Reformed Theology and Apologetics

Jim Bakker Renounces The Prosperity Gospel As A Lie

2009-03-08T21:00:00.001-07:00

ummmmm....wow!!!

blogging at Wordpress

2008-11-06T15:17:00.001-08:00

Hey guys,

I'm now blogging at Wordpress.com here is the link

www.prchdaword.wordpress.com

God bless,

Moses

A couple of questions on Roman Catholicism

2008-08-25T18:39:00.000-07:00

Here are my latest youtube videos dealing with some questions on Roman Catholicism, in particular a quotation from Augustine and the Church as "the pillar and foundation of truth". Enjoy

On the Trinity - proving the Deity of Jesus Christ

2008-08-18T17:04:00.000-07:00

Responses on Justification videos by GNRHead

2008-01-19T09:34:00.000-08:00

Well GNRHead is back...again. He still has not sent in his opening statement nor has he bothered to even ask for an email address again to send it. Supposedly he sent it a long time ago but I just "never got it"...of course, how would he know that I never got it?

Anyways...here is his resposne to my videos on justification which I did as an answer for a question on how I deal with the "justification" in James in contra to that of Paul.

Enjoy.

Part 1

Part 2

Question on Justification by Faith Alone and James 2 (part 1)

2007-12-05T21:09:00.000-08:00

Here is one of my latest videos.

It is a response to a Roman CAtholic inquiry on the doctrine of justification by Faith Alone and particularly how it relates to James' assertions in James 2 where he says, "so we see that a man is not justified by faith alone". Essentially, Rome believes this to be an explicity denial by the SCriptures of the doctrine of Justificaiton by Faith Alone, but as I explain in this two part video series, this is not the case at all. Here is the link to part 1 if you want see it and comment and here is the one for part 2 if you want to comment and rate.

Enjoy
Part 1

Part 2

New Debate with a Roman Catholic

2007-12-02T18:43:00.000-08:00

Well its been a while since I have had a debate with a Roman Catholic...my last one was with Ben Rosado over the Papacy and we were supposed to start debating justification by Faith alone but he dropped out...said he was supposed to get back to me. I emailed and he never responded.

Well recently I have been dialoguing with quite a few Catholics on YouTube over comments there and one of them has decided to pick up the slack where Ben left off. So, he has agreed to take my opening statement for Sola Fide and do that debate. So, keep your eyes on the Debate Center for new debates on Sola Fide...

By the way, unfortuneately GNRHead a.k.a. Richard has not kept in contact with me regarding his opening statement for Sola Scriptura. Sad, because according to him he has the opening statement but is just waiting to send it. Oh well....looking forward to these debates.
God bless,

Moses

New upcoming Studies on the Westminster Confession of Faith

2007-11-25T21:49:00.000-08:00

Be on the look out on my website on the Westminster Confession study page as I am currently teaching on chapter 8 of the Confession dealing with Christ the Mediator. This study will include things such as the mediatorial offices of Christ as well as his person and work, including the atonement. God bless.

Moses

Chosen for Life by Sam Storms

2007-11-18T20:07:00.000-08:00

Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election

Over the last century, there have been quite a few books on the doctrines of grace known as Calvinism. I myself have such Calvinist apologetic works on the “5 points of Calvinism” including those of Curtis and Steele, Spencer, James White, R.C. Sproul, James Boice and others. What does Sam Storm have to offer that these don’t or haven’t already?

Well the first thing about this book is that it is not a typical “5 point” book. While it does mention and deal at length with some of the points, the main emphasis of the book is really dealing with the second of the 5 points, unconditional election. What really makes Storms contribution worthy of reading in our present age is that Storms seeks to deal with more modern criticisms of Calvinism and the doctrine of unconditional election.
Storms approaches the doctrine with a governing scenario in which to contemplate the theology. Storms tells of two indentical twins, Jerry and Ed, who were at Church like they had been all their life. But this Sunday was different for Jerry. Instead of leaving as he always did, Jerry truly saw his need for Christ and for forgiveness. As a result, Jerry asked Christ for forgiveness while Ed thought his twin was making a scene. They left church and on the way home were involved in a fatal accident. Jerry went to heaven while Ed did not. “What made Jerry to differ from Ed?” asks Storms. This is where the doctrine of election comes in.
Storms goes through the doctrine of Total Inability, or Depravity, and shows that each of these brothers did not possess the ability within themselves to be able to repent or even have an inclination toward God. What I particularly liked was that Storms actually took the time to define “grace” and what it is not as well. He did this by offering 10 characteristics of “grace” and made sure that grace includes no obligation at all to the creature. It was also very helpful that he took the time to examine the Arminian perspective of “prevenient grace” and its foundations. Most Calvinist authors don’t take the time to explain the other side but Storms was willing to do that and rather fairly as well using different Arminian theologians and sources to assist him.
The other thing that Storms does is show from the Scriptures that faith and repentance are gifts of God. Not many Calvinist authors spend much time doing this in what are usually quick treatments of the 5 points of Calvinism. But since this is a book specifically dealing with Unconditional Election, Storms feels that it is important to deal with this and how it also proves election as only the elect are granted faith and repentance as gifts of God.
Another contribution from Storms is that he shows that the one who holds to “free will” doesn’t really have a sound basis upon which to even pray for the salvation of the lost. If the human will is ultimately free, and not able to be efficaciously determined by God, then it is theologically and practically useless and contradictory to pray for the salvation of the lost. If God cannot cause anybody to believe, what basis does the Arminian have to pray to God to do anything if that would constitute violating the “free will” of the creature.
The work is an excellent work and is recommended for Calvinist and Arminian alike. Whatever questions one might have about the doctrine of election whether you already believe in it, or want more information about it or are just seeking to understand its perspective, you can not go wrong with this work! Orders yours today

This is too amazing to pass up!!!

2007-11-17T15:44:00.001-08:00

Paul Potts, a mobile phone salesman participated in Great Britain's version of "american idol" and shocked and awed everybody including me. NOw, when you look at Paul Potts he doesn't appear to be the "sharpest knife in the drawer" but has such gift that could only come from our great Creator. This is a testimony to the graciousness of God to all creatures. Enjoy.

2000 hits!!!

2007-11-16T19:23:00.000-08:00

Wow...one of my YouTube videos has actually just hit the 2000 views mark and I'm actually quite impressed. I don't think most of my other videos have hit past 400 but this one has actually sparked up quite a storm. It was actually a video response to a response GNRHead gave to a fellow giving reasons why he didn't believe in Roman Catholicism you can view the full vid and read all 359 comments here. Here is the video that is raising up a storm. Enjoy the comments as they are really interesting too... God bless,

Moses

Response to FightingVaticant (part 8) - revisiting authority and Sola Scriptura

2007-11-10T17:28:00.000-08:00

Think about this, and this is something i truly believe: If there was not Catholic Church, no Pope, no bishop, all of our doctrines never existed, you never heard of the Church, their was no Church, and you read some of the Verses we have been discussing, i almost promise you would see them in a different light. To hear "This is my Body," and know that even if Jesus was speaking figuratively, in Aramaic that would simply mean "to insult, to beat up", to see how the Disciples left them and he let them go, to hear him say "Peter, you are Rock", you would wonder who is the Rock, and where is he. The church has rubbed alot of people the wrong way... not really the church but the people in the Church. I just wonder if we don't like authority, and we don't like hard truths sometimes, like contraception, or abortion, and when it just gets tough.

Like you told me, you think that Jesus would speak to his Discples in Greek, but you are not sure... What if he didn't? You have that gray area their, and you can only wonder and interpertat that yourself, 2000 years after the fact, but there is a Depoist of Faith that has been going on since then, and where the same truth has been passed down of Jesus, of his life, of who he is, which explains who we are, not just in a book, but by community, more then anything. We know just by looking at ourselves Our God is a God of Relationship, of interaction, through a very physcial way through the Bible. Always actions were preformed, from the Old to the New, matter played a part and people played a part together to discover the truth, and for me it is hard to believe that God would halt traditions(i know you said not all tradtions are bad, but understand what i am coming from), would stop having leaders led his people, from Moses, to Abraham, David...People who said what God said, leaders of his People. And truly if the old is a shadow of the new, then why would things be so differnt now?

This will be my final response to your initial letter. Hopefully I can start tackling some of the other responses that you have had to my previous response, for instance on covenants and stuff like that.

I believe I understand what you are saying in regards to the historical process of the existence of the Church. Certainly I am not saying that the Church’s existence should ever be compromised nor should it not exist. Where we differ is what we believe the Church is. I say that it is people who comprise the Church whereas it seems that you want to say that it is an institution that can exist apart from people. When you say, “…not really the Church, but the people in the Church…” the implication is that people are not the Church. But for whom did Christ die? Was it for people or an institution? I say people. I say that Christ died for the sins of His elect people from every tribe, race, nation and tongue so that together and in all ages, they are the Church. If I understand your position correctly, the Church did not begin to exist until after Christ’s death and resurrection.
You keep raising the “authority” issue. The problem is not authority but who is in authority. Whereas you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the infallible authority, I say that it is God alone. And since the Bible is God’s sole preserved revelation that we have and that He purposefully and willfully spoke so that the scriptures are God-breathed, they alone are speak with God’s infallible authority. And hence, I say that the Scriptures alone are the final authority for matters of faith and doctrines. Again, note that I am not saying the “only” but the “final”. That being said, let me say that I do not deny the community of the Church that has existed for the ages. I do recognize that there have been and are many great and godly men whom the Holy Spirit has gracious led into great truths. However, these men are not infallible. Though they are capable of speaking the truth and putting it into ways that can be understood, etc…, that does not mean that these men or their interpretations take the place of the Word of God. The word of God is still the final authority. It is possible, no matter how much study to misunderstand. I look to early Fathers like Augustine, Athanasius to name a few. I read the works of Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, R.C. Sproul, James R. White, etc…but I never attribute what they say as the final authority. At best, they have a derivative authority and they only speak authoratively so long as what they say is in line with God’s word and His authority. They do not, and neither do I, speak on my own nor do I have the right to the authority that God does.
Hence, Sola Scriptura does not mean that we read the Scriptures without a context. I believe it was Calvin who continued to argue that the Bible is a book of the Church. It is for the Church. It is not a book that can be interpreted any way. I have not read the section of the Institutes dealing with the Church yet, but I have heard from several authors commenting on it that Calvin held that no Christian had the right to exist apart from the Church. They often quote Calvin as saying, “He cannot have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his mother.” I’m not sure, but I think Calvin was also quoting an early father when he said and agreed with that statement.
The point is, Sola scriptura does not mean that each person is an authority unto themselves making the Bible to say whatever they want it to say. Sola Scriptura is a sole submission to God through His word, not the Church. Those who are familiar with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura understand that the Bible was a book inspired by God with intention and so its meaning must be sought out in the Scriptures. For instance, we cannot take a particular verse or words out of context and then say, “well, that’s what I think it says…” For instance, the Mormons will quote John 10:34 as “proof” that men may become “gods”. But when one looks at the context of the quote and the context of the Psalm in which Jesus was speaking of, we discover that the Mormon interpretation is not according to true sense in which Jesus spoke those words. Sola Scriptura simply tries to remain faithful to the text and not add to God’s written word nor subtract from it. Jesus spoke in Mark 7 about how certain “traditions” can take away from God’s word. Now, I know that Catholic get ragged on for “traditions” but Protestants have developed their own little “traditions” as well. We must be faithful the text. This is why I am learning the Biblical languages as best as I can and trying to understand grammar and syntax better so that I can know who a present tense participle function over an imperfect tense and why those little things can make huge differences when it comes to doctrines in the Bible.
As one committed to Sola Scriptura I have to say that I am not committed to a book per se. I am committed to the word of God. It just so happens that the word of God is preserved for us in written format. You asked me to consider what history would have been like, what the present would have been like had there been no “Catholic Church” …well I ask you to consider what history would have been like had God’s word never been preserved in written format. That would have been an authorative mess!!! Instead of having faith in God through what He Himself says, we would have to have faith in the one who tells us what God’s word says. The Scriptures is where we find the words of God. The Scriptures is where we find the words of Jesus. History has never identified any words that Jesus spoke which are not recorded in the Bible!!!
So I hope it is clear that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine in which any person may interpret the Scriptures in isolation. The Scriptures are supposed to be interpreted within the context of the Church because the Scriptures are God’s word to the Church. The Scriptures are a book of the Church in the sense that God wrote it through the hands of members of the Church (apostles and prophets or those closely associated with them). But the Church did not create or authorize the Scriptures in any way. God did that when He spoke. God preserved His word by having it written down and He even prototyped that His people were to be governed by a written text when He Himself wrote the commandments with His own “finger”.

Response to FightingVatican (part 7) - on Authority, the Canon and the Papacy

2007-11-03T18:16:00.000-07:00

I ask are you afraid of Authority? I am not asking in a condescending way, but more curious. Would you rather have authority for yourself? I mean the Jews lived under the authority of their priests, they did what they were told, even if they were not the best people. But that is what God put in: a System. And if the Bible is the only truth, what about the first 400 years of Christianity? They did not have a Bible, so what is of them? Truly a system of Pope, Bishop, Deacon, Priest was in order then, but they (under the Spirit) help formed the Canon of the Bible.

Am I afraid of authority? Now that is a silly question. Why would I be afraid of authority when I acknowledge the authority of the Lord through the Scriptures? That is the wrong question. The more pointed question would be “am I afraid of Rome’s authority?” Hmmm…never thought of it…but I would generally say that I am not inclined to follow the authority of something whose authority is not itself derived from the Word of God. So am I “afraid” of Rome’s authority. No. I just don’t acknowledge it or trust it when it comes to telling me what I need to do to be saved.
In regards to the canon of Scripture and the early Church. I strongly believe that the Church has always had a Bible. The very first Bible included only the OT but Christians began to recognize that the writings of the apostles were also to be counted among the Sacred Writings and considered with equal authority as the OT and as much the Word of God. For instance, in 2 Peter 3:16 Peter – probably around the mid first century, was already acknowledging the writings of Paul to be part of the Scriptures when he wrote that some twist Paul’s writing “along with the rest of the Scriptures.” In saying “the rest of the Scriptures” Peter is counting Paul’s writings in the category of the known sacred writings of the time. Likewise, Paul also acknowledges the Gospel of Luke as Scripture in quoting it with an OT source. In I Timothy 5:18, Paul says, “For the Scripture says, ‘you shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,’ and ‘the laborer is worthy of his wages.’” The first quote is from Deut. 25:4 while the second is from Luke 10:7. So clearly Paul was already aware that the Gospel of Luke was to be counted among the sacred Scriptures as he even freely used it to given authority to his own teachings. Now, I grant that the Church did not have the completed canon of Scripture until the final writing was done. Nevertheless, once the final writing of the final apostle was done (Revelation, 95 A.D.), that was the completion of the canon of Scripture. This is also a reason to reject writings after the first century because they were not of apostolic origin.
So when you say that the Church did not have a Bible until after 400 years, then how do you explain the early fathers quoting Scripture well before the Councils of Hippo and Carthage (393 and 397 respectively)? How do you account for Athanasius quoting Scripture to support the full deity of Jesus Christ against the Arian majority of his time? If there was known Scripture until the Roman Catholic Church said what was Scripture, then how can Peter or Paul say, “it is written”?
You also have to understand the times. Before the Edict of Milan, Christianity was persecuted. Do you think they had time or the organization, much less the freedom to have councils to settled doctrinal matters? Obviously not. It wasn’t until Christianity became “legalized” as it were was the Church able to actually come together and discuss and make statements like the Nicene Creed and Chalcedon. Also, there was no printing press…the Scriptures had to be copied by hand (when was the last time you tried doing that!!), they had to be circulated around the entire Christian community which didn’t happen through email and not even snail mail, but through smuggling letters from the apostles to the Churches. There was some communities that didn’t even see some of the known NT until much later after the letters were initially written and hence did not readily accept them. Some letters bore no author name, like Hebrews and so were disputed. Others seemed so mysterious that their canonicity was doubted, like Revelation. James, Jude, 2 and 3 John were also among the disputed books even up until Luther’s time.
I will agree that the times may have called for the structure of Bishops and such, but not that it was what Scripture neither warranted nor taught. Again, Bishops as the Roman Catholic Church knows them today were not functioning in the Church until the mid to late 2nd century.
The Pope has never been “necessary” in the Church either. Christ neither established such an office nor did the apostles. There is no evidence in the Apostolic Church that there was a Pope as was later defined in documents like Unam Sanctam and Vatican I ever in the apostolic Church. Rather, the apostles were all equals amongst each other. Obviously Peter does not emerge as the “leader” in the sense of “universal head of the Church” or the “vicar of Christ on earth” but merely as the first to do things. He is the first to preach the Gospel, but not the only. He is the first to preach to the Gentiles, but not the only. He was the first to confess Jesus as the Christ, the son of the living God, but not the only. Point in short, Peter the first among equals, but not exalted above the rest nor over them. Were it so, Paul would have been out of line for him to rebuke Peter to the face for “abandoning the Gospel”.

Westminter Theological Book Blog Partner

2007-11-03T12:42:00.000-07:00

Fellow Readers,

I wanted to bring to your attention that Westminster Theological Books and Reformed Theology & Apologetics have teamed up to help bring to you the best in Christian Scholarship.

I personally have ordered numerous books from Westminster Books and have always been pleased with the products and service. I usually get my books within one week and for the low cost $5 shipping!!!

