Sunday, September 30, 2018

1 John And Assurance Of Salvation

  • The Underlying Motivating Factor Which Prompted The Apostle To Write This Epistle:
           -"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life." (1 John 5:13)
  • Various Standards Used In Evaluating Our Overall Relationship With God:
           -According to 1 John 2:1-6, assurance of salvation is based on whether or not we have a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ. 
           -Our life should be characterized with a desire to please God and obey His commandments (1 John 5:2-3). We should continually be striving for sanctification. 
           -If believers do stumble, then the Lord Jesus Christ is their advocate before the Father (1 John 2:1). He is our "Attorney" who intercedes before God the Judge on our behalf. 
           -A lack of concern regarding one's status with God or consistent failure to make Him top priority in our lives is sufficient reason to doubt having been saved or indicates a serious need to examine what has gone wrong in his or her Christian walk. 
           -A person who loves God and loves neighbor as himself or herself can confidently assert being justified before God (1 John 3:16-24). A Christian will love truth and is changed by the Holy Spirit (1 John 4:4-6).
  • Other Notes:
           -This is not meant to be viewed as an all or nothing proposition or some sort of a legalistic checklist. Rather, the central point of emphasis here is our current state of heart. Are we striving to approach and worship God on His terms or living consistently with worldly standards? God will not accept our worship based on a lie.
           -If a person has doubts regarding his or her salvation, then he or she need not at the moment focus on sanctification, but on justification. Find the root cause of that doubt using Scripture and strive diligently to resolve it.

Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood Transfusions

          The Watchtower Society forbids adherents from receiving blood transfusions on the grounds that such a procedure allegedly violates commandments given by God in the Old Testament to not consume blood.

          To preface, blood transfusions were not possible during biblical times because they did not even exist. These procedures were only made possible due to technical advances in medicine and machinery.

          The oral consumption of blood is not the same as intravenously transferring blood from one individual to another who has a matchable blood type. The first process involves digesting so as to nourish the body, whereas the latter involves a substitute to carry on the same bodily functions. Blood transfusions are not meals. 

          The blood itself is not sacred, but the life thereof. Blood transfusions are a voluntary undertaking, not coerced. No sacrificial offering or murder is done in the process. Blood transfusions are done to preserve life. Our Lord Jesus Christ commended self-sacrifice for the welfare of others (John 15:13).

Saturday, September 29, 2018

The Jehovah's Witnesses And Their Many False Prophecies

1897 "Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present, since October 1874," (Studies in the Scriptures, vol. 4, p. 621).

1899 " . . . the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Revelation 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced," (The Time Is at Hand, 1908 edition, p. 101).

1916 "The Bible chronology herein presented shows that the six great 1000 year days beginning with Adam are ended, and that the great 7th Day, the 1000 years of Christ's Reign, began in 1873," (The Time Is at Hand, forward, p. ii).

1918 "Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the condition of human perfection," (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, p. 89).

1922 "The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures than 1914," (Watchtower, Sept. 1, 1922, p. 262).

1923 "Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge," (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1923, p. 106).

1925 "The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during this year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year," (Watchtower, Jan. 1, 1925, p. 3).

1925 "It is to be expected that Satan will try to inject into the minds of the consecrated, the thought that 1925 should see an end to the work," (Watchtower, Sept., 1925, p. 262).

1926 "Some anticipated that the work would end in 1925, but the Lord did not state so. The difficulty was that the friends inflated their imaginations beyond reason; and that when their imaginations burst asunder, they were inclined to throw away everything," (Watchtower, p. 232).

1931 "There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1917, 1918, and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time . . . and they also learned to quit fixing dates," (Vindication, p. 338).

1941 "Receiving the gift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon," (Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1941, p. 288).

1968 "True, there have been those in times past who predicted an 'end to the world', even announcing a specific date. Yet nothing happened. The 'end' did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing? . . . Missing from such people were God's truths and evidence that he was using and guiding them," (Awake, Oct. 8, 1968).

The Mythical Sinlessness Of Mary

        Consider the following passage of Scripture in light of the Roman Catholic Church claiming Mary to have been preserved from sin throughout her life:

        "Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” (Mark 3:20-21)

        "Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:31-35)

        If Mary was undefiled by sin, then how does one account for the fact that she once thought her Son Jesus Christ to be mentally deranged? How is this episode of doubting God not a sin? 

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Roman Catholic Dogmas Are Unbiblical

        Following are a few excerpts from a Roman Catholic publication titled Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine, by Michael Müller:

        "Q. Are the doctrines of the Catholic Church then entirely independent of Scripture?

        A. They are; because she taught her doctrines, and they were believed by the early Christians before the New Testament was written—centuries, indeed, before the Bible was collected into its present form; and she would have done so, in precisely the same manner, had they never been written."

        Elsewhere in this question and answer session:

        "Q. Whose duty is it to teach the Christian doctrine?

A. This is the duty of the pastors of the Catholic Church."

        The next excerpt undoubtedly proves that the Church of Rome worships Mary:

        "Q. Do Protestants love the Mother of God and the Saints?

