"Be diligent to study yourself approved unto God, as Workers who do not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the Word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).
"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ.
"Wherever the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that one point."
- Martin Luther
Recently, I have been asked why "soul sleep" is, in my estimation, such a "pernicious" or destructive doctrine.
My response to this is that in our postmodern and propositionally bankrupt Western Culture, all doctrine is deemed abhorrent and irrelevant by secular society and this indifference to sound Biblical theology as greatly influenced the Evangelical Christian culture in America today as well.
Secular society's hatred of even the concept of absolute Biblical truth has greatly spread like a ideological virus throughout American Evangelicalism, to the point that attempting to defend the traditional Evangelical stance against temporal immortality and for the theological view that people are conscious before the resurrection, is deemed the height of futility and arrogant and repressive obstructionist. Yet, in my estimation, every jot and tittle of the Word of God is of vital importance since it was communicated by Almighty God for His Church to know propositionally. Therefore, I believe the concerned Evangelical believer should not give one iota or inch to the mindset of doctrinal relativism, but instead defend and proclaim every bit of the revealed Word of Almighty God, irrespective of how insignificant, mundane or trivial it might appear to those skeptical of such committed adherence to traditional Evangelical theology.
The issue of "soul sleep" is important because it is important to Almighty God the Sovereign Lord of the Universe, and if God saw fit within His providential will to address the issue related to the state between death and the resurrection, then it must be important to all those who love the Word of God in sincerity and in truth.
In an earlier era of American Evangelicalism, long before the inception of seeker sensitive and emergent church Christianity, the Evangelical Christian Church within the contiguous United States placed a tremendous emphasis on the study of and the vigorous adherence to sound Evangelical theology.
While the doctrine of "soul sleep" may not be as "pernicious" as any other false Biblical teaching that is contrary to the revealed Word of Almighty God ( Acts 7:58-60, 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 and Philippians 1:21-24 conclusively demonstrates the veracity of the tradtional Evangelical view that people are very much conscious after death and before their resurrection), the point is that no doctrine is unimportant and deserves anything less than full defense by the seasoned believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Anything less than a full defense of every aspect of the Word of God is to retreat from our calling to defend the faith once and for all delievered to the saints.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Good Article on Soul Sleep
From:
http://www.letusreason.org/Doct15.htm
Is there an afterlife? There are two extremes that are used to distort the Bible doctrine of the intermediate state of the believer after death. One is Spiritism, that teaches everyone has an afterlife in heaven, so it doesn't matter at all what you believe here on earth. Within this is the belief that we can contact the dead. Those who die have not really passed on into another place away from earth, but they are living in the spirit world, a world which is a dimension right here on earth which we cannot see. In other words, they are among us, they are watching and helping us. The Bible clearly denies this fact by showing that there are two destinations in the afterlife, and none of these are related to any closeness to the living. We cannot contact them and they cannot contact us (Lk.16, Deut.18:10-12).
The other extreme is evolution, that this is all there is and that there is no afterlife, so we needn't consider what happens when we die. This is what Atheism teaches, that there is no eternality to our soul and we all just go back to the ground since that's what we're made of and there is no spirit or soul in man.
The Jehovah's Witness's teaching is quite similar to this since they believe that when you die both the soul and body are extinguished, the body taking longer to cease to exist, yet the soul is immediately snuffed out. Atheism also believes in anihilationism. The Devil, who invents these views, will use both ends to distort the truth. On one hand he has people choose to believe that there is no after life, and on the other he distorts it to say that we all go to the same place, no matter how we live or what we believe in our life right now everything will be alright.
So what exactly happens to us when we die? Is there an afterlife? Do we cease to exist as atheists say? Or does life continue on as the spiritualists state, with everyone ending up in the same place where we will all be comfortable? Throughout the history of mankind, the afterlife has been an enigma. Almost all religions believe in an afterlife, some quality of life in the spiritual realm that exists afterwards, either in a nebulous world or in having an abundant life in a place called heaven. The immortality of the soul is something hoped for by all people. This has also been a subject debated within the church for centuries. Does the Bible teach existence after death, or do we cease to exist, as Jehovah's Witness claim? And what of the soul-sleep of the Seventh Day Adventists?
First, let's look at what the Jehovah Witnesses believe. This comes from Charles Taze Russell being influenced by what was called Second Adventism, (meaning the second advent). This is before they became the Seventh Day Adventists where they based themselves on the Sabbath day belief. Jehovah Witnesses believe that when someone dies their personality and life is so united with the body that it ceases to exist. This not only occurs with believers, but also non-believers and with Jesus, so God has to refashion everyone by memory.
What we're dealing with here is re-creation. What they have is not a resurrection, because the individual's body and soul are carbon copied to exist later on Paradise Earth. This is what they teach as their good news of the kingdom. Everyone is going to live on paradise earth one day. one of the problems is if you die before the resurrection, well, you won't be there. You will not participate in the new earth because God will copy you from memory and your duplicate will be enjoying all the benefits of all your hard work for the kingdom. Of course, none of this is biblical, it's all fantasy and never going to happen. If we ask the Jehovah's Witness about this and explain this to those who come to our door it can strongly affect their false belief system and make them question what hope they have as a Jehovah Witness. So annihilations, which is what they teach, is not a biblical answer for how God deals with the after life of the soul and the body.
When we come to the subject of soul-sleep we find this view has been sporadically held throughout church history. The Ana-Baptists believed in this in the 1500's. King Edward VI stated in his fortieth article out of forty-two, that "The souls that do depart hence do sleep, being without all sense, feeling, or perceiving until the day of judgment, do utterly decent from the right that is closed to us in Holy Scriptures."
In modern times we have two well known major groups that hold to this teaching. One is Christadelphianism and the other is Seventh Day Adventism. Soul-sleep is the denial of man's conscious existence between when he dies and the resurrection day. It's what is called the intermediate state of the believer, in which their view is both the body and the soul lay rest in the ground.
Christadelphian's deny the existence of hell and they hold to what is called conditional immortality, as do the Seventh Day Adventists. What most groups do, who deny an immortal existence either with the Lord or in punishment in the hereafter, end up camping on the Old Testament Scriptures to prove their points.
We need to understand that there are a number of mysteries in the Bible that were not fully revealed until Christ came. This doctrine comes under that heading. It was concealed in the Old Testament and revealed in the New Testament. What most people do is look to the Old Testament Scriptures to validate this teaching such as Eccl. 9:5-6, "For the living know they shall die: but the dead know not any thing," or Psalm 146:4, "His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish". Or Psalm 115:17, "The dead do not praise the Lord, nor any who go down into silence" or Psalm 6:5 "For in death there is no remembrance of Thee; in the grave who shall give Thee thanks? And of course, there is Ezek. 18:4, "the soul that sinneth, it shall die. "From these Scriptures and many others, the Seventh Day Adventists and other groups make their air-tight case that death is a peaceful sleep for the soul. Well, actually, it's not so air-tight, it's more like Swiss cheese. This means that it is spiritual death, a separation not a non existence. Otherwise they would cease to exist as soon as they sin. There are many scripture that say the soul is dead even when someone is alive, he is dead even when alive
When someone does a study on this or any other subject, they need to take all the body of literature and weigh it out and see which covenant these things were spoken under, are they a metaphor, is it a hyperbole, is it poetic? To make biblical sense out of this serious issue, we need to look at all the literature of that particular subject.
Because this is not just a spirit sleeping, waiting for the resurrection that is being promoted. This doctrine actually affects other crucial doctrines, such as eternal punishment and eternal life.
As I read the fundamental doctrines of Seventh Day Adventism, there are a few Scriptures either missing or purposely neglected which actually changes one's view on this particular subject, because they hold vital information on the afterlife. Before I go to that I'm going to walk us through the arguments and some biblical answers.
There is poetry in the Psalms, for instance Psalm 22:26:" The meek shall eat and be satisfied; they shall praise the Lord that seek him; your heart shall live forever." Now, logically, I don't think anyone takes this Scripture in its solid, literal sense or would believe that someone's physical heart is going to live forever while our body and our soul die. Our heart is not going to be outside our body living forever. The word heart obviously means something other than how we interpret it today. the intent of this word means something other than the physical organ. Proverbs 23:7 tells us as a man thinks in his heart, so is he, or Matt. 13:5, lest they should understand with their heart. Obviously there's an intent of this Scripture that means not just the physical organ.
Actually the word heart represents the inward man, his soul, his spirit, and is usually interchangeable throughout the Scriptures. Just as soul can be substituted for one's life, their heart, mind and body, so can the word heart. They are interchangeable throughout the Scriptures.
The main argument for those who promote soul-sleep are these: the word sleeping is for those who die, that it is unconsciousness (1 Thess.4:13-14, 1 Cor. 15:20,51). Some go so far to say that one's eternal destiny is determined, not at death, but later at the final judgment. And some will even claim that we can still repent, even in the afterlife. We don't find this is the Seventh Day Adventism but there are other groups that believe this kind of teaching.
So, let's look at the word sleep, because that's what's crucial here. What does sleep mean? The Bible uses this term when speaking of death in that the physical body, a dead body, looks very similar in this state. It's always referring to the physical body, not the soul. It is the appearance of the body that is sleeping, no one is able to see the spirit . It is also a term used exclusively for believers. The term sleeping, in reference to death, is not used for unbelievers. I find that to be crucial in understanding what the Bible is trying to portray to us when it says that the dead in Christ are sleeping.
Believers and unbelievers do not experience the same afterlife. So, sleeping is used for one who is in Christ, it is God' s viewpoint of a temporary suspension of physical activity, yet, there is a continuation of the mind and the soul, the personality.
Does the believer wake up in the resurrection? Is he put back in an immortal physical body? Yes, he is, yet, we never see a spirit resurrected because they have not died like the body. The term resurrection only applies to the body.
The Bible is very clear that the spirit can live outside the body. Angels can and do function outside a body and yet, they can also function within a body. We see they can possess people and actually there can be more than one spirit or fallen angels inside a body. Although this alone does not make a strong case for a continuation of an afterlife, it does show that a spirit can operate and function outside the body.
There are numerous passages that teach that humans are conscious after their death, so let's look at a few. Matt. 17:1-8 and Luke 9:28-36 are just a few of the passages on the transfiguration where we find Moses and Elijah appearing on the Mount with Jesus and a few of His disciples. Elijah was taken to heaven alive while Moses died a physical death, yet, Moses is consciously alive just like Elijah. Moses couldn't have been resurrected because Christ is to be the firstfruits of the resurrection and he had risen yet. While Christ raised may from the dead they were people that recently died not old Testament saints dead for hundred of years. There were others raised to life on earth on earth by Jesus only to die again later. But, here is someone who is dead for 1,500 years, so it isn't Moses' decomposed body brought back out of the ground as a resurrection, this was a spiritual appearance.
Jesus taught that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the living, not of the dead, referring to Exodus 3:5, I am who I am, insinuating that all these prophets were still living. This silenced the Sadducee’s who challenged Him on this matter because they did not believe in an afterlife. So we have Moses here, appearing in spirit. That is the only plausible explanation because, again, Jesus had to be the first body resurrected unto eternal in life in that way.
Paul himself relates a story in the New Testament In 2 Cor. 12:1-4 in which, fourteen years before, he was caught up to the third heaven. This is the place where God dwells. He calls this place Paradise and he was awed by the experience and the things that he heard but, he wasn't sure if this occurred in his body or without his body, so he wasn't sure if he was alive or dead when this event occurred. Now obviously, his corruptible body could not enter heaven since all must go through transformation to be able to function there. Mortal flesh is unable to enter heaven, as Jesus said, flesh and blood cannot enter, so there has to be some kind of transformation to enter in there.
