Heretics of Heretics: Female Episcopal Priest is Also a Muslim

"I am both Muslim and Christian"

By Janet I. Tu Seattle Times religion reporter STEVE RINGMAN / THE SEATTLE TIMES

The Rev. Ann Holmes Redding attends the Sunday morning service at St. Clement's of Rome Episcopal Church in Seattle. Redding has been an Episcopal priest for 20 years and a Muslim for 15 months. JOHN LOK / THE SEATTLE TIMES Redding, at right, prays with other members of the Al-Islam Center recently at the Yesler Community Center. JOHN LOK / THE SEATTLE TIMES The Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, right, gets a hug from Ayesha Anderson at the end of a service recently with members of the Al-Islam Center in Seattle. Redding is a Christian who is also a practicing Muslim, and she worships with members of both faiths. STEVE RINGMAN / THE SEATTLE TIMES Redding talks with 4-year-old Celia Connor before the start of the service at St. Clement's of Rome Episcopal Church in Seattle. On Sundays, Redding often prays at St. Clement's. On Fridays, she prays with the Al-Islam Center. Relate Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.

On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.
She does both, she says, because she's Christian and Muslim. Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she's ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she's also been a Muslim — drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved. Her announcement has provoked surprise and bewilderment in many, raising an obvious question: How can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim? But it has drawn other reactions too. Friends generally say they support her, while religious scholars are mixed: Some say that, depending on how one interprets the tenets of the two faiths, it is, indeed, possible to be both. Others consider the two faiths mutually exclusive.

"There are tenets of the faiths that are very, very different," said Kurt Fredrickson, director of the doctor of ministry program at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif. "The most basic would be: What do you do with Jesus?" Christianity has historically regarded Jesus as the son of God and God incarnate, both fully human and fully divine. Muslims, though they regard Jesus as a great prophet, do not see him as divine and do not consider him the son of God. "I don't think it's possible" to be both, Fredrickson said, just like "you can't be a Republican and a Democrat." Redding, who will begin teaching the New Testament as a visiting assistant professor at Seattle University this fall, has a different analogy: "I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I'm both an American of African descent and a woman. I'm 100 percent both." Redding doesn't feel she has to resolve all the contradictions. People within one religion can't even agree on all the details, she said. "So why would I spend time to try to reconcile all of Christian belief with all of Islam? "At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That's all I need." She says she felt an inexplicable call to become Muslim, and to surrender to God — the meaning of the word "Islam."

"It wasn't about intellect," she said. "All I know is the calling of my heart to Islam was very much something about my identity and who I am supposed to be. "I could not not be a Muslim." Redding's situation is highly unusual. Officials at the national Episcopal Church headquarters said they are not aware of any other instance in which a priest has also been a believer in another faith. They said it's up to the local bishop to decide whether such a priest could continue in that role. Redding's bishop, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting. Her announcement, first made through a story in her diocese's newspaper, hasn't caused much controversy yet, he said.
Some local Muslim leaders are perplexed.
Being both Muslim and Christian — "I don't know how that works," said Hisham Farajallah,
president of the Islamic Center of Washington.
But Redding has been embraced by leaders at the Al-Islam Center of Seattle, the Muslim group she prays with. "Islam doesn't say if you're a Christian, you're not a Muslim," said programming director Ayesha Anderson. "Islam doesn't lay it out like that." Redding believes telling her story can help ease religious tensions, and she hopes it can be a step toward her dream of creating an institute to study Judaism, Christianity and Islam. "I think this thing that's happened to me can be a sign of hope," she said. Finding a religion that fit
Redding is 55 and single, with deep brown eyes, dreadlocks and a voice that becomes easily impassioned when talking about faith.

She's also a classically trained singer, and has sung at jazz nights at St. Mark's.
The oldest of three girls, Redding grew up in Pennsylvania in a high-achieving, intellectual family. Her father was one of the lawyers who argued the landmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case that desegregated the nation's public schools. Her mother was in the first class of Fulbright scholars. Though her parents weren't particularly religious, they had her baptized and sent her to an Episcopal Sunday school. She has always sensed that God existed and God loved her, even when things got bleak — which they did. She experienced racism in schools, was sexually abused and, by the time she was a young adult, was struggling with alcohol addiction; she's been in recovery for 20 years. Despite those difficulties, she graduated from Brown University, earned master's degrees from two seminaries and received her Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary in New York City. She felt called to the priesthood and was ordained in 1984.

As much as she loves her church, she has always challenged it. She calls Christianity the "world religion of privilege." She has never believed in original sin. And for years she struggled with the nature of Jesus' divinity.

She found a good fit at St. Mark's, coming to the flagship of the Episcopal Church in Western Washington in 2001. She was in charge of programs to form and deepen people's faith until March this year when she was one of three employees laid off for budget reasons. The dean of the cathedral said Redding's exploration of Islam had nothing to do with her layoff. Ironically, it was at St. Mark's that she first became drawn to Islam.
In fall 2005, a local Muslim leader gave a talk at the cathedral, then prayed before those attending. Redding was moved. As he dropped to his knees and stretched forward against the floor, it seemed to her that his whole body was involved in surrendering to God. Then in the spring, at a St. Mark's interfaith class, another Muslim leader taught a chanted prayer and led a meditation on opening one's heart. The chanting appealed to the singer in Redding; the meditation spoke to her heart. She began saying the prayer daily. Around that time, her mother died, and then "I was in a situation that I could not handle by any other means, other than a total surrender to God," she said.

She still doesn't know why that meant she had to become a Muslim. All she knows is "when God gives you an invitation, you don't turn it down."

In March 2006, she said her shahada — the profession of faith — testifying that there is only one God and that Mohammed is his messenger. She became a Muslim.

Before she took the shahada, she read a lot about Islam. Afterward, she learned from local Muslim leaders, including those in Islam's largest denomination — Sunni — and those in the Sufi mystical tradition of Islam. She began praying with the Al-Islam Center, a Sunni group that is predominantly African-American.

There were moments when practicing Islam seemed like coming home. In Seattle's Episcopal circles, Redding had mixed largely with white people. "To walk into Al-Islam and be reminded that there are more people of color in the world than white people, that in itself is a relief," she said.

She found the discipline of praying five times a day — one of the five pillars of Islam that all Muslims are supposed to follow — gave her the deep sense of connection with God that she yearned for.

It came from "knowing at all times I'm in between prayers." She likens it to being in love, constantly looking forward to having "all these dates with God. ... Living a life where you're remembering God intentionally, consciously, just changes everything." Friends who didn't know she was practicing Islam told her she glowed.

Aside from the established sets of prayers she recites in Arabic fives times each day, Redding says her prayers are neither uniquely Islamic nor Christian. They're simply her private talks with God or Allah — she uses both names interchangeably. "It's the same person, praying to the same God." In many ways, she says, "coming to Islam was like coming into a family with whom I'd been estranged. We have not only the same God, but the same ancestor with Abraham." A shared beginning Indeed, Islam, Christianity and Judaism trace their roots to Abraham, the patriarch of Judaism who is also considered the spiritual father of all three faiths.

They share a common belief in one God, and there are certain similar stories in their holy texts. But there are many significant differences, too. Muslims regard the Quran as the unadulterated word of God, delivered through the angel Gabriel to Mohammed. While they believe the Torah and the Gospels include revelations from God, they believe those revelations have been misinterpreted or mishandled by humans. Most significantly, Muslims and Christians disagree over the divinity of Jesus. Muslims generally believe in Jesus' virgin birth, that he was a messenger of God, that he ascended to heaven alive and that he will come back at the end of time to destroy evil. They do not believe in the Trinity, in the divinity of Jesus or in his death and resurrection. For Christians, belief in Jesus' divinity, and that he died on the cross and was resurrected, lie at the heart of the faith, as does the belief that there is one God who consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Redding's views, even before she embraced Islam, were more interpretive than literal. She believes the Trinity is an idea about God and cannot be taken literally. She does not believe Jesus and God are the same, but rather that God is more than Jesus. She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans. What makes Jesus unique, she believes, is that out of all humans, he most embodied being filled with God and identifying completely with God's will. She does believe that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, and acknowledges those beliefs conflict with the teachings of the Quran. "That's something I'll find a challenge the rest of my life," she said. She considers Jesus her savior. At times of despair, because she knows Jesus suffered and overcame suffering, "he has connected me with God," she said. That's not to say she couldn't develop as deep a relationship with Mohammed. "I'm still getting to know him," she said. Matter of interpretation Some religious scholars understand Redding's thinking. While the popular Christian view is that Jesus is God and that he came to Earth and took on a human body, other Christians believe his divinity means that he embodied the spirit of God in his life and work, said Eugene Webb, professor emeritus of comparative religion at the University of Washington. Webb says it's possible to be both Muslim and Christian: "It's a matter of interpretation. But a lot of people on both sides do not believe in interpretation. " Ihsan Bagby, associate professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky, agrees with Webb, and adds that Islam tends to be a little more flexible. Muslims can have faith in Jesus, he said, as long as they believe in Mohammed's message. Other scholars are skeptical. "The theological beliefs are irreconcilable," said Mahmoud Ayoub, professor of Islamic studies and comparative religion at Temple University in Philadelphia. Islam holds that God is one, unique, indivisible. "For Muslims to say Jesus is God would be blasphemy." Frank Spina, an Episcopal priest and also a professor of Old Testament and biblical theology at Seattle Pacific University, puts it bluntly. "I just do not think this sort of thing works," he said. "I think you have to give up what is essential to Christianity to make the moves that she has done. "The essence of Christianity was not that Jesus was a great rabbi or even a great prophet, but that he is the very incarnation of the God that created the world....

