Flatland Apologetics

Line em' up

2012-01-03T17:49:00.000-06:00

In taking a few months off in blogging, I was somewhat surprised at a couple of atheist comments that I received. One of the comments made the point that my apologetics were no different than rehashed Josh McDowell arguments. Evidently, this person does not think highly of McDowell. The other comment referred to Master's in Christian Apologetics as a mail-in degree. I wish he could of helped me with this mail-in degree financially. Both comments were deleted because I refuse to dialogue with ad hominem attacks. Name calling is easy, but it proves absolutely nothing.

How do individuals get past the extreme differences they have? Can differences be overcome? As already mentioned, in order to have meaningful dialogue the first thing that cannot take place is name calling or ad hominem attacks. Nothing does more to close the debate door than to rely on name calling. This form of speech is arrogant and in no way opens individuals up to any ideas you may want to put forth.

One way to dialogue is to try and be as open-minded as possible. Being open-minded is difficult, but not impossible. Sure, all individuals come with preconceived ideas, but trying to see and understand your opponents point before dialoguing with them is a good way to start. Practice empathetic consideration. Take time to chew on others ideas that are different from your own. Again, all individuals do not have a monopoly of being absolutely indifferent when it comes to worldview questions, but openness can be achieved to a high degree.

One of the worst arguments that I have heard from Christians is: "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" This settles nothing except closing conversation for someone's worldview that doesn't believe in God. On the flip side, many atheist thinkers, like the ones I mentioned earlier, do a disservice to dialogue by simply name calling and assuming that their view does not need to be debated. In other words, some atheist thinkers seem to think that have a cornered the market of truth. Some even refer to themselves as "Free Thinkers" as if theism is relegated to the community of "Closed Thinkers." Part of open-mindedness involves humility in knowing that you are coming from a position of certain held presuppositions. Being unable to truly consider the others argument does nothing to help dialogue out.

Perhaps the best method of dialogue is to argue solely based on the specific points of difference you have with your opponent. It is good and necessary to present your arguments for others to view. Likewise, it is meaningful for discussion and ultimately to discover truth to argue your differences with your opponent based on specific points of difference that you have. You may not solve the point at hand, but at least dialogue is free and you can line up your points to try and sway individuals toward truth. Ultimately, truth is what any argument is based upon (or it should be). When individuals argue, they are trying to sway individuals to what they believe is true. In other words, when you line up your points, do they have more weight than your opponents? Which argument(s) tip the scale of truth?

Many of the arguments need to address specific points with cumulative evidence, because it is impossible to have 100% proof. For example, the question of the existence of God cannot be proved with 100% certainty from either camp (Christian or Atheist). A cumulative way of argumentation is helpful in providing evidence that can lead to an inference of best explanation.

The best way to dialogue/argue is simply to line em' up. Put your cards on the table and make your points. When addressing your opponent, point out why he/she is incorrect. Be willing to think outside of your own worldview box and follow the evidence wherever it goes. This type of dialogue brings true enlightenment to the big questions of life. By the way, if my arguments are just rehashed Josh McDowell comments, does that mean my arguments were wrong? Actually, I take that comment not as an ad hominem attack, but as a complement. Thank you my atheist friend!

Bell's Hell - Another look at "Love Wins"

2012-01-02T16:25:00.018-06:00

Much has been said about Rob Bell's controversial book "Love Wins." Also, much has changed recently for Rob Bell, as he is now moving out of pastoring a mega-church to do more writing and concentrating on various speaking engagements. In reviewing his book, I'm sure I will add nothing new since its release in March of 2011. Having said that, I wanted to share some thoughts on my impression on not just Bell's views, but on the "Emergent Movement" in general.

Before reading "Love Wins" I had an impression of Bell already formed. I had read some of his Internet articles and viewed some interviews, and so I had formed some opinions of him beforehand. I must say that my impression of his views did not change after completing the book. I have had the opportunity to visit with many Rob Bell-like people. What I mean by Rob Bell-like people pertains to individuals who fall in line with the "Emergent Movement." Maybe, fall in line is not a good description of the "Emergent Movement", because nothing with in the movement is perfectly lined up. A friend of mine once said that the "Emergent Movement" is like trying to nail jello to the wall. This is what bothers me and others who try to assess individuals within the movement. The problem with the movement centers on the lack of answers or conflicting answers given, but more on this later.

Bell's book opens true to "emergent" form, with a barrage of questions. It was almost like the serpent questioning Eve, "Did God really say?" I am not comparing Bell to the serpent, only saying that all traditional beliefs (according to Bell) need to be questioned. I am not arguing against questions. Questions are good and necessary. However, Bell doesn't seem to question for the sake of dialogue, but to deconstruct everything for the sole purpose of his own agenda.

Much of the book Bell raises some good points. Although I disagree with much of his exegesis, he does rightly point out some of the problems with the church today. He does a good job highlighting the need to have a heart for serving people, although at times his political beliefs seem to match a "Wall Street" protester. He addresses legalism within the Church, as this too is a necessary point that constantly needs to be raised.

Now to a few points about his overall beliefs concerning hell. Bell's biggest hangup with hell seems to be how a loving God could punish people for finite sins. For Bell this seems insurmountable. For God is not God if this is how God is to be seen. Bell would see the traditional view of an everlasting hell being contra the nature of God. Bell cannot even conceive how God would allow individuals to be eternally separated from a holy God. For Bell, God is a monstrous being if this is reality.

Bell seems to believe that heaven and hell exist side by side. According to Bell, "heaven and hell are at the same party." [1] He never clarifies how this is or what justifies this position. He does use the "Prodigal Son" of Luke 15 to relate the side by side nature of both realities, but to my knowledge this story has never been used to justify the duel realm of heaven and hell. Bell's duel realm view is bizarre at best. What is also bizarre is how this works out on Bell's view, for no other explanation is fleshed out to support this idea.

Trying to wrap my mind around Bell's views is a tremendous struggle. One of the disturbing views of Bell is how all are eventually saved. I say disturbing, not because his ideas conflict with mine, but disturbing because he doesn't seem to justify why his views should be seen as conforming to reality. For example, it seems clear to me that Bell feels all will eventually be saved, hence forth, love wins. The overall theme of the book is that God's love will win out and all will be saved. Bell can say he is not a universalist, but the book is clear that this is not what is promoted. It is Bell's view that all will be saved, however no explanation is given as to how this will work, except that God's love wins in the end. Bell even seems to promote that post-mortem sanctification will take place. Bell is adamant that only the nature of God's love is what counts and His love trumps all. In other words, God's hands seem to be tied on Bell's view.

The final comment about Bell's view revolves around his view of God. The most disturbing aspect of Bell's view is his lack of interaction with the tradition view of God's judgment. Bell tries in a way to address the traditional view of God as a God of judgement, but he falls short in providing any scholarly argumentation to show why this aspect is not part of God's makeup. The traditional view of the God of judgement that I am referring to is that God does judge individuals and separate them throughout eternity. Bell seems closed to this aspect of God's nature. If God saves all in the end because love wins, then Bell needs to leave the business of trying to lead individuals to Jesus, because salvation is guaranteed. The need for responsibility in this life is unnecessary, because on Bell's view nothing really matters. If God is not a God of judgment and his hands are tied in having to save everyone, then Bell's God turns out not so much a God of love, but an amoral being at best.

[1] Bell, Rob, Love Wins, p. 176

A great article dealing with the exegetical problems of Love Wins.
A short debate revealing Bell's view of God and hell.

Dr. Jeffress, Mormonism and dialogue

2011-10-28T15:20:00.000-05:00

A few weeks back, Dr. Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas caused a stir by calling the Mormon religion a cult before the national media. Was this the correct avenue to take? I took a survey shortly after Jeffress statement with a group of men, and half said Jeffress did the right thing. Being a pastor in the same denomination, I will have to disagree with Dr. Jeffress and the men in my survey. I could never match the intelligence of pastor Jeffress, but believe he was mistaken by stirring the pot in this way before the national media. I am not disagreeing with Dr. Jeffress theological assessment concerning the differences between Mormonism and Orthodox Christianity, but feel his branding of Mormonism before the national media does nothing but kill all possible dialogue between Mormons and those who fall within the Orthodox beliefs of the Church.

The Apostle Paul when dialoguing with others was conscious of his audience and tailored his discussion so that dialogue could take place. In Acts 17, while speaking to the Greek philosophers, Paul never once mentions Scripture, but instead addresses the people on their level. In fact, Paul's knowledge of the Greek thinkers allowed him to connect with the people by quoting two poets that the philosophers would have known about. Paul said nothing offensive to block dialogue, but went out of his way to present the gospel such that people could respond. In dialoguing in this way Paul gave freedom to the Holy Spirit to convict the hearts of the Greek thinkers, and this is exactly what happened.

When engaged with others, it is my opinion that dialogue needs to be open and free. Anytime, dialogue is hindered by personal blocks, it makes the spread of God's Good News that much more difficult. Paul stated, "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some (1 Cor. 9:22)." For Paul, the truth of God would never be compromised, but at the same time he realized the importance of keeping the communication lines open so that people could come to know the Messiah.

Two weeks ago, some Mormon missionaries came to my door. We had a wonderful conversation. I was asking a lot of questions and am praying that we can further the discussions in the future. I realize that my worldview and the Mormon worldview are worlds apart on many different levels. I choose to dialogue with my Mormon friends, because I believe so strongly that they are not in line with God's truth. Because of my belief, it is important to keep the dialogue lines open, and not shut them off in any way.

Die for a lie?

2011-09-26T18:07:00.000-05:00

One of the arguments given for the Christian faith deals with the statement that individuals would not be willing to die for a lie. In general this is true, but many recognize that this argument by itself is incomplete. Besides, couldn't any religion make this claim as their own? However, the not dying for a lie argument does have credibility when considering evidence that supports the statement. In other words, dying for truth is a whole lot different than dying for what one thinks to be true. There are three solid reasons that support the fact that disciples of Jesus did not die for a lie.

1. Early source material

The writings of Jesus were produced early. All of the New Testament documents were produced and circulated within the first century. You simply don't find this early source material from other religious movement. Not only were the stories told by his followers, but other secular writings exist to corroborate the stories of the followers. Again, secular stories of Jesus appear early and often to verify that the followers of Jesus were not following invented stories. Probably the best evidence of early source material comes from Paul's letter to the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 15:3-7). This early story is recognized by the majorly of scholars as being a very early story of the resurrection of Jesus. Many would say that the story goes back to the resurrection event itself. If this early story was true, then the disciples of Jesus did not die for any type of invented story or lie, but they died for something they knew to be true. From the inception of Christianity, the early and numerous source material concerning Jesus only validates that the followers of Christ did not die for a lie.

2. Evangelistic

When considering all religions around the world, none compares to the evangelistic outreach of Christianity. Of all the religions, only Islam can match the fervor of Christianity in spreading its message. However, the big difference in how the message is spread between Islam and Christianity is stark. From the beginning Christianity was spread peacefully with a message of hope. Jesus can never be accused of inciting the spread of his message by force. Islam, on the other hand, was initially spread, in many cases, in a non-peaceful manner.

