Tag Archive for: Bellator Christi

Reconciling a God of Love with the Problem of Evil

Reconciling a God of Love with the Problem of Evil

,

By Daniel Merritt

Theologians and philosophers when engaged in explaining the mysteries of life, wrestle with two mysteries that challenge the mind and the soul. Those mysteries have to do with the problem of evil, which has two components: moral evil and natural evil. Of the two, moral evil poses the easiest solution, as we grasp that bad things happen as a result of man’s capacity to choose between good and evil. The choices one makes brings about consequences; bad choices bringing about consequence that can adversely affect the individual who made the choice and have a ripple effect that affects the lives of others.

It is a lot more difficult, though, to provide satisfactory answers in the face of natural evil. Natural evil would include “evil” or “acts” that is the result from natural events that would include floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, disease and other “events” that occur which bring in our lives tragedy, pain, suffering, and even death. Devastating natural disasters in life often leave one pondering: “Where is God in the midst of all this suffering, loss of life, and destruction? It is not fair or just that these often disastrous acts occur (insurance companies call them ‘acts of God’)!”

The age-old dilemma was posed by Epicurus (341-270 BC): “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil, is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” While simplistic answers are not forthcoming, approaching the subject from a Christian perspective does yield some thought-provoking insight. Six will be considered.

First insight, the Bible teaches that the sometimes “bipolar behavior” of nature is the result of The Fall. Natural evil is a result of man’s sin, the consequences of having a ripple affect which reverberates throughout creation. The Bible teaches that natural evil is a consequence of deliberate rebellion against his Creator, the result being that in addition to man being affected by sin, creation suffered negative consequences, as well. The present world is not the way it was created to be. As a result of man’s disobedience to God, pain, suffering and death entered the world. Paul tells us that all creation was affected by The Fall and that all creation groans and is in travail from the consequences of man’s sin and awaits the time when it is freed from the bondage of sin and death (Romans 8:20-22). The sometimes-unpredictable acts of nature were not present prior to sin entering the world. The world is broken as the result of man’s rebellion against his Creator. Creation has been subjected to the curse of man’s sin and as a result, the present world is functioning abnormally from God’s original design, bringing forth “acts” that are a distortion from the way God originally created the world and man.

Regarding the consequences of the curse of sin that affects man and creation, Francis Schaefer succinctly writes, “I do not think Christians take the Fall and the present abnormality of the world with practical comprehension and seriousness. I mean by this that although Bible-believing Christmas certainly do hold to a historical Fall and the present abnormality of the world as a theological truth, when it comes down to living, this is often forgotten. In other words, we forget that everything is abnormal today and that much of the sickness in the world and sorrows in other areas are a result of this abnormality. or to say it another way, there is so much in history that God did not mean to be there, in the way that He created the world and created

man” (Schaeffer, Letters, IL: Crossway Books, 1985, 157). Schaefer’s words are most insightful in regard to the “why?” of natural evil.

Second insight, God respects the freedom of man to choose, whose decisions can lead to dangerous acts of nature being destructive. It is understood there is natural evil/acts in nature that arise through no fault of man, but man’s choices, actions, and neglect can sometimes put people in harm’s way when nature turns dangerous. When man builds houses, and cities on fault lines in earthquake-prone areas the inevitable will happen. When homes are built on the side of mountains that are prone to mudslides the house will eventually disappear from the mountainside. When one builds businesses and homes near flood-prone areas or on the ocean front there is the risk that hurricanes will sooner or later bring devastation. Human freedom allows one to construct homes, businesses and cities being in places susceptible to earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes; however, when one does, acts of nature can result in grave damage and loss of life. Also, if corners are cut on building materials or construction in order to build quickly or cut expenses, the devastation can be even worse. The Lord respects our freedom to plan and create where we choose, even though eventual disaster may lurk in the future. We want the Lord to intervene in such cases, but for Him to do so, He would have to suspend our freedom to choose (John Hick, Evil and the God of Love, London: Saffron House, 1966, 12).

Third insight, God created the world to operate according to certain laws, and even though sin may have skewed some of nature’s laws as originally designed, there is a cause and effect in nature in regard to how the world works. These are more than impersonal forces; behind it all there lays the Creator God. Scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne advocates that God has created a universe with particular natural laws that make life on earth possible for the existence of humanity. Polkinghorne states that while our “knowledge of the physical world is patchy and incomplete,” the same weather systems that create F-5 tornadoes also creates rainstorms that bring water to the needed soil and plants. The same wind patterns that refresh us on a hot day can turn into destructive gale force winds. The same earthquakes that destroy buildings are part of the very dynamic in the regulation of soils and surface temperatures needed for human life. The same kinds of bacteria that can make one sick and even bring death also yields substances that are used to bring healing. As Creator, God has created the world to work in a certain way and even though creation has been affected by sin, what we assume to be inherently bad or unjust contains within its processes that which also brings about good and sustains life (Polkinghorne, Science and Providence: God’s Interaction with the World, Boston: New Science Library, 1989, 3-7). That our Creator God doesn’t change the laws of nature to coincide with our idea of what is good and just brings us to our fourth thought-provoking insight

Fourth insight, in addressing the problem of “natural evil” one must approach it from the perspective that the problem is not with God, but the problem begins with our assumptions about who we think God ought to be, what God ought to do, and how we determine what is just or unjust. We expect God to act in a certain way according to the way we perceive Him. We presuppose that if God is good and omnipotent then “bad” shouldn’t happen, that God should be and act in the way our mind conceives Him to be. However, we define just and unjust from a near-sighted, sin-tainted perspective. Basing whether something is good or bad, just or unjust on the premise of whether it fits into one’s own understanding what those terms mean is not the basis on which such a judgment should be made. One is not to affirm the goodness of God’s

character according to one’s own experience and presupposing. Surely God, who sees all thing from the beginning to the end, sees the bigger picture. His thoughts and ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8).

What appears to be unjust or bad from our rationale, experience and perspective could actually be something that is very good from a longer-range perspective, but we are only seeing from our short-sighted perspective. In our view of God, we tend to project our narrow-sighted view and experiential definitions of good and bad onto God and assume that if He is good, He must be good by our own limited standards of what constitutes good and just. When one says God needs to be “just,” most often one makes such a statement in terms of what one thinks justice ought to be or in relation to what one perceives to be just from one’s restricted viewpoint. In the process, one doesn’t grasp how justice for one might be an injustice to someone else in a different setting or vice-versa. After all, do we only want a God that fits into our box of understanding or One whose basis for what is just and unjust goes beyond one’s limited intellectual capacity?

We also impose within our narrow scope of God’s omnipotence, that He should use His power to conform to our understanding of how His power ought to work in the world and in individual lives. When we superimpose our concept of how God’s omnipotence should operate in the world, we have reduced Him to our level. God’s power is not subservient to our thinking or our whims of how we perceive He ought to operate in the world and in our lives. Our conception of God too often projects our preconceived assumptions onto God whose omnipotence we contend should be within the scope of our control. What we actually want is to manipulate God to fit into our parameters of how we think He ought to flex His powerful muscle over the forces of nature. How much better it is to come to terms with the understanding that God desires to work in us and with us in the world, and help us to better reflect the image of God He has stamped on each soul even when we encounter “acts” that from our perspective are deemed unfair, unjust, or bad (Dennis Bratcher, The Problem of Natural Evil, The Voice, www.crivoice.org, 2018).