Christianity stands or falls on who Jesus is." Spina also says that as priests, he and Redding have taken vows of commitment to the doctrines of the church. "That means none of us get to work out what we think all by ourselves." Redding knows there are many Christians and Muslims who will not accept her as both. "I don't care," she says. "They can't take away my baptism." And as she understands it, once she's made her profession of faith to become a Muslim, no one can say she isn't that, either. While she doesn't rule out that one day she may choose one or the other, it's more likely "that I'm going to be 100 percent Christian and 100 percent Muslim when I die." Deepened spirituality These days, Redding usually carries a headscarf with her wherever she goes so she can pray five times a day. On Fridays, she prays with about 20 others at the Al-Islam Center. On Sundays, she prays in church, usually at St. Clement's of Rome in the Mount Baker neighborhood. One thing she prays for every day: "I pray not to cause scandal or bring shame upon either of my traditions." Being Muslim has given her insights into Christianity, she said. For instance, because Islam regards Jesus as human, not divine, it reinforces for her that "we can be like Jesus. There are no excuses."

Doug Thorpe, who served on St. Mark's faith-formation committee with Redding, said he's trying to understand all the dimensions of her faith choices. But he saw how it deepened her spirituality. And it spurred him to read the Quran and think more deeply about his own faith. He believes Redding is being called. She is, "by her very presence, a bridge person," Thorpe said. "And we desperately need those bridge persons." In Redding's car, she has hung up a cross she made of clear crystal beads. Next to it, she has dangled a heart-shaped leather object etched with the Arabic symbol for Allah. "For me, that symbolizes who I am," Redding said. "I look through Jesus and I see Allah."

The False Gospel of Oprah Winfrey

America's Greatest False Prophet is the Queen of Day Time Television

"Test the spirits, for many false prophets have gone out into the world"

(1 John 4:1).

Recently Oprah Winfrey had on her show as a guest, a man who abandoned his family and his God ordained responsibilities to "come out" as a "transgendered"woman. Ultimately, Winfrey praised this stupid and wretchedly deceived man for renouncing his manhood and undergoing self-mutilation via the abomination of so called "sexual reassignment surgery", wherein his male anatomical parts were castrated.

On another episode, Winfrey featured a program where a young UCLA College student was supported as she came out openly as a homosexual.



While she may be an American icon and fixture on day time television, increasingly, billionaire African American talk show host Oprah Winfrey is promoting anti-Christian social and ethical views contrary to the Judeo-Christian heritage must now be seen as an enemy of God, the Bible and American Evangelicalism due to her aggressive advocating of homosexuality, promiscuity, transgenderism and seemingly every other liberal political position and deviant social behavior known to Western Civilization. For a woman who started out in a Baptist Church community only to emerge as the postmodern diva of ethical and societal relativism, Winfrey has fallen far, far from her historic Christian heritage and roots.

While her show appears to be a harmless and sanguine television venue, upon careful review, Winfrey's enormously popular, five-day a week program is doing much to undermine the traditional family unit and is ultimately hostile to the Christian faith.

Since the vast majority of the people in her audience are women, it is of paramount importance that American Evangelical women reject the anti-biblical womanhood model of social liberalism that Winfrey preaches so nicely on her stupid and worthless show and see at once that wittingly or unwittingly, Winfrey has become a false prophetess of wickedness and rebellion against Almighty God, whose politically correct message of acceptance and tolerance of all varieties of evil, must be rejected by the Christian Church at once.

"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a shame to every people" (Proverbs 14:34).





Evidence that Oprah Winfrey is a false teacheer and false prophet: please click on to this You Tube video of her show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lc5QBBLZAo

Why I Believe in the Trinity

“And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20).

Historic Christianity is inherently a Biblical and propositional religious faith made up of certain inalterable and nonnegotiable doctrinal tenets that carefully articulate the specific beliefs of the Christian Church. It is this objective and immutable body of theological beliefs that coherently delineates, permanently, for time memorial, the cognitive doctrinal specifics of Biblical revelation and simultaneously and decisively differentiates and sets true Christianity apart from all other non-Christian religious, philosophical and ideological alternative contemporarily vying for the intellectual, religious and volitional acquiescence, allegiance and adherence of humanity.

Throughout the annals of Church history the Christian Church has universally stood for certain quintessential and definitive doctrines that are absolutely essential to every true believer in our Lord Jesus Christ. These authoritative Biblical theological teachings make up the cognitive essence of orthodox Biblical Christianity and thus are of paramount and singular importance to every Christian. One such nonnegotiable doctrine of historic Christendom that every true Christian should be able to articulate and at once defend, is the all important doctrine of the Trinity, or Tri-unity of God which sets forth the orthodox Christian belief that within the one true and living God, simultaneously exists three distinct divine, indivisible, immutable, co-eternal and co-equal persons who share the same transcendent and inviolable attributes and spiritual essence, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19-20 and 2 Corinthians 13:14).

Contrary to the charge of polytheism and tri-theism leveled against orthodox Christianity by many of it’s Islamic and Unitarian detractors who argue that we believe in more than one God, Biblical Christianity, like it’s ancestral cousin, Mosaic Judaism, is strictly and exclusively a Monotheistic religion, in that we, the true Church of Jesus Christ avowedly believe, without compromise and exception, that there exists only one true and living God, yet in the singular, eternal and indissoluble nature of God, concurrently exists three distinct, distinguishable and sentient persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit who possess the same spiritual nature and inherent stature of equality.

Equally forthright, in our devout Trinitarian Monotheistic belief is the wholesale and adamant and outright renunciation and decisive rejection of any form of Sabellianism, Dynamic Monarchism or Modalism which espouses the radically heterodox view that within the nature of God there exists simply one singular person who at times takes on a different mode of being, at times expressing himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Sprit, thus denying the distinct individual personhood of the three members of the godhead and instead collapses all three into one person. Contrary to these heresies, the Bible is clear that there is one true and living God and in God exists three distinct persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The word "Trinity" comes from "Trinitas", a Latin abstract noun that means "three-ness," "the property of occurring three at once" or "three are one." The Greek term used for the Christian Trinity, "Τριάς" ("Trias," gen. "Triados") means "a set of three" or "the number three, and has given the English word triad. The first recorded use of the word in Christian theology was in about 180 AD by Theophilus of Antioch who used it of "God, his Word, and his Wisdom (To Autolycus, II.XV ) In about 200 AD Tertullian used it of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. " In this way also, that they are all of the one, namely by unity of substance, while nonetheless is guarded the mystery of that economy which disposes the unity into trinity, setting forth Father and Son and Spirit as three, three however not in quality but in sequence, not (three) in substance but in aspect, not in power but in its manifestation, yet of one substance and one quality and one power..." Tertullian, Against Praxeas" section 2,)

The following easy to follow deductive line of argumentation conclusively demonstrates the truthfulness of the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Biblical record.

I. There is but one God

II. There is a plurality of persons within the godhead.

III. The Bible calls the Father, “God”

IV. The Bible calls the Son, “God”

V. The Bible calls the Holy Spirit “God”

VI. The Bible teaches that within the one God exists three distinct, co-eternal, co-equal and indivisible persons: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.



1. Christianity is Exclusively Monotheistic (There is but one God)

Deuteronomy 4:35-36, 6:4, 1 Kings 8:60, Isaiah 43:10, 44:5-8, 45:5, Jeremiah 10:10, Mark 12:29-32, John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 and 1 Timothy 2:5.