A. They do not, or they would not ridicule and blaspheme the Mother of God and the Saints."

Saturday, September 22, 2018

The Omnipresence Of The Lord Jesus Christ

  • Discussion:
          -The Bible tells us that God is omnipresent, meaning that He is present everywhere simultaneously. He transcends the boundaries of space and time. He is infinite. He is bound by nothing. These truths are revealed plainly in the Old Testament Scriptures:          

          "But will God indeed dwell with mankind on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You; how much less this house which I have built." (2 Chronicles 6:18)

          "Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, Even there Your hand will lead me, And Your right hand will lay hold of me." (Psalm 139:7-10)

          "Am I a God who is near,” declares the Lord,“And not a God far off? “Can a man hide himself in hiding places so I do not see him?” declares the Lord. “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the Lord." (Jeremiah 23:23-24)

         The various Old Testament expressions describing God as omnipresent are also pertinent to the deity of Christ. Consider the following New Testament passages:

          "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." (Ephesians 1:21-23)

          "For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." (Colossians 1:19-20)

          The next passage is especially worthy of study, since it implies that Christ in His divinity is both all-knowing and all-present: 

           "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:20)

          In addition, it is likely that in Matthew 18:20 the author was alluding to a saying that was popular amongst early Jewish rabbis. Consider this excerpt from the New American Bible Revised Edition:

           "[18:20] For where two or three…midst of them: the presence of Jesus guarantees the efficacy of the prayer. This saying is similar to one attributed to a rabbi executed in A.D. 135 at the time of the second Jewish revolt: “…When two sit and there are between them the words of the Torah, the divine presence (Shekinah) rests upon them” (Pirqê ’Abôt 3, 3)."

           This all makes perfect sense, since the gospel narrative of Matthew was originally directed to a Jewish audience. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. He is the second Person of the Triune God. He is both fully human and divine, which is known as the doctrine of the hypostatic union. In summary, the fact that Jesus is all-present in His divinity proves that He is God.

Friday, September 21, 2018

A Trinitarian Perspective Of John 17

        Jesus Christ petitioned the Father to give Him the glory that they both shared since before the timing of creation (John 17:4-5). God the Son expresses having a relationship with God the Father from eternity past (John 17:24). Notice also how God said in the Old Testament that He would give His glory to no other (Isaiah 42:8). If Jesus is not God, then how could He share that same glory?

        The Son reveals an inextricable unity between Himself and the Father (John 17:11; 20; 22). Both have fellowship with each other. Both are one in essence. If the Father and the Son are one by nature, then does this not imply the latter to be divine? Just as everything belongs to the Father, so everything also belongs to the Son (John 17:10). The Father and the Son are co-equal and co-eternal while having different functions.

        Both share the same divine glory. Jesus oftentimes spoke from a human standpoint, which should not surprise us because He is a composite being. He is fully man and fully God. According to John 17:25-26, Jesus Christ reveals to us the Father. The knowledge and understanding of God transcends our mental faculties by an infinite margin. How could Christ reveal to us the Father if He Himself were not also God?

Thursday, September 20, 2018

Navigating Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape

The question then is, what is the best foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties? What grounds them? What makes certain actions good or evil, right or wrong? Traditionally, God has been the highest Good (summum bonum) and His commandments constitutive of our moral duties. But if God does not exist, what foundation remains for objective moral values and duties?

That takes us to a second question: Does atheism provide a sound foundation for objective moral duties? Duty has to do with moral obligation and prohibition, what I ought or ought not to do. Here reviewers of The Moral Landscape have been merciless in pounding Harris’ attempt to provide a naturalistic account of moral obligation. Two problems stand out.

First: Natural science tells us only what is, not what ought to be, the case. As philosopher Jerry Fodor has written, “Science is about facts, not norms; it might tell us how we are, but it wouldn’t tell us what is wrong with how we are.” In particular it cannot tell us that we have a moral obligation to take actions that are conducive to human flourishing.

So if there is no God, what foundation remains for objective moral duties? On the naturalistic view, human beings are just animals, and animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a lion kills a zebra, it kills the zebra, but it does not murder the zebra. When a great white shark forcibly copulates with a female, it forcibly copulates with her but it does not rape her — for there is no moral dimension to these actions. They are neither prohibited nor obligatory.

So if God does not exist, why think we have any moral obligations to do anything? Who or what imposes these moral duties on us? Where do they come from? It is hard to see why they would be anything more than a subjective impression ingrained into us by societal and parental conditioning.

Second: “ought” implies “can.” A person is not morally responsible for an action he is unable to avoid. For example, if somebody shoves you into another person, you are not to blame for bumping into this person. You had no choice. But Harris believes that all of our actions are causally determined and that there is no free will. Harris rejects not only libertarian accounts of freedom but also compatibilistic accounts of freedom. But if there is no free will, no one is morally responsible for anything. In the end, Harris admits this, though it’s tucked away in his endnotes. Moral responsibility, he says, “is a social construct,” not an objective reality: “in neuroscientific terms no person is more or less responsible than any other” for the actions they perform. His thoroughgoing determinism spells the end of any hope or possibility of objective moral duties on his worldview because we have no control over what we do.

Harris recognizes that “determinism really does threaten free will and responsibility as we intuitively understand them.” But not to worry! “The illusion of free will is itself an illusion.” The point, I take it, is that we do not really have the illusion of free will. Not only is such a claim patently false phenomenologically, as any of us can attest, but it is also irrelevant. The fact remains that whether we experience the illusion of free will or not, on Harris’ view we are thoroughly determined in all that we think and do and can therefore have no moral responsibilities.

Monday, September 17, 2018

Debunking Catholic Apologist Steve Ray On The Eucharist

  • Discussion:
          -This article strives to interact with a post published by Roman Catholic apologist Steve Ray at Catholic Answers called Ankerberg Aweigh on the dogma of transubstantiation. Following are quotations from the author in pink alongside my comments:

          "The Catholic Church does not teach that Christ is "re-sacrificed" on the altar. Why does Ankerberg say that it does? The quotation he uses from the Catholic Encyclopedia does not use anything like"re-sacrifice," yet Ankerberg says it teaches "re-sacrificing." Words are important; smart Catholics will catch on to what he is doing- playing footloose with terminology to suit his own interests."

