Theopologetics

Coming Soon: Eastern Orthodoxy / Infant Baptism Debate

2012-01-04T17:07:00.000-08:00

Announcing what will be the sixth Theopologetics Debate (unless something comes up sooner), this time on infant baptism between a credobaptist Protestant and an Eastern Orthodox theologian. Jamin Hübner, founder of www.RealApologetics.org and author of The Saving Grace of God, Light Up the Darkness, and The Portable Presuppositionalist, goes toe to toe with Eastern Orthodox Reverend Laurent Cleenewerck, editor of The Eastern / Greek Orthodox New Testament and faculty member at EUCLID and Humboldt State University.

Be sure to email me at theopologetics@hotmail.com if you want to pose a question to either participant! Make sure to tell me to whom you wish the question directed.

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, to be published in the podcast feed shortly thereafter.

Resolution: Infants are not the proper subjects of the ordinance of baptism.

Participants: Jamin Hübner affirms. Reverend Laurent Cleenewerck denies. Moderated by Chris Date.

Debate format:

15-minute opening affirmative
15-minute opening negative
10-minute rebuttal affirmative
10-minute rebuttal negative
10-minute cross-examination of affirmative
10-minute cross-examination of negative
10-minute cross-examination of affirmative
10-minute cross-examination of negative
5-minute closing negative
5-minute closing affirmative
30-minutes of listener Q&A

Coming Soon: Interview with Kenneth Gentry

2012-01-03T09:07:00.000-08:00

It's my great pleasure to be able to announce that Kenneth Gentry has agreed to let me interview him on my show on Friday, February 24th. Gentry's contribution in The Great Tribulation--Past or Future?: Two Evangelicals Debate the Question, as well as his defense of an early date for the book of Revelation in Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, were instrumental in my conversion to preterism from premillennial futurism. He's authored many other books, including Navigating the Book of Revelation, whose presentation of preterism's understanding of Revelation he joins me to discuss. Stay tuned!

Episode 71: Forever the Pain

2011-12-21T08:27:00.000-08:00

Episode 71 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Debate topic: "The punishment of the damned will actually be torment forever and ever." Hiram Diaz, creator of the Involuted Speculations blog and contributor at Grassroots Apologetics, affirms. Chris Date, host of the Theopologetics Podcast, denies. Moderated by Mike Felker of The Apologetic Front. This episode contains part 2 of the debate, including the second round of cross-examination, listener Q&A and closing statements. Listen to episode 70, "Perish in Fire," for part 1's opening statements, rebuttals and first round of cross-examination.

Episode 70: Perish in Fire

2011-12-21T08:26:00.000-08:00

Episode 70 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Debate topic: "The punishment of the damned will actually be torment forever and ever." Hiram Diaz, creator of the Involuted Speculations blog and contributor at Grassroots Apologetics, affirms. Chris Date, host of the Theopologetics Podcast, denies. Moderated by Mike Felker of The Apologetic Front. This episode contains part 1 of the debate, including opening statements, rebuttals and the first round of cross-examination. Listen to episode 71, "Wailing and Gnashing," for part 2's second round of cross-examination, listener Q&A and closing statements.

Episode 69: When The Saints Go Marching In

2011-12-07T09:47:00.001-08:00

Episode 69 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Dr. Mike Licona from Risen Jesus Ministries joins me to discuss the resurrection of Jesus and the recent controversy over his interpretation of Matthew 27:51-53.

Episode 68: The Great I Am

2011-11-25T21:59:00.000-08:00

Episode 68 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Debate topic: "The deity of Christ is taught in the following texts or families of texts: John 12:41 (cf. Isa. 6 and 53), 1 Cor. 8:5-6, Heb. 1, Col. 1:15-17, and the "I am" statements of Jesus (John 8:24/58, 13:19, 18:5-6)." Dr. James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and author of The Forgotten Trinity, affirms. Patrick Navas, author of Divine Truth or Human Tradition?: A Reconsideration of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, denies. This episode is part 2 of their debate, including their interaction with Heb. 1, Col. 1:15-17, and the "I am statements" of Jesus (John 8:24/58, 13:19, 18:5-6). Listen to episode 67, "Firstborn of Creation," for part 1's opening statements and interaction with John 12:41 and 1 Cor. 8:5-6.

Episode 67: Firstborn of Creation

2011-11-25T21:57:00.001-08:00

Episode 67 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Debate topic: "The deity of Christ is taught in the following texts or families of texts: John 12:41 (cf. Isa. 6 and 53), 1 Cor. 8:5-6, Heb. 1, Col. 1:15-17, and the "I am" statements of Jesus (John 8:24/58, 13:19, 18:5-6)." Dr. James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and author of The Forgotten Trinity, affirms. Patrick Navas, author of Divine Truth or Human Tradition?: A Reconsideration of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, denies. This episode is part 1 of their debate, including their opening statements and interaction with John 12:41 and 1 Cor. 8:5-6. Listen to episode 68, "The Great I Am," for part 2's interaction with Heb. 1, Col. 1:15-17, and the "I am statements" of Jesus (John 8:24/58, 13:19, 18:5-6).

Theopologetics Debate: Deity of Christ

2011-11-21T11:45:00.000-08:00

Announcing what will be the fourth Theopologetics Debate, this time on whether or not the deity of Christ is taught in five specific texts or families of texts, between Dr. James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and author of The Forgotten Trinity, and Patrick Navas, author of Divine Truth or Human Tradition?: A Reconsideration of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures..

Date: Friday, November 25th, to be published in the podcast feed shortly thereafter.

Resolution: The deity of Christ is taught in the following texts or families of texts: 1 Cor. 8:5-6, Col. 1:15-17, Heb. 1, John 12:41 (cf. Isa. 6 and 53) and the "I am" statements of Jesus (John 8:24/58, 13:19, 18:5-6).

Participants: Dr. James White affirms. Patrick Navas denies.

Debate format:

10 minutes opening negative
10 minutes opening affirmative
28 minutes per each of the five texts/subjects, as follows:
- 7-minute opening presentations (x2)
- 3-minute rebuttals (x2)
- 3-minute cross-examinations (x2)
- 1-minute closing statements (x2)
(For a grand total of 2 hours 40 minutes.)

Theopologetics Debate: Conditionalism (Again)

2011-10-31T19:03:00.000-07:00

Well I've moderated three debates, now it's time to participate in one myself. I've wanted to try my hand at it and get some practice, and have come in recent months to find the case for annihilationism quite compelling. Friends of the show, www.grassrootsapologetics.org, have accepted my invitation to debate the topic.

Date: Tuesday, December 20th (or Thursday, December 22nd if unforeseen circumstances rule out Tuesday), to be published in the podcast feed shortly thereafter.

Resolution: The punishment of the damned will be actual torment forever and ever.

Participants: Hiram Diaz from Grassroots Apologetics affirms. Chris Date, host of the Theopologetics Podcast, denies.

Moderating: Michael Burgos, also from Grassroots Apologetics, will moderate. If he is unavailable, Mike Felker of The Apologetic Front will moderate.

Audience Questions: To submit a question to be posed to either participant, please email the moderators at voluntaryenslavement@gmail.com and mike@theapologeticfront.com with your question and the participant to which you would like it posed.

Debate format:

20 minutes opening affirmative
20 minutes opening negative
10 minutes rebuttal affirmative
10 minutes rebuttal negative
10 minutes cross-examination of affirmative
10 minutes cross-examination of negative
10 minutes cross-examination of affirmative
10 minutes cross-examination of negative
30 minutes "audience" Q&A, alternating
10 minutes closing negative
10 minutes closing affirmative

Episode 65: Immortal

2011-10-27T08:17:00.001-07:00

Episode 65 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Debate topic: "Unsaved humans will suffer everlasting conscious torment." Pseudonymous blogger TurretinFan affirms, whereas Ronnie from the Consuming Fire blog denies. This episode is part 2 of their debate, including cross-examination, Q&A and closing arguments. Listen to episode 64, "Consuming Fire," for part 1's opening statements and rebuttals.

Episode 64: Consuming Fire

2011-10-27T08:16:00.001-07:00

Episode 64 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Debate topic: "Unsaved humans will suffer everlasting conscious torment." Pseudonymous blogger TurretinFan affirms, whereas Ronnie from the Consuming Fire blog denies. This episode is part 1 of their debate, including their opening statements and rebuttals. Listen to episode 65, "Immortal," for part 2's cross-examination, Q&A and closing arguments.

Episode 63: Lake of Fire

2011-10-21T11:33:00.001-07:00

Episode 63 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Dr. Larry Dixon, author of The Other Side of the Good News, joins me to discuss why he believes the traditional view of hell, and not annihilationism, is the biblical teaching concerning the fate of the wicked. This episode is part 2 of the interview; for part 1, listen to episode 62, "The Other Side."

Episode 62: The Other Side

2011-10-21T11:17:00.003-07:00

Episode 62 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Dr. Larry Dixon, author of The Other Side of the Good News, joins me to discuss why he believes the traditional view of hell, and not annihilationism, is the biblical teaching concerning the fate of the wicked. This episode is part 1 of the interview; for part 2, listen to episode 63, "Lake of Fire."

Episode 61: Lost Forever

2011-10-21T11:17:00.001-07:00

Episode 61 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Debate topic: "Some people will not be saved from their sins according to the following passages and their contexts: 2 Thess. 1:9, Matt. 25:41/46, Matt. 18:8, Romans 9:22 and Jude 1:6." Pseudonymous blogger TurretinFan affirms, whereas Jason Pratt from The Evangelical Universalist Forum denies. This episode is part 3 of their debate, including Q&A and their closing arguments. Listen to episode 59, "God Save Us All," for part 1's opening statements and rebuttals, and listen to episode 60, "No More One More Chance," for part 2's cross-examination.

Episode 60: No More One More Chance

2011-10-21T11:16:00.001-07:00

Episode 60 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Debate topic: "Some people will not be saved from their sins according to the following passages and their contexts: 2 Thess. 1:9, Matt. 25:41/46, Matt. 18:8, Romans 9:22 and Jude 1:6." Pseudonymous blogger TurretinFan affirms, whereas Jason Pratt from The Evangelical Universalist Forum denies. This episode is part 2 of their debate, including cross-examination. Listen to episode 59, "God Save Us All," for part 1's opening statements and rebuttals, and listen to episode 61, "Lost Forever," for part 3's Q&A and closing arguments.

Episode 59: God Save Us All

2011-10-21T11:15:00.001-07:00

Episode 59 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Debate topic: "Some people will not be saved from their sins according to the following passages and their contexts: 2 Thess. 1:9, Matt. 25:41/46, Matt. 18:8, Romans 9:22 and Jude 1:6." Pseudonymous blogger TurretinFan affirms, whereas Jason Pratt from The Evangelical Universalist Forum denies. This episode is part 1 of their debate, including their opening statements and rebuttals. Listen to episode 60, "No More One More Chance," for part 2's cross-examination, and listen to episode 61, "Lost Forever," for part 3's Q&A and closing arguments.

Once Enlightened--A Study of Hebrews 6:4-6

2011-09-23T21:29:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine texted me asking that I do a blog post exegeting Hebrews 6:4-6, which reads,

4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

In this series I will exegete the passage to the best of my ability, explaining what I think it means and what it does not mean. And I'll do so without isolating it from the rest of Scripture as so many often do, while not simply saying it can't mean what my friend thinks it means because of such and such other passages. So with that introduction, let's begin with the first clause of the passage.

ONCE BEEN ENLIGHTENED

"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened..."

The word "enlightened" is φωτίζω (phōtizō) and its form here means to be given light, to be shined upon, or to be imbued with knowledge. In Luke 11:36 it's used to describe what happens when an oil lamp casts its rays on something. In 1 Corinthians 4:5 Paul uses it to say Christ will illuminate the things hidden in darkness. John uses it in Revelation 18:1 to say he saw the earth illuminated by the Lord's glory.

Many people have assumed that what the author of Hebrews means when he refers to this kind of person as having once been "enlightened" is that such a one has been saved, has come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. One of Thayer's definitions is, for example, "to enlighten spiritually, imbue with saving knowledge." Thayer bases this definition on John 1:9 where Jesus, the true light, is said to "enlighten (phōtizō) every man." One might object on the grounds that obviously not every man has been saved. Of course, perhaps John means "all kinds of men," though it is worth pointing out that he just got done saying the Lord shone in the darkness but the darkness didn't comprehend it. One might ask, How could the darkness fail to comprehend a light they did not see? I'll leave that debate for another day.

However, what one discovers is that this salvific idea of being "enlightened" is not how the word is typically used. When Paul wrote to the Ephesians, in verse 15 he said to them, "I too [have] heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you and your love for all the saints." Yet, having just spoken of their faith, he nevertheless goes on to pray this:

17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened (phōtizō), so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe.

So although Paul's readers already have saving faith, Paul nevertheless prays that they would be enlightened, that is, to have knowledge of what is in store for them. Clearly we can't assume that to be "enlightened" (phōtizō) must mean "to be saved."

What's more, in Ephesians 3:9-10 Paul says his mission is to "bring to light (phōtizō) what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made konwn through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places." Paul is not talking about "enlightenment" in the sense of coming to saving faith; he's talking about revealing--bringing to light--something that was in times past hidden.

Consider also 2 Timothy 1:10, in which Paul says that the gospel "now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought to light (phōtizō) life and immortality through the gospel." Paul isn't saying that life and immortality equal being enlightened; he's saying life and immortality were revealed, having been planned "from all eternity" (v. 9).

So there really is no warrant for assuming that the author of Hebrews uses "enlightened" to mean imbued with saving faith. More consistent with how the word is used elsewhere would be that the people to whom he refers have been made aware of the gospel, have had it revealed to them. They have been taught it. Perhaps the rest of the passage will tell us that he means something more; time will tell as I continue in the next posts in this series. Before we look at the rest of the passage, however, let's see if there's anything more we can gleam from the author's use of the word "enlightened."

RECEIVING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH

Perhaps the word's use again in Hebrews 10:32 can tell us something, where the author tells his readers, "remember the former days, when, after being enlightened (phōtizō), you endured a great conflict of sufferings." By itself, this doesn't really tell us whether or not their enlightenment is equal to their salvation. It does, however, seem to hearken back to verse 26 where he says, "if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins."

"See," one might say, "there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, so that means there once was a sacrifice for those who received the knowledge of truth, but they lost it." Au contraire. For one thing, I think this is a strained understanding of the text. It's not as if Jesus' sacrifice for sins no longer exists when one who receives the truth goes on sinning. It's just something which they can no longer claim for themselves. What's more, the author doesn't say there no longer remains a sacrifice for their sins, he says "a sacrifice for sins"--period. So I don't really think it's even reasonable to read the passage this way.

What makes more sense is, because Jesus is the final sacrifice, and because no one will be forgiven apart from faith in Him, one who rejects Him has no alternate recourse, no other means by which he or she can be forgiven. If one rejects the only atonement for sin, there remains no other sacrifice for sins. There's nothing else, no one else, to turn to. So this really doesn't say anything about whether or not someone who "receives the truth" has been saved.

IF YOU RECEIVE A DIFFERENT GOSPEL

But what of the word "receive" with regards to this "knowledge of the truth?" Does it mean to "believe" it? Not necessarily. In 2 Corinthians 11:4 Paul says, "if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive...a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough" (NIV). Paul would have much harsher words (his words are, nevertheless, a criticism) were he saying his readers were believing a different gospel, but he's not. In saying they receive a different gospel, he means that they give ear to it. They listen to it preached. They put up with it. They hear it.

In Colossians 4:10 Paul speaks of Barnabas' cousin Mark, "about whom you received instructions." Here, their receiving instructions has nothing to do with accepting or believing. Rather, they literally received instructions. They were given instructions. Similarly, John says in 2 John 1:4, "I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth, just as we have received commandment to do from the Father." Again, receiving here says nothing of John's response to the commandment. It simply means that they were commanded. They were given a command.

So being "enlightened" seems to be equivalent to "receiving the knowledge of the truth," and receiving the truth appears to mean little more than being told about it, listening to it, being taught about it. Whether or not they believed it, whethere or not the truly trusted in Christ alone as the sacrifice for their sins, is another question. But the context might give us a clue as to how to answer that question.

BY THIS TIME YOU OUGHT TO BE TEACHERS

I've seen Hebrews 6:4-6 appealed to frequently, but rarely have I seen someone actually put these verses in their context. Of course, the context is Hebrews as a whole, but I think the immediate context is enough to demonstrate what "enlightened" here means, beginning with verse 11 of the previous chapter:

5:11 Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 5:13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil. 6:1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 6:2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. 6:3 And this we will do, if God permits. 6:4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened...

We're going to look at verses 4 through 6 in greater depth later in this series, but for now, consider the author's opening point. He tells his readers that they have had long enough to develop a mature understanding of the gospel. So long, in fact, that they should be teachers by now. Yet, they "have need again" to be taught "the elementary principles." What is the author saying? He's saying they've once been taught the basics of the gospel, but need to be taught it again because they haven't matured.

So there's nothing in the context that suggests that what's being discussed is the sort of person who, once saved, then falls away. Rather, what's being discussed is the sort of person who has been taught the basics of the gospel, but has not matured. And this is consistent with how the words "enlightened" in verse 4, and "receive" in chapter 10, are used. They were taught the gospel. It was revealed to them. The context suggests nothing beyond that.

CONVINCED OF BETTER THINGS CONCERNING YOU

I'm about to wrap up, and in the next post in this series we'll look at what is meant by "tasted of the heavenly gift." For now, however, we have no reason to believe "enlightened" means anything more than simply having heard the truth. Indeed, the context suggests that's all it means. In fact--and I'll end on this--consider what the author says very shortly thereafter:

9 Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation.

So, even though the author had just finished admonishing his readers for their lack of maturity, and had just gotten done talking about people like them but who go on to fall away ("even though we speak like this"), he is "convinced of better things in [their] case." That is, their lack of maturity would concern him, but he doesn't believe his warnings apply to them because he is convinced that "better things" apply to them.

Better things than being "enlightened," better things than "tasting of the heavenly gift." Better things than being made "partakers with the Holy Spirit." Better things than having experienced all of this but "yielding thorns and thistles" (v. 8). What sorts of things? "The things that have to do with salvation."

You see, all those things he had just said of his readers are true both of them and those who might later fall away, but the author is convinced that "better things," "things that have to do with salvation," are true of his readers. It follows, then, that all those things he just finished talking about, while true of those who are saved, nevertheless aren't enough to tell us someone is saved.

Theopologetics Debate: Conditionalism

2011-09-22T20:10:00.000-07:00

Announcing what will be the third Theopologetics debate! This time on the topic of annihilationism or conditional immortality. Participants have agreed to field questions from you, my listeners, so send them my way at theopologetics@hotmail.com. Stay tuned!

Date: Friday, October 21st (or Tuesday, October 25th if unforeseen circumstances rule out Friday), to be published in the podcast feed shortly thereafter.

Resolution: Unsaved humans will suffer everlasting conscious torment.

Pseudonymous blogger TurretinFan of http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/ affirms. Ronnie, creator of the Consuming Fire blog, denies.

Debate format:

20 minutes opening affirmative
20 minutes opening negative
15 minutes rebuttal affirmative
15 minutes rebuttal negative
10 minutes cross-examination of affirmative
10 minutes cross-examination of negative
10 minutes cross-examination of affirmative
10 minutes cross-examination of negative
20 minutes "audience" Q&A, alternating
10 minutes closing negative
10 minutes closing affirmative

Theopologetics Debates: Evangelical Universalism

2011-09-14T17:20:00.000-07:00

Announcing the second ever Theopologetics debate! This time on the topic of "evangelical universalism." Participants have agreed to field questions from you, my listeners, so send them my way at theopologetics@hotmail.com. Stay tuned!

Date: Friday, October 7th (or Tuesday, October 11th if unforeseen circumstances rule out Friday), to be published in the podcast feed shortly thereafter.

Resolution: Some people will not be saved from their sins according to the following passages and their contexts: 2 Thess. 1:9, Matt. 25:41/46, Matt. 18:8, Romans 9:22 and Jude 1:6.

Pseudonymous blogger TurretinFan of http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/ affirms. Jason Pratt, contributor to The Evangelical Universalist, denies.

