“It is finished” (John 19:30). What exactly was finished when Jesus uttered those words? What could He have accomplished through ending His three years of public ministry by dying via the most torturous and humiliating form of execution mankind has ever devised? The answer is that what Jesus finished on the cross was a business transaction. We are all familiar with the idea of making business deals. A lot do it quite regularly in our day to day lives. Yet we seldom think of the death of Christ in those terms, when in fact what He accomplished on the cross was the most important business transaction in all of history.

But what is the point of this kind of deal? In order to understand its significance, it is important to first understand our state of nature. An old philosopher once said that man is born free. He is clearly mistaken, because the Bible teaches that we are born enslaved to sin: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5). We look at the evil people in the world around us and think that we are somehow better. Yet the word of God does not mince words when it talks about the condition of our hearts: “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9, NKJV). This is a condition from which we cannot escape by our own power, which is why Jesus said “everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). When we sin, we incur a debt on our record. Our payment for this debt is slavery in this life, and condemnation in the next, hence the scriptural saying: “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). This is why in the end, those who remain slaves to sin will experience the fiery wrath of God on Judgment day, when He cleanses the world of every last trace of evil, including those who scripture says are by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), who are destined for shame and everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2). Read the rest of this entry

I don’t often make reviews of debates, but when I do, it’s usually when I hear a debate that was exceptionally good and is worth commenting on. Perhaps one of the best debates I’ve heard this year was the one between Dr. James White and Abdullah Kunde on the doctrine of the incarnation. The debate took place in Australia back in September 17 of this year. The video of the debate can be viewed below:

Read the rest of this entry

HT: Dr. James White

God does not change. His nature is the same now as it as has ever been and will ever be throughout eternity. What this means is that the God who reveals Himself in the New Testament is the same God who reveals Himself in the Old. And while the New Testament gives a fuller explanation His nature, aspects of these revelations are nonetheless present in the Old Testament. This is particularly true of God’s triune nature. Even back in the time of Moses and his contemporaries, aspects of the Trinity are already partially revealed in the pages of the Torah.

This does not mean that the Israelites in those days had the exact same understanding of God that Christians do today. The Israelites were limited to what God has chosen to reveal about Himself at that point in time. This is true even today, as even with the fullness of revelation, we continue to be limited to what God has revealed in the books that today comprise the Bible. The reason why the Trinity will always be mysterious and paradoxical to us is that God does not reveal everything that there is to know about Himself, but chooses only to give us what we need to know about Him. As the Torah states: “the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:29). We shall speak only where He speaks, and we shall remain silent where He remains silent.

That being said, it is worth looking at what is contained in the Torah in order to see what can be gleaned from it regarding the Triune nature of God. In doing so, it must be confessed that we are approaching it in hindsight: we are interpreting it in light of what has been revealed later on in the rest of the Bible. This is not an invalid approach, since truth is necessarily consistent, and the fact that something wasn’t noticed before doesn’t mean that it wasn’t there prior to its being noticed. What matters is that we are being true to the real meaning of the text, and are not merely attempting to import foreign concepts into it.

First of all, it must be pointed out that the Trinity has always been there from the beginning. Even in the opening chapters of Genesis, one can see that when God decrees creation, when He says “let there be” it is His Word that brings about the creative acts. Moreover, we are told that His Spirit hovers over the face of the unformed world just prior to the six days of creation (Genesis 1:2).[1] This same Spirit gives life to creation, as seen when God puts His breath in the first man, and he is said to become a living soul (Genesis 2:7).

It is interesting to note as well that in the sixth day, when God decides to create man, He says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). The usage of the first person plural here is very intriguing, and implies that personal self-distinctions exist within the Being of the Creator. Now, there are alternate ways of attempting to explain this passage. Some say that God is addressing His angels, or that He is speaking in the plural of majesty (just as how the queen of England would say “We are not amused.”) Needless to say, these explanations do not really work, as they cannot be substantiated by the rest of scripture.[2] The best explanation remains that God speaks in the first person plural because He is multi-personal in nature.