Be sure to visit their website at www.wtsbooks.com

God bless

Moses

Response to FightingVatican (part 6) - On Sola Scriptura and the unity of the Church

2007-10-31T16:05:00.000-07:00

Concerning Sola Scriptura, i ask you if you think Contraception is good or bad. In whatever you say, I hope all who believe in Sola Scriptoria believe the same as well. Should we be allowed or not? I pray you say no, not just because no where in the New Testament will you find a verse containing to it, just because of how murderous and selfish it is. But who is to have authority? Ourselves? Truly if I interpret something one way and you the other, we have just created two Gods. You said that we must find out how the original writers intended, so you are trying to create unity, and the only hope if for that the unity is to be one, the only Church that claim to be ONE, the same faith in America as the same faith in Africa, is the Catholic Church.

Let me begin by first noting your fallacious thinking about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not a statement that says, “all believers will have the exact same views about the same things.” Your inference in your question is that Sola Scriptura is a statement about the PERSON who believes in it. This is completely missing the mark. Rather, Sola Scriptura is a statement about the nature and sufficiency of Scripture. It is a statement that basically says that God’s word, as the very word of God, is the ultimate authority in the Church (notice, I didn’t say the only authority, only the authority over all others, ultimate); It is a statement about God’s word sufficiently containing all that one needs to know to be saved. Hence, if it is not required in the Bible FOR SALVATION, it is not necessary FOR SALVATION.
I have to emphasize “for salvation” because there are things that are “not necessary for salvation.” For instance, nowhere in the Bible does it require that I have certainly beliefs about certain moral topics or political views in order to be considered a Christian or justified before God. The Bible does not require, for instance, a particular view of contraception in order to be saved. Rather, the Bible clearly says that “if we believe with our hearts, and confess Jesus Christ as Lord, you will be saved.” Acts 16:31 “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved…”. This is why Protestant argue that “faith alone” is the sole instrument of justification apart from works. It is Faith alone that the Bible requires in order to be justified.
Now, in order to be sanctified, there are further requirements for sure. There we must seek to conform our wills to God’s. There we must certainly take our moral stands and align our thinking with God’s word. But our sanctification is a result of our justification. Our justification does not depend on our sanctification.
Let me bring Scripture back into this. Sanctification is a process. Not all Christians are at the same level of sanctification either morally or intellectually. Some Christians live out very moral lives, but cannot think like a consistent Christian for the life of them. These are usually very simple people who have not really sought out the implications of Christian doctrine in all of life. They keep their Christianity simple and that is perfectly fine for them. Then there are some Christians who are intellectually sanctified in that these have thought through in a very thorough manner the doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These have diligently studied the Scriptures and can apply the Scriptures to their own circumstance. Many in these category are usually Christian professors and philosophers. Again, nothing wrong with this category. We know that the Church needs them. Now, there might be some Christians who are behind in their sanctification. Some Christians might not even think to see what the Scriptures teach about particular moral issues, such as contraception.
After all lets be honest. The Bible does not explicitly speak about contraceptions. Now, the one example that many Catholics refer to is when a certain fellow “emitted on the ground” and was struck down by God. I’ve heard this one several times. However, in the context, God was not angered by his “emitting on the ground.” Rather, God was angered that this fellow didn’t want to fulfill his brotherly duty and give an heir to his brother’s wife (see Genesis 38:1-10), hence this example is misapplied from the text. The other thing you have to consider is your reasoning. You say, that contraception is “murderous”. But, my friend, how can you kill something which is not living? I will say that abortion is certainly murderous, but how can it be murder when the games have not even joined to create life? If nothing has been conceived, how can one “kill” nothing? You also say it is “selfish”, but for who? What if both partners concur that they do not wish to conceive a child but still want to be joined together as a husband and wife are (this is in a marriage context, of course)? If you are going to be consistent, then you would have to say that the ONLY reason for sex is procreation. Sex at any other time that has willful knowledge of when conception is impossible would be murder. I don’t believe you are willing to go that far, but being consistent with your assertions you would have to be. What of nocturnal emissions in children? Are they now guilty of murder? Get the point? It just doesn’t hold water…
So, should a person who holds to Sola Scriptura necessarily have the same views on contraception? Not necessarily. Nor does Sola Scriptura require them to. Again, Sola Scriptura is a statement about the nature and sufficiency of Scripture, not about the competency of the one interpreting Scripture. I myself have some different views with other fellow Christians. Some Christians believe that drinking alcohol is a sin. I do not. Some say smoking is a sin. I do not (not that I smoke). Some say that “stupid” is a bad word; I do not. Does that mean that they or I do not believe in Sola Scriptura? Hardly! It just means that we are different people. But where the word of God speaks and to what it speaks, SCRIPTURE ALONE speaks with infallible authority because it is the very Word of God. It is God speaking.
Hence, to ask the question you ask about Scriptures authority, the believer and contraceptions. You would first have to produce the explicit or implicit statements in Scripture condemning contraceptives or contraception in any way. Now, maybe I have missed those statements. I don’t claim exhaustive knowledge. I may only know what I have read and understood from Scripture. So ,if there is evidence for your view which can make a case against contraceptives for all Christians, then I certainly welcome it.
As per the unity that you require, you should understand that Rome does not meet that same standard. If I understand correctly, you believe that the Catholic Church professes a common faith, both doctrinally and morally. To a certain extent, this is true. I think all of the Roman Catholic Church is united generally in the belief of the primacy of the Pope, the Marian dogmas, the Eucharist and how to be saved. All of Rome professes common doctrine in word. However, when you get to the nitty-gritty that is to the lay people where Catholicism is really carried out in practice, we often find another story. And don’t get me wrong, this is in all Churches, even Protestant Churches. Rome has her members who profess to be Roman Catholic but yet believe in abortion (this is common in the RCC of the United States). Of course, Rome doesn’t excommunicate these members like professed Catholic John Kerry. Rome has her members within her fold who actually use contraceptives. Etc…my point is that theory and practice, doctrine and morals, don’t always match. I can also tell you that the Catholicism of the United States is carried out differently than the Catholicism in Mexico and South American countries, versus the Catholicism in Ireland versus the Catholicism in Rome itself, and I’m not just talking liturgically either. Each “form” has its own cultural relevance. I’m sure Catholics in Africa don’t worship like those in Mexico.
Now, my point is simply that the unity that you require for Protestants is not present in Roman Catholicism either. Even with Roman Catholicism there have been identified “denominations” such as the “sedavacanist” who do not believe that Rome has a valid Pope. There are “charismatic” Catholics; “Liberal” Catholics; “Moderate” Catholics; “Conservative” Catholics; Catholics who are opposed to the documents of Vatican II; Catholics who believe Vatican II was infallible; Catholic who do not believe Vatican II was infallible, etc…the list could go on and on but I think I’ve made the point.

Response to Fighting Vatican (part 5) - On the sacrifice of the Mass

2007-10-28T15:27:00.000-07:00

And per sacrifice, we as Catholics do not re-sacrifice Jesus, this is a common misconception outside the Church. We are re-presenting the Sacrifice when Jesus says do this in remembrance of me. You look at old Tradition, old Jewish Customs of circumcision and their own sacrifice, and how Catholics do things today, it is all quite similar.read Hebrews 10:1

"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves."

What is a shadow? It is a outline that must contain the substance. The old tradtions of the past are shown in new light in the New Conveant. I saw on your website that you had a priest tell you that you had alot of knowlege of the Catholic Church, but the main doctrine of our faith and you do not understand? Please read the Catechism, if you wish to define our beliefs. Jesus is our ultimate high priest, there is no doubt of that, but It is this name presbyter (elder) which has passed into the Christian speech to signify the minister of Divine service, the priest.
Allow me to start off by quoting from the Council of Trent regarding the sacrifice of the Mass:

“And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect, that if we, contrite and penitent, with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence, draw nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid. For, appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former. Wherefore, according to the tradition of the Apostles, it is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ but not yet fully purified.” (Session 22, chap. 2)

Likewise, Canon I declares:

“If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.”

The language of the infallible Council of Trent is such that the Mass is really a “sacrifice” of the “one and the same” Christ. Were it merely a “representation”, I don’t think I would have problem with that in the sense that the supper “signifies” (at the very least) the death of the Christ. However, the meaning of Trent is clearly that the Mass is really and truly a sacrifice of the same Jesus Christ who once died on the “altar of the cross.” The difference between the two is that while the cross was a “bloody sacrifice” the Mass is an “unbloody sacrifice”. Both are claimed to be equally propitiatory and even the “one and the same” victim is offered in this “real and true sacrifice”.
Now, the questions are as follows: How can the sacrifice be one and the same, or a re-presentation, when the significant difference of the manner is different? Also, how does propitiation for sins take place through the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass when the New Testament is explicit in saying, “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins” (Heb. 9:22)?
As per Hebrews 10, I believe the teaching of Hebrews 10:1-4 is quite clear that the blood of bulls and goats could NEVER take away the sins of the people. In the covenant, that was not its function. The function of the OT sacrifices were to direct the peoples faith to one who would come and be the sacrifice that God would truly be pleased with (see Isaiah 53). What was the function of those OT sacrifices? Verse 3 reveals it clearly: “But in these sacrifice (the ones that are continually offered) there is a reminder (Gr. Anamnesis) OF SIN every year.” Notice the word “reminder”. It is the same Greek word that Jesus used when he said “Do this in remembrance (anamnesis) of Me.”
Here we see the contrast between the sacrifices of the OT and the sacrifice (singular) of the NT. In the OT, sacrifices were repeated year after year to remind the peoples of their sins. Again, “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). These sacrifices were not intended to do such. In the Old Covenant, they were signs pointing to the sacrifice to come, to the “lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus is the real sacrifice to which all the other sacrifices pointed to. Those sacrifices were but shadows –without substance – of the real propitiation for our sins.
That this is the true understanding is seen from the proceeding verses in which we read, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired…” That is, the sacrifices of animals were not what God really wanted. God really wanted the peoples’ faith to be in the coming sacrifice, the one who would crush the head of the serpent. Hence, the prophets would often ridicule Israel for their zealous sacrifices that had missed the whole point of what they signified. As Augustine said in “On Christian Doctrine” Book 3, chap. 8, they were in bondage to the sign and had missed the thing signified in the sign. God could often tell the people that He didn’t want their sacrifices but a “broken spirit” and a “contrite heart”…the reminders of sin. God ultimately wanted their faith (Hab. 2:4). Hebrews continues, “…but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offering and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure…” Again, God is not propitiated or pleased by the sacrifices of the animals. Rather, He is well pleased in His Son and His work that was truly propitiatory.
In regards to the Priesthood, I would quote I Peter 2:5 and 2:9 to show that we all are priests to God. All believers share in the NT priesthood in that we do not need intermediaries to take our sacrifices to God anymore. Now Jesus is the great High Priest, as you correctly assert. But beyond that, there are no other intermediaries to get to God. Also, the word for elders (GR. Presbuteros) is NOT the same Greek word for priest ( GR. hierus) nor are they used interchangeably. Rather the word that is translated as overseer or bishop is used synonymously with “elder” (cf. Acts 20:17, 28; I Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). This evidence in the Scriptures is what has lead me to believe that the office of elder and overseer/bishop are one and the same, which is why I also believe in a Presbyterian form of Church government.

Response to FightingVatican (part 4) - The Gates of Hell shall not prevail...

2007-10-28T13:52:00.001-07:00

"The gates of hades shall not prevail".... What does that mean then? If the Church is a community of believers, then the gates of hell shall not prevail against what? The people? Even [now] we see people believe and then fall away?... But for the gates not to prevail against the "foundation of truth", must mean that this foundation, the pillar, which is a starting point, can not be faltered. The Pillar will not fall. The people in the church can, but not the Church itself.

Let me start off by saying that I am very thankful for your interaction and I want you to know that I am not ignoring your other responses, I just want to take the time to answer all of these other concerns first. Hopefully, I will get to the other responses, especially the covenants, very soon. For now, allow me to continue responding to your original letter.
“The gates of Hades shall not prevail…” In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says to Peter, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Again, as I have stated before, the Church is a body of believers in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God. The Church is not an institution. I would certainly challenge anybody to find in Scripture where the Church is defined as or even described as an institution that can exist apart from believers. Instead, as I pointed out, the Church is the sum total of the elect of God. The Church are those people for whom Christ died (see Eph. 5:25). Paul says to the Church in Corinth “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (I Cor. 12:27). The Church is the ONE BODY of ALL BELIEVERS. It is not a building located in one place. It is not even many buildings! It is the people! I Corinthians 3:16 even reminds us that we are “God’s temple”. Likewise Peter says, “As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (I Peter 2:4-5). We are the stones that make up the Church – the spiritual house – that will be the dwelling of God with His people. When Christ says “I will build my Church…” We are the material God is using. It is people.
Now, when Christ says “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” by this I understand Jesus promising PERPETUAL EXISTENCE to the Church. That is, God’s elect will have a continual existence. To the saints(those who died in faith, not in the Catholic sense of Saint), they are given experiencing life eternal. To the faithful here on earth, they too experience eternal life (John 17:3) but also they enjoy existence. In that I mean, God’s Church – no matter how assaulted by the world, sin and Satan – it will not ever be destroyed. Yes, there may be times when it seems like the Church is not doing its job, but just like God revealed to Elijah, He has His elect who have not succumbed to the world (see I Kings 19:9-18;Romans 11:3-5).
And so it has been. Reading early Church history and seeing the intensive persecutions against Christianity both physically and intellectually, it is a true marvel and miracle that Christianity even exists today! When we think of the early Jewish persecutions headed by, at that time, Saul of Tarsus. Think of the Roman persecutions. Think of the persecutions by the Arians. Think of the Arian ascendancy even to the Papacy in the 4th century from which our great hero of Trinitarian orthodoxy, Athanasius, had a phrase coined for him: Athanasius contra mundum, Athanasius against the world. Think about the invading Germanic tribes who eventually sacked Rome and their Arian tendencies. Then came the Muslims and their attacks on Christianity. We can also think of the Gnostics who intellectually tried to turn Christianity into something entirely different and deny the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Think of the many early and even later Christological heresies. There is so much to name. That the Church still exists today with all its true apostolic teachings is really miracles of God that I attribute to God keeping His promise to not let the “gates of hell prevail” against the Church.
But what of those who have fallen out of the fellowship of the Church? Again, I appeal to the Scriptures here particularly the apostle John. In his first epistle he writes, “Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (I John 2:18-19). Basically John is saying, that those who ended up leaving (apostasizing) from the faith, they left because they were not truly “of us”. That is, they were not truly born again (see I John 2:15-16; 3:6-8, et. al.) and hence “fell away.” They were “false believers” if you will. Jesus also mentions those kinds of believers. He mentions that in the Church , there will be the “wheat”(believers) mixed with the “tares” or “weeds” (unbelievers,false believers) until the end (Matt. 13:24-30).
Hence, the Church, since it is only and every comprised of believers can never cease to exist so long as God continues to keep His promises. Being that God is a faithful God, He most certainly has and will continue to keep His promise. It is true also, though, that believers may falter, even as David, a man after God’s own heart did, but they will never fully and finally fall away. For the Scriptures also promise that “He who began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6). So, while individual members of the Church may falter at times – and we can all say that are not always the best examples of Christianity sometimes for we all sin (I John 1:8) – yet as a WHOLE – and that really is the key – the gates of hell shall not prevail.
I hope that answers your question about what I believe. In the end, the Church is an organic whole composed of many individual believers each having their part as “living stones” in the building of God. Hence, the Church not cease to exist or crumble because of the lapse of one believer, or a group of believers, or with a particular expression of Christianity. I mean lets face it, each particular Christian denomination probably has some history that it might not be proud of. In common, we can say that Church history includes the Crusades as a means of spreading the Gospel. The Church killed Copernicus for his “revolutionary” theory of heliocentricity which we have come to know is true now. That is a blunder that all Christians should not be proud of. It is also true that the Church used to burn heretics, something that we today would be ashamed of. Catholics persecuted Protestants. One can hardly forget the St. Bartholomew’s day Massacre in which Protestants were viciously murdered in a plot by the Roman Catholic clergy and government. Protestants persecuted Catholics taking land from them, etc… during the Reformation. Catholic and Protestants alike participated in slavery and slave trading. The Papacy refused to condemn Hitler’s actions against the Jews. Roman Catholic priest have been found to sexually molest children. So called “Protestant” Televangelist are a continual embarrassment not only in the Church but to the world. I could certainly go on about both of respective groups’ blunders in history. But the existence of the Church is not conditioned upon the performance of its individual or even group members but upon the promise of God and of Christ : “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Response to Fighting Vatican (part 3) - On the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ

2007-10-25T20:04:00.000-07:00

Also, I am quite sure no where in the Bible is defined that Jesus was fully man and fully God as the same being. We know he was God and Human, but I quite sure (correct me) does the Bible explicitly say in the same being...Maybe God and human in one body, just two people, but this was one the early arguments of the Church, weather or not Jesus was truly 1 being! This was defined i believe in the 2nd or 3rd century that indeed Jesus was fully man and fully God in the same being, not two separate people.

