Understanding Biblical Forgiveness

          What are we to do when we experience persistent resentment toward others who have wronged us in some way? Anger is generally not an easy emotion to control and soothe. We have all been treated unfairly and unkindly at some point in time. Ridicule, mockery, and slander are things common to human experience. Sometimes people say and do things without intending to offend; others provoke intentionally. But what does it mean to offer forgiveness? Is it a necessary option? If forgiveness is possible, then it is important that we be reconciled with our family, friends, and even neighbors. Are we in an unwarranted way holding past grievances committed against us? Have we ourselves offended others? If we do not forgive, then that will cause further harm.

          The biblical definition of forgiveness means to not count an evil action against a guilty party. It means to not plot revenge against the offending person. It means to not hold any record of debt. Forgiveness involves the restoration of a person from banishment. It is an act of love and kindness. It is not deserved or earned. Forgiveness is an act of the will and done deliberately. Forgiveness of another person necessarily denotes a change in heart toward him. It involves not dwelling on our past situations. Furthermore, the forgiveness offered by God involves Him erasing our debt of transgressions committed against Him (1 John 1:7-9). The forgiveness that he offers is distinct from human forgiveness in that it involves the cleansing of our souls from sin.

          Contempt and hostility run contrary to forgiveness. They entail holding past misdeeds against the offending party and demand repayment in some way. Contempt and hostility insist on being right and having their own way at all costs. None of this is compatible with a forgiving heart. However, it does not require that we condone what has been said or done to us. Measures may still need to be taken, depending on certain variables. Cutting ties may certainly be a necessary safety precaution. Forgiveness is not incompatible with disciplinary action. We should strive for peace and resolution, if possible. Human forgiveness is conditional, namely in that wrongdoers should openly repent of their misdeeds (Luke 17:3-4). We can also overlook another person's misbehavior. To forgive means to cease showing malice or resentment toward another person for a mistake or offense.

          Unjustly withholding forgiveness to whom it is due can have drastic repercussions on both personal relationships and civilization on a large scale. If we allow anger to continually scorch our hearts, then we will only act bitterly and harm the people around us. It can take us to dark places that we never intended to go. It is wrong to not strive to live peacefully with other people (Ephesians 4:31-32; Hebrews 12:14-15). In fact, unchecked anger in and of itself is a defilement of our souls. A contentious relationship cannot successfully thrive because it closes the gates of compromise and shuts off any influx of reason. Consequently, situations are rendered unworkable. Conflict resolution cannot be made when no one listens to each other. An unforgiving heart will only hold on to its own subjective perception of reality, no matter how absurd. It is for this reason that opposing sides of an argument misrepresent each other. Forgiveness can be a simple solution with profound reverberations for the better in our lives.

          What if a man is unable to forgive himself for previously committed wrongs against others? For starters, self-forgiveness is not necessary. Forgiveness looks beyond itself and tries to console others. What ultimately matters is that we accept the forgiveness of God as provided through Jesus Christ. How we feel is irrelevant in this context. We should repent of our sins against God and each other. We should choose to forgive others, as God has chosen to forgive us for our trespasses against Him. It is not healthy for us to allow our emotions to prevent us from moving forward with our lives. We can assist the people who are struggling with the concept of forgiveness by simply making ourselves available listeners to those afflicted and by showing them gentleness. Forgiveness comes from the heart (Matthew 18:35). We should be inclined to forgive because God Himself has forgiven us. He will withhold mercy from people at the Final Judgment who did not themselves show mercy to others in this life.

          Forgiveness springs forth from love, which constitutes the foundation of Christianity. Forgiveness is the very root of the gospel. It is because Jesus Christ gave Himself up for our sins that God is able to reconcile us to Him. It is because of mercy that friendships can be restored. It is because of forgiveness that we are able to live well and die peacefully. Hatred is contrary to the principles of the gospel. If left unchecked, anger ruins our sanity. We must repent from the heart of our sins, and offer forgiveness to those who have offended us in some way and also repented. The withholding of forgiveness is a tragedy.