Fifth insight, “Natural evil fulfills a higher divine purpose” (Augustine) (Robert Francis Allen, “St. Augustine’s Free Will Theodicy and Natural Evil,” Ars Disputandi, 3:1, 2003, 84-90). Pain, suffering, and disorder associated with natural evil providentially bring about a higher divine purpose in the larger plan of the Lord. Natural disasters often bring out in humanity the very best of human character, as neighbors and strangers aid one another in recovery. While natural disasters are often tragic, glimpses of the marred image of God within us is seen sparkling in the wreckage. As well, it is only after such natural disasters that some people actually have their hearts made tender enough to call on the Lord for help and strength in daily life. Many times only when one’s present situation is drastically changed does one find themselves thinking about the brevity of life, eternity and one’s accountability before the Lord. Further, it is in the aftermath of “acts of God” that one develops positive and strong character traits that would not have been formed if the disaster had not occurred. If difficult times one is prompted to grow stronger and become better human beings. So, even in the midst of disaster, the Lord can direct what appears to be bad or unjust to fulfill a higher divine purpose (Romans 8:28) (Barry L. Whitney, What are they Saying about Evil? Paulist Printing, 1989, 6, 25)

Sixth insight, one whose reasoned reaction to the calamitous effects of natural disasters, instead of disproving the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent God is in reality strong evidence for

His existence. In his book Mere Christianity, former atheist C.S. Lewis acknowledged he thought the injustice he perceived in the world was an ironclad argument against the truth of Christianity. But as he reflected on what he considered injustice in the world, he asked himself, “How had I gotten the idea that just and unjust existed?” How can one appeal to an objective standard of just and unjust, if there is not a standard outside of one’s self? For if there is no God and we are only the sum total of a collection of random atoms, one’s appeal to events or acts being declared just and unjust is no better or worse than that of anyone else. Such deducing resulted in C.S. Lewis becoming a Christian and one of the great Christian thinkers and writers of the twentieth century.

While we have sought to look at six insights in regard to the problem of natural evil, ultimately we must acknowledge our inability to answer every question posed. Our finite minds can only take us so far, and we will never be able to penetrate the infinite mind of our benevolent and omnipotent God. It is not a weakness to admit that we do not have all the answers, but this know…in the midst of disastrous acts of nature, God is able, willing and desirous to bring comfort, hope, and encouragement to the hurting heart. He is a God who walked among us in Jesus Christ and He is not oblivious to our pain. Having wept through human eyes (John 11:35), He comes to embrace us in our pain that in His divine providence will bring treasure out of a tragedy.

 

Daniel Merritt received his Ph.D. in Ministry from Luder-Wycliffe Seminary and a Th.D. from Northwestern Seminary. He also received his M.Div. from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and studied philosophy and religion at Campbell University. Dr. Merritt has pastored six churches in North Carolina and is currently the Director of Missions for the Surry Baptist Association in Mount Airy, North Carolina. Dr. Merritt has written several books including A Sure Foundation: Eight Truths Affirming the Bible’s Divine Inspiration; Writings on the Ground: Eight Arguments for the Authenticity of John 7:53-8:11; and Bitter Tongues, Buried Treasures. 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2F5ftcx

/by
Abortion and the Theology of a Purposeless Life

Abortion and the Theology of a Purposeless Life

,

By Brian Chilton

While I am intentionally not one of the political voices of the day, I do find that many times politics crosses over into theology and vice versa. One of the more troubling news I have read is that states like New York and Virginia have either passed or considered passing legislation to permit a baby to be aborted even if it is the day of the child’s birth. I have always been a pro-life advocate. Proponents for abortion have noted that the practice should be allowed in cases where the mother’s life is in danger or the child is a product of rape. However, it is extremely difficult to imagine how even the best of Planned Parenthood’s apologists could defend the blatant murder of a child on the day of its birth.

The core root behind this issue is a theological one. Where does a person find purpose in life? The reality is that without God there is no purpose. If God does not exist, then everything is nothing more than a cosmic accident. This extreme version of abortion shows deep-rooted purposelessness in those who advocate such practices and the ones who participate in such murder in three ways.

  1. Purposelessness in the Theology of Life. If there is no God, then life has no purpose. For one to uphold extreme partial-birth abortion, one must think that the child’s life has no value. Some will claim that the child is nothing more than a clump of cells. This is far more difficult to defend when a child has reached the point of birth. However, for the one who accepts a fair rendering of the atheistic worldview, no life ultimately finds any meaning. Your life doesn’t matter. My life doesn’t matter. No life matters. Atheism leads to bad ends when it comes to upholding the value of life. However, if God does exist, then every life matters, including the child in the womb.
  2. Purposelessness in the Theology of Ethics. I am not a professional political analyst… and I don’t even play one on television. However, it doesn’t take a professional political analyst to know that something is driving this push for abortion. If I were to take a guess, I would say that money is the driving force behind the legislation. How ethical is it to kill an innocent child for the sake of financial security? How ethical is it to sacrifice children for the sake of research? The answer depends on your theological underpinning. If God exists, then everything has a purpose. If God doesn’t exist, then nothing does. Thus, everything is left as a free for all in a godless universe. Even legislature itself loses meaning. Why obey the law of the land if nothing matters? Yet, if God does exist, our lives not only hold great purpose but how we treat one another has immense value especially if God is a loving Being as noted by the apostle John (1 Jn. 4:16).
  3. Purposelessness in the Theology of God. This final point may seem a bit redundant especially since purpose and value demand God’s existence. The point here is that devaluing life’s value comes from a rebellion against God. Atheists like Richard Dawkins claim that they do not have a problem with intelligent design, just the concept of God (see the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed). Why is that? Most likely, the problem is with the thought that we are not the owners of our own domain. We desire freedom to the point that we do not want anyone or anything overseeing us. Human beings do not like the idea that there might be Someone greater than ourselves who will ultimately hold us accountable even if that Someone is a loving Being. Arguments such as, “My body, my decision,” illustrates an inherent desire to be the sole master and commander of one’s body. Yet, if there is a God, then each of us will be held accountable for what we do (Rm. 14:12) which is unsettling for some.

My life, my ministry, and my writings are devoted to providing a defense for the existence of God and for the authenticity of the Christian faith. If I am wrong, then it doesn’t really matter because nothing matters. If I am wrong, then abortion isn’t wrong because nothing is wrong or right. But if I and my Christian apologist colleagues are right, then God does exist, Christ is the Savior, life has value, and abortion is the unjustified murder of innocent children. Not only does each person’s life matter in a world governed by God, but the lives of each child in his or her mother’s womb also holds substantial value as well. The abortion problem is not a political issue, it is a deeply rooted theological one.