One other piece of information to take into account is the appearance of God to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre (Genesis 18:1ff). As He converses with Abraham, He discusses His plans to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:17ff). In the next chapter, God walks towards Sodom and Gomorrah, and their destruction is described. Interestingly, it is written towards the end of the account that “Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” (Genesis 19:24). Here, there appear to be two Yahwehs present simultaneously; one on earth and one in heaven. If we read this passage in light of the Triune nature of God, the appearance of more than one person who are both regarded by scripture as Yahweh make perfect sense.

Finally, a word must be said regarding the oneness of God, as it is always important to connect the oneness of God’s Being with the threeness of His person: Every practicing Jew is familiar with the words of the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). What is interesting is that the Hebrew language has two words for “one.” The first one is the word yakhid (יְחִֽידְ). This word is used to denote absolute oneness. In the Torah, it is used to refer to a child who has no siblings.[3] If the Hebrew author wanted to indicate that God was an absolute, homogenous unity, he would have used this term.

However, as anybody who can read the shema in Hebrew knows, the word that is used is not yakhid, but rather ekhad (אֶדחָֽ). This is a word that is used to simply mean unity, without the connotation of homogeneity or aloneness that comes with the first word. It is interesting to see how this word is used elsewhere in the Torah. For example, in Genesis 2:24, when a man leaves his parents to become joined to his wife, it is said that they become “one [אֶחָֽד] flesh.” And when the spies are sent by Moses to survey the promised land, when they come to the valley of Eshcol, it is written that “[they] cut down a branch with a single [אֶחָ֔ד] cluster of grapes; and they carried it on a pole between two men, with some of the pomegranates and the figs” (Numbers 13:23). As is clear from the way the word is used in these two instances, the word Ekhad can be used to denote a compound unity. That is exactly what the Trinity means: That God is a compound unity of three persons Who together constitute One Being.

Thus, it can be seen that belief in God as a Trinity is perfectly compatible the confession of faith found in the Shema. Furthermore, we can see how this teaching is found embedded in the pages of the Pentateuch. Although it is nowhere near as clear here as it is in the New Testament, we see that even then, God has already provided hints of His Triune nature.

Endnotes

1. Some translations (such as the NRSV and NEB) render the word Ruwakh (ר֣וּחַ) as “wind” rather than “Spirit,” but this makes little difference, since in the Hebraic conception, wind and spirit are one and the same concept.
2. Biblical scholar Dr. Gleason Archer notes concerning Genesis 1:26: “This first person plural can hardly be a mere editorial or royal plural that refers to the speaker alone, for no such usage is demonstrable anywhere else in biblical Hebrew. Therefore, we must face the question of who are included in this ‘us’ and ‘our.’ It could hardly include the angels in consultation with God, for nowhere is it ever stated that man was created in the image of angels, only of God. Verse 27 then affirms: ‘and God [Elohim] created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them’ (NASB). God—the same God who spoke of Himself in the plural—now states that He created man in His image. In other words, the plural equals the singular. This can only be understood in terms of the Trinitarian nature of God. The one true God subsists in three Persons, Persons who are able to confer with one another and carry their plans into action together—without ceasing to be one God” (Archer, Gleason. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982. p. 359.).
3. It is used this way three times in Genesis 22, where Isaac is said to be Abraham’s “only [יְחִֽידְ] son” (verses 2, 12 and 16).

Further Reading

• James White – A Brief Definition of the Trinity
• Rich Deem – The Triunity (Trinity) of God in The Old Testament

Dear Dr. Esposito,

I just recently read through your article New Narrative for 9-11 and Muslim Americans. It is an interesting piece of writing, and I am always looking for people who are willing to give an apologetic for their viewpoint. In your article, you try to make the case that fears of Islamic extremism in the Muslim American community are unfounded, and that Muslims in America as a whole are well integrated into the rest of western society. I must confess that I am not convinced of your article’s thesis, and I would like to explain why. Read the rest of this entry

One of the theological debates that takes place between orthodox Trinitarian Christians and heretical cultists and other non-Trinitarians of various stripes is whether the Old Testament confirms or contradicts Trinitarian doctrines such as the existence of plurality within the Godhead and the reality of the incarnation. A full treatment of this subject is outside the purview of this article, partly because there are already plenty of excellent articles that tackle this topic (Such as this and this), and partly because there are too many verses that are relevant to this, that we will only be focusing on one. In particular, there is one verse in 1 Kings that contains a statement by King Solomon which is sometimes cited by non-Trinitarians (particularly Muslims) against the idea that God could enter into His creation:

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built! (1 Kings 8:27).