I will agree that the Bible does not have written the explicit formula found in the Nicene Creed or even the Creed of Chalcedon. However, the teachings of Nicea and Chalcedon are completely contained within the Scriptures. We know that Jesus was human because of the Incarnation. After all, what would it mean for God to become incarnate, if not to take on a human nature? I would certainly beg to differ that the Scriptures do not say that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man! I think Athanasius, who stood up to the Arian heresy in the 4th century would also differ with you. Athanasius’ very arguments were taken from the exegesis of Scripture against the Arians.
Take the prologue to the Gospel of John for instance (John 1:1-18). Lets see if we can’t see that Jesus Christ, the one person, is not fully God and fully man.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Now, the verb form of the verb “to be” is an imperfect tense and is often translated as “was”. The sense that we should understand is that the Word of God was already in existence before the beginning. Hence, the Logos is eternal and its existence preceded “the beginning”. I have a paper exegeting John 1:1 with special regards to refuting the JW’s understanding of the text that you are welcomed to on my website (here is the link). In short, the Logos is eternal with God the Father. Jesus Christ shares in the eternal nature with God, thus qualifying Him as fully human. For only God alone is eternal and there is only one God. Hence, we conclude the Logos of God, identified as Jesus Christ, shares in the one eternal nature that is God. Fully God, no questions asked. This teaching of the Deity of Christ also comes out in such passages as Phillippians 2:5-1 as well as Colossians 1:17. There are many other Scriptures that may bring this out including Hebrews 1:8-12. I would recommend picking up any sound Reformed Theological work on the Deity of Christ which may clearly show that the fully deity of Jesus Christ is a Biblical doctrine.

“He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not overcome it.”
Again, we see the eternal nature of the Logos and even His role in creation, again showing that Christ was not created but rather was a medium for creation and nothing was created without His agency.

“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

More is seen here of the high Christology presented in the Bible. We see that John the Baptist fulfills the role of the “messenger” pointing to the Christ but not being the Christ himself. Jesus is the “true light” and the world does not perceive him. Rather, only those granted with the gift of faith through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit are alone able to see Jesus Christ as God’s anointed. Now we get to it…

“And the word became flesh…”

After all the high and divine things that have been said about the Word of God, how unworthy are we as creatures to be in the presence of such a being who has had eternal audience with God the Father! How unworthy of our nature is this being! This “light of the world” this “word of God” this “true light”….and the Scriptures declare, “the word became FLESH.” Now, surely there can be no question as to what the Scripture is saying here. Jesus Christ, the second person of the blessed Trinity, co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father, took on for himself human nature, summed up here as “flesh”. Other passages of Scripture teach the same thing. As mentioned before, Philippians 2:5-11 clearly teaches that Jesus, who was God in nature, took on human nature. We read, “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” There is no question that the full humanity of Jesus Christ is affirmed in Scripture LONG before Nicea and Chalcedon. John’s prologue finishes:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.”

I think it is important to note that Roman Catholics have traditionally claimed that the doctrines that get defined in the Church were always part of the Depositum Fidei (Deposit of Faith) well before they are officially pronounced. I would certainly not have a problem with that in the sense that I believe God’s truths do not become truth when they are defined but have always been truth that was revealed to us. And we know that God says that His word is truth (John 17:17). Thus, it seems rather odd that you would assert that it took the Council of Nicea (even Chalcedon) to define Christ as one person with two nature, and of one and equal substance with the Father. As I understand it, those beliefs have always been part of the Church. I think even a cursory reading of the First Epistle of John will show that John was combating the belief that Christ was not a man. Hence, he would say that anybody who denies the incarnation – that Christ was really a man, fully man – was “antichrist” (see I John 4:1-4).
Hence, and very clearly, the teachings of the fully deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ is clearly contained within the pages of Holy Scripture. I myself have not read the Trinitarian works of Athanasius but I have read from numerous works on Church history, including Phillip Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church” (8 volumes!) that Athanasius adamantly stood on Scripture and appealed to its pages to make his arguments against the Arians.
Thus, while Scripture may not use the language that was thrown around in Nicea (homoiousios and homoousios), the meanings behind these words to describe the nature of Christ are clearly contained within the Scritpures. As B.B. Warfield once said, (paraphrase), “If we search for particular words in Scripture regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, we will search in vain…However, we should know that the sense of Scripture is still Scripture.” By that Warfield meant that the meaning of Scripture is equal to the words of Scripture. With this I would agree. So while particular theological phrase – which are human constructs for understanding the Scriptures and their meaning – are absent, the meanings are not and I would rather cling to the truth of Scripture than quibble over words.

Response to Fighting Vatican Part 2

2007-10-24T17:47:00.000-07:00

Yes in 2 Tim 3 all Scripture is good for correction and inspired, but it does not say only Scripture. It is not the foundation of truth. When you read "foundation", what do you get from that? The Church must hold the Truth together, its is starting point and if the Church goes down, just like a foundation of a house, the house goes down with it.

Regarding 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work.” We note from this text that ONLY Scripture is God-breathed (Gr. Theopneustos). Nothing else in all of Scripture is referred to as God-breathed (theopneustos). In fact, some Biblical scholars believe that this is the first instance of the word “theopneustos” in ancient Greek literature (See B.B.Warfield’s “the Inspiration of Scripture”). Now, you are correct in saying that “it does not say only Scripture.” However, I would also be correct in saying “it doesn’t saying anything else is either.” Your rebuttal there is actually an “argument from silence” but as logicians and scholars have noted that is exactly what the argument proves: silence! I could use that type of argument with any text of Scripture if I so choose. I could say, “uh, the Bible doesn’t say I can’t use and sell drugs.” In fact, there are quite a few things that the Bible doesn’t say explicitly (like you state later in your letter, the exact formula for the doctrine of the Trinity, though the substance of the doctrine is certainly contained within the Holy Writ).
While you might certainly want to add that “tradition” is also to be taken into account as profitable for doctrine, etc…we have to ask the question of why didn’t Paul say so here? Why didn’t he tell Timothy, as he was basically leaving to Timothy the answer of authority in the Church upon his own impending death? I’m going to attach a sermon that I preached at my Church on this particular text showing conclusively that Paul was basically saying to Timothy, “Timothy, when I die, do not be anxious about who you will look to for doctrinal and moral authority. You know the Scriptures and have known them since your youth. They, as the product of God Himself, are able to lead you into correct doctrine and morals. These will complete you and thoroughly equip you.”
Now, Scripture is not declared to be the “foundation” per se in this text or any other text that I’m aware of. But what is Scripture declared to be? In John 17:17 Jesus says to God, “Your word is truth.” Now, the Church was said to be the “pillar and foundation of truth”. That means that the Church upholds the word of God. Again, reverting to what Calvin commented, it is the Church that is charged with such an obligation to uphold and support the Word of God in the world. The Church is not the truth, but she supports it while in the world. The Church does not determine truth. Truth, by nature, is eternal. In creation, God spoke all things into being. By God’s word even, the Church came into being.
Hence, we actually agree that the Church must hold the truth together. We must defend the faith. We must “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The world isn’t going to stand up for God’s truth. The Muslims aren’t going to do it. Government isn’t going to stand up for God. It is the Church that is charged with the solemn responsibility of upholding the truth in the world. As long as the Church upholds the truth, as long as we are the salt and light of the earth, we honor God. But when we falter and let the truth go unannounced or allow it to be trampled upon, especially the truth of Jesus Christ, as I Timothy 3:16 continues, the “mystery of godliness”.
In a sense, you can see the passage actually charging pastors and teachers to defend the faith. Basically, giving a scriptural charge for apologetic ministry, especially to the unbelieving world. For instance, as of late there have been recent attempts to debunk Christianity including the Gospel of Judas discovery, The Da Vinci Code and even the discovery of the Talpiot Tomb (Jesus Family Tomb) which was said to contain the bones of Jesus in it. I have personally sought to refute such claims and affirm Jesus as resurrected from the grave. That is one way that I, as a member of the Church, can do my part in being the “pillar and support of truth”.
That this is the correct understanding of the text is added to by the context that follows. After declaring the truth that we confess (3:16), Paul goes on in chapter 4 to describe the doctrinal dangers that will confront the Church in the last days. “Doctrines of demons” are what the Church needs to stand against. That is our charge.

Response to Fighting Vatican (Part 1)

2007-10-23T21:00:00.000-07:00

I have had much recent activity through my YouTube videos against Roman Catholicism lately. I have had many heated email exchanges and such, but I want to share my responses that I'm currently making to a particular Roman Catholic by the name of "FightingVatican" I'll post his question followed by my answer. Enjoy.

Why is the the Church a body of believers? If the Church is just all the the believers, then why is the Church the "Pillar and Foundation of Truth?" (1 Tim 3:15) What can you take from that?

First of all, let me describe the Church from the Scriptures. In such passages as Ephesians 5:25-29 the Church is described as the “bride” of Christ for whom Christ died. I Corinthians 3:10-17 declares us as “God’s building” as “God’s temple” in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. It is people here that Paul has in mind. Not an institution. Every believer is a part of the Church. The Greek word most often translated as “Church” is ekklesia which means “assembly” or “gathering”. “This word, taken from common usage where it applied to the ‘calling out’ of citizens for a civic meeting or of soldiers for battle, is used extensively throughout the Old and New Testaments to refer to the people of God (e.g. Deut. 4:10; 9:10; 31:30; Mt. 16:18’ 18:17; Acts 5:11; Rom 16:5; I Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:22; 3:10; Heb. 12:23)” (From Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, pg 147). Christ died for the sins of His people and it is them that He saves (Matt 1:21), not an institution.
As per I Timothy 3:15 let me quote John Calvin at length for I think he said it best in explaining this passage. He says,

“No ordinary enhancement is derived from this appellation. Could it have been described in loftier language? Is anything more venerable, or more holy, than that everlasting truth which embraces both the glory of God and the salvation of men? Were all the praises of heathen philosophy, with which it ahs been adorned by this followers, collected into one heap, what is this in comparison of the dignity of this wisdom, which alone deserves to be called light and truth, and the instruction of life, and the way, and the kingdom of God? Now it is preserved on earth by the ministry of the Church alone. What a weight, therefore, rests on the pastors, who have been intrusted with the charge of so inestimable a treasure! With what impudent trifling do Papist argue from the words of Paul that all their absurdities ought to be held as oracles of God, because they are the ‘pillar of truth,’ and therefore cannot err!
First, we ought to see why Paul adorns the Church with so magnificent a title. By holding out to pastors the greatness of the office, he undoubtedly intended to rmind them with what fidelity, and industry, and reverence they ought to discharge it. How dreadful is the vengeance that awaits them, if, through their fault, that truth which is the image of Divine glory, the light of the world, and the salvation of men, shall be allowed to fall! This consideration ought undoubtedly to lead pastors to tremble continually, not to deprive them of all energy, but to excite them to greater vigilance.
Hence we may easily conclude in what sense Paul uses these words. The reason why the Church is called the ‘pillar of truth’ is that she defends and spreads it by her agency. God does not Himself come down from heaven to us, nor does he daily send angels to make known His truth; but He employs pastors, whom He has appointed for that purpose. To express it in a more homely manner, is not the Church the mother of all believers? Does she not regenerate them by the word of God, educate and nourish them through their whole life, strengthen, and bring at length to absolute perfection? For the same reason, also, she is called ‘pillar of truth’; because the office of administering doctrine, which God hath placed in her hands, is the only instrument of preserving the truth, that it may not perish from the remembrance of men. (Calvin’s Commentary, volume XXI, Epistle to Timothy, pg. 89).

In other words, what Calvin is arguing is that the Church – the body of believers, but here in context, especially its ministers – are the “pillar and foundation of truth.” Now, one should recognize the difference between something that upholds and something that is the final arbiter of truth. A pillar and foundation are structures that hold something up. In this case, they uphold truth. They are not the creators of truth. They merely support the truth and uphold it, and especially remain subservient to it (loosely quoted from The Roman Catholic Controversy, James R. White, pg. 58 ).

I hope that I have answered that questions in a descent manner for you. I would certainly encourage you to look up the Scriptures that were quoted and see that the Church is the body of believers. Institutions do not believe; people believe. Sinners believe in Christ unto salvation. Not an institution or a building.

Calvinism vs. Arminianism

2007-05-23T21:29:00.000-07:00

So I was searching through YouTube the other day and just happen to come across a British fellow who had two videos titled "Calvinism & Arminianism". I thought I would watch them and see if they were any good. Well, I was in for a surprise when I heard him say that the differences between the two theologies was so insignificant that it was not worth fighting about...here's his videos and my responses to each part.

My reply to Part 1

His video Part 2:

My reply to Part 2

From what I understand, this man is a preacher in England somewhere or at the very least speaks with a British accent wherever he preaches at. I'm actually hoping to be able to work on some Calvinistic material in the summer to be able to post up on YouTube and GodTube respectively. I think it would benefit the body of Christ as well as inform those with questions about the Reformed Christian faith. Pray for me on that. God bless.

Augustine and the Roman Catholic Mass

2007-05-02T18:15:00.000-07:00

Well, I have been decently busy on YouTube with some discussions about the Roman Catholic Mass especially showing that one particular Father did not understand the Mass as it was infallibly defined by the Council of Trent. This is Augustine of Hippo.

I posted my first video as a response to GNRHead’s challenge to Dr. James White about showing “a single church father who didn’t believe in the Eucharist like Catholics do” so I responded with my reading of Augustine’s “On Christian Doctrine” (Book III, 9) on “signs and the thing signified” and gave some commentary. Here is the video

Needless to say, I had some comments made to my reading of Augustine by a Dan0898 quoting more from Augustine. I didn’t really make much of the comments especially in light of his calling my video a “waste of time”….not really worth responding to Dan. However, I noticed that a member who has recently posted some material by Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis posted a comment asking how I would respond to Dan’s comments to which I responded…

To which Pacislander4life responded :

And then I said,

The funny thing is, I can see how the Reformer’s wanted to go back to Scripture ALONE in regards to doctrine. It’s because the chief interpretive tool for understanding Scripture and doctrine was susceptible to contradictions and differences of opinion and even interpretation. A Roman Catholic quotes the Fathers…the Reformers quote the Fathers….who is right? Well let’s go the Scriptures! What saith the Scriptures???
I have said before that I respect the Fathers for their time and the work they did. I don’t agree with everything that they taught, said, did or practiced, but nonetheless I am not willing to jettison them altogether to Rome. Calvin and Luther were deeply influenced by the Fathers especially Augustine. Personally, I don’t think the Father’s intended to define much of what we use them for and there has been the tendency to dogmatize what they said in passing and read more into it. For instance, in my debate over the Papacy, the second rebuttal statement of my esteemed opponent quotes Fathers who mention such titles as “chair of Peter” and thus, assume the Papacy as defined by Vatican I. But these are not the same!!! What of the relevant text dealt with explicitly, like Matthew 16:18-19?

Well needless to say, these are some discussions going on YouTube that you all can be aware of and keep up with. Still waiting for a debate response from GNRHead….not too hopeful though since I was not to impressed with his “scholarly” response to Nick Norelli’s blog critique of his video on the Papacy…God bless

Moses

I have video editing software!!!

2007-04-24T14:41:00.000-07:00

So I was messing with the software that came with my webcam the other night and I came across a simple video editing software that I REALLY want to make good use of. Here's a clip of my video reading from Augustine's work regarding signs and the things signified. Note the intro and be sure to pay attention to the song at the end ;)

I think that's hilarious! I still haven't utilized the video as much as I have wanted to but I am really thinking right now of doing some sort of video series on Sola Scriptura some time soon to post on GodTube and YouTube. Nothing too fancy, but certainly something worth watching, or at least listening too, and to have as an apologetic tool. Have any ideas about anything you guys would like to see, feel free to share them as well. God bless

Moses

Did Jesus and the Apostles believe in Sola Scriptura?

2007-04-21T15:31:00.000-07:00

In my recent debate with Ben Rosado, on his cross examination rebuttal statement I was told that if I could provide him with evidence that Jesus and the apostles believed in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, then he would consider reversing his beliefs that he currently holds to.

