Yearly Archives: 2004

The Crux of Calvinism

October 10, 2004

While it may first appear that the foundation of Calvinism (also called Monergism or Reformed Theology) is the concept of Free Will, Calvinism really stands or falls on the concept of Total Depravity. Man is said to be so completely fallen and depraved in nature as to be incapable of responding positively to the Gospel message. On this assumption rests the entire Calvinist TULIP. Although the question is hotly debated as to whether any such thing as free will is even logically possible, the question here is not whether Total Depravity is necessarily logical but whether it is Biblical.

Central to Total Depravity is the premise that “regeneration precedes faith” (hereafter referred to as RPF), so if it can be demonstrated that this premise is Biblically invalid then TULIP, and Calvinism with it, must fall. In the following discussion I am attempting to accurately summarize points and arguments from several articles: one each by David R. Anderson, Larry Hafley, George Zeller, and Herb Evans.

Anderson

Let’s begin with Anderson’s article, specifically a quote of R. C. Sproul:

“The logical priority of regeneration in Reformed theology rests on the doctrine of total depravity or moral inability. Because fallen man is morally unable to incline himself by faith to Christ, regeneration is a logical necessity for faith to occur. If we were to posit that faith precedes regeneration, then we would be assuming that unregenerate people, while still in an unregenerate state, have the moral ability to exercise faith. If the unregenerate can exercise faith, then it follows clearly that they are not fallen to the degree of moral inability, as claimed by classical Augustinian and Reformed theology.” (see source footnote 3).

Sproul appeals to history for RPF, specifically to Augustine. But Anderson shows the great influence of the belief in baptismal regeneration on Augustine and others, the practice of which Augustine did not consider to be “a work of man”. Thus he held infant baptism to be the means by which original sin was removed. Anderson goes on to say,

“Incredibly bright as Augustine must have been, his training was in rhetoric, not exegesis. His language was Latin, not Greek. Much of his theology comes from the sheer weight of his logic. He does little to defend his views of baptismal regeneration and infant baptism from the Scriptures. Like most of us, he filtered Scripture through his own experience; his understanding of regeneration was born of a marriage between tradition and logic, not the Scriptures.”

After noting that even Martin Luther believed in baptismal regeneration, Anderson makes this observation:

“So let’s get the picture here. An infant or little child is water baptized. As he grows up he is told that at water baptism he was regenerated and exercised an elementary faith in Christ because of the intercession of his sponsors, most likely his parents. Now, if he is truly elect, all this which occurred within him before he had any conscious awareness of what was going on will be confirmed by his repentance, mature faith, and obedience. Obviously, if he is not obedient, it proves that he is not truly elect and for some unknown reason his infant baptism did not “take”. But the fires of hell await such a one. Hence, be obedient to make your calling and election sure. It all goes right back to a works-oriented approach to salvation, especially since through certain egregious sins one can lose this hard wrought salvation. To fall back on Phil 2:13 at this point to try to prove that it is by God’s grace that one is able to work out his own salvation is pure exegetical sophistry. Calvin himself defined regeneration as the entire process of new birth, repentance, faith, justification, and sanctification. Regeneration for him was the umbrella over all the others. It began at water baptism, but regeneration does not take place in one moment or one day or one year. Instead it was accomplished “through continual and sometimes even slow advances.”

In all fairness, many Calvinists today have rejected the concept of baptismal regeneration, yet they have retained the logic of it to support RPF. Again quoting Sproul:

“Remember that in Reformed Theology’s ordo salutis regeneration precedes faith. It does so with respect to logical priority, not temporal priority. Reformed theology grants that God’s act of regeneration and the believer’s act of faith are simultaneous, not separated, with respect to time. The ordo salutis refers to logical dependency. Faith logically depends on regeneration; regeneration does not logically depend on faith. Again, the priority is logical, not temporal. Regeneration is the necessary condition of faith; faith is not the necessary condition of or for regeneration.”

Yet in all of this the Scriptures are barely mentioned. One would expect extensive exegesis to support such a foundational teaching, yet little is offered. Let’s look now at Biblical references to the issue of regeneration. Anderson makes this comment on Titus 3:5:

“Of course, it is this reference to washing which convinces so many that the actual physical act of water baptism effects regeneration. But the near proximity of the reference to the Holy Spirit combined with other passages on the same subject help us understand that this regeneration is a ministry of the Holy Spirit, not something directly connected with water.”

