Divine Simplicity Debate Review: Gavin Ortlund vs. Ryan Mullins

 I did a reaction video on the recent debate. It was a pity they didn’t get to the crux of the issue. 

The Sabbath

 Months ago I did complete some research into the nature of the Sabbath for my study of the book of Hebrews. My research led me to read Seventh Day Adventists, Progressive Dispensationalists and Progressive Covenantalists. I found Pastor Dale Ratzlaff of Life Assurance Minstries (LAM) and Dr. Rob Solberg of Biblical Roots Ministries very helpful. Pastor Ratzlaff’s book Sabbath in Christ is a definitive work on the Sabbath from a former Seventh Day Adventist. DA Carson’s book On the Lord’s Day was also consulted. The Tablets of Stone by John Resinger was also read. Finally, I listened to Tony Costa debate a Seventh Day Adventist.  

I prepared lecture notes. I gave two lectures. Only one lecture made it to YouTube: 

https://youtu.be/xHTs8SgsOY4

 

Healthy Churches

Our local Christian newspaper has kindly agreed to publish this:

Contemporary churches often specialize in either expository preaching, heartfelt worship or community service.  This tends to attract specific people to churches that pique their interests. Churches are treated much like college universities where people can select their major field of study to the neglect of other fields. The results are stark. The churches operate under an imbalanced ministry. Only the mind, heart or hand is developed. Hence an emphasis is placed on knowledge, experience or morality. Polarization ensues toward intellectualism, emotionalism or moralism. 

The potential bitter fruits of such imbalances are rationalism, irrationalism or legalism. The beauty of the gospel is overlooked. Imbalances diminish the gospel but with God's sovereign grace in the gospel, stability can be attained. Jesus came to rescues us from our sins of pride, fear, and insecurity. He died on the cross, resurrected on third day, to pay the penalty for sins. So in him is our knowledge, motivation and efforts. In him we find all that we need to balance our affections, goals and works. The priority to love God first reverses the adverse effects of such imbalances. Exegetical preaching, worship and service are understood as interdependent. Each reinforces the other. The proper order should be biblical theology births doxology and evidences good works. 

Please take the time to pray for the local pastors and churches in our area to thrive with balanced ministries to reach the world with the gospel. 

The Laws of God

In my view there are two types of laws God has legislated: Covenantal (relative to a covenant, people, place and time) and Trans-covenantal (objectively binding independent of any covenant, people, place and time). The former is particular; the latter is general. The way this is cashed out is that sin can refer to a description or a prescription; but for any formal connotation, it refers to any violation of God's commands in state, disposition, (i.e. internal/intrinsic) and act (i.e. external/extrinsic). 

God legislates the law as an expression of his nature, will (i.e. Revealed will/approves or secret will/aim), and character. God is not bound by any laws, since a law entails a lawgiver; rather, He is goodness itself. However, God can issue commands to be bound to them ( i.e. Covenants, promises). Kant provided a helpful distinction between following a rule and acting in accordance to a rule. We are obligated to follow God's laws. God naturally is morally perfect and good thus acts in accordance to the issued laws. 

Church Members Leaving?

I already posted on what may stunt the growth of any given church but I want to now recast it in terms of church members leaving their churches. 

There are obvious practical reasons why any given church member may leave his/her church. Job relocation, unbiblical doctrine, or doctrinal disunity, comes to mind. But what are some reasons that may not be as obvious, or at least, spoken less of?  Any thoughts? Here's mine. 

1. Ridged Ritualism that leads to an improper balance between external vs internal acts (e.g. Church leadership regulates all attendees to perform duties/rituals instead of simply trusting that God will motivate them to meditate, pray, and study). 

2. No checks and balances of leadership that can result in a pastoral dictatorship.
3. Pastoral opinion's and convictions are emphasized against clear biblical teaching.
4. Doctrinal teaching without carefully considering opposing doctrinal views to better learn, understand, and relate.
5. Church expectations for non-members that gives rise to sectarianism and pharisaical  doctrinal supremacy.
6. Church members hide their struggles and brokenness from others. Church members act morally superior that breeds depression, insecurity and alienation. 

7. Burdens are put on the backs of non-believers that even Christians daily fail to lift (e.g. Brokenness over sin, daily scripture reading, praying, etc.).

8. Preaching is narrow to only those that are in doctrinal agreement. It is one-sided preaching that lacks/suppresses empathy, understanding, or dialogue.  

9. Preaching that does not address the whole person but only the intellect.

How to possibly counter members leaving:

1. A proper balance is kept between external vs internal acts (e.g. Church leadership does not regulate all attendees to perform duties/rituals instead simply trusts that God will motivate them to meditate, pray, and study).
2. There are checks and balances of leadership between pastor(s), deacon(s), and members.
3. Pastoral opinion's and convictions are transparent against clear biblical teaching. 