Well is there such evidence? What kind of evidence are we looking for here? Historically speaking, Jesus and the apostle’s could not have believed in the doctrine as stated in the 16th century. Why not? Because the doctrine presupposes the completed canon of Scripture! Jesus and the apostles could not have required any to believe in the stated doctrine of Sola Scriptura during their times because that would have rendered their own words lower than Scripture. Obviously that could not be possible since Jesus’ words are the very words of God and the Apostle’s spoke and wrote some things under the infallible guidance and authority of the Holy Spirit. Requiring evidence that Jesus and the apostles believed in “Sola Scriptura” would require one to presuppose that the New Testament is really not Scripture at all.
Also, it disregards the special period in redemptive history in which God spoke to His people in various ways revealing His redemption that was hidden from the ages past. There was a time when God revealed things to certain people such as the prophets and the apostles. Such was the foundational (cf. Eph. 2:20) period for the Church. God no longer speaks to His people the way that he used to (cf. Heb. 1:1-3, note aorist tense) but has rather spoken and given His fullest revelation in the person and work of Jesus Christ whom the apostles expound in their letters and in the Gospels. Thus, during this special period, the Church did not need the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as they had Christ, they had enough of his words and witnesses to them to know what Christ said. The Church also had the apostles, men gifted by God to reveal and expound the person and work of Christ. With such men in the Church, and God still giving revelation through them, there is no need for “Sola Scriptura” since the canon was still open.
But once the apostles died and generations of people were coming in which the people would not have eyewitnesses to Jesus or have heard the apostles’ teachings about Jesus Christ. Whereas Jesus’ words and the revelation through the apostles could authoratively settle doctrinal matters, there would come a time when these would not be with the Church. I have argued that Peter and Paul both foresaw this happening and each of these men commended their readers to the Scriptures – both the Old Testament and those apostolic letters and writings already being accepted as Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:19-21, 3:16).
But all this is not to say that part of the doctrine is contained within the word of Jesus and the apostles. Remember that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a statement about the nature, authority and sufficiency of Scripture. While it wouldn’t necessarily be inappropriate to say that the OT did not contain the necessary material to come to a saving understanding of Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15), it is also certainly true that the NT reveals what is “hidden” as it were in the OT. I believe it was Augustine who is credited for saying something to the effect of “what is hidden in the OT is made clear in the NT; and what is in the NT was already contained in the OT.” The words of Christ expound and reveal to us “the heart” of the OT as it were. Jesus’ came to fulfill the OT .
So are the Scriptures sufficient for Jesus? Not in the sense that we understand Sola Scriptura with a completed canon and the cessation of revelation. But there is evidence that Jesus certainly gave supreme authority to the Scriptures above anything outside of Scripture, especially “traditions” that had even been elevated to the same level of “law” (cf. Mark 7). Jesus dismissed these “traditions” harshly. Jesus used the authority of the Scriptures as the very authority of God Himself (cf. Luke 4:1-13, John 10:34-36; Matt. 22:29-33).
The authority of Scripture in the ministry of Jesus hardly needs to be exhaustively proven from Scripture as it is evident from even a cursory reading of the Gospels that Jesus quoted from the Scriptures extensively especially in support of those teachings that seemed contrary to those of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Also, his view of the nature of Scripture as the word of God is evident from a passage like Matthew 22:29-33 in which Jesus says, “have you not read what God said…” Also, from the apostles, we read quotations from OT characters like David introduced as “the Holy Spirit says…” (Heb. 3:7) or as the Father “saying” (cf. Heb. 1:5-13). Clearly, they viewed the nature of the Scriptures as “God-breathed” and counted them as the very words of God Himself. As such, the Scriptures, by nature carried the very authority of God Himself for these were His very words through the mouths of holy men (cf. Acts. 4:24-26).
Now, this is not to say that Jesus or the apostles functioned under the belief in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. However, we can see that when it comes to the nature and, especially, the authority of Scripture the Protestant movement was more on par with their view of Scripture than Roman Catholicism is. Jesus and the apostles are the examples for appealing to Scripture to settle and prove doctrinal matters. Jesus never appealed to “tradition” that was not supported by Scripture. In fact, he condemned it as hiding the kingdom of God and a tool for keeping people out.
So again, Jesus and the apostles could not have believed in the doctrine as stated because all Scripture had yet to be given. But the groundwork for it is certainly there. In Jesus and the apostles we clearly see their beliefs in the nature and authority of Scripture and being the very word of God and carrying absolute and infallible authority above all others (cf. “the Scripture are the sole infallible authority”). We see them appealing to Scripture to support their own Gospel (cf. Acts 17:11). And finally, as demonstrated in my responses, the apostles left it to the Church, as it were, to commit themselves to the Scriptures alone as their “lamp in a dark place”, as what would be “profitable” for doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. For the Church would not always experience ongoing revelation from her Lord. She would be guided by “ordinary means” through the Holy Spirit of God.

Recent Cross Examination with Ben Rosado

2007-04-17T18:26:00.000-07:00

Well, if you haven’t been keeping up with them, I have finally been able to have a formal debate with a Roman Catholic gentleman by the name of Ben Rosado who I met on YouTube of all places. He is a very sincere fellow and a super nice guy from what I can tell.

Overall there were some good exchange and seeking of understanding on each others part. I was really pleased with the questions that Ben asked for clarification on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura because many have the idea that the doctrine means “separation from all other authorities and responsibility when interpreting the Scriptures.” In other words, it is taken that the doctrine worked out practically means that Protestant can interpret the Bible any way they please. This is hardly the case, nor is it really a direct implication from the doctrine as stated historically. Quite honestly, it is a caricature that seems to come from the Council of Trent and many other caricatures of Roman Catholic apologist.

I can honestly say, I understand Rome’s attempt to want say that Scripture should be interpreted correctly for the people of God. But just like the Jews want to put a “hedge” around the law with their “traditions” and ended up actually putting people and themselves further from God, so involving the “traditions” of – what I believe were good men – to act as the supplemental revelation to Scripture that alone, may correctly interpret Scripture. I won’t say that these men are “rolling over in their graves” because they are in the eternal bliss of heaven. I honestly don’t think these men ever intended their own words to be taken as revelation especially when you see what a high view of Scripture they had.

I only wish I could have quoted the Fathers more about their view of Scripture and then one could easily see what caused Luther or Calvin to hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Luther, especially being an Augustinian monk was immersed in Augustine’s work and surely would have come across statements like the ones I quoted in my second rebuttal. Reading Calvin’s institutes one is bound to run into a quote or two from Augustine or some other Father. I’m not saying the Father’s were perfect, but a fair reading of their works certainly doesn’t – as some “Protestant” assume – give basis for many Roman Catholic dogmas as Roman Catholics believe. At best, the Fathers were inconsistent, but certainly not Roman Catholic as Trent defined Roman Catholicism.

That being said, I was really disappointed that Ben was not familiar with how Rome dogmatically referred to “tradition” in the Council of Trent and even Vatican I as the “unanimous consent of the Fathers”. I’m not sure if it is obvious, or if I had mentioned it in the intro, but Ben is “Charismatic Catholic”. Now, I knew this going into the debate and I figured Ben’s knowledge of Dogmatic material might not be on par with what I have studied from the official teaching documents of Rome. But therein lies the key, I think.

As I pointed out in my Cross Examination rebuttal statement, there is a significant difference with how he defines “tradition” and how “tradition” has been dogmatically defined as. Also, there is the “partim-partim” view of revelation that is that “tradition” is revelation just like Scripture is and functions along side Scripture. Also, according to the Catechism as well as Trent and Vatican I, “sacred tradition” functions as the interpretive tool, the hermeneutical key as it were, to arriving at the correct interpretation of the Scripture. Mr. Rosado, rather, asserted that “tradition” is the “true interpretation of Scripture”, thus “tradition” as a product of Scripture rather than a tool for interpreting Scripture.

Now, I don’t want to say this means that I’m not debating a Roman Catholic. While I might not be debating one who is familiar with all the official and dogmatic teachings or documents of Rome, nevertheless, he considers himself Roman Catholic and, in a sense, he probably understands the “popular” teachings of Roman Catholicism rather than its academic representation. So there is still some validity in discussing with Him.

I didn’t really want to push the “Charismatic Catholic” issue in the Cross Exam, but maybe I should have. At one point he mentioned the “thousands of denominations of Protestantism” over against a unified Roman Catholic Church. Obviously I don’t see the validity in the argument as the statistics in how they come up with the “denomination count” is not what one expects. Eric Svendsen’s work, “Upon this Slippery Rock” has revealed that a “denomination” is not necessarily a significant gap in beliefs, but can be a different locale or name for a Church in the same denomination! For instance, - if I remember correct – a 1st Baptist Church could be counted as one denomination while a 2nd Baptist Church was also counted as a denomination! But are these really significant differences, especially regarding salvation? Both Church could be members of the Southern Baptist Convention or some other Evangelical organization, but they are counted as separate denominations. Each Protestant denomination, however, is unified in believing in Sola Fide and even Sola Scriptura.

Svendsen takes the time to show that distinctions within Rome are actually more in number and more significant than the supposed differences within Protestantism.

Needless to say, being a “charismatic Catholic” means that at some points, there is some departure with what is considered “mainline” Roman Catholicism. Let’s face it, the charismatic movement is something that has overtaken some denominations and not as an officially sanctioned side of it. Methodism in general – though having some history in Pentecostal phenomena and history – does not officially sanction the movement. Baptist, Presbyterians, etc…don’t officially sanction it but consider it “their own daughter who came home with a tattoo” (I heard something like that about the Methodist movement within Anglicanism by a Church history professor of mine, LOL). Thus, the fact that Ben is in a “sect of Catholicism” that has some significant differences from the dogmatic statements is not to be taken lightly, especially if there is the “30,000 denomination” argument.

2007-04-08T21:17:00.000-07:00

Well, this is my first official posting on YouTube!!! Woo Hoo!!! Hopefully, it won't be my last. By the way, I have been having a VERY interesting conversation with a fellow over the Roman Catholic MAss, which is what prompted me to by a webcam and make this video, as well as the Canon of Scripture. That can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoevWDKGxOE

Hopefully, I will be having a debate on Sola Scriptura and other Roman CAtholic topics with the gentleman on the video on the above page. Nonetheless, enjoy this little reading that I give from Augustine and the ensuing commentary. God bless.

Prayer for Christ's Resurrection Power

2007-04-08T13:16:00.000-07:00

The following is a prayer that we recited at our Church on Resurrection Sunday. I don't know who the author is, but I'm tempted to say that it came from "The Valley of Vision", a collection of Puritan prayers. I hope it blesses you as it did me.

O LORD,
I marvel that thou shouldst become incarnate,
Be crucified, dead, and buried.
The sepulcher calls forth my adoring wonder,
For it is empty and thou art risen;
The four-fold gospel attests it,
The living witnesses prove it,
My heart’s experience knows it.
Give me to die with thee that I may rise to new life,
For I wish to be as dead and buried
To sin, to selfishness, to the world;
That I might not hear the voice of the charmer,
And might be delivered from his lusts.
O Lord, there is much ill about me – crucify it,
Much flesh within me – mortify it.
Purge me from selfishness, the fear of man, the love of approbation,
The shame of being thought old-fashioned,
The desire to be cultivated or modern.
Let me reckon my old life dead because of crucifixion,
And never feed it as a living thing.
Grant me to stand with my dying Saviour,
To be content to be rejected,
To be willing to take up unpopular truths,
And to hold fast despised teachings until death.
Help me to be resolute and Christ-contained.
Never let me wander from the path of obedience to thy will.
Strengthen me for the battles ahead.
Give me courage for all the trials, and grace for all the joys.
Help me to be a holy, happy person,
Free from every wrong desire,
From everything contrary to thy mind.
Grant me more and more of the resurrection life:
May it rule me,
May I walk in its power, and be strengthened through its influence

Amen. A thousand times, Amen.

Does the DNA really prove anything?

2007-03-15T00:26:00.000-07:00

The next line of argument involve DNA sample from "human residue" – which is a residue that was left "imprinted" as it were on the ossuary walls. The samples that were sent for testing were from "Jesus, son of Joseph" and from "Mariamne".
Now, I am not, by far a nuclear biologist, or any sort of expert in DNA. However, I think there is enough logical information given in this work to be able to refute the conclusions that Simcha Jacobovici has come to in his work. Their DNA expert is Dr. Carney Matheson and he even has some things to say about their conclusions. Let's examine.
First, the method. The human residue was initially tested and resulted in the conclusion that "…these people were of Middle Easter stock." (pg. 169). No big news there. Apparently, the DNA samples weren't in the best condition so the type of testing they could do was very limited. Thus, Matheson says, "…we shifted our focus to the mitochondrial DNA – which is, of course, the DNA inherited maternally, from mother to child. This means that we can identify maternal relationships. Meaning we can only address questions such as: 'Are these two individuals – one male and the other female – mother and child? Are they brother and sister? Or are they two unrelated individuals?'" (pg. 170).
In the DNA expert's own words, we can only address questions about maternal relationship such as:

1) Are these mother and child?
2) Are these brother and sister?
3) Are they not maternally related?

Now, Matheson is the expert here, so quite frankly, his work needs to speak for itself. The results? After a series of test explanations and graph comparison of DNA proteins, he says, "…we can then conclude that these two individuals are not related – or at least, not maternally related." (pg. 172)
Now, logically speaking, simply because two individual are not from the same mother, does that logically mean that they are, therefore, married to each other? Hardly! Not being maternally related is not a sufficient condition to prove marital relations. The very proposition is obviously false! There are many people who do not share the same mother yet they are not married. So what do we really have here? Logically, there is no warrant to make the connection that they are married.
This is not to say that the possibility is not there. It is entirely possible that these individuals are indeed husband and wife. However, this DNA test does not and cannot prove that relation at all. It only leaves open that possibility.
Another possibility, precluding maternal relations, is that, since there is no maternal relations and these individuals are not related is that these individuals are married to other people in the tomb. This is an equally viable possibility. But DNA testing the maternal relation between only these two samples will not tell us this. It is only a possibility.
Another possibility that needs to be considered is that though these two individuals don't share maternal relations, they might in fact share a paternal relation. It could very well be the case that "Jesus, son of Joseph" is the father of "Mariamne". This could be true, but again, no way of testing it. Thus, it remains only a possibility.
So what do we really have here with the DNA? Again, we really do have a whole lot of nothing. All the "evidence" tells us is that these two DNA samples are not maternally related! That's it! Anything further than that is pure speculation. In fact, to conclude that simply because these people do not share the same mother, and thus they must be married is to have already had an answer before the evidence was presented and simply twisting and spinning the facts to fit the preconceived conclusion! We've all done it. We make a claim and whatever circumstance support our side are the ones that we selectively use for our support!
The true method would be to see the facts and then go only where it leads and no further. Contrary to what many believe is "scholarship", it is ok to say "I don't know"! It is ok to admit ignorance and stop there. One does not have to answer everything.
As I read the chapter on the DNA evidence, which is roughly a short 8 pages, when Simcha Jacobovici is receiving the results, I got the idea that he was just so thrilled that these weren't related because it meant, essentially, that there was no counter DNA evidence to debunk his theory. As long as he heard "no relation" he was able to conclude "then married."
The one who seems to be caught in the middle of this is Dr. Carney Matheson. He is quoted as saying that "these two individuals, if they were unrelated, would most likely have been husband and wife." (pg. 172). To be fair to the good Doctor, lets remember the context in which he spoke this.
In book, Dr. Matheson is given only two samples of "human residue" with which to be able to extract some sort of DNA. He is not given any names, but only told that these came from a family tomb. According to the authors, "Of course, this was not the whole story, but it was the absolute truth."(pg. 168). Was it? If Matheson assumes only two samples coming from one tomb, presumably a family tomb (see pg. 172), then isn't it entirely possible that Matheson assumed that these were the only two individuals that were found in the tomb? Isn't it entirely possible to assume from a familial tomb that two unrelated individuals in a single family tomb are married? Of course it is. But we have to note that he was not given the rest of the facts that could have led him to say something else, and just as reasonable. He as not told that there were other ossuaries in from which these samples came. This is certainly crucial information to leave out if you want to test maternal, even paternal if possible, relations from a family tomb.
When Matheson is told the "rest of the story", Matheson is on the record as believing their conclusions "impossible" (pg. 173) Notice, what we read next and this really proves my earlier point about not having contradictory evidence for the theory. We read,

"Impossible. But the details from the tomb so far had failed consistently to negate the conclusion and were in fact adding up, one positive indicator after another, in support of it." (pg. 173).

What is Jacobovici saying here? Essentially he's saying that since there is nothing to disprove the theory, therefore it must be correct so far!!! Notice, there is nothing to PROVE the theory either! What we have is an argument from silence. There is no positive evidence for the relationship and there is no negating evidence either. Thus, whatever runs between those two boundaries, for all practical purposes, is neither supported nor defeatable.
Interestingly enough, Dr. Matheson has responded to questions about this work. In response to questions from Dr. James White about the maternal relations with the samples, Dr. Matheson responded with this statement:

"This work was done as a service. We did not know who they suspected these individuals to be from. On the report it concludes that these two profiles from two different individuals were not maternally related. That is all the report states. When they did the filming and on the documentary they asked every question under the sun with permutations and manipulations. I provided the investigators with all the possibilities. They were not brother and sister, mother and child, maternal cousins, maternal grandparent and child etc. I also mentioned all of the possibilities, which I should not have done in hindsight. These included, father and daughter, paternal cousins, half brother and sister (sharing the same father) or simply unrelated individuals.The media does what they want." (Link to Dr. White's Blog)

Matheson regrets mentioning to Jacobovici all the possibilities. It should have been enough to just say, "no maternal relation." But the telling part is that he explicitly denies their conclusion and regretfully says, "the media does what they want." Matheson is also quoted as saying, "The only conclusions we made was that these two sets were not maternally related. To me it sounds like absolutely nothing." (see Joe Zias article) .
That is exactly what we have. Nothing. We have no logical basis to conclude what Simcha Jacobovici has. We have no evidence point toward it in the slightest way. The evidence, at best, is neutral from the DNA. And thus, we have a very menacing shadow cast by a bright light behind a small figure made to look like a giant.
Good Christian, you have nothing to fear. Christ is risen! He is not here but is at the right hand of the Father ever interceding for us as our great High Priest. The ones who should fear are those unconverted souls who should always entertain the possibility the Bible is true and that the risen Christ will come back in judgment. Then the world will see all the evidence it needs to bow down to the risen Christ who returns in glory. Come Lord Jesus!