He then makes this comment on 1 Peter 1:3,33 (similar comment on James 1:18)

“But notice that in none of these four references (nouns and verbs) do we read about faith in connection with regeneration. Not that our faith is not involved, but there is nothing in these texts that would indicate that regeneration leads to our faith or that our faith leads to our regeneration. However, in this final reference in 1 Peter there is mention of the tool used by God to accomplish this regeneration: the Word of God. This would suggest that until one hears and understands the message, one cannot be born again.”

Anderson goes on to point out the significance in these verses of the analogy to birthing. Being born is not a lifelong process but a single event. One does not speak of his life as a process of being born, but as the result of that single event. The aorist tense of the verb in 1 Peter conveys this idea of a single past event with continuing results.

Commenting on John 1:13 and 3:3-8, he continues to show that spiritual rebirth is taught by the Bible as a single past event. These passages also make clear the connection between rebirth and the Holy Spirit, who regenerates all who believe in Christ (vv. 14-18). Anderson concludes with this thought:

“We conclude that there is zero biblical support for placing regeneration before faith in the ordo salutis. And to say it takes logical priority without taking temporal priority is contradictory. The very word priority in this context speaks of time. It is a “temporal” word. Unless one switches the meaning of priority to “first in importance” (which is obviously not intended), then a statement about logical priority without temporal priority is nonsensical. And certainly in Historical Theology regeneration was seen to have temporal priority over faith, since infants were thought to be regenerated when water baptized. It was not until Reformed theologians realized how little biblical support there is for infant baptism that they began arguing for logical priority instead of temporal priority.”

The Scriptures continually contrast as mutually exclusive opposites faith and works, yet Calvinism calls faith preceding regeneration a work! It seems incredible to me that anyone could not consider baptism as a “work of man”, yet call faith prior to regeneration a “work of man”. Based upon this nonsense, Calvinism declares any belief against RPF as a belief in salvation by works. Thus they label all non-Calvinists as “synergists” who deny that salvation is by grace alone, which of course is not true.

At this point Anderson addresses the question of whether God’s “drawing all men” to himself is a forced “dragging against our will” or a “wooing” and “drawing with love”. They cannot both be true regarding salvation, and he gives scriptural references to show that the latter idea is Biblical. For the purpose of illustration, a man may do everything possible to persuade a woman to marry him, but he would never try to force her to accept. Why? Because love precludes force. She has the option, the freedom of choice, to either accept him or refuse him. The only “election” that happens in this scenario is that the man doesn’t make this offer to every woman, but only to one he “selects”.

This is not “synergism”! God is the Persuader, man is the responder. The Bible never calls this divine persuasion “regeneration”, and it is not “irresistible”. Calvinism is guilty of a number of exegetical and logical errors, including straw man and false dilemma, and accuses non-Calvinists of eisegesis while committing the same.

Hafley

Now we turn to the article by Larry Hafley, who deals more specifically with whether choosing to put one’s faith in God is a work or not. His article is more illustrative in nature and thus serves as a good complement to Anderson’s approach. Hafley begins with this illustration:

“The man with a headache simply cannot will the headache away. However, he can will, or decide, to rid himself of the headache by taking the aspirin which God has prepared in the law of nature. Likewise, the sinner simply cannot will away his sins. However, he can will, or decide, to rid himself of his sins by obeying the gospel which God has prepared in the law of the Spirit. “Save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). “To you is the word of this salvation sent …. through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified” (Acts 13:26, 38). “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16).”

But the Calvinist would say that the man with the headache is incapable of understanding what aspirin is, much less of asking for it!

“No, man cannot will away his headache; man cannot will away his sins. But he can cure his headache by taking God’s power unto its relief. So, he cannot will away his sins by the power of his own mind, but he can accept the remedy, the gospel, God’s power unto salvation, and be forgiven of his sins. “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17). “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Mat. 11:28).

[One] wonders how he could “will” to change his “stony heart into a heart to know God.” I suppose he could do it the same way Israel “made their hearts like flint so they could not hear the law” and the word of God (Zech. 7:12). When [he] explains how they could turn their hearts and make them “like flint” “so they could not hear” the word of God, he will then know how he could turn his “stony heart into a heart to know God.”