Christianity's belief in the resurrected Jesus put people in the position of having a target on their back, but this did not deter their passion in spreading the news of Jesus as the resurrected Messiah. The initial spread of Christianity was done without the taking up of arms. The early followers of Jesus were willing to spread the Christian message, knowing they might forfeit their lives, because they were convinced that it was truth they would be dying for.

3. Eyewitness accounts

No evidence is better attested to than the evidential truth of the eyewitness accounts. Many in the first century could have debunked the resurrection story by explaining away the empty tomb. To date, no sufficient evidence has explained otherwise. Within the first century, many individuals witnessed the resurrected Jesus. These were not hallucinations or invented stories. People do not die for such visions. The early followers of Jesus had first hand knowledge that they encountered the bodily resurrected Jesus. Because of this encounter, their lives were never the same.

The difference between the eyewitness claims of the resurrected Jesus and other religious claims is enormous. All religions outside of Christianity are based on statements of their leaders without anyway to know if the statements are valid or not. In other words, all religions except Christianity offer possible truth claims, but you can never know for sure if they are in fact true. Christianity rests on a historic story as told by eyewitness of the the person of Jesus.

No other religion deals with reality like Christianity. The eyewitnesses were willing to die, because they knew not only Jesus, but had encountered the bodily resurrected Christ. This reality is what caused future believers to be willing to die. The deaths of Christians throughout time has always been based upon reliable historical evidence as opposed to guessing if the religion is question deals with actual truth.

Apologetics in the church

2011-08-16T18:30:00.000-05:00

Here is a great article from a former professor of mine.

An Apologist in Every Church

Posted on December 21, 2010 by clayjones

It is my heartfelt contention that every church in the world needs an apologist. Here’s why I say that. I have found that the average member of the average congregation is riddled with doubt. They hear The Da Vinci Code proclaim that the Council of Nicaea suppressed contrary gospels. They hear that James Cameron has discovered the Lost Tomb of Jesus. They hear from the Zeitgeist movie that Jesus is just a rehashing of a long line of pagan dying and rising gods. And so on and on.

The trouble is that these confused congregants often don’t know where to turn. Those who do seek advice will often go to their pastor whom they considered to be the wisest man they know. The problem with that is that the pastor is usually very busy! Not only is the pastor preparing Sunday’s sermon, he’s probably preparing the Wednesday night sermon too. Then there’s counseling to do, church administration, hospital visitation, meeting with his staff, etc. I used to be a pastor and I know from experience that most pastors are really busy. And, honestly, for most of them, reading The Da Vinci Code or watching the Zeitgeist movie (both were silly, by the way), can’t be that high on their list.

To finish the article click here.

L killers of Church

2011-08-15T09:08:00.002-05:00

In a previous blog, I wrote concerning 10 reasons why the church is broken. I'm sure many reasons exist that hinder God's people, but believe that three main reasons are wreaking havoc upon the Church of the West.

Liberalism

Liberalism can be viewed in many ways. In fact, Christians are to be liberal in the giving of their time and means. So, taking this definition of liberalism is a good thing, but how are we to see liberalism as a Church killer? The liberalism that seems to be killing the Church today deals with individuals who don't hold God's word as inspired truth. The postmodern push has crept into the Church today and many are questioning the truthfulness of God's word. Renewed attacks are coming from within the Church upon orthodox beliefs. Many, in fact, are claiming that God's word can not be seen as universal truth or an all-encompassing narrative. What this means is that individuals or communities are deciding what is true for them and what is not. The problem with this approach is the individuals or communities are the ones responsible for making universal ground rules, therefore contradicting that truth is not universal.

Liberalism is being twisted in the Western culture for the promotion of values that don't ring true with the message of the Bible. One of the most glaring examples of this deals with many churches of the West acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. This is an extremely sensitive subject, because as soon as one points out the contradictions of the homosexual lifestyle compared to God's Word they are almost immediately branded as intolerant. The question that needs to be asked, that no one really does is, "Who is intolerant when the subject comes up?" Many times the Church is guilty of being intolerant, but when the homosexual community demands that acceptance takes place over God's Word then it is the homosexual community that is intolerant. Other cultural liberal issues that have been accepted by many in the Western Church includes: sex before marriage, acceptance of abortion, and many other issues that cut across biblical teachings.

Legalism

Legalism has existed before the time Jesus appearance on earth. Plain and simple, legalism is a man-made set of rules that one uses to justify themselves from. It is law-keeping that misses the heart of God's message. Many in the church fall prey to the web of legalism. Jesus was constantly dealing with the Pharisees legalism (see Matthew 23) and little has changed today. Too many legalist are driving people off, because in their mind they have it all figured out. In other words, you must go to the legalist for answers, and not God's Word. One of the major reasons why young people are leaving churches or not even considering meeting with the church deals with the heavy load that legalists put on the backs of individuals. The sad consequence of legalism is that the love of Jesus is suppressed for individual hoop jumping laws. Legalists are interested in works as opposed to the heart of Christ's message. For the legalist, Christ's sacrifice is disparaged simply for the sake of personal control.

Laziness

Too many Christians are too comfortable on their spiritual lazy-boy chair. For the lazy Christian, Christianity means nothing more than filling a pew on Sunday morning, if that. Lazy Christians feel entitled, as if God owes them something simply because they mouthed the words, "I believe." It's no wonder that the Church is exploding in non-Western countries while the Western Church relies too much on the comforts they have been blessed with. If the Western Church would realize that location makes no difference in God's movement, it could recapture the culture that now sadly influences the Church more that the Church influences culture. The Western Church seems content to mouth certain "special" words and show up at a building for a 2 hour stint and call itself Christian. Maybe, the Western Church should read what Jesus has to say (Matt. 7:21-13, Rev. 3:16) before trying to justify their fat and lazy lifestyle.

The purpose of the blog is not to be negative toward the Church, but to point out real problems that hinder the Church in the West. On many occasions I feel like Paul who said, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst (1 Tim. 1:15)." No one has lived a perfect life, except Jesus, but the three L's defiantly are killers of the Church.

A personal note

2011-08-09T15:30:00.000-05:00

Flatland Apologetics will soon be moving; moving to another state that is. Flatland Apologetics is a personal ministry that was started in the high plains of Northwest Kansas. My family and I will now be moving to the Northwest; Washington State to be exact.

The name will remain the same, because I will be living in central Washington which is relatively flat. I will be answering a call to pastor full time for a Southern Baptist Church. Needless to say, my life is busy now and I have had little time to post. I am looking forward to this new challenge and can't wait to settle in and get back to blogging on a more regular basis. I also am looking forward to the apologetic opportunities in Washington.

My wife and I would appreciate prayers for our family as we transition. This is Shelby Cade signing off until all the madness settles a bit.

The benefits of doubt

2011-08-06T11:43:00.000-05:00

The apostle Thomas is most commonly known as "doubting Thomas."  Poor Thomas, is almost looked at in a negative light for that one incident of doubt. Even though Thomas doubted, it was not a negative that impaired his entire life. In fact, once Thomas encountered the risen Christ his life was never the same. According to tradition, Thomas gave his life as a martyr in Northern India for the cause of Jesus. Interestingly, Thomas is rarely given credit for recognizing the divinity of Jesus (John 20:28), shortly after his encounter with the risen Lord.

Is doubt only to be seen in a negative light? Can doubt actually bring about benefits? As a freshman in college  majoring in Geology, I came to believe in Jesus as the promised Messiah. Everything about Christianity was new to me. At the same time, I was receiving a lot of information from my science professors that seemed to cast a negative light on the existence of God and the Christian faith. I can honestly say that that the first year or two of my Christian walk was one of the most doubt filled times I had as a Christian. However, even though I had many doubts at the time (and still they surface), I can look back at the benefits of doubt. I would like to suggest 4 benefits to having doubts in your life.

1.   Doubts keep individuals honest.

One of the charges that atheists lay at the feet of the Christian is that you are only a Christian because of the culture you grew up in. While this is true to a certain extent, many atheists, I feel, fall victim to the same charge. Having honest doubts about anything is actually beneficial for one to think outside the box, and not just accept the cultural narrative.

2.   Doubts can cause individuals to research.

Honest doubts can compel individuals to research the evidence of the subject being doubted. A little research never hurt anyone, in fact, research can only lead to finding out if your doubts are justified or not.

3.   Doubts can bolster an individual's position.

One of the greatest benefits of doubts is that it can strengthen your worldview position. Many of the past doubts that I have addressed have only increase my faith in the Christian Worldview. In fact, I enjoy dialoguing with individuals who have a different worldview than my own. I have found out, over time, that dealing with doubts is minimized the more you are able to address them in an honest way.

4.   Doubts can lead individuals to the truth.

An honest person, that does their own research can be changed to follow the truth. Many people, such as C.S. Lewis, have faced their doubts head on only to be reached by the truth. In reality, truth can't be doubted, because truth stands alone.

Not all doubts should be seen in a negative light. Having doubts can actually be beneficial to the honest person. Don't doubt me on this!

Is baptism necessary for salvation? - Closing statement

2011-07-28T12:44:00.000-05:00

Thanks to both Jacob and James for their willingness to debate this issue. I hope the arguments have been thought provoking from both sides. I appreciate both opponents willingness to debate the issues in a respectful manner. And now, the closing statements.

Jacob

Closing Statement

As our moderator has noted, closing statements are a time for summarizing our positions, not further rebuttal. It is my desire to honor that even though it may leave a few challenges yet unanswered. I believe the weight of Scripture has fallen clearly on the side that baptism, while important, is not necessary for salvation.

(A quick side note: I will not be answering the true/false questions provided by James in his last rebuttal because 1.) It goes outside the moderators stated desire for a succinct summary of our position in this closing statement and 2.) The line of questioning is unfair. Demanding a simple true or false answer to questions worded in just such a way is not legitimate because there are several case where regardless of how I answer “true” or “false” I am in a catch 22. So I refuse to get caught up in clever word games of one word answers to rigged questions.)

Time and again my opponent, James, has seemed bewildered by the notion that baptism could be important and a command of our Lord and yet not be necessary for salvation, yet I fail to see what is so bewildering about this. An apple tree is an apple tree even before it yields its first fruit, is it not? In the same way a person is a Christian when they trust/believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior and they bear fruit in keeping with repentance/faith when they are baptized, when they give to and serve the poor, when they read their Bibles and pray, when they share the name of Jesus. James constantly confuses the fruit of salvation with the notion of meriting it. The reason I stated that a person who refuses to get baptized may not be a believer is not because baptism saves them but because a believer would have a changed heart that would want to obey Christ!

I have listed numerous passages that have illustrated that justification comes by faith in Christ and not by any works (such as water baptism or any other). There is no need to rehash them here once again, please go back and read them (John 3:16; Romans 3-4; Ephesians 1:13-14; 2:8-9, etc.). James’ position insists that water baptism is necessary or justification and yet, as I have shown, people were filled with God’s Holy Spirit prior to water baptism (see Acts 10). If James is correct and a person cannot be saved/justified apart from water baptism then you have a case of God pouring out His holy Spirit, filling unbelievers! Now that is truly an untenable position!