2. There is a plurality of individuals within God

Genesis 1:26, Genesis 3:22, Genesis 11:6-7, Isaiah 6:8, Matthew 3:16-17, Matthew 28:19-20, John 14:26, 2 Corinthians 13:14.


3. The Bible calls the Father “God” or “God the Father”

John 6:27, Romans 1:7, 1 Cor 1:3, 2 Cor 1:2,
Galatians 1:1, Ephesians 1:2, Philippians 1:2, Colossians 1:3,
1 Thess. 1:1, 2 Thess. 1:2, 1 Timothy 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:2,
Titus 1:4, Philemon 1:3, 1 Peter 1:2.

John 1:33, John 1:34, John 5:36, John 5:37, John 8:18, John 10:37, John 10:38, John 11:42, John 15:24; Psalms 2:7, Psalms 40:7; Isaiah 11:1-3, Isaiah 42:1, Isaiah 61:1-3; Matt. 3:17, Matt. 17:5; Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7; Luke 3:22; Luke 4:18-21, Luke 9:35; Acts 2:22, Acts 10:38; 2Peter 1:17.

4. The Bible calls Jesus Christ God.

Isaiah 7:14. 9:6-7, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 28:19-20, John 1:1-3, 14, 18, 30, 5:18-23, 8:55-58, 10:30-38, 14:1-14, 20:28, Acts 20:28, Romans 9:5, Philippians 2:5-11, Colossians 1:15-18, 2:8-9, 1 Timothy 3:16, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:1-8, 2 Peter 1:1, 1 John 5:20, Revelation 1:6-8, 18, 21:6

Also Jesus is worshipped as God (Matthew 1:18-23, John 9, 20:28, Hebrews 1:6-9 contrast this with in Revelation 1 and 21 where the
Angel told John not to worship him, but in Hebrews 1:6-9, wise men, Matt 1 they worshipped Christ as God, Blind man who was healed worshipped Jesus Christ. Colossians 2:18 says “angel worship” is false. Revelation 19:10, 22:8, 22:9)


1. The Bible calls the Holy Spirit God

Matthew 3:16-17, Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 5:3-5,

The Holy Spirit is a person who speaks, and directs
According to His will: John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13.
Acts 13:1-4, Acts 20:23-28, 1 Corinthians 12:11,
Hebrews 9:14 (Spirit is eternal).


Isa.11:2, Isa. 42:1, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 61:1; Luke 3:22; John 1:31-34, John 3:34; Col.1:18, Col.1:19.

An Open Letter to Hunger Truth

A Letter from:

Lee Edward Enochs

Chairman,

The Evangelical Debate Society




Christ-Centered and Biblical Evangelical Apologetics

1 Peter 3:15


June 21, 2007


Dan, Patrick and Hunger Truth,


I am writing you to inform you that I have discussed the matter of the Evangelical Debate Societies continued debate with Patrick Navas, Dan Mages, Steve Scianni and Hunger Truth and have decided that my debate with Steve Scianni on July 16th will be our last act of public debate and dialog with your organization and I would like to ask Patrick Navas to remove my various e-mail addresses from his server list.

I personally have not been pleased by many of the actions and tactics Mr. Navas has used on line to continue our debate and I concur with Pastor Gene Cook's assessment of Mr. Navas' spiritual condition before God and feel that it is now unscriptural for us to continue our debate with Mr. Navas and Hunger Truth. I am mindful of the Scripture which says,


"Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him"

Titus 3:10



After a lot of reflection and discussion with my ministry associates at the Evangelical Debate Society, we believe Patrick Navas quintessentially fulfills the characteristics of the factious person Paul warns the true Church against further contact with and have decided as a group to discontinue our public debate with him and his affiliate organization Hunger Truth.

We feel that after six public debates we have adequately attempted to engage in serious intellectual debate and dialog with Dan, Patrick, Steve and Hunger Truth over the last two years and do not see the profit in rehashing the same arguments over and over again to no avail. It seems that we are going nowhere in our debates and it is time for us as a ministry to move on to other issues and debates on our horizon. It is our express desire that Patrick, Dan and Steve return back to the Evangelical Faith they have abandoned and wish you God's Sovereign mercy in the hope that God's goodness leads you to repentance before the impending judgment of God.

Again, I will honor my word and be there at Hunger Truth for my debate on the existence of God with Steve Scianni as God wills on July 16th but that will be our last public debate with any of the members of Hunger Truth.


Sincerely in Jesus Christ,

Lee Edward "Ed" Enochs

Chairman,

The Evangelical Debate Society

Emilio Ramos' Reflects on John Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied.

From Mongergism.com

Redemption Accomplished and Applied

by John Murray

One of the best, most concise, theologically sound and helpful expositions of the atonement ever produced. John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied should be required reading for every Christian. At just under 200 pages, Murray offers page after page of devotional and scholarly study that is nearly unparalleled in its clarity, usefulness and theological depth. Read this book, re-read this book and keep it close at hand.

Reflections and Notes on Chapter One.

“The love of God from which the atonement springs is not a distinctionless love; it is a love that elects and predestinates.” p. 10.

Quoting from Eph. 1. 4ff, Murray draws our attention to this point quoted above. The atonement which was made on behalf of God’s elect had God’s elect in mind all along. Therefore, in agreement with Murray is the notion that God’s work of atonement in the sending of the Son to die for the ‘sin of the world’ is rooted in a very distinct love; the love He had for the elect.

So many today have lost sight of the inter-connectedness of the various aspects of salvation. The components which make up this multifaceted diamond of God’s grace has for too long been erroneously compartmentalized. Murray does an excellent job of drawing us back to the fact that the atonement just like “glorification” has a specific group in mind and that this group i.e. the elect, receives a very special gracious and superior love than those of the non-elect.

The implications of this is massive indeed for it reveals the nature of two things. First it displays the generality of that grace which is truthfully and accurately called “common grace”. Secondly, it displays the greatness of that specific grace which is also accurately called “special grace”. It is the Arminian misunderstanding which confuses the two, thinking that God is obligated to love all in the same general or special way. Murray continues,

“It is necessary to underline that concept of sovereign love. Truly God is love. Love is not something adventitious; it is not something that God may choose to be or choose not to be. He is love, and that necessarily, inherently, and eternally. As God is spirit, as He is light, so He is love. Yet it belongs to the very essence of electing love to recognize that it is not inherently necessary to that love which God necessarily and eternally is that He should set such love as issues in redemption and adoption upon utterly undesirable and hell-deserving objects. It was of the free and sovereign good pleasure of His will, a good pleasure that emanated from the depth of His own goodness, that He chose a people to be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. The reason resides wholly in Himself and proceeds from determinations that are peculiarly His as the “I am that I am”. The atonement does not win or constrain the love of God. The love of God constrains to the atonement as the means of accomplishing love’s determinate purpose.” p. 10.

How true this is, many have made the atonement that which constrains God. Thus, if a person erroneously concludes the extent of the atonement, one might also conclude the extent and nature of the love of God as it relates to the atonement. It is no wonder that people conclude with a universal and indiscriminate love of God since they view the nature of the atonement in much the same way. But as Murray says, “The atonement does not win or constrain the love of God.”

The person believing in ‘distinctionless’ love and or atonement of God must conclude that God has finally failed one way or the other. Either God failed in that though He loved all in the exact same way, yet all those whom He loved did not receive the benefit of God’s atonement thereby suffering the frustration of His own loving intentions. Also, if one believes that God atoned for all in the very same way without any distinction then God failed in that, once again His efforts to atone for the sins of all people in a universal fashion has suffered frustration as to the atonements intended extent.

“So, while God could save without an atonement, yet, in accordance with His sovereign decree, He actually does not”. p.12.

I draw our attention to this point in Murray’s argument because of the subsequent queries that the former points on the nature of atonement provoke namely, as to the necessity of such an atonement as is actually accomplished.

Murray’s third chapter is entitled, “the perfection of the atonement”, which gave rise to the point which we seek to make here. The term perfection becomes increasingly relevant as we seek to understand what was indeed accomplished on the cross and why. Murray asks the questions, “why did Go become man? Why, having become man, did He die? Why, having died, did He die the accursed death of the cross?” p.11. These question then lead to the conclusion which Murray calls the “hypothetical necessity” view in which Jesus dies this type of death ultimately because in essence it is the best of all possible worlds. That is, that though God in His omnipotence could atone for the ‘sin of the world’ He finally did that which was must conducive to His own sovereign and perfect wisdom resulting in the highest good of any choice available to Him, no doubt an amount exclusively known to God.