Next Hafley offers the following verses relating to “quickening”:

  • Thy word hath quickened me (Psa. 119:50)
  • It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life (Jn. 6:63)
  • Thou hast the words of eternal life (Jn. 6:68)
  • Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible. by the word of God…. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you (1 Pet. 1:23-25).
  • I have begotten you through the gospel (1 Cor. 4:15)
  • Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth (Jas. 1:18)
  • He called you by our gospel (1 Thess. 2:13)

With these scriptures and many others, the Bible teaches that the way God “draws” people is through his Word. Clearly then, “faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the preached word of Christ.” (Rom. 10:17) There is no “faith through quickening”.

Concerning the popular proof text of John 6:44, Hafley points out that Calvinists usually don’t go on to verse 45: “It is written in the prophets, ‘ And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me.” Conversely, the Calvinist version of these verses should read, “No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him. It is written in the prophets, And only the elect shall be miraculously and mysteriously regenerated of God. Every man therefore that hath been regenerated of God shall come to Christ while those whom God fails to regenerate shall die in their unbelief and be sent to hell for it. Whether the regenerate ones ever hear and learn of the Father, they are still saved eternally.”

Zeller

Next, the article by George Zeller. It begins with what Paul’s answer to the Philippian jailor should have been if he were a Calvinist:

“You can do nothing to be saved, absolutely nothing. You are dead in sin and a dead man can do nothing. If God doesn’t regenerate you, then you are doomed.” How different was the answer Paul gave: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31)!”

Calvinists use the analogy of a physically dead person to describe our hopeless spiritual condition, but it is an incomplete analogy without scriptural support. Most Calvinists will say that the spiritually dead can experience conviction, yet how is this possible if they are as dead as Calvinism asserts?

Another oft-cited proof text is John 5:40: “And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life”. But the Calvin Translation should read, “And ye will not have life, that ye might come to me.” In this and other verses, Calvinism must reverse the Biblical order of events. It must also contradict itself:

“R. C. Sproul believes that regeneration precedes faith. But in spite of his doctrine, he once wrote the following: “Once Luther grasped the teaching of Paul in Romans, he was reborn” (R. C. Sproul, The Holiness of God, 1993 edition, p. 144). He must have written these words in haste because to be consistent with his theology he should have said it this way: “Once Luther was reborn, he grasped the teaching of Paul in Romans.”

If regeneration precedes faith, then this would make faith unnecessary since the person would already be saved. If a person is regenerated, then he is born of God, a member of god’s family and a possessor of eternal life. If you are a member of God’s family and a possessor of eternal life, then you are already saved. So what need is there for faith?”

Charles Spurgeon had this to say:

“If I am to preach the faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. Am I only to preach faith to those who have it? Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners.” [Sermon entitled The Warrant of Faith].”

Another common proof text is Ephesians 2:8-9, where Calvinists assert that “even our faith is a gift of God, not of ourselves”. But if that is true then why does John Calvin teach that it is salvation that is “not of ourselves” (The Epistle to the Ephesians, Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1965, p. 144)?

Evans

Finally we take a look at Herb Evans’ article, easily the most blunt of the four. Many of his points have already been covered here, so I’ll just highlight a few things.

Acts 11:18 reads, “So then, God has granted the repentance that leads to life even to the Gentiles.” The Calvinist emphasis is that God grants the repentance, so the people did not produce it themselves. Yet the context gives a more accurate emphasis: that God was now including Gentiles in his plan of salvation, not just Jews any more. A new group of people was now being given the option of salvation! This was the cause of rejoicing, not exactly the reaction you’d expect if they simply understood that God had forced himself on even more people. Evans remarks:

“Repentance is unto life and not life unto repentance, regardless whether God grants it and what the Calvinist spin is on that. Repentance precedes conversion and both precede regeneration and the remission of sins.

Since remission of sins and conversion or turning to God all hinge on previous repentance, it follows that they all must precede regeneration or life. Unless a Calvinist is prepared to argue life without the remission of one’s sins because one is of the elect.

Romans 8:9 takes care of both Charismatics and Calvinists. If one is a child of God by faith in Christ Jesus and the Holy Ghost cannot be in anyone but a child of God, then regeneration cannot precede having the Holy Spirit. Unless the Calvinist is prepared to argue having the Holy Spirit before repentance, conversion, remission of sins, faith, righteousness, holiness, salvation, eternal life, and possessing the Son.”

The TULIP acronym stands for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints.

Article by David Anderson as of October 2004 entitled REGENERATION: A CRUX INTERPRETUM.