 

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 certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2TR0wBk

/by
Salt and Light_ Finding the Legitimate Balance in the Christian Life

Salt and Light: Finding the Legitimate Balance in the Christian Life

By Brian Chilton

Life is often about finding the right balance. Too much of anything is bad for a person, even water. Consuming too much water will cause one to lose electrolytes and minerals which could lead to death—a condition called hyponatremia. The point is, balance is important with nearly everything. This same is true of the Christian life and Christian theology. Consider the issue with divine sovereignty and human freedom. If a person accepts the sovereignty of God without human freedom, then a person accepts a determinist philosophy in which human beings become nothing more than preprogrammed robots. If a person accepts human freedom and neglects divine sovereignty, the person’s perception of God becomes flawed to the point that the person contends that God does not know anything about the future. Both concepts are beyond the teachings of Scripture in my estimation. Balance is important in one’s interpretation of Scripture.

Jesus presents two concepts concerning the Christian life in his classic message: the Sermon on the Mount. On the one hand, Jesus says, “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt should its taste, how can it be made salty? It’s no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet” (Mt. 5:13, CSB). On the other hand, Jesus says, “You are the light of the world. A city situated on a hill cannot be hidden. No one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, but rather on a lampstand, and it gives light for all who are in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven” (Mt. 5:14-16, CSB). One trait without the other leads to an illegitimate Christian lifestyle and an erroneous biblical interpretation.

  1. Salt – Light = Legalism.

First, Jesus instructs the Christian to be the salt of the earth. Salt was used in biblical days as a purifying agent as well as a substance to add flavor to food. If the salt lost its flavor, then the salt was not good for anything except to be thrown out. The worthless salt would be thrown out to do nothing but kill the grass on which it fell. Salt represents the righteousness of a person as well as the person’s stand for truth.

If a person has salt in one’s life with no light (representing God’s love and grace), then the person will become a legalist. Legalistic Christianity has led more individuals to atheism than Karl Marx and Charles Darwin combined. Legalism can also lead to the creation of cults and cultic churches which is extremely troubling! Legalism is an inauthentic Christian worldview which Jesus and Paul often combated. Don’t let yourself become Pharisaical or a Judaizer in your stance for truth. As Paul says, “And if I give away all my possessions, and if I give over my body in order to boast but do not have love, I gain nothing” (1 Co. 13:3).

  1. Light – Salt = Liberalism.

Jesus also tells his disciples to be the light of the world (Mt. 5:14). This is intriguing as Jesus also says that he is the light of the world (Jn. 8:12). Light is a symbol of God’s presence (Ps. 27:1; Is. 9:2; 2 Co. 4:6) as God is light (1 Jn. 1:5). Light represents God’s love, grace, and goodness. Jesus said that if we follow him, we “believe in the light so that you may become children of the light” (Jn. 12:36). Thus, people can only be the light of the world if they have received the Light of the World into their lives. Furthermore, shining forth the light of God means that we share God’s love and grace to a dark world.

However, if a person lives his or her life with light that is not tempered with salt, then the person accepts a liberal mindset which is as destructive as legalism. Liberalism, in this sense, shares God’s word and extends God’s love but does not hold a standard of truth and moral righteousness. The result is a life that is not undergirded with God’s truth and eventually becomes watered down. This person is ironically one who becomes more susceptible to cults and cult-like movements due to his or her naivety.

  1. Salt + Light = Legitimate.

The only legitimate construct is one that combines both salt and light. Salt with no light leads to legalism, light with no salt leads to liberalism, but salt and light leads to a legitimate Christian walk. Paul notes that a life of love is one that “finds no joy in unrighteousness but rejoices in the truth” (1 Co. 13:6). You might say, “Yeah, but I don’t like telling anyone that they may be wrong.” Consider this: If you witnessed someone who was unaware that he or she was standing dangerously close to a cliff’s edge, would you advise them to be careful or just let them fall to their death? The loving thing to do would be to caution the person of the danger. Likewise, Christians should lovingly stand for truth and lovingly extend God’s grace to all they encounter by acts of kindness. As Jesus said, we need to both be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. As a friend of mine once said, “Only Jesus had the appropriate balance. We need to attempt to find that balance ourselves.”

Note: Bellator Christi is trying to change the URL on the YouTube channel to match the name of this site. We need 100 subscribers to make this happen. If you haven’t already, please subscribe to my YouTube account at https://www.youtube.com/bcpowerman. We are almost there! Click subscribe to the YouTube channel to help me out. Thanks!

 

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 certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2MdgwKW

/by
Is Isaiah 7 14 a Messianic Prophecy

Is Isaiah 7:14 a Messianic Prophecy?

,

By Brian Chilton

More and more scholars are becoming skeptical of Messianic prophecy in the Hebrew Bible—that is, the Old Testament. Michael Rydelniknotes that “Although evangelical scholarship still recognizes that there is something messianic about the Hebrew Bible, for the most part, it sees it as a story that finds its climax in Jesus, not as predictions that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled” (Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope,3-4). Yet, such skepticism is not justified. Sure, some passages in the Hebrew Bible have been stretched beyond its scope, something that can become a dangerous trend. Nevertheless, certain passages in the Hebrew Bible enjoy a status of being both Messianic in context and in its history.

Is Isaiah 7 14 a Messianic Prophecy

One such Messianic prophecy is found in Isaiah 7:14. Four schools of thought have developed on how one should interpret Isaiah 7:14. Some hold to direct fulfillment indicating that the text only speaks to the fulfillment found in Messiah. Others hold to a historical fulfillment which claims that the text only addresses the birth of a child in Isaiah’s day. A third view holds to a double fulfillment in that the prophecy was fulfilled to a degree in Isaiah’s day and later in the Messiah. A fourth view is espoused by Arnold Fruchtenbaum. He calls it a double reference (Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua, 364). A double reference “states that one piece of Scripture actually contains two prophecies, each having its own fulfillment” (Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua,364). After researching the passage, I must agree that in Isaiah 7:14 one finds a double reference. Although Isaiah 7:14 is among the most controversial of Messianic prophecies (Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope, 147), several good reasons exist to accept the prophecy as Messianic in scope.