4. Doctrinal teaching is preached carefully considering opposing doctrinal views to better learn, understand, and relate.
5. There are no church expectations for non-members to prevent sectarianism and pharisaical  doctrinal supremacy.
6. Church members are transparent about their struggles and brokenness. Church members are humble in Christ that breeds joy, security and unity.
7. Burdens are not put on the backs of non-believers that even Christians daily fail to lift (e.g. Brokenness over sin, daily scripture reading, praying, etc.).
8. Preaching is broad to those that are in doctrinal agreement or disagreement. Saints and skeptics are welcome! It is preaching that exemplifies/promotes empathy, understanding, and dialogue. 

9. Preaching that engages holistically the person: intellect, will and emotions. The spiritual health of the mind and heart is cared for by the preaching ministry. 

Mormonism and the Trinity

I recently received  an email from a Mormon, he ask questions about a sermon I preached. I will post his email and my response for the benefit of others, by no means is my response exhaustive.

"I listened to your recent sermon, “The Forgotten Trinity”  on sermonaudio.com.  I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka the LDS or Mormon Church).  While some of our beliefs do indeed differ on this subject, I greatly respect you, your views, and your love for God and the scriptures, and I really enjoyed your sermon." At the beginning of your sermon, you invited your congregation to come to you afterwards with any questions since this is a difficult topic.  I would like to take you up on that offer , and throw out a few comments (4) and questions (12) regarding the sermon.  I have often wondered how those of other faiths answer certain gospel questions about God and the gospel - I’d love to get your thoughts.  That is quite a few questions, so please feel free to be brief and direct in your responses.  A little about me, I’m in Arizona, 31 years old, husband and father, and I am an accountant. I served a mission in Chile South America after High School, and love respectfully discussing God and Jesus Christ with others." 

I am delighted to hear you enjoyed my sermon. I’d be glad to answer your questions but I must be brief ; they deserve extensive treatment.

Great to be acquainted with you, I too work with accounts in a slightly different way, I am a Tax Technician for the State of California. I am 27 years old, married with an eight almost nine month son. I would imagine a mission in South America to be quite the experience. I’ve been on a short mission to Manti, Utah. Christians travel to Manti each year for the annual Mormon pageant, which brings the opportunity to evangelize (or as the Mormon missionary handbook would term it ‘proselytize’).    

"TRIUNE GOD: Firstly, I admit that the doctrine of the triune God is difficult/impossible to fully understand and explain from ANYONE’S view (even my own).  But, we all do the best that we can because we want to understand our Creator and worship in truth."  

"We can agree on the scripture facts, we just disagree on how to interpret them.  For example, we agree that we have “one God”, yet there are “three persons” that are all called “God” (God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit), and that those three persons are “one”.  We can agree on their roles (Jesus creates, Spirit sanctifies, Father sent the Son etc.) etc.  Just wanted to build that common ground. "

The doctrine of the Trinity can be understood but not exhaustively. God as God is incomprehensible yet knowable. [1]

If we agree on the scriptural data, then we both presuppose (1) necessity, (2) sufficiency, (3) authority, and (4) perspicuity of the Bible, but the LDS church (in which you are a member of) denies explicitly (2) and (4) in the Articles of Faith; at the very least, they downplay or subject (3) and (1) to the Mormon Standard Works (i.e. BOM, D&C, PGP). Therefore, in my judgment, we do not agree on the scriptural data. It is more precise to say, we do not merely disagree on interpretation of the Bible we disagree on the fundamental nature and status of the Bible. But of course these are interdependent. I do respect your attempt to build common ground, but I don’t think there are any neutral facts we can agree upon since we have different starting points. The LDS starting point for the doctrine of God is Joseph Smith (i.e. BOM, D&C, PGP), in contrast, the Christian starting point for the doctrine of God is the Bible. From these two different starting points, we get completely different conceptions of God. Joseph Smith, in his famous King Follett Discourse, explains the LDS conception of God is a plurality of Gods among potentially an infinite number of gods (However, I admit LDS focus their worship on Elohim, Jehovah and the Holy Ghost, as the gods of this planet). The Bible uniformly teaches monotheism (e.g. Hebrew communicates “The Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah, Det 6:4;).

WEBSITE:  FYI, I created a website to help me organize my Bible studies. It’s called EVERYVERSE.ORG.  The purpose of the site is the gather EVERY Bible verse on various important topics (ex. How to Be Saved, the Triune God etc.)  I did this to help me and others avoid building doctrines off of just a few verses when we should be looking at ALL of what the Bible says.  To avoid long some lists of scripture on this email, I will sometimes refer you to a page on that site.  Check it out, let me know what you think.  Thanks

I will visit your website when time permits. 