Article by Larry Hafley as of October 2004 entitled Does Man Have a Free Will? (part 2 of 4).

Article by George Zeller as of October 2004 entitled Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

Article by Herb Evans as of October 2004 entitled Born Again Unbelievers?

Posted in: Calvinism – No Comments

Trinity Hebrew plurality God Elohim

July 7, 2004

The Trinity is the concept of God as the Deity having unity with diversity. Deut. 32:39, Isaiah 43:11, 45:5-6,18,21-22, 46:9, etc. make it clear that there is only one God; the other verses listed above make it equally clear that this one God is in three Persons.

Scientifically speaking, we live in a trinitarian universe: space/time/matter, past/present/future, height/ width/ depth, etc. Each of these groups contain distinct elements that cannot stand alone; take away one of the three, and the thing ceases to exist. So the concept of a unit requiring at least 3 distinct components is really not that hard to grasp.

From the “timebombers” forum June 2004 (source)
To be fair: Jews for Jesus just has a lot of good stuff!

Summary: The article explores the usage of the pronouns and verbs and then gives evidence for more Binity (Bi-Unity?) and then Trinity.

I’m not Jewish, but let me pull out some of the meaty parts:

The Name Eloah

If the plural form Elohim was the only form available for a reference to God, then conceivably the argument might be made that the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures had no other alternative but to use the word Elohim for both the one true God and the many false gods. However, the singular form for Elohim (Eloah) exists and is used in such passages as Deuteronomy 32:15-17 and Habakkuk 3:3. This singular form could have easily been used consistently. Yet it is only used 250 times, while the plural form is used 2,500 times.Plural Descriptions of God

One point that also comes out of Hebrew is the fact that often nouns and adjectives used in speaking of God are plural. Some examples are as follows:

  • Ecclesiastes 12:1: “Remember now you creator…” [Literally: creators.]
  • Psalm 149:2: “Let Israel rejoice in their Maker.” [Literally: makers.]
  • Joshua 24:19: “…holy God…” [Literally: holy Gods.]
  • Isaiah 54:5: “For your Maker is your husband…” [Literally: makers, husbands.]“

The Shema

Deuteronomy 6:4: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!

Deuteronomy 6:4, known as the Shema, has always been Israel’s great confession. It is this verse more than any other that is used to affirm the fact that God is one and is often used to contradict the concept of plurality in the Godhead. But is it a valid use of this verse?

On one hand, it should be noted that the very words “our God” are in the plural in the Hebrew text and literally mean “our Gods.” However, the main argument lies in the word “one,” which is a Hebrew word, echad. A glance through the Hebrew text where the word is used elsewhere can quickly show that the word echad does not mean an absolute “one” but a compound “one.”

For instance, in Genesis 1:5, the combination of evening and morning comprise one (echad) day. In Genesis 2:24, a man and a woman come together in marriage and the two “shall become one (echad) flesh.” In Ezra 2:64, we are told that the whole assembly was as one (echad), though of course, it was composed of numerous people. Ezekiel 37:17 provides a rather striking example where two sticks are combined to become one (echad). The use of the word echad in Scripture shows it to be a compound and not an absolute unity.”

II. God Is At Least Two

Elohim and YHVH Applied to Two Personalities

As if to even make the case for plurality stronger, there are situations in the Hebrew Scriptures where the term Elohim is applied to two personalities in the same verse. One example is Psalm 45:7-8: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” It should be noted that the first Elohim is being addressed and the second Elohim is the God of the first Elohim. And so God’s God has anointed Him with the oil of gladness.

A second example is Hosea 1:7: “Yet I will have mercy on the house of Judah, will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword or battle, by horses or horsemen.” The speaker is Elohim who says He will have mercy on the house of Judah and will save them by the instrumentality of YHVH, their Elohim. So Elohim number one will save Israel by means of Elohim number two.

Not only is Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, but so is the very name of God. One example is Genesis 19:24 which reads: “Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.” Clearly we have YHVH number one raining fire and brimstone from a second YHVH who is in heaven, the first one being on earth.

A second example is Zechariah 2:8-9: For thus says the LORD of Hosts: “He sent Me after glory, to the nations which plunder you; for he that touches you touches the apple of His eye. For surely I will shake My hand against them, and they shall become spoil for their servants. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me.” Again, we have one YHVH sending another YHVH to perform a specific task.