As the argument goes, if God cannot be contained by heaven and earth, then it is impossible for God to enter into His own creation, since that would limit Him to a specific point in time and space.

Read the rest of this entry

Recently, apologist Frank Turek has written a short but excellent article on the hypocrisy of LGBT activists who accuse Christians who oppose homosexual behaviour of being bigots. He also shows how they abuse the term “bigot” by mis-applying it to everybody who disagrees with their position, even when they have valid reasons for doing so. In the process, they expose themselves as the real bigots. Here is Turek’s article in full:

George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” When you tell the truth about homosexuality today, you can be sure that the central tools of deceit—name-calling and bullying—will be unleashed.

I recently was having a respectful conversation with a homosexual activist, but after I made a point he couldn’t answer he called me a “bigot.”

I asked, “What’s your definition of bigotry?”

He said, “Fear and intolerance.”

I said, “The definition of bigotry is not ‘fear and intolerance.’ It’s making a judgment without knowing the facts. I have written a book about the problems with same-sex marriage and the destructive medical consequences of homosexual behavior. So my convictions on those issues are based in fact not ‘bigotry.’ With all due respect, if anyone is engaged in bigotry it is you for judging my position as wrong without even knowing why I hold it.”

He was also falsely equating my opposition to a behavior as prejudice toward people who engage in that behavior. That’s the central fallacy in virtually every argument for homosexuality—if you don’t agree with homosexual behavior, you are somehow bigoted against people who want to engage in that behavior. How does that follow? If conservatives and Christians are “bigots” for opposing homosexual behavior, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing Christian behavior? And if we are bigots for opposing same-sex marriage, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing polygamous or incestuous marriage?

Everyone puts limits on marriage—if marriage had no definition it wouldn’t be anything. Recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not bigotry, but common sense rooted in the biological facts of nature. That’s why the state recognizes marriage to begin with—not because two people love one another but because only heterosexual unions can procreate and best nurture the next generation.

Everyone also puts limits on behaviors. But opposing behavior is not the same as opposing or “hating” people. In fact, to really love people, we often have to oppose what they do! Parents know this, and all former children know it as well.

Original Article

• Frank Turek  - Who Are the Real Gay Bigots and Bullies

The debate over the increasing acceptance of LGBT lifestyles in mainstream culture is one issue which — at least in Canadian society — has been more or less dominated by one side, which seeks to label all dissenters as “bigots,” “homophobes,” and even “extremists.” If you do not give them your unconditional assent and affirmation, they will level the most relentless forms of criticism against you. And this is precisely the case in the recent controversy over Toronto city mayor Rob Ford’s decision not to attend the annual Pride Parade.

To give a little background to people who are unfamiliar with this issue, Rob Ford is one of the most Conservative city mayors that Toronto has had in a long while. This particularly manifests in his policies regarding LGBT issues. He has publicly stated that he disagrees with same-sex marriage during his mayoral campaign, has refused to show up at a Pride flag raising at a public square, and has at least once threatened to cut public funding to the city’s annual Pride Parade. After all, why should the city spend public funds on such a parade anyway? Shouldn’t the LGBT community get its own funding if it wants a parade? Mayor Ford isn’t even targeting the LGBT Pride Parade in particular on this issue, since he has said in an article for The Star that “the public sector shouldn’t be funding parades, no matter what parade it is … The private sector should be sponsoring these parades.”[1] Be that as it may, the Pride Parade still got the funding that it wanted. There is just no stopping the LGBT agenda these days.