What happens to believers, according to the Bible, at death? This is the question we're pondering about as far as soul-sleep. Do we just rest in the ground just like our body? What exactly happens to our body, what exactly happens to our soul? The Bible speaks about a material and immaterial part of man. We find in Gen. 3:19 our bodies are made of the earth and they return to the earth. In Phil. 1:23-24, Paul states that he desired to depart to be with Christ, which is far better. Now, Christ is in heaven, He's not in the ground, so if this was soul-sleep, he being with Christ, Christ would have to be in the ground. Paul goes on to say, nevertheless, to be in the flesh is more needful for you. so he wanted to stay to help out the saints in the church and fulfill his ministry.
We also find in 2 Peter 1:13, Peter talks about putting off his tabernacle, or tent, calling it a temporary dwelling place. James 2:26 tells us the body without the spirit is dead. He doesn't say the spirit also dies, he says the body without the spirit dies. In Gen. 35:18, speaking of Rachel, it tells us, her soul was departing and she died. The spirit exists afterwards and gives us life, when he leaves the body it dies. The body dies and goes back into the ground, yet the spirit continues on with a life of its own.
Eccl. 12: 6-7 describes in poetry the shattering of life, that the dust returns to earth, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. Yet, earlier, in verse 5, he writes a man goes to his eternal home and mourners go about the streets. So Solomon is speaking about those who turn to God as he started off this chapter, stating remember your Creator in the days of your youth, before difficult days come. And then he speaks about our eternal home. If it is sleep in the grave, as people are claiming, then that means we are going to stay in the grave, the ground, forever, if our soul actually sleeps. They are using this scripture in a way that it's an eternal home in the ground and we are never to be raised up. Of course, that is not what it means.
One of the scriptures they use is Eccl. 9:5, the dead know nothing. Now this is true, since it is the body that dies, that part of the man which dies and goes into the ground, knows nothing. But there is a part of man that flies away at death and returns to God who gave it, Psalm 90. So, Those who believe, go to rest in Christ. It couldn't mean only our breath since that would not go to God but to the atmosphere.
Many of the Old Testament Scriptures, rather that showing a state of unconsciousness of the soul, are really languages of appearance, that after death they had the inability to continue the process that was normal while they were here on earth in their bodies. So it is a language of appearance as man's perspective is looking at the body functions. Yet, in Heb. 9:27 we find after death, the judgment, in other words one goes either to heaven or to hell, and it is determined at death, not afterwards. So we go to rewards, to rest, or to punishment and eternal separation. Death is not a cessation of existence, but a separation of existence. We have choices to make now that will effect our eternal destiny. Jesus knew very well of this and he warned of it constantly.
Now, what of the Scripture in 1 Tim. 6:16 speaking of God, who alone has immortality? The Scripture applies mortal and immortality to one's bodily condition. It is the body that is mortal, never the soul, or spirit. For example, Paul writes in 1 Cor. 15: this mortal will put on immortality, speaking of the resurrection of our bodies. Likewise, in 1 Tim. 6:16, he's speaking of Jesus as the immortal God/man. Spirit, by its own nature, is a deathless entity. God is spirit, and so are angels. God is spirit and fashioned man in the image of Himself, and, while God has always existed, no beginning or end, he has given mankind a limited similarity, like Himself, something that lives on. The body is described as mortal the soul is never described in these terms. Paul states this mortal must put on immortality (1 Cor.15:53). He is speaking of a resurrected body just as it was said in 2 Pt.1:13 to put off this tent as a temporary dwelling. In. Rom. 6:9: "Knowing that Christ having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over him." Therefore 1 Tim.6:16 means he alone has immortality as his nature and being the first fruit raised in the resurrection.
In our human experience our spirit never feels old, no matter how old the body gets our spirit inside does not feel the same age. If one becomes an invalid it doesn’t affect their spirit, their spirit does not also become an invalid , it essentially is unaffected by the outer person it still is free. Science tells us our body renews all its cells every 7 years. If we were only our body we would have to relearn everything again because all of our knowledge is contained in the physical aspect of man. But this again is not so, even the bible shows people who died in heaven remembering and recognizing others.
The New Testament teaches Spirit existence after death as doctrine. James says the body without the spirit is dead not the spirit itself. For example, in Rev. 6:9-10, we see souls who have been slain, under the alter of God, asking the Lord to avenge them. We find they are conscious and they are speaking. The soul and personality of each one of us lives on. Jesus taught in Matt. 10:28, Fear not those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul, but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The Greek word for destruction, aplollumi, has numerous meanings. We have to look at the context it's put in. It can mean perish, lost, destroy, to render useless, or to give over to eternal misery, and I believe that is the correct rendition when we look at where he's saying the soul will be in the afterlife of those who disobey the Gospel.
In Matt. 25:46 there are those in the judgment who go into everlasting punishment and those who go into everlasting life. The same Greek word means eternal and forever. If there is no eternal punishment, then the same word that is applied for eternal life means there is no eternal life, ever. So the Greek, appropriated to both these places that destined for those who either believe or not believe, means eternal. Likewise in Luke 16, the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Jesus always used real-life situations to illustrate His teachings. In this story He actually names the person. Jesus does not teach fictitious stories and it's not a parable, in my opinion, because He actually names a person, which He did not do in parables.
These are living conditions in the afterlife of torment and peace. The New Covenant has revealed what was unclear in the Old Testament writings. 2 Cor. 4:16,18 tells us "though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. . . .While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." Now here, Paul applies the outer man to the temporal and the tabernacle we live in, and the inner man to the eternal. In the following verse he states, "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" Here is the scripture that is often neglected and, put in context, we find it fully elaborating on the continual existence of man, 2 Cor. 5:1-8. He sums it all up in verse 8 saying, we are always confident knowing that while we are home in the body we are absent from the Lord. and he goes on to say to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. When all our earthly tent is dissolved, we can be assured that we will be in the presence of the One we serve and we love here on earth We will be further clothed. This is the Scripture that is consistently neglected by those who promote soul-sleep. As in Phil.1:23 Paul states to be with Christ is far better. This would be impossible if we go to sleep in the ground with the body.
Likewise, in 1 Thess. 4:13-17, we are told that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him. Then he states, those who are alive will not precede those who have fallen asleep. The Lord from heaven will come down with a trumpet call and the dead in Christ will rise first. And then those who are alive will be caught up together with them in the air with the Lord forever.
Since the resurrection did not occur before this event, who is Jesus bringing with him from heaven? They don't have bodies, the resurrection hasn't occurred, so they are immaterial souls that will be united with their bodies at this resurrection event. They existed fellowshipping with the Lord in heaven. Jude says the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints. Paul describes this event in 1 Cor. 15:51 Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed. When? At the last trump. The dead are raised incorruptible, and then he goes on to describe that mortal will put on immortality. So he's talking about our bodies. Then death, he states, is swallowed up in victory; our souls are not dead because we were made alive in Christ.
Rom. 8:11 says, But if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who dwells in you.
There is a day of uniting with those who fell asleep in Christ, with their bodies to be transformed and live forever, and the hope of the believer is that, whether we live or die, we are to be with the Lord. It is stated in the Scriptures, I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, death, nor any other created thing shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is Christ Jesus our Lord.
If you're in Christ be persuaded, be encouraged, we have assurance. Yet, there are many other people all around us who don't have this assurance and I hope that we will be the ones to bring the good news to them. We should not sorrow as the world does (1 Thess.4:16-18)
http://www.letusreason.org/Doct15.htm
Is there an afterlife? There are two extremes that are used to distort the Bible doctrine of the intermediate state of the believer after death. One is Spiritism, that teaches everyone has an afterlife in heaven, so it doesn't matter at all what you believe here on earth. Within this is the belief that we can contact the dead. Those who die have not really passed on into another place away from earth, but they are living in the spirit world, a world which is a dimension right here on earth which we cannot see. In other words, they are among us, they are watching and helping us. The Bible clearly denies this fact by showing that there are two destinations in the afterlife, and none of these are related to any closeness to the living. We cannot contact them and they cannot contact us (Lk.16, Deut.18:10-12).
The other extreme is evolution, that this is all there is and that there is no afterlife, so we needn't consider what happens when we die. This is what Atheism teaches, that there is no eternality to our soul and we all just go back to the ground since that's what we're made of and there is no spirit or soul in man.
The Jehovah's Witness's teaching is quite similar to this since they believe that when you die both the soul and body are extinguished, the body taking longer to cease to exist, yet the soul is immediately snuffed out. Atheism also believes in anihilationism. The Devil, who invents these views, will use both ends to distort the truth. On one hand he has people choose to believe that there is no after life, and on the other he distorts it to say that we all go to the same place, no matter how we live or what we believe in our life right now everything will be alright.
So what exactly happens to us when we die? Is there an afterlife? Do we cease to exist as atheists say? Or does life continue on as the spiritualists state, with everyone ending up in the same place where we will all be comfortable? Throughout the history of mankind, the afterlife has been an enigma. Almost all religions believe in an afterlife, some quality of life in the spiritual realm that exists afterwards, either in a nebulous world or in having an abundant life in a place called heaven. The immortality of the soul is something hoped for by all people. This has also been a subject debated within the church for centuries. Does the Bible teach existence after death, or do we cease to exist, as Jehovah's Witness claim? And what of the soul-sleep of the Seventh Day Adventists?
First, let's look at what the Jehovah Witnesses believe. This comes from Charles Taze Russell being influenced by what was called Second Adventism, (meaning the second advent). This is before they became the Seventh Day Adventists where they based themselves on the Sabbath day belief. Jehovah Witnesses believe that when someone dies their personality and life is so united with the body that it ceases to exist. This not only occurs with believers, but also non-believers and with Jesus, so God has to refashion everyone by memory.
What we're dealing with here is re-creation. What they have is not a resurrection, because the individual's body and soul are carbon copied to exist later on Paradise Earth. This is what they teach as their good news of the kingdom. Everyone is going to live on paradise earth one day. one of the problems is if you die before the resurrection, well, you won't be there. You will not participate in the new earth because God will copy you from memory and your duplicate will be enjoying all the benefits of all your hard work for the kingdom. Of course, none of this is biblical, it's all fantasy and never going to happen. If we ask the Jehovah's Witness about this and explain this to those who come to our door it can strongly affect their false belief system and make them question what hope they have as a Jehovah Witness. So annihilations, which is what they teach, is not a biblical answer for how God deals with the after life of the soul and the body.
When we come to the subject of soul-sleep we find this view has been sporadically held throughout church history. The Ana-Baptists believed in this in the 1500's. King Edward VI stated in his fortieth article out of forty-two, that "The souls that do depart hence do sleep, being without all sense, feeling, or perceiving until the day of judgment, do utterly decent from the right that is closed to us in Holy Scriptures."
In modern times we have two well known major groups that hold to this teaching. One is Christadelphianism and the other is Seventh Day Adventism. Soul-sleep is the denial of man's conscious existence between when he dies and the resurrection day. It's what is called the intermediate state of the believer, in which their view is both the body and the soul lay rest in the ground.
Christadelphian's deny the existence of hell and they hold to what is called conditional immortality, as do the Seventh Day Adventists. What most groups do, who deny an immortal existence either with the Lord or in punishment in the hereafter, end up camping on the Old Testament Scriptures to prove their points.