  1. King Ahaz and House of David. To understand the passage, one must understand the chapter in which Isaiah 7:14 is found. Isaiah comes to King Ahazwhile Ahaz, and King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Israel were reigning. Yahweh (the personal name for God) tells Isaiah to bring his son Shear-jashub with him to meet Ahaz (Is. 7:3). Yahweh speaks to Isaiah again telling him to ask Ahaz for a sign (7:10-11), but Ahaz refuses (7:12). After Ahaz refuses, Isaiah turns his attention to the house of David (7:13) asking if they would try the patience of Yahweh. It is then that Isaiah delivers the Immanuel prophecy. From keeping the text in context, Yahweh through Isaiah is addressing two distinct groups of people. On the one hand, he is addressing King Ahaz. On the other hand, he is addressing the house of David. The Immanuel prophecy is given to the house of David and not to King Ahaz. King Ahaz’s sign was found in Isaiah’s son Shear-jashub who already reached the age of accountability and chose to do what was right. Ahaz was much older and still chose to do what was evil. Thus, Ahaz’s kingdom was coming to an end.
  2. Singular and Plural Language. A close examination of the Hebrew text shows a difference in the language used directed toward Ahaz as opposed to the house of David. When Isaiah is addressing Ahaz, he uses singular language and uses plural language when speaking to the house of David. As Fruchtenbaum noted earlier, the text appears to be giving two differing prophecies—one to Ahaz and one to the house of David. Since the Immanuel prophecy is directed to the house of David, it is not necessary to hold that the prophecy only addresses Ahaz and even his time.
  3. Present and Future Language. In the Immanuel prophecy, Isaiah uses the Hebrew imperfect verb yitten, which means “he will give,” to describe the timing of the prophecy. The imperfect verb in Hebrew describes something that is incomplete and will transpire at some point in the future. Thus, the sign for the house of David was a sign given byGod to transpire at some point in the future. When? The text does not say. Therefore, it is completely appropriate to think that the text could find its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah.
  4. ‘Almah and Parthenos. The Revised Standard Version translation made a great deal of waves in the Christian community when it translated ‘almah as“young woman” instead of the classical translation of “virgin.” Does the term refer to a young woman or a virgin? The answer is both. ‘Almah is almost always used in the Hebrew Bible to denote a young woman who has just reached the age of marriage who had not yet wed. ‘Almah is used in the following passages in the Hebrew Bible: 1) Gen. 24:43 used of Rebekah; 2) Ex. 2:8 used of Miriam, Moses’s sister; 3) Ps. 68:25 used in the divine royal procession, the virgins symbolize purity; 4) So. 1:3 refers to the purity in marriage; 5) So. 6:8 contrasts the purity of virginity with the impurity of concubines; 6) Pr. 30:18-19 also contrasts virginity with adultery, and 7) in Is. 7:14 (Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua, 364-365). In Jewish culture, a young woman who just reached the age of marriage most certainly implied the woman’s virginal status. The translators of the Septuagint (LXX) understood this to be the case. The LXX translates ‘almahin Isaiah 7:14 with the Greek term parthenos which most certainly means “virgin.”
  5. Current and Future Understanding. Isaiah connects the birth of the child from Isaiah 7:14 to the prophecies given in 9:6-7 and in 11:1-10. Thus, the prophet took the view at the time the prophecy was given that this promised child would come at some point in the future. This child would be linked intrinsically with God in some fashion. But not only did Isaiah understand the prophecy in this way, other did also. Micah is one such example. Micah, a contemporary of Isaiah’s, linked his prophecy in some sense with that of Isaiah 7:14. Micah notes that “Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; one will come from you to be ruler over Israel for me. His origin is from antiquity, from ancient times” (Mi. 5:2). As already noted, the translators of the LXX understood Isaiah 7:14 to refer to a virgin in the 100s BC. Therefore, Isaiah 7:14 was recognized to be Messianic, or at least more prophetic than some modern scholars, as well as by early Christians, such as Matthew 1:23.

Isaiah 7:14 is a glorious passage that prophesies the birth of a royal, divine king that was to be born in the most miraculous of fashions. In our attempt to properly interpret the Bible, let us not be drawn to a hyper-skepticism that very well could combat the very thinking of the writers of the New Testament. They held the text to be Messianic not because they made it that way, but because that was the prophetic intention of the text.

Sources

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Yeshua: The Life of Messiah from a Messianic Jewish Perspective. Volume One. San Antonio, TX: Ariel, 2017.

Rydelnik, Michael. The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? NAC Studies in Bible & Theology. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.

 

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 certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at LibertyUniversity and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2zWk139

/by
The BGV Theorem An Unexpected Asset for Christian Theism

The BGV Theorem: An Unexpected Asset for Christian Theism

,

By Brian Chilton

Turn on the Discovery Channel or the Science Channel, and you may find interesting theories pertaining to how the universe came to be. Some propose that an eternal multiverse gave rise to our modern universe. Others will hold that eternal wiggling dimensions or planes collide to form universes. In 2003, three theoretical physicists discovered a theorem that dispelled the idea of an infinite regress of physical past eternal universes—infinite regress describes an eternal chain of events from the past. Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin developed the theorem based on the well-established fact that anything traveling on a geodesic (shortest point between two points on a curvature) through space-time becomes what is known as redshifted (when light or electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, shifting to the red end of the spectrum, or moving away from the observer).[1] The physicists argue,

“Our argument shows that null and timelike geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time (finite affine length, in the null case).”[2]

While the language is quite technical, the theorem provides three unintentional helps for the Christian theist.

  1. The BGV Theorem pinpoints the need for the beginning of our physical universe. First, the theorem agrees that our universe had a beginning. Ideas of an eternal, self-existing universe is growing quickly out of favor in the scientific community at least at this stage. Our universe, the laws of physics found in our universe, and time itself had a beginning at what scientists call the
  2. The BGV Theorem pinpoints the need for a beginning of all physical universe. The BGV theorem is especially helpful in noting that not only does our universe require a beginning point, but all physical universes require a singularity. Any physical universe including the theoretical multiverse must have an initial starting point. Thus, while it could be that a multiverse exists, a multiverse does not get around the need for a starting point which leads to the third point that needs to be considered.
  3. The BGV Theorem assists cosmological argumentation for God’s existence. The BGV theorem does not prove God’s existence. But, it does indicate the necessity for something beyond the scope of the physical world to account for the existence of any physical thing. Experimental particle physicist Michael Strauss argued,

“As an experimental physicist, I tend to draw conclusions based on what is known observationally and experimentally rather than on conjecture or speculation. So what are the facts about the origin of our universe? The equations of general relativity suggest that the universe had an actual beginning of space, time, matter, and energy and the BGV theorem along with the expansion of the universe would require that this universe had an actual beginning of the expansion.  Other ideas about the origin of the universe like those proposed by Lawrence Krauss or Sean Carroll do not have real scientific evidence to back them up. They are conjecture.”[3]

Oddly, while Christian theists are accused of holding no evidence for their beliefs, Strauss seems to indicate that the exact opposite holds true. Cosmological arguments like the Kalam are strengthened by the BGV theorem. With the BGV theorem and other mounting evidence supporting the claim, one holds good reasons for believing in a transcendent God who brought forth everything that exists into existence.

Notes

[1] Bruce L. Gordon and William A. Dembski, The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science (Intercollegiate Studies Institute 2011), pg. 498.

[2] A. Borde, A. Guth, and A. Vilenkin, Inflationary space-times are not past-complete, PhysicsReview 90 151301 (2003): 3.

[3] Michael Strauss, “The Significance of the BGV Theorem,” MichaelGStrauss.com (January 28, 2017) http://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2017/01/the-significance-of-bgv-theorem.html, retrieved October 15, 2018.

 

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 certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2AOqMVM

/by
Do We Have Reasons to Believe in God’s Existence

Do We Have Reasons to Believe in God’s Existence?

,

By Brian Chilton

Recently, news agencies filled the airwaves and the internet with the news of Stephen Hawking’s last book to be published and released posthumously. The book released on October 16, 2018, is entitled Brief Answers to the Big Questions. Hawking argues through a series of essays why he didn’t think that God existed, did not think it was possible for God to exist, and did not believe in an afterlife. He appeals to quantum mechanics and the bizarre behavior of quantum particles which seemingly appear to pop into existence from nothing to argue his case. However, it should be noted that quantum particles do not really pop into existence from nothing as philosophically understood to be “no-thing.” Rather, quantum particles derive from a quantum vacuum—a very physical thing with very physical properties and processes. Thus, while admittedly I am not a physicist nor a physicist’s son, Hawking’s claim is not honest with the scientific data.

