Bellator Christi Archives - Page 2 of 9

Tag Archive for: Bellator Christi

Perpetua

Perpetua was born in Carthage (modern day Tunisia) near the end of the second century. Her family of origin was well off and when we first meet her, she is a young wife and mother. The church in Carthage had grown in the century and a half since the resurrection of Jesus. Perpetua had responded to the truth of the Gospel and became a follower of Jesus. When we encounter her in the pages of history, she is a catechumen. This means she was being taught the core tenants of Christianity in preparation for the public declaration of her faith through baptism.

What we know about Perpetua’s early life is limited to these few facts. Were it not for the existence of her own personal diary, we may not have ever heard of Perpetua—the brief details of her life or the story of her death. There are a few things that make this document unique and important. First is the fact that Perpetua is a woman. It is one of the earliest—if not the earliest, preserved writings by a woman in church history. She personally wrote the part documenting her imprisonment, death sentence, and two visions she had while in prison. Another person picked up the project and described the remaining part of the story.[i] While the second author is unidentified, some speculate it was Tertullian—early Christian apologist and author.[ii]

Perpetua – the Visionary

Her written story is also important as it gives us insight into the “popular piety” or contemporary Christian thought and practice of the late second and early third century in North Africa.[iii] We can garner information about the theology of martyrdom that was prevalent at the time. The theology of martyrdom had certain characteristics that Ferguson points out from Perpetua’s visions. At this time, the church believed to be called to be a martyr meant to share in the suffering Jesus experienced and therefore it was a gift to be embraced.

The martyr was seen as a witness. As we see in Perpetua’s diary, there is an audience present when she and others are brought before the authorities to face judgment and sentencing. The conversation occurs between the judge and the one charged but the testimony is overheard by those present. Any declarations of the truth of the gospel during this testimony is seen as an opportunity to spread the news of Christ. The account of her vision also provides insight into the eschatology of the time. It was believed those who died as a martyr immediately entered heaven.[iv]

Perpetua – the Prisoner

It is Perpetua’s own writing that gives us what little information we have about her life before her arrest.[v] She begins her story while in prison. We learn she was arrested along with a handful of other catechumens but was able to be baptized while imprisoned. She describes having her infant son with her and God’s grace upon them both when they were ultimately separated. The reader is introduced to Perpetua’s father. He makes a handful of visits to the prison attempting to persuade his daughter to do what was necessary to save her life. Her father was not a Christian and suggests there is no danger offering a sacrifice to the emperor in exchange for her freedom. Perpetua expresses sorrow over her father’s suffering but is resilient in her commitment to follow Jesus and worship Him along as God.

Perpetua records two visions or dreams. The significance of these for us today was discussed above. The first one occurs before Perpetua and the others are sentenced. She seems to understand from this, she will indeed die because she won’t compromise her commitment to the one true God. The second vision comes the night before she is to face the beasts in the arena. This vision convinces Perpetua she is fighting the devil himself, not animals of the earth.[vi]

Perpetua – the Martyr

Perpetua documents this second vision and is resigned to the fact that she will not write the account of the fight within the arena. She doesn’t assign someone to pick up the task but seems to leave it to whoever might. As mentioned before, some speculate it was Tertullian in part and this is so because there are literary qualities that match two of his other works.[vii] Regardless of who it was, they faithfully continued to tell Perpetua’s story. She and her fellow prisoners were led to the arena to face the animals. While she suffered injury, she was not killed by the beasts but ultimately died by the sword of the gladiator.

Conclusion

Perpetua’s story has had enduring influence throughout church history. Her diary was read in local churches for centuries following her death. St. Augustine, famous church father from a couple centuries later utilized Perpetua’s story in no less than four of his sermons. Her story has value for us today. The academic value–learning about Christian thought and beliefs of second century believers was discussed above. It also allows us to hear the personal testimony from a believer in the earliest centuries of the church.

While not all of us will be called to die for our faith, the temptation to bow to another god is something common to each one of us. It may not be the emperor to which we must consider sacrificing but it might be self, money, career, relationship or more. The one true God is quite clear: we “shall have no other god beside Him.” (Exodus 20:3 CSB)

Footnotes

[i] “The Martyrdom of Saints Perpetua and Felicitas”, https://www.ssfp.org/pdf/The_Martyrdom_of_Saints_Perpetua_and_Felicitas.pdf . (accessed September 22, 2022). This link provides access to an English version of Perpetua’s diary.

[ii] Johannes Quasten, Patrology: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature, Patrology 1 (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1992), 181.

[iii] Both Ferguson and Quasten address this point. Everett Ferguson, Church History – From Christ to the Pre-Reformation, Second edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 81-83. Quasten, Patrology, 182.

[iv] Ferguson, Church History, 82-83.

[v] https://www.ssfp.org/pdf/The_Martyrdom_of_Saints_Perpetua_and_Felicitas.pdf

[vi] Ferguson, Church History, 82-83.

[vii] Quasten, Patrology,181.

How To Explain the Trinity to Muslims

Islam, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Sherene Khouri

Islam and Christianity claim to be monotheistic religions. They both believe in one supreme God; however, their concept of the nature of the divine being is different. The Islamic understanding affirms in a strong sense the absolute oneness of God through the doctrine of tawhid (Surah 4:171). Allah is one, and he has no partner, rival, or equal. The Christian understanding, on the other hand, upholds the trinitarian nature of God. “God is one (Deut 6:4), while including in that unity of the Father, who sent his Son; the Son, who is sent: and the Spirit, who is sent by them both.”[i] God is an eternal co-inhering community of equals. While the Qur’an portrays the Trinity in terms of a holy family—Holy God, Holy Mother, and Holy Son (Surah 6:101; 5:116), there is no historical evidence that orthodox Christianity ever described the Trinity in this way. This article discusses the biblical, historical, theological, and philosophical understandings of the Trinity to help Christians explain and discuss the doctrine of the Trinity with their Muslim friends.

The Biblical Explanation

The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible because this doctrine was formulated in the fourth century during the ecumenical council of Nicene. The later formulation, however, does not mean that this doctrine is fabricated or unbiblical. On the contrary, God being trinitarian in nature is a biblical concept that is deeply rooted in Scripture. For example, the concept of God being a father is not a foreign concept to Jews. It was used in the Old Testament (Exodus 15:2 NIV), and Jesus’s teachings emphasized the personal aspect of the fatherhood of God by using the term “abba” to portray his intimate relationship with God. “[W]hen [Jewish] men addressed God as Father,” as Arthur Wainwright explains, “they would use the more formal ‘abuna’ (our father), but one’s own father would be addressed by using the absolute state of the noun, which is ‘abba’.[ii] Jesus used this term to introduce the Father to the Jews and to explain the Father’s relationship to himself.

God, the Father is distinguished from Jesus (God the Son) in the New Testament. This distinction is clear in Jesus’ prayers before the crucifixion. Jesus prayed to the Father and asked him to “glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you … this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). Jesus was not praying to himself, but to another person (the Father), distinguishing himself from the Father. In the same way, the Apostle Paul makes a similar distinction between the Father and the Son, explaining that “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (Eph 4:6). God the Father is not the mediator, but Jesus is the mediator between God and men.

In addition to Jesus being distinguished from the Father, the Holy Spirit is introduced to the divine Godhead in a way that distinguishes him from the Father and the Son. The Spirit is often described in a personal way, which suggests that he is a person, and can speak to men (1 Tim 4:1; Heb 3:7). Jesus tells his disciples about the παράκλητος (paráklētos), who is the third person of the Trinity, whom God will send to dwell with believers after the ascension of Christ. He states, “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me” (John 15:26). Jesus, in this verse, distinguishes between the Father, Himself, and the Holy Spirit.