We need to understand that there are a number of mysteries in the Bible that were not fully revealed until Christ came. This doctrine comes under that heading. It was concealed in the Old Testament and revealed in the New Testament. What most people do is look to the Old Testament Scriptures to validate this teaching such as Eccl. 9:5-6, "For the living know they shall die: but the dead know not any thing," or Psalm 146:4, "His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish". Or Psalm 115:17, "The dead do not praise the Lord, nor any who go down into silence" or Psalm 6:5 "For in death there is no remembrance of Thee; in the grave who shall give Thee thanks? And of course, there is Ezek. 18:4, "the soul that sinneth, it shall die. "From these Scriptures and many others, the Seventh Day Adventists and other groups make their air-tight case that death is a peaceful sleep for the soul. Well, actually, it's not so air-tight, it's more like Swiss cheese. This means that it is spiritual death, a separation not a non existence. Otherwise they would cease to exist as soon as they sin. There are many scripture that say the soul is dead even when someone is alive, he is dead even when alive
When someone does a study on this or any other subject, they need to take all the body of literature and weigh it out and see which covenant these things were spoken under, are they a metaphor, is it a hyperbole, is it poetic? To make biblical sense out of this serious issue, we need to look at all the literature of that particular subject.
Because this is not just a spirit sleeping, waiting for the resurrection that is being promoted. This doctrine actually affects other crucial doctrines, such as eternal punishment and eternal life.
As I read the fundamental doctrines of Seventh Day Adventism, there are a few Scriptures either missing or purposely neglected which actually changes one's view on this particular subject, because they hold vital information on the afterlife. Before I go to that I'm going to walk us through the arguments and some biblical answers.
There is poetry in the Psalms, for instance Psalm 22:26:" The meek shall eat and be satisfied; they shall praise the Lord that seek him; your heart shall live forever." Now, logically, I don't think anyone takes this Scripture in its solid, literal sense or would believe that someone's physical heart is going to live forever while our body and our soul die. Our heart is not going to be outside our body living forever. The word heart obviously means something other than how we interpret it today. the intent of this word means something other than the physical organ. Proverbs 23:7 tells us as a man thinks in his heart, so is he, or Matt. 13:5, lest they should understand with their heart. Obviously there's an intent of this Scripture that means not just the physical organ.
Actually the word heart represents the inward man, his soul, his spirit, and is usually interchangeable throughout the Scriptures. Just as soul can be substituted for one's life, their heart, mind and body, so can the word heart. They are interchangeable throughout the Scriptures.
The main argument for those who promote soul-sleep are these: the word sleeping is for those who die, that it is unconsciousness (1 Thess.4:13-14, 1 Cor. 15:20,51). Some go so far to say that one's eternal destiny is determined, not at death, but later at the final judgment. And some will even claim that we can still repent, even in the afterlife. We don't find this is the Seventh Day Adventism but there are other groups that believe this kind of teaching.
So, let's look at the word sleep, because that's what's crucial here. What does sleep mean? The Bible uses this term when speaking of death in that the physical body, a dead body, looks very similar in this state. It's always referring to the physical body, not the soul. It is the appearance of the body that is sleeping, no one is able to see the spirit . It is also a term used exclusively for believers. The term sleeping, in reference to death, is not used for unbelievers. I find that to be crucial in understanding what the Bible is trying to portray to us when it says that the dead in Christ are sleeping.
Believers and unbelievers do not experience the same afterlife. So, sleeping is used for one who is in Christ, it is God' s viewpoint of a temporary suspension of physical activity, yet, there is a continuation of the mind and the soul, the personality.
Does the believer wake up in the resurrection? Is he put back in an immortal physical body? Yes, he is, yet, we never see a spirit resurrected because they have not died like the body. The term resurrection only applies to the body.
The Bible is very clear that the spirit can live outside the body. Angels can and do function outside a body and yet, they can also function within a body. We see they can possess people and actually there can be more than one spirit or fallen angels inside a body. Although this alone does not make a strong case for a continuation of an afterlife, it does show that a spirit can operate and function outside the body.
There are numerous passages that teach that humans are conscious after their death, so let's look at a few. Matt. 17:1-8 and Luke 9:28-36 are just a few of the passages on the transfiguration where we find Moses and Elijah appearing on the Mount with Jesus and a few of His disciples. Elijah was taken to heaven alive while Moses died a physical death, yet, Moses is consciously alive just like Elijah. Moses couldn't have been resurrected because Christ is to be the firstfruits of the resurrection and he had risen yet. While Christ raised may from the dead they were people that recently died not old Testament saints dead for hundred of years. There were others raised to life on earth on earth by Jesus only to die again later. But, here is someone who is dead for 1,500 years, so it isn't Moses' decomposed body brought back out of the ground as a resurrection, this was a spiritual appearance.
Jesus taught that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the living, not of the dead, referring to Exodus 3:5, I am who I am, insinuating that all these prophets were still living. This silenced the Sadducee’s who challenged Him on this matter because they did not believe in an afterlife. So we have Moses here, appearing in spirit. That is the only plausible explanation because, again, Jesus had to be the first body resurrected unto eternal in life in that way.
Paul himself relates a story in the New Testament In 2 Cor. 12:1-4 in which, fourteen years before, he was caught up to the third heaven. This is the place where God dwells. He calls this place Paradise and he was awed by the experience and the things that he heard but, he wasn't sure if this occurred in his body or without his body, so he wasn't sure if he was alive or dead when this event occurred. Now obviously, his corruptible body could not enter heaven since all must go through transformation to be able to function there. Mortal flesh is unable to enter heaven, as Jesus said, flesh and blood cannot enter, so there has to be some kind of transformation to enter in there.
What happens to believers, according to the Bible, at death? This is the question we're pondering about as far as soul-sleep. Do we just rest in the ground just like our body? What exactly happens to our body, what exactly happens to our soul? The Bible speaks about a material and immaterial part of man. We find in Gen. 3:19 our bodies are made of the earth and they return to the earth. In Phil. 1:23-24, Paul states that he desired to depart to be with Christ, which is far better. Now, Christ is in heaven, He's not in the ground, so if this was soul-sleep, he being with Christ, Christ would have to be in the ground. Paul goes on to say, nevertheless, to be in the flesh is more needful for you. so he wanted to stay to help out the saints in the church and fulfill his ministry.
We also find in 2 Peter 1:13, Peter talks about putting off his tabernacle, or tent, calling it a temporary dwelling place. James 2:26 tells us the body without the spirit is dead. He doesn't say the spirit also dies, he says the body without the spirit dies. In Gen. 35:18, speaking of Rachel, it tells us, her soul was departing and she died. The spirit exists afterwards and gives us life, when he leaves the body it dies. The body dies and goes back into the ground, yet the spirit continues on with a life of its own.
Eccl. 12: 6-7 describes in poetry the shattering of life, that the dust returns to earth, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. Yet, earlier, in verse 5, he writes a man goes to his eternal home and mourners go about the streets. So Solomon is speaking about those who turn to God as he started off this chapter, stating remember your Creator in the days of your youth, before difficult days come. And then he speaks about our eternal home. If it is sleep in the grave, as people are claiming, then that means we are going to stay in the grave, the ground, forever, if our soul actually sleeps. They are using this scripture in a way that it's an eternal home in the ground and we are never to be raised up. Of course, that is not what it means.
One of the scriptures they use is Eccl. 9:5, the dead know nothing. Now this is true, since it is the body that dies, that part of the man which dies and goes into the ground, knows nothing. But there is a part of man that flies away at death and returns to God who gave it, Psalm 90. So, Those who believe, go to rest in Christ. It couldn't mean only our breath since that would not go to God but to the atmosphere.
Many of the Old Testament Scriptures, rather that showing a state of unconsciousness of the soul, are really languages of appearance, that after death they had the inability to continue the process that was normal while they were here on earth in their bodies. So it is a language of appearance as man's perspective is looking at the body functions. Yet, in Heb. 9:27 we find after death, the judgment, in other words one goes either to heaven or to hell, and it is determined at death, not afterwards. So we go to rewards, to rest, or to punishment and eternal separation. Death is not a cessation of existence, but a separation of existence. We have choices to make now that will effect our eternal destiny. Jesus knew very well of this and he warned of it constantly.
Now, what of the Scripture in 1 Tim. 6:16 speaking of God, who alone has immortality? The Scripture applies mortal and immortality to one's bodily condition. It is the body that is mortal, never the soul, or spirit. For example, Paul writes in 1 Cor. 15: this mortal will put on immortality, speaking of the resurrection of our bodies. Likewise, in 1 Tim. 6:16, he's speaking of Jesus as the immortal God/man. Spirit, by its own nature, is a deathless entity. God is spirit, and so are angels. God is spirit and fashioned man in the image of Himself, and, while God has always existed, no beginning or end, he has given mankind a limited similarity, like Himself, something that lives on. The body is described as mortal the soul is never described in these terms. Paul states this mortal must put on immortality (1 Cor.15:53). He is speaking of a resurrected body just as it was said in 2 Pt.1:13 to put off this tent as a temporary dwelling. In. Rom. 6:9: "Knowing that Christ having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over him." Therefore 1 Tim.6:16 means he alone has immortality as his nature and being the first fruit raised in the resurrection.
In our human experience our spirit never feels old, no matter how old the body gets our spirit inside does not feel the same age. If one becomes an invalid it doesn’t affect their spirit, their spirit does not also become an invalid , it essentially is unaffected by the outer person it still is free. Science tells us our body renews all its cells every 7 years. If we were only our body we would have to relearn everything again because all of our knowledge is contained in the physical aspect of man. But this again is not so, even the bible shows people who died in heaven remembering and recognizing others.
The New Testament teaches Spirit existence after death as doctrine. James says the body without the spirit is dead not the spirit itself. For example, in Rev. 6:9-10, we see souls who have been slain, under the alter of God, asking the Lord to avenge them. We find they are conscious and they are speaking. The soul and personality of each one of us lives on. Jesus taught in Matt. 10:28, Fear not those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul, but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The Greek word for destruction, aplollumi, has numerous meanings. We have to look at the context it's put in. It can mean perish, lost, destroy, to render useless, or to give over to eternal misery, and I believe that is the correct rendition when we look at where he's saying the soul will be in the afterlife of those who disobey the Gospel.
In Matt. 25:46 there are those in the judgment who go into everlasting punishment and those who go into everlasting life. The same Greek word means eternal and forever. If there is no eternal punishment, then the same word that is applied for eternal life means there is no eternal life, ever. So the Greek, appropriated to both these places that destined for those who either believe or not believe, means eternal. Likewise in Luke 16, the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Jesus always used real-life situations to illustrate His teachings. In this story He actually names the person. Jesus does not teach fictitious stories and it's not a parable, in my opinion, because He actually names a person, which He did not do in parables.
These are living conditions in the afterlife of torment and peace. The New Covenant has revealed what was unclear in the Old Testament writings. 2 Cor. 4:16,18 tells us "though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. . . .While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." Now here, Paul applies the outer man to the temporal and the tabernacle we live in, and the inner man to the eternal. In the following verse he states, "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" Here is the scripture that is often neglected and, put in context, we find it fully elaborating on the continual existence of man, 2 Cor. 5:1-8. He sums it all up in verse 8 saying, we are always confident knowing that while we are home in the body we are absent from the Lord. and he goes on to say to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. When all our earthly tent is dissolved, we can be assured that we will be in the presence of the One we serve and we love here on earth We will be further clothed. This is the Scripture that is consistently neglected by those who promote soul-sleep. As in Phil.1:23 Paul states to be with Christ is far better. This would be impossible if we go to sleep in the ground with the body.