The author of the Zohar sensed plurality in the Tetragrammaton3 and wrote:

“Come and see the mystery of the word YHVH: there are three steps, each existing by itself: nevertheless they are One, and so united that one cannot be separated from the other. The Ancient Holy One is revealed with three heads, which are united into one, and that head is three exalted. The Ancient One is described as being three: because the other lights emanating from him are included in the three. But how can three names be one? Are they really one because we call them one? How three can be one can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.”

III. God Is Three

How Many Persons Are There?

If the Hebrew Scriptures truly do point to plurality, the question arises, how many personalities in the Godhead exist? We have already seen the names of God applied to at least two different personalities. Going through the Hebrew Scriptures, we find that, in fact, three and only three distinct personalities are ever considered divine.

1. First, there are the numerous times when there is a reference to the Lord YHVH. This usage is so frequent that there is no need to devote space to it.

2. A second personality is referred to as the Angel of YHVH. This individual is always considered distinct from all other angels and is unique. In almost every passage where He is found He is referred to as both the Angel of YHVH and YHVH Himself. For instance, in Genesis 16:7 He is referred to as the Angel of YHVH, but then in 16:13 as YHVH Himself. In Genesis 22:11 He is the Angel of YHVH, but God Himself in 22:12. Other examples could be given.5 A very interesting passage is Exodus 23:20-23 where this angel has the power to pardon sin because God’s own name YHVH is in him, and, therefore, he is to be obeyed without question. This can hardly be said of any ordinary angel. But the very fact that God’s own name is in this angel shows His divine status.

3. A third major personality that comes through is the Spirit of God, often referred to as simply the Ruach Ha-kodesh. There are a good number of references to the Spirit of God among which are Genesis 1:2, 6:3; Job 33:4; Psalm 51:11; Psalm 139:7; Isaiah 11:2, etc. The Holy Spirit cannot be a mere emanation because He contains all the characteristics of personality (intellect, emotion and will) and is considered divine.

So then, from various sections of the Hebrew Scriptures there is a clear showing that three personalities are referred to as divine and as being God: the Lord YHVH, the Angel of YHVH and the Spirit of God.

The Three Personalities in the Same Passage

Nor have the Hebrew Scriptures neglected to put all three personalities of the Godhead together in one passage. Two examples are Isaiah 48:12-16 and 63:7-14. Because of the significance of the first passage, it will be quoted:

“Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last. Indeed My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand up together. All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD has loved him; he shall do His pleasure on Babylon, and His arm shall be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him, I have brought him, and his way will prosper. Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent me.”

It should be noted that the speaker refers to himself as the one who is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth. It is clear that he cannot be speaking of anyone other than God. But then in verse 16, the speaker refers to himself using the pronouns of I and me and then distinguishes himself from two other personalities. He distinguishes himself from the Lord YHVH and then from the Spirit of God. Here is the Tri-unity as clearly defined as the Hebrew Scriptures make it.

In the second passage, there is a reflection back to the time of the Exodus where all three personalities were present and active. The Lord YHVH is referred to in verse 7, the Angel of YHVH in verse 9 and the Spirit of God in verses 10, 11 and 14. While often throughout the Hebrew Scriptures God refers to Himself as being the one solely responsible for Israel’s redemption from Egypt, in this passage three personalities are given credit for it. Yet, no contradiction is seen since all three comprise the unity of the one Godhead.

Conclusion

The teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures, then, is that there is a plurality of the Godhead. The first person is consistently called YHVH while the second person is given the names of YHVH, the Angel of YHVH and the Servant of YHVH. Consistently and without fail, the second person is sent by the first person. The third person is referred to as the Spirit of YHVH or the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. He, too, is sent by the first person but is continually related to the ministry of the second person.

If the concept of the Tri-unity in the Godhead is not Jewish according to modern rabbis, then neither are the Hebrew Scriptures. Jewish Christians cannot be accused of having slipped into paganism when they hold to the fact that Jesus is the divine Son of God. He is the same one of whom Moses wrote when he said:

“Behold, I send an Angel before you, to keep you in the way, and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off.” –Exodus 23:20-23

Posted in: Nature of God – No Comments

The Bible Canon

June 1, 2004

from http://www.bible-origin.com as of June 2004

When examining Bible origin, many of today’s liberal scholars look everywhere but the Bible. However, the Bible tells us that the origin of the Bible is God Himself. In 2 Timothy 3:16, we read that all scripture is inspired by God. The Greek word used for inspiration is theopneustos , which means “God-breathed.” In 2 Peter 1:21, we understand that each writer was “carried along” by God. Therefore, God used each of the Bible’s 40 authors, including their diverse cultural backgrounds, personalities and positions, to deliver His divine Word to all mankind.