Debate format:

30 minutes opening affirmative
30 minutes opening negative
15 minutes rebuttal affirmative
15 minutes rebuttal negative
10 minutes cross-examination of affirmative*
10 minutes cross-examination of negative
10 minutes cross-examination of affirmative
10 minutes cross-examination of negative
10 minutes cross-examination of affirmative
10 minutes cross-examination of negative
20 minutes "audience" Q&A, alternating
15 minutes closing negative
15 minutes closing affirmative

* Negative has offered to be cross-examined first if the affirmative so chooses.

Episode 58: God Is in the House

2011-09-12T08:29:00.001-07:00

Episode 58 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Stephen Atkerson from the New Testament Reformation Fellowship joins me to discuss house churches and New Testament patterns of church practice. This episode contains part 2 of the interview. Listen to episode 57, "God is in the House," for part 1.

Episode 57: Our House

2011-09-06T19:20:00.001-07:00

Episode 57 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Stephen Atkerson from the New Testament Reformation Fellowship joins me to discuss house churches and New Testament patterns of church practice. This episode contains part 1 of the interview. Stay tuned for episode 58, "God is in the House," for part 2.

Episode 56: Everlasting God

2011-08-26T12:03:00.000-07:00

Episode 56 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Dr. Glenn Peoples joins me to discuss Christology, philosophy of mind and the crucifixion of Christ. Was God the Son alive and conscious while the man, Jesus, lay dead and unconscious in the tomb? Or did the Godman die both as man and as God? And can either of these views be considered orthodox?

Analyzing Annihilation: JPH vs. EWF (Round 2)

2011-08-09T10:14:00.000-07:00

In round 1 we looked at J.P. Holding's claim in "An Examination of Annihilationism" that the Greek word apollymi, rendered "perish" in describing the final fate of the wicked, more strongly supports the traditional view of hell than it does the conditionalist position. I concluded such was not the case at all, and that the word more strongly supports conditionalism than traditionalism. My friend Michael Burgos agreed that Holding was running away from the clear meaning of the word, and that apollymi clearly fits within a conditionalist framework, but did not feel that it was any less consonant with traditionalism. So I gave the round to Fudge, and Mike would say, I guess, that round 1 was a draw (though he does find statements in Revelation compelling, which we'll get to later in this series). And so the bell rings in round 2.

OTHER WORDS ARE BESIDE THE POINT

Toward the end of the first half of my interview with Edward Fudge on the topic of hell, as part of his positive case for conditionalism Fudge cited a ton of texts from the Old Testament which describe the fate of the wicked. If you've listened to that, then the fire hose Fudge let loose probably came to your mind as you read this hypothetical conditionalist argument Holding presents after his treatment of apollymi:

Other words are used of the "destruction" of the wicked - an example being 'kataphtheiro' in 2 Peter 2:13 --- translated as "utterly perish." Paul also uses "apollumi" in 1 Cor. 15:18, translated "perished". Paul's hypothetical argument here makes it clear that he means they will not live again.

Also, the Old Testament speaks of the final end of the wicked in terms such as "cut off"; will "be no more"; are "slain"; they will "not be found"; "vanish like smoke"; "perish"; "be destroyed"; be "torn to pieces"; "vanish like water which flows away"; "melt like a slug"; be like the "stillborn"; their "blood will bathe the feet of the righteous"; etc.; etc. These pictures cannot possibly symbolize "perpetual concious [sic] torment forever."

Indeed, I explicitly remember Fudge citing at least one of these in his positive case: Psalm 58:8 which says, "Let [the wicked] be as a snail [or slug] which melts away." Of course, he marshaled a great many more passages than that in driving home his point, many more than even mentioned here by Holding. But how does J.P. respond to this?

I will simply ask this question: In any of the places where apollumi is used, did the things in question "cease to exist as" whatever they were? No -- the oil of Matt. 26 did not cease to be oil; it was simply (so it was argued by Judas) put to a use that it should not have been. It remained oil. The same may be said of every other example I cited, and of 1 Cor. 1:19 -- the plans did not "cease to exist as" plans; they simply did not fulfill their intended purpose...

That "other words" are used is true, but beside the point. 2 Peter 2:13, at any rate, refers to people currently living on the earth. (emphasis mine)

And after that, so far as I can tell, none of the language quoted in the hypothetical argument is responded to. None. Holding's entire response to this argument seems to be, since apollymi does not describe something ceasing to exist (an argument I think I refuted in round 1), then we don't even need to consider other language used to describe the fate of the wicked. Really?!? We can just ignore it all? I'm sorry, but this seems sloppy and immature, and certainly anything but persuasive.

Now, as strong as my words are, this is not, actually, what I'm going to present as round 2. In the first hours of writing this post that's what I had intended. But then I began to look carefully at what Holding says immediately following his dismissal of those "other words," and what I discovered led me to present something else as round 2.

THIS LIFE OR THE LIFE TO COME?

In introducing his positive case for his view, after briefly quoting (but not citing, if I'm making the correct differentiation) several descriptions of the fate of the wicked given in the Psalms, Dr. Fudge says this:

It frequently says to us that the principles of divine justice are such that the righteous will endure forever with God's blessing but the wicked will be cut off and be no more. Well now somebody says, "Maybe that's talking about in this life." Well, maybe it is. But the problem is then, as the Psalms acknowledge, sometimes that doesn't happen in this life. So what do we say then? Do we say well this is true when it's true but it isn't true when it isn't? Or do we say there must be some other way it's true even when we don't see it now? And I think we need to say the second part.

This is, in fact, what was going to be round 2, but will now be round 3. That is, this issue of whether or not the Old Testament descriptions of the fate of the wicked are "talking about in this life," and whether or not Fudge is correct that these present to us "principles of divine justice" which we should think apply to the second death. In introducing the question, I was going to point out that J.P. does, very briefly and without addressing Fudge's greater point, make this point when he says, "2 Peter 2:13, at any rate, refers to people living on the earth."

Actually, the hypothetical argument to which Holding is responding is from verse 12, not 13. It reads, "But these [false teachers among you (v. 1)]...will in the destruction of [fallen angels] also be destroyed." Alternatively, "But these...will utterly perish in their own corruption" (NKJV). The hypothetical objector to traditionalism is arguing that the fate of these wicked teachers, then, is utter destruction, not eternal conscious torment.

Holding's response to 2 Peter 2:12 is, well, lacking clarity to say the least. I think what he really means (correct me if you think I'm wrong) is not that it refers to "people living on the earth," but that it refers to a destruction that will take place in this life, and not the final judgment when Christ returns. If I'm right, J.P. still would have yet to respond to Fudge's broader point about "principles of divine justice," and we'll come back to that in round 3. But my examination of 2 Peter 2:12 led me to focus on it as round 2. Does it, in fact, refer to judgment in this life rather than the one to come?

UNDER PUNISHMENT FOR THE DAY OF JUDGMENT

When I first read and re-read the verse in its context, for some reason I was inclined to agree. But now that I've taken a third and fourth look, I don't think that's the case. Here is the verse in its broader context:

(9) the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, (10) and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, (11) whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord. (12) But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed.

Notice verse 9, which speaks of the keeping of the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment. Doesn't this suggest, contrary to what I've proposed is what Holding really meant, that the "utter destruction" referred to in verse 12 is the one that will take place in the final judgement? Consider also the next chapter of 2 Peter which says, "by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men" (v. 7). Again, this sounds like the second death, and not some punishment in this life, is what's in view.

I will admit that, as a preterist (I suppose that for those who are not familiar with my position, I should say I'm not a hyperpreterist, or what is unfortunately often called a "full preterist"), I did wonder if what I was reading was a prediction of the soon-coming destruction of Jerusalem. However, 2 Peter 3:13's mention of hope in "new heavens and a new earth" lends further support to the view that 2 Peter 2:12 is referring to the final judgment.

It would seem to me, then, that not only does what I surmise to be Holding's argument not address Fudge's broader point, but it is, in fact, mistaken. Peter does appear to suggest that the final state of the wicked is whatever is meant by kataphtheirō. But is Holding's hypothetical objector, to whom he so woefully responds, right when he says that kataphtheirō means "utterly perish?"

MEN OF CORRUPT MINDS

This word appears in one other place in the New Testament, 2 Timothy 3:8 which speaks of men of "depraved" or "corrupt" minds. Its root word, phtheirō, is used in 1 Corinthians 3:17 to refer to the "defilement" of the temple of God; in 1 Corinthians 15:33 to speak of the "corrupting" of good morals; in 2 Corinthians 11:3 to warn against the "corrupting" of one's mind from the simplicity of Christ; and in Revelation 19:2 to say that Mystery Babylon had "corrupted" the earth with her immorality. Even Peter himself uses a form of this root word, phthora, to write of the "corruption" from which believers have escaped (2 Peter 1:4), and of "corruption" to which false teachers are enslaved (2 Peter 2:19).

Despite Thayer's inclusion of definitions like "to be destroyed" and "to perish," it seemed to me that the authors of the New Testament typically used the word and its root to refer to corruption, rather than to death. And so, despite giving round 1 to Fudge and his treatment of apollymi, I was finding myself inclined toward giving round 2 to, well, certainly not Holding, since he doesn't even address this text seriously, but to traditionalism in general, since Peter seemed to be saying that the final state of the wicked is utter corruption, rather than utter destruction.

But then I began to search through the LXX. The meaning of kataphtheirō as used in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament tips the scale in this round back toward the center. Isaiah 10:27 uses it to describe a destroyed yoke. Genesis 6:13, 6:17 and 9:11 use it to describe the destruction of all life in the flood. In Isaiah 32:7 it refers to the destruction of the humble by scoundrels. It is used in 2 Chronicles 25:16 to say that Amaziah would be killed. Several other texts use the word similarly.

Of course, there are occasions in which the LXX seemingly uses kataphtheirō to mean something more like "corruption." But the point I'm making is, clearly it can carry the meaning of "be destroyed" or "perish," and Peter doesn't make it clear that that's not how he intends to use it. As such, I am neither inclined to side with Holding's hypothetical objector in insisting that kataphtheirō suggests an utter destruction of the wicked in the second death, nor with the response Holding could have given but didn't, that the word more typically describes corruption than actual death.

And so, although I'm not sure either Fudge or Holding would focus much on 2 Peter 2:12 and its use of kataphtheirō, because proponents of their mutual positions might do so in a debate like this, I'll include it as round 2 in this boxing match, but I can't justify anything other than a draw. What say you?

The Day God Fell Asleep?

2011-08-08T15:10:00.000-07:00

In the comments thread following my previous post, listener Ronnie pointed out that it's possible to be a dualist and yet maintain mortalism, that immaterial human souls are completely unconscious in death awaiting the resurrection. I pointed out, hastily and perhaps incorrectly, that that would still be considered heresy by those who can't accept that as deity, Jesus either remained alive while His body lay dead in the tomb, or died along with His body.

Ronnie suggested in email that this objection seems to be to the death of the soul, not necessarily its being rendered unconscious. He pointed out the seeming likelihood that while living but asleep, the Word was likewise unconscious. Because I don't want to derail that conversation from conditionalism, I pose the question here:

Could it be that for three days God the Son was, as God, unconscious, and that not violate the immutability and triunity of God?

Analyzing Annihilation: JPH vs. EWF (Round 1 Post Mortem)

2011-08-07T17:17:00.000-07:00

In round 1 of my series analyzing annihilation, I argued that the meaning of apollymi used to describe the final state of the wicked more heavily favors Edward Fudge's view of hell, commonly called "annihilationism" or "conditionalism" or "conditional immortality," than it does J.P. Holding's somewhat more traditional view of hell as argued for in his article, "An Examination of Annihilation." My post received a lot of great comments and the discussion is ongoing.

The latest comment posted there was made by my friend, Michael Burgos of Grassroots Apologetics. As I began to respond, however, I realized that I had so many thoughts to articulate that it would make more sense to write a whole blog post rather than squeeze my large response into the comments area at the end of the previous post.

Here was my friend's comment:

First let me preface my comments by saying that I wholly reject the doctrine known as Physicalism and/or Monism. I find them to be heretical and I say that only because that position tends to be assumed when the topic at hand is discussed. I found Dr. Fudge's presentation very good and incredibly powerful. I have held the traditional view since I can remember, and I have even defended it in writing. However, the arguments put forward by Dr Fudge are in my view profound, consistent, and to be taken seriously. Therefore, I participate in this dialogue from as an objective view point as possible. Let the truth of God's word shine forth.

Regarding your first point:

Lets talk about ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi). The etymology of the word is, I believe, essential to arriving at its meaning. The word is derived from two:ἀπό (apo) which means away from, or away, and ὄλεθρος (olethros) which means destruction or ruin. The word therefore is an emphatic of ὄλεθρος and signals the utter destruction of a person, place, or thing. Certainly we can't decipher a usages meaning without context. Given the contexts of Matt. 10:28, 2 Thess. 1:9, Phil. 3:19 I cannot see any reason to conclude that this word indicates anything other than the full and unbridaled destruction of the reprobate. So far as Mr. Holding's argumentation, I think that while "lostness" is part of the semantic range of the term, that "lostness" is had within the context of utter ruin/destruction.

What are the implications of the reality of this term on the terminal state of the damned? I think the term fits perfectly within the annihilationist understanding. But, I see no reason why it does not fit perfectly within the traditional understanding as well. It's compatibility with annihilationism seems obvious to me. But, my understanding of the traditional view is that the state of punishment that the damned suffer is a state that is ineffably fixed and final. The finality of the fate of the reprobate is utter ruin/destruction in their fixed state of punishment. Therefore, while I think Holding is running from the plain meaning of the text, I am inclined to think that both views find validity therein.

Let me preface my response with first saying that while I am considering monism a little more than Mike is, nevertheless I am sympathetic to at least some of Mike's arguments. In fact, I dedicated a whole episode to one of them when I interviewed notable monist Dr. Joel Green from Fuller Theological Seminary. And so I think it is very important to reaffirm that monism or physicalism, although often assumed to be part of the annihilationist equation, so to speak, is not at all required to hold to Fudge's view. Fudge pointed that out both in our interview together, as well as in his book.

Second, Mike, I share your assessment of Fudge's presentation, and appreciate your desire to be as objective as possible in critically analyzing his case, and that of Holding in opposition. I think too few Christians take this debate seriously, and I think they do a disservice to those of us trying to see what the Bible really says. So as I explained to you in email, I look forward to examining Holding's article together and with my readers and listeners. I'm sure the discussion will be quite fruitful. With that...

UTTER RUIN IN THEIR FIXED STATE OF PUNISHMENT

I think you're right that the etymology suggests a meaning of utter destruction (though we should be careful not to commit what Carson calls the "root fallacy"). What I don't buy, at this point, is that either apollymi or olethros can mean "ruin" or "waste" in the sense proposed by traditionalists. I certainly haven't (yet, perhaps) seen any examples in Scripture where this is the case. And that was the point I tried to make in the post: that apollymi seems invariably to carry the meaning of something which is destroyed (or being destroyed, or on the way to destruction) to the point where it is no longer alive, eaten away, reduced to rubble and vanishes--not in the scientific sense, but in the sense, as I explained, of food rotting away, or oil vanishing into the scalp of Christ.

In other words, apollymi seems to be consistently used by biblical authors (and translators, in the case of the LXX) to refer to destruction which is not merely "final," but which is so complete that what once was, is (or eventually will be) no longer. I'm beginning to suspect that there's no legitimate sense in which the word would have been used by biblical authors to refer to a person or thing being wasted or ruined in an ongoing, eternal process which never culminates with the complete destruction of the object which finally vanishes. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if biblical authors would have found it absurd to use the word to describe something so seemingly the opposite of how they typically used the word.

THAT'S WHAT I CALL A DEAD PARROT!

I'm reminded of a Monty Python skit in which John Cleese wants to return a parrot to a pet store. At one point Cleese tosses the motionless bird into the air which subsequently falls lifeless on the floor, and he says, "Now that's what I call a dead parrot." Unphased, Michael Palin responds, "Oh no, it's just stunned." "I've had about enough of this," Cleese objects, "that parrot is definitely deceased." A little later, Palin says the reason the parrot had been nailed to the perch was so that it couldn't muscle apart the bars and, "Boom!" Unmoved, Cleese picks up the parrot and says, "Look, matey, this parrot wouldn't boom if I put 4,000 volts through it. It's bleedin' demised." Palin: "No, it's pining!" Cleese: "It's not pining, it's passed on! This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late parrot! It's a stiff! Bereft of life it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies!..This is an X-parrot!"

There are a couple of reasons I'm reminded of this skit. First, consider the words Cleese's character uses to desribe the bird: Dead. Deceased. Demised. Passed on. Expired. Late. These seem to align with the meaning of apollymi as used of formerly living creatures in the Bible. The parrot was not merely ruined or wasted; it was a motionless, lifeless corpse. When the Bible, then, says that the fate of the wicked is to "perish" in the "second death," it seems at least likely to me that something like this fictional parrot's state of being (that of death) is what's in mind.

Second, consider how Cleese's character goes on to describe the parrot. It was "no more," it had "ceased to be," it was "an X-parrot." And we all understand that language and laugh at the absurdity of the clerk even though the bird which allegedly was "no more" was right there in front of our eyes. The creature which is said to have "ceased to be" is nevertheless able to be physically tossed around. The parrot, despite all of its constituent parts being handled by the characters, nevertheless is justifiably called "an X-parrot." When writers like Holding object to annihilation on the grounds that when someone dies they don't cease to exist, or that matter can not be destroyed, their arguments seem pretty ridiculous in light of how obvious it is to us that when Cleese calls the parrot "no more," says it has "ceased to be," is an "X-parrot," he doesn't mean the parrot has instantaneously vanished. We all understand what that language means, and there is, in fact, a very real sense in which the parrot is "no more."

THAT'S WHAT I CALL A DEAD SINNER?!

What's more, something just occurred to me. As we watch this skit we're moved to laughter by how utterly absurd it is that the pet store clerk continuously insists that this clearly dead parrot is, in fact, alive. But given how apollymi is used to refer to the final state of the unregenerate, and how their fate is called "the second death," imagine a sort of reversal of this skit. Imagine John Cleese walks in and the parrot is cawing and flapping its wings in the cage. Now imagine him insisting to the clerk that the parrot is dead, having perished moments ago. Picture in your mind how equally comical the situation would be as Mr. Cleese tries to come up with all sorts of ways of explaining the allegedly dead parrot's obvious signs of life in order to convince the skeptical clerk to return his money.

I'm beginning to wonder if this is, in fact, analogous to the way traditionalists try to explain how apollymi and "second death" could refer to the final state of the wicked. Michael Palin: "Hello, sir. How can I help you?" John Cleese: "That's what I call a dead sinner. Clearly this wicked man raised from the dead shortly ago has now perished, has fallen victim to the second death." Palin: "Umm... Really? This man is screaming, clearly in pain. Obviously he is quite alive." Cleese: "Oh no, his muscles and vocal chords are just going through post-mortem twitches." Allegedly dead man: "No I'm not, I'm very alive! Please help me!" Palin: "Post-mortem twitches? The man just yelled for help!" Cleese: "No, no, that was me, throwing my voice. I'm a ventriloquist. I assure you, this man has most definitely perished."

And on and on it goes. Were I more creative, I'd write a whole skit to see what came of it. And granted, to be truly analogous to this debate, Cleese would have to say at some point, "Well when I say he's perished, that he's dead, what I really mean is that he's ruined, in a sense eternally dying." Or something like that. But I'm no longer certain that's any less absurd than Monty Python's classic skit.

Analyzing Annihilation: JPH vs. EWF (Round 1)

2011-08-05T21:15:00.000-07:00

It was my immense pleasure to recently interview Dr. Edward Fudge on the topic of annihilationism or conditional immortality. The first half of that interview can be heard in episode 54, "Burn It Up;" the second half is in episode 55, "Eternal Fire." As I stated when that interview was over, I felt left with little reason--apart from tradition--to maintain the traditional view of hell as eternal conscious torment. And I was pleased to hear from a friend of mine who, having been skeptical of Fudge's view in the past, found his case compelling.

However, my friend did ask what I thought of an article by J.P. Holding, "An Examination of Annihilation," in which Holding argues for the traditional view and against annihilation. As I began to read it, I was at first disappointed. The earliest points made in the article are, in my humble opinion, very weak. However, as the article progresses, Holding makes some points deserving of examination.

I told my friend that I'd like to discuss those points together, one-by-one, taking them as seriously as we are both beginning to take annihilationism. It dawned on me, however, that our mutual examination of Holding's article might prove helpful to those who, like us, are beginning to consider this minority alternative to hell. So, assuming my friend does not mind (he is a fellow blogger), I'll publish that interaction here, and I welcome your feedback.