The point of the quote from page 12 above is that God chose the course of the atonement to be particular and non-universal in the strictest sense of the word according to His unquestionable sovereign, all wise, and perfect decrees. The perfection of God therefore is brought to the forefront of the issues surrounding the atonement.

God is perfect and thus, whatever shape the atonement of His Son finally takes is part of His perfect and flawless decrees. On this point Scripture is unambiguous as it displays God in all of His variegated perfections. Hence he is said to be incorruptible, Rom. 1:23; immortal and invisible, I Tim. 1:17.; 'He only hath immortality,' 1 Tim. 6:16.; He is an infinite spirit; and it can be said of none but Him, that 'His understanding is Infinite,' Psal. 147:5.; And says the prophet, To whom will ye liken God ? or what likeness will ye compare unto Him ? ' Isa. 40:18.; Acts 17:29; for God swears by Himself, Heb. 6:19; yet He swears by His holiness, Amos 4:2.*; Also God is infinite, 'Can any man hide Himself in secret places, that I shall not see him ? saith the Lord: do not I fill heaven and earth ? saith the Lord,' Jer. 23:24.; God is unsearchable and infinite in His existence 'nor can the number of His years be searched out,' Job 36:26.; "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out !' Rom. 11:33.

His perfect knowledge of all things past. His knowledge is called "book of remembrance," Mal. 3:16; 'His greatness is unsearchable,' Psal. 145: 3. Psal. 90:2 declares, 'From everlasting to everlasting thou art God.' Hence He is said to "know all things," John 21:17. and to be "God only wise," Rom. 16:27. The essence of God’s nature is glorious and it is holy thus He is describes as, "glorious in holiness," Exod. 15:11. "He is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look upon iniquity," Hab. 1:13. "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all," 1 John 1:5. Not only is God these things in His nature but in His actions, "The Lord is holy in all His works," Psal. 145:17. 1 Sam. 6:20. "Who is able to stand before this holy Lord God ?' Deut. 32:4. "Just and right is He." All that God does is right and just, He can only do right, good, and perfect things, Neh. 9:33. "Thou art just in all that is brought upon us." Rev. 16. 5-7. “true and just are Your Judgments”. He is good and He does good, “Thou art good, and dost good, says the Psalmist, Ps. 119:68. He is true in Himself, Deut. 32:4. "A God of truth, and without iniquity."; Therefore when God judges nothing about His wrath and judgment is unrighteous, Rom. 2:2. "We are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things."

We see therefore that God is described as being infinite in all of His perfections and all of His perfections are infinite. Holiness must hold a particular place among the attributes of God for it speaks of God being incapable of defect or soil or blemish among other things. Concerning this greatest of all God’s attributes as much as one can elevate one of His attributes above the rest 17th century theologian and puritan divine Stephen Charnock comments,

“The nature of God cannot rationally be conceived with out it [i.e. holiness]. Though the power of God be the first rational conclusion, drawn from the sight of His works, wisdom the next, from the order and connexion of His works, purity must result from the beauty of His works: that God cannot be deformed by evil, who hath made every thing so beautiful in its time. The notion of a God cannot be entertained without separating from Him whatsoever is impure and bespotting both in His essence and actions. Though we conceive Him infinite in Majesty, infinite in essence, eternal in duration, mighty in power, and wise and immutable in His counsels; merciful in His proceeding with men, and whatsoever other perfections may dignify so sovereign a Being, yet if we conceive Him destitute of this excellent perfection, and imagine Him possessed with the least contagion of evil, we make Him but an infinite monster, and sully all those perfections we ascribed to Him before; we rather own Him a devil than a God.” (The Existence and Attributes of God, vol. II, p. 111; Stephen Charnock).

The atonement is therefore one of the works of God which display His perfection for it is a work of His and all of God’s works are perfect. The need for Jesus to die in this way is therefore do to the perfection of the way in which He paid for sinners at the cross. Jesus had to die the death of the cross because there was no greater and better way to redeem mankind and no other way was to be conducive to the highest degree of good and greatest display of His glory.

The atonement was not according to human wisdom, it was not what Jesus as a man even desired, but in His divinity which was in perfect communion with God cried out, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will”. (Lk. 26.39).

In the end the atonement will be one of God most magnificent and perfect woks. All those for whom the atonement will ultimately benefit will see God’s perfect work in all of salvation. All of God’s judgments of God are true, whether in terms of the destruction and judgment of the wicked as a perfect display of His justice, power, and wrath. Or in displaying upon the vessels of mercy infinite mercy and grace which all things considered comes to us in the most impeccable and infinitely perfect decree.

The End Times Debate (Saturday July 7th)

Calling all Evangelical Christians!

The Evangelical Debate Society is pleased to announce to you that we are hosting a special

"In House"Believer's Only Eschatology Debate at Pastor Gabe Colangelo's

House for the Month of July

Reformation Fellowship

Saturday July 7th, 2007

For More Info, e-mail:

edwardenochs@yahoo.com

Does God Exist?

A Debate on the Existence of God

Ed Enochs
vs.
Steve Scianni



@ Hunger Truth


(First Congregational Church of Riverside,
3504 Mission Inn Avenue at Lemon Street.)



Monday: July 16th@ 7:00pm

Christianity Reloaded

The Cross of Jesus Christ

Recovering the Heart and Essence

of Biblical Christianity

"For God made Him who knew no sin, to become sin for us, that we might
become the righteousness of God in Him"

2 Corinthians 5:21

Revolution in Christian Apologetics!

The Revolt Against Unbiblical Christianity Begins!

"Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth."

(John 17:17)


"So then, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of Christ."

(Romans 10:17)

"And that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

(2 Timothy 3:15-17)

"Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching."

(2 Timothy 4:2)



"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God For it is written: “ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

(1 Corinthians 1:18-25

Biblically Reforming the Way American Evangelicals Defend the Historic Christian Faith Against the Challenges of the Postmodern and Secular Age

by Lee Edward Enochs
Chairman,
The Evangelical Debate Society

In Defense of the Historic Evangelical Christian Faith

On October 31, 1517, a German monk named Martin Luther, in opposition to serious heresies being taught in the Roman Catholic Church, nailed his 95 "thesis"on the door of Wittenburg Cathedral and on that very day the cataclysmic and global spiritual revolution known as the Protestant Reformation was born.

A few years later, at the important Diet of Worms, (Diet" meaning a formal meeting, not a weight-loss plan, and Worms being a city south of Frankfurt), under the heated threat of excommunication and execution at the hands of the evil Roman Catholic hierarchy, Martin Luther was forcefully commanded to recant his teachings and obey without question the Roman Catholic heresies against the authority of Scripture and Justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, Martin Luther refused to bow his knee in unscriptural submission and subservience to the wicked and ungodly Romans Catholic leaders.

In April 1521, Luther appeared before Emperor Charles V to defend what he had taught and written. He said in his famous speech at Worms, that he could not recant or go against his conscience and the Word of God and at the end of his famous speech, the he spoke the famous words, 'Here I stand; I can do no other, so help me God.'

Today, I am standing with Martin Luther and standing against false teaching in American Christianity. This false teaching is in the area of Evangelism and Christian Apologetics. I have attended some of American Evangelicalism's most prestigious Churches, Universities, Colleges and Seminaries and I have seen a very unbiblical trend transpire, where American Evangelicals are being sold a deceptive and fraudulent bill of goods and are being told by pastors and professors that the Bible is not sufficient and is not to be used in sharing our faith and defending the faith.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In an exceedingly hostile postmodern and post-Christian era of American Civilization wherein the insidious and irreligious forces of godless secularism threaten to eviscerate and castigate the cultural viability of Evangelicalism in contemporary society, the historic Evangelical Christian Church currently residing within the North American Hemisphere, must resist, at all costs, the tendency towards assimilation, apostasy, synergistic compromise and gallantly arise to the challenge of boldly proclaiming and defending the glorious saving Gospel of Jesus Christ is a rapidly declining culture slouching towards Gomorrah and teetering near the brink of catastrophic destruction.

Despite this seemingly insurmountable challenge and the atheistic forces of unbelief that threaten to destroy the Christian Church in America, we, Bible believing Evangelical Christians, have been given a Scriptural mandate by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, to preach and teach His Gospel to all humanity irrespective of hardship and the possibility of perceived detrimental consequences by the secular state.