That being said, however, the biggest faux pas he has made recently (at least from the standpoint of the politically correct Left) was his refusal to attend the pride parade which took place earlier this month, on the grounds that it conflicted with a family tradition where he would spend the long weekend in a cottage away from the city. The responses that have been produced by Leftist pro-LGBT commentators and activists on newspapers and blogs have been merciless; most of them show relentless criticism of Mayor Ford for his personal choice. Now, if that isn’t ironic, I don’t know what is. These activists who demand society to affirm and support their ungodly lifestyles and personal preferences become very militant when others make personal choices that contradict the party line that LGBT activists force everybody else to follow. It seems that these days, their unofficial slogan is, “Support our campaign against bullying. If not, we’ll bully you until you do.” Read the rest of this entry

One of the most common accusation that is hurled by Arminians and other non-Calvinists against Reformed theology is that it promotes fatalism. It is not uncommon to hear an Arminian charge that we teach that God “hinders people from coming to repentance when they really want to” and that believers are “forced to love God.”[1] Of course, nobody who actually knows what the doctrines of grace entail would actually make such statements. The Bible is clear enough on how people become saved: Men are by nature sinful and in rebellion against God (Genesis 6:5, 8:21, Psalm 51:5, Jeremiah 17:9), and are rendered incapable of even desiring to come to Him because of this inclination (John 6:44, 65, Romans 3:10-12, 8:5-8), which is why it is necessary for Him to change their hearts and minds (Ezekiel 36:25-27). It is only after this change of heart takes places that a person becomes willing to come to Christ.

That being said, statements such as “whosoever will may come” are totally compatible with a Reformed understanding of salvation. In fact, John Calvin himself made a statement similar to this in his commentaries. He writes:

Therefore, forasmuch as no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief. I speak of all unto whom God doth make himself manifest by the gospel. But like as those which call upon the name of the Lord are sure of salvation, so we must think that, without the same, we are thrice miserable and undone. And when as our salvation is placed in calling upon God, there is nothing in the mean season taken from faith, forasmuch as this invocation is grounded on faith alone.[2]

Not only this, but he refutes the very idea of fatalism. In his Institutes, he points out that the belief that people are forced by necessity to worship God is a heathenistic doctrine that has nothing to do with Christianity in any way:

To this fault they [i.e. the heathen] add a second—viz. that when they do think of God it is against their will; never approaching him without being dragged into his presence, and when there, instead of the voluntary fear flowing from reverence of the divine majesty, feeling only that forced and servile fear which divine Judgment extorts Judgment which, from the impossibility of escape, they are compelled to dread, but which, while they dread, they at the same time also hate. To impiety, and to it alone, the saying of Statius properly applies: “Fear first brought gods into the world,” (Theb. lib. 1).[3]

When one takes the time to study the writings of Reformed theologians, one will quickly find that there is nothing fatalistic about the doctrines that are being propounded. Nobody should ever accuse the doctrine of predestination with fatalism, for the simple reason that the former is accomplished according to God’s eternal purposes and takes into account the man’s will and responsibility, whereas the latter teaches that whatever men become happen simply by virtue of blind, purposeless chance, and that their wills and desires are ultimately irrelevant, if not non-existent. Loraine Boettner said it best in his section on fatalism in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, so I shall end this note with a quote from there:

According to the doctrine of Predestination the freedom and responsibility of man are fully preserved. In the midst of certainty God has ordained human liberty. But Fatalism allows no power of choice, no self-determination. It makes the acts of man to be as utterly beyond his control as are the laws of nature. Fatalism, with its idea of irresistable, impersonal, abstract power, has no room for moral ideas, while Predestination makes these the rule of action for God and man. Fatalism has no place for and offers no incentives to religion, love, mercy, holiness, justice, or wisdom, while Predestination gives these the strongest conceivable basis. And lastly, Fatalism leads to skepticism and despair, while Predestination sets forth the glories of God and of His kingdom in all their splendor and gives an assurance which nothing can shake.[4]

End Notes

1. These are, of course, statements that I have personally heard from Arminians at some point or another, so I can personally testify that these accusations are regularly hurled against Calvinists.
2. Calvin, John. Commentary on Acts – Volume 1. 2:14-21. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom36.ix.iii.html.
3. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. I:4:4. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.v.html.
4. Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. III:1. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.v.i.html.

See Also

• Fisher – Refuting Lou Ruggiero on Calvinism

This is what Muslims don’t want you to know about the textual history of the Qur’an.

‎”The application of simple forensic techniques reveal an earlier text that had been washed off and overwritten. Although the hidden text revealed no contradictory meanings, words have been changed, verses and whole chapters rearranged.”

-Narrator

‎Further Reading:

• ‎Sujit Das – Ancient Qur’anic Manuscripts of Sana’a and Divine Downfall