PERISH: TO BE DESTROYED? OR RUINED?

I will not examine the arguments made in this article in the order in which they appear, although I don't intend to neglect any. The first point I want to examine is summed up by this quote from Holding's article:

A second key word is apollumi, which emerges in our translations as "destroy". This is an important word, for many annihilationists like Pinnock and Fudge actually see it as favoring annihilation (Matt. 10:28; 2 Thess. 1:9; Phil. 3:19).

But the meaning of this word and those related to it does not refer to "destruction" in the modern sense that that word is used for the annihilation of something. Rather, it is closer in meaning to the way we use "destroyed" to mean ruined or lost, as in, "He destroyed his family with his drug habit."

Holding goes on to cite some texts which he believes support his contention, and we'll look at those in a moment. But I thought it worth noting that Edward Fudge is well aware of this argument. He writes on page 209 of the third edition of The Fire That Consumes,

Traditionalist writers so often make the point that "perish" (apollymi) is used of ruined wineskins (Matt 9:17) and spoiled food (John 6:12) that casual readers tend to go away thinking the word's primary meaning must be very mild indeed.

At least some traditionalist writers, then, apparently including J.P. Holding, wish us to believe that this idea of "ruined" or "lost" is the rule, rather than the exception. If this is the case, traditionalists have what I think is a compelling case, since as came through in the positive case for annihilation Fudge presented in the interview, it is based largely on the numerous places in which the fate of the wicked is said to be to "perish."

It seems to me, then, that this question as to the normative meaning of apollymi, is a major point in the debate. If Holding is right, much of the weight of the conditionalist case disappears. On the other hand, if its meaning is most often to "die" or be "destroyed," to "perish" as we would normally use the word, then the traditionalist is forced to argue from the defensive, or so it seems to me. Therefore, this seems like a good place to start examining Holding's article.

THE CASE FOR DESTRUCTION

Fudge continues,

Most often apollymi refers to actual death. It appears ninety-two times in the New Testament, thirteen times in Paul's letters. New Testament writers choose apollymi to say that:
Herod tries to kill the infant Jesus (Matt 2:13);
the disciples are about to perish in a storm (Matt 8:25);
Pharisees conspire to destroy Jesus (Matt 12:14);
one loses life trying to save it (Matt 16:25);
a vineyard owner executes murderous tenants (Matt 21:41);
a king sends troops to destroy murderers (Matt 22:7);
one perishes by the sword (Matt 26:52);
the crowd asks Pilate to destroy Jesus (Matt 27:20);
it is better for one man to die than for whole nation to perish (John 11:50);
an insurrectionist and false messiah perished at hands of Rome (Acts 5:37);
Israelites perish in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:9-10), or were destroyed there (Jude 5);
some perished in the rebellion of Korah (Jude 11).

If we were to limit our survey of the Greek apollymi as it is used in the New Testament to these verses alone, certainly we would come away with the impression that its typical meaning is to be killed or destroyed, not merely ruined or lost. As it turns out, I think a number of additional texts which use the word lend support to Fudge's contention, not the least of which is Hebrews 1:11 in which it is said that the eternal Son will remain while the works of His hands will perish.

But I think Fudge's point is strengthened also when we look at how the word is used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. It is noteworthy that at least one online LXX lexicon (here) consistently suggests "annihilate" as the proper translation. Here are a number of examples of how the Jewish translators of the Septuagint used the word:

Ethiopians are slain by the sword, Nineveh made desolate, and Assyria destroyed (Zeph 2:13)
Sodom and Gomorrah would not be destroyed if enough righteous were found there (Gen 18:24,28-32)
Abimelech and his nation were not destroyed because God prevented him from sleeping with Abraham's wife (Gen 20:4)
God, the consuming fire, would destroy the cities into which the Israelites were sent (Deut 9:3)
The fruit of God's enemies will be destroyed from the earth (Psalm 21:10)
Israel would perish among the Gentiles, save those few who remain to pine away (Lev 26:38)
Those who burn incense for themselves as though unto the Lord will be cut off from his people (Ex 30:38)
The children of Israel were to destroy the high places and graven images of those they drove out (Num 33:52)
Joshua feared his people had been delivered into the hands of his enemies to be destroyed (Josh 7:7)
Mortals die for lack of wisdom (Job 4:21)
The beast was slain, his body destroyed and burned (Dan 7:11)

This small, random sampling of how apollymi is used in the LXX seems on the surface to support the conditionalist's point, that to "perish" is to die, to be destroyed, to be slain. But returning to Fudge's book and his argument from the word's use in the New Testament,

To those who are "perishing" the gospel has a "stench of death"--a fact in keeping with our earlier suggestion that they will be raised mortal, then return to corruption and final extinction in hell (2 Cor 2:15-16). Peter uses this word of the fate that befell the world before the Flood (2 Pet 3:6). Paul (1 Cor 10:9-10) and Jude (v. 5) use it do describe Israel's destruction in the wilderness.

Such a survey leads me to concur with Fudge in insisting that with what is arguably (as we will see) the occasional exception, to "perish" is, indeed, to die, or be destroyed, or be slain. How, then, does Holding present his case, that the word typically means something different?

THE CASE FOR RUIN

Holding writes,

Lest there be any doubt [that the word "is closer in meaning to the way we use 'destroyed' to mean ruined or lost], take a look at some verses where the same Greek word is used, and ask youself: Were any of the items in question annihilated?
Mt. 10:6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.
Mt. 12:14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.
Mt. 26:8 When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked.
Luke 15:24, "For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found."
Luke 19:10 "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."

So it seems to me that Holding rests his case for the normative meaning of apollymi on a mere 5 verses, in contrast with the over 30 which Fudge and I have thus presented as evidence for "destroyed" as the typical meaning--not to mention perhaps dozens of others which we could marshal in making our case. The scale hardly seems to be weighted in the traditionalist's favor. Nevertheless, the examples Holding gives deserve some attention.

KILL

Very briefly, the second of Holding's examples above should be considered. When it comes to Matthew 12:14, he wants us to ask ourselves, "[Was the item] in question [that is, Jesus] annihilated?" Well of course Jesus wasn't annihilated, but the intent of the Pharisees was to kill Him. They wanted Jesus to perish, to die. They wanted to murder Him, to slay Him, to slaughter Him. They didn't want to simply ruin or lose Him, they wanted to destroy Him! To be quite frank, I'm astonished that J.P. would point to this verse in an attempt to demonstrate that apollymi means to "ruin" or "lose."

WASTE

He goes on to elaborate on his argument from Matthew 26:8, writing, "the oil of Matt. 26 did not cease to be oil; it was simply (so it was argued by Judas) put to a use that it should not have been. It remained oil." This is fair enough, but it seems to betray a misunderstanding of the conditionalist's argument. The question is not, as put by Holding, "did the things in question 'cease to exist as' whatever they were?" As Fudge points out, the argument is not that apollymi refers to "annihilation in some technical literal sense."

No, the annihilationist is not primarily arguing that the Second Death is to "cease to exist." Rather, he argues that the Second Death is simply that--death. At least when used to describe formerly living creatures. When it comes to inanimate objects (although this applies to animate creatures as well), the conditionalist argues that the word refers to destruction. The sense in which the word "annihilation" refers to this process is not so much that the object "ceases to exist," but that all that remains of what is destroyed is, well, remains. What once was is now gone, and only rotting bodies or smoldering rubble is left.

When the disciples object to the woman pouring oil on Jesus' head by rhetorically asking, "Why this waste?" (as it seems universally translated), yes, the oil continues to be oil--at least very briefly. But what, no doubt, eventually happened to that oil? It disappeared. Not, of course, in the scientific meaning of the word; then again, the authors of Scripture were not writing in scientific jargon. But practically speaking, the oil was gone. It was no more. It soaked into Jesus' hair and scalp and disappeared.

So this verse uses apollymi to mean "waste" in a way which is consistent with how it is typically used in the New Testament and the Septuagint. Consider, also, Proverbs 29:3 where the LXX uses apollymi to say that "he who keeps company with harlots wastes his wealth." Granted, the money that changes hands does not cease to be money, but that's beside the point. The point is that for the one who spends his money on prostitutes, his wealth disappears. Holding's contention, then, is certainly not supported by Matthew 26:8.

LOST

But what of Matthew 10:6, Luke 15:24 and 19:10? In each of these verses the word apollymi is typically rendered "lost." Certainly those who were in the present "lost" were not presently in the state of non-existence, of having been previously annihilated. Don't these verses therefore suggest a different meaning for apollymi than we've already looked at?

First it should be noted that when a word is typically used one way, but in a few selected texts is used another way, that doesn't change what is its normative meaning. At best it indicates a broader semantic range; that is, a greater number of meanings than the one intended by the majority of its uses. The fact that a word may have more than one possible meaning as evidenced by its use in a small selection of passages in no way suggests that secondary meanings are to be considered primary ones. So right off the bat, it's clear Holding's contention is unwarranted.

But still the question remains: did Matthew and Luke intend in these verses a meaning fundamentally different from the typical meaning in the verses we've already looked at? Fudge, it seems, would answer that question in the negative. He writes, "Not surprisingly, this verb apollymi stands in contrast with enduring, eternal life. It is the regular term for the spiritually 'lost'--who are 'perishing.'" In other words, even those who are metaphorically likened unto lost sheep are, in fact, in the process of, or are on their way to, being destroyed.

In a footnote to the above sentence, Fudge cites a number of passages in support of his case. In 1 Corinthians 1:18 Paul writes that "the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing." He similarly writes in 2 Corinthians 2:15 that "we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing." In 2 Corinthians 4:3 he says that "even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing," and in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 he speaks of "the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan...and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish."

It would seem, then, that even the lost who are "alive" in the temporal sense of the term are nevertheless "perishing" in a very real sense consistent with the typical meaning of apollymi. They are on their way to destruction. They are not merely "lost" in the way we understand the word, but are genuinely dying. So I'm inclined to side with Fudge despite the passages to which Holding points.

WINESKINS AND FOOD

Although the passages Holding points to as evidence of his contention end with those we've looked at above, Fudge anticipates the traditionalist pointing to a couple of other texts. As I quoted him as writing earlier, "Traditionalist writers so often make the point that 'perish' is used of ruined wineskins (Matt 9:17) and spoiled food (John 6:12)." But in light of everything we've looked at, he goes on to say that "we should think of something more than burst wineskins or wasted food when we read it used of the doom of the ungodly. Taken literally, these various pictures contradict each other. Taken seriously, they paint a single picture of utter, shameful extinction."

I haven't yet boarded the annihilationist bus, so to speak, but at this point I'm inclined to agree with Fudge. In fact, I think he grants too much. The wineskin which has burst has, in a very real sense, been destroyed. It ceases to be a skin which holds wine, since anything poured into it empties out immediately. As for spoiled food, when Jesus says, "Gather up the leftover fragments [of bread and fish] so that nothing will be lost," He doesn't simply mean that were it not for gathering it up it would be unable to be found. He means it will utterly decay away, as rotting food inevitably does. Such spoiled food does not merely sprout mold, it is slowly eaten away, dissolved. Time lapse photography of rotting food (this video and this video and this video) makes the case.

AND ROUND 1 GOES TO...

So it seems to me that the biblical use of "perish" does, in fact, tend to favor the conditionalist's case. Cities which "perish" are not merely "lost" or "ruined," they are destroyed, reduced to smoldering rubble. Food which "perishes" is eventually eaten away. People who "perish" are killed and cease to live. And so, it seems likely on the surface of it, that when it is promised that the wicked will "perish," it means they will become extinct.

In my estimation, round 1 goes to Fudge.

Episode 55: Eternal Fire

2011-08-04T14:27:00.001-07:00

Episode 55 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Dr. Edward Fudge joins me to discuss annihilation as an orthodox alternative to the traditional view of hell. This episode contains part 2 of the interview in which I present Edward with common traditionalist challenges to his view. Listen to episode 54, "Burn It Up," in which we focus on Dr. Fudge's book and the doctrine of annihilationism or conditional immortality.

Episode 54: Burn It Up

2011-08-04T14:26:00.000-07:00

Episode 54 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Dr. Edward Fudge joins me to discuss annihilation as an orthodox alternative to the traditional view of hell. This episode contains part 1 of the interview in which we focus on Dr. Fudge's book and the doctrine of annihilationism or conditional immortality. Listen to episode 55, "Eternal Fire," for part 2 in which I present Edward with common traditionalist challenges to his view.

Episode 53: Church of Christ, Sleep No More

2011-07-22T07:39:00.001-07:00

Episode 53 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Dr. Edward Fudge joins me to discuss the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement and the Churches of Christ which have emerged from it. This episode contains part 2 of the interview; see episode 52, "Restored," for part 1.

Episode 52: Restored

2011-07-22T07:38:00.000-07:00

Episode 52 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Dr. Edward Fudge joins me to discuss the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement and the Churches of Christ which have emerged from it. This episode contains part 1 of the interview; see episode 53, "Church of Christ, Sleep No More," for part 2.

Episode 51: 144,000

2011-07-20T08:24:00.000-07:00

Episode 51 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Mike Felker from The Apologetic Front joins me once again to discuss the Jehovah's Witnesses, this time focusing in particular on their "two-class" doctrine of life in the eternal state. This episode contains part 2 of the interview; see episode 50, "Second Class Citizen," for part 1.

Episode 50: Second Class Citizen

2011-07-20T08:23:00.000-07:00

Episode 50 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Mike Felker from The Apologetic Front joins me once again to discuss the Jehovah's Witnesses, this time focusing in particular on their "two-class" doctrine of life in the eternal state. This episode contains part 1 of the interview; see episode 51, "144,000," for part 2.

Episode 49: A Man and a Woman

2011-07-07T12:14:00.000-07:00

Episode 49 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Michael Glatze joins me to discuss biblical sexuality and his movement out of the homosexual lifestyle. This episode contains part 2 of the interview, focusing on the Bible and homosexuality, and how culture gets it wrong. Listen to episode 48, "Changed Man," for part 1 of the interview discussing Michael's story and answers to criticisms leveled against him.

Episode 48: Changed Man

2011-07-07T12:13:00.000-07:00

Episode 48 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Michael Glatze joins me to discuss biblical sexuality and his movement out of the homosexual lifestyle. This episode contains part 1 of the interview, focusing on Michael's story and answers to criticisms leveled against him. Listen to episode 49, "A Man and a Woman," for part 2 of the interview discussing the Bible and homosexuality, and how the culture gets it wrong.

Episode 47: The Day God Died

2011-06-30T18:31:00.001-07:00

Episode 47 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Joel B. Green joins me to discuss the view of the soul known as "physicalism" and its implications when it comes to the nature of Jesus Christ.

Coming Soon: Interview On the Restoration Movement

2011-06-15T14:23:00.000-07:00

It is my pleasure to announce that next week I'm scheduled to interview an anonymous guest on the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, from which has arisen, among other churches, the Churches of Christ, and the International Churches of Christ (ICoC). Stay tuned!

Limited Atonement and 2 Peter 2:1

2011-06-08T22:22:00.000-07:00

As I explained in episode 44 of my podcast, in some recent email and phone interaction with Jim Wallace of the Please Convince Me podcast, we came to agree that John 6:37 made a compelling case for the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace, which teaches that everyone whom the Father chooses for salvation will inevitably come to faith in Jesus Christ. (I understand many of you reading may disagree; please wait to comment on that passage until I get to the "I" in my "TULIP" podcast series.) But shortly thereafter, someone who commented on the PCM Facebook page linked to a debate betweeen Dr. James White and Michael Brown (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3), and in part 3 of that debate, Brown challenged Dr. White with 2 Peter 2:1 which reads,

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

I had not realized the challenge this verse seems to present to the doctrines of Limited Atonement and/or Perseverance of the Saints, but Brown explained it well. Notice that here Peter seems to explicitly say that the "false teachers" were "bought" by "the Master," bringing destruction upon themselves. Limited Atonement and Perseverance of the Saints together assert that Jesus died only for the elect (and not every human being) and that the elect will forever remain in Christ through faith, but this verse seems to suggest that Jesus died even for those false teachers who once were among the believers but later denied Christ.

This seemed to me to be a pretty formidable challenge, and so I waited anxiously to hear Dr. White's response, and thereafter did some additional research. I no longer think this particular challenge is very persuasive, and here's why.

PURCHASED FOR GOD WITH YOUR BLOOD

The first thing that needs to be pointed out in response to this challenge comes from Revelation 5:9-10, which reads,

(9) And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. (10) You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."

Notice that Jesus is here said to have "purchased" a people from among every tribe and tongue and people and nation. Although not 100% conclusive, it is interesting to note that the text doesn't seem to suggest that Jesus purchased every person from among mankind. That aside, note what the living creatures and elders go on to say about those whom Jesus purchased: that they will be a kingdom to God and will reign. I don't think I need to exegete that in depth; it seems clear that the ones Jesus purchased are the same ones who are saved and will reign. (If someone contests that those who are the priestly and reigning ones here are saved, let me know and I'll dig more deeply.)

This alone demonstrates that Jesus' atoning sacrifice was not for every single human being, but was specifically for the elect whom He purchased with His blood out of the whole world. After all, if Jesus "purchased" a false teacher, like the ones mentioned by Peter, or any other unbeliever for that matter, then such a one would be saved. No doubt this is an argument a universalist might try to make; but that's the subject of another argument.

PURCHASED ~~WITH HIS OWN BLOOD~~

Back in Peter, there is one hint that perhaps the "purchase" spoken of is not the same as Jesus' atoning sacrifice. No mention is made of Jesus' blood as the means by which these false teachers were bought. Although not terribly persuasive, before dismissing this the critic of Calvinism should take a look at a few other passages.

We've already looked at Revelation 5:9 which speaks of the purchase Jesus made through His blood. Acts 20:28 similarly speaks of "the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." Ephesians 1:7 says "In Him we have redemption through His blood" (the word "redemption" is ἀπολύτρωσις and means "a releasing effected by payment of ransom"). 1 Peter 1:18-19 reads, "it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed...but with the precious blood of Christ" (the word "redeemed" is λυτρόω which means "to redeem, liberate by payment of ransom").

Some passages do speak of the Church being acquired or purchased or redeemed and do not include the "blood" language. Still, had Jesus' blood been mentioned here by Peter, the challenge to Calvinism would be much more powerful.

Nevertheless, this isn't enough to make the case. And while I began this section attempting to demonstrate that the Greek word for "Master" is never used of Jesus Christ, I discovered I was wrong. It is used once to refer specifically to Jesus in Jude 1:4. However, it is, in fact, that very passage which might begin to hint that Peter is speaking of a different "purchase."

PETER, JUDE AND THE RESCUE FROM EGYPT

Here are the relevant portions from Jude and Peter:

(4) For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (5) Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. (6) And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, (7) just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:4-7)

(1) But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. (2) Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; (3) and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. (4) For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; (5) and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; (6) and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; (7) and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men... (2 Peter 2:1-7)

Notice the elements common to these two passages:

Both use the Greek word rendered "Master" to refer to Jesus Christ, the only two places in the New Testament where this was done
Both warn of those who will arise from within the visible Church to deny their "Master"
Both liken these to the unbelieving amongst ancient Israel
Both speak of judgment, condemnation and destruction
Both remind the reader of others whom God did not spare: angels, Sodom and Gomorrah

If these selected portions of the two epistles not convincing enough, I encourage you to go read each epistle in its entirety very carefully. You'll find the themes are incredibly similar, and boil down to this:

"Be alert, contend for the faith because false teachers will arise from among your ranks, just as they arose from within the people of ancient Israel. Just as God did not fail to punish those who arose from the people He purchased from Egypt, nor did He fail to punish others for the benefit of those who would remain, and nor will He fail to punish those who so arise from among you."

If you read that carefully, you might object to my having written, "those who arose from the people He purchased from Egypt." Am I implying that the kind of "purchase" Peter refers to is not the atoning sacrifice of Christ, but that instead he's somehow calling the rescue of Israel from Egypt a "purchase?" Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

"But wait," you might immediately object. "First, where is the rescue of Israel from Egypt called a 'purchase?' Second, Peter is saying false teachers will arise in the Church denying the Master who bought them; he's talking to professing Christians, not Israel." Let's address both those challenges.

THE "PURCHASE" OF ISRAEL

In answering the first question above, I would turn to Exodus 15. Just prior to this chapter, the Israelites are led safely through the Red Sea, while the Egyptians who chased them perished when the walls of water fell and drowned them. And Exodus 14:30 tells us, "Thus the LORD saved Israel from the hand of the Egyptians." Notice this is the very language Jude uses when he speaks of what the Lord did "after saving a people out of the land of Egypt."