In the Bible, the Holy Spirit is not portrayed as a mere state or power because He acts in his distinct personhood. He grieves (Ephesian 4:30), speaks (Mark 13:11-12), teaches (John 14:26), leads (Rom 8:14), and cries (Gal 4:6). Additionally, the Johannine writings call the Spirit παράκλητος (paraklētos), which means the “one who helps, advocates, or comforts someone on behalf of another.”[iii] A “something/someone” who speaks, leads, teaches, and advocates cannot be a mere state or power. On the contrary, he is the One who gives power; therefore, he is a person.

God is revealed in the Bible as one divine being, yet there are distinctions (persons). He was not revealed as a single divine being, as traditionally had been conceived. God is one being in one sense and three persons in a different sense. He is one God who created the universe in one sense and three persons who share the same essence in a different sense.[iv] There are three persons denominated: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who deserve to be called God, and yet there is but one God. The scene of the baptism depicts a clear picture of God as Trinity. When Jesus was in the water, “the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased’” (Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32). This scene shows that the Christian God is one divine being in three persons.

The prologue of the Gospel of John has the strongest argument for the Trinity. John says in the first verse of the book: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Here is an indication of the divinity of the Word. There is a clue that the Son is distinct from the Father, yet there is fellowship between them. As Wayne Grudem suggests, “the preposition pros (“with”) does not connote merely physical proximity to the Father but an intimacy of fellowship as well.”[v]

Jesus is described as the word and the spirit of God in the Qur’an (Surah 4:171) as well. Most Muslims believe that the word of God is eternal; however, they do not believe that Jesus is eternal with God.

A Historical Explanation

Believing in the trinitarian God does not mean believing in three separate gods but believing in one divine being who is revealed in three persons. Since the doctrine of tawḥid implements numerical meaning, it is hard for Muslims to understand the word Trinity in a non-numerical sense—a metaphysical sense. This is the reason that pushed the Christian Arab apologists to use the word اقنوم (pl. اقانيم) (Uqnoum, pl. Aqanim) to convey the idea of the Greek word ὑπόστασις (hypostasis). The word Aqanim is never used in the Arabic language, except in the doctrine of the Trinity to covey the idea of the divine persons and illuminate the similarities with the concept of the human person. According to Imad Shehadeh, who is a leading contemporary scholar on the subject of the Trinity in Jordan, “the only benefit from using this word [Uqnoum] in Arabic language is to distance the word ‘person’ from God and substitute it with a foreign and an unknown word that conveys its meaning.”[vi] In other words, dedicating a special terminology to the divine Person indicates a special meaning and illuminates the confusion with the human/physical meaning of the word person. In my opinion, this term should be used in conversation with Muslims to avoid the tritheism confusion that might arise from the human concept of a human being as individual consciousness. The divine Aqanim (persons) are three in a way that does not apply to human persons and cannot be read off from human experience apart from revelation.

A Philosophical Explanation

Muslims believe that Allah is an eternal divine being and the creator of the world. In other words, there was no time before Allah, there was nothing that existed before him, and there was no time in history when Allah did not exist. However, this explanation does not make Allah the greatest conceived being because it does not show the relational nature of Allah before creating the universe. Allah has to be relational in nature because he listens, communicates, and receives worship. This is to say that Allah has a relationship with his creation, he did not create the world and left it to face its own destiny. However, if Allah is truly unipersonal and relational with his creation, what about his relationality before the creation? Who was Allah hearing, seeing, and watching before the creation of the cosmos? To whom was he showing kindness and love? All these divine attributes/names require either otherness in the inner being of Allah or another person/creation external to him. Before creation, there could not have been co-communion, mutual recognition, or altruism in Allah because there is no external differentiation to him or internal diversity in him. This limitation makes Allah dependent on his creation. He needs it in order to be the Hearer (as-Sami’), the Seer (al-Baṣir), the Kind (al-Laṭif), the Watcher (ar-Raqib), and the Loving (al-Wadud.) These attributes were disabled before creation. They were not actualized until Allah created the cosmos.

In Christianity, this problem does not exist because of the doctrine of the Trinity. God lives eternally in an intra-relationship (not alone) within himself, and in an inter-relationship with humanity after creation. The three Aqanim are united by their common divinity or whole generic essence. “The persons are also unified by their joint redemptive purpose and work,” says Cornelius Plantinga, “Their knowledge and love are directed, not only to their creatures but also primordially and archetypally to each other. The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. . . The Trinity is thus a zestful community or divine light, love, joy, mutuality, and verve.”[vii] The divine richness is understood in terms of relationality, with a communion of unity among the three Aqanim. The terms Father and Son are relational terms. One cannot be a parent without having a child and vice versa. Hence, by referring to God as Father, Christians conceive God as being eternally in relation to Himself; this relationship of fatherhood is, in the eternal sense, with the Son.[viii] God is not three separate persons/beings, such as in human person/individual. Instead, He is a unity in diversity.

The belief that God is one divine being and three Aqanim is not self-contradictory because the supposition that “God is either one or three” is logically fallacious. This belief represents the false dichotomy or, what is called, a false dilemma or the black/white fallacy. This fallacy occurs when only two choices are presented yet more exist.[ix] Suggesting that God is either one or three, ignores the option that Christianity presents. The Trinity is a divine, transcendent community of three divine Aqanim: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Theologians tend to be very careful about how to use analogies to explain the Trinity because many of the analogies that were historically used conveyed a form of modalism or tritheism. The following analogy is not meant to be literal, but it is intended to answer the question: “how can God be one and three without any contradiction?” Every man/woman is made as one human being and one person. Beethoven, for instance, is a human being because he belongs to the human race, and he is a unique person because of his musical skills, talents, DNA, personality… etc. His personhood is what makes him unique from Mozart or other musicians. He is a human being in one sense and a unique musician/person in another sense. In other words, he is both without a contradiction. In like manner, Christians believe that the Trinity is not a self-contradictory argument because while God is a divine being, He is also three Aqanim. He is a divine being in one sense because He belongs to the divine realm (not to the human race), and he is three Aqanim—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—in a different sense because He belongs to his own realm Sui generis, where nothing is like him. It would be considered a contradiction if God is one divine being and three persons in the same sense.

Bibliography

Athanasius. Ad Antiochenos 6. Accessed April 30, 2020, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2818.htm.

Erickson, Millard. Introducing Christian Doctrine. 3^rd ed. MI: Baker Academic, 2015.

Holland, Richard, jr. and Benjamin K. Forrest. Good Arguments: Making Your Case in Writing and Public Speaking. Baker Academic, 2017.

McCall, Thomas H. “Relational Trinity: Creedal Perspective.” In Two views on the Doctrine of the Trinity. Edited by Sexton, Jason S. MI: Zondervan, 2014.

Plantinga, Cornelius, jr. “Social Trinity and Tritheism.” In Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays. Edited by Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989.

Shehadeh, Imad. Al-Ab wa al-Ibn wa al-Roh al-Qudus Ilah wahid … Amin: Dharoret al-Ta’adudiyah fi al-Wahidaniyah al-Ilahiyah [The father and the Son and the Holy Spirit On God …Amin: the Necessity of the multiplicity in the divine oneness]. Al-Matin, Lebanon: Dar al-Manhal, 2009.

Wainwright, Arthur. W. The Trinity in the New Testament. London, UK: S. P. C. K., 1975

Footnotes

[i] “Trinity,” s.v. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, (Baker Academics, 2017).

[ii] Arthur W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament (London, UK: S. P. C. K., 1975), 45.

[iii] “παράκλητος (paraklētos),” s.v. Lexham Theological Wordbook, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press), 2014.

[iv] Athanasius. Ad Antiochenos 6, accessed April 30, 020,

[v] Millard Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, 3^rd ed., (MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 112.

[vi] Imad Shehadeh, al-Ab wa al-Ibn wa al-Roh al-Qudus Ilah wahid … Amin: Dharoret al-Ta’adudiyah fi al-Wahidaniyah al-Ilahiyah [The father and the Son and the Holy Spirit On God …Amin: the Necessity of the multiplicity in the divine oneness], (al-Matin, Lebanon: Dar al-Manhal, 2009), 31. The original Arabic renders as: “الفائدة الوحيدة في استخدام هذه الكلمة في اللغة العربية هي ابعاد كلمة ’الشخص’ عن الله واستبدالها بكلمة اجنبية غير معروفة في معناها.”