Examining the Statistical Evidence

2007-03-14T00:59:00.000-07:00

So what are the odds that these characters found in the tomb are the authentic characters of Christianity? Well lets first understand the method taken by the authors (pg. 67-83)
First, the commonality of the names found in the tomb. Remember that this is old news. The tomb was found in 1980 and dismissed on the basis of the cluster in the first place. That is, the names were common enough of first century Jews that it was not compelling enough. According to Joe Zias the names of the time period are as follows: "Joseph/Jose 8.3%, Judah 6.2%, Jesus 3.5%, Matthew 2.4% and Mariam/Mary 21.4%" (www.JoeZias.com/tomb.html) . Now, that is just during the time period. Among all the documented ossuaries with names, 233 were male and 193 were female. Out of 233 ossuaries, roughly 14% of them bear the name Joseph and 9% bear the name Jesus. Now, the authors estimate that during the period of use of ossuaries, there was 80,000 males who lived in Jerusalem. So the formula goes as follows:

(percentage of Jesus' in Ossuaries x percentage of Joseph's) x estimated male population of era

(.09 x .14) x 80,000 = 1008
1008/ 80000 = 0.0126
1 of 79 persons who could have been "Jesus, son of Joseph"

According to the book, "From this point onward, the 'Jesus equation' was simply a matter of factoring the probability of each name in the tomb cluster, one after the other, and multiplying them against each other." (pg. 75) So here are the formulations:

Mariamne 1 of 193
Mary 1 of 24 (8 of 193)
Jose (taken as a variant of Joseph) 1 of 7

So here's what we're looking at mathematically:

(1/79) x (1/193) x (1/24) x (1/7) = 1/2561496

Roughly interpreted, the odds that this name cluster appears together in Jerusalem based on all known ossuaries is 1 in 2.56 million. Now let's examine what this really proves.
First of all, probability only proves what it proves. That is, it only proves the probability of the NAMES. Since the factor that we are working on is based on names, the stats only logically conclude the odds of finding this particular name cluster. Now, do odds really mean that something can't be entirely possible? For instance, let's take the statistics of "Jesus, son of Joseph". According to the stats, out of an estimated 80,000 males in the ossuary time period, 1008, or 1 out of 79, could have borne that name. What the stats don't say is at what time periods these possible 1008 people could have borne the name. Hypothetically speaking, the names could have been borne in one generation, either early or late in the ossuary period; they could have been all spread out. The stats won't tell us that at all. The stats won't even tell us the ACTUALITY.
In other words, according to a pool sample of 233 ossuaries bearing male names, it is POSSIBLE that out of a POSSIBLE 80,000 males in Jerusalem during that time period, that POSSIBLY 1,008 of them could have borne the name "Jesus, son of Joseph". Now, the sampling of names is from a pool of 233. It is entirely possibly that in ACTUALITY, there could have been more people who bore the name, "Jesus, Son of Joseph" and it is entirely possible that there could have been less than 1,008 people bearing the name "Jesus, Son of Joseph." The stats don't tell us that! They only give us a probability.
All that these stats prove is that probability of the names being grouped together. They do not prove, nor can they, that these names belong to the actual characters of the Bible! This brings up another point. There is a HUGE name discrepancy with some of the names in tomb in regard to the names of members of what would be Jesus' family.
First, there is the name "Mariamne e maras". The translation of this from the Greek is supposed to read, "Of Mariamne, the Master". Now, in any reading of the canonical Gospels, there is no mention of a character named "Mariamne". In fact, historically speaking, "Mariamne" was the name of Herod the Greats wife during the Hasmonean dynasty, which is when the practice of ossuaries began. The only supposed evidence for associated Mariamne with the family of Jesus are the non-canonical works of the Gnostic sects. In particular, the Acts of Phillip – which alone mentions the name "Mariamne" as being the sister of Phillip. That is the only explicit mention of who she is in this (generously dated) 4th text! Based on the speculation of one Prof. Bovon from Harvard, it is said that this "Mariamne" is "Mary Magdalene". Does the text explicitly say this? No. Is this connection between "Mariamne e maras" explicit therefore, with the Acts of Phillip? Not to mention, the Acts of Phillip was written almost 300 years after the death of Christ. So there is a very blatant discrepancy already. "Mariamne" is not necessarily "Mary Magdalene". Let's factor that in.
Second, there is the "Judah, son of Jesus". Again, no source – canonical, non-canonical, even historical at best – mentions Jesus having a son, much less one named Judah. So that this "Judah, son of Jesus" is the son of "Jesus, Son of Joseph" the Jesus of the Bible, is hardly credible. The conclusion is based on speculation, rather than on solid premises. Where do we find any information saying that Jesus had any offspring? In fictional works like the most recent "The Da Vinci Code". So again, a blaring discrepancy in the name cluster. This should actually decrease the odds that the tomb even belongs to the family of Jesus at all. For the sake of non-argument, it seems, this was not factored in at all. Why? Probably (no pun intended) because this information probably would have actually lowered the odds that this is, in fact, Jesus' family tomb. How convenient.
Now let's look at Mary. The tomb is said to have the name "Maria" which is said to be a Latinized version of the Hebrew name, "Mariam". Stop. In what source do we find Mary, the mother of Jesus referred to by her Latin variation? Could it be that this isn't the same Mary, the mother of Jesus? Why would Mary, a good Jew, be known according to a Latinized, or Romanized version of her name? Why would she be buried with that version of it if it was not her name? Think of it this way: my name is Moses Flores. Now, there are many variants of my name in different languages. In Hebrew, my name is Moshe. In Spanish, Moises (Moy-ses). Last name in English translates to Flowers, etc…When I die, my name will more than likely be printed according to what it was legally known as: Moses Flores. Why would I be known as Moises if that were not my name? Why would Mariam be known as "Maria" by her own family, rather, by her own Jewish family? Why would a family of Hebrew descent all of a sudden refer to their mother through a Latin variant? While there certainly could be a viable explanation for this, it certainly escapes us. Without evidence to believe contrary to the historical records with reference to "Mariam" (known as Mary), we really have no historical reason to believe that this "Maria" is the Mary who gave birth to Jesus at all. Hence, another discrepancy.
Another member that was in the tomb is known by the shorthand for Joseph, "Jose". According to the common name list, this name is not uncommon. How do we know that this named person is the BROTHER of Jesus? There is nothing explicit in the tombs that leads to this conclusion. Their only inference is made from Mark 6:3 which says, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" These names come to us in Greek as follows: Mary is marias, James is Iakwbou (Iakoobou), Joses is Iwshtos (Ioosetos). In Matthew 13:55 this same brother of Jesus is called Joseph, thus showing the shorthand form of Joses for Joseph. But what does this prove? The text only proves that Jesus had half-brothers one of whom was named Joses. Is the Jose of the discovered tomb necessarily the same Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55? Not at all! In fact, if all the connection one can make is the names, this is obviously weak being 8.3% of the names of that period were Joseph/Jose and even at that, 14% of the names found in the ossuaries were Joseph/Jose as well. This is hardly compelling evidence! We may as well say that any Joseph/Jose related to a Jesus are brothers if this is the type of logic one is going to use here! Names do not prove familial relationships. At least not logically, especially since the names are common names for that time period.
But there is something else. Joses is not the only Joses in the Bible. In fact, there is another Joses who also has a brother named James, just like Jesus' half-brother and who even has a mother by the name of Mary, just like Jesus! Talk about a name cluster! In Mark 15:40 we read, "There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger (the less) and of Joses, and Salome." In Matthew 27:56 we read "among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons Zebedee." Cross-referencing this with John 19:25 we can see that this Mary, mother of James and Joses, is more than likely "Mary the wife of Clopas." The funny thing in this text as well is that at least three Mary's at the cross with Jesus. For our purposes here, we can at least entertain another possibility based on a name cluster other than those of Jesus' family. We have a Mary, a James, and a Joses. The names Mary and Joses are in the "Jesus family tomb".
So now the question: Why couldn't the names in the tomb somehow have been related to them? Isn't it entirely possible that the "Jesus, son of Joseph" is the son of "Jose" in that tomb as well? After all, granting the name variation with "Maria", it would not be anything to grant another name variation for Joseph either. The point is, that to only conclude that "Jose" in the tomb can only be the brother of Jesus is not a logical necessity. Rather, it is a conclusion based on its premises already. That is, the argument is circular. "Joses is Jesus brother because in the Bible there is a Joses who is Jesus' brother." How ludicrous! Needless to say, the discrepancy is certainly a real one that the Jacobovici did not care to deal with. Hardly any scholarship in that.
So what does that leave us with? Well we have a "Maria" who may or may not be the mother of Jesus. We have a "Jesus, son of Joseph" who may or may not be Jesus of Nazareth. This "Jesus" could even be the son of the "Jose" in the tomb. We have a "Jose" who may or may not be the brother of Jesus, but who could have a mother named "Mary the wife of Clopas" or "Mary the virgin who gave birth to Christ" or even a totally unrelated Mary being that his name was the most popular among women names in that century. Who knows? We have a Matthew who may or may not be the disciple. Interestingly, some church traditions say that the disciple Matthew died a natural death is either Ethiopia or Macedonia. Some other traditions celebrate his martyrdom. And of course, you have a "Mariamne, the master" whom is not referenced to at all in the canonical Gospel, and whom no historical and even non-canonical work explicitly identify as Mary Magdalene. We have a "Jesus, son of Joseph" – not an unlikely name statistically speaking. We also have a few unnamed tombs as well. Add all that together and what do we really have? A whole lot of nothing!!!
Any true scholarship and research should immediately recognize, as the initial discovery of these ossuaries did, that there is no real substantial evidence in the names to reveal that these ossuaries are indeed the final resting place of Jesus Christ. The truth is that all we have are names. As we will see from the DNA evidenced to be examined later, there is not even any clear familial ties in the tomb.

In summation, statistics only prove the same kind of information that they put in. Math is like deductive logic. You input your premises and your conclusion yields what is already contained within the premises. In logic, it is fallacious when you have something like :

All A are B
All B are C
Therefore, All A are D

The correct conclusion should be "Therefore, All A are C". This conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. So the question I have sought to clarify here is what kind of information was placed into these statistics? Names. That's all. The equation can only answer the probability of the names appearing in a cluster. To find out how bogus this can be, only need only to acquire the same information about their own names from their own family and then calculate the odds. The stats only prove the name cluster. They cannot prove WHO is in the tomb in any way!
Just to prove this is so, I can do the same calculation from above using the commonality of the names from the time period, provided by JoeZias.com. Accordingly the commonality of the names in the time period, rather than those of the ossuaries. Lets see what we come up with.

Joseph/Jose 8.3% or 1 of 12
Mary 21.4% or 1 of 5

Based on an estimated male population of 80,000
I ask, how likely is it that a Mary is in the family of a Joseph (Joses)?

(1/12) x (1/5) x 80,000 = 1,333

That's roughly 17 of 100 Jose's connected to a Mary. This is not even factoring the commonality of the name James (only because I could not readily find it). Suppose we give it a hypothetical 3% which is 1 of 33

(1/12) x (1/5) x (1/33) x 80,000

Then we add the "Mariamne" factor (see above) of the ossuary, as well as the "Jesus, Son of Joseph" factor (see above) and lets see what we get:

[(1/12) x (1/5) x (1/33) x 80,000] x (1/79) x (1/193)
(1/200) x (1/79) x (1/193)
1 of 3,049,400

That is, the odds are 1 in 3 million that the tomb belongs to a Joses who has a brother named James. And if we start off with the premise that this "Joses" is the son of "Mary of Clopas", then through circular reasoning, we have greater odds that this tomb is theirs and not Mary the mother of Jesus, or Joses the brother of Jesus either.
(* This formula may not be entirely correct. I believe I have used probability to the best of my knowledge as a former Math major. It is certainly subject to peer and even expert review. However, I have tried to use the same method that was employed by the Jacobovici team. Therefore, as long as I am consistent with their methodology, right or wrong, I only seek to prove the point that number don't necessarily mean anything.)
Again what does this statistic prove? It only proves the probability of there existing a Joses whom was clustered with a Mary and a James who might have ended up in an ossuary with a "Jesus, son of Joseph" and a "Mariamne e maras". That's it! These numbers are greater so do that mean that this is the case? Not at all. In fact, as mentioned before, the names in the probability formula do not even prove relation of any sort.
Don't be fooled by numbers! Rest assured dear Christian reader your faith is on solid ground! For any who deem the find to be true based on the statistics, I challenge you to be objective in the stats and understand their purpose. Christianity, I strongly believe, is not a matter of probability but one based on the real and objective revelation of the Almighty, everlasting and sovereign God.

The Jesus Family Tomb...here we go again!!!

2007-03-12T22:32:00.000-07:00

Alrighty…well if you haven’t heard already, BIG NEWS!!! Archeologists claim to have discovered the “lost family tomb” of Jesus Christ. The tomb marked “Jesus, son of Joseph” was found in Jerusalem along with other tombs marked “Miriam” (said to be Maria by the book), “Matya” (said to be Matthew), “Mariamne e Mara” (said to be Mary Magdalene), “Judah son of Jesus”, “Yose” (said to be Joses, the brother of Jesus according to Mark 6:3).
So here’s the argument. First, there is the name cluster. We have a “Jesus” related to a “Joseph”, along with a “Mary”, and another “Mary” (Mariamne) , a “Matthew” , a “Joses” and mysterious “Judah, son of Jesus”. Now, here the statistical game begins. What are the odds that a family tomb is found with the cluster of these names? According to Simcha Jacobovici, one in 2.4 million. And then, there is the DNA evidence. According to the mitochondrial DNA test, which only reveals or precludes maternal lineages, reveals that “Jesus” and “Mariamne” are not from the same mother to which Jacobovici concludes marital ties between “Jesus” and “Mariamne”, or at least strengthens prior suspicions. But the final clincher, is the one that puts it all together. It’s the one that connects all the dots. So far this tomb discover and name cluster thing is not uncommon. The initial problem, especially for the initial discoverers of the tomb in 1980, was the second “Mary” or “Mariamne”. This name has no connection to Jesus in the Gospels. BUT…here it is…in the possibly 4th (being VERY generous) century work the Acts of Phillip, there is mention of a character named Mariamne (Acts of Phillip 8:94-95), whom not even a handful of scholars, at least one mentioned from Harvard, believes to be Mary Magdalene at that not based on explicit evidence from the text itself.

How timely an attack on the resurrection of Jesus Christ; just near Resurrection Sunday. Last year it was the Gospel of Judas and now the ossuary which contained the bones of Jesus Christ at one point or another. Of course, if this is true, then the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ seems to be false not to mention the physical ascension of Jesus Christ as well. Now, early in the work it actually seems to be the case that Simcha believes that he is doing the Christian world a favor by revealing this discovery. In the foreword, the work begins by mentioning how many have disregarded the existence of a historical figure named Jesus Christ and then says, “But now, with this stunning book, Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino have delivered not just a particle of evidence but a veritable avalanche of it. Their investigation proves…that a first-century Jewish tomb…is the tomb of Jesus and his family” (pg. vii).
Of course, what the authors fail to realize is the centrality of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ and its ensuing ascension. According to the Gospels found in the Bible and in the book of Acts, Jesus rose from the grave on the third day and hung around for about 40 days before being taken up bodily into heaven. This has been the historic Christian belief for roughly 2,000 years! This has been and still is the foundation for true Christianity. Listen to Paul in I Corinthians 15:

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you – unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he WAS RAISED on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive today, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me…Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection from the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in you sins.(!) Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.”

Paul is very explicit that if Christ is body is still in the ground – essentially – then several things follow of necessity. (1) The Scriptures are not true since Christ’s resurrection was based on them (here in context, the Old Testament Scripture, much more the New Testament!) (2) The entire Christian movement – including its heretical sects – are gross misrepresentation of God and even making a liar out of God. (3) The entire Christian movement – which would include its heretical sects – is in vain. (4) If Christ is not raised, then all are still in our sins, that is, there is no salvation for anybody, PERIOD! (5) Finally, the apostles are to be the most pitied among men for their belief and practice which is based on a trumped-up story!
Perhaps it’s the case that Jacobovici really doesn’t understand this aspect of the Christian faith and how foundational the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ really is! Now, this is being entirely generous from a Christian – a historic Christian – perspective. One could just say “heretic!”, and be done with it. I really think Jacobovici believes he is doing the Christian community a favor. I think he’s deceived! He’s been theologically influenced by theologians of the likes of John Dominic-Crossan (of the more Liberal persuasion) and others (including Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels) who deny things like the historicity of the person of Jesus, the miracles of the Bible, the authority of the Bible, even the resurrection of Jesus Christ and affirm the Gnostic version of Christianity, including the validity of the Gnostic Scriptures. Now, if this is his source for what Christianity, I can hardly blame him and almost want to look at him as a child wounded by a ravaging wolf. But, alas, we choose our influences. A quick look through the bibliography reveals not one genuinely conservative, even middle of the road, Christian scholar; only those who are in favor of his theory. Horribly, he says, something to the effect of “this isn’t a problem for Christians and the resurrection and the ascension – unless you believe its physical !!” (pg. 71).
Well the problem is that we do believe the resurrection and ascension are physical ones!!! So, we have to take this for what it really is: an attack on the very heart of the Christian faith.
The funny thing about this work is that if this work is true, then the research done by Dan Brown for The Da Vinci Code is blatantly false. That is, if it is true that the bones of Mary Magdalene were interred in Jerusalem as Jacobovici proposes, then it cannot be true that Mary Magdalene fled to France after the crucifixion of Jesus and had a daughter named Sarah. Of course, if that is true, then this is obviously false and the tomb with the name “Mariamne” cannot be Mary Magdalene! Both claim “credible” research for their stories, so who is right? I don’t want to pursue that line of thought any further but only wish to point out how ridiculous all this really is. I mean come on! Myth after myth all to debunk what has not been, and I believe, cannot be truly debunked! There is PLENTY of credible scholarship out there that can certainly prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ with greater probability than the stats to prove that it didn’t happen in this work. One only needs to pick up Josh McDowell’s work, “Evidence that demands a verdict” to be blitzed with argument after argument and much evidence for the credibility of the New Testament Scriptures and the testimony of the apostles contained in them!
Hopefully, in the next few weeks I want to examine this issue a bit more. I have recently read the book already put out – let me say that it is not worth the $27.95. More than 75% of the book is merely the story of how they found the tomb and the steps they took to keep it all a secret until recently. I don’t like dealing with an issue like this because I think it is a joke on their part, but still it has to be taken for what it is: an attack on true historic Christianity. I hope that this research that I will provide will benefit the reader and will at least give them new ways of thinking about evidence, in particularly critical thinking about “evidence” and where it leads.

