The student television station at Imperial College London (stoictv.com) conducted an interview with World renowned Philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig who speaks to us about how his interest in Philosophy began, his work on a rational defense of the Christian Faith, and his debates with the world's leading atheists...Click Here
Who is Bill Craig? He's the guy that Richard Dawkins avoids...even more than going to church.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011
God’s Way Of Peace: A Book For The Anxious
Barry Horner, author of Future Israel has graciously made this booklet by Horatius Bonar available. It's well-worth reading:
There seem to be many, in our day, who are seeking God. Yet they appear to be but “feeling after him, in order to find him,” as if he were either a distant or an “unknown” God. They forget that “he is not far from every one of us” (Acts 17:27); for “in him we live, and move, and have our being.”
That He is not far; that he has come down; that he has come nigh; this is the “beginning of the gospel.” It sets aside the vain thoughts of those who think that they must bring Him nigh, by their prayers and devout performances. He has shown himself to us, that we may know him, and, in knowing him, find the life of our souls...keep reading
There seem to be many, in our day, who are seeking God. Yet they appear to be but “feeling after him, in order to find him,” as if he were either a distant or an “unknown” God. They forget that “he is not far from every one of us” (Acts 17:27); for “in him we live, and move, and have our being.”
That He is not far; that he has come down; that he has come nigh; this is the “beginning of the gospel.” It sets aside the vain thoughts of those who think that they must bring Him nigh, by their prayers and devout performances. He has shown himself to us, that we may know him, and, in knowing him, find the life of our souls...keep reading
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
1 John 2:2
"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
Excerpt from Dr Paul Henebury's study "Christ’s Atonement: Its Purpose and Extent, Part 1" Conservative Theological Journal March 2005:
Propitiation
This crucial term has been subjected to a great deal of attack over the past century or so. From scholars like R. C. H. Lenski, and, most notably, C. H. Dodd, the doctrine of propitiation has suffered strong objection. The reason for this isn’t hard to discover. To “propitiate” means to appease or avert the wrath of God, and that is conceived by some to be a problem. Dodd argued that pagans placated, that is, “propitiated” their false gods by their sacrifices.
Surely the true God is not to be pacified in the same way! And since Dodd was the Chairman of the RSV translation, he made sure that the word “expiation” replaced “propitiation” in verses like Romans 3:25 and 1 John 2:2; 4:10. Thanks to the scholarship of Leon Morris and others, “propitiation” has been shown to be an essential teaching in both testaments.7 In fact, Morton H. Smith has said:
To deny the propitiatory character of the sacrifice of Christ is to deny the essence of the atonement. For the atonement means that Christ bore our sins. ... How can we think of him carrying our sins, without bearing the judgment for those sins? Sin and judgment are inseparable in the Scriptures. Thus to bear the sin is to bear the judgment. ... The wages of sin is death, and he paid the wage.
These passages from Paul and John teach that Christ did not simply remove our guilt (expiation), He actually bore the wrath of God which ought to be visited upon us (propitiation). Otherwise, God could not be “just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26). Nevertheless, although the propitiation has been made, the condition of its efficacy is individual trust. Paul brings this out very clearly in Romans 3:25 when he states concerning Christ, “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation [hilasterion] through faith in His blood ...”
Notice how the propitiation who is Jesus Christ, is received “through faith in His blood.” This indicates that the propitiation is available but not applied until the person trusts Christ. This is how John employs the term in his First Epistle. In 1 John 2:2, Christ is called “the propitiation (hilasmos) for our sins: and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.” Again, in 1 John 4:10, [14] we read, “[God] sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (see also Heb. 2:17 where hilasterion is translated “reconciliation”). Millard Erickson sums up:
The numerous passages that speak of the wrath of God against sin are evidence that Christ’s death was necessarily propitiatory. We read of the wrath of God against sin in Romans 1:18; 2:5, 8; 4:15; 5:9; 9:22; 12:19; 13:4–5; Ephesians 2:3; 5:6; Colossians 3:6; and 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 2:16; 5:9. So then, Paul’s idea of the atoning death ... is not simply that it covers sin and cleanses from its corruption (expiation), but that the sacrifice also appeases a God who hates sin and is radically opposed to it (propitiation).