[vii] Cornelius Plantinga jr. “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” in Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays, ed. Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 31.

[viii] Thomas H. McCall, “Relational Trinity: Creedal Perspective,” in Two views on the Doctrine of the Trinity, Sexton, Jason S. ed., (MI: Zondervan, 2014), 133.

[ix] Richard Holland Jr, and Benjamin K. Forrest. Good Arguments: Making Your Case in Writing and Public Speaking (Baker Academic, 2017), 39.

Whether Christians Should Study Philosophy

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By JD Kline

Question: I am curious whether Christians should study philosophy.

Answer: At some point, you may have heard it said, “Christians should not study philosophy because the Bible warns believers to beware of philosophy.” Colossians 2:8 describes it as “empty deceit” and of the “traditions of men,” or “worldly” and not of Christ. Some believe the very nature of its discourse will talk its followers right out of belief in God. Therefore, it is believed, that not only is the study of philosophy unbiblical. It leads one to skepticism. I was once told, “All you need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit.” Or “just have faith.”

However, this is not biblically accurate nor is it necessarily true. In the wrong hands, philosophy can be dangerous. But, in my experience, philosophy has brought me into a closer relationship with God. As the giver of wisdom (Proverbs 2:6, James 1:5), I can know Him more deeply and shed whatever intellectual barriers of reluctance obscuring a head-to-heart connection.

God is not anti-philosophy. God says, “Come, now, and let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). Furthermore, the Scriptures teach us to love the lord, God, with our minds (Luke 10:27); and to destroy lofty arguments raised against the knowledge of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). The Scriptures, in other words, command us to develop our God-given rational faculties and use it to live our lives wisely in pursuit of Christ. We learn from 1 Peter 3:15 that we are to persuasively answer for the hope that is in us. Believe it or not, this is the task of philosophy. Listen, now, to the voices of our past.

Great Christian Thinkers on the Study of Philosophy

The late Norman Geisler states that “We cannot properly beware of philosophy unless we be aware of philosophy”[i] Furthermore, “God never bypasses the mind on the way to the heart.”[ii]

C.S. Lewis states, “If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were educated. But a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”[iii]

Puritan, Cotton Mather once said, “Ignorance is the Mother not of Devotion but of Heresy.”[iv] This may not be about philosophy, specifically, but it is a charge against the anti-intellectual movement within the Church for all time. Therefore, the Church cannot afford to be ignorant regarding philosophy because philosophy leads to knowledge of God while the snake of heresy lies waiting to prey on the ignorant and twist the spirit of our devotion (truth)– for confusion and lies. Beware of those who try to reason you out of philosophy because their philosophy on Philosophy is philosophically ignorant. In their piety, they lead one not into devotion but heresy. Philosophy is a handmaiden for the truth about God.

The Philosophical Question about the Study of Philosophy

Notice, the very question itself demands the use of what it intends to refute. At its core, “why should Christians study philosophy?” is a philosophical question in nature. To answer a philosophical question, then, would require the use of philosophical reasoning. Therefore, to deny the use of reason would require the use of reason to successfully deny it. That is self-refuting. It is like saying, “never say never,” but only, “The reason we ought not to use reason is that there is no biblical reason for it.” False. In fact, we should study philosophy because philosophy informs readers of the Bible on how to interpret and understand the Bible. Have you ever considered the rules for interpreting literature? Philosophy guides the principles and methods we use of interpreting the Biblical text – a discipline called hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a philosophical enterprise. We couldn’t do theology, or any of the sciences for that matter, without philosophy. It is foundational to knowledge. Indeed, philosophy permeates every aspect of our lives and how we live it. Even if we don’t realize it, each of us has a philosophy about philosophy and whether Christians ought to study it. So, what is philosophy?

Defining Philosophy

Quite simply, philosophy is the love of wisdom. In other terms, philosophy is learning how to think rightly and logically about what is, such as: what is real, what is true, what is beautiful, and so on. It is the pursuit of truth. Jesus, who is God, is the truth (John 14:7). Therefore, in my view, when one studies philosophy, they are in pursuit of God. What we decide about Him then becomes a matter of faith – to believe or not to believe.

Conclusion

I can go on, but the truth is that much has been written about whether Christians should study philosophy and why. I would be remiss not to direct you to some prominent voices of our own time and allow their work to guide you.

For Further Study

J.P. Moreland. Love Your God with All Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012).

Norm Geisler. Why Christians Should Study Philosophy.

Bibliography

Geisler, Norman. Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars. Bastion Books. Matthews, NC. 2012.

Lewis, C.S. Weight of Glory. HarperOne; 1st edition (March 1, 2001). Originally published in 1965.

Moreland, J.P. Love Your God with all Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012).

Potter, Doug. Twelve Things from Dr. G for His Students. Originally posted at https://www.facebook.com/notes/1096515494112261/

Footnotes

[i] Norman Geisler. Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars. Bastion Books. Matthews, NC. 2012.

[ii] Doug Potter, Twelve Things from Dr. G for His Students. Originally posted at https://www.facebook.com/notes/1096515494112261/

[iii] C.S. Lewis. Weight of Glory. HarperOne; 1st edition (March 1, 2001). Originally published in 1965.

[iv] J.P. Moreland. Love Your God with all Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012). 16

Is the Law of First Mention a Proper Biblical Hermeneutic?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Recently, Curtis Evelo (Bellator Christi Podcast co-host) told me about a conversation he had with an individual about biblical interpretation. Apparently, the individual held that the wine that Jesus miraculously brought forth out of water in John 4 was merely unfermented grape juice. When asked why he held this view, he contended that to hold that the wine held fermented content was to argue that Jesus was a sinner because wine is said to be a mocker in Proverbs 20:1. Curtis asked him what this had to do with Jesus’s miraculous transformation of water into wine. The unnamed individual then said that he used the law of first mention. According to the law of first mention, the interpreter first examines the initial place where the term or doctrine is taught in the Scripture. Then, the initial usage of the term and/or doctrine serves as a guideline for interpreting other subsequent passages that teach on the issue.

Let me first say that in all my biblical hermeneutics courses, I have never heard of the law of first mention. I have had some world-class instructors who can read the Bible in its original languages without a translation in hand. To my knowledge, they never mentioned such a law of biblical interpretation. There is simply no good reason to follow the law of first mention for the following reasons. As an aside, the issue concerning the Christian’s use of alcohol is a highly controversial topic. We simply do not have space to deal with the ethical ramifications of alcohol use. For the purposes of this article, we are merely examining the efficacy of the law of first mention, or the lack thereof.

The Law of First Mention Fails to Engage the Individual Text

The first problem with the law of first mention is that the tactic fails to consider the literal interpretation of each biblical text. Considering the topic at hand, earlier texts really do nothing to assist the interpreter with engaging whether a historical event occurred or not. Earlier teachings may assist with understanding the thought process behind a text in question. But it cannot overrule other factors such as social practice and norms, extra-biblical historical events, word studies, and other social matters that come into play. Furthermore, the historical context of the first mention must also be an issue of investigation, as one must remember that the modern interpreter is separated from the biblical times by at least 2,000 years—more like 4–6,000 years from the Old Testament eras. Additionally, the writings of Scripture are not necessarily in chronological order. So, determining when something was first uttered may be far more complex than originally held.

The Law of First Mention Fails to Accommodate Theological Complexities

Second, the law of first mention does not consider the theological complexities found in Scripture. Without considering various theological issues, one may adopt all kinds of absurdities. For instance, the first two instances where wine is mentioned in the Bible come in the book of Genesis. The first reference is in Genesis 9:21, where it is said of Noah that “He drank some of the wine, became drunk, and uncovered himself inside the tent” (Gen. 9:21) [1]. Does this then imply that each believer should drink wine, become drunk, and uncover oneself? Certainly not! Obviously, this is not what Curtis’s friend was trying to imply.