Likewise, in 1 Thess. 4:13-17, we are told that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him. Then he states, those who are alive will not precede those who have fallen asleep. The Lord from heaven will come down with a trumpet call and the dead in Christ will rise first. And then those who are alive will be caught up together with them in the air with the Lord forever.
Since the resurrection did not occur before this event, who is Jesus bringing with him from heaven? They don't have bodies, the resurrection hasn't occurred, so they are immaterial souls that will be united with their bodies at this resurrection event. They existed fellowshipping with the Lord in heaven. Jude says the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints. Paul describes this event in 1 Cor. 15:51 Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed. When? At the last trump. The dead are raised incorruptible, and then he goes on to describe that mortal will put on immortality. So he's talking about our bodies. Then death, he states, is swallowed up in victory; our souls are not dead because we were made alive in Christ.
Rom. 8:11 says, But if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who dwells in you.
There is a day of uniting with those who fell asleep in Christ, with their bodies to be transformed and live forever, and the hope of the believer is that, whether we live or die, we are to be with the Lord. It is stated in the Scriptures, I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, death, nor any other created thing shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is Christ Jesus our Lord.
If you're in Christ be persuaded, be encouraged, we have assurance. Yet, there are many other people all around us who don't have this assurance and I hope that we will be the ones to bring the good news to them. We should not sorrow as the world does (1 Thess.4:16-18)
What's So Pernicious About Soul Sleep?
Part 1.
"So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord."
(2 Corinthians 5:6-8)
"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body" (Philippians 1:21-24).
"While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep" (Acts 7:59-60).
Well, it is interesting what things strike a cord with the readers of my blogs and essay's. My recent work entitled, "Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church a Cult?" even drew Nathan Hitchcock, my old "Cross Talk" co-host on Biola's KBBK's radio station into the fray, as well as Biblical Unitarian Patrick Navas. These fine gentlemen and others have asked me essentially, what is so "pernicious" about the doctrine of "Soul Sleep" espoused by Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians and other abberant religious groups.
The doctrine of Soul Sleep or unconscious temporal mortality essentially postulates the wayward thesis that human beings do not possess immortal souls, rather their souls are their physical existence and when the body dies, the soul goes to the grave to wait the resurrection. Some heretical cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Christadelphians teach, the soul goes to the grave, subsequently those who are righteous are risen at the resurrection and those who are evil are anniliated.
For the sake of time, I will limit the scope of this response essay to the doctrine of "Soul Sleep" exclusively and exclude the additional conception of annilationism, since not all advocates of "Soul Sleep" necessarily espouse the doctrine that the soul of the wicked is annilated at the resurrection. If time and interest arises for me to take on the issue of annilationism, I shall.
Now, the doctrine of Soul Sleep is "pernicious" or destructive because it is contrary to the Bible's explicit teaching that, "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord", that is, the Bible clearly teaches that the soul of a Christian immediately goes to heaven to be with Christ. Thus, the souls of redeemed people immediately are with Jesus Christ in heaven and are not "sleeping" or in a state of unconsciousness. Paul said to be "absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" and that he had a "desire to depart to be with Christ." Yet, the main argument for those who promote soul-sleep are these: the word sleeping is for those who die, that it is unconsciousness (1 Thess.4:13-14, 1 Cor. 15:20,51).
In the days ahead, I will further develop my thoughts on "soul sleep" I am in Hawaii, so be patient with me, I'll get to this little by little until I develop a full essay on the immortality of the soul.
"So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord."
(2 Corinthians 5:6-8)
"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body" (Philippians 1:21-24).
"While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep" (Acts 7:59-60).
Well, it is interesting what things strike a cord with the readers of my blogs and essay's. My recent work entitled, "Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church a Cult?" even drew Nathan Hitchcock, my old "Cross Talk" co-host on Biola's KBBK's radio station into the fray, as well as Biblical Unitarian Patrick Navas. These fine gentlemen and others have asked me essentially, what is so "pernicious" about the doctrine of "Soul Sleep" espoused by Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians and other abberant religious groups.
The doctrine of Soul Sleep or unconscious temporal mortality essentially postulates the wayward thesis that human beings do not possess immortal souls, rather their souls are their physical existence and when the body dies, the soul goes to the grave to wait the resurrection. Some heretical cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Christadelphians teach, the soul goes to the grave, subsequently those who are righteous are risen at the resurrection and those who are evil are anniliated.
For the sake of time, I will limit the scope of this response essay to the doctrine of "Soul Sleep" exclusively and exclude the additional conception of annilationism, since not all advocates of "Soul Sleep" necessarily espouse the doctrine that the soul of the wicked is annilated at the resurrection. If time and interest arises for me to take on the issue of annilationism, I shall.
Now, the doctrine of Soul Sleep is "pernicious" or destructive because it is contrary to the Bible's explicit teaching that, "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord", that is, the Bible clearly teaches that the soul of a Christian immediately goes to heaven to be with Christ. Thus, the souls of redeemed people immediately are with Jesus Christ in heaven and are not "sleeping" or in a state of unconsciousness. Paul said to be "absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" and that he had a "desire to depart to be with Christ." Yet, the main argument for those who promote soul-sleep are these: the word sleeping is for those who die, that it is unconsciousness (1 Thess.4:13-14, 1 Cor. 15:20,51).
In the days ahead, I will further develop my thoughts on "soul sleep" I am in Hawaii, so be patient with me, I'll get to this little by little until I develop a full essay on the immortality of the soul.
Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church a Cult?
"But examine everything carefully, hold fast to the truth"
(1 Thessalonians 5:21).
The weather has been fantastic here on Oahu and the other day, while taking King Kameamea hwy to north shore to experience the famous "surfing beaches" such as Pipeline, I saw a rather large Seventh Day Adventist Church on the north side of this beautiful island paradise and I realized that even being more than 2,500 miles from home that I cannot escape the reality of Biblical truth and false teaching. After seeing the Seventh Day Adventist Church my mind began to ponder the following...
I have noticed that the Seventh Day Adventist Church (SDA) has a significant presence here in Oahu. Here are some of my thoughts on the Seventh Day Adventist Church and American Evangelicalism.
In today's postmodern world, the notion of absolute truth has been all but eviscerated from the collective consciousnesses of the vast majority of citizens now residing in contemporary society. Even more so, the very idea of an Evangelical body of doctrinal specificity and theological exactitude that determines the criterion of Biblical orthodoxy and heresy is voraciously deemed irrelevant, abhorrent and the height of Fundamentalist obstructionism by the atheistic and humanistic liberal intelligentsia that sets the ideological trends in our society.
Even in most quarters of today's Evangelical Christian Church in America, doctrinal precision and personal stands for conscience sake and doctrinal integrity goes against the grain and ecclesiastical expectations of today's theologically lapsed, seeker sensitive, pragmatic and emergent church orientated churches.
However, in diametrical counter distinction to this ad hoc doctrinal relativism, the Evangelical Christian Church since its inception has always been founded on and greatly concerned about Biblical truth. The Evangelical Christian Church is founded on the Biblical and revelational proposition that an "Evangelical theology" is possible.
That is, in direct ideological opposition to contemporary post modernistic anti-doctrinarism, historic Christianity maintains and espouses that Almighty God does exist and has spoken specifically, propositionally and coherently to human civilization in the perfectly and uniquely inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative and self-authenticating Word of Almighty God (2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:18-21).
Having established that the Bible alone is the Evangelical Christians absolute and only standard of truth and in attempt to answer the question that serves as the eponymous title of this theological essay entitled, "Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church a Cult?” a specific Biblical criterion and definition of what Evangelicals mean by "cult" must be first determined. In other words, "what is a cult?"
While the term “cult” is not used within the pages of inspired Biblical Writ, the concept of heresy and false teaching is and Conservative Evangelical Christians residing within the North American Hemisphere have generally utilized the term "cult" to personify any religious group or sect that teaches a doctrine or dogma that is heretical. Heresy, according to the Oxford Dictionary is a theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary to the Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church.
The pages of Holy Scripture and the written annals of ecclesiastical history are replete with a myriad of examples of heretical sects and aberrant groups that have arisen to teach unsound doctrines to draw away members of the true Church of Christ. The Arians, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are among those pernicious heretical sects who have been successful in drawing away members from the Faithful. (Matthew 7:13-15, Matthew 24:1-44, Acts 20, Galatians 1, 1 John 3-4 and Jude are chapters in the Bible that deal with this conception of false teachers and heretical doctrine being propagated amongst the elect.
Generally, a “cult” or heretical sect will teach egregious errors contrary to established Christian doctrine and in particular will be heretical concerning the triune God (they will deny the Trinity), justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone based on the authority of the Bible alone. And finally most cultic sects will supplant and replace the authority of the Bible with their own derived authority such as the Book of Mormon.
Now, in the case of the Seventh Day Adventist organization, (from here on mentioned as SDA) a tremendous debate has raged within conservative Evangelicalism over the doctrinal status of the SDA Church. For example, Anthony A. Hoekema, in his book, the Four Major Cults, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963, Hoekema argues that the SDA is definitely heretical and a cult, yet the late Evangelical cult expert Walter Martin in his book “The Kingdom of the Cults, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1965, argues that while the SDA has several serious doctrinal problems, Martin would not place the SDA in the same category as other groups deemed “cultic” such as the LDS Church and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In contemporary conservative Evangelical circles this same difference of opinion still remains as to how Biblical Evangelicals should view the SDA church.
In the face of this debate within contemporary Evangelicalism over the doctrinal and ecclesiastical status of the SDA church, the question immediately arises, “Why the Evangelical Disagreement over the Seventh Day Adventist Church?”
The issue of doctrinal status of the SDA church and how Biblical Evangelical Christians should regard Seventh Day Adventists is a complex one and every SDA member must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Some members or more biblical than others.
The SDA church is a religious organization that is well known for teaching that observing Saturday, the seventh day of the week is a universal and transcendent mandate for all humanity and that God commands all people to keep Saturday as the Sabbath.
The SDA movement was established in 1863 and grew out of the “Millerite Movement” in the mid 1800’s that gained enormous popularity when a Baptist minister named William Miller (1782-1849) sensationally predicted that Jesus Christ would return on October 22, 1844.
When the Second Coming of Christ (the Second Advent) did not occur a major disappointment occurred with many of Millers followers leaving the movement. However a significant portion of Miller's disciples remained within the movement and eventually began to follow a woman that many SDA believed to be a divinely inspired prophet named Ellen G. White (1827-1815).
During Ellen G. White's lifetime she was a prolific author (wrote 40 books, 5,000 journal articles and over 50,000 written pages in total) and undisputed prophetic leader of the SDA movement that now numbers over 14 million people worldwide.
Among the aberrant teachings of Ellen G. White and the SDA are as follows (From the Official SDA Website)
see: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html
1. Sabbath Keeping is Mandatory:
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)
2. Levitical Dietary Laws
"Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures."
3. Soul Sleep (the dead are unconscious until the Second Coming)
The wages of sin is death. But God, who alone is immortal, will grant eternal life to His redeemed. Until that day death is an unconscious state for all people. When Christ, who is our life, appears, the resurrected righteous and the living righteous will be glorified and caught up to meet their Lord. The second resurrection, the resurrection of the unrighteous, will take place a thousand years later. (Rom. 6:23; 1 Tim. 6:15, 16; Eccl. 9:5, 6; Ps. 146:3, 4; John 11:11-14; Col. 3:4; 1 Cor. 15:51-54; 1 Thess. 4:13-17; John 5:28, 29; Rev. 20:1-10.)