It is true that Baptism is necessary for salvation, but not water baptism. It is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that John the Baptist prophesied Jesus would bring that is what applies the finished work of Christ to our soul. It is this baptism of the Spirit, brought about by faith in the message of the gospel, that seals us into our salvation. It is this baptism of the Spirit that Cornelius and those with him experienced by faith in the gospel when Peter preached to them in Acts 10 and Peter recounts this baptism of the Spirit in Acts 11. Such is truly the nail in the coffin for the view that water baptism is necessary for justification/salvation because it is the sealing of the Spirit by faith that saves us (Eph. 1:13-14) and the people at Joppa received the spirit prior to water baptism.

Much of James’ confusion about baptism seems to be a result of failing to recognize that the New Testament speaks of both water baptism and baptism of the Spirit. James constantly applies passages about baptism of the Spirit as if they were talking about water baptism which leads a person into serious error.

As I illustrated with 1 Corinthians, Paul makes a distinction between the gospel and baptism as a subsequent act. James scoffed at that but I believe that point stands alone pretty strong and I will leave you, the reader, to decide for yourself what Paul meant by “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel” because it seems pretty straight forward to me. But if I did not make this point strongly enough, how about this. If water baptism is necessary for salvation, and therefore a part of gospel proclamation, then why is it that any mention of water baptism is absent from 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation? Yes, 16 of 27 books of the New Testament never once even address the issue of water baptism…16! Clearly there are not 16 books of the New Testament that fail to speak of salvation in Christ and yet there are 16 that don’t even brush the subject of water baptism. But how then could that be if water baptism is a part of the gospel proclamation?

I have dealt with the subject Acts 2:38 and the Greek word “eis” and clearly explained that the word can mean “for” or “because of.” I cited A.T. Robertson, an eminent Greek New Testament scholar who demonstrated that this passage could legitimately read either way and, therefore, does not prove that water baptism is necessary for salvation. James obviously misunderstood Robertson because Robertson was not saying that there are only three cases where “eis” means “because of” but that there are three places where in the New Testament where “eis” cannot mean anything but “because of”. Many passages with the word “eis” clearly mean “for”, several clearly mean “because of” and some of the passages are ambiguous and could read either way and therefore the meaning depends on the context and teaching of Scripture. Acts 2:38 is an example of the ambiguous use “eis” and therefore does not prove my case nor James. It could mean either, so this passage is not the proving ground.

As I have argued, every time the New Testament speaks of a person being justified it points to faith/repentance as what applies salvation to the believer, never water baptism. Yes it is true that justification is linked to grace and the blood of Christ, but we should not confuse the means of our justification (what Christ did on the cross) and the reason that anyone will be justified (God’s grace) with the thing that applies justification to us personally, namely, faith.

The passage in James that speaks about justification by works gives Abraham as the example and yet speaks of his offering up his son Isaac. However it was Abraham’s faith in God’s promise to make him the father of many nations through his own descendants (e.g. Isaac) that made him already declared righteous long before he ever even had his son. So then James speaks not of justification for salvation by works, but the justification of ones faith by works. In other words, like I have been arguing all the while, if a person really believes and is justified, there works will justify/prove that they have faith.

Faith is the trigger by which justification occurs in our lives. It is faith alone that applies salvation to us through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Faith alone is how we receive salvation, but that is not to say that God isn’t busy in our lives beforehand preparing our hearts and minds, but none of the things we do in life applies Christ’s sacrifice to us, no work, just trusting in Jesus and what He has done. It happens by God’s grace at a moment in time when we believe the gospel.

Many will expose themselves as false believers because they will not follow Christ and seek to obey him. James (the epistle writer) made clear that there is a faith that saves and a faith that does not save. Faith that leads a person to live a life of obedience is saving faith, faith that merely acknowledges propositions about Jesus as true but does not trust him and live in light of who He is does not save. But biblical faith, that which gives way to good works is the faith that we have been speaking of when I have said “faith alone” saves. Surely there will be people in hell who believed propositional truth about Jesus, but those who believed him in the sense that they trusted in Him will not see Hell.

I encourage you all to carefully examine the exchange that has taken place here, go to the Scriptures and search diligently everywhere it speaks of how a person is saved and decide for yourself what the Scripture teach. I stand on God’s word and declare that no one will enter Heaven believing that they had to accomplish a task in order to be justified. It is by faith in Jesus that we receive His righteousness and are justified by His grace as a gift.

James

Summary

I am grateful that I had the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am thankful to my opponent Jacob for his willingness to present his position on the subject. I am thankful to Mr. Shelby Cade for arranging the debate and taking care of posting the writings each week on his website. I am also grateful for anyone reading this debate now or in the future. I encourage anyone reading through this debate to study God's word with the full intent to understand, know and obey God's will (Eph. 5:17; Matt. 7:21ff). If you are a preacher or teacher, remember you have the responsibility to teach the truth of God's word (2 Tim. 4:2; Jonah 3:2; Gal. 1:6-9). Truth has the power to set man free (John 8:32).

As I mentioned previously, there are issues with a written debate that can be overcome in an oral debate. So, I hope and pray Jacob will arrange for an oral debate at a place of his choosing. I will gladly travel to any reasonable place to debate this subject. Prior to that occasion, both sides would agree on terms, pass questions and agree on a moderator, etc.

Again, both sides cannot be correct. I firmly believe Jacob is incorrect in his understanding as evidenced by his eliminating passages, twisting words, and misusing of texts. He has clearly stated, “I am a Baptist” so he must be careful to hold true to the teaching of that denomination. A.T. Robertson, a Baptist, also sought to find a view consistent with his Baptist theology as he stated in his Historical Grammar (see my 2nd rebuttal). However, one must remember not one person in God's word was a Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc. It is imperative that we allow truth to trump denominational creeds and thinking. We must go forward, back to the Bible. As one preacher often said, “if its new its not true; it has to be two thousand years old”.

I am going to divide this summary into two parts. In the first part, I am going to go through Jacob's 2nd rebuttal answering his disagreements and showing further why his position is incorrect. In the 2nd part, I will revisit my introduction and summarize the debate.

Part I – A Careful Refutation of Jacob's 2nd Rebuttal

As suspected Jacob was unable to produce a passage indicating one is saved by “faith only” or “faith alone”. He writes, “you are right, the Bible doesn't coin it in that exact phrase.” He suggests that his inability to find the words “faith alone” or “faith only” is similar to a man's inability to find the word “Trinity”. The word “Trinity” is not found but the concept of the “Trinity” is found studying various texts across the whole Bible. Similarly, one searches throughout the New Testament to understand salvation. In so doing, one discovers that God expects more than just faith in becoming a child of God. So, not only is the phrase “faith only” or “faith alone” not found in the pages of God's inerrant word but neither is the concept.

Jacob states one is not saved by works (Eph. 2:8) and concludes that baptism is the kind of work described in that passage. One would be silly to imagine that he could somehow erase his sins by his own meritorious deeds. Our meritorious works are like “filthy sanitary napkins/ tampons” to God (Is. 64:6). In Luke 17:10, Jesus exclaimed, So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.'”

Jacob has yet to prove that baptism is a work. In his introduction he wrote, “Baptism, which is something we must do willfully achieve, set out to get done, is a work.” Several times in this debate he has referred to straw-men, etc. However, I have yet to see a reference in God's word that says baptism is a work. I submit to you that baptism is not a meritorious work (i.e. to brag or boast) rather one who submits to it is trusting in the working of God (Col. 2:1112) who is able to remit sin. I have never known one person to brag or boast because he or she was immersed. Not one!

Jacob later ridicules my argument concerning Naaman (2 Kings 5:1); however, I was simply using his account to help show that baptism into Christ is not a work; its not a means to braggadocio. Paul used Moses (1 Cor. 12:13) and Peter used Noah (1 Peter 3:21) to teach on the subject of baptism. The Apostle Paul taught that the Old Testament could be used for instruction (Rom. 15:4).

Naaman had a horrible, disfiguring disease called leprosy. He heard words from God's prophet Elisha. His leprosy was not removed by faith only, rather it was only removed when he submitted to God's will by being immersed in the Jordan River. The cleaner waters in his homeland and four times would not suffice. It had to coincide with God's will. Once he obeyed God, his leprosy was removed and his skin was like a child. I do not recall any bragging or boasting on his part. If Naaman had boasted it would have been in vain. Also, there was nothing magical in the water. God did all the work but first set out the stipulations for Naaman to obey.

Similarly, a sinner comes to God. His sin is actually worse than leprosy and removal of it required the torture and subsequent death of the Son of God (Is. 53; Acts 8:26ff). His powerful, perfect blood was shed so that sin could be removed and God could be both “Just and the Justifier (Rom. 3:26)”. Those in Acts 2:37 heard the message of Christ and Him Crucified and they were cut to the heart (or pricked). They asked the Apostle Peter who was recently immersed into the Holy Spirit and guided into all truth (John 16:13; Acts 2:1ff), “brothers what shall we do?”. Peter tells them what they must do, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Act 2:38 ESV).” With further words Peter exclaimed, “'Save yourselves from this crooked generation.' So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” Those people were told to do something but it was not a work worthy of bragging, boasting, etc.

Again, as I stated in my 2nd rebuttal, Jacob grossly misuses 1 Corinthians 1:17 to try and prove that baptism is not part of salvation (or unnecessary). However, isn't it interesting that something not part of salvation and supposedly unnecessary found its way into the “summary” account of the first post-resurrection gospel sermon? Jacob wrote at the conclusion of his 1st rebuttal - “As Paul says so very plainly baptism is not part of the gospel message, it is subsequent to salvation”. The Holy Spirit, part of the “Trinity”, disagrees and places baptism right there on Pentecost Sunday during the 1st Gospel sermon.

Jacob says there is nothing you must do except have “faith only”. Those people in Acts 2 had incredible faith (2:47) and they still said, “Brothers what shall we do?” I am sure Jacob would reply, “well, they were baptized to obey God as just a declaration”. No, that does not fit the context of this passage. He has approached this passage believing in “faith only” just like A.T. Robertson (recall quote from my 2nd rebuttal) and just like many other people who believe and teach the same thing. Yet, it does not fit the context. Peter, a divinely inspired Apostle is commanding them to be immersed so that they might receive two specific blessings: the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (2:38; c.f. Eph. 1:13-14). You almost have to have help to misunderstand that.

There is something else here that has happened that has barely been mentioned in this debate. I mentioned it in my introduction only. In Acts 2, the church of the Lord Jesus Christ was established fulfilling the words of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:16-18). Three thousand souls heard the 1st post-resurrection Gospel sermon and they obeyed the Gospel and become God's people later known as Christians (Acts 11:26; 26:28). The church is the blood bought work of Almighty God (Acts 20:28). Sinners immersed were added to the church which is the Lord's body (Col. 1:18; 1 Cor. 12:13). It is interesting to note that upon immersion, the individual is cleansed by blood and added to the blood bought church at the same time. Also, one cannot be saved unless he or she is in the church which is the kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; Matt. 16:19). Yes, there is a Kingdom today and Jesus is “King of Kings and Lord of Lords”. He was literally raised to reign! One day He will return to receive the Kingdom, the Church to Himself.

Jacob, it amazes me to hear you say “there is nothing you must do except have faith.” He also throws repentance in their suggesting it is the opposite side of a coin or something. Faith does not come by osmosis, otherwise everyone would be saved and Universalism would be true. Faith comes by hearing the truth of God's word (Rom. 10:17), accepting it and obeying it. Dr. Luke records, “And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith (Acts 6:7 ASV; c.f. Rom. 1:5 & 16:26). Not everyone who hears has faith. One must choose to believe. Some refused to believe (Acts 5:33, 7:54, 13:46, etc.) and individuals refusing to believe would never be immersed (Mark 16:15-16). Remember, believing and refusing to obey is actually disbelieving - “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him (John 3:36).”