A Biblical Refutation Of Open Theism

• Discussion:

           -The online Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines open theism (also referred to as openness theology or free will theism) as follows:

           "Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future. Though omnipotent, He has chosen to invite us to freely collaborate with Him in governing and developing His creation, thereby also allowing us the freedom to thwart His hopes for us. God desires that each of us freely enter into a loving and dynamic personal relationship with Him, and He has therefore left it open to us to choose for or against His will."

           Let it first be said that the notion of God having imperfect knowledge of the future is heresy and illogical for the Christian to uphold at best. If open theism is true, then we have a number of problems which are articulated as follows:

            *God must learn, since He would not know what decisions people could make in the future. 
            *God could be wrong about something, as He has no way of knowing what decisions people could make at a later point in time. Whatever He plans could be thwarted.
            *If open theism is true, then God cannot simply be all-knowing. If He is not all-knowing, then it is difficult to see how He can be all-powerful. One cannot say that God is omniscient (meaning that He knows all things) and then affirm that God does not know something in the very next breath. 

            *Consequently, it would be difficult to trust in the reliability of biblical prophecy. It would also be difficult to trust that God could even accurately answer our prayers.

           Even a cursory glimpse at Scripture is sufficient to expose the errors of open theism. It without reservation or qualification affirms that God knows the future perfectly (Psalm 139:4; 16; Isaiah 46:9-10; Jeremiah 1:5; Matthew 26:34; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 John 3:20). Nothing is beyond His comprehension (Psalm 147:5). Nothing is hidden from His sight (Hebrews 4:13).

           While proponents of open theism may adamantly contend that their system of thought does not undermine the sovereignty of God, that is precisely what it does. Open theism flies right in the face of His glory and majesty. God's thoughts are not our thoughts. His ways are not our ways. There are no limits to the depths of His wisdom. If open theism is true, then the God of the Bible would not be any different than the idols worshiped by pagans (Isaiah 41:22-23).

"Animadversions Of A Synthetic Chemist"

Life requires carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins. What is the chemistry behind their origin? Biologists seem to think that there are well-understood prebiotic molecular mechanisms for their synthesis. They have been grossly misinformed. And no wonder: few biologists have ever synthesized a complex molecule ab initio. If they need a molecule, they purchase molecular synthesis kits, which are, of course, designed by synthetic chemists, and which feature simplistic protocols.

Polysaccharides? Their origin?

The synthetic chemists do not have a pathway.

The biologists do not have a clue.

[...]

Those who think scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer—and possibly a radically different—scientific theory.

The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery.

Excerpts from James Tour

A List Of The Cultic Doctrines Of Mormonism

• Mormonism Upholds Belief In A Multitude Of Gods:

          -"In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.... In all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods." Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp.308, 474.

• Mormonism Teaches That God Was Once A Man:

          -"God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man... I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form...like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man...He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on earth." Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 305.

• The God Of Mormonism Is Finite Like Man Himself:

          -"The universe is filled with vast numbers of intelligences, and we further learn that Elohim is God simply because all of these intelligences honor and sustain him as such...if He should ever do anything to violate the confidence or 'sense of justice' of these intelligences, they would promptly withdraw their support, and the 'power' of God would disintegrate - He would cease to be God." W. Cleon Skousen (Former BYU Professor & founder of Mormon-based National Center For Constitutional Studies), The First 2000 Years, p.355.
          -"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's." Doctrine & Covenants 130:22
          -"If God possesses a form, that form is of necessity of definite proportions, and therefore of limited extension and space. It is impossible for Him to occupy at one time more than one space of such limits." James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 43.

• Mormonism Teaches That Man May Become God:

          -"Here then is eternal life...to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you...To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of God." Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 306

• The God Of Mormonism Has A Wife Because He Was Once A Man:

          -"In the heaven where our spirits were born, there are many Gods, each of whom has his own wife or wives, which were given to him...while yet in his mortal state." Orson Pratt (Apostle), The Seer, p.37.
          -"This doctrine that there is a Mother in Heaven was affirmed in all plainness by the First Presidency of the Church." Bruce R. McConkie (Apostle), Mormon Doctrine.

• Mormonism Denies The Virgin Birth:

          -"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers... Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father." Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 547, 742.