Exodus 15 begins with Moses and the people of Israel singing a glorious song of salvation, for a dozen verses praising God for destroying the Egyptians who had pursued them. And then, in verses 16 through 19 we read,

"(16) Terror and dread fall upon them; By the greatness of Your arm they are motionless as stone; Until Your people pass over, O LORD, Until the people pass over whom You have purchased. (17) You will bring them and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, The place, O LORD, which You have made for Your dwelling, The sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands have established. (18) The LORD shall reign forever and ever." (19) For the horses of Pharaoh with his chariots and his horsemen went into the sea, and the LORD brought back the waters of the sea on them, but the sons of Israel walked on dry land through the midst of the sea.

You see, just as Jude uses the language of Exodus 14 to refer to the people whom God saved from Egypt, so, too, does Peter use the language of Exodus 15 to refer to the people whom God "purchased" from out of Egypt. This "inheritance" and "establishment" and "purchase" language is also used in Deuteronomy 32:6-8, which read,

(6) Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you. (7) Remember the days of old, Consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you, Your elders, and they will tell you. (8) When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.

And in this passage from Deuteronomy 32, what does the author say about those whom God "bought" out of Egypt?

(5) They have acted corruptly toward Him, they are not His children, because of their defect; But are a perverse and crooked generation...(15) Jeshurun grew fat and kicked—You are grown fat, thick, and sleek—Then he forsook God who made him, and scorned the Rock of his salvation. (16) They made Him jealous with strange gods; with abominations they provoked Him to anger. (17) They sacrificed to demons who were not God, to gods whom they have not known, new gods who came lately, whom your fathers did not dread. (18) You neglected the Rock who begot you, and forgot the God who gave you birth. (Deuteronomy 32:5,15-18)

So just as the people of Israel were "bought" by the God who saved them out of Egypt, and yet evil men arose from within the people to follow after false gods, in the same way Peter speaks of evil men who will arise from those who were "purchased." It certainly seems as though the "purchase" to which Peter refers could be the purchase of Israel, rather than the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.

At this point one might object that the Greek word for "purchased" in Peter isn't the same word as is used by the LXX in Exodus and Deuteronomy, but that's a weak objection. My contention is not that Peter is quoting from the Old Testament, but that he's hearkening back to it. You can do the word study for yourself to see how synonymous the words are.

The word Peter uses is ἀγοράζω (agorazō), which means, basically, "to buy." The LXX uses it in 1 Chronicles 21:24 where the Hebrew uses the word קָנָה (qanah), meaning "to get, acquire, create, buy, possess." The word used by the Septuagint in Exodus 15:16 and Deuteronomy 32:6 is κτάομαι (ktaomai), which means, "to acquire, get, or procure a thing for one's self, to possess," and is often used to refer to something acquired at a price--a purchase. And sure enough, the Hebrew word used in those places is, again, qanah.

So agorazō and ktaomai are, indeed, largely synonymous. In many cases they can be used interchangeably, being used by the translators of the Septuagint to translate the same Hebrew word. Since Peter is hearkening back to the Old Testament, but not quoting the LXX, he's free to choose between these two Greek words to communicate the point.

Since, as we've seen, Revelation 5:9-10 tell us the ones who were purchased by the blood of Christ are the same ones who will be saved and will reign, the purchase of Israel is more likely the purchase to which Peter refers. But what of my hypothetical objector's second question? Isn't Peter writing to Christians, from among whom prophets will arise, and not Israel, from whom false prophets had already arisen?

THE APOSTLE TO THE JEWS

In Galatians 2:7, Paul says, "I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised." Whereas Paul's ministry included a unique calling to evangelize to Gentiles, Peter's ministry was directed primarily to Jews. It's no wonder, then, that Peter opens his first epistle with the language of the diaspora, writing, "To those who reside as aliens, scattered." He then goes on in the second chapter of that first epistle to refer to his readers as "A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION," language describing Israel in the Old Testament.

So was Peter warning his readers about false teachers who would arise from within the Church? Certainly, but his readers were not only members of Christ's body; they were Jewish believers, Israelites, purchased out of Egypt. As Jude and Peter point out, God destroyed those Israelites who were so purchased by God but did not follow after Him. Likewise, Peter warns his readers, false teachers would arise among them--Jewish false teachers--who will deny the Master who bought them out of Egypt, and they will not escape destruction, either.

And so 2 Peter 2:1 serves as no challenge to the doctrines of Limited Atonement or Perseverance of the Saints, for the "purchase" in view there is not the "purchase" of Revelation 5:9-10. There, and in other places, we see that the atoning work of Christ is perfect and effectual, ensuring the salvation of the elect whom He purchased with His blood. No one for whom Jesus died will face judgment; all of them will reign forever with Him.

Episode 44: Mail Call Time

2011-06-07T09:31:00.000-07:00

Episode 44 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode, I read some recent feedback from listeners and my responses, discussing Oneness Pentecostalism, Israelology and the Calvinist doctrines of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace.

Evangelists to the East?

2011-06-04T18:31:00.000-07:00

Theopologetics needs you again! I have for some time wanted to do an episode on the Eastern Orthodox Church, but know very little about it. I would love to have a guest on who has come out of the Orthodox Church, or whose ministry is especially geared toward them. Can you help me find a guest to have on the podcast?

Coming Soon: Interview with Joel B. Green

2011-06-04T18:10:00.000-07:00

I'm excited to announce that Dr. Joel B. Green, Associate Dean for the Center for Advanced Theological Studies and Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Fuller Theological Seminary, has agreed to appear on the Theopologetics Podcast to talk about physicalism in order to give his answer to some Christological implications of physicalism which I've discovered since Dr. Glenn Peoples' appearance. Stay tuned!

Episode 43: Israel, My Beloved

2011-05-23T08:47:00.001-07:00

Episode 43 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! My good friend David Jeroslow joins me for the second installment in our Israelology series to discuss the people and nation of Israel and her relationship to the Church.

Episode 42: Post Mortem

2011-05-12T10:03:00.000-07:00

Episode 42 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Michael Burgos from Grassroots Apologetics joins me to discuss his recent debate on my show with Oneness Pentecostal, James Anderson. This episode contains the second half of the discussion; see episode 41, "The Aftermath," for the first half.

Episode 41: The Aftermath

2011-05-10T09:53:00.000-07:00

Episode 41 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Michael Burgos from Grassroots Apologetics joins me to discuss his recent debate on my show with Oneness Pentecostal, James Anderson. This episode contains the first half of the discussion; see episode 42, "Post Mortem," for the second half.

Episode 40: She's the Boss

2011-05-04T11:59:00.001-07:00

Episode 40 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Matt Slick from the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry joins me to discuss the appropriateness of women pastors and elders.

Episode 39: This Generation Shall Not Pass

2011-04-22T08:22:00.000-07:00

Episode 39 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In Matthew 24:34 Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." The meaning of Jesus' statement seem obvious, but most Christians in America today think He was saying something else. How is the phrase, "this generation," used by Jesus and others in the Bible? And what impact does that have on Jesus' words in the Olivet Discourse?

Theopologetics Needs You!

2011-03-29T12:55:00.000-07:00

As I've mentioned in a couple of episodes, next week I'll be moderating a debate which will appear on my podcast. Michael Burgos from Grassroots Apologetics will be affirming the resolution, "The Son personally preexisted the incarnation with the Father." Oneness Pentecostal James Anderson from Evidential Faith will be arguing the negative. Included will be a cross-examination period where Mike and James will be asking each other questions. And here's where you come in:

After Mike and James have finished cross-examining one another, before their closing arguments, I would like to pose some difficult questions to each of them. I don't want to toss them softballs; I want to pose questions to them which genuinely challenge their respective positions. I have a few in mind, but I need your help! Please send me any questions you'd like to see one or both of them answer by emailing me at theopologetics@hotmail.com. I'll pick what I think are the most challenging ones for each of them, and which they haven't already answered as part of the debate up to that point.

So send me your questions, and maybe you'll get to hear yours in this exciting (in my opinion) upcoming episode of the Theopologetics Podcast!

Episode 36: God Makes No Mistakes

2011-03-28T10:16:00.000-07:00

Episode 36 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Jamin Hübner from RealApologetics.org joins me to discuss the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

Episode 35: Contradicting Words

2011-03-22T14:15:00.001-07:00

Episode 35 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Atheists and other non-Christians skeptical of the Bible's reliability and divine origin are fond of pointing to what might appear to be contradictions in Scripture, of which there are alleged to be hundreds. In this episode I begin to step through one popular list, demonstrating how a close look at the text reveals that they are not contradictions at all.

Episode 34: When in Rome

2011-03-15T12:32:00.001-07:00

Episode 34 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Dr. James White from Alpha & Omega Ministries joins me to discuss Roman Catholicism, Sola Scriptura and the issue of authority.

Episode 33: Call On The Name

2011-03-09T10:31:00.000-08:00

Episode 33 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In a number of places, the Bible uses variations of the phrase, "Call on the name of the Lord," and its use in reference to Jesus Christ proves that He is God.

Episode 32: Hey Ladies

2011-03-02T14:55:00.001-08:00

Episode 32 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Mary Jo Sharp from Confident Christianity joins me to discuss women in apologetics.

Episode 31: Just Dropped In

2011-02-25T15:52:00.000-08:00

Episode 31 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! The first point of Calvinism, the "T" in "TULIP," stands for "Total Depravity." We are by nature in opposition to God, in bondage to sin, and will never, left to our own devices, turn to Christ.

Episode 30: Letter 2 My Unborn

2011-02-15T10:37:00.001-08:00

Episode 30 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Scott Klusendorf from Life Training Institute joins me to discuss abortion and persuasively communicating the pro-life message.

Episode 29: Blah Blah

2011-02-09T10:49:00.000-08:00

Episode 29 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Mike Abendroth from No Compromise Radio joins me to discuss the biblical gift of tongues.

Coming Soon: Interview with Scott Klusendorf

2011-02-08T04:54:00.000-08:00

I'm excited to announce that Scott Klusendorf from the Life Training Institute has agreed to appear on the Theopologetics Podcast to talk about abortion and how to persuasively communicate the pro-life message. Stay tuned!

Episode 28: Testify

2011-01-31T11:18:00.001-08:00

Episode 28 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Jim Wallace from Please Convince Me joins me to discuss the gospels as reliable eyewitness testimony to the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Episode 27: In the Beginning

2011-01-21T09:49:00.001-08:00

Episode 27 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Steve Ham from Answers in Genesis joins me to discuss the book of Genesis, creation and the authority of Scripture.

Coming Soon: Interview with Jamin Hübner

2011-01-19T22:04:00.000-08:00

Jamin Hübner hosts the Real Apologetics podcast, to which I was recently turned on by my friend Mike Felker. Younger than me by an embarassing number of years, Jamin is the Professor of Theology at the Jesus Bible Institute, has written several books including Light Up the Darkness and The Portable Presuppositionalist, holds a BA in Theology from Dordt College and is currently pursuing his MA in Religion from Reformed Theological Seminary. And to top off all of that, he regularly contributes to James White's Alpha and Omega Ministries blog.

Jamin was gracious enough to agree to let me interview him in an upcoming episode of the Theopologetics Podcast to talk about the inerrancy of Scripture. Stay tuned!

Coming Soon: Interview with Mike Abendroth

2011-01-13T19:13:00.000-08:00

Mike Abendroth is Senior Pastor at Bethlehem Bible Church (BBC) in West Boylston, MA, and hosts No Compromise Radio, which "is dedicated to the ongoing proclamation of Jesus Christ, even Him crucified, His exclusive and saving gospel, and His inerrant Word." Pastor Mike joins me in an upcoming episode to talk about the gift of tongues: what it isn't (but is often believed to be today), and what it really is according to the Bible. Stay tuned!

Coming Soon: Interview with Steve Ham

2011-01-13T19:05:00.000-08:00

For many years I have been a huge fan of Answers in Genesis, and have been immensely edified by their ministry, which has taught me to believe, defend and proclaim the truth of the Bible... from the very first verse. Steve Ham is Senior Director of Outreach for AiG, and has graciously agreed to talk with me about creation, the authority of Scripture, and about his recent book, In God We Trust: Why biblical authority matters for every believer. Stay tuned!

Episode 26: More Than a Feeling

2011-01-12T11:36:00.000-08:00

Episode 26 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I interview Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason on the importance of careful thinking when it comes to the Christian faith.

Coming Soon: Interview with Jim Wallace

2011-01-05T21:58:00.000-08:00

Jim Wallace hosts the Please Convince Me Podcast, in which he powerfully presents the evidence for biblical Christianity. In an upcoming episode of my podcast, Jim will join me to talk about the reliability of the gospels, from his unique perspective as a detective working cold case homicides. Stay tuned!

Coming Soon: Interview with Greg Koukl

2011-01-03T11:59:00.000-08:00

I've mentioned a couple of times that there was the possibility that Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason might appear on my show, and sure enough in response to an email I sent STR this morning, we've got it scheduled for the middle of next week! I'll be talking to Greg about the importance of careful thinking, and not relying upon primarily emotions and experiences, in an episode I'll call, "More than a Feeling." As Greg has said, "Emotions are what make life delicious, careful thinking is what makes life safe." Stay tuned!

With Gentleness and Respect...

2011-01-02T16:01:00.000-08:00

15 Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it. 16 But do this in a gentle and respectful way. Keep your conscience clear. Then if people speak against you, they will be ashamed when they see what a good life you live because you belong to Christ. (NLT)

15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 16 and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. (NASB)

In this passage from 1 Peter 3:15-16, often cited in support of doing the work of apologetics, Peter says that while we are always to be ready to give an answer or defense, we are to do it with gentleness and respect. We apologists are fond of the defense part, but it seems we too often ignore the gentleness and respect part. I often fail that part, but I think I've improved some, and I pray God will continue to grow me.

I post this in the hope that you, reader, will remember this admonition when you talk about your faith with others.

Neutral Ground @ The Apologetic Front

2010-12-21T20:13:00.000-08:00

Check out this video from my friend Mike Felker over at The Apologetic Front on the problem with reasoning on "neutral ground." Ok, some of the pictures leave something to be desired, but they're cute and illustrate the point.

Episode 25: Flesh and Bone

2010-12-21T12:42:00.000-08:00

Episode 25 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! The Bible teaches the bodily resurrection of Jesus and that of all the dead, contrary to claims made by theological liberals, hyperpreterists and Jehovah's Witnesses that 1 Corinthians 15 speaks of a spiritual, non-physical resurrection.

A Study in Baptismal Regeneration: Part 2, Justified by Works

2010-12-14T18:39:00.000-08:00

In part 1 of this series, "Faith Alone," we looked at some of part 2 of another blogger's series on baptism, the Gift of the Holy Spirit and salvation. We looked at the claim that Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches only that salvation is apart from works of the Mosaic Law, but not that it is apart from any works of obedience at all. In so doing, we looked at Romans 4 in which Paul demonstrates that Abraham was justified by God—forgiven of sin and counted as being righteous before Him—when he believed that God would do what He said He would do, before any acts of obedience. So, too, are Christians justified by God upon faith apart from works. In this part two of my series, we'll look at James 2, the passage arguably most frequently pointed to as evidence that we are not, in fact, justified by God by faith apart from works, and we'll look at another argument made by my fellow blogger.

JUSTIFIED BY WORKS

The attentive student of Scripture, after reading the previous entry in this series and Paul's claim that Abraham was justified by God based on his faith alone, might ask why James rhetorically asks in chapter 2 and verse 21 of his epistle, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?" And why does he go on in verse 24 to say, "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone?" A surface reading would seem to suggest that James is contradicting Paul. One attempt to reconcile the seeming discrepancy is to misinterpret Paul's words in Romans 4, but we've seen that Paul was clearly saying we, as Abraham was, are forgiven of our sins and counted as being righteous on the basis of our faith before any works. So that attempt to reconcile James with Paul doesn't work.

What does work is to take a closer look at this passage in James, and at the word "justified" in its original language. Let's start with the latter. The word there is δικαιόω (dikaioo), and it has a few meanings. One meaning, clearly intended by Paul in Romans 4, is to be "rendered," "declared," or "credited" as being righteous. It doesn't mean we become righteous in the sense that we no longer sin. It means that our debt before God has been erased, permanently, and at the final judgment the righteousness of Christ is counted as though it were ours.

But the word has another meaning: "to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous." In other words, it can mean to demonstrate that we are righteous. For example, Jesus said of the Pharisees in Luke 16:15, "You are those who justify [δικαιόω] yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God." The Pharisees could not, obviously, justify themselves in the sense that they forgave their own sins and made themselves righteous before God. No, they attempted to demonstrate their righteousness before men, but God knew what was actually inside.

So one meaning of the word has to do with something that is done to a man, and another meaning of the word has to do with something that is done by a man. In Romans 4, the former meaning is clearly intended, for Paul explains that God forgives us, and credits us as being righteous, on the basis of our faith, apart from any works. But is that the meaning James intends?

ONCE HE HAS BEEN APPROVED

James' epistle begins with the exhortation that we "Consider it all joy...when [we] encounter various trials" (1:2). Why are we to be joyful when we are tried? Because "the testing of [our] faith produces endurance" (1:3). He goes on to say, "let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing" (1:4), and later says, "Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him" (1:12).

So in context, James is talking about trials resulting in spiritual growth and approval. The word "approved" in verse 12 is the Greek δόκιμος (dokimos) and refers to accepting something as being genuine. For example, this word and its antonym, ἀδόκιμος (adokimos), as well as the root word they share, δοκιμή (dokimē), are used in 2 Corinthians 13:3-7 which reads,

3 since you are seeking for proof [δοκιμή] of the Christ who speaks in me, and who is not weak toward you, but mighty in you. 4 For indeed He was crucified because of weakness, yet He lives because of the power of God. For we also are weak in Him, yet we will live with Him because of the power of God directed toward you. 5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test [ἀδόκιμος]? 6 But I trust that you will realize that we ourselves do not fail the test [ἀδόκιμος]. 7 Now we pray to God that you do no wrong; not that we ourselves may appear approved [δόκιμος], but that you may do what is right, even though we may appear unapproved [ἀδόκιμος].

Paul tells the Corinthians that they wanted proof, δοκιμή, that Christ spoke in him. He is not speaking of Christ being in him as a result of the proof; rather, he is speaking of proof that Christ is already inside him. Similarly, he tells the Corinthians that Jesus Christ is in them unless they "fail the test" or are unapproved, ἀδόκιμος. Once again, the idea is not of Christ's absence being the result of being failing the test; rather, the idea is of failing the test, proving that Christ was never in them.

Likewise, James tells his readers that "Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved [δόκιμος], he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him." In using the word δόκιμος, James is not talking about receiving the crown of life as the result of obedience. Rather, he is talking about receiving the crown of life because one's obedience has proven that one genuinely loves the Lord.

PROVE YOURSELVES DOERS

James goes on in verse 22 to exhort his readers, "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves." The NIV renders this, "Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says." As the NLT puts it, "But don’t just listen to God’s word. You must do what it says. Otherwise, you are only fooling yourselves." The Greek word rendered "delude," "deceive" and "fooling" is παραλογίζομαι (paralogizomai) and refers to reckoning something incorrectly or outright deceiving. He goes on in verse 26 to say, "If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless."

So what is the context of James? Is it about justification in the sense of an action done by God to a man, Him forgiving a man's sin and declaring a man righteous? No, it is about justification in the sense of demonstrating that what one claims about oneself is true. This is evident when we look at the verse which begins the passage most often pointed to by proponents of works-based schemes of salvation, verse 14 of chapter 2, which reads, "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" James is talking about someone who claims or professes a faith, but lacks works demonstrating that the professed faith is not genuine.

James goes on in verse 18 to contrast such a professed faith lacking works with a professed faith demonstrated to be true by works, writing, "But someone may well say, 'You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.'" Notice that the theme has not changed, that theme being justification in the sense of demonstrating the genuineness of a professed faith. James is not saying works are required in order to be saved, he is saying a professed faith is not a genuine, saving faith if works are absent.

JUSTIFIED BY WORKS

So we come to verses 21 and 24-25, where we read, "21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?...24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?" In what sense, then, is James saying we, like Abraham and Rahab, are justified by works? In the second sense of the word "justified," in which we demonstrate the genuineness of our saving faith by our works.