According to the biographical information, Jacob did something in view of his own personal salvation. He provided the information, just as I did, to Mr. Cade who recorded, “Jacob called out to God”. So, Jacob had to do something in order to accept the saving grace of God. To argue against that is to promote the erroneous position of “Universalism”. Now, he will water it down suggesting it is of the mind, etc. He can water it down all he wants but the fact is he did something to accept or receive it. It is interesting that no one in the book of Acts (the book of conversions) did what Jacob did to accept the saving grace of God. Personally, that would bother me as I contemplated my own eternal well-being.

Jacob then makes up a phrase “baptism is necessary for salvation” and concludes since that phrase is not in the Bible then James' argument is unbiblical and illogical.” Jacob, God's word clearly states that baptism is part of God's plan for saving man (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Acts). Again, it is ironic that you say it is unnecessary but necessary. In fact, several times you have suggested that one's salvation may be in question if they refused immersion. It is essential for salvation because God CHOSE that in that moment sins would be remitted.

Jacob's position on “eis” in Acts 2:38 is false. He even admits if he is wrong in his understanding on “eis” then his position is incorrect. Isn't it amazing that Jacob's whole position could crumble in the dust if his position on Acts 2:38 is incorrect and he admits it. It seems that Jacob has placed his faith in Robertson and not the Holy Spirit. Robertson even admitted that his view was based on his theological position as a Baptist.

Speaking of Acts 2:38 and Jacob's misunderstanding of eis. It will be interesting to see what he does (if anything) with Mark 1:4 and Matt. 26:28. In my 2nd rebuttal, I showed that those 3 passages are identical in the New Testament Greek. Yet even the esteemed A.T. Robertson left them alone. He only changed the one that immediately conflicted with his Baptist doctrine. It boggles my mind that Jacob is willing to fall in line with an individual who supposedly found 3/1773 where eis is used to indicate “because of”. Jacob wrote, “According to A.T. Robertson, this usage 'occurs at least three times' where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground.”

Also, note the following, Acts 2:38 says, "Repent AND be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (emp. mine).” Jacob says that repentance is basically faith - “Repentance and faith are like the opposite sides of the same coin and should not/cannot be separated from one another (2nd Rebuttal).” So, if he changes “eis” the meaning or the actual word from FOR to Because Of” he has some serious issues to overcome. Whatever he does to immersion he must also do to repentance. So, is he now suggesting that one REPENT and be BAPTIZED “because of” the forgiveness of sins? Is he willing to suggest that belief/faith occurs because one's sins have already been forgiven? If so, then Universalism is correct.

Jacob then writes the following concerning Galatians 3:27, “Now here James exposes a false assumption, namely, that this passage refers to water baptism. This passage actually does not refer to water baptism but to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.” Jacob says I am incorrect for assuming its water baptism but then turns and makes the assumption that it is actually Holy Spirit baptism. He then leaves the book and goes to Mark 1:8 and Eph. 1:13-14 suggesting that proves it.

Earlier, I wrote a few things concerning the blood purchased church (Acts 20:28) that began in Act 2 on the day of Pentecost. There were scores of people in Jerusalem, possibly millions, but only 3,000 people allowed the word of God to prick their heart to the point that they inquired, “brothers, what shall we do?”. Their faith moved them to action. Isn't that similar to the passage in Galatians 3:27?

The Apostle Paul wrote, Gal 3:25-29:

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, (The Faith vs. the Law of Moses) (26) for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through (dia:Strong A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through ) faith. (27) For (gar – seeing then) as many of you as were baptized into Christ (Matt. 28:18-20) have put on Christ. (28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one (made up the churches in Galatia) in Christ Jesus. (29) And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Jacob repeatedly makes reference to Eph. 1:13-14 so let's take a look at what is happening or rather what has happened in those verses and notice how similar it is to Acts 2:1-41. Paul wrote, “in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation, - in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God's own possession, unto the praise of his glory.”

The people in Ephesus “heard the word of the truth”
The word of truth = the gospel of your salvation
“having believed” (synecdoche: part put for a whole)
“sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise”
praise of his glory
All Spiritual blessings in Christ (Eph. 1:3ff): Holy, without blemish, forgiveness of sins, adoption, redemption through his blood, etc.

Those in Acts 2:1-41

The people in Jerusalem “heard the word of truth”
Gospel: death, burial, and resurrection
Believed (pricked, cut to the heart)
Inquired - “Brothers, what shall we do?”
“Repent and be immersed”
Blessings: Remission of sins and Gift of Holy Spirit

Jacob, based on his writing, believes that there is more than one baptism: Holy Spirit Baptism and Water baptism. Yet, Paul in the book of Ephesians says there is only one baptism (4:5). The baptism of the “Great Commission” is the baptism that will last till the end of the world (Matt. 28:20). So, when Paul wrote the Ephesians from prision, he says clearly there is only one baptism. It is the baptism for the remission of sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). It is also the baptism that places one into the church of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 2:41; 1 Cor. 12:13).

Jacob has spent a lot of time in this debate referring to the conversion of the first Gentiles, Cornelius and those with him. Jacob, based on his observation of Acts 10 & 11 believes that at the moment of one's saving faith, the individual also receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I am pretty sure he would conclude the same event happens to people today. An individual hears some words about Christ, chooses to believe them, and then he or she is immersed into the Holy Spirit where he receives remissions of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, etc. I disagree.

Jacob makes a distinction between “Holy Spirit Baptism” and “Water Baptism”. However, God's word says there is just “one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). It is that one baptism that will last to the end of the world (Matt. 28:18-20) – right? So, which baptism is it? Is it John's baptism, Holy Spirit Baptism, or the baptism in water that will last to the end of the world?

One needs to remember that it was always God's intention that the whole gospel would go to the whole world. Jesus indicated this in the “Great Commission” (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16. However, this was simply not done at one time. Bias and prejudice existed among the followers of Jesus and hindered the Gospel from going to the Gentile world (Acts 11:1-3). A vision is given to Peter three times (10:9-16) to convince him that the Gentiles were eligible to hear and obey the Gospel of Christ. Subsequent to the vision, the Holy Spirit spoke to Peter saying, “Behold, three men are looking for you” (10:19)

After the vision he travels with six Jewish brethren (11:12) and entered the house of Cornelius in Caesarea. He preaches the message “Christ and Him Crucified” to all those made present by Cornelius. “While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised (the 6 Jewish brethren who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles” (Acts 10:44-45).

The baptism of the Holy Spirit was given to them was not for salvation, rather it was to further show that the Gentiles were eligible candidates for God's mercy and forgiveness. Notice the words of Peter as recorded in Acts 11:15-18:

As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning (i.e. Acts 2:1ff) (16) And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' (i.e. Mark 1:8; Acts 1:5) (17) If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?" (18) When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life."

Jacob inquires, “I ask you did God give the Holy Spirit to unsaved people?” Was Cornelius lost? The descriptions concerning him show that he was a God-fearing man, etc. God listened to his prayers and even interceded with an angel, etc. Read Acts 10 & 11 and notice all of the references to who Cornelius was as a man. It is ESSENTIAL that one realize that a very unique time period is being dealt with in that passage. There is a transition of Covenants underway. If Cornelius had died the day before, would he have been lost? He had an obligation to God but it was not the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ had not been taken to the Gentiles. He was under a different law as a Gentile in which very little information Is given. Under that Law he was a God-fearing man.

Jacob quotes Act 11:15-18 just as I did above. Did you notice the gem of truth in 11:18? It says - When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." Jacob's position on Acts 2:38 has problems here. Here we see “repentance leads to life” not you have life so repent. Remember the conjunction AND in Acts 2:38 as discussed previously.

In reading through the remaining part of his rebuttal I see so many things that I would like to ask him questions to find out exactly what he means. It would be interesting to see his responses to some simple questions. I sent questions at the end of my 2nd rebuttal but I never received a response for them. I figured he would answer them in just a few minutes and send them back to me but he did not. If this turns into an oral debate, I would certainly have many questions for him to answer which would help greatly in this debate. His answers would help narrow down his position rather than jumping all over the place.

I could easily continue answering his questions about Apollos and his teaching, the Philippian Jailer, etc. However, I am already over 10 pages in this Summary and so I will stop for now. Again, I will gladly debate this subject at a reasonable time and place of Jacob's choosing.

Part II – Summarizing Things

Salvation is important to the “Trinity”; God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit. That concept is taught from Bible cover to Bible cover. Many pages of Holy Writ are dedicated to showing God's great love and eternal purpose for man (John 3:16; Eph. 3:11, etc.). God supervised the divine plan through the Garden of Eden, the life of Abraham, the Law and life of Moses, through the sins and rebellion of men, etc. Satan himself could not thwart God's efforts to bring Jesus to the world. He tried but he failed miserably.

My sincere concern for souls was my motive for participating in this debate. I believe firmly that God's plan for saving man includes baptism (immersion) in water for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). God commanded baptism for the remission of sins (Lk. 3:2-3). Jesus observed and approved its practice while on Earth (Matt. 21:25; John 3:22, 4:5) and then commanded its practice prior to ascending to Heaven (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). The Holy Spirit guided the Apostles to preach it and write about it (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13; Acts 2:38, etc.). Everyone that has ever become a Christian has submitted to it. Those that have refused it, post-resurrection, or still in their sins and lost.

One must remember that it was Jesus who commanded the baptism of what has become known as the “Great Commission”. Following Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:4), He walked on Earth for 40 days allowing His resurrected body to be seen by the Apostles and scores of other people (1 Cor. 15:4-8).

It was during this time that Jesus further instructed the Apostles to further prepare them for the work that they were about to begin. He carefully instructed them that He was going to leave but in His place the Holy Spirit would be sent to teach them all things and bring to remembrance the things taught to them by Him (John 14:26).

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit would testify of Christ (John 15:26) and guide the Apostles into “all truth”. This occurred in Acts 2 in the city of Jerusalem as the Apostles were “filled with the Holy Spirit” (2:4). The Apostles were the first, but not the last, to receive the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” (1:4-5, cf. 11:15-16).

Prior to leaving Earth, Jesus gave the Apostles their final instructions, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I havecommanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Mat 28:18-20). In addition, Luke 24:46-47 - "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

And this is exactly what the Apostles did. They observed the ascension of the Lord into the clouds and then they went to Jerusalem and waited for the “baptism of the Holy Spirit”. Approximately, ten days later on the day of Pentecost the Apostles received it. The miraculous occasion and the subsequent speaking in tongues created a stir and allowed the Apostles to stand and preach the first post-resurrection message.

The thrust of their message was Christ crucified. They were witnesses of the events and they proclaimed them making reference to the Old Testament again and again to build their case. In the end, 3,000 precious souls were “cut to the heart” (Acts 2:37) and inquired “Brothers,what shall we do?” Peter simply told them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Act 2:38).