The second mention is no better for his cause, for it says, “Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was a priest to God Most High” (Gen. 14:18). This is of no help when trying to understand whether Jesus’s wine was fermented or not. Thus, as one can tell, the law of first mention fails to account for the theological complexities of the text. The first instance serves as a warning of a life that strayed from God, whereas the second shows the gift that Melchizedek gave to Abraham, which may have included fermented wine.

Does this then indicate that everyone should drink wine? Of course not! Because other texts serve as warnings, exhorting individuals to avoid drunkenness (i.e., Prov. 23:20; Isa. 5:22; Gal. 5:19–21; Eph. 5:18). Yet this shows the ineptitude of the law of first mention when used alone. The law of first mention would seem to indicate that everyone should drink wine and get drunk if the case of Noah is used; but as the specified texts suggest, this is not the case.

Finally, the law of first mention fails to account for the gradual betterment of each subsequent covenant. If one accepts the law of first mention, then the old covenants are inherently better than the newer covenants. However, the new covenant in Christ is superior to all previous covenants. The writer of Hebrews states, “By saying a new covenant, he has declared that the first is obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old is about to pass away” (Heb. 8:13). Not only does the author note that the new covenant is better than the covenants of old, but he also proclaims that the new has made the old obsolete. Therefore, this poses a major difficulty for the law of first mention, as it shows that there may be times when the new supersedes the old. Yes, the new covenant is indeed built upon concepts found in previous covenants. However, the new covenant does not require animal sacrifices, rituals, or the keeping of certain holidays. Rather, it is built upon the sacrifice of Christ himself. The believer is no longer under the law of old. He or she is under the law of grace. The new covenant’s supersession of the old creates a cataclysmic problem for the law of first mention.

The Law of First Mention is Based on a Logical Fallacy

Finally, the law of first mention is seemingly built upon a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of antiquity or the fallacy of tradition. The fallacy of antiquity is a false belief that holds that something must be better if it is older. This is the opposite of what is known as the fallacy of novelty, which holds that something must be better if it is new.

Suppose a person argues that original video games are better than modern video games. If this were so in all cases, then the paddle game Pong would be better than recent sports games, since it is the very first video game developed. However, Pong can in no way match the complexities and graphics found in modern games. For instance, being a football fan, I love the Madden football series. There is no comparison between Pong and the Madden series, as Madden adds realistic graphics, color commentary, and the opportunity to call numerous plays. In contrast, Pong allows you to move a white bar on a black screen to toss a white ball to an opponent who repeats the process. It could be that some aspects of older games are better than newer games. [2] But it is a hard sale to claim that all older games are better than all newer ones.

Another misconception people hold is that times were always better in the 50s and 60s than in modern times. However, one often does not consider the racial tensions of the 50s. If a person was black and lived in some sectors of the South, then the 50s were exponentially worse than modern times. Thus, this view shows the difficulties associated with an appeal to antiquity. The reality is that such a claim is not always true. The law of first things appears to be guilty of the same fallacy. Accepting the first mention of an issue in the Bible as the linchpin for all future references is nothing more than adopting the fallacy of antiquity.

Conclusion

The law of first mention fails as a proper hermeneutic on several fronts. First, it does not adequately handle the hermeneutical complexities of each passage at hand. Second, it fails to examine the theological intricacies throughout the totality of Scripture, especially when concerned with the supremacy of the new covenant over the old. Finally, the law of first mention is built upon the logical fallacy known as the appeal to antiquity. With all this noted, one may still find some benefits in studying the first place where an idea or word is used in Scripture. Some have found it beneficial to examine the first time that the term “light” is used in Genesis. Nevertheless, such a practice should never be used in isolation. It should always accompany linguistic, historical, and theological depths to find authorial intent. The goal of biblical interpretation is to understand what the author is trying to communicate to his/her reader. As such, the law of first mention does not assist in this endeavor and can lead to absurdities if pressed too far.

Footnotes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).

[2] One case being where old hockey games would allow you to shove a player into his team’s bench and allowed you to shatter the glass if you were to hit the puck just right. But does this indicate that the overall game is better? Probably not.

La duda emocional y cómo combatirla

Español

By Brian Chilton

In a recent class at Liberty University, it was noted that 80% of a person’s doubts do not stem from intellectual problems with Christianity, but rather from emotional doubt. Emotional doubt is a problem for all people, but it seems to be a more difficult concept for men to combat. The reason is that most men refrain from talking about their emotions. Many suppress emotional doubt and ignore it. However, these actions do not eliminate the doubt. Emotional doubt can deal with issues related to the loss of a loved one, an unanswered prayer, or frustrations in life for which one blames God.

Interestingly, emotional doubt can be combated with a form of biblical cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Some will say, “Wait, Brian! You’re talking about that psychology mumbo jumbo! What good is cognitive therapy?” Actually, cognitive behavioral therapy is a pretty good practice. Paul argues as follows:

“ Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable—if there is any excellence or anything worthy of praise—think about these things.” (Phil. 4:6-8 ESV) [1]

The believer should focus on the things that strengthen his faith and not on the worries and fears that cause anxiety. CBT does just that. Using CBT to combat emotional doubt is quite effective. CBT can also combat depression and anxiety. Biblical CBT follows three steps.

1.- Identify your lies. First, recognize the doubts and fears you tell yourself. You might say, “I’m sure I’m going to fail this test even though I studied hard for it. I’m too dumb to pass it.” Realize that these statements don’t correspond to reality. If you’ve studied hard for the test, then you’ve learned the information that will appear on it. You’re certainly not too dumb to learn the material.

2.- Eliminate your lies by arguing against them and giving reasons for your optimism. Secondly, argue against the lies you tell yourself with a positive and encouraging case. You may tell yourself that if you fail the exam it would be the worst thing in the world. In this case, it is better to remind yourself that you have studied the material and that you have learned it quite well. Even if the worst happens and you fail the test, it is not the end of the world. As bad as it is, it is not as bad as you are making it out to be.

3.- Replace your lies with the truth of God’s word. Third and last, replace your lies with the truth of God’s word. Realize that “I can do all things through Him (Christ) who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13, parenthesis mine). Understand this as well ” And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28 ESV). With these truths in mind, doubts and anxieties begin to lose their control.

CBT is a biblical practice that all believers should embrace. For too long, we have allowed the devil to steal our joy and hope. We are often our own worst enemies by being too scared to take risks, by playing the “what if” game. Don’t let fear and anxiety steal the grace God has given you any longer. Always keep in mind that “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and love and self-control” (2 Tim. 1:7).

Note

[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received a certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in Liberty University’s doctoral program in Theology and Apologetics. Brian has been in ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

Original blog source: https://bit.ly/39MVToY

Translated by Jennifer Chavez

Edited by Monica Pirateque

June 24, 2022/by Guest

What Words Tell Us About Culture

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Scott Reynolds

What gives words meaning? Is it the author, the words themselves, the reader, or something else altogether? At different points in history all the above had a place of authority giving words their meaning. However, as the world changes and the power behind words change it causes great change in culture. Exploring the power of words is an extension of exploring the power of culture and who has the power to shape culture.

Jacques Derrida and the Postmodern Revolution

Jacques Derrida stands at the center of the radical postmodern literary revolution. He is burdened by the idea that anyone can use a text to position authority over someone else. The idea of equality found at the table of interpretation includes more than accepting other readers who might use it for their own advantage but also includes the reader’s equality with the author and the text itself. Derrida’s criticism of literary theory includes a deconstruction of understanding. His goal was to move beyond the written text and the spoken word, and into the fabric of metaphysics, methodology, and the morals of meaning.