Bible Origin - The Word of God

It seems that the question of Bible origin turns on the truth of its divine inspiration. In Luke 24:27,44; John 5:39; and Hebrews 10:7, Jesus says that what was written about him in the Old Testament would come to pass. Romans 3:2 and Hebrews 5:12 refer to the Old Testament as the Word of God. We read in 1 Corinthians 2:13, ” This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit.” This is confirmed in 2 Timothy 3:16. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul when referring to that which he had written says, “ … you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God…” Peter speaks of the inspiration of Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3:15-16, where he maintains that, ” …Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters…” Earlier, in 2 Peter 1:21 Peter writes, ” For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along [moved] by the Holy Spirit.” And then finally in Revelation 22:18,19 the writer John, referring to the book of Revelation states, “…if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life…“.

“The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. However, it was not written by good men, because good men would not tell lies by saying ‘Thus saith the Lord’; it was not written by bad men because they would not write about doing good duty, while condemning sin, and themselves to hell; thus, it must be written by divine inspiration.” (Charles Wesley, McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict , 1990:178).

Bible Origin - Authenticity of New Testament Scripture

2 Peter 3:16, the writer takes for granted that Paul’s letters were already considered inspired scripture on the same level as the Old Testament. In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul joins an Old Testament reference and a New Testament reference and calls them both Scripture. The need for official canonization of the New Testament scriptures only came about because of certain heresies that were being spread throughout the church starting in the mid to late second century. For instance, Marcion created his own religion by only teaching from ten of Paul’s letters and certain portions of Luke. In addition, the Gnostics, especially in Alexandria, were introducing new “secrets” to the standard Christian doctrine, including new gospel accounts altogether.

For the church leaders in the mid second century, the four Gospels were baseline authority in their teachings. In about 170 AD, Irenaeus cited 23 of the 27 New Testament books, omitting only Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. The Muratorian fragment, written about the same time, attests to the widespread use of all the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. However, other church fathers had already cited those omitted books in various writings defending against Gnostic doctrines. The Codex Barococcio from 206 AD includes 64 of the 66 books of today’s Bible. Esther and Revelation were omitted, but they had already been declared as inspired scripture by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian and the Muratorian Canon. In 230 AD, Origen declared that all Christians acknowledged as scripture the four Gospels, Acts, the epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation.

By the early 300’s, all of the New Testament books were being used in the mainstream church body. In 367 AD, Athanasius formally circulated the Easter Letter that listed all 27 books as canonical. The Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the third Synod of Carthage (397 AD) also recognized these 27 books as canonical. In addition, during this time, the highly influential church fathers Jerome (340-420 AD) and Augustine (354-430 AD) published their lists of 27 books, completing the New Testament.

It’s important to remember that the canon of the New Testament was not the result of any pronouncement by any official of the church or any organizational body. Rather, the canon was determined by the authoritative use of these books right from the start by the rapidly expanding church of the first and second centuries. The New Testament canon was merely a process of formal recognition of already recognized scripture, to defend against the various forms of Gnosticism and heresy that were starting to creep throughout the ever-expanding church.

My Comments

The Bible does quote external sources but that fact alone isn’t what makes them Scripture. It’s who is being quoted and why that matters. For example, in Paul’s speech to the Greeks on Mars Hill he quotes one of their poets. Does that mean that the Greek poet’s saying should be considered scripture? In the same way, should any other writing be considered scripture just because a NT writer quotes it?

Note on the canon and the Roman Catholic Church

The RCC didn’t originally consider the apocrypha scripture but later changed their minds, largely to justify a few specific dogmas that violate inspired scripture. Yet they have not thrown out any of the many scriptures that boldly contradict their teachings, so I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the RCC left out everything they didn’t like.

The Book of Enoch

This book has become popular recently and many feel it was wrongly excluded from the Bible canon. What is the difference between this book and others that were excluded?

The difference I see between Enoch and other non-canonical writings is that Enoch is specifically called a prophet in Jude 14. However, this is the only quote I’m aware of, which hardly justifies the entire Book of Enoch being considered scripture. After all, I’m sure other OT prophets said more than what was recorded, but only that which was spoken “in the name of the Lord” was considered scripture.