• Mormonism Teaches That Jesus And Satan Are Brothers:

          -"The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer - this spirit-brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Savior of mankind." Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15

• The Jesus Of Mormonism Was Married:

          -"Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee - We say it was Jesus Christ who was married...whereby he could see his seed." Orson Hyde, Apostle, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 82.

• Mormonism Denies The Authority of The Bible:

          -"Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors-many plain and precious things were deleted, in consequence of which error and falsehood poured into the churches. One of the great heresies of modern Christendom is the unfounded assumption that the Bible contains all of the inspired teachings now extant among men." Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp.82, 83

• Mormonism Says All Other Churches Are False:

          -"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; and those professors were all corrupt." Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:19.
          -"This Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth." Doctrine and Covenants 1:30.
          -"There is no salvation outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 670.
          -"All other churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God; and any person who receives Baptism or the Lord's Supper from their hands will highly offend God; for He looks upon them as the most corrupt of all people. Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the whore of Babylon." Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 255.

• Mormonism Says That Blacks Were Cursed:

          -"Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness, he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel." Joseph Fielding Smith (Prophet), The Way to Perfection, p. 102.
          -"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind." Brigham Young (Prophet), Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290.
          -"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard t the African race? If the white man...mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p. 110.

• Mormonism Has A Council Of Gods:

          -"The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world... In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people. it." Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 348, 349.
          -"The contention in heaven was...Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the Devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave their vote in favour of Jesus Christ. So the Devil rose up in rebellion against God. and was cast down, with all who put up their heads for him." Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 8

• How Mormons View The Final Judgment And Resurrection:

          -"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 289.
          -"If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by [Joseph Smith]; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him." President George Q. Cannon, quoted in 1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142.
          -"If we ask who will stand at the head of the resurrection in this last dispensation, the answer is Joseph Smith, the Prophet of God. He is the man who will be resurrected and receive the keys of the resurrection, and he will seal this authority upon others, and then they will hunt up their friends and resurrect them." Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 116.
          -"We are the only people that know how to save our progenitors, how to save ourselves, and how to save our posterity in the celestial kingdom of God; that we are the people God has chosen by whom to establish his kingdom and introduce correct principles into the world; and that we are in fact the saviors of the world..." John Taylor (Prophet), Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 163.

• Mormonism Teaches A Gospel Message Of Faith Plus Works:

          -"For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled." (2 Nephi 25:23-24)

          -"One cannot get into the kingdom of God upon the principle of faith alone, or repentance alone, or receiving the Holy Ghost alone. He will have to be baptized, go down in the water, and come up out of the water, and have hands laid upon him for the gift of the Holy Ghost. That is the procedure that was followed by the apostles of Christ. That is the procedure of the Church today. It is the only way." (Rudger Clawson, Conference Reports, October 1932, p.9)

          -"Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ." (Moroni 10:32)

          -"We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." (Articles of Faith 1:3)

Testimony Of A Former Buddhist

True, some Buddhists purport to believe in a god, or in a realm of higher beings called devas. Others pray to statues of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama). But, as a whole, Buddhism is not a theistic religion. It has a law—the law of karma—but no lawgiver.

According to the Buddhist worldview, all beings accumulate karma based on their actions, and karmadictates their life circumstances. When a person dies, the karma accumulated in that lifetime (and all previous lives) determines his or her lot in the next life.

To many Buddhists, this means that a person born into a wealthy family has good karma, while someone who lives in a poor, disease-infested village would have accumulated negative karma.

Buddhists believe karma keeps one trapped in an endless cycle of death and rebirth (samsara), and the only way out is through enlightenment.

To become enlightened, one has to eliminate desire. Buddha taught that desire is the root of suffering; that it causes attachment, which leads to suffering, and in turn causes other beings to suffer. This produces negative karma. If one eliminates desire and stops causing suffering, one can become enlightened, as he had.

But, eventually, I began to question.

Who or what had set this law of karma in motion?

Who judged these beings’ actions and sentenced them to another life of pain?

Why were beings punished for actions they would be unable to remember?

Was desire always a bad thing? Wasn’t the desire for enlightenment still desire?