Consequently, look how the New Living Translation renders these verses: "21 Don’t you remember that our ancestor Abraham was shown to be right with God by his actions when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?...24 So you see, we are shown to be right with God by what we do, not by faith alone. 25 Rahab the prostitute is another example. She was shown to be right with God by her actions when she hid those messengers and sent them safely away by a different road." The NLT gets it right, and the Amplified Bible agrees: our professed faith is shown to be a genuine, saving faith when it is accompanied by works.

CAN FAITH SAVE HIM?

But what about the way some translations render verse 14, such as the NKJV which reads, "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?" Doesn't this suggest that salvation is the result not of faith alone but faith plus works? No, it doesn't. Again, the context is demonstrating the genuineness of a professed faith, and a professed faith which does not result in works is not a genuine faith.

The NASB renders the end of verse 14, "Can that faith save him?" The NIV renders it, "Can such faith save them?" And the NLT puts it this way: "Can that kind of faith save anyone?" The emphasis is not on faith in general, but a particular kind of faith, the kind hypothetically presented, one which is professed but does not result in works. And James goes on in verses 17, 20 and 26 to call such a faith "dead."

Think about that carefully for a moment. Three times James says that a faith which does not result in works is dead. What, then, is the real problem with a person who claims to have faith but lacks works? Is the problem really with the lack of works? If such a person is not saved, is it because he lacks works? No! The problem is with his faith! He is not saved because his faith is worthless, useless, dead! So James is not saying works precede salvation; he is saying salvation precedes works. We are not made right with God as a result of our works, we are shown to be right with God as a result of our works.

BY THIS WE KNOW THAT WE ARE IN HIM

So we see that James is not saying we are saved by faith plus works, but that a genuine faith which saves results in works. And this is exactly what we read elsewhere from other authors. John writes:

3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: 6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. (1 John 2:3-6)

John's message is the same as that of James. One who claims to love Christ but does not keep His commandments has not truly come to know Him. But what does John say of those who do keep Christ's commandments? We have already come to know Him! So again, works demonstrate the genuineness of a professed faith. Indeed, what does Jesus say in John 14:15? "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." Our obedience demonstrates that we already love Christ.

With this understanding, many passages, which might at first have seemed to teach that salvation is the result of faith plus obedience, now become perfectly compatible with salvation by faith alone. Hebrews 5:9 reads, "He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation." Acts 5:32 reads, "we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him." We know now from James and John that obedience demonstrates the genuineness of a professed faith, so of course Jesus is the source of eternal salvation to those who obey Him, and of course the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey Him: their obedience resulted from their genuine, saving faith.

CLEANSING THEIR HEARTS BY FAITH

In the previous entry in this series, we looked at Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 4, both of which teach that we are saved—justified in the sense of being forgiven of sin and declared righteous before God—by grace alone through faith, apart from works. And now we know James, rather than contradicting Paul, concurs, saying that the problem with one who lacks works is not the lack of works but the false professed faith. But it is not just in these passages that we see that salvation is by faith alone:

7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." (Acts 15:7-11)

Using the same language Paul uses in Ephesians 2:8-9, Peter says the Gentiles in Acts 10 had their hearts cleansed by faith, having heard the gospel and believed.

14 so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith...22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.(Galatians 3:14,22-24)

The promise of the Holy Spirit is through faith, to those who believe; we are justified by faith.

13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise. Ephesians 1:13)

Again referring to the promised Holy Spirit, Paul says his audience received Him when they believed.

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name. (John 1:12)

43 "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." (Acts 10:43)

21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction. (Romans 3:21-22)

As many as received Christ and believed in Him were made children of God, everyone who believes in Him is forgiven, and the righteousness of God is "for all those who believe." "As many as," "everyone" and "all those" are pretty all-inclusive. These are just some of the passages which stand alongside Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 4 in teaching that salvation is by faith alone, apart from works. The message of Scripture is uniform and clear: while a true, saving faith will by necessity result in works, it is the living, animate faith through which we are saved, apart from those works.

COMING UP IN PART 3...

I said in part 1 that in this entry I would also respond to an argument made by my fellow blogger that faith is itself a work. However, because this post is already so long, I'm going to cover that point in part 3 of this series, and in part 4 I'll begin to look at that blogger's treatment of the Greek word rendered "baptism." Stay tuned...

Episode 24: Mecca and Medina

2010-12-07T12:07:00.000-08:00

Episode 24 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Alan Shlemon from Stand to Reason joins me to discuss Islam and how to reach out to Muslims.

Coming Soon: Interview with Mary Jo Sharp

2010-12-02T16:22:00.000-08:00

In episode 23 of my podcast I played a promo for the Confident Christianity podcast, and after that promo I mentioned that perhaps I'd ask its host, Mary Jo Sharp, to let me interview her on the topic of women and apologetics. Well, as it turns out, I didn't have to ask. She listened, and contacted me telling me she'd be happy to do so! So sometime after the new year, look forward to this exciting episode of the Theopologetics Podcast!

Episode 23: Youth of the Nation

2010-12-01T10:36:00.001-08:00

Episode 23 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Brett Kunkle, Student Impact Directory at Stand to Reason, joins me to discuss youth ministry and the challenges to faith experienced by youth today.

Tweaking Terminology: (Believers') Baptismal Regeneration

2010-11-24T11:54:00.000-08:00

The phrase "baptismal regeneration" is commonly and accurately used to refer to the view shared by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Mormons and the Churches of Christ, which teach that regeneration (spiritual rebirth) occurs at the point of baptism. The phrase does not imply that the water, and not God, is the cause of regeneration, nor that it regenerates without faith, and the phrase is not used to suggest either of those things. It is merely a phrase communicating the belief that regeneration occurs at time of water baptism.

Despite that, a friend of mine, and apparently others, who believe that water baptism is a prerequisite for salvation, object to using the phrase "baptismal regeneration" to refer to their view. After a lengthy dialogue, it seems to me their objection is based on the fact that some groups who teach baptismal regeneration, such as Catholics, believe even infants, unable to have and express faith, are regenerated at baptism. My friend and others, on the other hand, believe only someone old enough to have faith is regenerated at baptism, based on that faith. Therefore, they might argue, using the phrase to apply to their view would inappropriately suggest that they, too, teach that regeneration can happen apart from faith.

I think there's an element of truth in that argument, and so I feel compelled to slightly tweak the phrase when using it to refer to my friend's view specifically, as distinct from the Catholic view. I'm inclined at this point, therefore, to begin referring to this view using the phrase, "Believers' Baptismal Regeneration," thereby communicating that the particular version of baptismal regeneration I'm referring to is one which holds that it's only for believers. This doesn't entirely satisfy my friend, but because it a) clears up any confusion between his view and that of Catholics, while b) using the phrase historically and accurately used to refer to his view, I think it's the best option.

A Study in Baptismal Regeneration: Part 1, Faith Alone

2010-11-18T16:08:00.000-08:00

In the intro to this series, I explained that I would be going through a series at another blog which intends, in part, to refute the claim that Cornelius and his household were saved before being baptized in water (Acts 10). In this part 1 of my series we're going to look at part of the second entry in that series, focusing on whether or not salvation is through faith alone.

WATER VS. SPIRIT

In the second entry in this study (I have no disagreement with the first), entitled "Water vs. Spirit," the blogger begins:

Baptism passages such as Romans 6, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Colossians 2:9-15, and 1 Peter 3:21 refer to water baptism and not Spirit baptism. Some will claim these passages refer to Spirit baptism, in an attempt to avoid the plain teaching of Scripture that water baptism is for salvation.

Those who deny the Biblical teaching on water baptism are usually motivated by the man-made doctrine of "faith alone." This doctrine is based upon interpreting Ephesians 2:8-9 out of context. As explained in a previous study, the context of Ephesians 2:8-9 is abundantly clear. Paul is teaching that salvation is apart from works of the Law of Moses, and apart from circumcision in particular. Paul is not teaching salvation is apart from any obedience on our part.

Now, the blogger's statement in the opening paragraph above is partly true. Indeed there are some who, like I have done at times, argue that those passages refer to baptism in the Holy Spirit (though there are other Christians who do not believe baptism is a prerequisite for salvation who do not understand the passages in this way; that may come into play later in my series). However, it is quite simply a mischaracterization to say they are doing so "in an attempt to avoid the plain teaching of Scripture that water baptism is for salvation." Like the blogger does, and like all Christians are called to do, such Christians are attempting to interpret Scripture in light of Scripture. The "plain" reading of any particular verse is not what matters. What matters is the interpretation of any particular verse which comports with what the rest of Scripture teaches.

It is additionally a mischaracterization to imply that the doctrine of sola fide ("faith alone") is based solely, or even primarily, upon Ephesians 2:8-9. While that is not explicitly stated here, many readers will, I think, infer it, and an article written honestly would take care to point out that the doctrine, whether true or false, is based on more passages than this.

GOOD NEWS?!?!

What's more important, however, is the defense of the heresy that our works contribute to our salvation expressed in the second paragraph. We'll look at the passage, and a related one, in a moment, but I want to first express how much it breaks my heart that professing Christians actually believe that salvation is the result of works of obedience. Many who hold to this view of baptism also believe (I'm not sure if this is the case with this particular blogger) that their salvation is contingent upon their continued, consistent obedience. In other words, in order to be saved, they must remain obedient. How sad, what a heavy burden, and what a far cry from the light burden Jesus offers.

I simply can't fathom how anybody could think this is good news: "You are a sinner, guilty of violating a Law of commandments, but you can be forgiven and saved from judgement by following another Law of commandments faithfully." Fortunately, I don't have to fathom it. The Bible expressly teaches otherwise. We'll see why in a moment, but first, is this really forgiveness? Of course not. Matt Slick over at http://www.carm.org/ has given a useful analogy while I'll paraphrase here.

Imagine you are at your friend's house and you either accidentally or intentionally knock over their lamp, breaking it, a lamp originally costing your friend ten dollars. You plead with your friend asking him to forgive you, expressing how sorry you are that you broke the lamp. Now, imagine your friend says to you, "That's ok, friend. I forgive you. I'll declare your ten dollar debt paid in full, so long as you wash my car." Is that forgiveness? Really? No, it's compensation, it's paying a debt.

I plan to publish an episode of my podcast in the near future in which I'll tackle the issue of justification by faith alone in more depth. In the meantime, let's look more closely at this and a related passage.

THAT NO ONE MAY BOAST

Ephesians 2:8-9 reads as follows:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (NASB)

The blogger focuses on the phrase, "not as a result of works," writing, "Paul is teaching that salvation is apart from works of the Law of Moses, and apart from circumcision in particular. Paul is not teaching salvation is apart from any obedience on our part." However, Paul gives a reason why salvation is not the result of works: "that no one may boast." Before we take a closer look at that, just contemplate that for a moment.

If salvation is apart from the Mosaic Law in order that we cannot boast, how does a salvation resulting from other works of obedience avoid that problem? If one could boast that one has kept the commandments of the Mosaic Law, one could similarly boast in one's obedience to whatever other commands from which salvation does result. So even if in context Paul has in mind only works of the Mosaic Law, his words preclude us from thinking that salvation is the result of any acts of obedience.

That having been said, an examination of how the word "boast" is used elsewhere in the New Testament would seem to support the contention that the kind of boasting Paul refers to in Ephesians is boasting specifically in one's inclusion in, and obedience to, the Mosaic Covenent. The blogger might argue from silence, then, saying that salvation resulting from works of obedience to other commands would not allow for boasting. However, when doing this word study one stumbles upon a very, very important passage.

HE HAS SOMETHING TO BOAST ABOUT

The word rendered "boast" in Ephesians 2:9 is καυχάομαι (kauchaomai), and is a verb. The corresponding noun is the word καύχημα (kauchema), meaning either a thing about which one can boast, or an act of boasting (much like the word "jog" can either mean "to jog" or "a jog"). It's used in Romans 4:2 which reads, "if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast [καύχημα] about, but not before God." A close look at this passage reveals the likelihood that the word "boast" is still being used in connection to the Mosaic Law. After all, Paul rhetorically asks in verse 9, "Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also?" There are, however, a few more critical points to draw from this passage.

To begin with, in verse 4 Paul writes, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due." This is one fundamental problem with the blogger's contention that salvation results from works of obedience to other commands. Paul's point is that obedience to a particular set of commands, in this case those comprising the Mosaic Law, earns something. Remember Matt Slick's illustration above about knocking a friend's lamp over? If your friend offers to forgive you on the condition that you wash his car, you are earning his forgiveness. His forgiveness would not be a favor, but what is due.

You see, it is absolutely true that in context, the works apart from which Paul says we are saved are the works of the Mosaic Covenant. However, Paul's argument transcends the Law, and applies to all works of obedience. This is why he goes on in verse 5 to say, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness." Paul is contrasting one who is righteous by virtue of his deeds with one who is considered or declared righteous by virtue of his faith.

CREDITED AS RIGHTEOUSNESS

Let's take a closer look at what Paul says of Abraham in Romans chapter 4. In verse 3, Paul quotes Genesis 15:6. That chapter begins with Abraham (at this point still called Abram) receiving a vision from God in which Abraham is promised great reward. In verse 4 the Lord promises Abraham an heir, and in verse 5 He promises that Abraham's descendants will be as numerous as the stars in heaven. In verse 6 we read, "Then [Abraham] believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."

Abraham's simple belief that God would do what He said He would do is what Paul says justified him, and in Romans 4:5 he says that this demonstrates that "to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness." He goes in verse 6 to quote Psalm 32:1-2, saying that there David likewise speaks of God crediting righteousness apart from works: "How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered! How blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity."

You see, this is what it means to be saved. It means to be 1) forgiven of our sins, 2) counted as being righteous, 3) on account of our faith, 4) apart from works. Look what Paul goes on to say in verse 10: "How then was [righteousness] credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised." The point is, we are counted as being righteous before we're obedient!

FOR OUR SAKE ALSO

Now, at this point the proponent of baptismal regeneration might still attempt to argue that this righteousness apart from works applies specifically to works of obedience to the Mosaic commands. After all, Paul goes on to say that this was so that this blessing would be not only to circumcised Jews but to uncircumcised Gentiles as well. However, once again, Paul's argument transcends the Law. He says in verse 11, "he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised." In other words, he was counted as being righteous, on the basis of his faith alone, before any acts of obedience, which followed after the saving faith.

Paul expands on this beginning in verse 19 writing,

Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb; yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

That's the third time Paul has quoted Genesis 15:6 in this passage! His point cannot be clearer: Abraham was forgiven of his sinfulness and counted as being righteous on the basis of his faith before any works of obedience. And look how the chapter ends:

Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

You see, just as Abraham was justified by God--that is, forgiven of his sins and counted as being righteous--on the basis of his faith before any works of obedience, so, too, will we be. We, like Abraham, are justified by God--that is, forgiven of our sins and counted as being righteous--on the basis of our faith before any works of obedience. That is how we are saved.

COMING UP IN PART 2...

In part 2 of this series we'll look at James 2, the passage arguably most frequently pointed to in objecting to what is clearly taught by Paul in Romans 4. Then we'll take a look at the next paragraph in part 2 of the other blogger's series, in which it is argued that faith itself is a work, and therefore that we are not saved apart from any works. That's right, folks: by the end of part 2 of my series, we'll have made it through a total of 3 paragraphs in the other series! Stay tuned...

A Study in Baptismal Regeneration: Intro

2010-11-17T09:12:00.000-08:00

Recently a fellow blogger, who has commented on various of my posts in defense of the claim that water baptism is a prerequisite for salvation, began a series addressing the "Gift of the Holy Spirit." It seems to me, although I could be wrong, that the series is largely designed to attempt to refute my claim that the Bible clearly teaches that Cornelius and his household were saved prior to baptism in water in Acts 10. Whether my perception is accurate or not, that is certainly one conclusion articulated later in the series, which I knew would be the case, thus originally sparking my interest in the series.

Here at my blog, I'm going to go through the posts comprising this series and highlight the errors communicated therein. I will not address the entirety of the series in one post, but will instead begin a series of my own. It likely will not, however, correspond one-to-one with the posts to which I'm responding. In the meantime, I do encourage my readers to briefly check this series out (and then follow along more carefully with me as I respond in my series), because I think doing so will illustrate something important.

Many Christians hold to true biblical doctrine, but do so merely on the basis of tradition and what they've been taught, and without having carefully considered opposing views. That is, they don't critically analyze their beliefs and study Scripture carefully to ensure that their beliefs are true, and they haven't tested other views in light of Scripture. As a result, when a pair of LDS missionaries or Jehovah's Witnesses knock at the door, or when a Roman Catholic or Oneness Pentecostal friend or family member challenges them, such Christians often find themselves overwhelmed by the arguments presented to them in favor of these false views. If we have not carefully examined our faith and the cases made in support of heresies and less serious errors, and tested them all in light of Scripture, we may find ourselves led astray.

Such is the case with the study presented by the blogger. A cursory look may suggest that his arguments are sound. Having not carefully examined the case made by proponents of baptismal regeneration, and for that matter any system of salvation resulting from works of obedience, many Christians will find the blogger's case persuasive. This is why it's so critical that we take our faith and the Bible seriously, and very thoughtfully and carefully conform our world view to Scripture, and prepare ourselves to defend the faith from those who teach a false gospel.

With all that being said, before I begin my series in response, I just want to say that my prayer is that whereas this blogger and I have dialogued in less than loving ways in the past (in my opinion), in this series I will be more respectful in the way I present my argument. In the end, whether or not you come to agree with me, I hope you'll agree I was not disrespectful. Stay tuned for part 1 of my series in which we'll look at the blogger's case against salvation through "faith alone."

Coming Soon: Interview with Alan Shlemon

2010-11-11T20:37:00.000-08:00

Also from Stand to Reason, Alan Shlemon will join me to discuss Islam. Alan was born in Baghdad, Iraq, and one of his many areas of expertise is the topic of Islam. I've done little to prepare to evangelize Muslims, so join me as Alan helps motivate and equip us to reach out to our Muslim friends, family and neighbors. Stay tuned!

Coming Soon: Interview with Brett Kunkle

2010-11-11T20:19:00.000-08:00

In an upcoming episode of the Theopologetics Podcast it'll be my pleasure to interview Brett Kunkle! Brett is Student Impact Director at Stand to Reason, and he has graciously agreed to talk to us about the youth ministry and the challenges faced by students raised in American secular culture. Stay tuned!

Episode 20: Faith Healer

2010-11-10T08:02:00.000-08:00

Episode 20 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I interview Justin Peters and discuss the Word of Faith movement, its origins, its doctrines and its consequences.

Coming Soon: Interview with Justin Peters

2010-11-06T15:19:00.000-07:00

I am very pleased to announce that Justin Peters has agreed to let me interview him on the Theopologetics Podcast to discuss the Word of Faith movement. At Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Justin completed a Master of Divinity in biblical languages, and a Master of Theology majoring in the New Testament and minoring in Theology.

Justin has developed a three session seminar called A Call for Discernment. His ministry website describes the seminar this way:

This seminar is a fair, comprehensive, biblical critique of the modern Word of Faith movement. Word of Faith theology (WoF) dominates Christian satellite and cable television and is making alarming inroads into more theologically conservative, evangical churches. This seminar contains dozens of audio and video clips (primarily the latter) of various WoF leaders such as Benny Hinn, Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, Jessie Duplantis, Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, etc. incorporated into a PowerPoint format. This format allows people to see and hear for themselves what these individuals are actually teaching. Everything then is, in turn, balanced with Scripture.

Stay tuned for this powerful upcoming installment of the Theopologetics Podcast!

Episode 19: Leave the Past Behind

2010-11-04T22:43:00.000-07:00

Episode 19 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I play some calls I made in to the Stand to Reason radio show with Greg Koukl on the topic of preterism, hyperpreterism and skepticism, as a follow up to episodes 17 and 18 in which I interviewed Dee Dee Warren on the same topics.

The Other Side of the Mic: Interview with Phil Naessens

2010-11-02T07:58:00.000-07:00

Last night I had the pleasure of appearing on my friend Phil Naessens' show, the "What Color is the Sky in Their World?" podcast (formerly known as the "Theology Today" podcast). We talked about blogging and podcasting, apologetics and the importance of humility, preterism and hyperpreterism, church attendance, powerlifting and more. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and hope you will as well. Go here to listen, or subscribe to get every episode as it's released!