MORMONS:  You mentioned “Mormons” in your sermon, so I assume that you know something about my faith.  However, I wanted to give a VERY brief summary on our view of the triune God to give you reference for our conversation.  Here it is:  We believe that God the Father is ultimately, as Jesus calls Him, the one and only true God, Father and God of all (even of Jesus).  God, however, chose two other beings, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, to work with Him in the Creation, Salvation and Sanctification of mankind, and gave them of His divine power and authority to fulfill their divine roles, therefore they share in the Father’s title of power and authority (“God”), working with Him in perfect unity.  They are three separate beings, but they are “one” in all they do and say (similar to how we Christians are separate beings, yet we are “one” in Christ).  Jesus and the Spirit speak for and perfectly represent the Father, and we are commanded to accept all of their words and deeds as if they were directly from the Father Himself.  Those three beings, individually and collectively, are our “one God”, that is, they are the one divine Power and Authority of the universe, the head of which Godhead is the Father.  Also, all three persons are perfect, glorified men/humans, in whose image we are created.  The Father and Jesus are beings of both spirit and physical bodies, while the spirit is a being of spirit only (for now) which allows him to fulfill some of his divine roles.  

Do you think that it is odd (or might it be a red flag) that none of the NT authors ever try to explain the trinity in detail as Evangelical Christians do today (as you did in your this sermon), especially if, as Evangelical Christians suggest, it is an essential belief in order to be a Christian?  Since there is no such sermon in the NT, Evangelical Christians have to piece together various separate passages and ideas to form this doctrine.  Might this all be a red flag that you are misunderstanding the doctrine?  Any thoughts on why there is a lack of explanation on this confusing/complicated doctrine, and why it was left up to us to put the puzzle pieces together ourselves? 

 I am familiar with Mormonism since I’ve personally studied it. In fact, I have family members that are active members. 

I do not find it odd the NT authors’ do not attempt to explicate the doctrine of the Trinity since it would’ve been a common assumption that monotheism was the case yet all three persons’ are distinguished as the one God. Moreover, we do see the subject taught from the Apostles disciples like Clement, and Tertullian etc.. Furthermore, the early church was under persecution, which could play a role in why we don’t see massive theological treatises.   

MEANING OF GOD?  Do you agree that the word “god/God” is not a type of race/species (ex. human, dog, God), but that it is a TITLE of power and authority?  Please that in addition to the Father, Son and Spirit having that title, it is also (as you mentioned) given in scripture to other beings with great power and authority, sometimes by God Himself:  Rulers, angels, the mighty, judges, prophets, even Satan (see some references below.)  Viewing it as a title of power and authority aligns with Jesus’ teaching that the Father is his God (His authority and the source of his power), and which phrases like “My God” (my Authority).  Unlike “essence/substance”, a title can easily be shared amongst separate persons/beings (especially perfectly united, sinless beings) without any issue.  Such an idea seems much more Biblical and logical.  What are your thoughts? •    MOSES: “I have made thee (Moses) a god to Pharaoh“, Exo. 7:1•    SATAN: Satan is called “the god of this world“, 2 Cor. 4:4 •    JUDGES/GOD’S CHILDREN: “Ye are gods, children of the Most High“, Ps. 82:6•    RULERS: “Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people“, Exo. 22:28•    MIGHTY: God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods, Ps. 82:1•    THE FATHER IS JESUS’ GOD: John 20:17 I ascend unto… my God and your God

I believe the term ‘God’ is a noun, but I agree it can be used in predication as a title. The scriptural context determines how ‘God’ is used.

DISTINCT BEINGS:  I agree that the three members of the Godhead are distinct “persons”, but would you also agree that that scripture shows that the three members have their own separate “SPIRITS”, “SOULS”, “WILLS” and LOCATION, all of which support them being separate beings as we on earth are (see passages below for some references)?  •    Luke 23:26 Father, into thy hands I commend MY SPIRIT•    Luke  22:42 Nevertheless NOT MY WILL, BUT THINE, be done•    Matt. 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I (God) have chosen… in whom MY SOUL is well pleased  •    Gen 1:2 And the SPIRIT of God (Holy Spirit) MOVED upon the face of the waters•    John 20:17 “I have NOT YET ASCENDED TO my Father... I GO TO MY FATHER  

I do not think the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate God’s. First, monotheism is taught through out scripture, therefore, we must interpret all scripture from this teaching. Second, terms can be used without ontological weight. For example in Mark 12:30 we are commanded to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. These terms are not teaching man is comprised of four separate ontological substances; quite the contrary, it teaches us with emphasis we are to love God holistically. Third, scripture often speaks anthropomorphically. Fourth, plausibly when the scriptures speak of soul/spirit/will it can refer to either a title or person.       