If so, how could one ever attain enlightenment?

So I strayed from the Buddhist path—the emptiness within me greater than before.

https://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-buddhism-harris.html

A Response To Catholic Nick On Imputation And 2 Corinthians 5:21

• Discussion:

           -Catholic Nick wrote an article in which he attempted to refute the standard "Protestant" interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21. He throws in a few diversions as to the meaning of Jesus being made sin and us becoming righteous. Excerpts from the author are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary: 

           "First, the text does not suggest we become righteousness in the same way Jesus becomes sin, i.e. by a double imputation, because Paul uses two different Greek words here, "made [sin]" and "become [righteousness]."

           Just because someone references Greek, does not mean that his argument is valid or convincing. There is nothing in the two different words that necessarily rule out imputation.

           If the Roman Catholic view of grace as infused into the soul is correct, then should we conclude based on 2 Corinthians 5:21 (i.e. "Christ was made sin") that the essence of Jesus was corrupted? Was evil infused into Christ?

           "Second, the curious phrase "made sin for us" cannot be presumed to include Christ's perfect obedience to the Law, especially since the Protestant says this phrase refers specifically to having our sins imputed to Christ."

           The phrase "made sin for us" in 2 Corinthians 5:21 should be understood to include both Jesus taking on our sins and His perfect obedience to God's Law. While some may argue that it only refers to our sins being placed on Him, this view misses a key point: Jesus had to be sinless and obey the Law perfectly to be the right sacrifice for our sins. His ability to bear our sins comes directly from His flawless life, making both aspects essential to the Christian understanding of salvation. Ignoring this connection separates His work and does not reflect the fullness of how He redeems us.

           "Third, the Bible never speaks of imputing sin from a sinner onto an innocent substitute, such that guilt is transferred from one person to another, so to say “made sin” refers to imputation has no Biblical basis whatsoever. Thus, Christ being “made sin” must be assumed to refer to something other than imputation."

           This point is invalidated because of the background of the Old Testament sacrificial system, which is all about the transfer of guilt. Look at Genesis 22, Leviticus 16, and Exodus 12. In all three instances, there is an innocent substitute provided. The lamb died in the place of a person, etc. Further, the very idea of forgiveness (i.e. not counting people's trespasses against them) is legal in nature.

           "Fourth, the meaning of “made sin” need not only refer to Imputation or Infusion, for that’s a false dilemma fallacy. The Church Fathers shed valuable light on what “made sin” refers to."

           The meaning of 2 Corinthians 5:21 is crystal clear. Jesus took our sin and gave to us His righteousness. We do not deserve His righteousness, anymore than He deserved to bear our punishment. That is the legal, binding transaction which takes place in the "court" of God. He has voluntarily paid an infinite sin debt on our behalf because of His love for us. He saved us because He is gracious. He is our sin offering.

           "Fifth, the context clearly explains the goal of God the Father sending His Son was to bring about our reconciliation, thus undermining the whole presumed forensic-imputation theme Protestants project onto verse 21."

           Why would a context speaking of reconciliation with God be inconsistent with a forensic-imputation theme? If we are to be reconciled with God, then it requires that the questions of sin, righteousness, and judgment be addressed. The text of 2 Corinthians 5:21 specifically addresses how man can be reconciled to God.

Rome's Deficient View On The Sinfulness Of Man

• Discussion:

          -Catholic Nick wrote an article providing evangelistic strategies for fellow Roman Catholics to use in dialogues with critics on the subject of Sola Fide (i.e. justification by faith alone). This critique begins with an excerpt from the author in bold letters:

          "First, the Catholic must understand that, in the Protestant mind, man is absolutely saved by his own works apart from faith and God's grace, but because of sin man is now unable to save himself and must have Jesus do those works for man in man's place. Human works alone (apart from faith and grace) are still what save us in the Protestant mind, the only thing that changes is that now Jesus does that work in man's place."