          The Eucharist is called a divine sacrifice (CCC, 1068), and is done repeatedly. We are told that the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of Jesus are "one in the same sacrifice" (CCC, 1367). The Eucharist is believed to be propitiatory (CCC, 1367). It is believed to make atonement for sin (CCC 1414). So the Catholic distinction between "re-sacrifice" and "re-presentation" is a weak one. The principle of Jesus Christ being offered "once for all" is nevertheless violated (Hebrews 10:10-14). If the sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary and the sacrifice of the Mass are one and the same event, then why does it have to be continually offered?

          "Catholics teach that there was only one sacrifice and that the Mass is a re-presentation of that sacrifice, a partaking in and of the one sacrifice-the eating of the Lamb (Ex. 12:11, John 6:52-58)."

           All the atonement sacrifices that were performed in the Old Testament pointed to the one perfect, final sacrifice accomplished by Jesus Christ at Calvary (Hebrews 10:1). Although we can see many examples of typology in Exodus 12 (the bones of the lamb [symbolizes Christ] not being broken), we have no reason to interpret these blood of the covenant passages as being supportive of transubstantiation because they do not say anything about a mysterious conversion of the consecrated elements at the Mass into the literal flesh and blood of Christ.

          "So we have an anomaly: Christ seated at the right hand of the Father, and Christ, the Lamb of God, standing on the altar. In the temporal world, he was slain once-but in heaven, the world outside time, it appears that the sacrifice of Christ is an eternal event. We are even told that he was crucified before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8)."

          Even though the Scripture portrays the sacrifice of Christ as being displayed on an alter in heaven to remind us continually of His atonement, the effects of His work are permanent. Only He can offer Himself up. He has conquered death, and never has to offer Himself up as a sacrifice again (Romans 6:9-10; Hebrews 10:18).

          If the literalistic interpretation of the Last Supper is correct, then does that mean Roman Catholics who partake of the Eucharist become living tabernacles? If the consecrated wafer is the body of Christ, then should we not be able to use it in the process of cloning Him? How is consuming a person's flesh and blood communion? If the Church of Rome had such a high view of Christ, then why is He so frequently portrayed in congregations as dead crucified on a cross or as a helpless babe in the arms of Mary?

           It should not surprise us when early Christian writers made statements similar to "this is my body" and "this is my blood," since they were alluding to the words spoken by Jesus Christ during the Last Supper. The focus should become what is meant by such language, as one can point to a country on a map and say, "This is Israel." One in that instance would not be literally saying the place pointed at on the paper is Israel but it represents the location. Even if a church father believed in some mystical presence of Christ in the communion elements, that does not demonstrate he believed in transubstantiation. The former notion can be embraced without knowledge of the later.

           This excerpt from Church Historian Philip Schaff's work called History of the Church, Volume II, paragraph 69, is pertinent here:

          "The doctrine concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, not coming into special discussion, remained indefinite and obscure [during the period from 100-325 AD]. The ancient church made more account of the worthy participation of the ordinance than of the logical apprehension of it. She looked upon it as the holiest mystery of Christian worship, and accordingly, celebrated it with the deepest devotion, without inquiring into the mode of Christ’s presence, nor into the relation of the sensible signs to his flesh and blood. It is unhistorical to carry any of the later theories back into this age; although it has been done frequently in the apologetic and polemic discussion of this subject.”

           This excerpt from John D. Hannah, Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine, p. 274, is pertinent here:

          "...they saw the Lord's Supper with a strong degree of realism, though with a spiritualizing tendency. The elements really and truly were the body and blood of Christ, yet not in such a way as to be identical with the historical body of the Savior. Christ's literal body had ascended into heaven, to be brought from heaven only in His return in the last great judgement." 

          This excerpt from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online (emphasis added):

           "The Leonine and Gelasian Sacramentaries show us what is practically our present Roman Mass. How did the service change from the one to the other? It is one of the chief difficulties in the history of liturgy. During the last few years, especially, all manner of solutions and combinations have been proposed. We will first note some points that are certain, that may serve as landmarks in an investigation…Justin gives us the fullest Liturgical description of any Father of the first three centuries (Apol. I, lxv, lxvi, quoted and discussed in LITURGY). He describes how the Holy Eucharist was celebrated at Rome in the middle of the second century; his account is the necessary point of departure, one end of a chain whose intermediate links are hidden. We have hardly any knowledge at all of what developments the Roman Rite went through during the third and fourth centuries. This is the mysterious time where conjecture may, and does, run riot. By the fifth century we come back to comparatively firm ground, after a radical change. At this time we have the fragment in Pseudo-Ambrose, “De sacramentis” (about 400. Cf. P.L., XVI, 443), and the letter of Pope Innocent I (401-17) to Decentius of Eugubium (P.L., XX, 553). In these documents we see that the Roman Liturgy is said in Latin and has already become in essence the rite we still use."

           Following is a good observation from J.N. Darby on the substance and accidents Aristotelian philosophy employed in Roman Catholic transubstantiation: 

           "The doctrine of transubstantiation is simply the fruit of the scholastic use of Aristotle in the middle ages. It depends, on the face of it, on the difference of substance and accidents. The substance of bread is changed into the substance of the Lord's body, the accidents of bread remain. Without this theory, the idea could not exist. But this theory of a particular substance and accidents was a mere metaphysical theory, without any real foundation. We have got nowadays to molecules and atoms infinitely minute, which may be called perhaps substance or essential matter; but all this Aristotelian theory of an imaginary substance and accidents in material objects, is a mere groundless fancy. We see different qualities which awaken sensations in us; colour, form, hardness, etc., and the mind recognises there is something there. Of this conviction, which in relation to us creatures I do not dispute, Aristotle and the schoolmen, who were as a rule wholly under his influence, made a distinct but imaginary substratum in which the various qualities were inherent. There was the substance of bread, etc. But this was a mere philosophical notion, a mere theory of the heathen Aristotelian school, adopted by the schoolmen, and has no other foundation whatever. But the whole doctrine of transubstantiation, and even the word, depends on it, cannot exist without it, is the mere expression of it, only bringing in a miracle on the ground of it, as to the Lord's supper."