This causes one to ask, do we have good reasons to believe in God’s existence? I would like to propose ten reasons why we can believe that he does. To be forthright, there are many, many more. These represent some of the more popular reasons to believe that there really is a God who transcends reality and a few that I think stand to reason by the very nature of the way the world works.

  1. Necessity of a First Cause (Cosmological Argument). Physicists Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin discovered a mathematical theorem which dictates that all physical universes, including the theoretical multiverse, must have a required starting point. There was a time when physics (even quantum physics), time, and matter did not exist. How did it come to be? Atheists will argue that it just is. However, the data seems to suggest that an eternal, metaphysical (beyond the physical realm), Mind brought everything to be. That Mind would need to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. That Mind is who we know to be God.
  2. Designed Creation (Teleological Argument). Hugh Ross has argued that there are over 180 cosmological constants in the universe so finely tuned that if they were to be changed by the nth degree, life and the universe itself would not exist. Even the theoretical multiverse would need to be designed to such a degree that it would require a designer. I believe wholeheartedly that physicists will eventually find design attributes and constants in the quantum realm if they haven’t already. Design argues for a Designer.
  3. Objective Morality (Moral Argument). Leaving the scientific realm for the philosophical and ethical, objective morality argues for an Objective Lawgiver. God is the best explanation for why objective morality exists. As Brian Manuel, a good friend of mine, said recently, “We can just know certain things to be right and wrong without even being taught.” He is absolutely right! People have an innate sense of morality. That comes from a Moral Lawgiver who we know to be God.
  4. Necessary Being (Ontological Argument). In the end, one only has two options. Either an eternal nothingness (meaning again, “no-thing,” not even quantum particles) brought forth something from absolute nothingness, or an eternal Being brought everything that exists into being. The latter makes far more sense and actually adheres more to the scientific method than the former.
  5. Explanation for Data (Information Argument). Why is there anything at all? Even though the quantum world is a strange place, it still behaves according to certain laws. Why are there quantum particles? Quantum fields? Why do physical processes and procedures exist? One explanation: God. For any data to exist, a programmer must exist. That Programmer must be God himself.
  6. Science and Mathematics. Ironically, the scientific method and mathematics appeal to God’s existence. Scientists hold that the universe operates according to certain laws on a regular basis. The ability to do science itself means that human beings have been given cognitive abilities to observe the universe and, interestingly, have been placed in a position where the universe is observable. One must inadvertently appeal to the divine to even do science and mathematics. To add to this point, the beauty one finds in nature would have no real aesthetic value unless God exists.
  7. Historicity of Jesus’s Resurrection. One of the most historically provable events of ancient history is Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection. Jesus’s resurrection is quite intriguing because he continuously appealed to God the Father to raise him from the dead. For Jesus to have risen from the dead indicates that the one whom he mentioned did what Jesus claimed he would do. The resurrection of Jesus points to a transcendent reality we call God.
  8. Miracles and Spiritual Encounters. Craig Keener wrote a two-volume work describing the many documented miracles in modern times. While God may not always perform a miracle in every circumstance, a good deal of evidence suggests that God has performed miracles throughout history. Added with the many spiritual encounters people have had with the divine provides an added case that God does indeed exist.
  9. Near-Death Experiences and Consciousness. This is a fascinating area of study. Gary Habermas has noted that there are over 100 medically confirmed cases of near-death experiences where people have died and reported events that happened on this side of eternity which could be corroborated by others. The events described along with experiences of meeting God and the feelings of peace add to the case for God’s existence. Most certainly near-death experiences prove that materialism is a dead philosophy.
  10. Purpose and Meaning. For anything to have purpose and meaning, God must exist. If Hawking is right in that the universe is all there is and there is nothing else, nothing, including his research, has any meaning or value. Meaning, value, and purpose are found only because God exists.

I could certainly list other reasons to believe in God’s existence. But these will suffice for now. Hawking was a man of great intellect. Yet, despite his great mental prowess, it is quite odd that he could never quite see the evidence for God. While he could see, he was quite blind. Hawking said that “religion is a fairy tale for those afraid of the dark.” I believe John Lennox provided a stronger claim by noting that “atheism is a fairy tale for those afraid of the light.”

 

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 certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2qcNP6q

/by
Emotional Doubt and How to Combat It

Emotional Doubt and How to Combat It

By Brian Chilton

In a recent class at Liberty University, it was noted how 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 every person, but it seems to be a tougher concept for men to combat. The reason is that most men abstain from talking about their emotions. Many will suppress the emotional doubt and ignore it. However, such actions do not eliminate the doubt. Emotional doubt may address issues concerning the loss of a loved one, an unanswered prayer, or frustrations in life for which one blames God.

Interestingly, emotional doubt can be combated by a form of biblical cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Some may claim, “Hold up, Brian! You are talking that psychology mumbo-jumbo! What good is cognitive therapy?” Actually, cognitive behavioral therapy is quite a good practice. Paul argues the following:

“Don’t worry about anything, but in everything, through prayer and petition with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable—if there is any moral excellence and if there is anything praiseworthy—dwell on these things” (Php. 4:6-8).[1]

The believer should focus on those things that build up one’s faith and not on worry and fears which 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 may say, “I am going to certainly fail this test even though I have studied hard for it. I am too dumb to pass it.” Realize that the statements do not correspond with reality. If you have studied hard for the test, then you have learned the information which will be on the test. You are certainly not too dumb to learn the material.
  2. Remove your lies by arguing against it and give reasons for your optimism. Second, argue against the lies you are telling yourself with a positive, encouraging case. You may tell yourself that if you fail the test that it would be the worst thing in the world. In this case, remind yourself that you have studied the material and have learned the material quite well. Even if the worst should happen and you fail the test, it is not the end of the world. As bad as it may be, it is not as bad as you’re making it out to be.
  3. Replace your lies with the truth of God’s word. Third and finally, replace your lies with the truth of God’s word. Realize that “I am able to do all things through him (Christ) who strengthens me” (Php. 4:13, brackets mine). Realize that “all things work together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28). With these truths in mind, the doubts and anxieties begin to lose their grip.

CBT is a biblical practice that all believers need to practice. For too long, we have allowed the devil to steal our joy and hope. Often, we are our own worst enemies as we feel too frightened to take a chance on something for playing the “what if” game. Stop letting fear and anxiety steal the thunder from the grace that God has given you. Always keep in mind that “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but one of power, love, and sound judgment” (2 Tim. 1:9).

 

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 certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2PtiUhm

/by
Theologies that John Chapter One Combats

Theologies that John Chapter One Combats

,

By Brian Chilton

The Gospel of John has been one of my favorite Gospels since I first started studying the Bible. The Gospel of John is theologically rich as well as historically accurate. One of the important sections of John’s Gospel is found in its opening chapter. John says,

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were created through him, and apart from him, not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. That light shines in the darkness, and yet the darkness did not overcome it … He was in the world, and the world was created through him, and yet the world did not recognize him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, he gave them the right to be the children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born, not of natural descent, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:1-5, 10-14a)[1].