          The Law of God requires perfect obedience. If sin did not exist, then there would be no need for God to show forgiveness to anyone. There would be no spiritual corruption in the first place. There would be no need to speak of "getting saved," as everything would already be functioning in a perfect order. But the fall of man has brought about sin and thus condemnation. God has voluntarily paid an infinite sin debt on our behalf because of His love for us. He saved us because He is gracious. The idea that a man can be saved by keeping the Law would be true only in a hypothetical sense. Even the works Adam could have done prior to his fall, were entirely a produce of grace.

          "This is completely contrary to the Catholic understanding of salvation, in which man can only be saved by faith and grace, never by his own works no matter how good those works are."

          The fact that Catholics are required to obtain and maintain their justification on the basis of good works proves that their understanding of salvation is works-based. The concepts of purgatory and the treasury of merit further render the claims of the author unconvincing. In Roman Catholic theology, God gives grace through baptism so that man can perform good works to merit more grace.

          "Without going into detail on each of these passages [Romans 4:1-3, Galatians 3:10-12, Ephesians 2:8-9, Philippians 3:4-7, and Titus 3:4-5], notice that in the 'plain reading' of these texts, there is no mention of the works in question being 'tainted by sin'. In fact, such a reading would make these texts nonsensical. The only reason given for why works don't save is to prevent boasting. That's it."

          The texts that Nick mentions are straightforward, in that they say we are not saved by works of righteousness. We are saved because God is loving and merciful. He has reached out to wretched man because of His love. The contexts of each passage that Nick lists makes mention of our problem of sin. We are not deserving of His salvation, and Catholics would agree with this point in principle.

          The Bible tells us that the wrath of God is revealed against all unrighteousness and ungodliness (Romans 1:18). We have all sinned against Him. We all have a stained record. Therefore, we have all incurred His wrath and judgment. But Jesus Christ offered Himself up as a sacrifice to appease that wrath. He is our propitiation (Romans 3:24-25). Christ is our advocate before God the Righteous Judge (1 John 2:1-2). The Law is what makes us conscious of sin (Romans 7:7). It condemns us. Christ obeyed the Law perfectly in our place (Romans 8:1-4). He took our punishment. We have redemption through Christ's blood (Ephesians 1:7-8). We are purified by placing our trust in His work. He is our reconciliation. His grace is unmerited.

          "Now it is true that the "works" Paul has in mind are "Works of the [Mosaic] Law," which are the 613 individual Commandments found in the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), centered around the Ten Commandments. But even this doesn't change anything, because keeping the Law never did save."

          We can agree with the author that nobody was saved by keeping the Law. Justification has never been by works. Nonetheless, the contexts of Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5 nowhere limit "works" as exclusively referring to the Mosaic Law. That is not what the Apostle Paul said.

          "And it is true that all men come into this world dead in sin and separated from God, but even that's not the point behind Paul's repeated 'works don't save' statements."

          It would be proper to allow the reader to decide for himself who has a more reasonable interpretation of Scripture by citing one of those "not by works" passages that the author alludes to in context:

          "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:4-9)

          "Protestants think you are worthy of Eternal Life upon being Justified, but that's not what Paul teaches. In reality, Justification and being Judged worthy of Eternal Life happen at two different times in a person's life - and to confuse the two events and turn them into one event the way Protestants do is a huge mistake."

          So, a person who is justified in the sight of God is not necessarily entitled to heaven? That statement is ridiculous, as well as illogical. If an individual is converted to Christianity and one day later just so happens to die in a vehicle accident, then would he not be allowed into the kingdom of God at that point? Was that person not saved from his sin? Is that person automatically going to hell for potentially not getting a chance to greet a neighbor or feed the poor?

A Response To Catholic Nick On Colossians 2:14

• Discussion:

          -Catholic Nick wrote an article in which he parallels Colossians 2 with Ephesians 2 and argues against a "Protestant" understanding of Colossians 2:14. Following are excerpts from the author along with a critique of specific claims:

          "Given the above, it is pretty obvious that "canceling the certificate of debt with its legal demands" means essentially the same thing as "abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances". That is, the Mosaic Law was canceled, abolished, fulfilled, etc, (all terms the NT uses) through Christ's death on the Cross. This is an undeniable theme throughout the NT (e.g. Acts 13:38-39)."