           An excerpt from Dr. Francis Nigel Lee's Fifty-Five These Against Transubstantiation:

           "Even since A.D. 831, many Roman Catholics still opposed such transubstantiation. So: Ratramnus, Berengarius, John Scotus Eriguena, Rabanus Maurus, Walafrid Strabo, Christian Druthmar, Florus Magister, Eusebius Bruno (Bishop of Angers), Frollant (Bishop of Senlis), and Elfric. Also, according to the famous RC Cardinal Bellarmine in his De Sacramento Eucharistea (111:5 and 4 dII q.6 art. 1,2 and q. 3 art. 1,2 and I:5) - even the celebrated Cardinal Cameracensus said: "Transubstantiation cannot be proved from Holy Writ .... To this Cardinal Roffensis, Cardinal Cajetan and also Scotus all concur." Indeed, the RC scholars Gabriel, Nicolus, Cusanus, Tapper, Hessel and others all present the "Protestant" interpretation of John 6:54. See Dr. P.G. Logan's Ph.D. dissertation The History and Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Sydney, 1994, pp. 84f."

           The Encyclopedia Britannica describes the origin of the Roman Catholic priesthood as follows:

           “A priesthood developed gradually in the early Christian church as first bishops and then elders, or ‘presbyters,’ began to exercise certain priestly functions, mainly in connection with the celebration of the Eucharist. By the end of the 2nd century, the church’s bishops were called priests (Latin: sacerdos)… The development of eucharistic theology resulted in a further emphasis of the priest’s supernatural powers and qualities…” (

           “Although the term ‘priest’ (Greek hiereus) refers to the entire Christian people, it is given to no church office in the New Testament. First appearing in the 2nd century, the office is associated with the establishment of the eucharistic sacrifice, over which the priest was called to preside. No doubt the development of the monarchical episcopate also contributed to the emergence of the priesthood…” (

           "Notice the sacrificial language being used. The term "table of the Lord" is a technical term which in the Old Testament always refers to a table of sacrifice. Why would Paul use such blatantly sacrificial terminology if he is trying to deny any association between the Eucharist and sacrifice?"

          The context of this passage pertains more to appropriate conduct and application of discernment in worship services than having a correct view on the Eucharist. The purpose and meaning, not the substance, of the communion elements are being discussed in 1 Corinthians 10-11. The communion that the pagans had with idols was also very real, yet there is no evidence suggesting that their offerings were transubstantiated. The Apostle Paul stated that Jesus Christ was the Rock (1 Corinthians 10:3-4), yet He never underwent a process of literal petrification. Even granting that this text makes mention of the Eucharist, that fact in of itself does not prove the communion elements go through a process to become the literal body and blood of Christ. There is not even the slightest hint of an ordained ministerial priesthood in this context.

Sunday, September 16, 2018

Christians Should Not Belong To Sects

"If your church associates with a group of churches that requires exclusive allegiance to itself, you are part of a sect. Despite their boastful claims, sects do not understand the New Testament doctrine of the Church. They are in error. All sects are based on half-truths, faulty reasoning, doctrinal oddities, deceptions, guilt-manipulation, and fear, which are not of the Spirit of truth and liberty. If your church denies you your Spirit-given right and privilege to fellowship with all Christ-loving, bible-loving Christians and churches, you need to obey God rather than man and free yourself and family from these unbiblical chains."

Alexander Strauch, “The Interdependence of Local Churches.” From the book, Understanding the Church, compiled and edited by Joseph M. Vogl and John H. Fish III, p. 206-207