Defeat Conceded?

2006-10-11T15:33:00.000-07:00

Well, if you have been keeping up with the debates on the 5 points of Calvinism, I'm sure you have been blessed by the discussion and sincere interaction that has happened in that dialogue. Personally, it has been challenging looking up and examining many Scriptures and even just revisiting Scriptures that I have already studied that had led me into the Calvinistic position in the first place.

I am sorry to say, however, that Mr. Norelli has "conceded defeat" as was evident to me after our cross examination. I was obviously misled, as I found out later by reading his blog ( http://rightly-dividing.blogspot.com/2006/09/my-debate-on-tulip.html ), that he basically handed me the debate. Truly disappointing to say the least, especially because of the circumstances generating the concession.

According to Mr. Norelli, I maliciously referred to him in particular as an "unfit minister of the Gospel" in my last blog concerning the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Such is not the case. Let me clarify the purpose of that blog.

I am a person who likes to be well informed. AS such, I have taken the time to print out and read many of Mr. Norelli's papers and even previous debates so that I can understand the position of my esteemed opponent and do my best to not misrepresent him. Thus, I happened to print out one of his articles on the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. It just so happens that a friend of mine had been asking me about that particular sin. Personally, I have not done a systematic study on that particular study, so I welcomed the insights of Mr. Norelli, however, due to other Scriptural evidence and theological inconsistencies, I obviously did not accept Mr. Norelli's interpretation. So I started thinking about what it meant. I even looked up other material from Reformed theologians and thinkers on their view of the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Thus, I took it upon myself to post what I believed about it - certainly not my final position as you can see that I was asking for input from readers at the end. I even posted the same article on a MySpace Calvinist group to stimulate discussion.

Now, what was my purpose in writing the blog? Was it to go AD HOMINEM on Mr. Norelli? Obviously not. I never explicitly called him "an unfit minister of the Gospel". Certainly, I did say, would still hold that any who believe that Christ would condemn that which He had previously justified before God the Father and atoned fully for is certainly lacking in knowledge of the Gospel, and is unfit to preach the Gospel for that is NOT the Gospel. Now, if Mr. Norelli specifically believes that then I would assert that to him. However, whether he does or not has NEVER been stated to my knowledge. The statement was general. The statement was a personal opinion. In context, it was part of an article intended to stimulate discussion about the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. It was not intended at all to criticize Mr. Norelli. Such is not my taste.

I have of course, written my response back to Mr. Norelli and my rebuttal to the cross examination has been posted. I sent my response to Mr. Norelli but he has deleted all of my emails. I even sent an email to request some sources for information about the Trinity since I was teaching on the doctrine recently at my Church and I know that Mr. Norelli is working on a book about the doctrine of the Trinity and I would have appreciated any insight he would have offered.

Needless to say, it appears that the debate is over...I don't want to say that anybody won or lost because that is never the intention of my debates. Rather, they are informative debates intended more for audience purposes to hear and try to understand both sides and why each side believes what it does. If there are losers, its those who won't see this debate finished and be able to benefit from the dialogue. Its the body of Christ that needs to hear these issues out and be able to see the different views interact, especially in the manner in which Mr. Norelli and I were engaging each other with a mutual respect.

I hope that Mr. Norelli will reconsider picking up where we left off on the debates. I would certainly not like to leave this unfinished. I hope there are no other circumstances hindering the dialogue that are not being revealed. Mr. Norelli has debated with some of the same people that I have who have purposely resorted to Ad Hominem attacks. I hope that he will be able to see that I have not done that being that the intention of that blog was for ME to get input on my thoughts.

God bless,

Moses

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

2006-07-19T18:38:00.000-07:00

I recently read a paper on the Blasphemy of the HOly Spirit by a friend with whom I am having a debate on the 5 points of Calvinism (www.geocities.com/prchdaword/currentdebates.html) . He has taken the Non-Calvinist position. His position on the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is that it is "spiritual suicide" in which one willfully abandons the Christian faith after being a "real Christian" and "really saved" at one point in time. Obviously, as a Calvinist I disagree, since Christ has clearly said that the one who comes to Him, he will in no wise cast out.
It is my understanding that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the willful rejection of the witness of the Spirit about Jesus Christ.

I was also able to recently discuss this with an Arminian friend of mine. I argued this way, and I wanted to see what you guys thought about this:

In the Old Testament, there is one sin that God says he "will not hold him guiltless" , which is taking the name of the Lord in vain. My understanding of this, is that to take someones name is to choose to represent their character and person. To take the name of God in vain, or to count as a common thing, would be to profess to be of God while really not being of Him and thus, insulting his name and counting it as a common thing, and not holy.

Secondly, if the Bible is inhernetly cohesive, as I believe it is, and the New Testament only mentions one sin as "unforgiveable", then it would seem to be the case that the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" and its ensuing consequences - being placed outside of the forgiveness of God - would be the parallel of second commandment and its ensuing consequences.

Hence, the "blasphemy of the HOly Spirit", or the "sin that leads unto death" is to profess to be a Christian - perhaps for the benefits of Christianity - while in their heart willfully rejecting the witness of the Spirit of God unto faith and repentance. Hence, the true state of such a one is professing to be Christian but still in a state of unbelief. Perhaps the one who is not willing to be saved on God's terms of faith and repentance.

I think there are examples of this in the new testament. For instance, in Matthew 7:21-23, there are those who did apparently Christian things but were not really for Christ "never knew them." In Hebrews 6:4-6 the author proposes the hypothetical for his readers that there are those who were "enlightened" (NOT regenerated!!!) and if they "fall away", or apostasize - which is to willfully reject their professed faith - to renew them again to repentance. Obviously the author of Hebrews is not convinced that this could ever be true of true Christians for he immediately follows in verses 7-12 that he is confident of "better things" for his audience especially of things which accompany salvation. His intention is not to scare his audience, but to exhort them to persevere in their Christian faith and not to revert back to the dead works of Judaism.

The same is the case in Hebrews 10:26-31. The author shows that if Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system, thus bringing about its end, and even current blasphemy to the all sufficient atonement of Christ, then there is no other sacrifice for sins if a person has rejected the only atonement which can truly bring about forgiveness.

The apostle John speaks of those who were "of us" - that is, they were professing to be Christians- but they went out from us ' that is, they abandoned their Christian profession, THUS proving that they "were never really of us" (I John 2:19). Here is an important point for it clearly shows that it is not the case that those who at one time seem to be Christian by simple profession but then later abandone the faith ever were really Christians. True Christians remain true Christians as John continues to say: "for if they had been of us they would have remained with us, but their going out showed that none of them belonged to us."

A final point, that Christians cannot commit the sin is that Christ would never condemn one for whom He died for. Recall that the atonement is substitutionary. That is, Christ died FOR, or IN THE PLACE OF OTHERS. He did not die for Himself, or as punishment for His own sins but for the sins of others. In Romans 8:31-39 we are faced with several rhetorical questions about the Christian losing what God has freely and graciously given. Recall verse 34: "Who is it that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died - more than that who was raised to life." For one to argue that a true Christian can lose their salvation through the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is to argue that Christ can condemn the very one for whom He endured an eternal punishment for! Who is really counting the blood of the covenant of grace a common thing (cf. Hebrews 10:26-31). For if one is willing to assert that the death of Christ can be undone by a certain sin, I don't think one has an understanding the atonement or salvation, and is an unfit minster of the Gospel.
Well, enough of that. Let me know what you guys think.

Comments on Unconditional Election - First rebuttal and response

2006-06-12T15:37:00.000-07:00

Well after a long and patient waiting period, the first rebuttal is in to the opening affirmative statement of the Unconditional Election debate. As always, I have plenty to say that went unsaid in my ensuing response to Mr. Norelli.

Logic. I love logic. I was actually very intrigued by logic when I took my first intro course in college. I loved logic so much that I actually read books about logic on my own time. Why do I say this? Because Mr. Norelli has opened up his rebuttal with a logical blunder. The opening paragraph asserts that "one must commit the fallacy of equivocation to assert that these two words (election and predestination) mean the same thing." Well, while I certainly don't believe the words mean the same thing Scripturally, it is certainly not the fallacy of "equivocation". Techincally speaking, "equivocation" is a fallacy of ambiguity and is committed when one and the same word is used in two different senses in an argument. For instance, the word "bank" can have reference to an edge of a river, or an institution that holds money, or even a shot in pool. Another example of an equivocal word could be the word "world". In Scripture, the word "world" is given at least 12 different meanings. To show two, we could see in John 3:16 that there is a "world" that God so loves that He redemptively gives His Son for them, yet the same author uses the same word in I John 5:19 to say that the "whole world" lies under the power of Satan. Obviously, the author is not using the word in the same sense for then we would have an explicity contradiction in Scripture.

Now when I read this in the beginning, I wasn't sure what to expect from the rest of the response since it was obviously not off to a good start. But lets see what it brought.

Nick reiterates that I offered some definitions from some Calvinistic creeds and then asserts that I misrepresented the Arminian position. He offers a defintion of Arminian Election from the Remonstrants . In the definition, it is clear that God actually elected no one who does not, of their own free-will believe and persevere to the end (my paraphrase). What's funny is that Nick says that the "language employed here is strikingly similar to that used by the Calvinist." Hardly the case at all. No Calvinist creed would leave open the possibility that God has not elected a particular group of people unto salvation which He sovereignly brings about. The difference between classical Arminianism, Evangelical-Arminianism and Calvinism is still that God does not leave election up to the creatures will to believe or persevere, even if it is aided by grace. If man's will is only "helped" by grace, then man's will still has a part in effecting the salvation of man. If this is so, then it only follows that man has a share in the glory of salvation for apart from the will of man - which according to Arminians, God could not override or influence effectively - God could not save man.

This is the contention against Arminianism in whatever form it comes in. Is salvation the work of God alone, even as Jonah said, "salvation is of the Lord" OR is salvation the joint effort of God and man, God providing the way of salvation, man providing the will to be saved and believe and keep himself in faith till the end. How the language of Arminianism is "strikingly similar" is really beyond me. No Arminian would agree with language that explicitly says that God has elected some to salvation irrespective of their performance in time. The sole basis for election is the will of God moved by His love, mercy and grace.

Moving along, it is asserted that "salvation is conditional" and that this is "as clear and can be from even the most casual reading of scripture. There is no question that we are told to repent...believe...and confess, all in order to be saved." Well several things to say here. First, I wonder how much Nick is aware of what is theologically called the "ordo salutis" or the "order of salvation." What this is a is a theological "order" so to say, of all that comprise what salvation is. In other words, salvation is a broad term that begins with election and predestination, includes calling, faith, repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification, conversion and culminates with glorification. Salvation includes all these things but we must make the distinction between the whole (salvation) and the parts (the "ordo salutis"). I tried to bring this out in my presentation of Romans 8:29-30 a bit by mentioning how the one and the same group that is predestined is the same group that is called. These that are called are the same group that is justified and the same group that will ultimately be glorified. None are added to the group and none are taken away. Only those that were predestined are the ones who will be glorified.

Now, that being said, Mr. Norelli is actually asserting that those things that bring about JUSTIFICATION are the same things that bring about salvation. In other words, the things that bring about the act of Justification are what comprises salvation, hence the equation of justification with salvation. The fallacy here is the part to whole fallacy. That is, what is true of the part is not necessarily true to the whole. Salvation is something that has its roots in eternity past, not when we have faith and repent. Salvation is something that has always been in the mind of God. It was always His eternal intention to save us from sin. The fall of Adam did not catch God offguard, so to say so that He had to come up with a plan of how to fix His creation. God had always intended Christ to be the atonement for our sins. Hence, in Revelation 13:8 Christ is called the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world." How doesn one have faith when one did not exist? How does one repent of sins that have not yet been committed, nor has the creation even been created so that it could fall? The impossibility is obvious.

It should be noted that this fallacy is the same that exists in the Roman CAtholic doctrine of justification. They confuse all of salvation with justification, especially sanctification. Hence, the possibility of losing one's righteous standing before God, or losing their salvation to use the umbrella term.

The Fatalism comments were interesting. I have several things posted on my reply about those that are well worth reading. It was actually funny seeing Nick go there though. To be honest, at some points in the debate, I feel that Nick is stepping onto grounds that he is not very familiar with and tries to use those points for Him. In the Total depravity debate, it was the Pelagian stuff and trying to say that He does not agree with Pelagius. While nobody wants to agree with Pelagius, because he was a condemned heretic, it is hard to say you don't when you make assertions that are absolutely parallel to the very words of Pelagius and his arguments against Augustine in the whole contoversy. I felt the same way when Nick tried to go with the Fatalism arguement.I should have majored in philosophy in college because I enjoyed it so much. Instead, I only minored in it. But I had enough classes to know that Fatalism is far from Calvinism. Without getting into the whole "Monistic materialism" that is common in Stoic Fatalism, the first philosophical school of fatalism, I honestly was shocked that a simple dictionary was being used to define "fatalism" and then compare that to Calvinism, a caricature of it at that! Yes, we believe that God is wholy and totaly sovereign and that nothing happens apart from His divine will and purpose which was eternally decreed, but does this mean that Calvinist believe we go through the world accepting all things as they are without care or attempt to change? Hardly!!! Calvinist have always maintained a balance between God's Divine Sovereignty and man's responsibility (not free will!). Though the line is hard to find, and some, who are Hyper-Calvinist have leaned more toward the former, Reformed Calvinism has always maintained the balance. Its funny to hear that Calvinist would be fatalist, which implies that we accept all that happens without question as "divine will "or "fate", on a rather impersonal level at that. Christians who have believed in the sovereignty of God have been very instrumental in Christian history. John Wycliffe, who gave us the english Bible; Martin Luther, who began the Reformation and actually wrote more about predestination and "free will" than Calvin did; John Calvin, obviously; Jonathan Edwards, who started the Great Awakening; George Whitefield, who maintained the Great Awakening; Charles Spurgeon, the prince of preachers; the Puritan divines; who left an example of holiness and utter devotion to God to us; James P. Boyce, founder of a prestigious Baptist seminary; etc...did these men sit by and accept their world in sin? No....we never would have had a Reformation and re-discovery of the Gospel if Luther, Calvin, Zwingly and other had simply said, "well all this was meant to happen, so we should just sit back and let Rome do her thing."Personally, I found the whole fatalism talk really not worth responding to but still felt that some thing had to be said in order to correct the understanding of what fatalism is and how it could not be Calvinism. The "theology" - for those fatalist who believe in a god of some sort - is certainly not a personal, loving, holy and just God who is immanent in his creation.

Ah....then there was the appeals to the "authorities" in Theological dictionaries and Greek word studies. I respect Kitte's theological dictionary...but that does not mean it is infallible. In fact, I have found that sometimes men insert their own theological views into these dictionaries and such. For instance, in Vine's Expository Dictionary, if you look up the word for "ginosko" - which means "to know" (intimately, or personally) you will find just that. However, when the prefix "pro" is added to it, which means "before hand" , hence "proginoskos" (to foreknow), and "prognosis" (foreknowledge) - the meaning is changed so that it "involves his electing grace, but this does not preclude the human will." That little phrase is what is called a "theological agenda" and is an insertion of bias to the "expository dictionary". Is Kittel's doing the same thing? It would appear so. In my response back on Romans 9, I show from the SCripture that personal and individual salvation is in view in Romans 9:1-13, especially, which carries on to verse 24. Yes, Israel was "elected" to a position and historical task as Kittel asserts, indeed the list in verses 4-5 was to be theirs....but was it? Paul's point in Romans 9-11 is that not all obtained it personally and individually, because not all were personally and individually truly of the covenant of grace. Rather, it was only those whom God freely chose, even as He chose Isaac, and not Ishmael; as He chose Jacob and not Esau, the one with legal right to the blessing; Even as he chose Abraham and not some other person.God freely and sovereignly and unconditionally choose whom He would bless. Nobody has ever earned a blessing from God nor His salvation. Indeed, we are so corrupted in sin, that we don't desire it or want it. No sinner wants to repent of his sins for he loves them. That was the point in the Total Depravity debate: sinners hate God and can do nothing, nor want to have anything to do with God. Thus, the doctrine of Unconditional Election. That though were were sinners, God chose to save us who deserved nothing but wrath, who were wholly dead in trespasses and sins, being children of wrath by nature (see Eph. 2:1-3).

Well a lot has certainly been said. Take note, that there is plenty on the response back to Nick and that I plan to continue my response to his rebuttal, especially the assertions from John 6 in the next rebuttal that I have.

Hope you are enjoying the debates, as I know that I am. Keep me in your prayers, whoever comes across this as well as Nick Norelli. God bless

Moses

Total Depravity Debate

2006-05-15T19:07:00.000-07:00

Well what can I say, about the first of five debates on the 5 points of Calvinism? I can only sit back with a smile on my face. I have this smile first because of the character of the person that I am debating against. Nick Norelli is truly interested in the truth of the Word of God genuinely intrested in the issue, and not merely attacking the person. What a difference between this debate and the debate on the doctrine of the Trinity! My hat is off to you, Nick.

Still, there is somethings that should be commented on.