Similarly, the NT quotes another prophet named Agabus (Acts 11:28 and 21:10). Yet to my knowledge no books were written about or by him. If they had, should these writings have been added to the canon? His prophecies were acknowledged as being from the Lord, but no other records of Agabus are cited or called scripture.

Since Enoch was very ancient (the 7th from Adam) I would think the Jews would have preserved his “book” with the same care and devotion as all the other scriptures. Why was this book not given scriptural status by either the Jews or NT writers? Is it possible that the quote by Jude was the only prophecy Enoch made? Is it possible that the rest of the Book of Enoch was not spoken “in the name of the Lord”?

There is great danger in allowing another book into the canon. People will use any leverage they can to claim that God’s Word can be changed or updated. This opens the door to “modern day prophets”, visions, and all sorts of cultic claims. We are warned in Proverbs 30:6 to “not add to [God's] words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar“. Paul said, ” But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8-9).

Bottom Line: The canon of Scripture is complete and final. It is the Word of God which cannot be altered, deleted, or augmented. It alone is our final authority. Other writings may be beneficial for understanding but are not authoritative scripture. I have often said that if a writing or saying agrees with the Bible we already have, I don’t need it; if it disagrees, I don’t accept it.

Posted in: Bible Text – No Comments

2006-03-01 The Hypocrisy of Atheism

March 1, 2004

There are some things about atheism that even its followers must know are self-contradictory. I’m sure if I cared I could make a long list, but here are the two best ones.

Telling Christians How to Act

They’re Atheists and proud of it. They are against the very idea of a God, any god, but especially the loathsome God of the Bible (more about that later). So if a person of any given religion wants to know how to best behave in that religion, whom should they ask for advice? The answer should be obvious even to a child: a leader in that religion, or their holy book. But for some insane reason, atheists seem to think they have the best advice in this department. That’s right, the people who are proud of their claimed (but not actual) immunity to religion feel the most qualified to judge the behavior of religious people.

You’ve all heard it: an atheist tells a Christian they’re not acting right. But as I like to say, the people who criticize Christians for not acting like Christians are acting just like the Christians who don’t act like Christians! So they are hypocritical on two levels: (1) claiming to have any clue how a Christian should act, and (2) exhibiting the very behavior they hate some of us for. Does anyone think for a moment that they would let us tell them how to act?

Bad God, Good Followers?

The other favorite barb of theirs is to tell us what a horrible monstrosity we worship. He orders genocide, hates his enemies, displaces whole nations, is jealous, etc. (Of course that’s all out-of-context hogwash but that’s what they believe.) So what should the followers of such a God act like?

Hmmm, let’s see. If God is bad, then his followers would have to be bad to be good. So a bad Christian should be a good Christian, right? No? But if a Christian is good, then they’re not acting like their God, so they’d be bad Christians. Does anyone see what’s wrong with this picture?

Atheists don’t think about that. They just set up whichever straw man they like at the moment and then try to burn it down. They make the rules for us then rail at how we break them.

So you see, when you’re dealing with atheists, you know they want to stack the deck. Don’t let them.

Okay, one more.

Atheism Is Not a Religion

When confronted with their religious fervor in defense of their beliefs and the zeal with which they attack all others, they claim “But the A in Atheism means NOT theism” (I could make up more meanings for the rest of the letters, but I digress). Only problem is, that doesn’t disqualify it from being a religion.

As I just mentioned, they have a religious devotion to their system. It goes far beyond mere academics and observation. They are as biased and hateful towards un-unbelievers as any religious people in the world. They have their “high priests” who cannot be questioned. They excommunicate dissenters and badmouth critics. They are not content to let others believe as they will, but instead chase them and try to rid the earth of them.

But that’s not all! Unlike agnosticism which takes no position at all on the existence or nature of God, atheism is a definite stance, a statement of non-belief. It is therefore a religious philosophy. To take any stand at all on either side is to express a religious view. Their worldview does not just ignore God, it actively believes in his non-existence; it asserts the absence of God in all the universe and beyond. Which, incidentally, means they have put themselves in the position of God, because who else could know what is contained in the universe and beyond? It’s the religion of Man the Deity, nothing less.

Posted in: Apologetics, Other Religions – No Comments