JESUS’ GOD?   The New Testament teaches at least 11 times that the Father is Jesus’ God (as well as our God, that we and Jesus have the same God).  What does that mean to you, and how does that fit into your view that Jesus and the Father are both co-equally and fully the same one God/being? •    John 20:17 I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God

I believe Jesus was the divine Logos that took upon flesh (John 1:1-4). Jesus is the infinite God-man, truly God and truly man, one person with two distinct natures, thus it makes sense for Jesus to regard the Father as God subsequent to the incarnation.[2] 

ONE: This questions is longer because it is very important.  The Bible teaches that there is “only one God”, and also that “There are three in heaven… and these three are one”.  Evangelical Christians conclude a LITERAL interpretation that the three persons must somehow actually be the same one being (“essence”, “substance” etc.)  However, I suggest that there is a much more logical AND Biblical interpretation.  The Bible uses “one” often to describe metaphorical unity between multiple separate beings.  For example, “Ye are all ONE in Christ” (see the passages below).  None of these are to be taken literally, but they show unity in purpose, deed, mind etc.  If we apply this Biblical use of “one” to the Godhead (interpreting the Bible with the Bible), then we should conclude that our deity consists of 3 separate beings (which is clearly suggested in the NT) that are perfectly “one” (united) in all that they do and say and which perfectly represent each other, speak for each other etc.  They are three beings, yet they are “one” (united), “one God”, similar to how Christians are “one spirit” or “one body” even though they are indeed separate spirits/people.  That is how the Bible uses “one”, which likely explains why the Godhead’s oneness is never specifically explained in scripture, because the audience (who know scripture and who know their language) would have already known what “one” means from previous scripture.  To me, this view is not only more Biblical, but is more logical.  What are your thoughts? •    Gen. 2:24 [Husband]… cleave unto wife… they shall be ONE flesh   •    1 Cor. 6:16 Know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is ONE body?  •    1 Cor. 6:17 He that is joined unto the Lord is ONE spirit•    Acts 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of ONE heart and of ONE soul•    Ezek. 37:22 And I will make them ONE nation… they shall be no more two nations•    Gal. 3:28 Ye are all ONE in Christ   •    John 17:11 Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be ONE, as we are ONE •    Philip. 1:27 Stand fast with ONE spirit, with ONE mind striving together  •    Rom. 12:5 We, being many, are ONE body in Christ  •    1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are ONE  •    John 10:30 I and my Father are one    
SON:  The Father said, “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased”.  From your view, in what way is Jesus God the Father’s son?  Is he literally/actually God’s son, or is “son” really only a term used metaphorically in some way?SON:  The Father said, “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased”.  From your view, in what way is Jesus God the Father’s son?  Is he literally/actually God’s son, or is “son” really only a term used metaphorically in some way?

It’s quite simple, be literal and/or figurative based on the scriptural context. Perhaps, a better way to express this is we must use sound hermeneutical principles (the grammatico-historic method).   

Your suggestion seems to merely eisegete the text. And I fail to see how it is logical. I believe God is the greatest conceivable being, which no greater can be thought. In Acts 17:16-34 Paul tells us we are creatures under the control of God, the most perfect being. By Paul's very explanation, only God has the essential properties to be God. And these essential properties cannot be possessed by a mere man. There is no possible world, which a mere man can be a god. Since it is logically impossible for a mere man to be given properties only God can possess. In other words, if God would share his nature with other creatures, he would have to cease to be God. Let me explain. Think for a moment, can there exist more than one perfect being--God? The moment you say--yes, you are left with absurdity. Since it is logically impossible for two most perfect beings to exist, since one cancels the other out. If there were two beings in the world both could not have the essential properties of a perfect being, like all-power, self-sufficiency, independence, all-control, thus both could not be God.  

GENDER:  I’m curious… In your views, does God the Father have gender (“He”, “Father”, “His” etc.), or is “He” a genderless being? 

God has disclosed himself as masculine but this anthropomorphic language does not mean God is a male (in the literal sense of  a physical body with XY chromosomes etc).   

SPIRIT?  “God is a spirit”.  In the LDS view, “spirit” is matter, though “more fine” than our physical bodies.  While beings that are spirit only (like angels, men between death and resurrection, Jesus before physical birth etc.) do not have physical bodies of flesh and bone, they still have form, shape, gender, appearance, specific location, smiles, faces etc.  I’m curious about your view – in your view, how would you describe an unembodied spirit (either of God or of men)?  For example, does a spirit have form, gender, location etc.?  And is God’s spirit the same kind of thing as the spirit that is in men or angels?  