First, there is the definition issue. I was, quite frankly, suprised to see Mr. Norelli appeal to historical theology, particularly the terms Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and Augustinianism. I was pleased to see these, because I understand these terms well and think they are essential to the development of the anthropology of man. I was however, disappointed to see that there was a lack of understanding of the historical context and the issues that led to the disagreement with Pelagius and Augustinianism. It is a fact that some of the statements that Pelagius made, contra to Augustine, are made by Mr. Norelli. For instance, at one point, Mr. Norelli plainly says, "If God commanded it, then man has the ability to do it." (My paraphrase). Pelagius is quoted as saying this. In fact, Pelagius carried this statement out to its logical conclusion, and said that because man has the natural ability (freedom) to do whatsoever God commands, then it follows necessarily that man, unaided by grace, is able to will himself to salvation - that is, the produce faith and repentance of his own will, even stop sinning of his own will. That is logically consistent.

Of course, I point this out, but there there is a quick denial of the logically consistent point. At one point I did tell Mr. Norelli that he was in agreement with Pelagius on a fundamental level since that it was his statement that gives foundation to Pelagius' view of Grace. Then I was quickly charged with agreeing with Geisler on a fundamental level simply because I believe in the Perseverance of the saints. Of course, little does Mr. Norelli know, that that cannot be the case since Geisler's assertions for "perseverance" are more on the basis of the will of man, and not in the sovereign decree of God through the atonement of Christ. Needless to say, that point was hardly worth responding to. Needless to say, the first rebuttal of Mr. Norelli was a bit more in line with the historical and theological views of Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism.

But was any progress really made with this? I don't think so. Mr. Norelli's position, as I understand it, was that "grace" comes to all men and men are free to accept or reject this "grace" if they want to. It is also this "grace" that enables men to be "free" to choose. Now, at thsi point he still wants to assert that "men without the aid of grace cannot choose to serve God" (my paraphrase). Personally, I agree with that statement, in and of itself. However, it is clear that Mr. Norelli makes no room for the inability of the will of man to believe in Christ. So this raises the question: If it is proposed that man has the ability to freely believe in Christ, yet that he needs grace in order to do so, then I would submit to you that you have a logical inconsistency.

For instance, suppose that I tell you, "If you want to, you can get on the roller coaster ride BUT you need to have a ticket first." Now, what is the value of the first statement in the light of the second? It really becomes meaningless. I was talking with my grandfather the other day about this view of grace and I put it to him this way. "What grace ends up becoming is like a flyer that gives you knowledge and ability to go to heaven. However, the flyer itself does not get you in to heaven. YOU have to choose to want to go to heaven. Now, when you get to heaven. Who shall we say is responsible for getting you to heaven? Shall we say that God, who gave you the flyer (symbol for "opportunity") is alone responsible and it alone to be glorified? But this cannot be the case since you would not be in heaven without YOU having made the choice - which is free from the Creator - in order to get there. Shall we say that it was your will alone, then that should take the credit? Shall we say that your character was more inclined toward the things of God that caused you to choose God? To say this, however, would clearly be against the teachings of Romans 3:10-18 which teaches the universality and equality of sin in all human beings. "There is no one righteous." Nobody is righteous, period. "There are no God-seekers". That means that no sinner is inclined toward God any more than the other. Plus, scripture clearly affirms that man is not responsible for his salvation. But still, the non-Calvinist dilemma is to maintain "free will" and "grace." I would submit to you that you cannot maintain both of these at the same time. Either "free will" reigns or "grace" does. When "free will" is upheld, the true and Biblical grace of God is what ends up getting downplayed.

There is no way to maintain the free will ability to choose and still have a true view of the grace of God. Like I mentioned in the closing argument, "If grace is viewed in such a way - that it merely restores to men their freedom to choose - then what you have is essentially God giving man the opportunity [the "grace"] to save himself!" All the work of God in the person and work of Jesus Christ truly is NOTHING before the eyes of God UNTIL the creatures uses his "free-will" to believe in Christ and make it all count.

I think its important to note that not a single scripture was provided, or exegeted, that explicitly taught the concept of the ability of man to believe spiritual things as they willed, or even a text of Scripture that defines grace in such a way as the enablement of all men to believe if they will. Suprisingly, there were no appeals to John 3:16 and the "whosoever will". By the way, it should be noted that the indefinite relative pronoun "whosoever" is NOT present in the Greek text at all. Rather, the text uses the present tense verb form of the verb "to believe" and is properly translated "all the ones who are believing". Why no Scriptures? Because there are none that teach this.

It is noteworthy that the exegesis provided in John 6:44, Romans 8:7-8, I Corinthians 2:14 and the mention of Romans 3:10-18, Jeremiah 13:23 and Job 15:15-16 remain irrefuted. There was not even an attempt to refute the exegesis. Why? Because those passages are clear that man is not able to believe in Christ at their own will. They stand as proof that the nature of man is so totally marred by sin, the heart is infected so that sin is inevitable (yes, necessary). As Augustine said, fallen man is "not able to not sin". Sin becomes the defining nature of humanity after the fall. The Scriptures are so clear on this. How can any one maintain "freedom" in this? The only "freedom" one can ascribe to man is "freedom to sin". The natural man is described as a "slave to sin". What does this mean but that he is only "free" to do whatsoever is within the will of his master. If he serves sin, then he may only sin. This can be the only meaning of slavery.

If we were able to freely and naturally choose to act against our sinful nature, then grace is not necessary. Moreover, the new birth is not necessary! After all, what is the point of being "born again" if man can freely choose to cooperate with grace when it comes to him to believe in Christ? What does the new birth do. I'm sure this will take on more significance when the debate on Irrestible Grace comes up.

Overall, the debate was very well conducted. I was disappointed with the short time that we initially agreed on for the Cross Examinations but more time will be given in the following debates.

Until the next one, keep both the participants in prayer. Pray that those to whom these come across would be blessed as we are not necessarily doing these debates for ourselves but as informative debates. God bless.

Moses

My Apology

2006-04-08T20:43:00.000-07:00

The following is my apology. Now, before you jump to conclusions and wonder, "why is this guy saying I'm sorry?" Well before one jumps to any conclusions, the reader should be aware that the word "apology" has not primarily meant. Allow me to entertain your thoughts for a moment.
First, an "apology", as defined by Webster's dictionary is primarily "a formal justification; defense". To "apologize" then is to "make a defense of ones opinion, position, or actions." Essentially it is to give reason for why you think what you think or do what you do. Personally, my calling in my Christian faith by God at this point is in the field of apologetics. Thus, I defend the true Christian faith as was "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).
Now, the spirit of the age is a peculiar one. It is one of laxity and toleration. Toleration to the point that there is no such thing as absolute right or wrong. Rather, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs about whatever they want, including religion. This position is known as "relativism" or "subjectivism" because each person is their own determining agent of what is right for them, or rather what is true for them. Each person is truth unto themselves Now, as a Christian, I personally stand against such an idea. In fact, anybody who professes to be a Christian would be inconsistent in there profession if they held on to such an idea of truth as part of their worldview. As Christians who are supposed to believe the Bible as the Word of God, we should know that the personal, almight, sovereign God of the world is a God who desires that his redeemed creatures know the truth.
Jesus said in John 8:31-32 two things that would take place if we abide in His word. He said, "If you abide in my word, you are My disciples indeed and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." First, ONLY those who "abide" in the word of God are those who are disciples of Christ. Interestingly enough, the text here uses in indicative phrase which is to say that those true followers of Christ abide in the word. This is how they are identified. The text is not saying that in order to become a disciple you must abide in the word; that would make the text hypothetical. Instead, the text is saying what disciples of Christ do. Secondly, if we abide in the word, Jesus says, "you shall know the truth." "The truth". Jesus did not say you would know the "truths" (plural). Why not? Because truth is one. There is no such things as many truths in the mind of God. Truth is the whole. Truth is consistent. This means that there cannot be two truths of something which are contradictory to each other. One of the views is true and the other is false. Now, what does the Bible say about lies? First, it is important to note that just a little further down from where Jesus spoke the words just read, he says this to the Jewish Pharisees, "Why do you not understand my speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it." Jesus says quite a bit here. First of all, he says that no lie proceeds from God. Rather, all lies, especially about God and the true faith given by God to the saints comes from Satan himself, the Father of lies. Further, he says that those who are not of God, that is those who do not have the Holy Spirit (cf. Romans 8:9; I Cor. 2:12-14) are not "able" - note very clearly the choice words of Jesus, the all-knowing almighty God in the flesh - to listen to the word of God. Now, my ministry that I am called to is to bring truth to the lives of those whom I come across. Sometimes the truth is not welcomed because the sinful hearts of man does not like the things of God (cf. Romans 8:6-7; Jeremiah 17:23, Matthew 15:19).
So now let me offer my reason why I do what I do in questioning other faiths apart from that faith that was once for all - not this: the faith has been completely and infallibly delievered by God - to the saints. I question other people's belief that are not in accord with truth FIRST because I love God. I love my redeemer. I know what my redeemer has spoken in regards to what we must believe and what is the truth. As shown earlier, the God of Scripture has said clearly that if one abides in the word they shall know the truth. My friends I have been in the word for over 8 years ever since I became a Christian on July 21, 1997. To some this is young, but many in my Christian life have seen that God has gifted me toward theological studies and such. I currently serve my church as a Bible teacher as well. Certainly a high honor and not to be taken lightly since God will hold me more accountable than others. When people presume to know God - this is taking God's name in vain; the sin of presumption - I get offended and even disappointed that some don't know God. The prophet Jeremiah spoke of this concern Israel when he said "For my people are foolish, they have not known Me. They are silly children, and they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge." Did God have pity on Israel for this? Nope. They were judged. Never to be heard from again, only as the "10 LOST tribes of Israel." For me, when somebody says something about God or what they think he says and its not true, I grieve because the One whom I love is not being accurately represented. Secondly, I love truth. My prayer since I became a Christian has been that God would guide me continually into the truth. This he has done through the God-breathed SCriptures which alone are able to "make one wise unto salvation" and are alone useful for "doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness and are able to thoroughly equip and make the man of God complete" (cf. II Timothy 3:15-17). Thus, when someone professes to know something of the Christian faith APART from the Scriptures or not taught in the Scriptures, then I get disappointed because that person is not in the truth. "If you abide in my word...." Jesus did not say if you are on "10 hits of acid" you will know the truth. The Bible makes it very clear that true knowledge of God and the Christian faith comes only through the Scriptures.
Finally, I challenge people's faith when it differs from Scripture because I love them. That may sound difficult, but it is love that wants to see someone else come to the knowledge of the truth. If I didn't love them I would just sit there and let them end up in hell since God will punish idolatrous views of Him that men have created (cf. Romans 1:18-32). It is love that reaches out to say, "I think you are wrong, and should reconsider your views in the light of Scripture." Jesus did this many times. A bare reading of the Gospels will show that Jesus engaged in debates quite often to rebuke and correct. The apostles especially did this as well. In fact, many of the New Testament letters are defenses against false doctrines. Galatians is Paul's rebuke of the entire Church at Galatia for their apparent abandonement of the true Gospel. Paul, under direction of the Holy Spirit, clearly said, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preache to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have recieved, let him be accursed."
My friends, there is ONE TRUE FAITH of God that has been once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). It is my intention and calling I believe to be used of God to help preserve that precious faith. For no other "gospel" saves. There is no other way to heaven than that which God has given to us in Christ and revealed in the SCriptures alone.
My prayer is that this will find its way into the minds of my friends and acquintances who have "seen me in action" as of recently. That they night know now why I do what I do. While I don't expect all to agree with it, at least now it should be clear where I stand and gladly sing to the hymn, "On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand..."

Trinity Debate

2005-06-11T14:12:00.000-07:00

Hopefully, if you are reading this, you have already read most of, if not all, the exchanges in the debate on the Trinity that I have on Debate Center. The following is my assessment of the exchange.

First, for my first "formal" debate (though via email), I would have to say that it went fairly well. I admit that the start was a bit rough being that I started with a whole reasoned out argument and all I got from them was "I wasn't expecting a lesson" and what not. But, I was able to finally get out of the participants statments saying what they believed and to some extent, why they believed as they did. I wasn't really pleased with most of their response tactics as they just added onto my papers that I worked pretty hard on they didn't seem to take the time to put as much effort. But, I have to admit, they were probably not expecting me to write so much.

Second, I really don't know what to make of their arguments. Perhaps you already noticed, responding to most of their points was difficult in some cases because they would respond with things like, "wow, you really believe that?" or "I can't believe that you believe that." Also, they did not have the grasp of the doctrine of the Trinity that I thought they had and that they claimed to have. Their arguments seemed to be pitted against TriTheism, which I was not arguming for at all.

Third. YOu know what was the most interesting about the whole exchange? The charges of eisegesis that were flying at me. Personally, I take this charge very seriously since those who twist God's word do so "to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16). Its amazing because I was so meticulous to provide them with grammar and syntax and context and even simply a Scripture. But they, in their responses, scarcely exegeted a text of Scripture or even attempted to handle the text at the grammatical and syntactical level. I found that really disturbing especially since some of their arguments hinged on presuppositions that they had done the exegesis.

Fourth: Greek. Greek was so important here. In many ways, they demonstrated that they had absolutely zero knowledge of the Greek language nor of the Greek Scriptures which are the foundation for their English Bibles (at least we hope they were credible translations!). So many times they used different declensions for nouns and tried to understand all the forms of a noun based on one declension that can have so many implications. The same goes for verbs in the Greek with all the different tenses. I didn't even want to start mentioning rules of grammar and syntax like the "Granville-Sharp rule".

Fifth, and I think most important. I think these people demonstrated that they cannot refute the truth of Scripture that God is indeed a Trinity. Absolute none of the SCriptures and arguments offered were refuted by them. I don't think they even made a serious attempt to refute the arguments. NoTrinityInBible tried somewhat, but I think he was easily refuted from the text of Scripture which is God-breathed. I remember Charles Spurgeon saying something to the effect of how Scripture is a like lion that when let loose, it is able to defend itself. I hope that what was seen by these individuals and all who read the debates was that it was not Moses Flores defending the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather, the Scriptures themselves defending a most blessed and revealed doctrine of God and from God. The SCriptures did not need my help to declare the truth of God, they were sufficient in what they asserted themselves. I was only repeating and declaring what Scripture said was true.

I hope that these debates will be fruitful to all who come across them. I hope that these will serve as stepping stones for others to search the SCriptures for what they teach on the doctrine of the Trinity as well. It is a topic not easily engaged in and one that is easy to passover because of its complexity sometimes. God bless.

because you never know...

2005-04-26T13:13:00.000-07:00

I was recently visiting a hardward store with my dad looking for parts to a faucets. Following my "manly" inclinations I went to look at the knife section where an older gentleman who I recognized from a communication class I had taken almost six years ago. He asked me, "may I help you?" to which I simply responded, "No, thanks. I'm just looking." "Come on, let me help you!" he quickly replied. This actually caught me off guard and then he asked for my name.

After telling him, he quickly recalled who I was and re-introduced himself. The reason why he remembered me no doubt, was because he and I shared Christian convictions in our communications class against a Wiccan young lady who spoke regarding her religion. Also, while I was still a member of the Methodist campus ministry, I was able to invite him to a luncheon where I spoke on the Beatitudes.

We meet people all the time. Sometimes we meet them and stay friends with them. Sometimes, as in this case with this man John, we met, shared faiths and never crossed paths for almost six years. Reluctantly, he remembered all that I had said in that study on the Beautitudes. This was so encouraging. As a methodist who was Reformed in theological persuasion, I was not well recieved by many there. Constant bickering against me and arguing against me made that period of my life very difficult to bear. But now, looking back, God has made it clear that even in the midst of my personal troubles and persecution for my faith, God was able to use me to deliver His word to this one man.

Many who know me know my email address as PRCHDAWORD. I derived that from II Timothy 4:2 which says to "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching." This shows that God always honors His word regardless of our personal circumstances. His Word goes forth and does not return void but accomplishes all that He desires it too (cf Isaiah 55:11). This is what I did by the grace of God alone.

For any who think that their labors in the Lord are in vain, I say to you, reconsider! Just because you don't see immediate fruits or people coming up to you and telling you how much your ministry means to them, that doesn't mean that it is meaningless. While we would like to have those things, we must put our trust in God and not in men or results in ministry to determine effectiveness. We are not called to be "effective" by God. We are called to preach and to leave the "effectiveness" to the Holy Spirit of God. I pray that God would work that into our hearts and the conviction to "preach the word" no matter what circumstances because God is sovereign.

A new pope

2005-04-22T15:58:00.000-07:00

well I'm sure those of you who read this have been awaiting my comments on the election of the new pope. Well here they are...

First of all, I think Joseph Ratzinger (from here Pope Benedict XVI) was probably the best choice for Rome according to her historical standards. Before becoming the Pontiff, Benedict XVI served as the late Pope John Paul II's theological advisor. I have only read a few of his writings personally, but I can say that he is consistent with Rome's positions that have been infallibly and dogmatically defined at Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II. As such, he seems to be the man to lead the Roman Catholic Church according to her "never changing faith" and against the advancements of Modernism in the Church.

All that aside, what does he mean to Protestants? I have heard that he has criticized all non-Roman Catholic denominations -whether Christian or not - as "deficient" for salvation. This is true to Catholic dogma. I only wonder what this is going to mean for Protestants as far as how strict he will be in regards to how he presents Roman Catholicism to over one billion Catholics world-wide. I don't think I expect this Pope to reach out ecumenically but rather to advance what he believes to be the true faith of God found in Roman Catholicism alone. Because he is a theologian, I think he will have strong reasons for asserting Roman Catholic dogma over all else.

I wonder if we can expect any Ex Cathedra statements from Benedict XVI regarding Mary. As it was, John Paul II was under pressure by over one million catholics to infalliby define Mary as the "Co-Redeemer" with Christ. Although, he was devout Marian and believed that his life was saved from assassination through her intercession, he never went that far for probably ecumenical reasons. Benedict XVI seems to be one, however, because of his theological background and training, to disregard ecumenical concerns for upholding what he believes to the the truth faith and Tradition of the church.