Three Ages of Transition in Literary Interpretation

Kevin Vanhoozer uses the work of Derrida to highlight the three ages of transition in literary interpretation. The division of his work follows the critical analysis of the three ages: the age of the author, the age of the text, and the age of the reader. Each section explores the historicity of the age, the mentality of the reader regarding truth, as well as the issues that contributed to advancing a transition away from the prima facie interpretation of objective truth or the author’s meaning found in the text. As Vanhoozer looks at Derrida’s work he is asking the reader to decide whether the meaning of a text is objectively fixed by the author or by the text itself, or whether it maintains the freedom to vary from reader to reader.

Pre-Modern, Modern, and Postmodern Periods

If the three interpretational methodology transitions are broken down historically, they seem to follow the transitions of Western society through the pre-modern, modern, and postmodern periods. The pre-modern period is defined by absolute authority. The reader had limited access to the written word and any word written carried the full weight and authority of the author. The modern period ushered in the age of enlightenment and with it an explosion in education. The quest for knowledge placed an emphasis on the reader’s exegetical skills to interpret the text. The authority no longer rested with the intentions of the author but in the educated hermeneutical methodology of the reader. The 20th century ushered in postmodern era, after two world wars, Western culture began questioning all authority. The institutions of government, marriage, the church, and education all became vulnerable to the removal of objective authority. Regarding the literary interpretation of the postmodern reader Vanhoozer states a word “interprets with a no reality principle (the way it is), only a pleasure principle (the way I want it to be).” The foundational question in the theology of literary interpretation is authority. The battle over authority is critical in how a person approaches interpretation and how they determine whose interpretation is correct.

Reformation and the Battle of Interpretation

Historically, the battle of the Reformation was in part a battle of interpretation. Luther and others questioned Papal Infallibility or the Soul Inerrancy of the Pope. The reformers rejected that the Pope had interpretational inerrancy. The interpretational transition of the Reformation saw the authority move from a single point of Soul Inerrancy to the acceptance of a new idea called Soul Competency. However, as the reformers allowed the average reader access to the Bible, they would still hold the reader to the belief of determinacy in their interpretations. Everyone was welcomed to study and work to interpret the Scriptures as long as they realized that being Soul Competent meant that you could find God’s meanings in the Scriptures. It did not mean that you were Soul Inerrant, meaning that you could wrongly interpret the Scriptures.

Calvin’s goal in interpretation, was clear; “It is the first business of an interpreter to let his author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say.” In contrast is Derrida’s “death of an author” which is a direct consequence of Nietzsche’s announcement of the death of God. The death of God means the death of absolute authority. The current state of cultural affairs has drawn an increasing number of biblical scholars to adopt and advocate strategies for translating the Bible, influenced by the work of Derrida. Derrida and his deconstructionist have correctly analyzed the postmodern culture and have declared victory by bracketing out orthodox Christian belief. They also believe that once a text is freed from the author, it can become a canvas on which a reader can exercise their own creativity. The death of the author was critical in moving from premodern to modern, and from modern to postmodern culture.

Spiritual Implications for Biblical Authority

What are the spiritual implications for removing the biblical author’s authority? “The answer is brief but massive: biblical authority is undone. The un-doers effectively strip the Bible of any stable meaning so that it cannot state a fact, issue a command, or make a promise.” The death of the author gave rise to the power of the words themselves. The transition is tame compared to the problems with postmodern philosophies; however, some believed that commentaries were being developed and could be used by anyone to push an agenda on the text. Richard Coggins feared that commentaries would become weapons of propaganda. Today, the church is the living consequences of these transitions and postmodern relativism has left the current culture in a legitimate crisis in biblical understanding.

DETERMINISM

Determinism means that a text has a definite meaning, one that can be qualified and defined. The next step down from determinacy is textuality, “where the autonomous text offers no more resources for limiting the play of meaning than does the strangulated voice of the anonymous author.” Even those modern scholars who helped refine interpretation theory as a science of the text could not stop the downward spiral of deconstruction. Eventually, the second pillar fell, and society experienced the death of the text and with it the possibility of literary knowledge.

POSTMODERN THINKING

Postmodern thinkers have deemed it unnecessary to investigate truths about the world, especially when it comes to epistemology. They believed “the light of reason is no longer needed for the growth of knowledge.” The ideal of objective knowledge is no longer a truth to pursue but a myth to debunk. These thinkers reject objective knowledge found in a text due to bias found in a theoretical or interpretive framework: “knowledge in the postmodern world is always contextual, always perspectival, always relative to some point of view or other.”

LOGOCENTRISM

Some postmodern thinkers like Paul Ricoeur are not as radical as Derrida in their attack on logocentrism, the catchall term used to describe Western thinkers who are preoccupied with meaning, rationality, and truth. Derrida believes that having a stable point of commonality outside of language, like reason, revelation, or even Platonic ideals, feeds the traditional view of authoritative truth. He uses the name “grammatology” for a study of writing that is no longer governed by logocentrism.

POINTS OF FAILURE

Derrida’s views create a tension, which he classified as a battle between what a text wants to say and what it is systematically constrained to say. “As a deconstructionist he is able to identify points of failure in a system, points at which it is able to feign coherence only by excluding and forgetting that which it cannot assimilate, that which is ‘other’ to it.” Derrida repeatedly finds the best way to escape problems with his belief system is to simply not recognize those issues that will not assimilate into his views. Those authoritative views like objective and absolute truth found in the Scriptures are simply deemed to live outside his interpretative community. When interpretation moves from a methodology used to understanding a text to the primary purpose of the text then all authority is stripped away and only the current relevant meaning of a closed interpretative community remains.

Use of Metaphors

The use of metaphors in ancient writings has leant to the ever-evolving creation of meaning. “It is one thing to interpret metaphors, however, and quite another to interpret metaphorically.” Derrida held that there is nothing outside the text and therefore the whole world is a metaphor. Language is a collection of signs used to promote different views about the world. He believed that the “metaphoricity is the logic of contamination and the contamination of logic.” The metaphorical indeterminacy allows a reader to choose metaphors about God and his relation to the world that best fit and promote their worldview about God.

Derrida’s deconstructionist views on reason, authoritative revelation, and objective truth all stem from his radical views about authority in general. Disillusioned with authority, he states that “reason is what serves our ethico-political interest. Behind rationality lies values (ethics) and power (politics). Deconstruction is a kind of sophistic acid that strips away the layers of rhetoric that disguise values and truths.” The goal was nothing short of incoherent relativism in a world freed from oppressive authorities.

The third age of criticism he explores the transition from textuality to contextuality. “The reader is not a canvas to be molded but an active participate in developing meaning to a text based on what the reader brings to it. Those looking to deconstruct meaning, study the effects of a reader’s social, historical, and theological bents on their personal interpretation of a text. The idea of a reader-response methodology to interpretation opened the door to criticism from many conservatives. The radical reader-response critics continue to reject the traditional role of the reader and insist that the text conform to the reading instead of the reading conforming to the text.

The battle for interpretative freedom and true meaning has deep cross-cultural implications knowing that both moderns and post-moderns are claiming the high ground in the battle for literary theory. Defending the position of the author, Vanhoozer refers to the post-modern reader’s use of a text as a ventriloquist’s dummy serving as the conduit to voice their own opinion. He recognizes that the current age of criticism is defined by egotistical entitlement that simply refuses to look to the truth found in the past but instead is committed to the unintelligible ideas of their own voice.

Stanley Fish has declared, “The authorizing agency of interpretational authority is not the author, the text, or even the reader, but the interpretative community.” The worldview of the crowd dictates the range of what is or is not an acceptable interpretation of a text. A conservative might say, I believe it means X, (X being the traditional, authoritative interpretation), but if the culture is bent towards a different liberal view, then having the view of X is outside the range of an acceptable interpretation of the text. The implications of Fish’s conclusion is that truth is demoted from its prior status as timeless and absolute to what the mob perceives is good and acceptable in this moment. Truth, metaphysically, morally, and meaning simply becomes a label we assign to our beliefs. As along as a reader’s beliefs fit inside the acceptable worldview of the interpretative community, then any interpretation that seem right to the interpretative community at the moment or given to advance their beliefs is deemed as good and true.