Excerpt from Dr Paul Henebury's study "Christ’s Atonement: Its Purpose and Extent, Part 1" Conservative Theological Journal March 2005:
Propitiation
This crucial term has been subjected to a great deal of attack over the past century or so. From scholars like R. C. H. Lenski, and, most notably, C. H. Dodd, the doctrine of propitiation has suffered strong objection. The reason for this isn’t hard to discover. To “propitiate” means to appease or avert the wrath of God, and that is conceived by some to be a problem. Dodd argued that pagans placated, that is, “propitiated” their false gods by their sacrifices.
Surely the true God is not to be pacified in the same way! And since Dodd was the Chairman of the RSV translation, he made sure that the word “expiation” replaced “propitiation” in verses like Romans 3:25 and 1 John 2:2; 4:10. Thanks to the scholarship of Leon Morris and others, “propitiation” has been shown to be an essential teaching in both testaments.7 In fact, Morton H. Smith has said:
To deny the propitiatory character of the sacrifice of Christ is to deny the essence of the atonement. For the atonement means that Christ bore our sins. ... How can we think of him carrying our sins, without bearing the judgment for those sins? Sin and judgment are inseparable in the Scriptures. Thus to bear the sin is to bear the judgment. ... The wages of sin is death, and he paid the wage.
These passages from Paul and John teach that Christ did not simply remove our guilt (expiation), He actually bore the wrath of God which ought to be visited upon us (propitiation). Otherwise, God could not be “just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26). Nevertheless, although the propitiation has been made, the condition of its efficacy is individual trust. Paul brings this out very clearly in Romans 3:25 when he states concerning Christ, “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation [hilasterion] through faith in His blood ...”
Notice how the propitiation who is Jesus Christ, is received “through faith in His blood.” This indicates that the propitiation is available but not applied until the person trusts Christ. This is how John employs the term in his First Epistle. In 1 John 2:2, Christ is called “the propitiation (hilasmos) for our sins: and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.” Again, in 1 John 4:10, [14] we read, “[God] sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (see also Heb. 2:17 where hilasterion is translated “reconciliation”). Millard Erickson sums up:
The numerous passages that speak of the wrath of God against sin are evidence that Christ’s death was necessarily propitiatory. We read of the wrath of God against sin in Romans 1:18; 2:5, 8; 4:15; 5:9; 9:22; 12:19; 13:4–5; Ephesians 2:3; 5:6; Colossians 3:6; and 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 2:16; 5:9. So then, Paul’s idea of the atoning death ... is not simply that it covers sin and cleanses from its corruption (expiation), but that the sacrifice also appeases a God who hates sin and is radically opposed to it (propitiation).
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Response to a Calvinist
I've linked to one of Helen Setterfield's articles here previously. Here's another good one:
A friend who is a Calvinist wrote to me that he was a little upset with my articles on Calvinism here. I asked him to show me where I was wrong. His points are in blue italics. My responses are in straight print.
The Apostle describes us as being dead in sin (Eph. 2:1,5). Picture Lazarus in the tomb—powerless to choose life. We’re all like that, but Jesus quickened Lazarus from the dead. John tells us that these were signs. Paul himself was in no mood to choose Jesus, but Jesus was in a mood to do a heart transplant on Paul (cf. Ezek. 36:26).
First, I think the problem is with the definition of ‘death.’ Death means separation, not unconsciousness. When a person dies physically, he is separated from his body. The body may not be able to respond, but the person himself is quite conscious (or hell would have no meaning). Spiritual death, or the second death, is separation from God. In John 17:3, Jesus defines eternal life as knowing God and the Son. That means eternal death is NOT knowing them. The ‘know’ in this context is not an intellectual acknowledgement, but rather an intimate relationship – along the lines of Adam knowing his wife and she becoming pregnant. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, He caused his soul and spirit to re-enter his body and healed the body from the effects of what caused his death. Remember the story about the rich man and the other Lazarus after death (Luke 16:19-31)? Both were entirely conscious although their bodies were probably well-rotted by that time. So death is not unconsciousness.
In Isaiah 1:18, the Lord invites the sinner “Come, let us reason together…though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best from the land; but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword.” Who is the Lord talking to? Someone who is already saved? No. Someone who is deeply in sin, and the person is being offered a choice. This offer is totally meaningless if the person is not able to respond to the Lord.