I think the distinction between soul/spirit and body is clear.  God is not physical or material. God is spiritual/immaterial. God is an incorporeal being. A definition by analogy would be to think of things that are immaterial. For example, the laws of logic, thoughts, beliefs, numbers, propositions, sets, possible worlds, are all immaterial. God as a spirit has essential properties, (e.g. spaceless, timeless, immutable, etc.)

GIVEN POWER AND AUTHORITY:  In the LDS view, God (the Father) “chose” Jesus, “made [him]… both Lord and Christ” and “gave” him godly “power and authority” to work with God in perfect unity in the Creation and Salvation of mankind and to fulfill his chosen roles (as Creator, Redeemer, Judge, Lord etc.) which is why Jesus shares in God’s title of power and authority, “God” (“I come in my Father’s name”, he said).  Do you agree that Jesus received his power and authority from God the Father (ex.  power “to have life in himself”, “to give eternal life”, “all power in heaven and earth”, “power over all flesh”, “to judge”, that “God made Jesus… both Lord and Christ” etc. – see the link below for those references, about half way down the page)?  If yes, how does that fit with your view that Jesus is and always has been/will be the one all-powerful God being?  http://everyverse.org/god-triune/. 

Jesus as the infinite God-man received power and authority from God the Father, he didn’t have logically prior to the incarnation as a man.  

CO-EQUAL/FULLY GOD?  You said, “We see that the three persons are fully God”.  Did you know that in the NT (which is where, as you agreed, the trinity is fully revealed) Jesus is directly called God about 6 times (though never by himself), the Holy Spirit just once or twice, while the Father is directly called God over 130 times!  If the three members are equally and fully God, each having just as much right to the title “God”, then why is that title applied so unequally among the Godhead members?  Thoughts?  See http://everyverse.org/how-to-understand-godthe-trinity/ for all of those references. 

The amount of times the term ‘God’ is used to describe the three person’s is insignificant; if, however, monotheism is assumed, what is significant is three person’s are all distinguished as God.

OMNIPRESENT:  “God is omnipresent, He is everywhere at once… He is essentially omnipresent, that means that God is omniscient of everything, causally present everywhere, therefore he is everywhere.” Interesting comment, I am a little unclear.  Do you believe that God’s presence/being/spirit is literally everywhere, or is he just “causally present” and knows all things?  Also, I believe that God has an actual locational presence, that He is and dwells in heaven which is an actual place away from the earth (that His actual presence is not everywhere at once).  Here below are just a couple passages to support this idea, but I have gathered all the related passages (and there are quite a few) at the following page on my site: http://everyverse.org/god-omnipresence/.  Take a look.  Do you agree that God the Father has an actual presence/location in a place called heaven away from the earth? •    Eccl. 5:2 God is in heaven and thou upon the earth •    Deut. 26:15 LORD…. look down from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people•    John 20:17 I have not yet ascended to my Father \

Omnipresence is understood either as God cognizant of all things since God is causally in control of all things, hence causally present, or one defines it in terms of God’s immensity. For example, the soul is present through out the body. I take the former over the latter definition. 

I take it the immediate state, often called heaven/paradise, is a temporary spiritual realm, but at the end times, God will establish a new heavens and earth, heaven will be a physical place in which Christians will dwell with glorified resurrected bodies.     

NO BODY?  “God is an unembodied spirit”.  Being called “spirit” does not necessarily mean an unembodied being.  The word is sometimes used to mean “heavenly”, “perfect”, “life” etc., and is even given to beings that clearly have physical bodies.  See the passages below.  Do you agree with this observation?  •    John 3: 6  That which is born of the Spirit IS SPIRIT•    2 Cor. 3:17 The Lord (Christ, who has a resurrected physical body) IS THAT SPIRIT•    1 Cor. 15:44 Paul calls our future resurrected physical bodies "SPIRITUAL BODIES"  •    1 Cor. 6:17 He that is joined to the Lord IS one SPIRIT •    John 6:63 The words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are LIFE 

Jesus tells us what a spirit is in Luke 24:39. A spirit is an immaterial being. 

QUESTIONS FOR ME?  Do you have any questions for me, whether on this or another topic?  I will answer any question honestly, directly and to the point.  Whether now or at any time in the future, please feel free to send those my way.  
Thank you for your sermon, and for your willingness to read this.  Take care.

Yes I do have some thoughts/questions.