Derrida’s Deconstructionism

Derrida’s deconstructionism’s underlying purpose is promoting and supporting an inconsistent ideology with the goal of removing institutional authority. As the chart shows the interpretative plurality speaks about approaching a text with different interpretative methods. The idea is that it might take multiple interpretative approaches to get a thick description of meaning out of a text. In contrast, hermeneutical pluralism maintains conflicting interpretations are viewed as equally valid. The deconstructionist represents a small, but growing, number of people who truly believe that a determinate meaning cannot be known from a text. When asked whether a determinate meaning can be determined, the majority of people think yes, even if they will not say so publicly. The power of their interpretive community and the perceived oppression by traditional institutions rallies the average reader to forsake logic and follow an inconsistent ideology. Derrida’s criticism of literary theory includes a deconstruction of understanding.

Vanhoozer has observed how the work of orality in Rabbinical Sages to create independent and authoritative discourse outside the historical norms shows great similarities to Jacques Derrida’s deconstructionism: “Derrida attends only to the signifiers, not the signified.” In other words, like the rabbis, Derrida is focused on someone’s speaking and has no concern for what they are saying. The social implications of Derrida’s deconstructionism can be seen in the plurality of Israel’s monotheistic culture. Thus, “The Alexandrian Therapeutae, the Yakhad of Qumran, the Pharisees, and the primitive Jesus-communities, all appear to have been conversionist associations formed to pursue a collective transformative discipline under the guidance of persuasive teachers.” Vanhoozer promotes critical realism as a middle position between letterism (epistemological absolutism) and deconstructionism (epistemological relativism).

Pre-Deconstructionism: The Next Step?

Could Pre-Deconstructionism be the next step after post-modernism? Premodern was bound by authoritative religions, modernism is bound by scholastic academia, postmodern is bound by the individual, and pre-deconstructionism is bound by the interpretative community. Interpretative Communities could be the next phase of cultural evolution, returning words to premodern authoritative positions, this time not held by the church but multiplied by mobs of interpretative communities.

4 New Arguments for the Resurrection of Jesus

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian G. Chilton

For nearly ten years, I have been honored to bring you reasons for believing in the resurrection of Jesus. I now find myself at the end of a terminal degree in theological and apologetic studies.[1] For some, advanced education tends to cause one to doubt one’s position over time. However, that has not been the case for me and the resurrection of Jesus. Over the last few years, I have found five new compelling reasons for believing that the resurrection of Jesus was a legitimate historical event. These five arguments may or may not be new to the reader, but they became new to me through my research and are newer than some of the previous arguments given about the resurrection in previous articles. Without further ado, consider the following five new arguments for the resurrection of Jesus.

Unexpected Nature of the Resurrection

The first argument is one of the best pieces of evidence for the resurrection that I had never before considered. That is, no one in Jesus’s day expected the Messiah to rise from the dead. In Matthew’s Gospel, the Jewish leaders argue that the disciples stole the body of Jesus (Matt. 28:11–15). Of all the alternate theories of the resurrection, this is by far the most compelling. Regardless of whether one holds that the disciples stole the body of Jesus, invented the story, or feigned Jesus’s death, there is one aspect that skeptics fail to consider. No one in the first century anticipated the imminent resurrection of Jesus. This is evident in Jesus’s encounter with Martha at Lazarus’s tomb. Recall that when Jesus asked Mary if she believed that Lazarus would rise from the dead, she said, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day” (Jn. 11:24). Martha’s response represented the typical position of the Pharisees and the Essenes. Josephus notes that the vast majority of the population in first-century Israel were Pharisees.[2]

N.T. Wright provides two reasons why the resurrection was unexpected in the first century. On the one hand, believers living in the times of Second Temple Judaism anticipated that the resurrection would bring about the “restoration of Israel … [and] the newly embodied life of all YHWH’s people.”[3] On the other hand, no one in the period connected the Messiah with resurrection.[4] The concept of the Messiah resurrecting on the third day, though it may be reflected in the OT texts to a degree, was not in any way expected by believers at this time. Thus, the lack of anticipation for a resurrection delivers a fatal blow to any theory that projects the early Christians as being those who staged such an experience. Why stage something that they did not believe would happen in the first place?

Multiple Independent Sources

When it comes to any event of history, it is important for one to possess multiple source attestation. The more eyes one has on an event, the more accurate the truth can be preserved. When it comes to the resurrection, we have multiple sources pointing to the resurrection of Jesus being a historical event. First, we have the four independent sources found in the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all provide unique accounts of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. Matthew reports Jesus’s post-resurrection meeting with the disciples in Galilee. Mark reports the women at the tomb and their mysterious encounter with the angels at the tomb. Luke provides multiple accounts that are not preserved in the other Gospels, including the two disciples’ encounter with Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24:13–35). John affords multiple stories not included in the other Gospels, including Thomas’s encounter with Jesus (Jn. 20:24–29), Jesus’s encounter with the disciples on the Sea of Galilee, Jesus’s reinstatement of Peter (Jn. 21:15–19), and Peter asking Jesus about John’s ministry (Jn. 21:20–23).

In addition to the Gospels, a fifth source is found in the early creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–9. The early creed provides additional information concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. It tells of Peter’s meeting with the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:5), the meeting between Jesus and James (1 Cor. 15:7), and his appearance to over 500 (1 Cor. 15:6). A sixth source is found in the sermon summaries of Peter in the book of Acts (Acts 2:14–41 and 3:12–26). A seventh source is found in the sermon summary of Stephen (especially in Acts 7:52 and 7:59–60). Finally, an eighth source is found in the sermon summaries of Paul. In the first sermon summary of Paul, he even speaks of Jesus’s empty tomb (Acts 13:29). Max Wilcox has convincingly found numerous Semitisms within the sermon summaries in Acts 1–15 that are largely not found in the remainder of the book.[5] Thus, the sermons of these chapters stem from earlier summaries that predate the composition of the book of Acts. Since a good estimate of the dating of Acts is the mid-60s, then it can be said that these summaries are much earlier. The fact that they speak of the resurrection of Jesus provides one more reason to adopt it as a genuine event of history.

Extremely Early Testimony

The study into the early creeds of the NT is gaining steam. Though he may claim otherwise, NT scholar and self-professed atheist-leaning-agnostic Bart Ehrman wrote that Paul received the creeds (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:3–9) while in Jerusalem in AD 35 or 36.[6] He goes on to say that “the traditions [Paul] inherited, of course, were older than that and so must date to just a couple of years or so after Jesus’s death.”[7] Since the early creeds wholeheartedly affirm Jesus’s literal bodily resurrection, then this provides firm evidence that the earliest disciples believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Paul’s sermon summary also affirmed the belief that the tomb of Jesus was empty, as noted previously. With many, if not the majority, of the early creeds, we are talking about them circulating just a few months to a few years after Jesus’s crucifixion.[8] The creeds found in the Pauline epistles stemmed from the information Paul obtained from his interaction with the Jerusalem Church a couple of years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18). He spent two weeks with Peter and James learning about the teachings and doctrines of Christ. As C. H. Dodd notes, “we may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.”[9] Thus, the proclamation that Jesus had risen from the dead came very early from the place where Jesus had been crucified. The details from the early sermon summaries of Acts and the creeds in Paul’s epistles make for a full and compelling case for the early preaching of the resurrection. When pieced with the first argument, it is difficult to find any other explanation outside of the fact that Jesus literally rose from the dead.