Thursday, September 13, 2018

A Case For The Traditional Authorship Of 2 Peter

  • Defining The Issues:
          -2 Peter has been rather controversial amongst critical scholars in regards to the dating and authorship, and in fact was questioned the most heavily out of all the New Testament books in the early church. Many professing Christians in the conservative evangelical realm have been quick to dispute claims of this epistle being second century pseudepigraphical literature on the grounds of such jeopardizing the doctrines of biblical inspiration and inerrancy. This article strives to present evidences pointing in favor of the Apostle Peter being the author of the writing in focus. The fact that 2 Peter underwent such scrutiny in the early church and still passed standards of canonicity is an argument for it being genuine. Critics of the Bible are simply overstating their case. There is ultimately no solid grounds for rejecting the traditional authorship of 2 Peter.
  • The Internal Evidence For The Apostle Peter Being The Author Of 2 Peter Is Strong:
          -The author of the epistle claims to have been present in the transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-18), which was not a major theme of later Christian preaching. Nowhere in context did the author claim to have received additional special revelation from this event. This is perfectly consistent with the Apostle Peter being the author of 2 Peter.
          -Another factor favoring the traditional dating and authorship of 2 Peter is the fact that the author describes Paul in 2 Peter 3:15-16 as being a "beloved brother", as if both were well-acquainted. 
          -The author of the epistle claims in 2 Peter 1:13-16 to have been ready to be martyred for his faith as Jesus Christ solemnly foretold. This is consistent with traditional authorship, since the Apostle Peter would have been an elderly man being held in custody under Roman guards awaiting his death sentence by the Emperor Nero. The author of 2 Peter even claims to be an eyewitness of the risen Lord. The author in 2 Peter 3:1 claims to have written a previous letter.
  • Addressing The Rejection By Critical Scholars The Internal Evidence Of 2 Peter Being Authentic:
          -"They base this claim on the fact that it is typical pseudepigraphal genre similar to that done in the pastoral epistles.14 But as we have seen, this is an assumption. It is also circular reasoning, because it has not been proven, nor is it unanimously accepted, that the pastoral epistles are pseudepigraphal....Claims that personal references prove forgery are based purely on prejudice because unless the ink is still wet and the author long dead, it cannot be proved to be false. Charles Bigg says, “As regards what an author says about himself, we can ask only whether…it is possible or impossible. But no document was ever condemned as a forgery upon this ground.”15." (Hampton Keathley IV, "The Authorship of Second Peter")
  • The Most Primitive Patristic Writers Were Well Aware Of 2 Peter:
          -"...there is good evidence that other early Christians knew 2 Peter. These include Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), Irenaeus (c. 130-200), Justin Martyr (c. 115-165), the Apocalypse of Peter (c. 110), and 1 Clement (c. 95-97). Clement of Alexandria wrote a now-lost commentary of 2 Peter. Irenaeus seems to use 2 Peter 3:8 when quoting Psalm 90:4. Both quotes of this verse are very similar which is interesting since they are different from the LXX and diverge from it in the exact same way. Justin makes a striking allusion in his Dialogue with Trypho (82.1) to 2 Peter 2:1. The Apocalypse of Peter (c. 110) “certainly” shows evidence of influence from 2 Peter.[8] We also have a number of connections with 1 Clement and 2 Peter (1 Clement 21.5 and 2 Peter 2:1ff; 1 Clem 23 and 2 Pet 3:4, etc.)." (Christian Worldview Press, "Who Wrote Second Peter?")
  • Other Points Worthy Of Consideration:
          -"Moreover, it is seemingly irrational that a false teacher would spuriously write a letter against false teachers. No unusual, new, or false doctrines appear in 2 Peter. So, if 2 Peter were a forgery, it would be a forgery written by a fool for no reason at all. This is too much to believe. The conclusion to the question of authorship is that, when the writer introduced the letter and referred to himself as Peter, he was writing the truth." (John MacArthur, Grace to You, "Introduction of Second Peter")
          -"...there is good external evidence that it was written in the 1st century by someone like Peter who was a contemporary of the events. The noted archaeologist William F. Albright dated 2 Peter before a.d. 80. The discovery of the Bodmer papyri (P72, ca. a.d. 250) reveals that it was highly respected in Egypt at an early date. The book was cited as authentic by numerous early church fathers, including Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine." (Dr. Norman Geisler, Defending Inerrancy, "2 PETER 1:1—DID THE APOSTLE PETER REALLY WRITE THIS BOOK?")
  • Addressing Stylistic Variations Between 1 Peter And 2 Peter:
          -"Although 2 Peter has fewer formal quotations, his clear allusions to the OT are made from Psalms (2 Pet 3:8), Proverbs (2 Pet 2:22); Isaiah (2 Pet 3:13) which are each explicitly cited in 1 Peter.88 This remarkable correlation seems to suggest the separate writings of one person rather than a deliberate imitation; thus it can hardly be considered accidental. This connection is supported by references to Noah in each epistle (1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 3:6) and to the OT prophecy (1 Pet 1:10–12; 2 Pet 1:20–21)....At points it seems the critics almost expect Peter’s second epistle to be simply a rehash of the same material so that identical vocabulary and themes would reappear.89 However, this expectation is certainly unreasonable considering the very different circumstances and purposes behind each epistle. Another difficulty with these types of arguments is seen in the fact that Peter’s writing style is not so easily defined or identified as some other New Testament authors." (e.g. John and Paul)." (Michael J. Kruger, PDF document “The Authenticity of 2 Peter", pages 12-13)

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

The Argument From Desire

"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 137

Monday, September 10, 2018

Multiculturalism And Moral Relativism

"Once the ideas and insights of an individual or group are disseminated, anyone can employ them. No one culture owns its accomplishments; they belong to everyone. When the knowledge is out there, we can all access it. There is no inexorable link to race or ethnic origin.

For example, even though primarily Western scholars have developed modern physics, it is not inherently Western. If a primitive thinks he can jump off a thousand-foot precipice and fly because the totem told him he can, he will die. His death is not caused by Eurocentric science but by his ignorance of the nature of reality Western scientists articulate.

Having said all of this, we must emphasize that if significant accomplishments have been ignored, we should redress the injustice-not because of the race or ethnicity of the thinker but because of the importance of the ideas.

George Reisman, an economist at Pepperdine University, has made similar observations. He argues that the trends toward "multicultural education" and "diversity" as well as critiques of "Eurocentric" or "Western" values are misguided and ill-informed.

For one thing, these trends imply that all cultures have contributed to human progress and knowledge equally. Reisman argues that this is false, since Western values-whether scientific, philosophical, economic, or moral-have proved to be vastly superior. These societies that have embraced Western values, whether geographically in the Far East or in the West, reveal this.

In addition, Western civilization is open to everyone, since it constitutes a body of knowledge and values that is not linked inexorably to any race, nationality, or region of the globe. For these reasons, Reisman contends that multiculturalism is a new form of racism because it reduces matter of the intellect to a matter of racial or ethnic membership."

Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, p. 94-95

Friday, September 7, 2018

Is There A Bible Contradiction In Numbers 25:9 And 1 Corinthians 10:8?