Who raised Jesus from the dead? (Gal 1:1; John 2:19-21; 1 Peter 3:18) So did one God or several Gods raise Jesus from the dead? (Acts 2:23)

Who created our world? (Gen 1:2; Gen 1:26; John 1:1-3,14) So, did one God or several Gods create our world? (Isaiah 44:24)

What spirit dwells in all believers?(Romans 8:9a; Rom 8:9b-10: Rom 8:11; 1 Corin 6:19) How many spirits dwell in believers? (1 Corin 12:13)

Who is the Father of Jesus Christ? (John 3:16; Matt 1:18,20; Psalm 2:7)

How many true Gods exist? (Isaiah 44:6,8)

If you believe in the law of eternal progression, does this not entail an infinite regress? How can you have objective moral values if there are an infinite number of Gods? How can you have moral laws from a physical God? Would that not commit one to the naturalistic fallacy? If everything is material from all eternity then evil is eternal? If one is to reach mortal perfection to receive exaltation/eternal perfection, then in fact, no one will reach exaltation?

---

[1] http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/is-the-Trinity-a-logical-blunder_God-as-three-and-one.pdf

[2] http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/did-God-become-a-Jew_A-defense-of-the-incarnation.pdf

The Christian Worldview

Christian Worldview

We testify that there is only one God who is the greatest conceivable being, the most perfect being. God is one essence that is three distinct persons, coequal and coeternal, neither divided nor separated, namely, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

The Bible alone is the God breathed, inerrant, infallible, Word of God. It is sufficient, necessary, authoritative, and clear as our ultimate standard for all thought and human experience. It alone provides us with a worldview that is: the ultimate coherent explanation of everything, livable, hope and fulfillment. 

God created man in his image (i.e. with an intellect, will and emotions, ruling over creation).  But man sinned against God the results were man became sinners by inheritance, imputation and imitation. 

The Son became incarnate to rescue man from sin. Christ suffered and died upon the cross, and was resurrected three days later, to pay the penalty for our sins and purchase a place in heaven for us. Christ offers this as a free gift to all by faith. It is not earned nor deserved. Saving faith is trusting in Jesus alone for salvation. 

Christ alone is our living prophet, priest and king, never ceasing to teach, intercede and rule. 

Christ established one never ceasing, universal, united, church which is comprised of all believers; yet it is exemplified in a diversity of local churches. 

We know all these things to be true since this is God's testimony in the Bible. The Holy Spirit's inter-witness testifies this to us.  If it's rejected the alternative is utter irrationality. 

Christian Philosophy 

Christian Epistemology: All knowledge finds its source from God's revelation.

Metaphysics: All things finds their source, support and end from God. 

Ethics: All objective moral values/duties find their source, support and end from God's commands (that express God's essential goodness). 

Uniqueness of Christianity

Some of the reasons Christianity is not just better than alternative worldviews but necessary: 

1. The unity (one) and diversity (many) we encounter in human thought and experience is explained by the Trinity. God created both to reflect his nature. 

2. The eternal love of God is possible since God is eternally three persons yet one essence that share in eternal love (the good of another person) between each person. 

3. The justice of God is preserved yet satisfied in the love and justice of God satisfied in the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross. This shows we are truly loved by God and leaves no room for fear or insecurity: we boldly can come to God through the cross, no room for boasting or self-righteousness, we are so sinful God himself had to absorb the wrath our sin deserves. 

4. Salvation by grace alone.

5. The Bible is primarily the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God; secondarily it is historically reliable with one theme of redemption that surpasses all criticism. (SNAP: Sufficient, Necessary, Authority, and Perspicuity ) It gives us us the only worldview that is coherent, consistent, with rich explanatory power and scope. Transforms our experiences and consciences,  gives us authentic hope, and fulfillment that is livable. 

7. The Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ (e.g. His death, burial, empty tomb, resurrection appearances to various people, changed lives by the resurrected Christ in the face of religious/political opposition, martyrdom of his disciples for their faith).

8. Objective moral values/duties, human dignity and beauty that are universally binding upon all people independent of their personal beliefs; all of these are given either as commandments or essential to nature from God that reflect His love, and goodness. 