Episode 18: It's All Over

2010-10-26T12:30:00.000-07:00

Episode 18 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I interview Dee Dee Warren on the claim made by skeptics of Christianity that Jesus was a false prophet, discussing how a proper biblical understanding of the “end times” turns the claim on its head. The interview spanned nearly 2 hours, so I’ve split it up into two parts. This episode contains the second half of the interview; see episode 17 for the second half.

Episode 17: The End Of The World

2010-10-26T11:08:00.000-07:00

Episode 17 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I interview Dee Dee Warren on the claim made by skeptics of Christianity that Jesus was a false prophet, discussing how a proper biblical understanding of the “end times” turns the claim on its head. The interview spanned nearly 2 hours, so I’ve split it up into two parts. This episode contains the first half of the interview; see episode 18 for the second half.

Episode 16: Soul Meets Body

2010-10-22T13:03:00.000-07:00

Episode 16 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I interview Dr. Glenn Peoples in part 2 of our discussion concerning Christian physicalism, challenging him with a number of biblical passages which seem to contradict his position. This second interview spanned 2 hours, so I've split it up into two parts, this being the second. See episode 15 for the first part.

Episode 15: Soul Man

2010-10-22T10:46:00.000-07:00

Episode 15 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I interview Dr. Glenn Peoples in part 2 of our discussion concerning Christian physicalism, challenging him with a number of biblical passages which seem to contradict his position. This second interview spanned 2 hours, so I've split it up into two parts, this being the first. See episode 16 for the second part.

Coming Soon: Interview with Dee Dee Warren

2010-10-21T10:06:00.001-07:00

I cannot express how excited I am to announce that in an upcoming episode of the Theopologetics Podcast I will have the great honor and privilege of interviewing my friend Dee Dee Warren, discussing the topic of preterism. Dee Dee is creator of The Preterist Site, owner of The Preterist Blog at which I'm a guest author, and host of The Preterist Podcast, a recent episode of which I had the pleasure of guest-hosting (which convinced me to start my own podcast, for better or for worse), and is increasingly becoming one of the world's foremost experts on preterism and hyperpreterism--all of which means she can be forgiven for her Apple fanaticism. Stay tuned for this exciting episode!

He Breathed On Them: The Apostles and the Spirit

2010-10-17T17:10:00.000-07:00

Pentecostals and some proponents of baptismal regeneration believe baptism in the Holy Spirit is something different from, above and beyond, the saving, indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In an attempt to demonstrate this, they'll often argue that the Apostles received the Holy Spirit well before Pentecost. Thus, they insist, the baptism in the Holy Spirit which they experienced at Pentecost must be something different from, something more than, the receiving of the Holy Spirit which they already experienced. This is, in fact, not the case, as the Word of God demonstrates.

HE BREATHED ON THEM

There really is only one verse which even remotely seems to support their case, and even then only on the surface:

And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:22)

Jesus breathed on the disciples and spoke these words to them well before Pentecost, before Jesus ascended, before He rose from the grave, before He was buried, before He was crucified. Clearly they received the Holy Spirit, right?

Quite simply, no, that's not right. First, notice that the text nowhere says they received the Holy Spirit. At most, Jesus tells them to, and even then the text only appears to depict Jesus doing so. But a comparison between this passage and the same events recorded by another gospel author sheds light on the debate. Here is the passage in its wider context:

1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb...12 and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying... 18 Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord," and that He had said these things to her. 19 So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:1,12,18-22)

Note carefully what events John is recording. Mary finds the tomb empty; two angels are seen in the tomb; and Mary comes telling the disciples that she saw the risen Lord. That same day, while gathered together behind closed doors, Jesus appears to them, lets them touch His wounds, and then tells them He's sending them. It's at that point that John records Jesus as telling them, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

I AM SENDING FORTH THE PROMISE

Keep all the above in mind as we look at the words of Luke:

1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared...4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing...10 Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles...36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be to you." 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." 40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet...46 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 "You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:1,4,10,36-40,46-49)

It is evident that John and Luke are recording the same events. (I've left some details out, in part because I don't want to turn this into a discussion of gospel harmonization; those of us debating this agree on the inerrancy of Scripture, so let's keep this on point.) Mary finds the tomb empty, is spoken to by two angels, tells the disciples what she saw, Jesus appears to them behind close doors and lets them touch His hands and feet. But it's at this point that Luke records Jesus' words differently. Whereas John records Jesus as saying to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit," Luke records Him as saying, "I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."

You see, when we put aside our doctrinal biases and simply let Scripture interpret Scripture, we discover that no, the Apostles did not receive the Holy Spirit at this point in time. They were told they would receive Him later.

WHEN THE HELPER COMES

Indeed, what is "the promise of My Father?"

"But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." (John 7:39)

"16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever...26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." (John 14:16,26)

"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me."(John 15:26)

"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you."(John 16:7)

What was the promise from the Father? "The Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive." When would the Holy Spirit be received? It could not be prior to Jesus' death, for He "was not yet glorified." Jesus had, in fact, been glorified by the time John records His words behind closed doors to the disciples. However, His glorification wasn't all that was required for them to receive the promised Holy Spirit.

Jesus said, "if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you." No, the promised Holy Spirit would not be received until Jesus left the disciples. As He said, "if I go, I will send Him to you," and "I will send [the Helper] to you from the Father." It wasn't until Jesus ascended to the Father that the Holy Spirit would be received.

BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT

We've seen that John and Luke record the same events in their gospels, but each records Jesus' words somewhat differently. But it's not just in his gospel that Luke records Jesus' promise:

4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," He said, "you heard of from Me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now...8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." (Acts 1:4-5,8)

You see, those who insist that baptism in the Holy Spirit is something different from the saving, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, point to John's record of Jesus' words--which don't tell us the disciples received the Holy Spirit anyway--but must ignore Luke's record thereof, both in his gospel and in the book of Acts. In both those places, Luke makes it clear that what Jesus had done was promise the disciples the Holy Spirit; He did not give Him to them. Indeed, He could not have, for as we've seen, He had not yet ascended to the Father.

In case there is still any doubt, note that in each of these three passages the context of Jesus' words is the same: His sending the Apostles. John records Jesus saying, "as the Father has sent Me, I also send you," immediately before breathing upon them. In his gospel, Luke records Jesus saying, "Thus it is written...that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things...but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." And in Acts he records Jesus as saying, "you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."

In every record of Jesus' words to the disciples that day, the context is His sending them out to proclaim the gospel, beginning of Jerusalem. He did not tell them to receive the Holy Spirit at that moment; He told them they would receive the Holy Spirit when it was time to begin their mission. Indeed, neither the gospels nor the book of Acts records the Apostles proclaiming the gospel after Jesus' words to them and before Pentecost. They knew they hadn't yet received the Holy Spirit, but that they would, and when they did, their mission would begin.

BREATH AND AUTHORITY

I said toward the beginning of this article that "There really is only one verse which even remotely seems to support their case," and what I meant was actually only one part of one verse, namely Jesus' words, "Receive the Holy Spirit." However, there are two additional weak points often made to defend a misunderstanding of Jesus' words. Despite being evidence of nothing, these points are worth addressing so that it cannot be argued that anything was left out.

First, it is often pointed out that Jesus didn't merely say to the disciples, "Receive the Holy Spirit"--which, as we've seen, was actually a promise of the future-coming Spirit, not a command that they receive the Holy Spirit right then and there. No, He did more than that: He breathed on them. Here's one way this has been used as evidence that the disciples received the Holy Spirit when Jesus breathed on them:

The Hebrew word behind spirit is ruach, and it means "air in motion." It is the same word for "breath." It also means "life." By resemblance to breath and air in motion, it means "spirit."...When you get into the Greek behind that, the Greek word is pneuma, which again means "a current of air," "breath," or a "breeze, " and again by analogy, "a spirit." So both the Hebrew and the Greek word are talking about breath. It’s talking about wind...The same thing happens when we are born of the Spirit. When we are re-born, it is from the breath of God. In the Gospel of John, where He is giving to His disciples the Holy Spirit, just as God breathed on Adam and gave him the breath of life, Jesus breathed on His disciples in John chapter 20.

It is true that the word for "spirit" in both the Hebrew and the Greek carry the meaning of "breath" or "wind." However, must the fact that Jesus "breathed" on the disciples mean that He gave them the Holy Spirit? Of course not, for Jesus no doubt breathed upon countless people in the course of His life and ministry. Indeed, just speaking at someone in close proximity would according to this reasoning bestow the Holy Spirit, since speaking is done by breathing out. So the fact that Jesus breathed upon them cannot be argued as evidence He gave them the Holy Spirit.

It is noteworthy that the gospel author recorded this peculiar, intentional action on the part of Jesus. And I doubt anybody argues that receiving the Holy Spirit is not at least what was signified by Jesus' action. However, nothing in the text demands that it be more than a sign of what they were promised they would later receive at Pentecost. Remember, Luke's gospel and his record of the acts of the Apostles show us that Jesus did not command that they receive the Holy Spirit, but that He promised they would receive Him at Pentecost. The act of breathing upon them may have been nothing more than a sign of that promise. As John Gill writes, "but this breathing on them, and the words that attended it, were a symbol, pledge, and confirmation, of what they were to receive on the day of Pentecost."

Second, I believe I have heard it argued that what Jesus continues to say to the disciples in John 20 after breathing on them is evidence that they had, in fact, received the Holy Spirit. In verse 23 He says to them, "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." It would seem Jesus here gives the disciples the authority to forgive sins, which some might argue proves they received the Holy Spirit.

This claim could not even be characterized as weak; it is beyond weak, it is nothing. It's a non-argument. First, I am certain that one cannot find a connection between the authority to forgive sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Authority simply doesn't imply power. Second, and more importantly, the text doesn't demand that they were given this authority at that moment. I challenge my readers to find any example of the disciples preaching the gospel and forgiveness of sins after this event but before the day of Pentecost. It just isn't there.

The point is, just as Jesus' words were not a command that the disciples receive the Holy Spirit but a promise that they would receive the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and just as His breathing on them was not a giving of the Holy Spirit but a symbol of that promise, so, too, is the authority Jesus gives them not given until Pentecost, if that authority requires the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The context simply is not what was happening at that moment, but what would happen at Pentecost, when the Apostles would be given that which was required to powerfully proclaim the gospel to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem.

RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT JUST AS WE DID

When Peter witnessed the Holy Spirit fall upon Cornelius' household before being baptized in water, he said (in Acts 10:47), "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" Peter identified what happened to Cornelius' household as that which had happened to him and the other Apostles at Pentecost. The Apostles did not receive the Holy Spirit before Pentecost when Jesus breathed upon them; they were merely promised Him, and at Pentecost, they received Him.

In "Pearls Before Swine? No Longer Certain..." I asked those whom I've been debating, those who've claimed Cornelius' household was not saved when they received the Holy Spirit before being baptized in water, to demonstrate that the New Testament teaches one of two things post-Pentecost. One of those things was, "Multiple senses in which one 'receives the Holy Spirit.'" As we've seen, the Apostles' experience does not qualify. They received the Holy Spirit once and only once: at the day of Pentecost. The New Testament knows nothing of multiple senses in which one receives the Holy Spirit.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Check out this article for more exegetical and scholarly support.

Pearls Before Swine? No Longer Certain...

2010-10-13T16:54:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I'm rethinking the stance I've taken when it comes to discussing baptism and soteriology with those who deny that Cornelius' household was saved before water baptism in Acts 10. I may not be properly applying, let alone understanding, Jesus' statements concerning throwing pearls before swine. Certainly there must be a time to shake the dust off one's feet, but I'm not sure I'm doing so in the proper timeframe or manner.

As such, Steve, Aaron, Terry, know that I recognize the possibility that I might be behaving immaturely and unbiblically, and that I will be praying about it. In the meantime, I have a request of you if you're willing.

Here is a summary (relevant to the request I'm about to make) of the argument I laid out in "Saving Cornelius," that Cornelius' household was saved before water baptism:

The text says they "received the Holy Spirit," the same language used in Romans 8 and other places which say the indwelling Holy Spirit seals us in Christ, testifies within us that we are children of God, and promises us resurrection and redemption.
The text says they spoke in tongues and prophesied, gifts which 1 Corinthians 12 says are among many gifts which the indwelling Holy Spirit distributes individually to those who are members of the body of Christ.

I guess what has been implicit in this argument is the denial that, post-Pentecost, God gives people these gifts apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and that there are multiple senses in which people receive the Holy Spirit. With that in mind, here is my request of you: Please demonstrate for me that the New Testament demonstrates one of the following post-Pentecost:

The manifestation of tongues or prophecy, gifts given by God, in those who have not "received the Holy Spirit"
Multiple senses in which one "receives the Holy Spirit"

If you can demonstrate either of these, I will be forced to acknowledge the ambiguity a couple of you have claimed is found in Acts 10.

Episode 14: Make It Happen

2010-10-13T14:29:00.000-07:00

Episode 14 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I discuss the sovereignty of God, demonstrating from Scripture that He is not only King over all but that He does what He pleases.

A Change of Mind (For Forgiveness of Sins)

2010-10-11T14:50:00.000-07:00

In "Be Baptized for the Forgiveness of Sins" I argued that the Greek word εἰς (eis, pronounced "ice") used in Acts 2:38 when Peter says, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for [εἰς] the forgiveness of your sins," is equivocal, meaning "subject to two or more interpretations." While the word is most often used by the New Testament authors to mean "into" or "unto," or "resulting in," I felt I had demonstrated that in at least two occurrences this is not how the word is used, in which occurrences it is used instead to mean "because of" or "on account of."

Although some of my detractors might assume I would uncritically hold firm to this response to the argument for baptismal regeneration from Acts 2:38, the reality is that I've been giving it a lot of thought and further researching the topic, and may be at the beginning of a process of changing my mind. This is not to say that I am beginning to be open to the idea that salvation isn't experienced until water baptism; the whole of Scripture militates against that heresy. Rather, I'm beginning to think that there is a better understanding of Acts 2:38 which is nevertheless fully consistent with the "grace alone through faith" gospel that Jesus and His Apostles preached.

WANTED FOR BANK ROBBERY

Let me first explain why I am beginning to be skeptical that εἰς can be understood to mean "because of" or "on account of." The modern English word "for" can be understood in this fashion ("Jesse James Wanted For Bank Robbery"), and it seemed to me that in Matthew 3:11 and Matthew 12:41 εἰς is used in the same way. In the former passage, John said he baptized εἰς repentance, and I argued that obviously repentance doesn't result from baptism; instead, I said, John baptized "on account of" repentance, as a sign one was repentant. In the latter passage, Jesus says the Ninevites repented εἰς the preaching of Jonah, and I argued that obviously Jonah didn't preach as a result of the Ninevites' repentance; instead, I said, the Ninevites repented "because of" the preaching of Jonah. Therefore, I reasoned, there was a precedent for understanding εἰς in this way in Acts 2:38.

However, upon further reflection and research, I'm beginning to rethink that line of reasoning. Although Matthew 3:11 and Matthew 12:41, among a few other passages, seem at first to support this minority understanding of εἰς, I think there are perfectly reasonable intepretations of these passages which do not utilize a minority understanding of the Greek word. John didn't merely baptize people who were repentant; those who were committed to a life of repentance were baptized into that life of repentance. The Ninevites didn't merely repent on account of Jonah's preaching; they repented toward or into that which Jonah preached. These interpretations would seem to do as much justice to the meaning of the texts without diverting from the normal use of εἰς.

Therefore, what I felt was a biblical precedent for understanding εἰς to mean "on account of" or "because of" no longer seems to qualify as that precedent, particularly in light of how rarely the word is even argued to be used in this fashion. With that in mind, while I am open to the possibility that this is what was meant, I'm inclined to search for a better answer to the argument from Acts 2:38 for baptismal regeneration.

REPENT FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS

A friend whom I interviewed in episode 11 of my podcast commented on one of my posts, saying, "there is a grammatical dynamic wherein the word 'repent' is in the plural and 'baptized' is in the singular. This construction in conjunction with the plural 'yours' suggest that the forgiveness of sins is by virtue of repentance and not baptism." At first I think I glossed over this and didn't give it a lot of thought, but now I'm beginning to think this is the answer to the problem.

The original text of Acts 2:38 begins as follows: 1) Μετανοήσατε 2) καὶ βαπτισθήτω 3) ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The word Μετανοήσατε is the second person plural imperative of the word μετανοέω meaning "repent." That means, it could more specifically be translated, "All of you [second person plural] repent." The word βαπτισθήτω is the third person singular imperative of the word βαπτίζω meaning "baptize," and in the phrase ἕκαστος ὑμῶν, the word ἕκαστος meaning "each" is the third person singular. This means the phrase could be rendered "each one [third person singular] of you be baptized [third person singular] in the name of Jesus Christ."

What is the point of this, you might ask? The rest of Acts 2:38 reads εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν in most manuscripts, meaning "for the forgiveness of sins." But in some variant manuscripts the rest of Acts 2:38 reads, εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, meaning "for the forgiveness of your sins." And there, the word ἡμῶν, like "repent" earlier in the verse, is in the second person plural. The importance of this is that in Greek, verbs and nouns match one another in gender, plurality and person. Since "repent" and "your sins" are both in the second person plural, but "be baptized" is in the third person singular, it seems to be repentance that is "for the forgiveness of your sins," not baptism.

HINGING ON A TEXTUAL VARIANT

One Oneness Pentecostal critic of this interpretation of Acts 2:38 writes,

"the argument hinges on a textual variant. In the Textus Receptus and Majority Text, the second humon is absent. If the Textus Receptus and Majority Text reflect the original wording at this point, the TPS [traditional Protestant soteriology] argument crumbles into dust. Considering the fact that the entire case against the OPS [Oneness Pentecostal soteriology] interpretation of Acts 2:38 is grounded on this textual variant, TPS advocates need to demonstrate that the second humon is original to the text."

Some will respond saying that the case is strong for believing that τῶν and ὑμῶν were, indeed, in the original. Luther B. McIntyre Jr. puts it this way:

admittedly, ὑμῶν does not appear in all manuscripts. This absence in those manuscripts may be because of a tendency to follow the shorter rendering "forgiveness of sins" (ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν), not "forgiveness of your sins," in Matthew 26:28; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; and 24:47.19. In these four occurrences in the Gospels the word "sins" occurs without the article and without a pronoun. In Acts 2:38, however, "sins" has the definite article and is followed by the pronoun ὑμῶν. ἁμαρτιῶν occurs in the New Testament 12 times with the definite article. In 9 of those 12 a personal pronoun in the genitive is associated with it. In Romans 7:5 ἁμαρτιῶν is used adjectivally, in which case a pronoun is not indicated. In Acts 3:19 and 22:16 the articular τὰς ἁμαρτίας occurs with a personal pronoun in the genitive. In every case in Luke-Acts the articular "sins" also has a personal pronoun in the genitive. The evidence supporting the inclusion of ὑμῶν in the phrase "for the forgiveness of your sins" in Acts 2:38 is thus quite strong.

Now, I don't find the case as convincing as McIntyre does, and do not think the evidence is strong one way or the other that ὑμῶν was, in fact, in the original. However, I do believe that the variant's existence lends support to the view that this is what Peter meant. In other words, though the original may have lacked ὑμῶν, thus allowing "forgiveness of sins" to be connected to either "repent" or "be baptized," the variant's existence lends support to the understanding that Peter intended to connect forgiveness of sins with repentance and not baptism. This is further evidenced by looking at that to which forgiveness is connected elsewhere.

REPENTANCE FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS

Consider that both Mark and Luke record that John the baptist was "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3). Whether Mark and Luke were saying it was actually John's baptism being referred to, or that John was pointing toward the soon-to-come New Covenant baptism in Christ's name, either way it is not baptism, but repentance, which is "for the forgiveness of sins." John indeed expected the decision to be baptized to be made by one who was already repentant, saying, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance" (Luke 3:7-8). Josephus sheds further light:

"...John, that was called the Baptist...commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness..." (Antiquity of the Jews, book 18, chapter 5)

So John urged those who were already repentant to be baptized, and it was the repentance, not the baptism, which led to the forgiveness of sins. This lines up perfectly with the interpretation of Acts 2:38 which connects forgiveness of sins with repentance, and not with baptism. Look at Jesus' parting words to His disciples in Luke 24:45-49:

"45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, 'Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.'"

Notice what exactly Jesus said would be proclaimed to all the nations beginning from Jerusalem: repentance for forgiveness of sins. When did this proclamation begin? At Pentecost, at Acts 2:38. This serves as powerful evidence that there it is repentance, not baptism, which results in the forgiveness of sins. Indeed, in Acts 3:19 Peter tells the Jews, "repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away."