Jesus will be preached in Jerusalem and Judea (Acts 1-7), in Samaria (8), and finally to the uttermost parts of the world (13-28). The theme of their preaching was Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 6:14). And each time baptism played an essential part in the redemption of man (Acts 3, 8, 9, 16, 18, 22, etc.).

I am glad that Jacob and I can agree on the following things:

The Godhead or Trinity
The Inspired Word of God, the Bible
God's Desire to Save Us
We Are Not Saved By Meritorious Works (?)
Baptism is necessary (?)
The importance of faith (?)
The “sinner's prayer” as an invention of man
Justification by God
The powerful work of the cross

These are problems I see in Jacob's Understanding on this subject:

When he sees faith he almost always sees “faith only” - many of the passages he references he uses in that fashion. Faith is used in several different ways, sometimes the one word is used to describe the whole process of salvation.to describe the whole process of salvation.
He believes baptism is an outward sign, a declaration of one's faith ONLY – that concept is not taught anywhere in God's word. He believes it so every time he sees a baptism he concludes it is a declaration of faith to others.
His understanding of Acts 2:38 is flawed and based again on preconceived notions (i.e. Baptist theology). He even admits that if he is wrong on his understanding of “eis” then his position is false. His understanding of “eis” is based on one man and 3 supposed occurrences. I suspect, if Jacob changed his position on Acts 2:38 he would also change his understanding on faith, repentance, the outward declaration, etc.
He believes baptism is a meritorious work. It would then be something to brag or boast about. He has not produced one passage to prove baptism is a meritorious work.
A misuse of several texts that he believes solidifies his case: 1 Cor. 1:17 where he suggests baptism is not part of the Gospel and unimportant. Also, the account of Cornelius and the Philippian Jailer (Acts 10, 11, 16). God's word does not contradict itself.

In Conclusion, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I would like the opportunity to continue this study with Jacob in an oral debate at a reasonable time and place of his choosing. This written debate will help a lot in narrowing down the subject and therefore producing a quality debate where people can decide for themselves what the truth is on this very important matter.

Sincerely & Respectfully,
James Haynes Jr.

Wishful thinking

2011-07-27T12:13:00.002-05:00

In his article, Religion as a Black Market for Irrationality, Sam Harris lays out his case against religious belief. [1] It must be noted that two other articles tie in to this one, which I hope to address in coming blogs. These articles are offered by the author of the text book, About Philosophy, by Robert Paul Wolff, who describes himself as an atheist. What exactly is Harris arguing for in the article?

It is the belief of Harris that religions believe as they do without rational grounds to do so. Harris states, "This constraint upon our thinking has always been a problem for religion. Being stocked stem to stern with incredible ideas, the world's religions have had to find some way to circumvent reason." [2] According to Harris, the circumventing of reason comes by way of faith. Faith in Harris' mind is always a blind faith, but is this how faith is defined in the Bible? Are individuals within the Christian religion expected to blindly follow whatever their tradition dictates?

What is faith? Does faith mean that individuals are deluded as wishful thinkers? Faith properly understood can be viewed as belief based upon reality. What Harris seems to confuse is the difference between proper faith and belief. Belief does not necessary have a justifier, whereas true faith in anything must have a justifying anchor. In this case, faith is not blind, but can be justified as right belief. When Harris insinuates that faith in religion is blind, he is constructing a straw man argument, while at the same time asking his audience to blindly accept his statements.

In order for faith to be real and true, evidence must exist to support it. Faith in the Christian God comes through numerous avenues to support the religion's beliefs. The apostle John makes a statement of faith by saying, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim (1 John 1:1)." John makes a faith statement based on evidence.

In his article, Harris gives a six point plan on how one can be deluded to belief in God:

First, you must want to believe in God.
Next, understanding that believing in God in the absence of evidence is especially noble.
Then, realize that the human ability to believe in God in the absence of evidence might itself constitute evidence for the existence of God.
Now consider any need for further evidence (both in yourself and in others) to be a form of temptation, spiritually unhealthy, or a corruption of the intellect.
Refer to steps 2-4 as acts of faith.
Return to 2.

What Harris presents in his six point argument is nothing more than a bloated straw man. Concerning point one, couldn't one say that, "You must want to believe in the non-existence of God." Would that statement make Harris' argument valid? It seems that wanting to not believe in God would settle everything from the get go, in Harris' mind. But, where is the evidence in that statement, that Harris is so fond of?

Harris wants to have his cake and eat it too. He is willing to disparage religion without himself offering any evidential proof to refute it. In reality, Harris is the one who bases his belief on the blind faith of atheism, because he is unwilling to show how religion, particularly the Christian religion does not match with the evidence. Harris concludes the article by saying that religion has a "diminished contact with reality."[3] Really, Mr. Harris, is that true, or simply wishful thinking on your part?

[1] Harris, Sam, Religion as a Black Market for Irrationality as found in About Philosophy, p. 338
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid

Is baptism necessary for salvation? - 2nd rebuttal

2011-07-21T13:41:00.001-05:00

Note: In the second rebuttal by James, he posted true/false questions at the end of the paper. Being that this is the last rebuttal before the conclusion next week, I will let Jacob respond if he wishes. These true/ false questions were never agreed upon prior to the start of the debate before concluding remarks were to be made. The conclusion is meant to summarize your position, and not to keep answering questions from your opponent. If James and Jacob would like to correspond with each other after the concluding remarks, that's great. Also, if Jacob is compelled to answer the true/false question, that is up to him, though he is not required to do so as part of his conclusion.

James

This will be my 3rd entry in this debate.

I feared that a written debate would cause Jacob and I to talk past each other. Unfortunately, that is a weakness of this format. It is important for the reader to realize that Jacob and I have never spoken, passed questions, agreed on terms, etc. I hope eventually this written debate will evolve into an oral debate at a place of Jacob's choosing.

First, let me state that I am thankful that Jacob is willing to present his position on this very important subject. I appreciate the fact that he has a respect for God's word and sees it as the inerrant word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). I certainly agree with him on that matter for sure. Therefore, it is imperative that we both listen carefully and adhere completely to the will of God (Matt. 7:21; Luke 6:46). Someone must change their position or choose to displease God. Again, both positions are not correct.

Jacob hates the practice of the “Sinner's Prayer” which I also hate. Why? Because its practice is foreign to the inerrant word of God. So, to proclaim it or practice it results in one doing something outside the will of God. No one in the New Testament ever received salvation by merely saying a prayer. In fact, arguments could be made to show that God does not listen to the prayers of the unredeemed.

I am also thankful to anyone who is carefully reading this debate. A carefully orchestrated debate is a means of Bible study. Each and everyone of us has the obligation to study the word of God and mine out its truths. Paul wrote, “Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is (Eph 5:17 ESV).” Also, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven (Mat 7:21).”

Baptism is important because God made it part of His plan for saving man. Who is willing to argue or debate with God? Naaman argued with God's messenger about being baptized seven times in the dirty Jordan River. However, it was not until he complied with the will of God that he was set free from the horrible, disfiguring disease of leprosy.

God commanded John the Baptizer to go preach and baptize and that is exactly what he did (Luke 3:2-3). In the “Great Commission”, Jesus commanded the Apostles to go into all the world and preach it (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16); and that is exactly what they did.

In Acts 1:8, Jesus instructed the Apostles to begin in Jerusalem then go to Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the world. They obeyed their Lord by taking the Gospel to those places. They took the Gospel to Jerusalem (Acts 2:38); Judea (3:19); Samaria (8:1ff); and the World (18:8). Later, the Apostle Paul indicated the Gospel had been preached throughout the world (Col. 1:23).

Baptism was part of the proclamation of the Gospel and it was an urgent matter. Urgent is defined as “requiring immediate action or attention”. Why is baptism urgent? Because prior to baptism the individual:

Had Not Received The Remission of Sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16)
Had Not Put On Christ (Gal. 3:27)
Was Not “In Christ” (Rom. 6:23)
Was Condemned (Rom. 8:1)
Was Not A Child of God or Christian (Acts 11:26, 26:28)
Had Not Received The Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 5:32; Eph. 1:13-14).
Had Not Received All Spiritual Blessings (Eph. 1:3ff).
Was not “in” or into the Godhead (Matt. 28:18-20)

Jacob Misuses 1 Corinthians 1:17

Jacob, like many others, has misused 1 Cor. 1:17 in an attempt to reduce the importance of baptism. It is ironic that he uses that passage to diminish baptism but throughout his rebuttal he states again and again that baptism must be done to obey God. Failure to do so is to disobey God. He even stated that one's failure to be immersed might call into question that individual's justification/salvation. He gave several illustrations (mechanic, dog, monk) and then wrote, “...we have good reason to question a person’s justification if they refuse to submit to the plain teaching of Christ and refuse to be baptized.” Why would the Apostle Paul create doubt in the minds of so many “divided” Christians? Jacob, are you suggesting even for a moment that Paul was diminishing “obedience to God”? You can't have it both ways.

Context is absolutely essential in understanding the meaning of a particular verse. First, Paul is addressing Christians and not the world - “To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints...” (1 Cor. 1:2). He is addressing individuals that had already been immersed (Acts 18:8) and made up the local church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2).

The context reveals that there is division in the church (1:10) due to several issues which are dealt with throughout the 16-chapter epistle. There were individuals that were elevating themselves based on who they knew, etc (1:12). Paul is thankful that he only immersed a few because it may have caused some to “think more highly of themselves” (Rom. 12:3) and place themselves above others. Recall this sense of superiority is dealt with throughout the book of Corinthians.

Today, in foreign lands, missionaries will often allow the local people to immerse there own for this very reason. Otherwise someone might say, “I was immersed by an American” possibly suggesting his baptism or position was superior to his peers. I suspect this is also the reason Jesus did not physically immerse anyone (John 4:2). People today get excited and even braggadocio if they know someone who knows a famous actor like Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt. Imagine, if someone could actually claim they had been immersed by Jesus himself?

Others will travel to the Jordan River thinking an immersion there is superior to any other body of water. The Bible places no emphasis on the body of water chosen or the individual doing the immersing. I emphasis that because many have falsely suggested that those in churches of Christ teach that one must be immersed in their buildings and by their preachers. That is simply not true and has been used to prejudice one against churches of Christ.

Paul himself was immersed (Rom. 6:4; Acts 9:18) Ananias told him, “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name (Act 22:16).” Isn't it interesting that Paul recounts his conversion mentioning the fact that he was immersed? Why would he mention something that was supposedly unimportant and unnecessary? He is giving his defense for his life and he decides to talk about baptism. Why even mention baptism if it is unnecessary and unimportant according to your understanding of 1 Cor. 1:17?

In addition, Paul baptized other individuals. In 1 Cor. 1:14 he mentioned that he had immersed Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. Paul also regularly wrote to Christians on the subject of baptism to express its importance and meaning (Rom. 6:1-18; Gal. 3:26-29; Col. 2:11-13 & 3:1; Eph. 4:5). Remember, in Paul's epistles he is addressing individuals who have already been immersed. I continue to be amazed at individuals who misuse 1 Cor. 1:17 in a very feeble attempt to disprove the necessity of baptism. A gross misuse of this passage indicates one's incredible bias in my estimation.

Jacob Misquotes Me...