4. The Authority of Ellen G. White
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)
5. Investigative Judgment
There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent. (Heb. 8:1-5; 4:14-16; 9:11-28; 10:19-22; 1:3; 2:16, 17; Dan. 7:9-27; 8:13, 14; 9:24-27; Num. 14:34; Eze. 4:6; Lev. 16; Rev. 14:6, 7; 20:12; 14:12; 22:12.)
Conclusion
Many people over the years have asked me what I thought about the SDA Church. While the issue is complex, I generally believe there is enough false and destructive teaching in the SDA religion, that people should be very cautious about attending a SDA church. Sabbath Keeping, Keeping Old Testament Dietary Laws, Soul Sleep, the role of Ellen G. White and the Unbiblical and unwarranted teaching of the "investigative judgment" are seriously aberrant and false teachings that every Christian should avoid. Whether or not the SDA religion is a cult or not, I cannot say for certain, but it's shown me enough for me to avoid it. The SDA concepts of Sabbatariansim, "investigative judgment" Ellen G. White's prophetic authority and the pernicious doctrine of "soul sleep" are aberrant at best and border on being heretical.
(1 Thessalonians 5:21).
The weather has been fantastic here on Oahu and the other day, while taking King Kameamea hwy to north shore to experience the famous "surfing beaches" such as Pipeline, I saw a rather large Seventh Day Adventist Church on the north side of this beautiful island paradise and I realized that even being more than 2,500 miles from home that I cannot escape the reality of Biblical truth and false teaching. After seeing the Seventh Day Adventist Church my mind began to ponder the following...
I have noticed that the Seventh Day Adventist Church (SDA) has a significant presence here in Oahu. Here are some of my thoughts on the Seventh Day Adventist Church and American Evangelicalism.
In today's postmodern world, the notion of absolute truth has been all but eviscerated from the collective consciousnesses of the vast majority of citizens now residing in contemporary society. Even more so, the very idea of an Evangelical body of doctrinal specificity and theological exactitude that determines the criterion of Biblical orthodoxy and heresy is voraciously deemed irrelevant, abhorrent and the height of Fundamentalist obstructionism by the atheistic and humanistic liberal intelligentsia that sets the ideological trends in our society.
Even in most quarters of today's Evangelical Christian Church in America, doctrinal precision and personal stands for conscience sake and doctrinal integrity goes against the grain and ecclesiastical expectations of today's theologically lapsed, seeker sensitive, pragmatic and emergent church orientated churches.
However, in diametrical counter distinction to this ad hoc doctrinal relativism, the Evangelical Christian Church since its inception has always been founded on and greatly concerned about Biblical truth. The Evangelical Christian Church is founded on the Biblical and revelational proposition that an "Evangelical theology" is possible.
That is, in direct ideological opposition to contemporary post modernistic anti-doctrinarism, historic Christianity maintains and espouses that Almighty God does exist and has spoken specifically, propositionally and coherently to human civilization in the perfectly and uniquely inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative and self-authenticating Word of Almighty God (2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:18-21).
Having established that the Bible alone is the Evangelical Christians absolute and only standard of truth and in attempt to answer the question that serves as the eponymous title of this theological essay entitled, "Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church a Cult?” a specific Biblical criterion and definition of what Evangelicals mean by "cult" must be first determined. In other words, "what is a cult?"
While the term “cult” is not used within the pages of inspired Biblical Writ, the concept of heresy and false teaching is and Conservative Evangelical Christians residing within the North American Hemisphere have generally utilized the term "cult" to personify any religious group or sect that teaches a doctrine or dogma that is heretical. Heresy, according to the Oxford Dictionary is a theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary to the Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church.
The pages of Holy Scripture and the written annals of ecclesiastical history are replete with a myriad of examples of heretical sects and aberrant groups that have arisen to teach unsound doctrines to draw away members of the true Church of Christ. The Arians, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are among those pernicious heretical sects who have been successful in drawing away members from the Faithful. (Matthew 7:13-15, Matthew 24:1-44, Acts 20, Galatians 1, 1 John 3-4 and Jude are chapters in the Bible that deal with this conception of false teachers and heretical doctrine being propagated amongst the elect.
Generally, a “cult” or heretical sect will teach egregious errors contrary to established Christian doctrine and in particular will be heretical concerning the triune God (they will deny the Trinity), justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone based on the authority of the Bible alone. And finally most cultic sects will supplant and replace the authority of the Bible with their own derived authority such as the Book of Mormon.
Now, in the case of the Seventh Day Adventist organization, (from here on mentioned as SDA) a tremendous debate has raged within conservative Evangelicalism over the doctrinal status of the SDA Church. For example, Anthony A. Hoekema, in his book, the Four Major Cults, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963, Hoekema argues that the SDA is definitely heretical and a cult, yet the late Evangelical cult expert Walter Martin in his book “The Kingdom of the Cults, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1965, argues that while the SDA has several serious doctrinal problems, Martin would not place the SDA in the same category as other groups deemed “cultic” such as the LDS Church and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In contemporary conservative Evangelical circles this same difference of opinion still remains as to how Biblical Evangelicals should view the SDA church.
In the face of this debate within contemporary Evangelicalism over the doctrinal and ecclesiastical status of the SDA church, the question immediately arises, “Why the Evangelical Disagreement over the Seventh Day Adventist Church?”
The issue of doctrinal status of the SDA church and how Biblical Evangelical Christians should regard Seventh Day Adventists is a complex one and every SDA member must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Some members or more biblical than others.
The SDA church is a religious organization that is well known for teaching that observing Saturday, the seventh day of the week is a universal and transcendent mandate for all humanity and that God commands all people to keep Saturday as the Sabbath.
The SDA movement was established in 1863 and grew out of the “Millerite Movement” in the mid 1800’s that gained enormous popularity when a Baptist minister named William Miller (1782-1849) sensationally predicted that Jesus Christ would return on October 22, 1844.
When the Second Coming of Christ (the Second Advent) did not occur a major disappointment occurred with many of Millers followers leaving the movement. However a significant portion of Miller's disciples remained within the movement and eventually began to follow a woman that many SDA believed to be a divinely inspired prophet named Ellen G. White (1827-1815).
During Ellen G. White's lifetime she was a prolific author (wrote 40 books, 5,000 journal articles and over 50,000 written pages in total) and undisputed prophetic leader of the SDA movement that now numbers over 14 million people worldwide.
Among the aberrant teachings of Ellen G. White and the SDA are as follows (From the Official SDA Website)
see: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html
1. Sabbath Keeping is Mandatory:
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)
2. Levitical Dietary Laws
"Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures."
3. Soul Sleep (the dead are unconscious until the Second Coming)
The wages of sin is death. But God, who alone is immortal, will grant eternal life to His redeemed. Until that day death is an unconscious state for all people. When Christ, who is our life, appears, the resurrected righteous and the living righteous will be glorified and caught up to meet their Lord. The second resurrection, the resurrection of the unrighteous, will take place a thousand years later. (Rom. 6:23; 1 Tim. 6:15, 16; Eccl. 9:5, 6; Ps. 146:3, 4; John 11:11-14; Col. 3:4; 1 Cor. 15:51-54; 1 Thess. 4:13-17; John 5:28, 29; Rev. 20:1-10.)
4. The Authority of Ellen G. White
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)
5. Investigative Judgment
There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent. (Heb. 8:1-5; 4:14-16; 9:11-28; 10:19-22; 1:3; 2:16, 17; Dan. 7:9-27; 8:13, 14; 9:24-27; Num. 14:34; Eze. 4:6; Lev. 16; Rev. 14:6, 7; 20:12; 14:12; 22:12.)
Conclusion
Many people over the years have asked me what I thought about the SDA Church. While the issue is complex, I generally believe there is enough false and destructive teaching in the SDA religion, that people should be very cautious about attending a SDA church. Sabbath Keeping, Keeping Old Testament Dietary Laws, Soul Sleep, the role of Ellen G. White and the Unbiblical and unwarranted teaching of the "investigative judgment" are seriously aberrant and false teachings that every Christian should avoid. Whether or not the SDA religion is a cult or not, I cannot say for certain, but it's shown me enough for me to avoid it. The SDA concepts of Sabbatariansim, "investigative judgment" Ellen G. White's prophetic authority and the pernicious doctrine of "soul sleep" are aberrant at best and border on being heretical.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Problem Texts
Hebrews 6
Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.
Calvin on Hebrews 6
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol44/htm/xii.ii.htm
Calvin on Romans 11
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol38/htm/xv.iv.htm
Calvin on James 4
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol45/htm/vi.vi.vii.htm
AW Pink on Hebrews 6
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Hebrews/hebrews_024.htm
Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.
Calvin on Hebrews 6
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol44/htm/xii.ii.htm
Calvin on Romans 11
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol38/htm/xv.iv.htm
Calvin on James 4
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol45/htm/vi.vi.vii.htm
AW Pink on Hebrews 6
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Hebrews/hebrews_024.htm
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Cornelius Van Til: Father of Presuppostional Apologetics
Cornelius Van Til (May 3, 1895 - April 17, 1987), born in Grootegast, the Netherlands, was a Christian philosopher, Reformed theologian, and presuppositional apologist.
Van Til was a graduate of Calvin College, Princeton Theological Seminary and Princeton University. He began teaching at Princeton, but shortly went with the conservative group who founded Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for forty-three years of his life as a professor of apologetics. He was also a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church from the 1930s until his death in 1987.
Van Til drew upon the works of Dutch Calvinist philosophers such as D. H. Th. Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd and theologians such as Herman Bavinck to bring together a fresh approach to Christian apologetics, which opposed the traditional methodology of reasoning on purportedly neutral grounds with the non-Christian. He did not particularly care for the label describing his approach as "presuppositional," which more accurately represents the apologetical method of Gordon Clark, but he (and his students) accepted it as a matter of convention because it is at least useful in grouping methods into those which deny neutrality and those which do not.
In Van Til: The Theologian, Frame, a sympathetic critic of Van Til, describes Van Til's contributions to Christian thought as comparable in magnitude to those of Immanuel Kant in non-Christian philosophy. He indicates that Van Til identified the disciplines of systematic theology and apologetics, seeing the former as a positive statement of the Christian faith and the latter as a defense of that statement -- "a difference in emphasis rather than of subject matter." Frame summarizes Van Til's legacy as one of new applications of traditional doctrines:
Unoriginal as his doctrinal formulations may be, his use of those formulations -- his application of them -- is often quite remarkable. The sovereignty of God becomes an epistemological, as well as a religious and metaphysical principle. The Trinity becomes the answer to the philosophical problem of the one and the many. Common grace becomes the key to a Christian philosophy of history. These new applications of familiar doctrines inevitably increase [Christians'] understanding of the doctrines themselves, for [they] come thereby to a new appreciation of what these doctrines demand of [them].
Similarly, Van Til's innovative application of the doctrines of total depravity and the ultimate authority of God led to his reforming of the discipline of apologetics. Specifically, he denied neutrality on the basis of the total depravity of man and the invasive effects of sin on man's reasoning ability (as per the usual Calvinistic understanding of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans), and he insisted that the Bible, which he viewed as a divinely inspired book, be trusted preeminently because he believed the Christian's ultimate commitment must rest on the ultimate authority of God.