The best evidence suggests that John the apostle wrote these words. John bar Zebedee is confirmed as the author both by internal and external evidence (especially by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, and later Eusebius).

John also confirms an additional segment of information in his first letter. He writes, “This one is the antichrist: the one who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; he who confesses the Son has the Father as well” (1 John 2:22-23). That is to say; the truth is that Jesus is the Word as described in John chapter 1. If one denies this truth, then one denies a core fundamental of the faith.

Such information is important to know because John chapter 1 combats three modern forms of theology that must be eschewed by the believer who seeks to accept the truth of God’s word. These three false modern doctrines will be described in this article. Note, however, that I realize that there are many good people in the groups I will discuss. Their problem is theological and not necessarily moral. Good people can hold bad theological views.

John 1 Combats Jehovah Witness/Arian Theology. The Jehovah Witness movement was started by one Charles Taze Russell. Their theology is not that original in scope as they borrow from an ancient heresy known as Arianism. Arius of Alexandria (256-336 AD) was a presbyter who formulated the idea that Jesus was not really God, but rather an archangel. Jesus was the first created being according to Arian theology. Arianism was successfully combated by Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373 AD) who stood for the orthodox Christian view that Jesus was God come in the flesh. Athanasius’s victory was not without cost. He was exiled at least three times until it was finally resolved that Athanasius’s view corresponded with biblical truth.

Unfortunately, in today’s fragmented ecclesiastical structure, there is not as much church authority to combat false doctrines such as Arianism. For that reason, Charles Taze Russell’s theology was able to succeed. He developed a very similar doctrine as Arius’s and formulated the Jehovah Witness movement. Yet, John 1 stands opposed to any claim that Jesus was merely an angel. Jesus was God (Jn. 1:1) and not a mere angelic entity. Thus, the Jehovah Witness doctrine finds itself falling short from biblical orthodoxy just as Arius’s view did.

John 1 Combats Mormon Theology. Joseph Smith was born in Sharon, Vermont on December 23, 1805. Smith claimed to have seen an angel by the name of Moroni who supposedly gave Smith a newer testament called the Book of Mormon which describes how the risen Jesus purportedly visited a group of Native Americans known as the Nephites. According to Mormon theology, Jesus was the first spirit-child originating from the Heavenly Father and the Heavenly Mother. However, John 1 greatly combats that idea. Jesus is presented as being co-eternal with the Father. Thus, Jesus was not the first spirit-child. Rather, Jesus was God who existed since from before the beginning of all creation and who came in flesh “and dwelt among us” (Jn. 1:14a).

John 1 Combats New Age Theology. New Age theology holds that each person is his/her own god. Ironically, it seems that false doctrines deescalate the person of Jesus and elevate the human being, whereas orthodoxy elevates the persona of Jesus and deescalates humanity. Nevertheless, John 1 teaches that “all things were created through [Jesus], and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created” (Jn. 1:3). Thus, if “all things” (Gk. panta) really means “all things,” then human beings cannot claim to be any form of god much less their own.

Each Christian must test truth each doctrine they come across philosophically and theologically by God’s word. While we need to remember that we must love each person with whom we come into contact, we cannot accept false doctrines. Stay true to God’s word and the theological power found within its pages. Leave everything else by the wayside.

Notes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

 

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 certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2zrCe9e

/by
Does Suicide Condemn Someone to Hell_

Does Suicide Condemn Someone to Hell?

By Brian Chilton

NOTE: We recently received a question related to this topic so we decided to reblog this entry. We believe this is an extremely important issue we need to deal with as a Christian community.

Pastor Rick Warren and his family suffered a great loss as his son died from suicide. Suicide is the killing of one’s self.  It is a crime and a sin since there is a life taken which was made in the image of God.  Certainly, our thoughts and prayers are with the Warren family.  This post is done in sincere respect for the family.  That is why I felt led to cover this issue now, as there are many who have been affected by suicide.  With that in mind, many have theological issues with suicide.

Many ask if suicide can be forgiven.  The common thought is that suicide cannot be forgiven and immediately condemns someone to hell because the person committing the crime would not have time to ask for forgiveness after committing the sin.  Is this true?  Even more than this, is this the way we should view salvation?  In order to answer the question about suicide and salvation, we must first examine salvation itself.  So, before we answer the question of whether suicide condemns someone to hell, we must first answer the following questions: how is a person saved?  Who is it that saves?  What is the depth of salvation?  What about sins not yet committed?  After answering these questions, it will be our goal to answer the question using the fundamentals from the Bible concerning the salvation of whether suicide automatically condemns a person to hell.  First, we must ask, how is a person saved?

How is a Person Saved?

What does it mean to be saved?  Theologically speaking, it means that we have access to God and have a promise of a heavenly existence after we die.  We call it being “saved” because we recognize that we have been rescued from the penalty of sin and a rightful eternal destination in hell.  So, being saved means that one has a promise of eternal life with God in heaven.  So, how is one saved?  To answer that question, let us look at a powerful piece of Scripture by Paul written to the Ephesians.  Paul writes, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.  10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.”[1]  We will examine more of the passage that comes after this text later in the article.  But first, let us ask, how is it that a person is saved?

Paul makes it quite clear that salvation comes “by grace…through faith.”  The word “grace” or “charis” represents “favor,” “good will,” or “kindness.”  So, Paul is saying that it is by the good-will or charity of God that we are given salvation.  More on this in a moment.  But, what does Paul mean “through faith”?

The words “through faith” in the Greek text are “dia pisteuos” or “through faith.”  “Faith” does not mean a blind leap in the dark, but a thing that can be trusted and known with certainty.  Therefore, the text indicates that it is through a person’s dependency upon God’s gift through Christ Jesus that one can be “saved” or enter into a right relationship with God.  In other words, it is through trust and dependency upon God through Christ Jesus.  But, who is it that saves?

Who Is It that Saves?

If you followed the previous question, you can clearly see that it is God who saves.  Salvation is God’s gift to us.  We can especially see this as Paul continues to state, “and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”[2]  In the Greek text, the statement ends “Theos to doron” or “God the giver.”  Paul makes this clear, even more so in the Greek text.  God is the one who gives the gift.  I cannot save myself.  You cannot save yourself.  There is only one who can give the gift of salvation… God alone.  This is critical in understanding our issue at hand.

If it is God that saves, then it is not by the actions of humanity.  It is God who calls a person to salvation.  It is God who enters a receptive heart.  It is God that cleanses.  It was God who bore the penalty for our sin.  And, it is only God who can proclaim us justified “or innocent.”  This salvation is not something that I can give you.  It is not something that you can give yourself.  It is a free gift offered by God.

Think of it like a Christmas gift.  If you were to buy a loved one a Christmas gift, you would buy the present.  You would put it in a box.  You would wrap the present (unless you can’t wrap or are just lazy).  You would give the present at the opportune time.  The only thing the person receiving the gift would do would be to open the gift and receive it.  It is the same with this salvation in which we speak.  So, we are brought before another question, what is the depth of that salvation?

What is the Depth of that Salvation?