Unique Early Eschatological Christology

Finally, it has been observed that the earliest Christology is the highest Christology.[10] Additionally, early Jesus traditions endorse the idea that Jesus spoke of an eschatological figure who would usher in the kingdom of God. This eschatological figure is known as the Son of Man. The Son of Man arguably constructs the Christological core of Q—a theoretical Gospel that precedes the canonical Gospels.[11] Part of this early tradition includes Jesus’s comment that as “Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights” (Matt. 12:40).[12] The Son of Man figure is almost exclusively found in the teachings of Jesus. Thus, this was a unique teaching of Jesus. Not only does the Son of Man figure connect with Jesus being God’s regent who brings God’s kingdom to earth, but it also speaks of his glorification which relates to his resurrection. Therefore, early Jesus preaching of the resurrection was remembered and preserved by the early disciples because of Jesus’s literal fulfillment of this unique and unexpected promise.

Conclusion

Some of these arguments may be new to you and some may not. Some of these aspects will be further fleshed out in my pending dissertation. Nonetheless, the unique and unexpected nature of the resurrection, the early preaching of the resurrection, multiple sources, and Jesus’s early eschatological identification with the resurrection all speak strongly to the probability that Jesus literally rose from the dead on the first Easter Sunday. My hope is that these arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, in addition to the classic arguments, strengthen your faith and offer you hope that there is a life beyond this mere mortal existence.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

Notes

[1] That is, providing I successfully defend my dissertation.

[2] Josephus contends that the Pharisees were so loved, and the Sadducees were so despised that the Sadducees would adopt certain notions from the Pharisees to find favor with the populace. Josephus, Antiq. 18.15–17.

[3] N. T. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003), 205.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1965), 171.

[6] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2012), 131.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2^nd ed (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 266.

[9] C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, 2^nd ed (London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1944), 16.

[10] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), x, 235.

[11] For a full discussion of the issues concerning this topic, see John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2000), 388–395.

[12] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scriptures come from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3Mwb6bS

April 27, 2022/by Guest

Healing from Institutional Abuse

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

A cabin was nestled near the top of a mountaintop in the Great Smoky Mountains of Tennessee. This cabin served as a vacation home for my family and me. The evening was humid and muggy. Thus, we decided to take in a show in Pigeon Forge rather than exploring the beautiful hills of eastern Tennessee. On this evening, I would suffer an emotional and spiritual panic attack. The catalyst of the event was various reports of institutional abuse. One report discussed alleged cases of rape that went unreported. Other reports mentioned accusations of abuse from a person who would be the last person one would suspect of such behaviors.

Admittedly, I have suffered from bouts of anxiety in the past. Normally, I can sense when a bout of anxiety is about to commence. But in this case, it was as if I felt an overwhelming case of sorrow and distress. After requesting prayer on social media, I was blessed by the numerous supporters offering their prayers and encouragement. Many friends contacted me directly, whereas many others offered support online. It was heartwarming to see how many people truly cared. But this event left me curious as to why I would suffer such distress while on vacation of all places.

It was not until a few days afterward that I realized that the pain I had previously suffered in the pastorate was still unresolved. I still didn’t understand why I felt the way I did. Drs. David and Marybeth Baggett reached out to me. I spoke to them about my feelings and what I believed to be the culprit. Marybeth suggested two books for me to consider reading. The first was entitled Something’s Not Right: Decoding the Hidden Tactics of Abuse and Freeing Yourself from its Power by Wade Mullen. The other was Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church by Diane Langberg.

Mullen’s book truly spoke to me. He mentioned a field of sociological research known as impression management. Canadian sociologist Erving Goffman described impression management as the “process of creating, influencing, or manipulating an image held by an audience.”[1] Impression management especially becomes abusive and unethical when people are put on display to hide underlying problems that should not be hidden.[2] Mullen further notes that “the chief desire of abusive individuals is to attain or retain power—most often the kind of power gained and held through deception.”[3] Because of this, churches can become a breeding ground for abusers to thrive.

But why do religious institutions allow such abuse to transpire? Mullen offers a reason for this as well. He says that many institutions unknowingly permit systems that are conducive for abuse because of image. If people were to know the problems that a place faced, then others may not want to come and take part of what the institution offered.[4] As I read Mullen’s opening chapter, I began to realize two things. First, I came to the realization that I had suffered a form of abuse. Speaking with numerous individuals who were concerned with my well-being, I met many who admitted that they were victims of various forms of abuse. They faced similar emotional and spiritual bouts, some of which were full-blown cases of PTSD. Their professed experiences were eerily reminiscent of my own. Second, I came to realize that institutional abuse, identified as impression management, was far more widespread than I ever considered.

The first step in healing is to first diagnose the source of pain. I cannot say that I am fully healed from the abuse that I encountered. But I do believe that I have taken the first step. Perhaps God permitted me to have this emotional episode to bring me to the place of genuine recovery. Whatever the case, I also believe that many others are facing the same issues but do not understand where their emotional and spiritual hurts derive.

So, where do we go from here? I will occasionally update you on my progress from time to time. But there are two suggestions I would make for the here and now. First, become grounded in theology and apologetics. As my good friend Jerry Bogacz said, apologetics becomes an anchor keeping one stable during times of emotional distress. While it is not understood why I endured some of the things that I have in ministry, all the while understanding my own faults[5]—the goodness of God is a constant wellspring of hope and a constant source of comfort.

Second, cases of institutional abuse must be exposed and corrected. We can no longer stand idly by while innocent people are harmed by abusers hiding behind crosses and policies. The prophet Isaiah writes, “Learn to do what is good. Pursue justice. Correct the oppressor. Defend the rights of the fatherless. Plead the widow’s cause” (Isaiah 1:17).[6] Also, consider that Jesus told the Church of Ephesus that they must “Remember how far you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent” (Rev. 2:5). While I have had an enigmatic relationship with the church throughout my life, I still love Christ’s Bride. If the problems of abuse in the American Church are not corrected, we should not be surprised if Jesus may eventually remove the lampstand from the Church of America. Be on the lookout for future posts as I discover more truths on my pathway to recovery. Continue to deepen your love for God and be kind to one another.

Notes

[1] Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York, NY: Anchor, 2008); Wade Mullen, Something’s Not Right: Decoding the Hidden Tactics of Abuse and Freeing Yourself from its Power (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale Momentum, 2020), 9.

[2] Mullen, 12.

[3] Ibid., 15.

[4] Mullen calls this “dark secrets…facts a person or an organization knows and conceals because if they were revealed, they could damage the image of that person or organization.” Ibid, 17.

[5] By no means am I claiming that I was sinless in all my previous encounters.

[6] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, and a Ph.D. Candidate of the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years and currently serves as a clinical chaplain and a Senior Contributor for MoralApologetics.com.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/7Pxh7LB

February 21, 2022/by Guest

Why God May Place More on Us Than We Can Endure

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Have you ever heard the phrase, “God will not place more on you than you can endure.” Another way of phrasing the statement is by saying “God will not place more on you than you can bear.” Christians are known for such platitudes. These cliches are well-intentioned as they do not come from malice. Rather, they come from an attempt to condense Christian truths into short, memorable memes or Twitter-worthy statements. But is it true that God will not place more on us than we can bear/endure?

A careful reading of Scripture shows this not to be the case. For instance, Paul writes to the Church of Corinth,

“We don’t want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, of our affliction that took place in Asia. We were completely overwhelmed—beyond our strength—so that we even despaired of life itself. ⁹Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death, so that we would not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead. ¹⁰He has delivered us from such a terrible death, and he will deliver us. We have put our hope in him that he will deliver us again ¹¹while you join in helping us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gift that came to us through the prayers of many” (2 Cor. 1:8-11).[1]

Did you catch the phrase in verse 8, “We were completely overwhelmed—beyond our strength.” From the passage of Scripture, it can be adduced that Paul and his companions were allowed to be tested in a manner that was beyond their ability to handle. This counters the thought behind the aforementioned platitude. It appears that the benevolent God of creation does allow his children to endure hardships that exceed their ability to stand for three reasons.