Grace

The trouble with people and language is specific words can loose their significance by the people that use the words; this happens in theology and Christian living. We use the word 'grace', it's in our churches names, worship songs/hymns, bumper stickers, and T-shirts, but is it in the understanding of our hearts? What is grace? How is it properly defined? The dust of confusion will settle only when terms are properly defined. Once we understand the meaning of grace, and therefore its significance, we cannot help but to savor it. Grace is much like a diamond with many different facets to it but there is a definite meaning behind it. Grace is God's goodness actively to us and for us such that we get what we don't deserve; instead of receiving God's just punishment, we get the gift of God's righteousness in Christ. We get God, when we deserve the rod. But we miss the unconditional, free, nature of grace. It cannot be obligated nor should it be trivialized. Yet we often do both! Or we depreciate grace by mistaking it for mercy. But one is not the other. Mercy is not getting what is deserved. Grace is much more profound. It stretches the limits of our minds and the depths of our hearts. It gives us all that we could ever need, ask or hope for in the place of what we've earned, deserved or entitled.

Think on these things!

Evangelism and the Ten Commandments

There is a great emphasis on the Ten Commandments in evangelism. The Ten Commandments are preached to give particular examples of sin that might show a person's need of forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ. But should New Testament believers use primarily, if at all, the Ten Commandments as the standard of righteousness for gentiles and specifically New Testament believers? If so, why? The common answer is since the Ten Commandments are God's eternal moral law. The problems I see with this answer are: (1) it seems deep on the surface but underneath shallow; it does not seem to take seriously the continuity and discontinuity of the covenants, (2) it presupposes the tripartite division of divine law as moral, civil and ceremonial, when all of God's laws are moral in nature, (3) all of God's words either, written directly or indirectly, spoken or written, carries the same inerrant, inspired, infallible, authority, (4) it does not deal with the texts in the NT that seem to suggest a change of covenant (Jer 31:31-34) and law (1 Cor 9:21; Heb 7:12). Likewise, parsimony would suggest that, perhaps, the eternal law of God is simply the two commandments to love God and our fellow man.  Indeed, the Ten Commandments may be found in these two commandments, but one cannot from these two commandments extract the Ten Commandments. Theses laws are not clearly transitive.        

Church Growth?

There are obvious practical reasons why any given church may fail to grow. Unbiblical doctrine, or doctrinal disunity, comes to mind. But what are some reasons that may not be as obvious, or at least, spoken less of?  Any thoughts? Here's mine. 


1. Ridged Ritualism that leads to an improper balance between external vs internal acts (e.g. Church leadership regulates all attendees to perform duties/rituals instead of simply trusting that God will motivate them to meditate, pray, and study). 
3. No checks and balances of leadership that can result in a pastoral dictatorship. 
4. Pastoral opinion's and convictions are emphasized against clear biblical teaching. 
5. Doctrinal teaching without carefully considering opposing doctrinal views to better learn, understand, and relate. 
6. Church expectations for non-members that gives rise to sectarianism and pharisaical  doctrinal supremacy. 
7. Church members hide their struggles and brokenness from others. Church members act morally superior that breeds depression, insecurity and alienation. 
8. Burdens are put on the backs of non-believers that even Christians daily fail to lift (e.g. Brokenness over sin, daily scripture reading, praying, etc.).
9. Preaching is narrow to only those that are in doctrinal agreement. It is one-sided preaching that lacks empathy, understanding, or discussion. 

Why A Church May Grow
1. A proper balance is kept between external vs internal acts (e.g. Church leadership does not regulate all attendees to perform duties/rituals instead simply trusts that God will motivate them to meditate, pray, and study). 
3. There are checks and balances of leadership between pastor(s), deacon(s), and members.
4. Pastoral opinion's and convictions are transparent against clear biblical teaching. 
5. Doctrinal teaching is preached carefully considering opposing doctrinal views to better learn, understand, and relate. 
6. There are no church expectations for non-members to prevent sectarianism and pharisaical  doctrinal supremacy. 
7. Church members are transparent about their struggles and brokenness. Church members are humble in Christ that breeds joy, security and unity. 
8. Burdens are not put on the backs of non-believers that even Christians daily fail to lift (e.g. Brokenness over sin, daily scripture reading, praying, etc.).
9. Preaching is broad to those that are in doctrinal agreement or disagreements. Saints and skeptics are welcome! It is preaching that exemplifies empathy, understanding, and dialogue. 

A Denied Christian Newspaper Article

I submitted an article for the local Christian Newspaper Ministry with the hopes that it would be a featured article. Surprisingly, the editor rejected my submission on the basis that it didn't reach the targeted audience and was too overly academic; the editor said something to the extent that "the article would make a great theology paper." You be the judge if I am too overly academic or simply biblical.    

Biblical Apologetics

           As the advocates of the New Atheism rant in books that sweep the American popular culture, what are Christians doing to counter act this movement? In the first epistle of Peter, the Apostle Peter encourages Christians scattered in Asia Minor to endure suffering and persecution.  In chapter three, he, then instructs Christians to “ sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always [being] ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame (1 Peter 3:15-16, NASB). Christians are commanded here, by God, to set Christ apart as Lord over their hearts, and to be prepared always to rationally defend the Christian faith in gentleness, humility and respect. Our defense, behavior, and lifestyle should consistently honor Christ as Lord to put the nonbelievers’ false accusations to shame.