When we ask about the depth of salvation, we are asking, how deep does salvation penetrate?  Does it cover all sins or is it a partial kind of forgiveness?  Well, let us look at some key passages that will help us understand this issue better.

The writer of Hebrews writes,

Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.  For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.[3]

 This passage is of critical importance.  The writer of Hebrews shows that Jesus is a High Priest who was sinless.  He did not have to offer up a sacrifice for Himself.  Rather, He offered up a sacrifice once for all.  This one time sacrifice covers a multitude of sins in the penitent believer.  Also, look at what is written in the first verse.  The writer of Hebrews wrote that “He is also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him.”  If this salvation is forever, then what could take it away?  Jesus gives us another hint of the depth of salvation.

Jesus Himself even states, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.  30 “I and the Father are one.”[4]  Two things stand out in this passage, as well.  One; God is greater than all.  If God says one is forgiven, who can claim otherwise?  Nobody.  Two; no one or nothing can take away one from the hand of God.  In the issue at hand, this is HUGE in understanding the outcome.  But, we must also ask, is there anything that is unforgivable?

Is there Anything Unforgivable?

Does the Bible list anything that is considered “unforgivable”?  By “unforgivable,” we are indicating something for which there is no forgiveness.  With the issue of suicide, some have elevated the crime as an unforgivable sin.  But, what is listed as unforgivable?  Do we know?  Actually, yes we do.  We know from Jesus Himself.

Jesus states, “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.  32“Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”[5] What is this unforgivable sin?

If you look at the context of the passage, earlier the Pharisees had attributed the work of the Holy Spirit in Jesus to the work of Satan.  Jesus shows that attributing the work of God, more specifically the work of the Holy Spirit, to the work of the Devil is unforgivable.  Can someone reproduce this sin today?  From the text, it would seem that the only way that this sin could be reproduced is if one dies without acknowledging the Spirit’s work of salvation in and through Jesus Christ.  Therefore, the unforgivable sin is the rejection of the Spirit’s work through Christ Jesus unto death.  Notice that Jesus says that all other sin and blasphemy will be forgiven save this one.  Is suicide the unpardonable sin?  It isn’t according to the words of Jesus.

We are getting a clearer picture on the issue now.  But, we have one question that must be tackled before we formulate a conclusion on the issue of suicide and salvation.  Some would argue that suicide cannot be forgiven because the person committing the act was not able to ask for forgiveness after committing the deed.  So, what about sins not yet committed?  Are we forgiven for future sins or must we ask forgiveness after committing every specific sin?

What about Sins Not Yet Committed?

The writer of Hebrews gives us a clue to this question in the previous Scripture that we quoted in Hebrews.  Paul writes in Romans,

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.  20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.[6]

 Okay, this was a lot.  But, let us look at some important principles.  First, sin entered all of humanity through the one rebellious act of the first two human beings (Adam and Eve) against God.  From that moment, all of humanity was cursed with sin.  The moment sin enters a holy race it is tainted.  It is like one spot of black paint in a gallon of white paint.  It will not be pure white anymore.  (It is like my wife trying to explain to me the difference between white and off-white.  I still have difficulties determining between the two, but there is a difference.)  Second, through Christ all human beings can be saved by His action on the cross.  Third, the righteousness that came through Christ’s actions on the cross resulted in salvation to everyone open to receive.

So, what about sins not yet committed?  When Christ died, none of us were yet alive.  Therefore, none of our sins had yet been committed.  Yet, through the action of Christ on the cross, He died for all of our sins yet to be.  When a person thinks that every minute sin must be accounted for by the asking of forgiveness by the person, it places the emphasis on human actions instead of the divine act given for us.  Anytime the emphasis is placed on human actions over God’s forgiveness, it takes away from the work on the cross and places it on human actions.  Let me illustrate why this is problematic.

Suppose a man is on his deathbed.  Perhaps he has had an estranged relationship with his brother.  Even though he has accepted Christ as his savior, he still has hard feelings for his brother.  He wanted to make things right as his brother lived in another part of the country, but never was able to do so.  Let me ask you this; suppose the man dies without making things right with his brother.  Does this action keep him from entering heaven because he has an estranged relationship with his brother?  Or even worse yet, perhaps the man told a little white lie before getting in his predicament and forgot to ask forgiveness.  Does this keep him from heaven?  You see how complicated this could become.  But, you should also see where the emphasis lies.  The emphasis is not on Christ’s work on the cross, but our actions as believers.  So, what can we make of the issue of suicide and salvation?

Conclusion:

Does the act of suicide condemn someone to hell?  Suicide does not condemn a person if the person had a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  The answer depends on whether the person who committed the act was in a right relationship with Christ Jesus.  The work of Christ on the cross atones all our sins.  That is not to say that this gives us a license to sin.  Heaven forbid.  It should bring about a transformation in one’s heart.  However, this salvation does not mean that the “saved” individual will not have troubles and trials.  It also does not promise that the Christian will always do everything right.  (By the way, this is why the Christian MUST regularly attend a Bible-believing church.  When you slip from regular Christian fellowship, the likelihood of slipping and falling increases.)  For some, depression can become an obsession.  When depression becomes an obsession, it can become an oppression for which trouble may occur.  Let’s be honest.  If you are a Christian, you strive to do what is right.  But, it is not always easy.  This happened to Paul, as well.  Paul wrote, “For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.  20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.  21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.”[7] So, no one is immune to bad deeds.  Even the strongest of us can slip and fall.  So, why would we think that a bad decision would nullify one’s salvation?

This issue is very important to me.  When I had just graduated high school, I was called home from the Bible college that I was attending at the time.  I was told that my very own grandfather, of whom I was very close to, had committed suicide.  My grandfather had some medical problems where he suffered from a lack of blood flow to his brain.  He began to have delusions and had great problems with depression.  I will never know why this happened.  However, I cannot believe that God would negate the power of his forgiveness on the cross because of one major lapse in my grandfather’s decision making abilities.  To make matters worse, I was about to be confronted with this issue even harder.

When I returned to Bible college, a student attending there had heard of the incident with my grandfather.  Do you know what he said to me?  He said, “You know your grandfather is in hell don’t you?”  Really?  You are really going to tell someone that?  Even if it were true, what kind of sick perverted person says that to someone while they are grieving?  But, was he right?

No!  Some may claim that this issue has slanted my beliefs.  However, if you research the essentials of salvation which we just presented, I think you will find that suicide is not the unforgivable sin that some have purported.  Is it the result of bad decisions and faulty thinking?  Yes.  Is it serious?  Yes.  Is it wrong to commit?  Absolutely.  Is it unforgivable?  No, the grace of God is stronger.  But, this information comes with a warning.

Just because suicide is not the unforgivable sin, this does not give someone the freedom to use this as an out.  If you are contemplating suicide, get help NOW!!!  You may think that things are bad.  But, let me tell you this; you will make matters horrific for your loved ones if you take your life.  There is a help that is available to you, but you have to be willing to use it.  We are a triune person made in the image of God: body, mind, and soul.  To get spiritual help, see your pastor.  To get physical help, see your doctor.  But if you are having mental issues or bouts of depression, see a counselor or a psychologist.  There is no shame in obtaining help.  If you are contemplating suicide, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK or go to www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org.  Remember, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem!