In Jeremiah 29, the Lord tells the people of Israel, “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you.”
Remember Jesus saying, “Come to me all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give your rest.” Are only those chosen from before the beginning of time those who labor and are heavy-laden? I sincerely doubt that.
About Paul. Paul was totally eager to protect the reputation and character of God. For THAT reason he was persecuting the Christians. Paul’s heart was totally for the God he knew from the Scriptures and had been taught in rabbinical school. He had also been taught that the Christian sect was heretical and therefore he was going to do his best to protect God’s holy reputation/name and stamp it out. God knew Paul’s heart and honored Paul’s devotion, even though it was involved in a misunderstanding about Jesus. So Jesus presented Paul with the truth of Himself and Paul responded 100%. The rest is history. There was no ‘mood’ about it, either way...read the article
A friend who is a Calvinist wrote to me that he was a little upset with my articles on Calvinism here. I asked him to show me where I was wrong. His points are in blue italics. My responses are in straight print.
The Apostle describes us as being dead in sin (Eph. 2:1,5). Picture Lazarus in the tomb—powerless to choose life. We’re all like that, but Jesus quickened Lazarus from the dead. John tells us that these were signs. Paul himself was in no mood to choose Jesus, but Jesus was in a mood to do a heart transplant on Paul (cf. Ezek. 36:26).
First, I think the problem is with the definition of ‘death.’ Death means separation, not unconsciousness. When a person dies physically, he is separated from his body. The body may not be able to respond, but the person himself is quite conscious (or hell would have no meaning). Spiritual death, or the second death, is separation from God. In John 17:3, Jesus defines eternal life as knowing God and the Son. That means eternal death is NOT knowing them. The ‘know’ in this context is not an intellectual acknowledgement, but rather an intimate relationship – along the lines of Adam knowing his wife and she becoming pregnant. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, He caused his soul and spirit to re-enter his body and healed the body from the effects of what caused his death. Remember the story about the rich man and the other Lazarus after death (Luke 16:19-31)? Both were entirely conscious although their bodies were probably well-rotted by that time. So death is not unconsciousness.
In Isaiah 1:18, the Lord invites the sinner “Come, let us reason together…though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best from the land; but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword.” Who is the Lord talking to? Someone who is already saved? No. Someone who is deeply in sin, and the person is being offered a choice. This offer is totally meaningless if the person is not able to respond to the Lord.
In Jeremiah 29, the Lord tells the people of Israel, “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you.”
Remember Jesus saying, “Come to me all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give your rest.” Are only those chosen from before the beginning of time those who labor and are heavy-laden? I sincerely doubt that.
About Paul. Paul was totally eager to protect the reputation and character of God. For THAT reason he was persecuting the Christians. Paul’s heart was totally for the God he knew from the Scriptures and had been taught in rabbinical school. He had also been taught that the Christian sect was heretical and therefore he was going to do his best to protect God’s holy reputation/name and stamp it out. God knew Paul’s heart and honored Paul’s devotion, even though it was involved in a misunderstanding about Jesus. So Jesus presented Paul with the truth of Himself and Paul responded 100%. The rest is history. There was no ‘mood’ about it, either way...read the article
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Calvinism & John 3:16
Great article. I think the author nails it well....
In order to believe in Calvinistic theology, a person must explain why the normal text of a passage simply does not say what it appears to say. John 3:16 is probably the most popular Bible verse in all the world, and yes, by that I mean the entire world. I could be wrong, but needless to say, many people, even non-Christians, know this verse by heart. However, according to Calvinists, this verse does not really mean exactly what it says. To them, the word “world” does not mean the entire world.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
A Calvinist could probably spend over thirty minutes explaining to you why the word “world” in this sentence does not mean the whole world...keep reading
In order to believe in Calvinistic theology, a person must explain why the normal text of a passage simply does not say what it appears to say. John 3:16 is probably the most popular Bible verse in all the world, and yes, by that I mean the entire world. I could be wrong, but needless to say, many people, even non-Christians, know this verse by heart. However, according to Calvinists, this verse does not really mean exactly what it says. To them, the word “world” does not mean the entire world.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
A Calvinist could probably spend over thirty minutes explaining to you why the word “world” in this sentence does not mean the whole world...keep reading
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