Ominous dark clouds of rancor and hostility presently loom on the cultural horizon for contemporary Evangelicalism, as ethical and religious relativists, with a blinding hatred towards Biblical Christianity, are working overtime at concocting local and national legislation that would force Evangelical Christians to legitimize false, perilous and inherently anti-democratic religions such as militant Islam and embrace without question, sinful "alternative lifestyles" such as homosexuality, transgenderism and other grotesque paradigms of promiscuity.

Instead of disengaging from contemporary society and amusing ourselves to death via the ever increasing onslaught of technology driven entertainment, being desensitized to the state of the Church in America by burying our heads in the sand like the proverbial oblivious ostrich, contemporary American Evangelicals must at once take notice of the current climate of hostility towards us and arise to meet the enemy in the realm of ideas and public discourse. The Evangelical Christian Church in America needs coherent, Biblically based defenders of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). This is where the discipline of Christian Apologetics comes in.

In our exceedingly hostile secular world, it is of paramount importance, the we Evangelical Christians equip ourselves for the task of defending the Christian faith in a coherent, culturally relevant and Biblical manner. The science and discipline of defending the Christian faith is known as Apologetics, the field of Christian study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist or an "apologete". According to the seminal Oxford English Dictionary, "The term comes from the Greek word apologia, meaning defense of a position against an attack."

The Apostle Peter summed up our mandate to defend the Christian faith in secular society when he wrote,

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts and always be ready to give a defense for the hope that lies within you, yet with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15).

The Apostle Jude also exhorted us to engage in the practice of defending the Christian faith when he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,

"Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

Repeatedly throughout the ministry of the Apostle Paul he had to engage in the task of defending the legitimacy of his ministry and the veracity of the Christian faith as the following verses clearly illustrate,

"Brethren and fathers, hear my defense before you now" (Acts 22:2).

"Then Paul, after the governor had nodded to him to speak, answered: Inasmuch as I know that you have been for many years a judge of this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself" (Acts 24:10).

"Now as he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!(Acts 26:24).

"My defense to those who examine me is this" (1 Corinthians 9:3).

"Just as it is right for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart, inasmuch as both in my chains and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers with me of grace" (Philippians 1:7).

"But the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17).

"At my first defense no one stood with me, but all forsook me. May it not be charged against them" (2 Timothy 4:16).

Thus, we find in the infallible Scriptures, a Biblical mandate given by God to defend the Christian faith against the false charges and false doctrines of non-Christians and to present a positive case for the truthfulness of the Christian faith in order that the lost might come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Hence, Christian Apologetics, like Missions, is ultimately an extension of the Great Commission the Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave to all Christians to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-16, Luke 24:44-47, John 20:21 and Acts 1:8).

The Apostle Paul also stressed the importance of Evangelism when he wrote,

"That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things! (Romans 10:9-15).

" For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel!" (1 Corinthians 9:16).

"But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry" (2 Timothy 4:5).

This mandate to reach the world with God's self-revelation of Himself and His saving message is not limited only to the pages of the New Testament Canon of Scripture, but we see God's passion for the glory and fame of His great name replete throughout the Old Testament record as well, as the following Scriptures clearly indicate,

"that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no other" (1 Kings 8:60).

"Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad; And let them say among the nations, The LORD reigns" (1 Chronicles 16:31).

"Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, And uphold me by Your generous Spirit. Then I will teach transgressors Your ways, And sinners shall be converted to You" (Psalm 51: 12-13).

"The Gentiles shall come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising" (Isaiah 60:3).


Thus, we see in Scripture that Apologetics, the task of defending the Christian faith is directly related to the Biblical mandate of global evangelization. Apologetics is seen in Scripture in direct correlation with evangelism and world missions. The ultimate goal in defending the Christian faith is to testify to the veracity of Christianity in order that all the peoples of the earth might repent of their sins and come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Thus, just as "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:20), any attempt to engage in defending and upholding the truthfulness of Christianity that is detached and unrelated to spreading the fame of God's great name here and abroad, is utterly deficient and meaningless. The Christian task of apologetics is not an esoteric activity meant only for "Christian intellectuals", but defending the faith is meant for all Christians, irrespective of their sociological framework, for the explicit purpose of reaching this lost world with the saving message of Jesus Christ, who died on the cross and rose again from the dead in order to give eternal life to all those who sincerely repent of their sins and believe in His great name.

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:31).

Throughout the annals of Christian history, the Lord has raised up godly Apologists, to defend and proclaim the truthfulness of Biblical Christianity as evidenced by the defense of the faith given by Christ's Apostles and early disciples in the first century, New Testament period, the Ante and Post Nicean Patristic Church Fathers such as Tertullian

However, throughout the annals of Church history some Christians have unfortunately utilized

When Almighty God spoke His divine Word from heaven, it was complete and lacking nothing. The Bible, God's exclusively authoritative, inspired, infallible and inerrant Word, is entirely self-sufficient and self- authenticating in every respect and needs no external and autonomous man-made verification. The veracity of the Christian faith and the methodology of demonstrating Christianity's inherent truthfulness is self-contained within the Scriptures themselves and God's inspired Word absolutely needs no historical, archealogical, scientific attestation and confirmation by mere mortal, blinded and fallen men. The Word of God is absolutely perfect and entirely truthful in every respect and will efficaciously peform without exception or fail, percisely the intended means by which God sovereignly ordained it. As the Scriptures majestically declare,

"So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:11).

Evangelicals need not employ natural theology in their defense of Christianity, since the Bible is self-sufficent and needs no rational defense. The Bible is true because God has spoken from heaven and revealed the knowledge of Himself through the wonder of creation and human conscience.

In a Postmodern and Anti-Christian World, Evangelical Christians Need to Reject Using Naturalistic Arguments in Defending the Faith Against Oppostion and Employ the Biblically Based Apologetics Approach Known as Presuppostionalism to Refute the Errors of the Wicked and Uphold the Truth Revealed in the Word of God. It is inherently more Biblical than the Thomistic and Natural Theology Apologetical approach postulated by JP Moreland, William Lane Craig, that is essentially a Evangelical spin on the thought of the Greek Philosopher Aristotle that came into the Evangelical Church through the backdoor via the mass embracing of the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. Natural Theology proponents within American Evangelicalism such as Frank Beckwith, Moreland, William Lane Craig and Norman Geisler, have in adopting a Thomistic view of epistemology have subsequently appropriated a Thomistic and Roman Catholic view of the Noetic effects of sin on the fallen will of humanity which is utterly incongruent with the Protestant Reformation's view of the "Bondage of the Will" Thomistic Apologetics often leads to an adoption of Roman Catholic views of the Fall, Orginal Sin, Human Depravity, the Grace of God and Justification.

If the will is not utterly fallen via the Fall and mankind has not been plunged into absolute epistemological and volitional darkness as Calvin and Luther postulated, then the Catholic position known as "Synergism" naturally (no pun intended) follows. Many Evangelical and Calvinistic Protestants throughout America were not a bit suprised that one from the Thomistic Club of Natural Law and Molinist Natural Theology proponents whould go over to Rome, since they have essentially been espousing Roman Catholic views of theology for a long time now anyways. The worst thing about Frank Beckwith's so called "conversion" to Roman Catholicism (he was already there in his theological and philosophical system) is the timing. One would expect that Beckwith would have more integrity than renounce his Evangelicalism mid-way through his tenure of the Evangelical Theological Society.

Throughout many leading Evangelical Churches, Bible colleges, Universities and Seminaries this very unbiblical naturalistic approach to sharing the Gospel and defending the faith is being used as the normative standard of Christian Evangelism and Apologetical methodology and it is very, very sad indeed to see so many Evangelical abandoning the historic Evangelical and Reformed Faith and adopting a pagan system based more in Aristotle than in the Christ of Biblical Christianity.

We must revolt against this nonsense and unscriptural subjegation of the Evangelical Christian faith and return to the Bible alone as our only authority under the reign of the One Sovereign King, our Lord Jesus Christ who was sent by God the Father to die on the cross and rise again from the dead to offer eternal life to all those who will sincerely repent and believe in the Good News!

Have you repented of your sins and placed your faith in Jesus Christ?

Are you a Christian who has been using unbiblical methods in your evangelism and apologetics? The time is now to return to Jesus Christ and the Bible alone to preach the Gospel and defend the faith once and for all given to the Saints (Jude 3).

Why We Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ

"But God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us"
(Romans 5:8).

A Different Take on the Duke Lacrosse Scandal

AP News Report

RALEIGH, N.C. - District Attorney Mike Nifong acknowledged Friday that he "maybe got carried away a little bit" in talking about the three Duke University lacrosse players who were once charged with raping a stripper, and he said he expected to be punished.

