Aug 14
I recently ran into this video by a fellow named Farhan who attempts a response to David Wood’s video entitled How Can God Die? I have decided to post a video response of my own, so here it is:
Please excuse the less than perfect video editing. I used a different editing program than I usually use for making this video.
Jul 26
If you’ve read the Da Vinci Code or listened to Skeptics and Muslims giving objections to the Christian faith, one argument that you might hear is that doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the Holy Trinity were completely foreign to the New Testament Church and was an invention of Nicea. As an example of how this argument is frequently employed, a certain booklet published by the Islamic Circle of North America contains the following statement in one of its notes:
It was in the ancient city of Nicea (which was located in modern-day Turkey approximately 700 miles or 1100 km NNW of Jerusalem near the eastern Roman capitol) that the First Council of Nicea convened, 325 years after the birth of Jesus. It was at this council that Jesus was declared by the majority of the council members to be divine rather than God’s Prophet and Messenger. The concept of the trinity was established by declaring that Jesus was the same as and equal to God. This is in direct opposition to the Abrahamic principles of monotheism, which Jesus himself called people to and affirmed.[1]
In addition, one can find the following on one of the pamphlets that they often distribute:
With their teacher gone, the devoted followers of Jesus tried to maintain the purity and simplicity of his teachings. But they were soon besieged and overtaken by a flood of Roman and Greek influences, which eventually so buried and distorted the message of Jesus that only a little of its truth now remains. Strange doctrines of Jesus being a man-god, of God dying, of saint worship and of God being made up of different parts came into vogue and were accepted by many of those who took the name “Christians” centuries after Jesus. [2]
Of course, all of this is a misrepresentation of what Christians actually believe, not to mention of the history of the faith. The New Testament provides a wealth of evidence that the followers of Jesus believed He was God from very early on, as can be seen in John 1:1-18, John 20:27-29, Romans 9:5, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:6-12 and 1 John 5:20. These scripture passages are well-attested not only in the earliest and best manuscripts of the New Testament that we have today, but also in the citations of them by th early church fathers. Now, undoubtedly there are those who will try to skirt around the obvious by attempting to explain away these passages. Their explanations cannot stand without twisting the scriptures, but that will be for another time.
There is also the testimony of the Apostolic and Ante-Nicene fathers, who lived during the first two centuries after Christ walked upon this earth. The Trinitarian formula is clearly present in the writings of Saint Clement of Rome. Ignatius of Antioch frequently refers to Jesus as God in his epistles. The anonymous second century epistle known as 2nd Clement states that “we ought so to think of our Lord Jesus Christ as of God, [and] as of the judge of quick and dead…”[3]. But I believe that the clearest testimony comes from Melito of Sardis, who identifies Christ as God who made the heavens and the earth. This is clear from his Paschal homily, where he writes:
The one who hung the earth in space, is himself hanged; the one who fixed the heavens in place, is himself impaled; the one who firmly fixed all things, is himself firmly fixed to the tree. The Lord is insulted, God has been murdered, the King of Israel has been destroyed by the right hand of Israel.
This is the one who made the heavens and the earth, and who in the beginning created man, who was proclaimed through the law and prophets, who became human via the virgin, who was hanged upon a tree, who was buried in the earth, who was resurrected from the dead, and who ascended to the heights of heaven, who sits at the right hand of the Father, who has authority to judge and to save everything, through whom the Father created everything from the beginning of the world to the end of the age.
This is the alpha and the omega. This is the beginning and the end–an indescribable beginning and an incomprehensible end. This is the Christ. This is the king. This is Jesus. This is the general. This is the Lord. This is the one who rose up from the dead. This is the one who sits at the right hand of the Father. He bears the Father and is borne by the Father, to whom be the glory and the power forever. Amen.[4]
All of the early church fathers I have mentioned lived during the first two centuries of Christianity, so it is clear that the beliefs that they have espoused are not the fabrication of a later age.
Read the rest of this entry
Apr 29
One way that the meaning of “is” can be determined is by identifying the “is” in question as the “is” of identity. This is where the reverse of the statement is also true. You can swap them around and not change any meaning. In this case “Love is God” would also be true if the “is” in question is equated to the “is” of identity. This rings true if God and Love are identical. It’s like saying that “Adam is the husband of Christine” equates to saying “The husband of Christine is Adam”. Both these statements are true if “Adam” and “The husband of Christine” have identical qualities because we are one in the same.
Some people want to use this definition of “is” to express that God is another name for love. So that if you have love then you have God and all is well.
Another way we can use the word “is” is in using it to describe an attribute of the subject in question. In this case love is an attribute or quality of God. This is like saying that “Adam is male”. Applying the reverse “Male is Adam” here makes no sense because it would mean that the quality of male is only found in Adam. It’s like saying “If male then Adam”. No, other males are not Adam.
So which “is” is being used by John when he says “God is Love”.