        Skeptics may attempt to discredit the historical reliability of the Bible by pointing to how both Moses and the Apostle Paul seemingly gave different numbers as to the death toll in a plague which was a result of God's wrath on Israel for rampant sexual immorality with the Moabite women and offering sacrifices to the Moabite idols. All of this took place when the Jews sojourned at Shittim. The two passages of Scripture being discussed in this article are quoted as follows:

        "Those who died by the plague were 24,000." (Numbers 25:9)

        "Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day." (1 Corinthians 10:8)

        Paul mentioned in the surrounding context of the verse in the epistle to the Corinthians quoted above four separate occasions where the nation of Israel provoked God to anger through the sins of licentiousness, idolatry, and putting Him to the test. The consequence of actions done by such individuals was death. Thus, we see that the apostle was bringing into mind occasions recorded in the Old Testament showing how God detests sin with the intention of exhorting the Church of Corinth to depart from sinful lifestyles.

        The morals being taught here are of much greater importance than knowing the precise number of Jewish people who died in the Baal Peor incident. Additionally, it is not true that the two statements on the number of deaths that differ by one thousand are irreconcilable. The Apostle Paul was emphasizing the solemn nature of God and His intolerance of sin. Notice especially these words in the later context:

        "Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it." (1 Corinthians 10:11-14)

        According to John Gill's Exposition of the Bible:

        " ( Numbers 25:9 ) the number said to be "twenty and four thousand": and so say all the three Targums on the place F23, and both the Talmuds F24 and others {y}; on the other hand, all the Greek copies of this epistle, and the Oriental versions, agree in the number of twenty and three thousand; so that it does not appear to be any mistake of copies, in either Testament."

        According to Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible:

        "Three and twenty thousand - The Hebrew text in Numbers 25:9, is twenty-four thousand. In order to reconcile these statements, it may be observed that perhaps 23,000 fell directly by the plague, and 1,000 were slain by Phinehas and his companions (Grotius); or it may be that the number was between 23,000 and 24,000, and it might be expressed in round numbers by either - Macknight. At all events, Paul has not exceeded the truth."

        According to the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

        "[three and twenty thousand] In Numbers 25:9 we find 24,000. The actual number would no doubt be between the two, so that both here and in the book of Numbers only round numbers are given. “Our Apostle saith not definitely three and twenty thousand perished, but three and twenty thousand at the least.” Lightfoot."

        According to Adam Clarke's Commentary:

        "St. Paul, 1 Cor. x. 8, reckons only twenty-three thousand; though some MSS. and versions, particularly the latter Syriac and the Armenian, have twenty-four thousand, with the Hebrew text. Allowing the 24,000 to be the genuine reading, and none of the Hebrew MSS. exhibit any various reading here, the two places may be reconciled thus: 1,000 men were slain in consequence of the examination instituted ver. 4, and 23,000 in consequence of the orders given ver. 5; making 24,000 in the whole. St. Paul."

Thursday, September 6, 2018

A Simple Test Of Non-Christian Worldviews

"Materialism, a belief that asserts that all things that exist are made up of matter and energy, is itself not material or energy, but a nonmaterial concept. This means materialism cannot exist within materialism. Thus, materialism is self-defeating and refuted.

Eastern religions, like Taoism and Hinduism, have an impersonal “god” (e.g., Brahman or ultimate reality). How then can anyone know that this “god” is impersonal? After all, this “god” cannot communicate anything about itself to man since communication is personal. This is arbitrary, to say the least, and self-refuting.

Agnosticism, which claims that one cannot know if God exists, has no basis for the existence of knowledge and thus is stuck in a catch-22. The agnostic cannot even know if he can or cannot know if knowledge exists. Thus, he cannot even know if he is in a position to determine if God exists or not. (Confusing, isn’t it?) Thus, it is inconsistent and self-contradictory.

...Naturalism, which is a belief that nature (all that is physical) is all that exists, is itself not part of nature—being conceptual and nonphysical. Thus, naturalism stands opposed to naturalism. This is inconsistent and self-refuting."

Bodie Hodge, "A Few Micro-Refutations"

Wednesday, September 5, 2018

The Romans Road To Salvation

  • The Apostle Paul's epistle to the Romans has a short, yet comprehensive way of explaining our redemption from sin and eternal condemnation:
           *"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
           *"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)
           *"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)
           *"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9)
           *"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:1)

What About All The People Who Have Never Heard Of Jesus Christ And The Gospel?

  • Discussion:
          -Whether or not people who never had an opportunity to hear and believe on the gospel for salvation are exempt from the wrath of God is not so much a rational, but emotional, question. It concerns the eternal destiny of every individual. How the question is answered shapes the way that we preach the gospel to people of different religions.

         Two things that are of foundational importance to understand here are that God has both inscribed His moral laws into our hearts (Romans 2:15) and manifested Himself plainly through nature (Romans 1:18-20). He is not far from any one of us (Acts 17:26-27). A person's invincible inability to attain knowledge of Jesus Christ for whatever reason is not the problem. The real issue is that our sins against Him have placed us under condemnation.

          Even though Scripture acknowledges men such as Cornelius who had feared God prior to receiving the message of the gospel, the New Testament still records the Lord directing the man to the Apostle Peter so that he could receive the good news of salvation (Acts 10). In addition, God does take into account one's ability to understand His precepts in judgement (John 15:22; Romans 2:12-13). The people who knowingly and willingly rebel against God and reject His message of forgiveness are under condemnation. Every person who has a rational mind is culpable.