Affliction Provides the Ability to Comfort (1:3-4, 6-7)

Back in verses 3-4, Paul writes, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort. ⁴He comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any kind of affliction, through the comfort we ourselves receive from God” (2 Cor. 1:3-4). He continues by saying, “If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation. If we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings that we suffer. ⁷And our hope for you is firm, because we know that as you share in the sufferings, so you will also share in the comfort” (2 Cor. 1:6-7). Paul says that their afflictions serve as an example to others. By their suffering and affliction, they are better able to minister to the suffering and afflicted.

Paul denotes a truth that was foreign to the Greco-Roman world in that suffering is not always a bad thing. David Garland writes,

“Suffering comes for anyone who preaches the gospel in a world twisted by sin and roused by hostility to God. If God’s apostle experienced so much distress in carrying out his commission, then we can see that God does not promise prosperity or instant gratification even to the most devoted of Christ’s followers.[2]

Roman philosophy presented a different view of their gods. Roman philosopher Cicero believed that the gods produced health, wealth, and security, certainly not affliction.[3] Oddly, many modern Christian circles resemble Roman philosophy more than Christian theology.

Since God is the epitome of the Good, he holds good reasons for permitting afflictions, even those that overwhelm us. Later, the faithful child of God will realize that they were only able to minister to those in need because of, not despite, the afflictions they were allowed to endure. The late Dr. Randy Kilby used to say at Fruitland Baptist Bible Institute, “You have to get under the spout where the glory comes out.” By that, he noted that the child of God can only spiritually give what they have been given. Thus, the comfort they receive from God during times of affliction can be used to minister to others in need.

Affliction Portrays God’s Strength (1:5)

Furthermore, Paul holds that overwhelming affliction demonstrates God’s strength working through the believer. Paul writes, “For just as the sufferings of Christ overflow to us, so also through Christ our comfort overflows” (1:5). God may allow a person to experience overwhelming problems so that God’s strength is shown through that person. Paul held out hope that as the sufferings of Christ overflow to us, so also the blessings of God will overflow. Paul noted to the Roman Church that “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is going to be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18). That is to say, faithfully enduring hardships while remaining faithful to Christ produces a wealth of rewards that will be fully demonstrated in heaven.

It is often thought that the most important Christians in heaven are those who have the fattest wallets, the fanciest suits, and the biggest homes. However, God’s kingdom is an upside-down kingdom as fully illustrated in Jesus’s Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). On the one hand, the story holds that the man faithful man named Lazarus—though he was poor, downtrodden, and abused by the world—would be greatly rewarded in eternity. On the other hand, a rich man who had everything that money could buy but who neither had any love and compassion for his fellow man nor God landed in the most precarious of eternal circumstances.

But why did a good God design the world in this manner? Paul later answers the question in 2 Corinthians. In chapter 12, he describes an instance where he pleaded with the Lord to remove a thorn in his flesh. He begged the Lord three times to remove his affliction. However, the Lord responded by saying, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is perfected in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). Consider why God chose Israel. The Hebrew people were not mighty like the Egyptians or Philistines. However, through Israel, God’s power was exhibited to the world (Gen. 12:1-3). Bethlehem Ephrathah was chosen as the birthplace of the Messiah even though it was a small and minute town on the edge of nowhere (Micah 5:2). As the prophet Zechariah noted, “‘Not by strength or by might, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord of Armies” (Zech. 4:6). Overwhelming affliction may be used by God to demonstrate his power through his vessel to others as an evangelistic tool.

Affliction Promotes Divine Trust (1:8-11)

Finally, affliction promotes divine faith and trust in the Sovereign God. Verse 9 is critical in understanding the passage. Paul denotes that “we felt that we had received the sentence of death, so that we would not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead” (1:9). If a person relied only on one’s strength, where is the need for faith in God? For example, with great practice, a person can become a pool shark. They can run the table on their adversaries. The person trusts in one’s skill set to help the person succeed in the game. However, overwhelming affliction creates a dire need to trust One higher. Since enduring hardships with trust in God produces the fruit of endurance, proven character, and divine hope (Rom. 5:30); it is actually a good thing that God allows us to face overwhelming situations where one’s trust must be placed in the God of creation. Certainly, it will not seem like a good thing while enduring the circumstance. But when God comes through as only God can, then trust is developed. Trust is crucial in healthy relationships. It must be remembered that through the process God is still working out everything for the good of those who love and trust him (Rom. 8:28). The endgame is the most important. Just as parents teach their children hard lessons to help them grow, so God must teach and train us to be the people he desires us to be by permitting hardships in our lives.

Conclusion

I must admit, I have used the phrase “God will not place more on us than we can bear” in my early days as a pastor. While at the time it was thought that the statement was positive and encouraging, it does not necessarily mesh with the teachings of Scripture. In some circles, it is believed that God only provides riches, health, and blessings for his children. Ironically, such belief systems find a home more in the camp of Roman philosophy rather than Christian philosophy. The goodness of the Anselmian God—that which nothing greater can be conceived—may require him to place his children in circumstances that are far beyond what they may endure to produce future blessings that would have only come through their trials of fire. Through the trials of Joseph, God led him to success in Egypt which would eventually be used to save his family and nation from certain doom as a famine ravaged through their land. Through the heartaches and despair of Job, he encountered God in a personal fashion and was eventually blessed double from what he previously owned. Through the horrific execution of Jesus, salvation was offered to the world, and death was defeated. With this in mind, the words of one of my mentors ring true. When facing overwhelming trials, rather than asking, “What are you doing to me, God?” we should rather ask, “What are you doing for me, God?” Therefore, rather than saying, “God will not place more on us than we can endure,” perhaps we would be better served in saying, “God will not place more on us than he can endure.”

Notes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2007, 2020).

[2] David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, New American Commentary, vol. 29 (Nashville: B&H, 1999), 62.

[3] See Cicero, De Natura Deorum 3.36, 87.

God and Evil

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Tony Williams

Evil, or some derivation of it, is one of the more popular reasons people cite when they walk away from believing in God or choose not to believe in Him in the first place. The most popular atheists who have most recently driven the conversation on why one should not believe in God talk about the existence of evil in the world as a reason no god, and certainly no good god, could possibly exist.

The argument essentially says that: first – bad things happen, second – a good god would not allow bad things to happen, and third – therefore there must be no god at all. But how do these philosophers identify what evil is? What is their objective source to label evil, evil?

I would ask you to consider one simple idea that may change the way you see evil; You can’t know what is evil unless you first know what is good. In other words, there can’t be wrong without right. This is common sense, but it must be pointed out to bring the thought all the way to its conclusion.

Rust is a bad thing when it develops on your vehicle. If you were to see a spot of rust on your car, you would not be excited. Rust is corruption of what was originally made to serve a good purpose. Without perfections, there can be no imperfections. Without good, there can be no evil.

In atheism, there can be no objective evil or objective good. There is, at most, what can be thought of as an agreement among the majority of current humans that certain behaviors like murder, theft and adultery are bad because they somehow lower our odds of survival. Ultimately, these standards can change with time, and we certainly see that taking place on a regular basis in the 21st century.

The biblical story, on the other hand, says that “good” is how the world was originally ordered by a perfect God to be, and it was corrupted by evil that sought to go against the order that God established. That doesn’t apply just to morality (murder, theft, etc.) in the Bible. It indicates that all creation was affected by this “fall”. The physical world has fallen into disrepair and death in all the forms of natural evil that we see today (natural disasters, diseases, etc.).

The narrative of the Old and New Testaments is the story of a perfectly ordered creation falling into decay and death as a result of the choice by the first humans to defy God. In order to save the broken from their brokenness and be reconciled to Himself, God sent His Son to die for the sins of all mankind because only God Himself could bring things back into the order that He had set in place at the beginning.

One of my pastors used to use the popular Southern Illinois phrase, “you can’t get there from here” when examining bad ideas. The idea that evil disproves God is turned on its head when one thinks the thought to its conclusion. Like you can’t have shadows without light, you can’t have objective evil without objective good. The best explanation available for a source for objective good is described in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible; God is Good!