Simple, we just have to reflect on the concept of love and compare it with what we know about God. And where do get our information about God? The Bible of course. So is there anything in the Bible which describes God’s character that is inconsistent with being wholly defined as love? Of course there is. Psalms 5 and 11 reveal that God hates sin and those who commit sin. This is hardly consistent with a definition of love. There are many characteristics of God that are not love.
So love cannot be equated with God but is rather an attribute or characteristic of God that is essential to Him. This is very consistent with God’s revealed Word about Himself.
So how does this fit with 1 Corinthians 13?
A common interpretation of the first few verses of 1 Corinthians 13 is that if we have the love that Paul is talking about here then we are acceptable to God. This is a common mistake that people make. If we are loving, then we are acceptable to God. The rest doesn’t matter. A “gospel according to love” sort of philosophy. And if required, they can then lean on Paul here in 1 Corinthians 13 to defend this view. So, if we have love then we are not a noisy gong or clanging cymbal.
This is like saying that we are accepted because of what we do. How we act. Just as if we need to comply with the law in order to be righteous. But Paul said that “if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died needlessly”
The problem is that in defending this interpretation from Paul’s statements, people don’t read far enough into the passage where the love that Paul is talking about is defined. Rather, they stop halfway through and insert their own sentimental definition of love into the text and feel justified that they have got it right. Love is a word that has specific content. And that content is found in that passage. The definition of love that Paul is talking about begins in verse 4 and states in verse 6 that love “does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth”. So, what is one of the truths that Paul taught which reflected what Jesus taught in the gospels? That acceptance by God is dependant on our belief in Jesus and accepting the gift of salvation under His terms. And that this is the only way we can become acceptable to God. So if you deny that truth, you are not being loving to those people who desperately need that truth and would suffer without it.
So this point of view that love is another way to God (or one of many paths to God) is an unloving point of view according to Paul.
Love is a virtue that we are obligated to expound. You don’t get rewarded for doing something that is expected of you. If love was all that was required, then what about all those times when we are not loving? This then, is where we incur a debt that we now owe. And how will we then pay for this debt? Well, we will have to pay for it ourselves because we have not relied on the only one who is willing to pay that debt for us. That’s when forgiveness becomes necessary.
Just because you say sweetly, “Oh, you’re a Buddhist, Hindu or have some kind of sin etc. I’m going to be loving to you and tell you that it’s ok”. That’s like saying to someone who has a deadly disease (and there is an antidote), not to worry and that they will be fine without it. It sounds sweet and loving, but it’s poisonous confidence that you’re giving people. It’s going to hurt them in the long run. And if that’s the case then you haven’t done something loving no matter how sweet your voice sounds when you say it.
We need to give biblical substance to the word love, rather than allowing love to be redefined as some sort of shallow sentimental notion. People are welcome to that definition if they like it, but what they can’t do, is import that definition into the language of Paul and act like that is what Paul is saying.
It may be politically correct to say that there are many ways to Heaven, but Jesus was not a pluralist (many paths to God). This issue is beginning to eclipse all other issues, even the problem of evil as a challenge against Christians. The tragedy is that many Christians are simply ducking for cover, tucking their tails between their legs and running instead of standing up for what is right, true and good. They are being bullied into silence because of the power of political correctness. This is sure to separate the sheep from the goats among Christians. I’m not saying you’re lost if you abandon this. But you are being unfaithful to Christ if you falter on this view. It is utterly vital and critical for you to not falter on this issue.
In Acts 10, Peter goes to speak to a God fearing religious pagan: Cornelius. He believes in the God of Israel. He gives alms to the poor. He prays. God hears his prayers. But it is not enough. He still has to hear the message. And the message that Peter gives him which starts in verse 34 is a proclamation of Jesus which ends with this statement in verses 42 and 43.
“And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins”
There is no ambiguity here, no equivocation. It is Univocal. There is one thing being taught there. Peter as an ambassador for Christ has been commanded to represent Him and communicate a very precise message that Jesus of Nazareth, raised from the dead, will be the judge of every single person who has not put their faith in Him to receive forgiveness of sins. That’s it. If you don’t like it, too bad so sad. If you’re not a Christian, you can think that’s completely narrow and intolerant. You’re welcome to that view. But that is what Jesus said. And He didn’t say it once. He said it time and time again. He taught His followers after Him to preach this same message, and here in Acts 10 we see Peter preaching it. And if we as followers of Christ back off from that message, we back off under pain of being unfaithful to that which He has ordered us to do.
Paraphrased from a question Greg Koukl received on his radio show www.str.org
Apr 3
I [the LORD God] will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. Where, O death, are your plagues? Where, O grave, is your destruction? ~ Hosea 13:14
The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said” ~ Matthew 28:5-6
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power ~ 1Cor 15:20-24
Apr 1
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed ~ Isaiah 53:5 (NIV)