"I think clearly some of the statements I made were improper," Nifong testified Friday at his ethics trial. The North Carolina State Bar charged Nifong with violating several rules governing professional conduct, including making misleading and inflammatory comments about the three indicted athletes.

Those statements included calling the players a "bunch of hooligans" and confidently proclaiming he wouldn't allow Durham to become known for "a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl." The three lacrosse players were later cleared of all charges by the state attorney general, who concluded they were "innocent" victims of a rogue prosecutor's "tragic rush to accuse."

On the stand Friday, Nifong said, "The comment about race was not a comment that should have been made." Nifong also faces much more serious charges from the bar of lying to both the court and bar investigators and withholding critical DNA test results from the players' attorneys.

If convicted, he could be stripped of his license to practice law in the state. He said of the DNA evidence Friday, "Whether we feel it is exculpatory or not, I'm not denying they were entitled to have that evidence." If convicted by the bar's disciplinary committee, Nifong could be stripped of his license to practice law in the state.

One of the accused players testified earlier Friday that he and his teammates had been confident that DNA testing would quickly clear them.

The DNA tests indeed failed to show any physical contact between the accuser and the members of the lacrosse team, but Nifong still pressed ahead with the case and won indictments against Reade Seligmann, Dave Evans and Collin Finnerty.

"We went from being viewed as athletes to being viewed as rapists," Seligmann testified Friday.
Seligmann broke into tears as he described how his attorney got a call from Nifong notifying him of the indictment last year. He said the attorney glanced his way and said, "She picked you."
"My dad just fell to the floor, and I just sat on the ground," Seligmann said. "And I said, 'My life is over.' ... The first thing I thought about was, 'How am I going to tell my Mom."

His attorneys pulled together ATM receipts, cell phone records, time-stamped photos and the testimony of the cab driver who took Seligmann home the night of the off-campus party where the woman, hired to perform as a stripper, said she had been attacked.


"I don't know much about the law," Seligmann said, "but you hear the word alibi, and you think that's one of the first things a prosecutor would want to have. You don't charge an innocent person. I could never understand it."

Since opening its case on Tuesday, the state bar has largely focused on the DNA testing, specifically when Nifong learned about the results and when he shared that information with the defense.
The team party was in March 2006. Nifong released an initial report on the DNA testing in May 2006, and defense attorneys quickly trumpeted that private lab DNA Security Inc. had been unable to find a conclusive match between the accuser and any lacrosse players.

However, lab director Brian Meehan testified Wednesday that he had told Nifong about the full extent of the test results — including that the lab had found matches to other men — as early as April 10, 2006, a week before the first indictments.

Meehan said he and Nifong never conspired to keep the results from defense attorneys. He said that the initial DNA report was never intended to be all-inclusive and that Nifong never asked for a final and complete report on his lab's findings.

Evans' defense lawyer Brad Bannon testified Thursday that Nifong had said in court documents and hearings in May, June and September that he had no more evidence that could be considered helpful to the defense, yet it wasn't until Oct. 27 that Nifong gave the defense the raw test data from DNA Security.

"It just kept getting worse," Bannon recalled. "I would find another one of the items that had male DNA that excluded our clients, and their teammates, and then another, and then another, and then another. ...

"We were all bewildered at the fact that it hadn't been provided to us before."

Nifong's attorneys hoped to finish presenting their defense by Friday evening. The three-member panel hearing the case is expected to deliver a verdict not long after the trial concludes, perhaps as early as Saturday.

Nifong has declined several requests for interviews in recent months. His last public comment on the case before the ethics trial was a one-page statement released the day the case collapsed. In it, he apologized, but only "to the extent that I made judgments that ultimately proved to be incorrect."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ed Enochs Commentary

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God"

1 Corinthians 6:8-10

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body"

1 Corinthians 6:18

8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

Revelation 21:8

While it is true that Mike Nifong is a bogus prosecutor who most definitely deserves to be disbarred from ever practicing law again and perhaps deserves some time in prison for attempting to falsely accuse and railroad these three young Duke Lacrosse students there is an altogether separate issue that I believe is largely being ignored by most Americans concerned about this tragic series of events surrounding the Duke Lacrosse Team.

The dark subject I am referring to is the fact that there three men did in fact willful attend a party where intoxicating drinks were served and a stripper was hired to do a lewd dance.

The real tragedy here is the wanton disregard that many Americans have for God's law that commands us against sexual immorality. Nobody seems to care that the real person that was offended in this ordeal was Almighty God who commands us in His Word to avoid sexual sin and immorality of this nature. While these Duke students are innocent of the false charged made against them by a rogue prosecutor, where is the public outcry against the fact that they should not have hired a stripper and got loaded on booze in the first place? Where is the sense of moral outrage against public indecency?

" Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people" (Proverbs 14:34).

God's Inerrant Word

"Heaven and Earth shall pass away but, my Word shall never pass away."

(Matthew 24:35).

by Emilio Ramos

Ministry Leader,

Sovereign Joy Christian Fellowship

Keller, Texas

(Mr. Ramos, Expository Bible Teacher, Worship Leader and Christian Apologist with a specialization in Islamic Studies, is a graduate of Calvary Chapel Saving Grace's School of Ministry in Yorba Linda California. He is currently part of a Church planting effort in Keller Texas. He is married to the lovely and dynamic Evangelist Trisha Ramos, who works for the on fire Evangelistic Ministry Living Waters. Trisha's Ministry links are as follows:

www.myspace.com/fishwithtrish

www.adventuresinchristianity.com

In studying for the case for Biblical inerrancy I have come to some conclusions about what the nature of this study is producing. What I mean by this is that the nature of this study forces one into a particular position on the subject, which in turn has long lasting consequences and effects. These effects will inevitably spill into areas of great importance e.g. theological as will as epistemological positions. Bahnsen has given me great thought concerning the restrictions placed upon autographa.





What Bahnsen an others have posted is simply that inerrancy must be restricted to the autographs because God simply did not promise to inspire inerrant copies or scribes. I have to say thus far it seems to me that if we conclude that we do not have the inerrant word of God by way of secondary codex’ we have to conclude that we do not possess an inerrant Bible but merely believe that one once existed.






Though I am far from ever becoming a textual critic I was struck with the possibility that if what we do have today in the multiplicity of MSS (manuscript) evidence is a reliable source for God’s Word, then it seems to me that it is equally possible that in the midst of the MSS do have we might indeed possess the same inerrancy as the autographs even if it will never be fully determined by textual critical methods of standardization of the biblical text. What I mean by this is that it could be just as true that though no one scribe ever copied the autographs under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit thus producing inerrant copies, it still might hold true that given the multiplicity of the copies and the transmittable variants existing in them we could possess the full force of any given text of the autographs.





For example, if we looked at a particular verse in the Bible and it comes into question as to its reliability concerning not only canonicity but even in terms of syntax, we could in turn resort to the available MS evidence for the best rendering based on textual criticism methodology. I suppose at this point one could just as easily believe in God’s ability to preserve His word for us in this way. I also suppose that God could do this without any apostolic prophetic inspiration given to any one scribe or group of textual critics and yet give His church the ability to restore the autographic text in a more collective and selective method. In other words, I see no reason why we cannot believe that if one MS did not contain a perfect rendition of the autographas another could and that this recovery could be performed upon the entirety of Scripture even if it is in the final analyses unbeknownst to us.

Or just as nearly the entire New Testament could be recover from the writings of the apostolic fathers so could the autographs be recovered from the whole of available MS evidence. This could eliminate Bahnsen’s and others need for the restriction position. Having said this I realize that there are some obvious problems with even this position. We could easily say that if this were true prior to certain MS being recovered the position could not be true. But this could be said of the apostolic age as well. Believing in portions of the New Testament prior to having the entire New Testament is not a new phenomena. Since the first Scriptures were written there have been members of the people of God who were without the fullness of the written revelation. In the face of this reality it must be stated that God is sovereign over even the temporary absence of the written Word in part or in fullness. God simply has saw fit to allow for this to happen.