Perhaps the most powerful proof that it is repentance, and not baptism, which Peter connected with forgiveness of sins, is found in the disciples response to Peter in Acts 11:18. After Peter had witnessed the saving indwelling of the Holy Spirit being received by the Gentile Godfearers in Acts 10:43-48, he recounted the story to the apostles in Jerusalem, and they "glorified God, saying, 'Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.'" Cornelius and his household entered into life, not because they were baptized, but because they had repented.

NOT AS A RESULT OF WORKS

You might at this point interject, saying, "But Cornelius' household hadn't yet repented of their sins when they received the Holy Spirit." Alternatively, if you've read my blog or listened to my podcast for any length of time, you'll know that I believe salvation is, as Paul put it in Ephesians 2:8-9, "by grace...through faith...not as a result of works, so that no one may boast," and you might wonder if I am contradicting myself by saying the works of repentance bring about forgiveness of sins. The question is, what is the repentance commanded in Acts 2:38? What is the repentance which was granted to Cornelius' household which led their receiving the Holy Spirit?

The word is μετανοέω (metanoeō) and combines the words μετά (meta), meaning "after" or "behind," and νοέω (noeō), meaning "to understand" or "to think upon." Repent means, simply, "to change one's mind." We often think the definition of repentance includes outward works demonstrating our change of mind, but that's not really the biblical definition. Paul told King Agrippa in Acts 26:20 that he had been declaring to the Gentiles "that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance." The word "appropriate" there is the Greek ἄξιος (axios) meaning "befitting" or "congruous." Paul was telling the Gentiles to change their minds toward God and perform deeds befitting their change of mind.

This conforms to the relationship John the baptist saw between repentance and deeds. In Matthew 3:8 and Luke 3:8 John tells the Jews, "bear fruits in keeping with repentance." The word rendered "in keeping with" is again the word ἄξιος meaning "befitting." John was telling the Jews to bear fruit which is "congruous" with their repentance. A tree isn't an apple tree because it bears apples; a tree bears apples because it is an apple tree. Likewise, the deeds which ought to accompany repentance are not part and parcel of the repentance; they flow from, and are befitting or congruous with, a genuine change of mind.

REPENTANCE AND FAITH

So if repentance fundamentally means a "change of mind," the question remains, what exactly did John and Peter mean when they connected forgiveness with repentance (and not baptism)? In Acts 20:21 Paul said he had testified to Jews and Greeks concerning "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." In Acts 19:4 he told some Ephesian disciples that "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." In Mark 1:15 Jesus says, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

You see, the kind of change in thinking which leads to life is the change of mind from being oriented away from God to being oriented toward God through faith in Jesus Christ. True, saving repentance which results in the forgiveness of sins is recognizing one's sinfulness and placing faith and trust in the Son of God whose sacrifice alone atones for sin. Yes, such a saving change of mind bears fruit, resulting in works, but it is not the works which bring about the forgiveness of sin. They flow out of the change of mind which already resulted in the forgiveness of sin.

This is why Peter and the disciples in Jerusalem understood that when Cornelius and his household received the saving indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that they had been granted "the repentance that leads to life." You see, immediately following Peter's statement that "everyone who believes in [Christ] receives forgiveness of sins" (Acts 10:43), "the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message" (Acts 10:44). Upon being told that salvation comes to those who believe in Jesus Christ, Cornelius and his house believed, and thus received the Holy Spirit. As Peter said, "God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 11:17).

WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL NOT PERISH

Having seen that the saving repentance that results in forgiveness of sins is the change of mind which places one's trust in Jesus Christ, let's look at a bunch of other passages which teach precisely that. In John 3:16 Jesus says, "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." In Acts 10:43 Peter says, "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." Does "whoever believes in Him" and "everyone who believes in Him" include anybody who has yet to be baptized, who has yet to repent from every one of his sins? Of course it does. The kind of repentance that leads to life is belief in Jesus Christ.

In Acts 13:38-39 Paul says, "through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things." When the Jailer asked what he must do to be saved, Paul and Silas respond, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:30-31). In Romans 10:4 Paul writes, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes," and in Romans 1:16 he writes that the gospel "is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes."

The reason Acts 2:38 and some other passages connect salvation with repentance, whereas the above passages and many more say only that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary and are silent concerning anything else, is because saving repentance is faith in Jesus Christ. Saving repentance is the changing of one's mind from being oriented away from God to being oriented toward God through faith and trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

REPENT FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS, AND BE BAPTIZED

Returning to Acts 2:38, when Peter says, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins," he is not saying "be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins." Rather, Peter is saying, "Repent (and be baptized) for the forgiveness of your sins." This chiasmus, or inverted parallelism, could be justifiably rendered, "Repent for the forgiveness of your sins, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

Baptism is a work to which any genuine Christian, having sincerely repented toward God through faith in Jesus Christ, should in obedience submit. And a professing Christian who, on an ongoing basis, rebelliously refuses to be baptized, is not bearing fruit befitting true repentance. But if such a professing Christian is one in name only, and is not truly saved, his lack of salvation is not because he has refused to be baptized; it is because he hasn't truly repented through faith in Christ. Conversely, a saved Christian who has submitted to baptism in water received forgiveness of sins because of, and at the time of, repentance toward God through faith in Jesus Christ; his baptism flowed out of, but did not result in, that forgiveness of sins.

So yes, I believe I am on the verge of changing my mind and conceding that εἰς in Acts 2:38 likely means what it means virtually everywhere else: "unto" or "into" or "in order to." But it is the change of mind in placing one's faith and trust in Jesus Christ which Peter said was "for the forgiveness of sins," not the baptism in water which is a deed "befitting" or "congruous" with the saving change of mind already made. More verses remain to be more closely examined, but Acts 2:38 confirms the only God-glorifying (and not man-glorifying) understanding of salvation: salvation by faith alone.

APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

BAPTISM AND FORGIVENESS IN ACTS 2:38, Luther B. McIntyre Jr.
Does Water Baptism Save? by The Middletown Bible Church
Baptism and Acts 2:38 by Matt Slick (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry)

Challenging Cornelius: As I Began to Speak

2010-10-08T21:45:00.000-07:00

In "Saving Cornelius" we learned that the Word of God teaches that Cornelius' household was saved, indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, sealing them as children of God, promising them redemption and resurrection, all before their baptism in water. I have spoken since with a friend and with a visitor to this blog, both of whom have insisted Cornelius' household was not saved before their baptism in water, and I've sincerely sought an explanation for that insistence. I am still awaiting an exegetical answer, but in the meantime, I want to share one argument I've witnessed put forth in support of the view that Cornelius was not, in fact, saved before being baptized in water (not put forward by the friend and visitor of whom I speak).

I heard one teacher within the International Churches of Christ point to Acts 11:15 in which Peter says, "as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning," arguing that the words "as I began to speak" show that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before Peter even began his message. Therefore, since salvation requires faith, and faith requires hearing the Word of God, Cornelius could not have been saved at this point.

This argument simply doesn't work, for a couple of reasons. First, Acts 10 makes it very clear that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit well into Peter's message. He received Him immediately, in fact, after Peter says, "everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." So Acts 11:15 cannot mean that Peter had yet to speak a single word when Cornelius received the Holy Spirit.

Second, the word "began" is used elsewhere by Luke (the author of Acts) not to refer to the precise point in time at which a message begins, but the whole period of time during which a message is delivered. In Luke 4:21 we read, "And He began to say to them, 'Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.'" In Luke 20:9 we read, "And He began to tell the people this parable: 'A man planted a vineyard and rented it out to vine-growers, and went on a journey for a long time...'" and the parable goes on for another 9 verses. And Acts 1:1 reads, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach." Clearly the gospel of Luke contains not just what Jesus began to teach and do, but what He did, in fact, teach and do.

So when Peter says in Acts 11 that "as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them," he's not saying they received the Holy Spirit at the precise moment Peter opened his mouth; he's saying they received the Holy Spirit during that which he spoke, which is in fact what happens in Acts 10 when they receive the Holy Spirit well into Peter's gospel message, but immediately upon being told that everyone who believes in Christ will be saved.

Therefore, we're left with the breathed-out Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16) which says in 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 8, 2 Corinthians 5, 2 Corinthians 1 and Ephesians 1 that Cornelius' household was, in fact, saved before their baptism in water.

Exegetical Eschatology: Do Not Seal Up

2010-10-07T11:25:00.000-07:00

In previous articles in this series I've concentrated on many of the presumptions we read into texts dealing with the end times. I demonstrated that we are not justified in assuming that the thousand years of Revelation must refer to precisely 1,000 years and that the reign of Christ during that time would be physical on earth. I demonstrated that we are not justified in assuming that Jesus' disciples ever expected a "first going," so we need to be careful how we understand their questions concerning His future "coming." And I demonstrated that we are not justified in assuming that Jesus' use of lightning imagery in the Olivet Discourse was intended to communicate that the "coming" of which He spoke would be physically visible to the entire world population.

Having dealt with those assumptions, I'd like to start looking at biblical passages which began to make me curious, back when I was a staunch dispensational futurist. The texts we'll be looking at in the next couple of articles in this series are ones which most Christians either gloss over without realizing the weight of the words they're reading, or wave off using "sound byte" explanations without deeply considering the weakness of those explanations. These passages are the so-called "time texts" which we preterists think strongly point to a first century fulfillment of much (but not all) of biblical prophecy, and we're going to begin today by looking at a pair of texts which, considered together, are very powerful.

DO NOT SEAL UP FOR THE TIME IS NEAR

The book of Revelation describes an apocalyptic vision believed by many to prophetically foretell events which are to happen at some point in our future. Perhaps a majority of Christian scholars believe the book to have been written very late in the first century or very early in the second; we preterists believe the evidence supports an earlier date, that it was written prior to A.D. 70. In either case, this would mean that if many Christians are correct, the events John foretold will have taken place as many as 2,000 years after he was shown them, or even longer.

In the final chapter of his book, John wrote, "[Jesus' messenger] said to me, 'Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near'" (Revelation 22:10). Now, even a cursory reading of this verse alone should spark one's curiosity. How the time of the fulfillment of these events could in any sense be said to be "near" and yet as many as 2,000 years off is beyond me. However, this becomes additionally problematic when one compares what John was told with what another prophet was told.

SEAL UP THE BOOK UNTIL THE END OF TIME

The prophet Daniel was similarly given an apocalyptic vision or visions, which he recorded in the book named after him. Many of these visions, too, are believed by many to foretell events which are yet to happen. Indeed, most believe they foretell many of the same events. Daniel lived and served under Nebuchadnezzar some 600 to 700 years before John wrote his apocalypse. This means that if many Christians are correct, the events Daniel foretold will have taken place as many as 2,600 years or more after he was shown them.

In comparison with a 2,000 year or longer gap between when the events were prophesied and when they were fulfilled, an increase of only 600 years or so seems pretty insignificant. This increasingly becomes the case the more time passes before their fulfillment. But whereas John was told not to seal up the words of his prophecy because the time was near, look what Daniel was told: "'But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase...' 9 He said, 'Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time'" (Daniel 12:4,9).

The one speaking to Daniel does not explicitly state that the reason Daniel should seal up his vision is because the time of its fulfillment is far off. However, this is implicit in his words. Whereas John is told not to seal up his vision because the time is near, Daniel is told to seal up his vision until the end of time, and that enough time would pass before its fulfillment for many to go back and forth, for knowledge to increase, for many to be purged and refined and for the wicked to act wickedly without understanding (v.10).

VERY FAR AND STILL QUITE FAR

That Daniel is told to seal up his book because the time of its fulfillment is in Daniel's distant future is a fact not lost on Matthew Henry, who wrote, "Daniel must now shut up the words and seal the book because the time would be long ere these things would be accomplished." John Wesley likewise wrote, "The book was command to be sealed, because it would be long before the words would be fulfilled, whereas those that were shortly to be fulfilled, were forbidden to be sealed." Jamieson, Fausset and Brown recognize this as well, writing in their commentary on this passage,

John, on the contrary, is told (Revelation 22:10) not to seal his visions. Daniel's prophecy refers to a distant time, and is therefore obscure for the immediate future, whereas John's was to be speedily fulfilled (Revelation 1:1,3, 22:6). Israel, to whom Daniel prophesied after the captivity, with premature zeal sought after signs of the predicted period: Daniel's prophecy was designed to restrain this. The Gentile Church, on the contrary, for whom John wrote, needs to be impressed with the shortness of the period, as it is, owing to its Gentile origin, apt to conform to the world, and to forget the coming of the Lord

Now, I am no expert on Daniel, and there is certainly a ton of material to debate in both Daniel's and John's visions, not the least of which includes the number of "days" Daniel is told in verses 11 and 12 would pass between the fulfillment of certain events. Nevertheless, the difference between Daniel's being told to seal up his book because the time of its fulfillment was far off, and John's being told not to seal up his book because the time of its fulfillment was near, is noteworthy to say the very least. Think about this carefully: if 2,000 years or more would pass after John was given his vision, and if this time is sufficiently "near" to him so as to justify not sealing up his book, is a period of time a mere 600 years or so longer really sufficiently "far" from Daniel so as to justify sealing his words?

I think the answer is obvious, and yet it doesn't seem to trouble futurists in the least. Notable dispensationalist Cyrus Ingerson Scofield wrote,

1) The time of the end in Daniel begins with the violation by "the prince that shall come" (i.e. "little horn," "man of sin," "Beast") of his covenant with the Jews for the restoration of the temple and sacrifice Daniel 9:27 and his presentation of himself as God ; Daniel 9:27; 11:36-38; Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 13:4-6 and ends with his destruction by the appearing of the Lord in glory. ; 2 Thessalonians 2:8; Revelation 19:19,20.

(2) The duration of the "time of the end" is three and one half years, coinciding with the last half of the seventieth week of Daniel. Daniel 7:25; 12:7; Revelation 13:5.

(3) This "time of the end" is the "time of Jacob's trouble." Jeremiah 30:7 "a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation" Daniel 12:1 "great tribulation such as was not from the beginning of the world. . . nor ever shall be" Matthew 24:21. The N.T., especially the Book of the Revelation, adds many details.

Here Scofield, who wrote his commentary in the early 20th century, unabashedly links the events foretold by Daniel with the events foretold by John. So from Scofield's perspective, Daniel was told to seal up his vision because the time was far off, referring to events which would take place some 2,500 years later, whereas John was told not to seal up his vision because the time was near to him--a "mere" 1,800 years or more later. Yeah, that makes sense.

FAR AND NEAR

I find the alternative far more compelling, which alternative is this: Daniel's vision would largely be fulfilled some 600 to 700 years after he was shown them. As this period of time was drawing to a close, in the early- to mid-60's (first century), John was given a similar vision foretelling many of the same events Daniel was shown, most of which would come to pass within a few years after John was shown them, in and leading up to A.D. 70. A period of time some 600 to 700 years long would certainly qualify as far off from Daniel, whereas a period of time only a few years long would obviously qualify as "near" to John. So near, in fact, in contrast with Daniel, that Daniel was justifiably told to seal up his book because of the many centuries before which it would be fulfilled, and John was justifiably told not to seal up his book because its fulfillment was merely a few years away.

Only the preterist understanding of biblical prophecy really makes sense of this. Dispenstional futurists and futurists of other sorts really can't do justice to the difference between Daniel's being told to seal his vision up and John being told not to seal up his. To those who hold to such futurist models, the difference is not between what was "far" from Daniel and what was "near" to John; instead, the difference is between what was "very far" from Daniel and what was "still quite far" from John. Preterists, on the other hand, correctly understand that indeed, the events which would take place 600 to 700 years after Daniel was shown them were indeed "far" from him, whereas being only a few years away from John the time was most certainly "near" to him. Keep this in mind as we continue in this series, in upcoming articles looking at other so-called "time texts" which point to the nearness of prophetic fulfillment.

Episode 13: Unbelievable

2010-10-04T12:08:00.000-07:00

Episode 13 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I interview Justin Brierley, host of the Unbelievable? radio program on Premier Christian Radio UK, discussing how hosting the show has impacted his Christian faith.

Episode 12: Let's Get Physical

2010-10-01T09:21:00.000-07:00

Episode 12 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I interview Glenn Peoples, creator of the Say Hello to My Little Friend blog and podcast, discussing Christian physicalism, the view that man is not comprised of both a physical body and an immaterial soul, but of body only.

In this first of two interviews on the subject, we talk about physicalism in history, the modern evangelical response to physicalism, the biblical basis for physicalism and the metaphysical objection to it. In a future episode I’ll interview Glenn a second time, devoting the entire episode to biblical objections to his position, so email me at theopologetics@hotmail.com if you would like me to include your challenge to physicalism in the second interview.

Episode 11: In Christ Alone

2010-09-30T09:47:00.000-07:00

Episode 11 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I interview Michael Burgos, creator of the Grassroots Apologetics blog, discussing Oneness Pentecostals and how to witness to them.

Coming Soon: Interview with Joel Groat

2010-09-29T08:56:00.000-07:00

God continues to amaze me with the guests with which He is blessing me to interview on my podcast. After I interviewed Mike Felker in episode 9 on the Jehovah's Witnesses, I pondered whom I could ask to interview on Mormonism. Having relied upon the ministry of the Institution for Religious Research for years, I figured what the heck, why not contact them for an interview.

To my amazement, Joel Groat, Ministry Director for IRR, has graciously agreed to appear on my show to discuss Mormonism. Joel has been working with Mormons and with people who care about Mormons for over 23 years. His bio reads as follows:

Joel B. Groat has served with IRR since 1987, first as a Research and Counseling Associate, then as Coordinator of Spanish Language Ministries and now as Director of Domestic and International Ministries. A missionary kid and later a missionary himself in Venezuela, Joel has spoken hundreds of times for IRR throughout North, Central, and South America as well as in Spain, Hungary and Madagascar. On his numerous trips to Latin America he has distributed over 160,000 pieces of literature on Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other apologetics-related issues, and has been the featured guest on various radio and television programs.

Joel earned a Master’s degree (MTS) in New Testament from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary in 1990. He has contributed to and translated many of IRR’s tracts, authored numerous web articles, contributed articles to the Christian Research Journal and has extensive experience speaking to the media and at conferences. He has been an adjunct professor at Cornerstone University and is active in his church’s missions program and youth ministry.

Joel and his wife, Lois, have been married since 1983 and have eight children.

Stay tuned for this exciting upcoming episode of the Theopologetics Podcast!

Discussing Destiny: Many of His Disciples Withdrew

2010-09-29T08:50:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since I wrote an article in this series, but recent conversations here at my blog have prompted me to add to it. If you haven't read "Unless the Father Draws Him" and "All the Father Gives Me Will Come" I recommend you do so. As I explained in those posts, Jesus said no man can come to Him unless the Father "draws" Him, using a word that cannot mean simply woos or invites, in a context that cannot mean that all men are "drawn" equally. The Father has chosen some; none of those whom the Father has not chosen will come to the Son; and all those whom He's chosen will come to the Son.

In recent discussions here at my blog, friends and visitors have called me insane. It is unfortunate for me that I wear my heart on my sleeve, as insults like these pierce my heart deeply. I should bear this in mind and be careful about the words I speak, as I often fail to deliver them in gentleness and respect. In other words, I can't judge others for what I do myself.

But as far as the hurt I've experienced is concerned, I look to, among others, one passage in particular that simultaneously helps to comfort me in my pain and further convince me that I've understood Scripture correctly.

MANY OF HIS DISCIPLES WITHDREW

"60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, 'This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?' 61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, 'Does this cause you to stumble? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, 'For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.' 66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore." (John 6:60-66)

After teaching the message we looked at in previous entries in this series, Jesus' disciples grumble among themselves. Jesus says the Spirit gives life, and the flesh profit nothing, and John records that Jesus knew from the beginning those who did not believe. Why did Jesus have this foreknowledge? Some might argue that simply by virtue of being omniscient did He know who would believe Him and who would not. But look what Jesus reiterates: "no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." Jesus knew who would not believe because He knew whom the Father had given Him.

Now, look what John records immediately following this Jesus' statement: "As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore." This is why I take solace in the midst of the pain I experience when called insane by those whom I love. Jesus preached the message I've been preaching, and many of His own disciples stopped following Him. Why should I, a fallen son of Adam, expect that when I preach Jesus' words they will be received any better than when He originally spoke them?