As Frame says elsewhere, "the foundation of Van Til's system and its most persuasive principle" is a rejection of autonomy since "Christian thinking, like all of the Christian life, is subject to God's lordship" ("Van Til and the Ligonier Apologetic," p. 282). However, it is this very feature that has caused some Christian apologists to vehemently reject Van Til's approach. For instance, D. R. Trethewie describes Van Til's system as nothing more than "a priori dogmatic transcendental irrationalism, which he has attempted to give a Christian name to" (A Critique of Cornelius Van Til, p. 15).
Francis Schaeffer: American Evangelical of the Century
Francis A Schaeffer (January 30, 1912–May 15, 1984), an American Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor, is most famous for his writings and his establishment of the L'Abri community in Switzerland. Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted an orthodox Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics, which he believed would answer the questions of the age.
Immanuel Kant and Transcendental Idealism
Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804), was a German philosopher from Königsberg in East Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe and the last major philosopher of the Enlightenment.
Kant was a proponent of
Transcendental Idealism is the philosophy that makes us aware of the fact that the first and essential laws of this world that are presented to us are rooted in our brain and are therefore known a priori. It is called transcendental because it goes beyond the whole given phantasmagoria to the origin thereof. Therefore, as I have said, only the Critique of Pure Reason and generally the critical (that is to say, Kantian) philosophy are transcendental.
Schopenhauer
— Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume I, "Fragments for the History of Philosophy," § 13
Is Your Faith Rational or is Rationalism a Basis for Faith?
Rationalism is a philosophical doctrine that asserts that the truth can best be discovered by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching. Its original roots extend at least as far back as Plato. Rationalism has some similarities in ideology and intent to humanism and atheism, in that it aims to provide a framework for social and philosophical discourse outside of religious or supernatural beliefs; however, rationalism differs from both of these, in that:
As its name suggests, humanism is centered on the dignity and worth of people. While rationalism is a key component of humanism, there is also a strong ethical component in humanism that rationalism does not require. As a result, being a rationalist does not necessarily mean being a humanist.
Atheism, a disbelief or lack of belief in God, can be on any basis, or none at all, so it doesn't require rationalism. Furthermore, rationalism does not, in itself, affirm or deny atheism, although it does reject any belief based on faith alone. Modern-day rationalism is strongly correlated with atheism, although historically this was not so. Most—if not all—prominent rationalists today, including scientists such as Richard Dawkins and activists such as Sanal Edamaruku are atheists.
Outside of religious discussion, the discipline of rationalism may be applied more generally, for example to political or social issues. In these cases it is the rejection of emotion, tradition or fashionable belief which is the defining feature of the rationalist perspective.
During the middle of the twentieth century there was a strong tradition of organized rationalism, which was particularly influenced by free thinkers and intellectuals. In the United Kingdom, rationalism is represented by the Rationalist Press Association, founded in 1899.
Rationalism in this sense has little in common with the historical philosophy of continental rationalism expounded by René Descartes and Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz. British empiricism of the 17th and 18th Century and logical positivism of the early 20th Century, though starkly opposed to continental rationalism, are in certain respects compatible with rationalism in the present sense. Indeed, a reliance on empirical science is often considered a hallmark of modern rationalism.
Friday, June 30, 2006
American Episcopal rift over Gay Bishops Widens
NEW YORK - Two more Episcopal dioceses that consider gay relationships sinful are distancing themselves from the denomination by seeking oversight from fellow Anglicans overseas instead of the American church.
The Dioceses of Springfield, Ill., and Central Florida have joined three other dioceses in rejecting the authority of the Episcopal presiding bishop-elect — a step short of schism — and asking Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to assign them another leader.
Springfield Bishop Peter Beckwith said in a statement Friday that his diocese objects to Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who will be installed Nov. 4, because she supports ordaining partnered gays and blessing same-sex couples, among other reasons. Earlier this week, the Dioceses of Pittsburgh, South Carolina and San Joaquin, Calif. made similar statements.
The Episcopal Church, with more than 100 dioceses, is the U.S. branch of the global Anglican Communion, the association of churches that trace their roots to the Church of England.
As the communion's spiritual leader, Williams has been struggling to keep the fellowship unified despite deep differences over the Bible and sexuality.
He said this week that the divisions have become so deep that member churches who support ordaining gays may have to accept a lesser role in the communion to prevent a permanent break.
Who Shot Bobby Kennedy?
Almost 40 years have transpired since 1968 Democtratic Presidential front- runner Robert Kennedy was shot and killed by Sirhan Sirhan in a Los Angeles Hotel. Kennedy, then the junior senator from New York and fomer Attorney General of the United States under his older brother John F. Kennedy.
Many historians and other astute observers of American life and politics have often asked the question "What if Bobby Kennedy lived?"
1968 was one of the most turmoil filled years in American history and the country was almost torn apart over the Vietnam War.
The war in Southeast Asia had greatly divided the country and was very unpopular, so much so it caused then President Lyndon Baines Johnson not to seek re-election.
Bobby Kennedy was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War, if he had lived and won election as President in 1968, would he have stopped the war sooner? Would many American troops have survived?
An estimated 58,000 American men died in the War in Vietnam, if Bobby Kennedy became president would many of those men lived?
The Bible says in Ephesians 1:11 that" God works all things after the counsel of His will", so was not God ultimately responsible for the death of Bobby Kennedy and the continuation of the Vietnam War that ultimately came to an end in 1975 with the fall of Saigon?
So the question must be asked, "Who Shot Bobby Kennedy?"
Greg Bahnsen on Presuppostional Apologetics
The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection by Dr. Greg Bahnsen
It is indubitable that the resurrection of Jesus Christ has paramount significance for the history of redemption and for Christian theology (cf. Rom. 4:25; 1 Peter 1:3). It is also clear that this resurrection must be held by the Biblical Christian as one which took place in calendar time and involved Jesus' empirical body (cf. Luke. 24:39; 1 Cor. 15:4). Moreover, a decisive refutation of the resurrection would shatter the validity of the Christian faith (cf. 1 Cor. 15:14, 17).
Hence the Christian's affirmation of Christ's resurrection is not an empty assumption, dreamy speculation, or a timeless axiom. The Biblical faith is not indifferent to God's acts in history, nor is it pessimistic about evidences. The dead bones of Jesus will never be found, and the believer need never fear investigation into the facts. All facts are created facts which can be properly understood only when given the interpretation the Creator intends; as such, all facts demonstrate the truth of Christianity. So any and all relevant evidence pertaining to Jesus Christ's resurrection in history will be significant for the believer. And such evidence can have a role in his apologetical efforts.
However, a serious difficulty arises when the epistemological significance of the resurrection is separated from its soteriological function. It is correct to hold that God's raising of Jesus from the dead saves us both from sin and agnosticism, but it would be mistaken to understand by this that the epistemological problem could be handled independently of the (broader) moral problem which is at its base. It is with regret that one notices neo-evangelicals severing the justifying efficacy of Christ's resurrection from its truth-accrediting function. In reality, the latter is dependent upon the former. Only as Christ's resurrection (with its ensuing regeneration by the Holy Spirit of Christ) saves a sinner from his rebellion against God and God's word can it properly function to exhibit evidence for God's truthfulness.
Evangelicals are often prone to generate inductive arguments for the veracity of Christianity based on the historical resurrection of Christ, and such arguments occupy central importance in this apologetic. It is felt that if a man would simply consider the "facts" presented and use his common reasoning sense he would be rationally compelled to believe the truth of scripture. In such a case the evidences for Christ's resurrection are foundational to apologetical witnessing, whereas their only proper place is confirmatory of the believer's presupposed faith. There is a certain impropriety about attempting to move an opponent from his own circle into the circle of Christian belief by appealing to evidence for the resurrection, and there are many reasons why the evidentialist's building a case for Christianity upon neutral ground with the unbeliever ought to be avoided.
The first is the Lordship of Christ over the whole of the Christian's life, even his intellectual endeavors. Our every thought must be obedient to Christ (2 Cor. 10:5), and only when He is set apart as Lord in our thinking will we be able to offer a reason for the hope in us (1 Peter 3:15). The Christian cannot relinquish his submission to God's authority in order to reason upon some alleged neutral ground. God makes a radical demand on the believer's life which involves never demanding proof of God or trying Him. Even the Incarnate Son would not put God to the test, but rather relied upon the inscripturated word (cf. Matt. 4). The Christian does not look at the evidence impartially, standing on neutral ground with the unbeliever, waiting to see if the evidence warrants trust in God's truthfulness or not. Rather, he begins by submitting to the truth of God, preferring to view every man as a liar if he contradicts God's truthfulness or not.
Rather, he begins by submitting to the truth of God, preferring to view every man as a liar if he contradicts God's word (cf. Rom. 3:4). No one can demand proof from God, and the servant of the Lord should never give in to any such demand (and obviously, neither should he suggest that such a demand be made by the unbeliever). The apostles were certainly not afraid of evidence; yet we notice that they never argued on the basis of it.
They preached the resurrection without feeling any need to prove it to the skeptics; they unashamably appealed to it as fact. They explained the meaning of the resurrection, its significance, its fulfillment of prophecy, its centrality in theology, its redemptive power, its promise and assuring function - but they did not attempt to prove it by appealing to the "facts" which any "rational man" could use as satisfying scholarly requirements of credibility. By trying to build up a proof of the resurrection from unbiased grounds the Christian allows his witness to be absorbed into a pagan framework and reduces the antithesis between himself and the skeptic to a matter of a few particulars. The Christian world-view differs from that of unbelief at every point (when the skeptic is consistent with his avowed principles), and it is the only outlook which can account for factuality at all. The Christian apologete must present the full message of Christ with all of its challenge and not water it down in order to meet the unbeliever on his own faulty grounds.
Secondly there is a myriad of methodological problems which afflict an evidential argument for the resurrection which is foundational rather than confirmatory of a presupposition. We note immediately that an inductive (historical) argument rests for its validity on the premise of uniformity (past and present) in nature; this makes possible a consideration of an analogy of circumstance. Yet the very point which the evidentialist is trying to prove is that of miracle, i.e. discontinuity. So he is enmeshed in using a principle of continuity to establish the truth of discontinuity! When the evidentialist seeks to exhibit that the resurrection very probably occurred as a unique truth-attesting sign he is divided against himself.
Furthermore, since inductive argumentation is dependent upon the premise of uniformity, and since this premise can only be established by a Christian presupposing the truth of scripture (for Hume's skepticism has yet to be countered on anything but presuppositional grounds), the "evidentialist's" argument is really presuppositional at base anyway. The non-Christian has no right to expect regularity in nature and the honest skeptic knows it; so an inductive argument for the historical resurrection could only have been probative force for one who granted the truth of Christianity already. Next, we observe that probability is statistically predicated of a series in which an event reoccurs on a regular basis; that is, general probability might be proven for a reoccurring event, but the resurrection of Christ is a one-time event. Can probability be predicated of a particular occurrence? Not normally. Again, we note that in recent years the crucial role of paradigms for factual argumentation has become evident (cf. T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
Facts are "facts" for particular theories in which they function; hence the fact of Christ's resurrection can be granted and understood only within the Christian paradigm or presupposition. The rules of evidence and argumentation are not the same for a Christian and non-Christian; they will have different authorities for final appeals, different standards of proof, different sets of considerations which are assumed to be crucially relevant, etc. Hence a step by step argument from the supposition of the historical reliability in the resurrection accounts and its denial is not possible. Another brief indication of difficulty in the evidentialist's attempt to establish the resurrection of Christ is found in the logic of the argument if it be taken as intending to prove the possibility of indeterminacy and oddity in the universe or history; such an argument would point to a world ted by chance, whereas the scriptures clearly present God as sovereignly controlling everything by the word of His power. If oddity and chance become the crux of one's apologetic, then he has forfeited the orthodoxy of his witness. Finally, once the evidentialist has failed to maintain that Christianity is the only adequate basis for a meaningful interpretation of historical facts and not simply a working hypothesis which is "as plausible" as the next with respect to isolated facts, and once he has lowered his sights by appealing to the probability of scripture's truth, then he has left the door open for the skeptic's escape to considerations of possibility. If Christ only probably arose, then it is possible that the evidence adduced has a completely different interpretation; even if certain facts seem to point to the probable resurrection of Jesus, it is admitted that other evidence points to the disconfirmation of the gospel records! But this is not the Christian position, for according to it there is no possibility that Christ did not arise; this is a foundational, incorrigible fact as revealed in God's authoritative word.