          If every unbeliever is automatically saved just because of a lack of knowledge regarding the Person of Christ and His atonement, then the gospel that we preach would be needless. In fact, the concept of evangelism would be rendered nonsensical. We are saved by the grace of God through faith in His Son Jesus Christ. We should be making the greatest effort possible to ensure that everybody gets a chance to hear the gospel. That is the underlying goal of the Great Comission. We should be grateful that God has provided even one way for us to be reconciled with Him (John 14:6; Hebrews 4:14-16).

Tuesday, September 4, 2018

Naturalistic Evolution Cannot Explain The Immaterial

"Darwinism asserts that only materials exist, but materials don’t have morality. How much does hate weigh? Is there an atom for love? What’s the chemical composition of the murder molecule? These questions are meaningless because physical particles are not responsible for morality. If materials are solely responsible for morality, then Hitler had no real moral responsibility for what he did—he just had bad molecules. This is nonsense, and everyone knows it. Human thoughts and transcendent moral laws are not material things any more than the laws of logic and mathematics are material things. They are immaterial entities that cannot be weighed or physically measured. As a result, they can’t be explained in material terms by natural selection or any other atheistic means."

Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, p. 187

Monday, September 3, 2018

Debunking Catholic Apologist Steve Ray On James 2

  • Discussion:
          -This article strives to further interact with a post published by Roman Catholic apologist Steve Ray at Catholic Answers called Ankerberg Aweigh on the topic of James 2 as it relates to justification. Following are quotations from the author in pink alongside my comments:

          "This passage does not sit well with Ankerberg's interpretation. He says that it is always faith that is proven by works, whereas the apostle James seems to say it is the person."

          On the contrary, the context of James 2 is indeed contrasting two different kinds of faith, one that produces good works and another that is dead. A man is "justified" in the sense of vindication or proven. Here is a sample of the context from the Roman Catholic New American Bible Revised Edition:

          "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:14-17)

          "We must take care with this theory, or we'll end up scratching a few verses out of Genesis. Was it men who were testing Abraham's faith? The book of Genesis says God, not men, who was testing Abraham in Genesis 22. Ankerberg writes that James is referring to justification before men, because God can already see the heart (37)."

          It has yet to be demonstrated how the fact that it was God testing the faith of Abraham in Genesis 22 is problematical for the "Protestant" understanding of James 2. God can test our faith to produce obedience. Even though God already knows whether our faith is genuine, Abraham was tested so that future generations could see for themselves that he is worthy of being considered the father of our faith.

          It is not as though Abraham was seeking justification through the performance of good works. Romans 4 says otherwise. While man looks at outward factors as evidence, God looks at our hearts (1 Samuel 16:7). The Lord Jesus Christ instructed Christians to let their lights shine before men (Matthew 3:8; 5:16). A faith that saves is one that obeys God. A saving faith is very much alive and active. A faith that is not evidenced by good works is dead. The context of James 2 discusses the inherent features of a saving faith. It is obvious that the word "justified" is the context of James 2 means vindicated or proven:

         "Indeed someone may say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble." (James 2:18-19)

          "Another problem with the Fundamentalist interpretation is that there were no men around to be "vindicated" before-this test was strictly between God and Abraham."

          Sure there was. Isaac himself got to witness the greatness of his father Abraham's faith. This incident was also penned down in Scripture by Moses. As a result, multitudes of readers in later centuries could also see the greatness of Abraham's faith. He trusted in the Lord to the point where he would even give up his dearly beloved son. Such a man can justly be called the father of our faith.

          "James thinks Abraham was not justified in Genesis 15 or 17, but much later in Genesis 22, when he offered up Isaac. He states, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" (James 2:21, KJV). And then James is bold enough to say, "So you see, a man is justified by his works, and not by faith alone" (James 2:24)."

          The problem here is that the context of James 2 is not about how one is made right with God, but rather how one demonstrates the reality of his or her faith. The context uses justify in an evidential sense. Romans 3-5 is the place in Scripture in which the doctrine of justification before God is defined in the most comprehensive manner. It is the Apostle Paul who speaks of this subject more than any other biblical writer. There is no evidence here for the notion of justification being a lengthy, complicated process. According to Hebrews 11:8, Abraham was justified in Genesis 12. Genesis 15:6 is simply the proclamation of Abraham's salvation as a result of his faith and a promise to future generations that they would be saved by the same means.

          "James elaborates what faith is, and its crucial element of obedience (works), as does John in his first epistle. The Catholic vs. Protestant argument, the faith vs. faith and obedience debate, has nothing to do with the discussion Paul was having with the Jewish Christians in Rome and Galatia."

           Scripture contains principles that are applicable to all people at all places and at all times. Even though the Apostle Paul was obviously unfamiliar with the Catholic verses Protestant debate, he still knew the basic contents of this controversy because he had to address in writing the Judaizers who promoted a faith plus works gospel.

Does Psalm 106:30-31 Refute Justification By Faith Alone?

  • Discussion:
          -In debates on Sola Fide, Roman Catholic apologists (and others) sometimes appeal to the text of Psalm 106:30-31 as evidence of works being necessary for justification before God:

         "...centering on Abraham's faith in Genesis 15:6: "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Catholics agree with this Scripture, but the same words ("it was reckoned to him as righteousness") are applied to another person in the Old Testament besides Abraham, and the "justification" was there attributed to actions and zealousness, not faith alone. The phrase used in Psalm 106:31 is the same (in both the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint) as is used in Genesis 15:6. In Psalm 106:30, 31 we read, "Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore" (KJV). Evangelicals say his faith justified him, like his father Abraham-but the Psalmist must not have understood the faith alone doctrine, for he attributes the imputation of righteousness to Phinehas' zealousness." 