At 78, I think we can expect his reign to be short. But because it is short, it must be significant. I would keep my doctrinal ears open in regards to what Benedict XVI may do. I'm sure that American Catholics, because the liberal strain that exists within American Catholicism, will not be pleased with his doctrinal policies. I believe it was Benedict XVI, while still a cardinal, who criticized American priests and Catholic in the 2004 election for administering the eucharist to John Kerry and any who would vote for him because he believed in the legality of abortion, which is considered to be a mortal sin in the Catholic Church.

Interestingly enough, I find it interesting that the Papal Bull, Unam Santum, which infallibly defined the universal submission to the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) is practically failing. You would think that if part of being Catholic means being submitted to the Pope or else risking the loss of salvation, that people - for fear of their eternal state - would submit to his rule being that they believe that to Peter alone and his successors were given the "keys" and given the promise of "the gift of infallibility." Also, the coverage about who was going to be the next Pope has really shown how divided Roman Catholicism is. Its funny how they criticize Protestant denominations as invalid because of their splintering, yet they are just as divided as Protestants!

Well those are my thoughts....nothing to significant, I think. I guess I'm still anxious to see what this Pope will do doctrinally for the Church. I expect him to do something but only because of His theological training. And now as Pope, he is able to make "infallible" pronounement Ex Cathedra if he so wishes. Who knows....

Apologetic ethics

2005-04-10T18:35:00.000-07:00

As usual, I was on an AOL chatroom discussing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura with a few Roman Catholic fellows. Before I could even present the doctrine that I was going to defend, they jumped all over me and told me that the doctrine was not Biblical and totally false.

After a while of talking and justifying the doctrine from Scripture, one fellow was able to finally listen to me as I was telling him that what he thought the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was is really not the Protestant doctrine at all but the caricature of the doctrine given by the Council of Trent and the following generations. He was finally able to settle down and listen to my arguments. I bring this up because I think apologetic work has some ethical standards that should be upheld.

First, one should not presume to know the other persons doctrinal stances intricately or generally UNLESS they have learned it from authorative sources on the subject. Unfortuneately, in discussing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura with many Roman Catholics, they have been taught that Sola Scriptura means that "all knowledge of religion is contained in the Bible". From here, they quickly ask questions that regard information that is not found in the Bible. Now, good Roman Catholic apologists will argue that since certain knowledge that is true is not found in the Bible, then the Catholic doctrine of dual source of revelation (Tradition and Scripture) is, therefore, true. However, what makes this so disturbing is that they want to argue against Sola Scriptura without first understanding the doctrine. I find this to be unethical. Not only is the misunderstood doctrine a caricature, but it is disrespectful to the person and to Christ I believe to not be fair to the other person and their beliefs. I am not saying that one necessarily agrees with the other persons beliefs. But if one is going to rightly do apologetics, one must understand what doctrines and thoughts he or she is seeking to tear down. If one is not arguing against the proper understanding of the doctrine, then they are not arguing against the doctrine at all. Instead they are "beating the air"...arguing against a straw man. I think Paul and Christ each understood those that they debated (eg. the Pharisees, philosophers, heathen beliefs, etc...) and their ministry was that much more pleasing to God since they were fair to their audiences and could proclaim the way of truth more pointedly to counter their specific beliefs.

Why we should be fair also has a psychological effect. If we are unfair in representing the other persons beliefs, they are less likely to "harden their heart" toward you and the message you want to bring to them. I believe that the Holy Spirit sovereignly changes the hearts of people as the doctrine of Effectual CAlling explicitly states. I also believe that it is in accordance with the ministry of the Spirit of God to be Christlike when discussing beliefs and engaging in apologetics. Very often people who are misunderstood in their beliefs harden themselves in their beliefs since they will sometimes believe that "their truth" is hard to accept because it is the truth.

As far as knowing sources of your opponent. This helps so much because you can both be on the same page in regards to understanding doctrinal matters in question. What doesn't help, however, is if they don't know their own sources. That is always a problem because you could have an "odd ball." As much as possible, stick to their authorative documents of their faith. If they disagree with those, then you can, obviously point out other problems like not being consistent with their professed faith. Also, knowing sources shows that you have put time and effort into really knowing their beliefs and, hence, where they are coming from.

Another point is to be nice. I don't want to merely sound like the movie Road House here and bouncer ethics, but this is so important. Apologetics is prime ground for emotions to get loose. When this happens and argumentation begins to sound like this: "I can see now that Christ is not in you..." or "you need to repent for your sins now" or "you are so warped in your thinking..." These are not conducive to apologetics MINISTRY. All they serve to do is attack the person who probably has just revealed that he or she does not have the ability to argue against your argument so they would just attack you. Do not fall into this trap. From here, "apologetics" turn into a matters of whits and who is able to use the condemnatory langauge of the Bible to sound better.

Finally, don't say what you don't know. Don't guess and don't assume. It is not a sin to admit ignorance of certain matters. Rather, it is wisdom to recognize ones own intellectual boundaries and not exceed them. It is ok to admit that you will research the matter more in depth and get back to the person if you can. Then, when you are informed you can resume conversation. This also creates the need for preparation on the part of the apologist. If you want to avoid putting off conversations for later times, then "study to show thyself approved". Study, study, study. One cannot overemphasize how important this is. Apologetics is WORK.

These apologetic ethics are not meant to be exhaustive in any means. They are simply good principles that I have learned and live by as I have gained experience talking to other faiths about their beliefs and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I hope they can help you out in your apologetic encounters as they have mine. Apologetics to the glory of God.

eavesdropping on Papal conversations...

2005-04-05T14:29:00.000-07:00

The recent death of the Pope has stirred up quite a number of catholics to make pilgrimages to Rome to view the late John Paul II. Certainly, he was a towering figure in world history during his reign and will probably be remembered as one of the greatest Popes. All that aside, I was besided myself to hear Catholics, upon his death, declare with utmost certainty that Pope John Paul II was in heaven with Christ.

The reason why I was shocked to hear this is because it is doctrinally inconsistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church to assert with certainty that that anybody has been blessed with the gift of perseverance or that one has even recieved the grace of God! The Council of Trent makes these assertions clear in several passges. For instances, Session 6, chapter 9 declares:

“But though it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted nor ever have been remitted except gratuitously by divine mercy for Christ’s sake, yet it must not be said that sins are forgiven or have been forgiven to anyone who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins…since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God"

Chapter 12 of the same session declares: “No one, moreover, so long as he lives this mortal life, ought to regard to the sacred mystery of divine predestination, so far presume as to state with absolute certainty that he is among the number of the predestined…For except by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God has chosen to Himself"

Canon 16 of Session 6 likewise declares: “if anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by special revelation, let him be anathema"

These INFALLIBLE dogmatic statements by Rome and are what the Pope represents! Personally, I think this is an example of how Catholics are willing to jettison their doctrines at the whim of emotions. After all, lets face it: Catholics, even Cardinals will make statements that are not in accord with official Roman Catholic dogmas in order to offer psychological comfort to their faithful. Makes you wonder how important dogma and infallible councils really are...

Scripture Twisting accusation

2005-03-30T19:57:00.000-08:00

I love AOL chatrooms. They are such an exciting place to discuss ones beliefs. However, they can quickly become burdensome when someone begins to throw around accusations about what one believes. Accusations are not a comfortable thing to live with. Sometimes they can ruin a reputation.

As a Calvinist, I get pestered quite a bit. I hear things like, "Calvinism is a lie of Satan," or "Calvinist believe this or that...." (usually a charicature follows here). However, the worse accusation that I cannot stand in those chat rooms, much less in person, is the charge of "Scripture twisting" (cf. II Peter 3:16). I take this charge very seriously and I think it should be dealt out rather sparingly and not so nonchalantly.

Recently, I was defending the doctrines of Grace in a chat room when a member of the chat room began to post up comments which said that I was "twisting the Scriptures" and interpreting according to men. I quickly reacted by pointing out that I was quoting from the Greek grammar and basing all of my arguments on the Greek manuscripts. Not caring that the Greek is the Bible in its purest form (because the Greek manuscripts were the original God-breathed text), he simply said I was scripture twisting. For example, he would argue from John 3:16 that "whosoever will" can choose to be saved. I quickly pointed out that in the Greek text, the indefinite relative pronoun (whosoever) is not found. I would also point out that the verb for "believe" was in the present tense and should thus be understood as saying, "all the ones who are believing will never perish but have eternal life..."

Now, my question for him was, "how is this twisting the Scripture, when I have simply pointed out what the text, in fact, really does say?" Is this such a crime? Perhaps his presupposed traditions about that text and how it has been interpreted by Bible translations has so molded his thinking that he is not willing to examine the scripture and would rather charge all who do not interpret Scripture like he does with "Scripture twisting." My friends, this is a sad day for Christian who are not willing to really examine the Scriptures at their deepest level. Not that I am trying to turn Bible study into something deeply theological (although, that seems to be where serious Bible tends to lead), but I am saying, that one be willing to examine texts at the grammatical level. After all, that is one level, if not the most common level, where Scripture twisting does in fact take place.

One more thing was quite disturbing. After he was done accusing me of scripture twisting, I politely asked him to grant me the "true interpretation" of the text. After all, if he can say that I am twisting the Scriptures, then he must have a standard to compare my interpretation with. However, he was not willing to provide the "true interpretation" of the text. When he didn't want to do that, I pressed further and asked him how his charged of Scripture twisting was warranted if he couldn't even quote or support any "true interpretation" of the text. All he could offer was negative exegesis - "the text doesn't mean that..." "the text can't mean that..." but never any reasons. Simply a flat out rejection of the grammatical construction and syntax of text after text that I provided.

Certainly interesting experiences. I hope that Christians of all theological backgrounds will always be willing to examine the SCripture and see if the things that are spoken of by another are true. I hope that a flat out accusation of "scripture twisting" will not be resorted when one knows that they cannot support their beliefs from Scripture. The burden of proof lies upon the one affirming a proposition. If one is going to charge someone with Scripture twisting, they should be able and willing to provide proof for the charge. As Calvinist, I hope that we also will not flat out charge other with "scripture twisting" without being informed about the text ourselves and its proper meaning.

"it is Finished" Can Arminians understand what it means?

2005-03-23T18:46:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine, who happens to be an Arminian, recently asked me for some material regarding the meanings of the words of Christ from the Cross, "tetelestai" (It is finished). Now, I found this rather odd being that an Arminian and a Calvinist have mutually exclusive views of the atonement of Christ. One understands it as Particular and completed, while the other understands it as general and incomplete (insufficient in and of itself for salvation). The following is my complete correspondence to him regarding the usage of my material. In essence, I am going to ask him to not use my material as long as he is an Arminian since he CANNOT understand what Jesus meant by "it is finished" and still believe in a hypothetical universal atonement. (Names have been edited to protect the innocent)

ok, Friend....here is the outline to my study on the Atonement of Christ and the significance of the word from the Cross, "tetelestai". Part I deals with what the Bible says was the Intention of the coming of Christ and his work on the Cross. Most of the words are from Jesus himself as he frequently alluded to the intended outcome and purpose of his coming. To be brief, Matt. 1:21 states plainly, that Christ came "to save His people". There is no getting around the intentional language that Christ came with a specific purpose that was given to him by the Father and that was "to save"...that is, to ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH THE SALVATION OF HIS PEOPLE. The grammar and syntax of the text (esp. in the Greek) does not allow for the possibility of Jesus being understood as saying, "I came to make salvation possible for all who would be my people". Rather, a definite purpose is defined (to save) for a definite category (His People).

Part II deals with what the Scripture say that the atonement of Christ actually accomplished. I note three things that are described in the Greek as past tense, completed actions (aorist tense). The first is Redemption. The understanding is that all that was intended to be redeemed was actually redeemed through the atonement. Second, is reconciliation. The understanding is that the enmity that existed between God and His People because of their sins has been put aside and ACTUAL reconciliation on the part of God has taken place. This reconciliation is possible because of the third thing, propitiation. Christ was the propitiation that was offered to the Father on behalf of sinners.

Thus, in wrapping up the meaning of "tetelestai" Jesus was proclaiming the accomplishment and finality of redemption, reconciliation, and propitiation all done on behalf of sinners. "It is finished" means that the work of Christ is completed. There is no adding to it. Neither is there subtracting from it. To quote from SCripture, Christ is able to save to the uttermost all who come to God through Christ Jesus (hebrews 7:25). Thus, no one is able to snatch them out of my hands, says Christ (John 10:28) because it was the purpose of the Father and Christ to ACTUALLY ETERNALLY REDEEM (cf. Hebrews 5:9; 9:12) and no one for whom Christ died, can be eternally lost but they MUST - to use the emphatic terms that Spurgeon did in his sermon on Limited atonement - be saved and cannot run the risk of not being saved. They are redeemed. It is finished.

Now, having said that, I must admit that I am a bit hesitant to give you my material because I don't believe that you - as an Arminian - are warranted in proclaiming these great truths of SCripture. Indeed you cannot if you are consistent with your Arminianism. For instance, you believe that Christ died for every single individual that has lived, is living and ever will live till Christ returns and they have the option of "accepting" or "rejecting" the atonement of Christ. If they do, then they are redeemed; if they don't and persist in unbelief, then they are damned. This atonement is a hypothetical universal atonement. Now, there is no avoiding that it is hypothetitcal since you must, as an Arminian, say no one can be saved if they don't accept Christ by their own faith, and secondly, because all men are potentially redeemed upon the basis of their faith. Also, it is a general atonement in the sense that Christ really didn't come for "His People"....in fact, Arminian theology must acknowledge that Christ came for no one in particular but merely to have a basis in the atonement to make salvation possible for all who will trust in Him. This is the universal aspect of the Arminian rendering of the atonement.

Friend, I want you to reconsider using my information if you are not going to present it with the clear teachings of Scripture that are laid out in this outline, and with the entire study that I have done to prove FROM SCRIPTURE that CHRIST ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED SALVATION (REDEMPTION, RECONCILIATION, PROPITIATION, JUSTIFICATION [Romans 3:25], SANCTIFICATION [I Cor. 1:30]) FOR HIS ELECT PEOPLE. I know that you cannot say that you believe the above statement and mean it.

Personally, I think that you either need to abandon your current theology (repent) OR you need to find a way to find out what Christ meant by "it is finished" with your view of the atonement. You even have to take into account this question: "how is Christ atonement "finished" (perfect?) , if it is possible for a sinner to undo the work of the atonement and lose their salvation (lose redemption, reconciliation, propitiation)?" This you can only do apart from my work and through your own personal study. In any regards, here is the outline. I hope that God through His Holy Spirit will use it for His fullest glory

Some thoughts on Ante-Nicene Christianity

2005-03-14T17:59:00.000-08:00

I've recently been reading Phillip Schaff's "History of the Christian Church" on Ante-Nicene Christianity. I must say, that I was amazed and in awe with what the earliest members of the the Church had to endure just to keep profess and protect the faith and their faith.
Let me put this in another way. As Christians today, we don't fight very hard for anything that we have except maybe to keep the world moral. We are able to function in the world for the most part as members of society. We can send our kids to schools. We can go to the grocery stores, etc... Essentially, we can live our own lives.
Ante-Nicene Christianity is an era of Christian heroes who fought their personal faith and for the faith that is handed on to us. In regards to their own personal faith, it was illegal for Christians to exist within the Roman empire. They underwent severe persecution for simply professing to be Christian. We might get a snicker or a wierd look from people today, but for them it was the sword and martyrdom. This really puts so much into perspective. Today, it is so easy to profess to be a Christian. Back then, to do so surely meant death, especially under emperors like Nero, Domitian, Trajan and others. What also amazes me about the Church of this era is their lack of tolerance for worldliness. Granted that some sects of the Church went to the ascetic extreme, for the most part, there was a healthy dose of non-affiliation with the world. Today, because it is so easy to be a Christian, we can see worldliness creep into the Church in so many ways. It could be through homosexuality, through pragmatic techniques for preaching and evangelism, certain type of "worship music", etc... Back then, being a Christian really meant something more than it does today.
Also, this Church really fought for the faith. The particular doctrines that they fought to preserve for us were the doctrines of Christ, particularly the full Deity and Humanity of Christ. Gnosticism was trying to destroy the church from within while Rome was trying to destroy it from without. But God raised up men and women to preserve the true apostolic teachings of Christ. If the Church had succumbed to the Gnostic doctrine of Christ, there would have been no bodily resurrection that we celebrate every Easter. There would be no hope of looking forward to a physical deliverance from sin. According to I Corinthians 15, we would not have a Savior!
My concerns for us, are 1) how many of us are aware of what our brothers and sisters in Christ went through for the faith that we have today? 2) Do we not value the teachings of the Apostles handed down to us in the Scriptures enough that we are not willing to fight (perhaps not physically, but at the very least, intellectually) for the faith? 3) What can we do to avoid succumbing to worldliness in the church? These things are certainly not answered in a mere moment but require reflection and meditation and the work of the Holy Spirit to work on our hearts.
I thank God for those brothers and sisters who contended for the faith. Because of them we can state the true doctrine of God and Christ as being one in Substance yet distinct in personality. We can state in doctrinal formulation that Christ is truly God and truly man at the same time in one person. And because of those doctrines, we know that Christ is the perfect savior. May we never forget that those doctrines came to us at a cost. They were handed to us in blood.

Moses