          First of all, it is not enough to say, “Look at those two passages. They are parallel. Therefore, they are saying the same thing.” Ephesians 2 contains an element that the Colossians passage does not have. Paul is working to unite Jews and Gentiles. That is the whole point of Ephesians 2:15. That portion of it is missing from the Colossians passage.

          The author fails to understand Colossians 2:14 in its immediate context, which is most certainly speaking about our debt of sin. Christ suffered the penalty for sin on our behalf on the cross. He cancelled out our sentence of death when He made atonement. We are no longer under condemnation for that reason. Nick is correct in saying that the Jews and Gentiles were separated, but denies what is taught in terms of our justification in this passage. Moreover, the metal nails and the wooden cross are vividly representative of Christ's propitiatory work.

           Nick is correct when he says that the phrase (i.e. "certificate of debt with its legal demands") can be understood as "blotting out the handwriting." However, it is best that words be translated in their respective contexts. This is true especially with phrases that are not used very often. Colossians 2:14 in no uncertain terms addresses justification before God in terms of our sin. Most words have a semantic range of possible meanings.

          "I would say appealing to Colossians 2 is terrible for Protestants for a few reasons. My favorite reason is that the reference to "being dead in trespasses but made alive" (Col 2:13; Eph 2:5) is speaking of inward transformation. This passage is clearly talking about Justification, which Protestants say is purely legal in nature and by Imputation, yet Paul says it is about being made spiritually alive."

          Contrary to the claims of the author, justification being legal in nature (i.e. the process of Christ taking our place in order to pay our debt) does not exclude regeneration of the heart. In other words, the concept of inward renewal is not incompatible with a forensic justification framework. The two are not mutually exclusive. Justification is never separated from the work of the Holy Spirit to make us holy. We would only seek to maintain that specifically the declaration of us being righteous (i.e. justification) is not based on our good works. We are made alive in Christ by faith, as Ephesians 2:5 says. Nick assumes that texts which speak of internal transformation are about justification, but they are associated with other aspects of salvation such as regeneration.

Certainty And Knowledge In A Postmodern World

“If true human knowing depends on perfect, exhaustive knowing, we are consigned forever to ignorance because, whether in this life or the life to come, we will never be omniscient. . . . But that immediately suggests that the standard is too high. If you expose the relativity of human knowledge by appealing to a standard of omniscience, it’s an artificial standard. In fact, the first question I want to ask my postmodernist friends is, ‘How do you know that postmodern relativism is true?'”

Don Carson, "Can We Be Sure of Our Interpretation?," The Gospel Coalition, 12/28/18

Is Paul's Letter To The Laodiceans A Lost Book?

        "When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea." (Colossians 4:16)

        Liberal critics of the New Testament sometimes make reference to this text from Colossians in their attempts to prove that books of the Bible have been lost. If the canon of Scripture is incomplete, then what happens to the doctrine of inerrancy? What can be said regarding the Apostle Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans? Skeptics have brought up a letter which bears that name.

        This nineteen-verse letter is essentially a collection of short excerpts from the canonical Pauline writings. It does not contain any new teachings. It does not contain any new commandments from God. It does not contradict anything found in the New Testament. It does not negatively impact Scripture. The writing style is by no means exceptional. In short, this letter is completely harmless. It does not alter the message of God.

        Most scholars believe that this Letter to the Laodiceans was originally written in Latin during the fourth century. It is generally regarded as a forgery. The textual basis for it is poor. No existing Greek copies of the New Testament contain it. The church father Jerome made mention of this letter and considered it to be a counterfeit document. It was never widely thought of as inspired Scripture. As to why this letter was written, all that we can really do is speculate. 

        It does not qualify as a lost book of the Bible. But what about the circulated letter that Paul spoke of in Colossians 4:16? Some have identified it to be either Ephesians or Philemon, which is a reasonable solution. Whatever the case, we can rest assured that God has given to us everything He intended us to have. Even if we do not have Paul's circulated letter, it does not follow that there are books missing from the canon of Scripture. The doctrine of inerrancy does not require us to have in our possession every written text by an apostle or prophet.