These verses tell us our starting point in defending the faith must honor Christ as Lord. We cannot talk with nonbelievers in a way that dishonors Jesus. So our approach must transparently honor Christ as Lord and Savior. We cannot be closet Christians in our arguments and lifestyles. We either defend the Christian faith or betray it. We either defend the Triune God of the Bible or we defend idols of the heart. As our Lord Jesus plainly said, “He who is not with Me is against Me…”(Matthew 12:30). Many Christians today are attempting to be faithful to Jesus by defending the Christian faith. But the problem is they are defending the faith at the cost of denying Christ as Lord. They are telling nonbelievers to judge God and the Bible by limited human reason. They have implicitly consented in arguments, God is on trial and, the nonbelievers are the judges and jury. Christians argue as though nonbelievers have the right to count up the evidences in favor of Christianity and then judge if it’s true. However the biblical teaching contradicts this. God alone intrinsically is the judge and jury, while the nonbelievers are on trial, regardless of their desperate attempts to hijack God’s judgment seat. The Bible tells us God is not to be tested (Luke 4:12). God is the source and standard of truth (John 17:17, Det 32:4, John 16:13). Yet such passages are read with no affect. Christians continue to argue for a generic theism or a probable God; but they do not argue for the certain Christian God.

With the above criticisms made, we must move to construct then, a biblical approach to defend the Christian faith against the New Atheism. There are at least two fundamental principles that should set boundaries to the arguments we give to nonbelievers. The first is the no-neutrality principle that states Christians should not be neutral in word, thought, and deed, (including any argument) in commitment to the truthfulness of Christianity. Implicitly, this means Christians will not pretend Christianity is false with nonbelievers and then seek to prove Christianity from pretended disbelief to belief. The second principle, the no-autonomy principle, flows from the commitment to the truth of Christianity. It articulates, and reserves, the right to judge truth claims solely to God. Only God and His Word are our ultimate authority and standard for every facet of life. This runs counter to the idea man is autonomous, and, in turn, is the standard of all things. We are to transparently presuppose, proclaim, and argue from the necessity and authority of God’s revelation in Scripture and nature. 

Ideally, then, every argument we make to defend the Christian faith in some way should conform to these principles. If we stick to these biblical principles then we will effectively practice apologetics to the glory of God. 

Tips for Apologetics

1.     Study: Study and memorize the Bible, Systematic Theology, Evangelism and Apologetics to know what you believe, so you can Biblically preach and defend it. Apologetics presupposes Theology, and Evangelism. One cannot properly engage in Biblical Apologetics without engaging in Biblical Theology with the goal of Evangelism.

2.     Prayer: In apologetics one’s defense is only as good as one’s offense. So both study and prayer must be properly indulged in first before engaging in apologetics with the unregenerate. Remember all men have a sufficient knowledge of God but suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). Only God can open the nonbeliever’s eyes so we ought to pray God would do so in our apologetic encounters. Apologetics can only show the foolishness of rejecting the gospel. But God can make the gospel and our defense effective.

3.     Respect: Respect the unregenerate as made in the image of God. Don’t assume you know what the nonbeliever believes even if he associates himself with a particular religion. Let the unbeliever articulate his views and arguments. When refuting the unbeliever always refute and articulate the nonbeliever’s position accurately. Further, always refute the strongest argument the unbeliever can make in favor of his position.

4.     Wisdom: When dealing with the unbeliever’s arguments against or from the Bible always read the scriptures in context and look up the original Hebrew or Greek meaning. Since often times the unbeliever takes scriptures out of context or twists the original meaning of any given passage.  Moreover, we should anticipate the unbeliever’s objections and arguments.

5.     Fellowship: Talk among believers about theology, evangelism, and apologetics. Fellow Christians can learn and encourage one another. Christians possess resources, skills, and experiences that can be shared to proclaim and defend the faith.     

Apologetics Multimedia Recommendations

Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, Way of the Master.

Sye Ten Bruggencate, How to Answer the Fool.

Jason Lisle, Nuclear Strength Apologetics.

Apologetics Book Recommendations

Jason Lisle, The Ultimate Proof of Creation: resolving the origins debate (Master, 2009)

John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God (P&R, 1994).

Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (Dutton,

2008).

Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready (Covenant Media Foundation, 1996)

Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Faith Has Its Reasons: An Integrative

Approach to Defending Christianity (Paternoster, 2nd edition, 2006).