He tried to allay the situation the best way he knew how and failed. Much to his surprise, Emily raised her arms and hugged him still. He could not believe that someone he hurt so deeply would still lower herself to care about him. That night rocked Ross to the very core of his being as he realized how insensitive he is with Emily, with his teammates, and with mankind in general. It was a lesson Ross would not forget. He said goodnight to Emily and, after walking back into the dorms, thanked the Lord for the lesson he had learned that night. It seems like he had simply been hit by a pitch, and given a second chance.
Conclusion
            Most men do not think about how what they say affects the lives of the women they love. The tongue is greatly evil and full of deadly poison. Men must realize that God designed women in ways that are far different than they. Beautiful differences that when two individual personalities come together in a union of marriage a friendship is formed that is stronger than any other. When men can talk to their wives, fiancées, or girlfriends the way that God intended there will be far less sadness. Today, Ross and Emily’s relationship is full of joy. Ross has learned from that night. May all men do the same.