So then, the issue of restriction is at the same time logical but possibly not altogether necessary. Bahnsen speaks of the distinction between the position of restricted inerrancy and those of limited inerrancy as being more than mere trivial differences. As Bahnsen put it regarding the distinction, “it has tremendous importance, not because inerrancy is necessary for God to use, and the reader to profit from a copy of Scripture but in order to maintain the veracity of God and the unchallengeable epistemological authority of our theological commitments” (Inerrancy, edited by Norman L. Geisler, p.184). These are the effects and consequences I was confronted with in terms of the restriction position. Bahnsen also states quite clearly that, “the doctrine of original inerrancy (or the restriction position) permits doubts only about the identification of the text­­, doubts that can be allayed by textual critical methods” (Ibid p.184). It was unclear to me to what extent “can be allayed” was to be understood. If textual criticism can indeed recover the original meaning of a passage/text or as he put it, “when the proper text has been identified by someone holding to original inerrancy, he has an incontestable truth” (Ibid p.184) then how necessary is the restriction position? Is it not also believable that this is possible with the whole of Scripture? And thus, view all of the biblical text (after the same textually critical examination and exegesis) as an uncontestable truth, which is to me only possible in the presence of inerrancy. But if we hold to the restriction position it seems that this The Chicago Statementon Biblical Inerrancy would only be plausible in the face of the autographs.

The Evangelical Debate Society Holds to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the Cambridge Declaration as its Offical Doctrinal Statements

The Chicago Statementon Biblical Inerrancy

NOTE:

This was the statement that launched the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, an interdenominational joint effort by hundreds of evangelical scholars and leaders to defend biblical inerrancy against the trend toward liberal and neo-orthodox conceptions of Scripture. The Statement was produced at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978, during an international summit conference of concerned evangelical leaders. It was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J.I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul, and John Wenham. The ICBI disbanded in 1988, its work complete. The Council ultimately produced three major statements: this one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986. A published copy of the statement may be found in Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 4 (Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1979), on pp. 211-219.

PREFACE The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God's written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.

The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God's own Word that marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstanding of this doctrine in the world at large. This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition.

It has been prepared in the course of a three-day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the Church in its faith, life and mission.

We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we propose by God's grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word. We invite response to this Statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help that enables us to strengthen this testimony to God's Word we shall be grateful.

I. SUMMARY STATEMENT

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning. 4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives. 5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited of disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

II. ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL

Article I. We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God. We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II. We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture. We deny that church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III. We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV. We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Article V. We affirm that God's revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI. We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII. We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us. We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII. We affirm that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared. We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.
Article IX. We affirm that inspiration, through not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write. We deny that the finitude or falseness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

Article X. We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI. We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated.

Article XII. We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII. We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture. We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV. We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved violate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV. We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration. We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI. We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history. We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII. We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word. We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII. We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads or relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims of authorship.

Article XIX. We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ. We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.

III. EXPOSITION Our understanding of the doctrine of inerrancy must be set in the context of the broader teachings of Scripture concerning itself. This exposition gives an account of the outline of doctrine from which our Summary Statement and Articles are drawn.

A. Creation, Revelation and Inspiration The God, who formed all things by his creative utterances and governs all things by His Word of decree, made mankind in His own image for a life of communion with Himself, on the model of the eternal fellowship of loving communication within the Godhead. As God's image-bearer, man was to hear God's Word addressed to him and to respond in the joy of adoring obedience. Over and above God's self-disclosure in the created order and the sequence of events within it, human beings from Adam on have received verbal messages from Him, either directly, as stated in Scripture, or indirectly in the form of part or all of Scripture itself.

When Adam fell, the Creator did not abandon mankind to final judgement, but promised salvation and began to reveal Himself as Redeemer in a sequence of historical events centering on Abraham's family and culminating in the life, death, resurrection, present heavenly ministry and promised return of Jesus Christ. Within this frame God has from time to time spoken specific words of judgement and mercy, promise and command, to sinful human beings, so drawing them into a covenant relation of mutual commitment between Him and them in which He blesses them with gifts of grace and they bless Him in responsive adoration. Moses, whom God used as mediator to carry his words to His people at the time of the exodus, stands at the head of a long line of prophets in whose mouths and writings God put His words for delivery to Israel. God's purpose in this succession of messages was to maintain His covenant by causing His people to know His name--that is, His nature--and His will both of precept and purpose in the present and for the future. This line of prophetic spokesmen from God came to completion in Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Word, who was Himself a prophet--more that a prophet, but not less--and in the apostles and prophets of the first Christian generation.

When God's final and climactic message, His word to the world concerning Jesus Christ, had been spoken and elucidated by those in the apostolic circle, the sequence of revealed messages ceased. Henceforth the Church was to live and know God by what He had already said, and said for all time. At Sinai God wrote the terms of His covenant on tablets of stone as His enduring witness and for lasting accessibility, and throughout the period of prophetic and apostolic revelation He prompted men to write the messages given to and through them, along with celebratory records of His dealings with His people, plus moral reflections on covenant life and forms of praise and prayer for covenant mercy. The theological reality of inspiration in the producing of Biblical documents corresponds to that of spoken prophecies: Although the human writers' personalities were expressed in what they wrote, the words were divinely constituted. Thus what Scripture says, God says; its authority is His authority, for He is its ultimate Author, having given it through the minds and words of chosen and prepared men who in freedom and faithfulness "spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet 1:21). Holy Scripture must be acknowledged as the Word of God by virtue of its divine origin.

B. Authority: Christ and the Bible

Jesus Christ, the Son of God who is the Word made flesh, our Prophet, Priest and King, is the ultimate Mediator of God's communication to man, as He is of all God's gifts of grace. The revelation He gave was more that verbal; He revealed the Father by His presence and His deeds as well. Yet His words were crucially important ; for He was God, He spoke from the Father, and His words will judge all men at the last day. As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus Christ is the central theme of Scripture. The Old Testament looked ahead to Him; the New Testament looks back to His first coming and on to His second. Canonical Scripture is the divinely inspired and therefore normative witness to Christ. No hermeneutic, therefore, of which the historical Christ is not the focal point is acceptable. Holy Scripture must be treated as what it essentially is--the witness of the Father to the incarnate Son. It appears that the Old Testament canon had been fixed by the time of Jesus. The New Testament canon is likewise now closed, inasmuch as no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne. No new revelation (as distinct from Spirit-given understanding of existing revelation) will be given until Christ comes again. The canon was created in principle by divine inspiration. The Church's part was to discern the canon that God had created, not to devise one of its own.

The word 'canon', signifying a rule of standard, is a pointer to authority, which means the right to rule and control. Authority in Christianity belongs to God in His revelation, which means, on the one hand, Jesus Christ, the living Word, and, on the other hand, Holy Scripture, the written Word.

But the authority of Christ and that of Scripture are one. As our Prophet, Christ testified that Scripture cannot be broken. As our Priest and King, He devoted His earthly life to fulfilling the law and the prophets, even dying in obedience to the words of messianic prophecy. Thus as He saw Scripture attesting Him and His authority, so by His own submission to Scripture He attested its authority. As He bowed to His Father's instruction given in His Bible (our Old Testament), so He requires His disciples to do--not, however, in isolation but in conjunction with the apostolic witness to Himself that He undertook to inspire by his gift of the Holy Spirit. So Christians show themselves faithful servants of their Lord by bowing to the divine instruction given in the prophetic and apostolic writings that together make up our Bible. By authenticating each other's authority, Christ and Scripture coalesce into a single fount of authority. The Biblically-interpreted Christ and the Christ-centered, Christ-proclaiming Bible are from this standpoint one. As from the fact of inspiration we infer that what Scripture says, God says, so from the revealed relation between Jesus Christ and Scripture we may equally declare that what Scripture says, Christ says.

C. Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called 'infallible' and 'inerrant'. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths. 'Infallible' signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe and reliable rule and guide in all matters. Similarly, 'inerrant' signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions. We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise. So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed. The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions. Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer's mind. Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.

D. Skepticism and Criticism

Since the Renaissance, and more particularly since the Enlightenment, world views have been developed that involve skepticism about basic Christian tenets. Such are the agnosticism that denies that God is knowable, the rationalism that denies that He is incomprehensible, the idealism that denies that He is transcendent, and the existentialism that denies rationality in His relationships with us. When these un- and anti-Biblical principles seep into men's theologies at presuppositional level, as today they frequently do, faithful interpretation of Holy Scripture becomes impossible.

E. Transmission and Translation Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free. Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).
F. Inerrancy and Authority In our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as involving its total truth, we are consciously standing with Christ and His apostles, indeed with the whole Bible and with the main stream of Church history from the first days until very recently. We are concerned at that casual, inadvertent and seemingly thoughtless way in which a belief of such far-reaching importance has been given up by so many in our day. We are conscious too that great and grave confusion results from ceasing to maintain the total truth of the Bible whose authority one professes to acknowledge.