Now even if the above considerations were put aside for a moment we would still have to see that the evidential argument for Christ's resurrection is unsuitable as the crux for our apologetic. Under cross-examination most of the considerations brought forth by evidentialists can be dismissed as overstated, gratuitous, or inconclusive. There is little if any basis for holding to a resurrection as probably taking place in the past and arguing that the witnesses are probably reliable is a completely different matter. It is also unsuitable for the intended aim of the argument, for the very place that the witnesses could be mistaken, deceptive, or distorted might be the very event under question! But even putting aside these things, the evidentialist may prove the historical resurrection of Christ, but he proves that it is simply an isolated and uninterpreted "freak" event in a contingent universe. He is still stranded on the far side of Lessing's ditch (i.e. the skeptic can grant that Christ arose and then simply ask what that odd, ancient fact has to do with his own present life and experience). The fact that Christ rose from the dead does not prove anything within the neutral framework of an evidentialist's argument. Christ's resurrection does not entail his deity, just as our future resurrection does not entail our divinity! And one could not argue that the first person to rise from the dead is God, for on that basis Lazarus would have greater claim to deity that Christ! The evidentialist may prove the resurrection of Jesus, but until he proves every other point of Christianity, then resurrection is an isolated, irrelevant, "brute" fact which is no aid to our apologetical efforts. Only within the system of Christian logic does the resurrection of Christ have meaning and implication; and that system of logical entailment and premises can only be used on a presuppositional basis - you do not argue into it. In terms of the evidentialist's approach to the unbeliever, that skeptic can accept the resurrection without flinching, for the resurrection is simply a random fact until a Christian foundation has been placed under it. Furthermore, in the past men like Reimarus and Paulus have utilized the same enlightened, scientific methodology as that of evidentialism and have concluded that Christ could not have rose from the dead. It is terribly unwise for the Christian to stake his apologetic on the shifting sands of "scientific" scholarship.
Scripture itself should be enough to dissuade a person from depending upon evidential arguments for Christ's resurrection. God's word makes clear that man's rebellion against the truth is morally, not intellectually, rooted. The sinner needs a changed heart and Spiritually opened eyes, not more facts and reasons. Moreover, proving the resurrection as a historical fact would have no effect as far as engendering belief in God's word.
The only tool an apologete needs is the word of God, for the sinner will either presuppose its truth and find Christianity to be coherent and convincing (given his spiritual condition and past experience) or he will reject it and never be able to come to a knowledge of the truth. "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31). God's word is sufficient in giving the sinner the necessary witness which can lead him to conversion; if he will not hear the inspired word of God, neither will he be moved by a human argument for the resurrection. A proof of the resurrection is certainly no more powerful than the living and bodily presence of the resurrected Savior before one's own eyes; yet we learn from Matthew 28:17 that even some of the eleven disciples of Christ doubted while in His resurrected presence! When one is not ready to submit to God's self-attesting word, no amount of evidence can persuade him - even compelling evidence for Christ's resurrection. When Christ met with two travelers on the road to Emmaus and found them doubtful about the resurrection, He rebuked them for being slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken (Luke 24:25). Rather than offering them compelling evidence for His resurrection (by immediately opening their eyes to recognize Him), He made their hearts burn within them by expounding to them the Scriptures.
Therefore, for moral, methodological, material, and pragmatic reasons we should see the impropriety of arguing for the resurrection of Christ in an evidentialist fashion. Although evidence has a part in the Christian apologetic, it is not the pivotal and foundational part. While we may momentarily silence the belligerent claim of the skeptic by showing that even on his tacit assumptions the resurrection is not a sheer impossibility (as evidence would indicate), our central defense of the faith had better be made of stronger stuff. As Paul at Athens, we must demand a complete, change of world-outlook and presupposition (based on the authority of God's word) and not just a mere addition of a few facts.
(For further reading on evidences in apologetics see C. Van Til's Christian-Theistic Evidences)
Biography on Greg Bahnsen
Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen was once described as "the man atheists fear most." He was a distinguished scholar, author, and Christian apologist. A graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (M.Div., Th.M.), he received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Southern California. While at Westminster, he had the privilege of studying under Dr. Cornelius Van Til, the father of presuppositionalism. He was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
He was the author of Theonomy in Christian Ethics, a unique treatise on the ongoing validity of the application of God's law for us today.He also authored No Other Standard - Thenomy and Its Critics and House Divided: The Breakup of Dispensational Theology with Dr. Kenneth Gentry.
He traveled extensively and had the opportunity to visit Moscow, Russia and bring the light of God's Word to bear on that needy society. At the time of his death in December, 1995, he was the resident scholar at the Southern California Center for Christian Studies in Irvine, CA.
See also interview with Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen at Contra Mundum. and Tribute to Greg Bahnsen
Applied Presuppositionalism Home
It is indubitable that the resurrection of Jesus Christ has paramount significance for the history of redemption and for Christian theology (cf. Rom. 4:25; 1 Peter 1:3). It is also clear that this resurrection must be held by the Biblical Christian as one which took place in calendar time and involved Jesus' empirical body (cf. Luke. 24:39; 1 Cor. 15:4). Moreover, a decisive refutation of the resurrection would shatter the validity of the Christian faith (cf. 1 Cor. 15:14, 17).
Hence the Christian's affirmation of Christ's resurrection is not an empty assumption, dreamy speculation, or a timeless axiom. The Biblical faith is not indifferent to God's acts in history, nor is it pessimistic about evidences. The dead bones of Jesus will never be found, and the believer need never fear investigation into the facts. All facts are created facts which can be properly understood only when given the interpretation the Creator intends; as such, all facts demonstrate the truth of Christianity. So any and all relevant evidence pertaining to Jesus Christ's resurrection in history will be significant for the believer. And such evidence can have a role in his apologetical efforts.
However, a serious difficulty arises when the epistemological significance of the resurrection is separated from its soteriological function. It is correct to hold that God's raising of Jesus from the dead saves us both from sin and agnosticism, but it would be mistaken to understand by this that the epistemological problem could be handled independently of the (broader) moral problem which is at its base. It is with regret that one notices neo-evangelicals severing the justifying efficacy of Christ's resurrection from its truth-accrediting function. In reality, the latter is dependent upon the former. Only as Christ's resurrection (with its ensuing regeneration by the Holy Spirit of Christ) saves a sinner from his rebellion against God and God's word can it properly function to exhibit evidence for God's truthfulness.
Evangelicals are often prone to generate inductive arguments for the veracity of Christianity based on the historical resurrection of Christ, and such arguments occupy central importance in this apologetic. It is felt that if a man would simply consider the "facts" presented and use his common reasoning sense he would be rationally compelled to believe the truth of scripture. In such a case the evidences for Christ's resurrection are foundational to apologetical witnessing, whereas their only proper place is confirmatory of the believer's presupposed faith. There is a certain impropriety about attempting to move an opponent from his own circle into the circle of Christian belief by appealing to evidence for the resurrection, and there are many reasons why the evidentialist's building a case for Christianity upon neutral ground with the unbeliever ought to be avoided.
The first is the Lordship of Christ over the whole of the Christian's life, even his intellectual endeavors. Our every thought must be obedient to Christ (2 Cor. 10:5), and only when He is set apart as Lord in our thinking will we be able to offer a reason for the hope in us (1 Peter 3:15). The Christian cannot relinquish his submission to God's authority in order to reason upon some alleged neutral ground. God makes a radical demand on the believer's life which involves never demanding proof of God or trying Him. Even the Incarnate Son would not put God to the test, but rather relied upon the inscripturated word (cf. Matt. 4). The Christian does not look at the evidence impartially, standing on neutral ground with the unbeliever, waiting to see if the evidence warrants trust in God's truthfulness or not. Rather, he begins by submitting to the truth of God, preferring to view every man as a liar if he contradicts God's truthfulness or not.
Rather, he begins by submitting to the truth of God, preferring to view every man as a liar if he contradicts God's word (cf. Rom. 3:4). No one can demand proof from God, and the servant of the Lord should never give in to any such demand (and obviously, neither should he suggest that such a demand be made by the unbeliever). The apostles were certainly not afraid of evidence; yet we notice that they never argued on the basis of it.
They preached the resurrection without feeling any need to prove it to the skeptics; they unashamably appealed to it as fact. They explained the meaning of the resurrection, its significance, its fulfillment of prophecy, its centrality in theology, its redemptive power, its promise and assuring function - but they did not attempt to prove it by appealing to the "facts" which any "rational man" could use as satisfying scholarly requirements of credibility. By trying to build up a proof of the resurrection from unbiased grounds the Christian allows his witness to be absorbed into a pagan framework and reduces the antithesis between himself and the skeptic to a matter of a few particulars. The Christian world-view differs from that of unbelief at every point (when the skeptic is consistent with his avowed principles), and it is the only outlook which can account for factuality at all. The Christian apologete must present the full message of Christ with all of its challenge and not water it down in order to meet the unbeliever on his own faulty grounds.
Secondly there is a myriad of methodological problems which afflict an evidential argument for the resurrection which is foundational rather than confirmatory of a presupposition. We note immediately that an inductive (historical) argument rests for its validity on the premise of uniformity (past and present) in nature; this makes possible a consideration of an analogy of circumstance. Yet the very point which the evidentialist is trying to prove is that of miracle, i.e. discontinuity. So he is enmeshed in using a principle of continuity to establish the truth of discontinuity! When the evidentialist seeks to exhibit that the resurrection very probably occurred as a unique truth-attesting sign he is divided against himself.
Furthermore, since inductive argumentation is dependent upon the premise of uniformity, and since this premise can only be established by a Christian presupposing the truth of scripture (for Hume's skepticism has yet to be countered on anything but presuppositional grounds), the "evidentialist's" argument is really presuppositional at base anyway. The non-Christian has no right to expect regularity in nature and the honest skeptic knows it; so an inductive argument for the historical resurrection could only have been probative force for one who granted the truth of Christianity already. Next, we observe that probability is statistically predicated of a series in which an event reoccurs on a regular basis; that is, general probability might be proven for a reoccurring event, but the resurrection of Christ is a one-time event. Can probability be predicated of a particular occurrence? Not normally. Again, we note that in recent years the crucial role of paradigms for factual argumentation has become evident (cf. T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
Facts are "facts" for particular theories in which they function; hence the fact of Christ's resurrection can be granted and understood only within the Christian paradigm or presupposition. The rules of evidence and argumentation are not the same for a Christian and non-Christian; they will have different authorities for final appeals, different standards of proof, different sets of considerations which are assumed to be crucially relevant, etc. Hence a step by step argument from the supposition of the historical reliability in the resurrection accounts and its denial is not possible. Another brief indication of difficulty in the evidentialist's attempt to establish the resurrection of Christ is found in the logic of the argument if it be taken as intending to prove the possibility of indeterminacy and oddity in the universe or history; such an argument would point to a world ted by chance, whereas the scriptures clearly present God as sovereignly controlling everything by the word of His power. If oddity and chance become the crux of one's apologetic, then he has forfeited the orthodoxy of his witness. Finally, once the evidentialist has failed to maintain that Christianity is the only adequate basis for a meaningful interpretation of historical facts and not simply a working hypothesis which is "as plausible" as the next with respect to isolated facts, and once he has lowered his sights by appealing to the probability of scripture's truth, then he has left the door open for the skeptic's escape to considerations of possibility. If Christ only probably arose, then it is possible that the evidence adduced has a completely different interpretation; even if certain facts seem to point to the probable resurrection of Jesus, it is admitted that other evidence points to the disconfirmation of the gospel records! But this is not the Christian position, for according to it there is no possibility that Christ did not arise; this is a foundational, incorrigible fact as revealed in God's authoritative word.