But beyond mere comfort in the midst of my emotional pain, this passage strengthens my resolve, encourages me that I'm correctly understanding God's Word. If I were preaching something other than what Jesus said in this passage, I might expect a different reaction. But the fact that I see a similar reaction on the part of those to whom I share these Jesus' words tells me I've understood them correctly. In an upcoming entry in this series we'll see the same thing. Stay tuned.

Saving Cornelius: Acts 10 and Water Baptism

2010-09-28T14:14:00.000-07:00

Despite what the Bible clearly teaches about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, some proponents of baptismal regeneration (not all of them) reject the truth of Scripture and unjustifiably claim that Cornelius' household was not saved when they received the Holy Spirit in Acts 10, that it was not until they were baptized in water that they were saved. I am convinced, to a certain extent at least, that it will be fruitless to discuss water baptism or virtually any other doctrine with someone who in this way refuses to conform their beliefs to Scripture. It is evident that no matter what the Bible says, these people will instead adhere blindly to their traditions, their "sacred cows," as it were, and one is left to wonder if one should throw their proverbial pearls before swine.

In episode 4 of the Theopologetics Podcast I demonstrated that Cornelius and his household was, in fact, saved by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized in water. For those who have not listened or are unable to, I will demonstrate this fact here in writing.

BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

Let's first look at what is explicitly said to have happened to these Godfearers. Having each received visions from God, Cornelius and Peter meet in Caesarea (Acts 10:1-33). Peter preaches the gospel to Cornelius and his household, explaining that he had been shown that God does not show partiality; that peace through Jesus Christ is available to all, both Jew and Gentile; that Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power; that Peter and the Apostles witnessed His miracles and death on the cross; that they saw Him resurrected after the third day; and that they were ordered to preach this gospel to all, through which everyone who believes is forgiven of their sins (Acts 10:34-43). It is as he is speaking those last words that something amazing happens:

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 'Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?' 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days." (Acts 10:44-48)

Notice that the reason Peter said these Godfearers could not be refused water baptism is because they had received the same gift of the Holy Spirit the Apostles had received, hearkening back to the day of Pentecost in which the Holy Spirit filled them, manifesting Himself through the gift of tongues (Acts 2:1-4). We know that what the Apostles experienced was something called "baptism in the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:4-5). And after what he witnessed happen to Cornelius, Peter explains to the other Apostles that this is, in fact, the same thing that had happened to Cornelius' house (Acts 11:15-17).

MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND

Before we look more closely at just what baptism in the Holy Spirit is, we should look at whom experiences it. Some adherents to baptismal regeneration claim that only some Christians experience it (even if it's available to all of them), others that it disappeared with this first generation of Christians. However, this is simply not the case at all. On the day of Pentecost, after receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit, the Jews in attendance ask each other what they witnessed meant, surmising that perhaps they were drunk (Acts 2:6-13). Peter goes on to explain exactly what it meant:

"14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. 15 'For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; 16 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: 17 'AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says, 'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS; 18 EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT And they shall prophesy.(Acts 2:14-18)

Peter quotes the prophecy recorded in Joel 2:28-32, which had been made in a time when the Holy Spirit operated within the Old Covenant community in such a way as to manifest Himself through gifts given only to some. For example, in Numbers 11:16-17,25-29 God tells Moses He will gift seventy elders from Israel with the same gift of the Holy Spirit previously given only to Moses, and when two of these men continue to manifest the gift, Joshua tells Moses he should restrain them. Moses responds saying, "Would that all the LORD's people were prophets, that the LORD would put His Spirit upon them!"

So Joel's prophecy foretold of a time when the Holy Spirit would operate among the New Covenant community differently than He had in the Old Covenant one. Whereas in the past the gift of the Holy Spirit was given only to some, in the New Covenant He is given to all Christians. Hence, Peter says to the Jews at Pentecost, "37 Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 38 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself" (Acts 2:38-39, with discussions concerning the importance of baptism being held elsewhere here at my blog). You see, this gift is not something given to only some Christians, nor is it a gift that was given only for a time; in either case, the Holy Spirit would be operating in the New Covenant community no differently than He had in the Old Covenant one. The gift of the Holy Spirit is experienced by all who are in Christ.

FOR ALL WHO ARE FAR OFF

However, it was not clear to the Apostles when the New Covenant was to be available to all people. By the time of Pentecost, they knew that Jews and proselytes (Gentile converts to Judaism) were welcome into the Covenant, and that the gift of the Holy Spirit was for all Jewish and proselyte believers in Jesus Christ (Acts 2:5-11), but it was not clear when other peoples would be welcome in. Some time later, Philip preaches the gospel to some Samaritans, who receive and believe the gospel preached to them, but it is not until Peter and John arrive and pray for the Samaritans that they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:12-17).

Some have interpreted this to mean that the authority of the Apostles was necessary to receive this gift through the laying on of hands, and that therefore it died out with the Apostles. This, however, goes contrary to what we've already seen in Peter's application of Joel's prophecy at Pentecost. The better intepretation of this text, although not explicitly stated, is that God waited to give the gift of the Holy Spirit until Peter and John were present so that it would serve as a testimony to them that the boundaries of the New Covenant community had opened to Samaritans, and was no longer restricted to only Jews and proselytes.

You see, the Samaritans were Jews by descent, as my friend David and I explained in episode 6 of my podcast. However, they were not part of the Jewish community, and believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to a certain extent but did not follow the Mosaic covenant, and were influenced by paganism. Peter and John, then, were present to witness the opening up of the New Covenant community to Samaritans, confirming Peter's application of Joel's prophecy.

This is exactly what we see with Cornelius in Acts 10. Cornelius and his household were "Godfearers," Gentiles who adopted much of Jewish belief and practice, fellowshipping with the Jewish community, but not completely converted to Judaism (and thus not proselytes). God gifts them with the Holy Spirit in Peter's presence to confirm the still further broadening of the New Covenant community. Whereas it had hitherto been restricted to Jews, proselytes and Samaritans who believed in Jesus, Peter witnessed the beginning of the inclusion of Gentiles--though specifically Godfearing Gentiles.

Later, Paul likewise witnesses the still further broadening of the gift of the Holy Spirit to all Gentile believers in Jesus when he happens upon some Ephesian Gentiles who, after being baptized in the name of Christ and after having Paul's hands laid on them, receive the same gift which had previously been received by the Jews and proselytes, Samaritans and Gentile Godfearers (Acts 19:1-7). Like the Apostles and Cornelius' household, these Ephesian new believers manifest the presence of the Holy Spirit through the same gift of tongues (and, in this case, prophecy).

Luke's book of Acts, then, serves as one progressive illustration of the truth of Joel's prophecy as applied by Peter at Pentecost. In the Old Covenant community the gift of the Holy Spirit is given only to some, but in the New Covenant community He is given to all those who place their faith in Jesus Christ. First, the Jews and proselytes. Later, the Samaritans, followed by Gentile Godfearers. Finally, other Gentile believers. The gift of the Holy Spirit was not given only to some, nor did it die out with the Apostles. He is, indeed, for all who are far off.

VARIETIES OF GIFTS, BUT THE SAME SPIRIT

Now, some claim that what the Apostles, Godfearers and Ephesians experienced was something not normative, something above and beyond anything most other Christians experience. They point to the fact that tongues appear only to be spoken in these three places throughout the book of Acts, and argue that therefore these were unique outpourings of the Holy Spirit not to be expected to happen to all Christians. As I've already demonstrated, this goes contrary to the clear application of Joel's prophecy by Peter at Pentecost. However, there's more proof that this view is simply false:

"4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. 12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many." (1 Corinthians 12:4-14)

Notice that here Paul tells the Corinthians that there are a variety of gifts, including but not limited to tongues like those spoken by the Apostles and Cornelius' household, and that within each Christian the Holy Spirit manifests Himself differently. While the gifts of tongues, healing and miracles are more obvious and miraculous, the gifts of wisdom, knowledge and faith are not quite so obvious. Nevertheless, they are all manifestations of the same indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. However we interpret the "baptism" spoken of here, what is clear is that all genuine Christians "were all made to drink of one Spirit" into the one body of Christ.

Also, it should be noted that this list of gifts is not exhaustive. It is merely a list of examples of gifts through which the Holy Spirit manifests Himself in every Christian. Paul elsewhere speaks of the gifts of service, teaching, exhortation, giving, leading and mercy (Romans 12:5-8). These gifts are here said to "differ according to the grace given to us," and despite that we're each given different gifts, Paul says "we, who are many, are one body in Christ," and he gives the same analogy of a body and its members which he gives in 1 Corinthians 12.

A SPIRIT OF ADOPTION AS SONS

So we've seen that Scripture clearly teaches that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who manifests Himself through a variety of gifts is given to all who are in the body of Christ. Some speak (or spoke) in tongues, others prophesy, others heal and still others perform miracles. But others manifest more seemingly mundane gifts like teaching, giving, wisdom and knowledge. Beyond the manifestations of the Holy Spirit's indwelling presence, however, what else does His presence within us mean?

"9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you...15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him." (Romans 8:9-11,15-17)

Peter was amazed when Cornelius "received the Holy Spirit." Here, Paul says Christians have received the Holy Spirit, and says His presence means we belong to Christ. He says the Holy Spirit is a spirit of adoption, that by Him we have the right to call God our Father. He says that the Holy Spirit testifies within us that we are children of God, and that we will be glorified with Christ. There is no way around it; Cornelius and his household belonged to Christ, were adopted as and inwardly testified to be sons of God, and promised glorification with Christ.

GAVE TO US THE SPIRIT AS A PLEDGE

The proof doesn't end there. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, saying,

"4 For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. 5 Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge." (2 Corinthians 5:4-5)

The Holy Spirit was given to us as a pledge. The word "give" there is the Greek δίδωμι (didomi). That word is also used by Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 7:7-8 where He says, "Ask, and it will be given [δίδωμι] to you...For everyone who asks receives." That word, "receives," is the same Greek word λαμβάνω (lambano) used in the other passagese we've looked at which speak of "receiving" the Holy Spirit. Thus, being "given" the Holy Spirit is the same as "receiving" the Holy Spirit.

So Paul here tells us that receiving the Holy Spirit is receiving a pledge, a pledge of that purpose for which we were prepared. What was the purpose for which we were prepared? A look at the context of 2 Corinthians 5 reveals one of only two possibilities: the intermediate state in heaven with God, awaiting the resurrection, or the resurrection itself. All Christians receive the Holy Spirit as a promise that they will be in the very presence of God.

This "pledge" language is used by Paul earlier in this letter: "21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, 22 who also sealed us and gave [δίδωμι] us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge" (2 Corinthians 1:21-22). Paul likewise uses this language when writing to the Ephesians:

"13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given [δίδωμι] as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory." (Ephesians 1:13-14)

You see, being "given" the Holy Spirit, that is "receiving" the Holy Spirit, seals us in Jesus Christ with the promise and pledge of inheritance as sons of God, guaranteed redemption to the praise of His glory. There is simply no way around it; Cornelius and his household received this promise before being baptized in water.

PEARLS BEFORE SWINE

I certainly am in no way likening anybody to swine, but what it boils down to is this. Regardless of one's position on baptism, if one denies the clear and simple fact that, before their baptism in water, Cornelius and his household were saved by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Who promised them redemption and resurrection and sealed them as children of God--if someone denies this, they demonstrate that they are unwilling to conform their beliefs to Scripture. Why in the world would I attempt to reason from Scripture with such a person concerning any other passage or doctrine? It becomes painfully evident that such a person refuses to be convinced away from their traditions, even by the very Word of God.

So, whatever the implications of Acts 10 pose to one's view of baptism, the Bible is clear: Cornelius and his household were saved in Christ before their baptism in water. If you, reader, do not agree, I will happily discuss this passage at length with you, but I'll discuss little else, for it would be clear that it would be fruitless.

Coming Soon: Interview with Glenn Peoples

2010-09-27T09:08:00.000-07:00

Normally I share the position espoused by the guests I interview on my show, but in an upcoming episode I will be briefly departing from that trend to interview Dr. Glenn Peoples of the Say Hello to My Little Friend blog and podcast. Glenn recently appeared on the Unbelievable? radio program with Justin Brierley to discuss the topic of Christian physicalism, the belief that human beings are not comprised of both a physical body and an immaterial soul or spirit.

If you, like me, had hoped for a more in-depth examination of this view, look forward to this upcoming episode of the Theopologetics Podcast in which Dr. Peoples will tell us why he thinks the Bible supports his view, and not the one most of us hold. Stay tuned!

To Terry: Unless the Father Draws Him

2010-09-26T21:05:00.000-07:00

This post is for Terry, who graciously agreed to discuss the doctrine of predestination, since it undergirds my position in the debate we've had on baptism. Terry, I would like to bring to your attention chapter 6 of the gospel of John, as a starting point for this discussion.

"Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, 'I am the bread that came down out of heaven.' They were saying, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, "I have come down out of heaven"?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, "AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD." Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.'" (John 6:41-45, emphasis mine)

In this short passage of Scripture, Jesus says two things which deserve some close attention in this debate.

UNLESS THE FATHER DRAWS HIM

The Jews grumbled among themselves, questioning how Jesus could say He came down out of heaven when they recognized Him, and knew in whose family He was raised. Jesus' response is strikingly unexpected: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." One might have expected Him to answer their objection directly, but He didn't. He could have easily answered their murmuring by pointing out that He came down from heaven at the time of His conception, but He didn't.

Instead, He totally ignores their reason for objecting, and instead implies that it is not possible for anybody to come to Him in belief unless the Father has chosen to draw them to Him. To prove that the NASB (my preferred translation) is not out in left field in the way they render this verse:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (NIV)

"No one is able to come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me attracts and draws him and gives him the desire to come to Me" (Amplified)

"For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me" (NLT)

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (KJV)

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (ESV)

"No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me makes them want to come" (CEV)

Even the liberal paraphrase The Message renders it similarly: "The Father who sent me is in charge. He draws people to me—that's the only way you'll ever come" (MSG). It's difficult to escape the implications of Jesus' words. Of course, that hasn't stopped some from trying.

UNLESS THE FATHER ~~DRAWS~~WOOS HIM

Some argue that when Jesus speaks of the Father drawing somebody, it means He woos him. In other words, it's an invitation or calling, an appealing one at that, but nevertheless able to be refused. Yes, they may admit, left to their own devices nobody would come to Christ. However, the Father woos everyone in this way, at the very least at one point in their lives and to some extent or another. Some of them would go so far as to say God woos everybody equally and at all times. The point is, the Father draws everybody, and everybody can choose to refuse.

With due respect, I think people who reason in this fashion are not doing justice to the text. For one, if this is all that Jesus is trying to say, His words make no sense in the context of the discussion in which He spoke them. His words only make sense if the implication is that His objectors may not have been drawn. Second, if everybody is drawn, it would be akin to saying, "No on can come to Me unless they are human." The phrase "no one can" becomes meaningless; He might as well have said, "Everyone can come to Me because the Father draws them all."

But if that weren't enough, the original Greek from which our English Bibles are translated seems to seal the deal.

SWORDS AND NETS AND CAPTIVES, OH MY!

The word "draws" in John 6:44 is the Greek ἕλκω, or helkō (pronounced "helkuo" or "hel-koo'-o"). To get an idea of its true meaning, let's look at how it's used elsewhere in Scripture:

"Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew [ἕλκω] it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus" (John 18:10)

"And He said to them, 'Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat and you will find a catch.' So they cast, and then they were not able to haul [ἕλκω] it in because of the great number of fish." (John 21:6)

"Simon Peter went up and drew [ἕλκω] the net to land, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn." (John 21:11)

"But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged [ἕλκω] them into the market place before the authorities" (Acts 16:19)

"Then all the city was provoked, and the people rushed together, and taking hold of Paul they dragged [ἕλκω] him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut" (Acts 21:30)

"But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag [ἕλκω] you into court?" (James 2:6)

Did Peter woo his sword from his scabbard? Did the fishermen have difficulty calling the net up? Were Paul and Silas seized and invited as captives to the market place? Of course not. We see, then, that the word ἕλκω speaks of being forcefully drawn, made to move as desired by the one doing the drawing. This holds true outside of Scripture, too:

"And he drew [ἕλκω] the bow, clutching at once the notched arrow and the string of ox's sinew" (Homer, Iliad, 4.122)

"then he grasped the balance by the midst and raised [ἕλκω] it" (Homer, Iliad, 22.212)

"But Sarpedon with strong hands caught hold of the battlement and tugged [ἕλκω], and the whole length of it gave way" (Homer, Iliad, 12.398)

When a drawstring is pulled back, when a balance is raised and a battlement is tugged and made to fall, these things are not invited, or called, or wooed. They are forced back, forced up and forced over. The meaning of the word cannot be clearer. Nobody is capable of coming to Jesus unless the Father makes him do so.

EVERYONE WHO HAS HEARD AND LEARNED COMES TO ME

Remember that earlier I said Jesus said two things in this passage deserving of close attention. The second was this: "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me" (John 6:45). Now that we understand the previous verse, in which Jesus said "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him," this next verse makes logical sense. Of course if "draws" means to force, then anybody who is drawn by the Father comes to the Son.

Could Peter's sword have refused to be drawn? Can a bow's drawstring choose to remain slack? Of course not. In the same way, verse 45 naturally follows from the meaning of verse 44: since nobody can come to the Son unless the Father forces him to, then anybody forced by the Father comes to the Son. But notice how the Father "draws" people to the Son: He speaks to them. He teaches them. He reveals truth to them. He opens their eyes.

WILL DRAW ALL MEN TO MYSELF

The observant reader may notice that in listing New Testament passages in which ἕλκω is used, I left one out: "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw [ἕλκω] all men to Myself" (John 12:32). Some point to this passage as proof positive that ἕλκω cannot mean what it means everywhere else when Jesus uses it. If "draw" means to force, then everybody must come to Jesus, for here He says He will "draw all men" to Himself.

This, however, is not what "all men" means. The word "all" is the Greek πᾶς, or "pas", and can mean "each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything." Earlier I pointed to Paul's being dragged out of the temple in demonstrating the meaning of "draw." The reason the city reacted the way they did is because the unbelieving Jews stirred them up, saying, "Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all [πᾶς] men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place" (Acts 21:28). Did Paul preach to every single human being everywhere? No. He preached to all kinds of men, everywhere he went.

Therefore, Jesus' words in John 12:32 do not change the meaning of "draw" (ἕλκω) in John 6:44. He did not promise He would draw every man to Himself. He said, "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself" (NKJV). He will draw "all peoples" to Himself, all kinds of people. Gentiles and Jews; kings and paupers; men and women; free men and slaves; rich and poor; intelligent and simple.

BAPTISM ASIDE...

Terry, I sincerely appreciate your time, and personally I think you've been more gentle and respectful (1 Peter 3:15) toward me than certain other visitors to my blog. I thank you for that, and though I'm sure I've not been 100% successful, I've tried to reciprocate. I assure you we can talk about baptism again, but because this my belief in predestination based on this passage and others so powerfully undergirds my position on baptism, I think this is an important issue to discuss. Let me know what you think.

O LORD What is Man? The "Potential" Human Being

2010-09-26T20:24:00.000-07:00

Those who support the freedom of women to choose the evil of elective abortion will often make the absurd claim that a fetus is merely a "potential human." The objection is so obviously false that we often dismiss it without thinking about how to properly answer it. I am currently listening to The Great Abortion Debate, and had to pause it so I could post this after listening to Scott Klusendorf resoundingly refute this nonsense.

The abortion supporter whom Scott was debating attempted to illustrate that a fetus is not a human, but is merely a "potential human," by pointing out that an acorn is not a tree, but is merely a "potential tree." On the surface, this argument seems to have some validity. However, Scott pointed out that while an acorn is not yet a tree, an acorn is an oak! Abortion supporters who claim that a fetus is merely a "potential human" are simply wrong, and the only thing they can demonstrate using the acorn or any other analogy is that a fetus is a potential adult. Yet, just as an acorn may only be a potential tree but nevertheless is an actual oak, likewise may a fetus only be a potential adult but nevertheless is an actual human.

Check out Scott Klusendorf's work at Life Training Institute, and buy the debate on CD at Stand to Reason.

Coming Soon: Interview with Michael Burgos

2010-09-25T22:25:00.000-07:00

The topic of Oneness Pentacostalism came up in my interview with Gene Cook, Jr. in episode 10. Michael Burgos, creator of the Grassroots Apologetics blog, has offered to let me interview him on the topic, so we can learn more about Oneness Pentacostals, what they believe, and how to reach out to them. Stay tuned!