Notes

[1] All Scripture unless otherwise noted comes from the New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Ephesians 2:8–10.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Hebrews 7:25–27.

[4] John 10:27–30.

[5] Matthew 12:31–32.

[6] Romans 5:8-9, 18–21.

[7] Romans 7:19–21.

 

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 certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Olwoe4

/by
True Love Must Be Reciprocated

El verdadero amor debe ser recíproco

By Brian Chilton

Recientemente estaba conversando con un amigo mío que estaba encaprichado con una persona que no necesariamente compartía los mismos sentimientos. De hecho, no era algo claro lo que la otra persona en realidad deseaba en la relación. No mencionaré más acerca de esta situación por respeto a los involucrados. Esta situación ha causado que piense bastante acerca del amor, qué es y qué es lo que implica. Me parece que para que el verdadero amor sea genuino debe ser recíproco. Eso es que, debe ser aceptado por ambos individuos en la relación. Podemos aprender bastante acerca del amor desde la relación trinitaria de Dios.

I. El amor es recíproco en la relación trinitaria.

Cuando intentamos explicar la naturaleza trinitaria de Dios, Norman Geisler usa el ejemplo del espíritu de amor genuino para explicar este difícil concepto teológico. La ilustración de Geisler no es original de él, la tomó de Agustín de Hipona. Lo siguiente es la representación de Geisler del amor en la relación trinitaria de Dios:

“Agustín sugirió una ilustración de cómo Dios es uno y tres al mismo tiempo. La Biblia nos dice que “Dios es amor” (1 Juan 4:16). El amor incluye un amante, un amado y un espíritu de amor entre el amante y el amado. El Padre podría ser comparado con el amante, el Hijo con el que es amado y el Espíritu Santo es el espíritu de amor. Sin embargo, el amor no existiría a menos que estos tres sean como uno solo. Esta ilustración tiene la ventaja de ser personal ya que incluye al amor, una característica que fluye solo de personas”[1].

Viendo que Dios es amor (1 Jn 4:16), la relación entre el Padre, el Hijo y el Espíritu Santo es una demostración del amor perfecto en su forma más pura. El amor no es forzado. El amor es aceptado y fluye de una persona a otra. Hay un amante —el que inicia el romance, el amado —el que recibe el amor del amante, y el espíritu de amor —el amor recibido mutuamente entre las dos partes. En el caso de la relación trinitaria, el amor es dado mutuamente y recibido por los tres miembros de la Deidad. Podemos aprender bastante acerca del amor a través de Dios.

II. El amor es recíproco en las relaciones humanas.

Dios es la perfecta demostración de amor como pudimos notar en la sección anterior. El ejemplo de amor de la Trinidad se transfiere a sanas relaciones amorosas humanas. ¿Cómo así? Las relaciones sanas incluyen a dos personas que se aman mutuamente. Consideremos un ejemplo hipotético de una persona A (lo llamaremos Adán) y una persona B (la llamaremos Bárbara). Digamos que Adán ama a Bárbara y expresa su amor hacia ella. Sin embargo, Bárbara no ama a Adán. Adán trata y trata de que Bárbara lo ame, pero ella no corresponde a sus emociones. ¿Es esto verdadero amor? ¡Por supuesto que no! El amor de Adán no es recíproco.

Consideremos otro caso. Digamos que Bárbara ama a Adán, pero Adán no siente lo mismo. Bárbara manipula a Adán para iniciar una relación. Se llegan a casar, pero Adán nunca tuvo los mismos sentimientos que tiene Bárbara hacia él. Esta relación no es una basada en el amor, sino en el control y la manipulación. El verdadero amor tiene que ser recíproco.

Para que el amor de Adán y Bárbara sea genuino, Adán debe expresar su amor hacia Bárbara. Bárbara debe recibir su amor. Entonces, Bárbara expresará su amor hacia Adán y su amor será recibido abiertamente. Esta relación hipotética nos muestra cómo el verdadero amor requiere un amante (el que envía amor), un amado (el que recibe el amor), y un mutuo espíritu de amor entre los dos.

III. El amor es recíproco en las relaciones humanas/divinas

Desde que el amor genuino es visto en la eterna relación trinitaria de Dios y que el verdadero amor es recíproco entre dos individuos conscientes, entonces solo tiene sentido que Dios nos inculca su amor no a la fuerza, sino por reciprocidad. Es decir, Dios ofrece libremente su amor a individuos. Él no fuerza su amor a alguien. Recuerda, ¡el amor forzado no es amor genuino! Dios dice a través de su profeta Ezequiel, “¿quiero yo la muerte del impío?… ¿no vivirá si se apartare de sus caminos?” (Eze. 18:23)[2]. Jesús dice que “y como Moisés levantó la serpiente en el desierto, así es necesario que el Hijo del Hombre sea levantado, para que todo aquel que en Él cree, no se pierda, mas tenga vida eterna” (Jn 3:14-15). En este caso, Dios es el amante, y los seres humanos son los amados. Pero, el verdadero amor debe ser recíproco.

¿Pueden los individuos buscar a Dios por su propia cuenta? ¡Absolutamente no! La gracia de Dios debe ser extendida hacia ellos primero. Esta verdad es vista en la descripción de Jesús del ministerio del Espíritu Santo. Jesús muestra que el Espíritu Santo “convencerá al mundo de pecado, de justicia y de juicio. De pecado, por cuanto no creen en mí; de justicia, por cuanto voy al padre, y no me veréis más; y de juicio, por cuanto el príncipe de este mundo ha sido ya juzgado” (Jn 16:8-11). En este caso, vemos que Dios es el amante, los seres humanos son los amados y el espíritu trabajando para producir este amor es el Espíritu Santo. El amor forzado no es amor. Dios no fuerza a una persona para la salvación. Él dá su amor libremente y su amor debe ser libremente recibido, sino, no es verdadero amor.

Conclusión

Cuando aconsejo parejas que están planeando casarse, siempre les digo que, si ellos quieren amarse el uno a el otro, deben primero conocer a Dios porque Dios es amor. Porque Dios es amor y demuestra el amor perfecto, no debería sorprendernos descubrir que el amor exuda en las relaciones humanas cuando imita el amor de Dios. Los sistemas teológicos necesitan también aceptar este entendimiento del amor. El amor genuino debe tener un amante, un amado y el espíritu de amor. Sino, una relación podría existir, pero no seria una relación de amor verdadero.

Notes

[1] Norman L. Geisler, “Trinity”, Enciclopedia Baker de apologética cristiana, referencia librería Baker (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker books, 1999), 733.

[2] A menos que se indique lo contrario, todas las citas bíblicas son de Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

 

Brian G. Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com y es el presentador de The Bellator Christi Podcast. Recibió su Maestría en Divinidad en Liberty University (con alta distinción); su Licenciatura en Ciencias en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Christian Apologetics (Apologética cristiana) de la Universidad de Biola. Brian actualmente está inscrito en el programa Ph.D. en Teología y apologética en Liberty University. Brian ha estado en el ministerio por más de 15 años y sirve como pastor en el noroeste de Carolina del Norte.

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2ri6wqu

Traducido por Italo Espinoza Gomez

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada

/by