In the third paragraph of Jacob's 1st rebuttal he states, “ But our disagreement is what brings about “justification”. James says very clearly that one is justified by water baptism”. That statement is a misquote or a misunderstanding. I have never stated that one is justified BY WATER BAPTISM. I do not teach or preach that there is something in the water or the water does something to the individual. The inerrant word of God states,”Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God (Rom 5:9; c.f. Rom. 1:18).” Justification is from God and is made available through the perfect, precious blood of Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:20; Rev. 1:5, etc.). There is nothing magical in the water of the baptism of the “Great Commission” just like there was nothing magical in the water of Naaman's healing (2 Kings 5:1ff).

Jacob then quotes Romans 3:21-31 and then states, “Verse 26 says that God is the justifier of who? The person who gets baptized? NO. The person who has faith in Jesus.” This seems to be the major issue in Jacob's misunderstanding. Each time he sees the word “faith” his mind automatically thinks “faith only”. However, those words are not used EVER in reference to one's salvation. In my first rebuttal I challenged you to find reference to “faith only” in the Scriptures. It will be interesting to see if you have found one passage that teaches one is saved or justified by faith only or faith alone.

Also, please remember that if you conclude “faith only” you are negating everything else that God requires like repentance, confession, and love. Remember, while the inerrant word of God tells us other things one must do to be saved; there is no passage telling us that “faith alone” saves.

One of the key words in the book of Romans is righteousness and justification. It is the same word in the Koine Greek. Clearly, justification comes through faith but not “faith only”. In fact, notice several other times in Scripture where the word justification or justified is used:

Justified by His Grace & Made Heirs (Titus 3:7; Rom. 3:24)
Justified by faith (Rom. 5:1; Gal. 3:8, 24)
Justified by Christ (Gal. 2:17)
Justified by Blood (Rom. 5:9)
Called, Justified and Glorified (Rom. 8:30)
Justified from sin (Rom. 6:7)
Washed, sanctified, justified (1 Cor. 6:11)
Heathen justified through faith (Gal. 3:8)
Justified by works (James 2:21)

Jacob, your position in this debate is that one is saved at the moment of his faith. The moment he believes in Jesus? What exactly does he have to believe in order to be saved? Does he need to believe in His virgin birth, His perfect life, or His qualified death? Are you suggesting that at the moment he believes facts about Jesus his sins are washed away by the blood of Jesus? Is it just mental assent (agreement) that causes one to make him justified?

You have continued to state that it is faith alone or as you concluded in your last rebuttal “faith alone in Christ alone”. Yet, you have yet to produce one single passage that says one is saved by “faith alone” or “faith only”. So, your position teaches that repentance and confession is unnecessary to one's salvation. Yet, God's word says that repentance and confession are necessary for one coming to Christ. Now, remember, you claimed that you believed in the word of God as inerrant – right? So is it “faith only” or is it faith + repentance + confession?

In John 8:31-32, the Holy Spirit wrote, “Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” The Greek word used for believed is pisteuo indicating they had confidence, trust in Him. Would you suggest that those Jews were saved? They had obviously indicated faith in Jesus. However, by the end of the chapter they have picked up stones to stone Him (8:59).

Similarly, in John 12:42, inspiration again writes, “Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue (John 12:42).” Again, the same Greek word pisteuo is used to describe the position of the rulers. According to your position “faith alone in Christ alone” they were right with God but they refused to confess the Lord. Recall the words of Jesus in Matthew 10:32-33, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.”

How about Nicodemus? He sheepishly came to the Lord at night. The Holy Spirit recorded, “This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, 'Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.'" Obviously Nicodemus was a believer – right? He had seen the incredible miracles of Jesus and recognized that He had come from God (John 20:30-31). Yet, despite his faith, Jesus who knew his heart (2:24-25) quickly exclaimed - “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3 ).”

Obviously, these individuals were not right with God. Remember John 1:12-13, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Jacob's Quotes

1. Jacob wrote - “Abraham, the biblical example, is counted righteous not on account of his deeds but because of his faith. He believed God’s promise and he was justified by faith.” Yet James, the half brother of the Lord, wrote, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:2124).”

2. Jacob wrote - “In fact the notion of baptism is not ever tied to the concept of justification ever, even once, in the New Testament.” That is a false statement. Justification is tied to blood (Rom. 5:9). Blood was shed for the remission of sins (Matt. 26:28; Eph. 1:14; Col. 1:20; Rom. 1:5, etc). In Romans 6:7 in the very context of the one baptism, “for he that hath died is justified from sin”. The one who died had been cleared of sin. Hence baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) and is part of the justification of God.

3. Jacob wrote, “So the Bible is emphatic in stating that it is not what we do that brings about justification, not baptism or any other work, but justification is simply applied to us by faith.” It always boggles my mind when people say – “there is nothing you do” yet then turn around and say - “you have to have faith”. Does faith come by osmosis? Do you believe in Universal Salvation? The Scriptures teach that faith comes by hearing the word of God. Some instantly hear, inquire and obey (Acts 2:37-41); others may take time as they study (Acts 17:11). Do you realize belief is a work (John 6:28-29)? Repentance is required (Acts 2:38) and it too is a work (Jonah 3:10).

4. Jacob wrote, “The Churches of Christ are correct when they point out that eis can sometimes express aim or purpose. If Luke intended that usage, then this passage would teach that baptism is necessary to receive forgiveness of sins.” I would like to make several points about Jacob's assumption here and it is a huge assumption. In fact, I would suggest the only reason he takes this position is because he has to; otherwise, as he clearly states, his position would be incorrect and baptism would be necessary for salvation.

Jacob states that if EIS means FOR in Acts 2:38 then his position is false.
Jacob indicates that EIS can be used to indicate the basis or ground of something.
Jacob suggests A.T. Robertson has found 3x in the NT
Jacob concludes - “Acts 2:38 can mean that one is baptized because his or her sins have already been forgiven. Acts 2:38 does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.”

The word “EIS” is found over 1,700x in the Greek New Testament? Jacob turns to A.T. Robertson who claims he has found 3x in which the meaning might be the basis or ground of something? So, 3 out of 1,773 times convinces you that Acts 2:38 and Mark 1:4 also mean “the basis” or “ground of something”. Are you willing to risk your own soul and the souls of others based on 3/1773. Have you studied other scholars?

So, you are suggesting the following:

Mark 1:4 - “John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” You say, it should be translated or mean - “John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance because of forgiveness of sins.” So, they were immersed in water because they ALREADY had their sins forgiven. Does that even make sense?

Acts 2:38 - And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” You say it should be translated or mean -“And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Does that even make sense?

I suspect most people reading this are not Greek students so let me point out the following by indicating the Strong Numbers. Please note that they are identical in the Koine Greek.

Mark 1:4 - John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for (eis, 1519) the remission (859) of sins (266).”

Acts 2:38 - “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (eis, 1519) the remission (859) of sins (266).”

Jacob has concluded that the two verses above really mean “because of” and not simply for or unto. Yet, neither one make any sense in the context in which they are housed. How about this almost identical verse?

Matthew 26:28 - “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for (eis, 1519) the remission (859) of sins (266).”

Should that verses be translated “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many because of the forgiveness of sins”? Are you suggesting that the blood of Christ was shed because sins had already been forgiven? It does not make sense.

In addition, you have serious issues messing around with Act 2:38. A lot of your problems will begin with the conjunction - AND. Repentance and baptism are tied together by it. So, are you suggesting that both repentance and baptism come after the remission of sins? Despite these very obvious problems you wrote that both meanings are legitimate. That is not legitimate at all.

I found it ironic in that you suggested one decide which meaning to use by considering “the greater context of the New Testaments teaching about salvation”. You will consider the greater context of the New Testament but will not consider the greater meaning of EIS as spread throughout the Bible (i.e. for = for). Out of the 1,773 times that the word is used I do not know of one time it is translated “because of”.

Wayne Jackson, in his excellent commentary on Acts, wrote, “A.T. Robertson, a Baptist – who had no difficulty in ascertaining that eis signified “purpose” in Matthew 26:28 – noted that the matter is one of 'endless controversy,' and so he sought to find a view consistent with his Baptist theology. He suggested that “because of” could be a meaning for eis. However, the great scholar revealed more than he intended when he, in his massive Historical Grammar, asserted (regarding eis in 2:38), that sometimes grammar must give way to theology (1919, 389).”1 It seems Jacob has done the exact same thing.

Again, in Jackson's commentary, he records that Thayer states it means “to obtain the forgiveness of sins” and Ardnt & Gingrich states that it means “so that sins might be forgiven. It is amazing what people will do to twist God's word to make it read like they want to read it.2 Again, as I stated earlier, some linguistic gymnastics will need to be performed on Acts 2:38 to make it fit.

Jacob then draws the conclusion that Mark 16:15-16 is not in the sacred text. That would be typical since he believes baptism is unnecessary in God's plan for salvation. Like “for” in Acts 2:38, it completely destroys his position of “faith only”.

He states that scholars universally believe its not there but in every copy of the New Testament I have seen; its there. Despite his unbelief in its reality, he shares his thoughts on the “false” passage stating that non-belief is the basis of condemnation. Again, the force of the Greek says otherwise. Also, note that an individual who does not believe will never be baptized. If I am a terrible, dishonest salesman then an individual's lack of faith in me will result in him not purchasing a car from me. I will not dwell on this passage since he concludes that it is non-existent. According to him, it is not part of the inerrant word of God.

Jacob goes on to suggest that baptism is a work. I have always wondered why an individual believes it is a work. Is it because a person physically gets up and is immersed? Is that why its called a work? The Bible describes at least 2 types of works. Belief is a work (John 6:28-29). I wonder why belief is not recognized as such especially since it often takes individuals time of study and research before choosing to become a child of God (Rom. 10:17; Acts 17:11). Also, repentance is a work (Jonah 3:10; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Baptism is actually part of the “working of God” (Col. 2:11-12).

1 Jackson, Wayne. (2005), The Acts of the Apostles From Jerusalem to Rome (Stockton: Christian Courier Publications. Pg. 28
2 Jackson, Wayne. (2005), The Acts of the Apostles From Jerusalem to Rome (Stockton: Christian Courier Publications. Pg. 27.

Jacob, please answer these True/False (T/F) questions and send them through Mr. Cade before next Sunday. Thank you!

T/F God's word contradicts itself.
T/F The Apostles were guided into All Truth
T/F Today, there is only one baptism
T/F Baptism places one into the Lord's church.
T/F The 3,000 in Acts 2, were saved when they were “cut to the heart” or before.
T/F One must hear or read the word of God before being salvation is ever possible.
T/F Preaching Jesus also includes preaching baptism.
T/F Saul was saved prior to being baptized.
T/F The Philippian Jailer Was Saved Before Baptism.
T/F Acts 19 speaks of some disciples whose baptism was invalid.
T/F The baptism in Romans 6 is the baptism identified in Matt. 28:18-20.
T/F Upon rising from the baptism in Romans 6, one has newness of life.
T/F Must one obey the Gospel to be saved.
T/F One puts on Christ by Faith Only.
T/F Colossians 2:12 describes the one baptism (Eph. 4:5)
T/F Naaman had leprosy removed by faith only.
T/F Baptism places one into the Baptist church.
T/F Repentance from sin is unnecessary to be saved.
T/F The Galatians became Christians Through Faith Only (Gal. 3:26)
T/F One is baptized into the One body (1 Cor. 12:13)

Jacob

Second Rebuttal: Jacob Allee

James starts off his first rebuttal challenging us to find a passage that uses the term “faith alone.” This however is a fallacious argument, especially coming from someone whom I would assume accepts the doctrine of the Trinity? Just because a specific word or phrase isn’t said “just so” in the Bible doesn’t meant that the Bible doesn’t clearly teach the concept itself. The Bible does of course constantly refrain that salvation is by faith and not by works (again, John 3:16; all of Romans 3 & 4 constantly and Ephesians 1:13-14; 2:8-9 just to name a drop in the bucket), but if you want it to say “faith alone”, then I guess you are right, the Bible doesn’t coin it in that exact phrase. The Bible also never says “baptism is necessary for salvation”. I challenge anyone to find that exact utterance in the Bible, and yet this is James’ position in the debate. So by his logic his own position is unbiblical because the exact wording is not found in the Bible. Obviously this is a bad argument, so let’s move past it.