Now even if the above considerations were put aside for a moment we would still have to see that the evidential argument for Christ's resurrection is unsuitable as the crux for our apologetic. Under cross-examination most of the considerations brought forth by evidentialists can be dismissed as overstated, gratuitous, or inconclusive. There is little if any basis for holding to a resurrection as probably taking place in the past and arguing that the witnesses are probably reliable is a completely different matter. It is also unsuitable for the intended aim of the argument, for the very place that the witnesses could be mistaken, deceptive, or distorted might be the very event under question! But even putting aside these things, the evidentialist may prove the historical resurrection of Christ, but he proves that it is simply an isolated and uninterpreted "freak" event in a contingent universe. He is still stranded on the far side of Lessing's ditch (i.e. the skeptic can grant that Christ arose and then simply ask what that odd, ancient fact has to do with his own present life and experience). The fact that Christ rose from the dead does not prove anything within the neutral framework of an evidentialist's argument. Christ's resurrection does not entail his deity, just as our future resurrection does not entail our divinity! And one could not argue that the first person to rise from the dead is God, for on that basis Lazarus would have greater claim to deity that Christ! The evidentialist may prove the resurrection of Jesus, but until he proves every other point of Christianity, then resurrection is an isolated, irrelevant, "brute" fact which is no aid to our apologetical efforts. Only within the system of Christian logic does the resurrection of Christ have meaning and implication; and that system of logical entailment and premises can only be used on a presuppositional basis - you do not argue into it. In terms of the evidentialist's approach to the unbeliever, that skeptic can accept the resurrection without flinching, for the resurrection is simply a random fact until a Christian foundation has been placed under it. Furthermore, in the past men like Reimarus and Paulus have utilized the same enlightened, scientific methodology as that of evidentialism and have concluded that Christ could not have rose from the dead. It is terribly unwise for the Christian to stake his apologetic on the shifting sands of "scientific" scholarship.
Scripture itself should be enough to dissuade a person from depending upon evidential arguments for Christ's resurrection. God's word makes clear that man's rebellion against the truth is morally, not intellectually, rooted. The sinner needs a changed heart and Spiritually opened eyes, not more facts and reasons. Moreover, proving the resurrection as a historical fact would have no effect as far as engendering belief in God's word.
The only tool an apologete needs is the word of God, for the sinner will either presuppose its truth and find Christianity to be coherent and convincing (given his spiritual condition and past experience) or he will reject it and never be able to come to a knowledge of the truth. "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31). God's word is sufficient in giving the sinner the necessary witness which can lead him to conversion; if he will not hear the inspired word of God, neither will he be moved by a human argument for the resurrection. A proof of the resurrection is certainly no more powerful than the living and bodily presence of the resurrected Savior before one's own eyes; yet we learn from Matthew 28:17 that even some of the eleven disciples of Christ doubted while in His resurrected presence! When one is not ready to submit to God's self-attesting word, no amount of evidence can persuade him - even compelling evidence for Christ's resurrection. When Christ met with two travelers on the road to Emmaus and found them doubtful about the resurrection, He rebuked them for being slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken (Luke 24:25). Rather than offering them compelling evidence for His resurrection (by immediately opening their eyes to recognize Him), He made their hearts burn within them by expounding to them the Scriptures.
Therefore, for moral, methodological, material, and pragmatic reasons we should see the impropriety of arguing for the resurrection of Christ in an evidentialist fashion. Although evidence has a part in the Christian apologetic, it is not the pivotal and foundational part. While we may momentarily silence the belligerent claim of the skeptic by showing that even on his tacit assumptions the resurrection is not a sheer impossibility (as evidence would indicate), our central defense of the faith had better be made of stronger stuff. As Paul at Athens, we must demand a complete, change of world-outlook and presupposition (based on the authority of God's word) and not just a mere addition of a few facts.
(For further reading on evidences in apologetics see C. Van Til's Christian-Theistic Evidences)
Biography on Greg Bahnsen
Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen was once described as "the man atheists fear most." He was a distinguished scholar, author, and Christian apologist. A graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (M.Div., Th.M.), he received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Southern California. While at Westminster, he had the privilege of studying under Dr. Cornelius Van Til, the father of presuppositionalism. He was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
He was the author of Theonomy in Christian Ethics, a unique treatise on the ongoing validity of the application of God's law for us today.He also authored No Other Standard - Thenomy and Its Critics and House Divided: The Breakup of Dispensational Theology with Dr. Kenneth Gentry.
He traveled extensively and had the opportunity to visit Moscow, Russia and bring the light of God's Word to bear on that needy society. At the time of his death in December, 1995, he was the resident scholar at the Southern California Center for Christian Studies in Irvine, CA.
See also interview with Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen at Contra Mundum. and Tribute to Greg Bahnsen
Applied Presuppositionalism Home
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Is Superman America's Jesus Christ?
Superman or Super Idol? America's Obsession with Cinematic Idolatry
by Ed Enochs
Theological Nomad,
The Evangelical Debate Society
"Because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen" (Romans 1:25).
Today marks the nationwide release of the summer motion picture blockbuster, Superman Returns. As many American's rush towards the theaters to experience firsthand, the latest and greatest groovy cinematic exploits of the man from Krypton, I am left wondering if contemporary Americana's fixation on fictitious Super heroes in glorified pajama's, leaves me wondering if there isn't something inherent within humanity that longs for to worship a figure that is greater than the themselves.
The wild cultural popularity of this super hero genre of films that has emerged from Hollywood is a seeming verification of the eminent German theologian and comparative religion scholar Rudolf Otto's thesis in his seminal and epic sociological work entitled, The Idea of the Holy, wherein Otto argues that all people in all cultures at all times seek to worship something that transcends the mundane. Otto argues that all men and women, irrespective of social stature and geographical location seek the numinous, or a non-rational, non-sensory experience of feeling whose primary and immediate object of fixation is external or outside of ones self. Otto derived this conception based on the Latin "numen" (Deity).
Popular American culture's worship and fascination with make believe hero's demonstrates the innate depravity of the human heart wherein people generally worship the created thing or make up "god's" for themselves like Aaron making the golden calf for the children of Israel. A pagan god that gives them some sense of spiritual satisfaction without the accountability to the true and living God as revealed in Holy Scripture. This universal trend towards depravity and idolatry is what the Apostle Paul refers to in Romans chapter one when he writes under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit,
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (Romans 1:18-23).
While the general American populace does not worship idols made with hands (unless you count their obsession with bigger and better homes and SUV's) yet this transcendent depraved condition towards idolatry is witnesses by our culture's worship of music stars, sports players and movie stars.
As Christians in a postmodern world given over to style without substance, to worship without accountability, we must turn to the preeminece of Jesus Christ and avoid drinking the sweet , indulgent Kool Aid of popular American culture that is good old satanic idolatry in disguise.
"Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross" (Colossians 1:14-20).
We must turn from our idolatry and abject sinfulness towards the true and living God who sent His only begotten Son Jesus Christ into the world to die upon the cross for our sins and rise again from the dead to give us eternal life if we sincerely repent from our sins and believe in the Gospel.
"The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead" (Acts 17:30-31).
Help End Abortion Now!
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy, overturning all state laws outlawing or restricting abortion. It is one of the most controversial decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history. We here at the Evangelical Debate Society are dedicated to overturning Roe v. Wade and seeing the complete banning of Abortion throughout America.For more info on how you can help stop abortion now please log on to :http://www.nrlc.org/
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
In Defense of Martin Luther
The German Reformer Martin Luther is getting a lot bunk filled criticism in theological circles today, but we here at the Evangelical Debate Society, support Luther and agree with his essential theological thesis that:
"We are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone based on the authority of the Bible alone for the Glory of God alone."
I am Theologian X
Contemporary Iconoclasm- the destroyer of pop icons in postmodern Americana...
Iconoclasm is the destruction of religious icons and other symbols or monuments, usually for religious or political motives. In Christian circles, iconoclasm has generally been motivated by a literal interpretation of the second of the ten commandments, which forbids the making and worshipping of "graven images". It has sometimes been motivated by christological or even political concerns as well.
Westminster Confession on Predestination
CHAPTER III.
Of God's Eternal Decree.
I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.
V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.
VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.
Kurt Cobain, Nietzsche and the Kingdom of God
Nihilism...
is a philosophical position which argues that the world, and especially human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally believe all of the following: There is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" is unknown, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action is known to be preferable to any other.
Nihilism is often more of a charge leveled against a particular idea, movement, or group, than a position to which someone overtly subscribes. Movements such as Dadaism, Deconstructionism, and punk have been described at various times as "nihilist". Usually this simply means or is meant to imply that the beliefs of the accuser are more "substantial" or "truthful", whereas the beliefs of the accused are nihilistic, and thereby comparatively amount to "nothing".
Nihilism is also a characteristic that has been ascribed to time periods: for example, Baudrillard has called postmodernity a nihilistic epoch, and some Christian theologians and figures of authority assert that modernity and postmodernity represent the rejection of God, and therefore are nihilistic.
Prominent philosophers who have written on the subject of nihilism include Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger. Nietzsche described Christianity as a nihilistic religion because it evaded the challenge of finding meaning in earthly life, creating instead a spiritual projection where mortality and suffering were removed instead of transcended. He believed nihilism resulted from the "death of God", and insisted that it was something to be overcome, by returning meaning to a monistic reality (he sought instead a "pragmatic idealism," in contrast to the prominent influence of Schopenhauer's "cosmic idealism"). Heidegger described nihilism as the state where "there is nothing left of Being as such," and argued that nihilism rested on the reduction of Being to mere value.
Nihilism and God is dead...
Nietzsche saw nihilism as the outcome of repeated frustrations in the search for meaning. He diagnosed nihilism as a latent presence within the very foundations of European culture, and saw it as a necessary and approaching destiny. The religious worldview had already suffered a number of challenges from contrary perspectives grounded in philosophical skepticism, and in modern science's evolutionary and heliocentric theory. Nietzsche saw this intellectual condition as a new challenge to European culture, which had extended itself beyond a sort of point-of-no-return. Nietzsche conceptualizes this with the famous statement "God is dead", which first appeared in his work in section 108 of The Gay Science, again in section 125 with the parable of "The Madman", and even more famously in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The statement, typically placed in quotation marks,[1] accentuated the crisis that Nietzsche argued that Western culture must face and transcend in the wake of the irreparable dissolution of its traditional foundations, moored largely in classical Greek philosophy and Christianity.[2]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