          The background of this event is recorded in Numbers 25. In it, some of the Israelites were committing fornication with the women of Moab. Consequently, God was provoked to anger and He cast a plague over Israel. Then, Phinehas took a spear and drove it through a couple in the act of fornication. He obtained mercy from God, terminated the plague, and was regarded as being a righteous man due to his desire for righteousness. His deed would be blessed and remembered in every future generation. The reality of his faith was demonstrated before other men. This is a testimonial of faithfulness, not justification before God. Notice how other Bible translations render this verse:
          "This has been remembered in his favor ever since and will be for all time to come." (Psalm 106:31, Good News Translation)

           "Because of this, Phinehas was considered righteous forever, throughout every generation." (Psalm 106:31, God's Word Translation)

          "This was counted for him as a righteous deed for all generations to come." (Psalm 106:31, New American Bible Revised Edition)

          "This brought him a reward, an eternal gift." (Psalm 106:31, New English Translation)

          "for this he is the example of uprightness, from age to age for ever." (Psalm 106:31, New Jerusalem Bible)

          Following is an excerpt from the New English Translation on Psalm 106:31:

          "tn The noun צְדָקָה (tsedaqah, “righteousness”) occurs with the Niphal of the same verb in Ps 106:31. Alluding to the events recorded in Numbers 25, the psalmist notes that Phinehas’ actions were “credited to him as righteousness for endless generations to come.” Phinehas acted in opposition to idolatry. So he was righteous in motive, his actions were righteous in character, and after he acted he was accorded righteous standing before God. Further the Lord rewarded Phinehas with an unconditional, eternal covenant (Num 25:12-13) as he rewards Abram with a covenant. From that contextual fact, the צְדָקָה (tsedaqah) “righteousness”) may be viewed by some as focusing on the rewardability of the behavior more than the righteous standing before God, though the two notions are related. (See R. B. Chisholm, “Evidence from Genesis,” A Case for Premillennialism, 40.) In Phoenician and Old Aramaic inscriptions cognate nouns may be glossed as “correct, justifiable conduct” and may carry this same semantic nuance (DNWSI 2:962). HALOT seems to focus on the motive and character of righteous actions when it lists “loyalty to the community” among its glosses for צְדָקָה (HALOT, 1006). The translation takes the righteous standing to be central, though it coincides with righteous or loyal motives, righteous conduct, and being viewed as worthy of reward."

           Following is an excerpt from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on Psalm 106:31:

           "31. counted … righteousness—"a just and rewardable action." for—or, "unto," to the procuring of righteousness, as in Ro 4:2; 10:4. Here it was a particular act, not faith, nor its object Christ; and what was procured was not justifying righteousness, or what was to be rewarded with eternal life; for no one act of man's can be taken for complete obedience. But it was that which God approved and rewarded with a perpetual priesthood to him and his descendants (Nu 25:13; 1 Ch 6:4, etc.)."

           The similarity in sentence structure ("it was reckoned unto him as righteousness") is beside the point because the context of Psalm 106:30-31 is not about how one gets right with God. The passage in Genesis 15 is not the moment of Abraham's justification, but rather is the Lord's promise of salvation to him and posterity through faith. The text of Genesis 15:6 is foretelling the foundational message of salvation as prescribed by the gospel. That is why the Apostle Paul refers to this text from Genesis in his arguments about justification in Romans and Galatians.

          God certainly rewards Christians for their faithfulness to Him. He blessed those who love Him and serve Him. But we are not justified by works of righteousness (Titus 3:5). We are saved because God is merciful. He saved us in spite of our unrighteousness (Deuteronomy 9:3-6; Ephesians 2:4-9). The gospel requires that one must believe in order to receive justification (John 20:31; Acts 16:29-32; Romans 3:28; Galatians 3:4-9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Revelation 21:6; 22:17). This righteous act of Phineas has nothing to do with him meriting justification in part by good works. God simply deemed this man's conduct to be righteous, and assured that the priesthood would not depart from his line.

Saturday, September 1, 2018

The Myth That All Religions Lead To God

  • Discussion:
          -The belief that all religions worship the same God is rooted in the relativistic nature of our pluralistic society, which has sadly been embraced by many professing Christians. Our culture is saturated with the idea that all belief systems are equally valid. This is the end result of man believing that he is the final arbitrator of truth. People who express disagreement with the religions of others may even be considered arrogant and bigoted.

          The idea that all religions lead to God is logically untenable, since they contradict each other. Furthermore, the religions of this world do not even claim to serve the God of the Bible. Regardless of what belief system that one espouses, he or she will inevitably be making a truth claim. Intolerance of opposing views is simply a consequence of being consistent with a given worldview. It is even necessary in certain circumstances.

          Christianity is unique among the world religions in that the message of salvation it presents is by God's grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). This forms a stark contrast with other religions, since they believe salvation to be merited on the basis of human efforts. Christianity is the only religion which posits the realistic view of our sinful nature. The Judeo-Christian worldview is unique in that its God desires to have a personal relationship with man and is Trinitarian.

           The gospel is not reserved for an elite few who deserve salvation, but rather is available to all who call upon the name of the Lord. Nobody deserves to inherit the kingdom of God, since we have all sinned against Him. Christianity is inclusive in that the atonement of Jesus Christ is applied to all who believe on His name for salvation. Christianity is exclusive in that it presents Christ as the only way to obtaining fellowship with God.

           If the religions of the world are right, then it follows that Christianity is false (1 Corinthians 15:12-20). If there are multiple ways to salvation, then the gospel itself becomes redundant. Thus, we see that this pluralistic reasoning is actually a threat to undermine the Christian faith. No compromise or negotiation is permissible on this matter.