James moves on to say that “Faith is the initial ingredient that leads one to do what God requires him to do.” So then faith is just the first step towards salvation in James’ model. He then refers to Naaman and his cleansing from leprosy by washing in the water, but this is irrelevant to our discussion because Naaman was washing to be physically healed. God may require someone to do something to be healed physically, a work of some sort, but he doesn’t ask us to do works for our salvation, so this is a red herring and a misuse of examples. He mentions again Acts 2:38, which I dealt with in my first rebuttal and I still stand by what was said there, I will have a bit more to say about that in a minute. Then James gives us a reference to Galatians 3 stating “Notice “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal 3:26-27 ).” Does one “put on Christ” before or after baptism?

Now here James exposes a false assumption, namely, that this passage refers to water baptism. This passage actually does not refer to water baptism but to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Just as John the Baptist said “I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit”(Mark 1:8). It is a mistake to come to a passage that has the word baptism and simply assume that it is referring to water baptism and it is interesting that John contrasts his baptism with water with the more important baptism of the Holy Spirit. In Ephesians 1:13-14 the Scripture states “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” So then we are sealed into salvation by the Holy Spirit when we believe the gospel message. Notice baptism with water is nowhere in view here.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 strengthens this position that baptism is not always a reference to water baptism but at times it is a reference to the baptism of the Spirit of God. “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” This Spirit baptism, that which unites us as one spiritual body of Christ, is not a baptism of water but it is the Spirit indwelling and sealing us into our salvation, uniting us with Christ by faith. This Spirit baptism is that application of Christ’s life, death and resurrection to our soul that saves us. Water baptism then is a work of obedience that is a symbolic expression of what Christ as already done for us. Water baptism is a public declaration of our faith in Jesus and an act of obedience to Christ our Lord and already Savior.

And if it is not clear enough already that baptism in the New Testament sometimes refers to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit rather than water baptism and that it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which happens at the moment of faith which saves us, then everyone ought to find this truth irrefutable in Acts 10:34-48:

“34So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), 37you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: 38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. 39And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, 40but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, 41 not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." 44While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.”

So then, I ask you, did God give the Holy Spirit to unsaved people? Would these who believed and were baptized by the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus have been lost to eternal Hell if they had a heart attack on the way to the river? Certainly not! In Acts 11 Peter recounts this experience at the Jerusalem council explaining to everyone how God had extended salvation to the Gentiles stating:

15As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?" 18When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life."

It is the receiving of the Holy Spirit, baptism of the Spirit, which occurs at the moment of faith that applies the finished work of Jesus to our lives. It is unthinkable to imagine God granting His Holy Spirit to someone who was not yet saved and yet, logically, this would have to be the case if James’ understanding of salvation by “water baptism” is correct. However when we realize that at times the New Testament is referring to water baptism, and at times it is referring to Spirit baptism, and we are clear on which is which, we see that baptism of the Spirit is the baptism that actually “seals” us into salvation (Eph. 1:13-14) and that is an experience that occurs apart from water baptism. The Spirit of God did not always manifest Himself through the gift of tongues at the moment of salvation as He did in Joppa, and we recognize that in some instances He manifests himself after water baptism in the book of Acts too, but in the case of Peter speaking to the Gentiles at Joppa God’s Spirit did indeed manifest Himself through the gift of tongues and this was prior to water baptism which means that salvation occurs apart from water baptism.

James continues on in his rebuttal stating “The fact that God expects other things in view of salvation negates a “faith only”position. Does God expect an individual to repent (metanoeo)?” Well, yes, God does expect people to repent. But then what is repentance and how is it used in the New Testament? The already stated Greek word “matanoeo” which we translate as “repent” literally means to change ones mind. People often use the word wrongly and think that repentance means “change of action” but this is not so. To repent is to change your mind about things, which inevitably will lead to a change of actions, but those actions are a result of repentance and not repentance itself, hence John the Baptist’s exhortation to “Bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (Acts 3:8). A person who has truly repented (changed their mind) will act differently because their thinking has changed. In the New Testament repentance is used in conjunction with the idea of faith or belief because what the Lord Jesus and his apostles are urging people to do is “repent” or “change their mind about their sin” and believe in the Lord Jesus. So then is repentance a part of salvation? Yes, but only insofar as it is impossible to separate repentance and faith! In other words, in order to believe the gospel one has to change their mind about the life they are living and trust in Jesus. Repentance is a necessary part of what it means to believe then and coincides with salvation by faith. To make repentance and faith a separate concept is mistaken because they both necessarily entail the other.

Repentance and faith, however, are not works. They aren’t tasks to be accomplished like baptism or any other command that requires effort of will and action to obey, rather, these are mental responses and/or inward commitments that one makes when presented with the gospel of Jesus Christ. One simply hears the message of the gospel and either believes it (changing their mind about what they have believed previously) or rejects it, but these are nor works and they are inseparable from one another. Repentance and faith are like the opposite sides of the same coin and should not/cannot be separated from one another. If a person repents it is because they believe, if they believe it necessarily entails repentance.

James’ also asks “is confession necessary”? Well, confession is something that will be a part of a true believers life and therefore will always be present among those who are saved, but it is not necessary as in it brings about justification. It is a fruit of justification. But here it might be helpful to note that the New Testament also clearly delineates between saving faith and non-saving faith. In other words, the words “faith” and/or “belief” can be used in more than one way. There are those who believe in the sense that they merely think something is factually true and then there are those who believe something to the point that it changes their action. This is the subject that James (the Lord’s half brother) deals with in his epistle. In James 2:19 He notes that “Even the demons believe—and shudder!” Obviously the demons are not expressing saving faith in God, they simply recognize God for who he is, but there is a major difference in believing something factually and believing something in the sense that you trust in it and it then changes how you behave. A person who believes/trust in Christ for salvation will indeed confess him as their Lord, but again confession is a fruit of saving faith not something that brings about salvation. Romans 10:10 is brought up which states “For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” But see that it states clearly that when one believes they are justified. Are we to think that justification by faith and being saved by confession are different? Can a person be justified but not saved? That is a contradictory idea. Is it not better to understand that those who believe and are justified will confess and thereby identify themselves among the saved? I think this is more on course with the New Testaments teaching in general.

James (my debate opponent not the epistle writer) continues his rebuttal with the following:

He then quotes Ephesians 2:8-10. The passage quoted is a beautiful passage but it does not teach “faith only”. It is true that we have been saved by God's grace. God's grace is free and available to each and every person; however, an individual acquires it by passing through the channels of faith. It is interesting this passage is found in a letter to the church that had controversy concerning baptism in its origin. (Acts 19:1ff, c.f. 18:24ff). In fact, they had been taught incorrectly and baptized incorrectly. John's baptism was no longer valid (Eph. 4:5).

First of all I want to deal with the idea James presents stating that God’s grace is “free” and yet he also states “an individual acquires it by passing through the channels of faith”. How can it be both free and something we have to get for ourselves by doing works? I mean “passing through the channels of faith” is simply a coded way of saying “we have got to do things ourselves if we are going to be saved” is it not? And yet Paul specifically addresses such a notion in Romans 4:4-5 “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.” Grace, by definition, is the unmerited favor of God. It is God giving us something good that we don’t deserve. But by James’ view of salvation grace can hardly be said to be “unmerited” unless we change the definition of the word “merit” to exclude all of the works that James thinks we have to do to receive God’s grace!

James’ discussion of problems in the church at Ephesus is misguided and anachronistic. What I mean to say is the church that is being addressed in the epistle of Ephesians by Paul could hardly be said to have really been established when Apollos was preaching. Furthermore, no one had been taught incorrectly, but simply they lacked the whole of the teaching they needed. Just as only knowing how to solve the first part of a complex math problem doesn’t mean what you have been taught is wrong but only that you need more information to solve the entire problem. In fact the Bible actually says in Acts 18:24-25 “Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.” So then the Scripture, in reality, praises Apollos and simply tells us that he didn’t know about Jesus’ baptism (Matthew 28:18-20). But he is said to have “taught accurately the things concerning Jesus.” But if James is right, again, Apollos was an unsaved man telling people accurately about Jesus? This doesn’t make much sense. Apollos needed to know some things he didn’t but he was a believer who was faithfully preaching the gospel.

James asks “Acquiring faith, is that something a person must do before they can receive the free gift of God?” But actually according to Ephesians 2:8-9 grace, faith and salvation are all a gift from God, so it is not something that we ourselves produce ourselves but something that God works in us.

James says “Prior to leaving Earth, Jesus commanded immersion” and then asks me “Are you going to deny that?” Well, no James I’m not. Why would I deny that? I am a “Baptist” after all. James seems to have difficulty with the idea that Baptism is a command of our Lord Jesus but not necessary for salvation. He says it “does not make any sense” to say it is command but not necessary for salvation. But the fact that Jesus commanded Baptism doesn’t mean it is a requirement for salvation. If we have to perfectly fulfill all of the commands of Jesus for salvation then we might as well resign to an eternity in Hell now because Jesus commanded "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself" (Luke 10:27). I don’t know about you, but I fail to always love God with all my heart, soul and strength and I definitely am not always loving my neighbor as myself. Or how about Jesus’ command in Matthew 5:48 “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” How are you doing on your perfection lately? I am a ways off from it myself.

So then the argument that because Jesus commands something it must then be obeyed without fail in order to bring about our salvation is actually quite untrue unless Jesus’ whole point in His coming was to make sure we all know that there is no chance anyone will ever be saved! But no, thank God, Jesus came to fulfill the law and commands of God on our behalf so that by faith in Him His righteousness might be imputed to us and we might be justified before God. I am so thankful that I am not burdened to accomplish all of this for myself but that Jesus, my Lord and Savior, accomplished these things for me. And now I join Paul in crying out “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).

James brings up the passage in 1 Peter 3:18-22 and I would like to address it here. The passage in context reads:

18For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

And yet it is important to read this in light of Hebrews 11:7 which says “By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.” So then I ask you to decide for yourself, what saved Noah? Was it the water? Or was it the ark which Noah constructed in faith, believing that what God said was true and that there would be a flood? You see the water washed away the evil people in the world, cleansing the earth. But it was the faith of Noah which led him to build the ark which was the vessel that actually saved him and his family. So just as Noah was brought safely through the water which was a result of his faith, so we who believing in Christ submit to water baptism as an appeal to God for a good conscience, that is, when we obey God’s commands our consciences are clear and we know that we are in Him by faith. Salvation is by faith, but obedience is the fruit of the redeemed and we should be able to look at our lives and know we are truly saved because our life is bearing fruit keeping with faith/repentance.