The result of taking this step is that the Bible that God gave loses its authority, and what has authority instead is a Bible reduced in content according to the demands of one's critical reasoning and in principle reducible still further once one has started. This means that at bottom independent reason now has authority, as opposed to Scriptural teaching. If this is not seen and if for the time being basic evangelical doctrines are still held, persons denying the full truth of Scripture may claim an evangelical identity while methodologically they have moved away from the evangelical principle of knowledge to an unstable subjectivism, and will find it hard not to move further.

We affirm that what Scripture says, God says. May He be glorified. Amen and Amen.

THE CAMBRIDGE DECLARATION

of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

April 20, 1996

Evangelical churches today are increasingly dominated by the spirit of this age rather than by the Spirit of Christ. As evangelicals, we call ourselves to repent of this sin and to recover the historic Christian faith.

In the course of history words change. In our day this has happened to the word "evangelical." In the past it served as a bond of unity between Christians from a wide diversity of church traditions. Historic evangelicalism was confessional. It embraced the essential truths of Christianity as those were defined by the great ecumenical councils of the church. In addition, evangelicals also shared a common heritage in the "solas" of the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation.

Today the light of the Reformation has been significantly dimmed. The consequence is that the word "evangelical" has become so inclusive as to have lost its meaning. We face the peril of losing the unity it has taken centuries to achieve. Because of this crisis and because of our love of Christ, his gospel and his church, we endeavor to assert anew our commitment to the central truths of the Reformation and of historic evangelicalism. These truths we affirm not because of their role in our traditions, but because we believe that they are central to the Bible.

Sola Scriptura: The Erosion Of Authority

Scripture alone is the inerrant rule of the church's life, but the evangelical church today has separated Scripture from its authoritative function. In practice, the church is guided, far too often, by the culture. Therapeutic technique, marketing strategies, and the beat of the entertainment world often have far more to say about what the church wants, how it functions and what it offers, than does the Word of God. Pastors have neglected their rightful oversight of worship, including the doctrinal content of the music. As biblical authority has been abandoned in practice, as its truths have faded from Christian consciousness, and as its doctrines have lost their saliency, the church has been increasingly emptied of its integrity, moral authority and direction.

Rather than adapting Christian faith to satisfy the felt needs of consumers, we must proclaim the law as the only measure of true righteousness and the gospel as the only announcement of saving truth. Biblical truth is indispensable to the church's understanding, nurture and discipline.

Scripture must take us beyond our perceived needs to our real needs and liberate us from seeing ourselves through the seductive images, cliche's, promises. and priorities of mass culture. It is only in the light of God's truth that we understand ourselves aright and see God's provision for our need. The Bible, therefore, must be taught and preached in the church. Sermons must be expositions of the Bible and its teachings, not expressions of the preachers opinions or the ideas of the age. We must settle for nothing less than what God has given.

The work of the Holy Spirit in personal experience cannot be disengaged from Scripture. The Spirit does not speak in ways that are independent of Scripture. Apart from Scripture we would never have known of God's grace in Christ. The biblical Word, rather than spiritual experience, is the test of truth.

Thesis One: Sola Scriptura

We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation, which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured. We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian's conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.

Solus Christus: The Erosion Of Christ-Centered Faith

As evangelical faith becomes secularized, its interests have been blurred with those of the culture. The result is a loss of absolute values, permissive individualism, and a substitution of wholeness for holiness, recovery for repentance, intuition for truth, feeling for belief, chance for providence, and immediate gratification for enduring hope. Christ and his cross have moved from the center of our vision.

Thesis Two: Solus Christus

We reaffirm that our salvation is accomplished by the mediatorial work of the historical Christ alone. His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to the Father.

We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ's substitutionary work is not declared and faith in Christ and his work is not solicited.

Sola Gratia: The Erosion Of The Gospel

Unwarranted confidence in human ability is a product of fallen human nature. This false confidence now fills the evangelical world; from the self-esteem gospel, to the health and wealth gospel, from those who have transformed the gospel into a product to be sold and sinners into consumers who want to buy, to others who treat Christian faith as being true simply because it works. This silences the doctrine of justification regardless of the official commitments of our churches.

God's grace in Christ is not merely necessary but is the sole efficient cause of salvation. We confess that human beings are born spiritually dead and are incapable even of cooperating with regenerating grace.

Thesis Three: Sola Gratia

We reaffirm that in salvation we are rescued from God's wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life.

We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work. Human methods, techniques or strategies by themselves cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature.

Sola Fide: The Erosion Of The Chief Article

Justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. This is the article by which the church stands or falls. Today this article is often ignored, distorted or sometimes even denied by leaders, scholars and pastors who claim to be evangelical. Although fallen human nature has always recoiled from recognizing its need for Christ's imputed righteousness, modernity greatly fuels the fires of this discontent with the biblical Gospel. We have allowed this discontent to dictate the nature of our ministry and what it is we are preaching.

Many in the church growth movement believe that sociological understanding of those in the pew is as important to the success of the gospel as is the biblical truth which is proclaimed. As a result, theological convictions are frequently divorced from the work of the ministry. The marketing orientation in many churches takes this even further, erasing the distinction between the biblical Word and the world, robbing Christ's cross of its offense, and reducing Christian faith to the principles and methods which bring success to secular corporations.

While the theology of the cross may be believed, these movements are actually emptying it of its meaning. There is no gospel except that of Christ's substitution in our place whereby God imputed to him our sin and imputed to us his righteousness. Because he bore our judgment, we now walk in his grace as those who are forever pardoned, accepted and adopted as God's children. There is no basis for our acceptance before God except in Christ's saving work, not in our patriotism, churchly devotion or moral decency. The gospel declares what God has done for us in Christ. It is not about what we can do to reach him.
Thesis Four: Sola Fide

We reaffirm that justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. In justification Christ's righteousness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God's perfect justice.

We deny that justification rests on any merit to be found in us, or upon the grounds of an infusion of Christ's righteousness in us, or that an institution claiming to be a church that denies or condemns sola fide can be recognized as a legitimate church.
Soli Deo Gloria: The Erosion Of God-Centered Worship

Wherever in the church biblical authority has been lost, Christ has been displaced, the gospel has been distorted, or faith has been perverted, it has always been for one reason: our interests have displaced God's and we are doing his work in our way. The loss of God's centrality in the life of today's church is common and lamentable. It is this loss that allows us to transform worship into entertainment, gospel preaching into marketing, believing into technique, being good into feeling good about ourselves, and faithfulness into being successful. As a result, God, Christ and the Bible have come to mean too little to us and rest too inconsequentially upon us.
God does not exist to satisfy human ambitions, cravings, the appetite for consumption, or our own private spiritual interests. We must focus on God in our worship, rather than the satisfaction of our personal needs. God is sovereign in worship; we are not. Our concern must be for God's kingdom, not our own empires, popularity or success.

Thesis Five: Soli Deo Gloria

We reaffirm that because salvation is of God and has been accomplished by God, it is for God's glory and that we must glorify him always. We must live our entire lives before the face of God, under the authority of God and for his glory alone. We deny that we can properly glorify God if our worship is confused with entertainment, if we neglect either Law or Gospel in our preaching, or if self-improvement, self-esteem or self- fulfillment are allowed to become alternatives to the gospel.

Call To Repentance And Reformation

The faithfulness of the evangelical church in the past contrasts sharply with its unfaithfulness in the present. Earlier in this century, evangelical churches sustained a remarkable missionary endeavor, and built many religious institutions to serve the cause of biblical truth and Christ's kingdom. That was a time when Christian behavior and expectations were markedly different from those in the culture. Today they often are not. The evangelical world today is losing its biblical fidelity, moral compass and missionary zeal.

We repent of our worldliness. We have been influenced by the "gospels" of our secular culture, which are no gospels. We have weakened the church by our own lack of serious repentance, our blindness to the sins in ourselves which we see so clearly in others, and our inexcusable failure adequately to tell others about God's saving work in Jesus Christ.

We also earnestly call back erring professing evangelicals who have deviated from God's Word in the matters discussed in this Declaration. This includes those who declare that there is hope of eternal life apart from explicit faith in Jesus Christ, who claim that those who reject Christ in this life will be annihilated rather than endure the just judgment of God through eternal suffering, or who claim that evangelicals and Roman Catholics are one in Jesus Christ even where the biblical doctrine of justification is not believed.

The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals asks all Christians to give consideration to implementing this Declaration in the church's worship, ministry, policies, life and evangelism. For Christ's sake. Amen.