Now, back to Acts 2:38, James says “Those against baptism at this point will want to do something to the words here to try and make it say what they want it to say. Yet they have been proved to be incorrect each and every time.” Well I encourage you to read my first rebuttal and the discussion of the Greek word “eis” because this is not just word twisting it is simply reality. The word can be understood to be the ground/reason for something or the cause of something and it depends on the context which translation of the word is appropriate. Acts 2:38 can legitimately be translated as “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” or “repent and be baptized because of the remission of sins.” I quoted A.T. Robertson who was one of the most respected Greek scholars of the last century, not some backwoods 1^st year bible student. So, James, if you want to dismiss my point I suggest putting forth an actual argument rather than just making a claim that people who are “against baptism” (which is a straw man characterization of my view since I am actually for people being baptized), “do something to the words here to try and make it say what they want it to say.” Perhaps you might demonstrate how people like myself have been proven wrong “each and every time”? The reality is that I am not twisting anything but that the Greek word “eis” can really mean either of the above and so we have to be good Bible students to determine what the author originally intended. And since the Scripture without fail points to faith as the trigger of our justification and never baptism I suggest that “eis” is better understood as “because of” and that Baptism is something we do because Christ has already forgiven our sins.

As far as the Ethiopian Eunuch is concerned, I am suggesting that he jumped at the opportunity to identify himself publicly as a follower of Jesus of Nazareth after he had trust in Christ for salvation. An often missed aspect of baptism these days is that in the first century water baptism was a very public way of identifying yourself as a follow of Jesus. Where there was a body of water there was usually other people and so getting baptized marked you as one of Jesus’ people and was a public testimony of your faith and salvation. So the Eunuch wasn’t in a hurry to get saved from being baptized in water, but he was in a hurry to publically proclaim his faith in Jesus in obedience to Christ’s command.

James mentions the Philippian jailer in Acts 16, but how ironic that he does for when the jailer asks "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" they respond "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Yes, indeed they do get baptized later on, but that is the fitting response of a person who has just been saved by faith. In fact we should expect to see true believers who are quick to obey the commands of Jesus.

In his opening statement and first rebuttal James seems to be suggesting (and I would love for him to correct me if I am misunderstanding him) that we have to keep all of Jesus’ command in order to attain salvation, something no one can actually do. Yet the Bible says, that Jesus perfectly obeyed God on our behalf so that we might be saved by His righteousness rather than our own.

In Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus says:

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

The Pharisees were exceedingly good at keeping the letter of the law and yet Jesus says that their own righteousness by their works of obedience was insufficient. Our righteousness has to exceed theirs if we have any hope. But who could do better than the Pharisees who painstakingly obeyed God’s commands? Only Jesus who perfectly obeyed without ever failing once. So I will never attain a righteousness through my own deeds that will make me right before God, but by faith in Jesus His perfect obedience and fulfillment of the law is applied to me. Romans 3:22 says it all when it tells us that we can have “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.” I need his righteousness, not my own. It is a free gift to me offered by God’s grace which I do not deserve that is accepted by the gift of faith given by God.

By Faith Alone in Christ Alone,

Jacob Allee

www.jacoballee.com

Knowledge - What counts?

2011-07-20T15:38:00.000-05:00

A common argument that often surfaces against Theism is, "You wouldn't believe in little green men or Santa Clause, so why believe in God?" What the skeptic is really saying is that belief in God is simple-minded or anti-intellectual, but is it?

The skeptic when arguing in this direction is placing himself as a purveyor of higher knowledge than the Theist. He is saying that belief in God can not be true and must therefore be a contrived fairy-tale. In essence, the skeptic is arguing that he has greater knowledge in the non-existence of God than the Theist has in the existence of God. But, what exactly is the knowledge the skeptic is putting forth? What does knowledge entail?

Knowledge, according to one definition is, "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition." Given this definition, there must be facts and truths present for anything to count as knowledge. When the skeptic compares the Theist position to contrived stories, he is simply arguing from a position of arrogance and ignorance. For when the skeptic claims that Theism is man-made, he is making absolutely no argument from the standpoint of knowledge.

Christian apologetics presents a conglomerate of arguments that culminate together in showing that the Christian God accounts for greater knowledge than the non-existence of the Christian God. Some of the arguments that support the existence of the Christian God include: The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Fine-Tuning of the Universe, Specified Complexity, the information message in DNA, human consciousness, the resurrection of Jesus, and many others. The point is, the Christian position is honest in assuming responsibility when it comes to arguing for its position, whereas, skepticism often makes statements with no intellectual support. If the skeptic wants to bring down the Christian God, it must put forth knowledge-based arguments to show Christianity as a failed worldview.

What counts as knowledge? As the definition clearly states, knowledge involves facts (evidence) and truths. Maybe the skeptic should assume more responsibility in the knowledge realm before making statements not based in knowledge!

The Emptiness of Humanism

2011-07-19T11:44:00.000-05:00

The authors, Jacques Thiroux and Keith Kraseann of "Ethics: Theory and Practice" lay out their five point plan of how ethics should be viewed. They approach ethics from the standpoint of humanism. What is humanism? Humanism is an ethical way of life, in which humanity decides what is best for all. Some of the tenants of humanism include: the non-existence of God, ethics are derived from human experience and are situational, human dignity is the highest value, any sexual behavior between consenting adults should be tolerated, and reason and compassion should be the ultimate guide for all decisions made by the human race. This generalization of humanism comes from the "Humanist Manifesto II." [1]

What are the 5 points of ethics according to Thiroux and Kraseann? 1.) The Value of Life Principle - Humans should value life and accept death. 2.) The Principle of Goodness or Righteousness - We should strive to do good and avoid the bad. 3.) The Principle of Justice or Fairness - The distribution of of good and bad on a just and fair basis. 4.) The Principle of Truth Telling or Honesty - Necessary for meaningful communication. 5.) The Principle of Individual Freedom - Individuals must have the freedom to choose their own way of being moral within the framework of the first four basic principles. Can the world operate ethically by using these five principles?

In order for the ethical system presented to be considered valid it must be a system that the world could live with and be structured in a way that is fair to all individuals. Can the world live with such a system? No. The overarching problem from which the whole five point system collapses, is that it falls victim to relativism.

If humanist ethics is situational and these five points are the correct way to do ethics, then who gets to decide what conforms to the five points? In other words, point one deals with the value of life, but what is to be done with the unborn? Are they to be considered alive? It seems that the system of Thiroux and Krasemann fails here, in that, the person or persons in power get to decide the criteria for what is alive and what is not.

If humanism is the way to go, who decides the basic human principles? Why should anyone accept what Thiroux and Krasemann have to say? Though the five principles seem to be good principles, the problem arises when trying to ground the principles. There is simply nothing to ground the five principles in. Why these five points and not my own system? Any humanist system of ethics turns out to be nothing more than personal belief without the ability to justify why anyone should believe that way.

Humanism fails to produce any type of justifiable system. In the end, those in power decide what others should believe. In essence, humanism can lead right down the road of totalitarianism. Once humanism throws off the existence of God, it has no way to find any foundational grounding. If God does not exist, then why should anyone pledge allegiance to humanistic ethics? Besides, how does this humanistic system justify "The Principle of Goodness?" What is good on the humanistic ethical system and who gets to decide? The "Humanist Manifesto", and even Thiroux and Krasemann indicate a moral law exists, but they have no answer from where this law comes. It seems the ethics of humanism is empty because it has absolutely nothing to ground the system in. As Fyodo Dostoevsky once said, "If God does not exist, everything is permissible."

[1] Humanist Manifesto II

The Burden of Proof on Atheists concerning Evil, Suffering, and God

2011-07-15T11:04:00.001-05:00

Is baptism necessary for salvation? - 1st rebuttal

2011-07-14T09:43:00.006-05:00

Jacob

To start off I would like to affirm that James and I do agree on a few things and I would like to highlight those briefly so that we can be clear what this debate is not about. James and I agree that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, that baptism is for those who have expressed belief in Jesus as Savior and Lord, and that baptism should be by full immersion (the Greek term “baptismo” means “immersion”). Furthermore I will go on the record of stating that I personally hate the concept of the “sinners prayer” and walking an aisle to get saved, etc. I believe that these are not biblical concepts but, rather, they are inventions of the second great awakening and the heretic Charles Finney. Finally we also agree that our positions about salvation and baptism are mutually exclusive which means that we cannot both be right about this topic, at least one of us is wrong. So then, on these things James and I agree, these are not our points of discussion for the debate because we agree on these things. Our topic for discussion is solely about whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. As James stated, his view is that a person must be baptized by submersion in water to be saved. I appreciate his taking time to be clear when he states that by “necessary” he means “Required to be done, achieved, or present; essential.” He also defines what he means by “saved” stating it means “to enter into a position of salvation (forgiveness of sins; justification).”

For the record, one more thing we agree upon, the Bible does teach that salvation is to be made positionally right before God, have ones sins forgiven and to be justified. But our disagreement is what brings about “justification”. James says very clearly that one is justified by water baptism. However, the Bible says very clearly that a person is justified by faith apart from works. Now that our terms are well defined let’s consider the passage in Romans 3:21-31:

21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Now let’s consider “justification” our key word here and let’s see how the Scripture plainly uses the term. Keep in mind that the word is used in several forms such as “justification”, “Justified” and “just”, but all, when referring to man, are referring to his position before God, salvation. Here we see in verses 23-24 that all people have become sinners but justification comes about as an act of God’s grace which is appropriated how? By faith! Verse 26 says that God is the justifier of who? The person who gets baptized? NO. The person who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 4 continues this same theme stating in verses 1-8:

1What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."

Note that the Bible says to be justified is to be counted as righteous before God. But Abraham, the biblical example, is counted righteous not on account of his deeds but because of his faith. He believed God’s promise and he was justified by faith. In fact the notion of baptism is not ever tied to the concept of justification ever, even once, in the New Testament. God’s grace (as the one who brings about justification) and faith (which is a gift from God according to Eph. 2:8-9) are constantly tied to the biblical teaching of justification (see also Romans 5:1, 9; 8:30; 10:10; Galatians 2:15-16; 3:11, 24; Titus 3:7, etc.) So the Bible is emphatic in stating that it is not what we do that brings about justification, not baptism or any other work, but justification is simply applied to us by faith.

The only work necessary for our justification is not a work that we do, but a work that was done for us by Jesus Christ Himself! Romans 5:18-19 says “18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” Adam’s sin was brought about the condemnation of all people as we are all his descendants, but Christ’s work of obedience, HIS WORK, is what leads to justification. His righteousness is credited to us by faith. This is the plain and simple teaching of Scripture and baptism is nowhere in view.

Now James makes the statement in his opening statement that “Truly, there were faithful men and women in the pages of the Old Testament but God never delivered to them the ordinance of baptism. Similarly, God has never commanded us to build an ark or sacrifice an animal. An understanding of the different covenants is essential in this discussion.” Which, if I understand his meaning correctly, he intends to say that in the Old Testament, depending on the covenant they were under, people were accountable to a certain set of commands or ordinances in order to have justification or be justified before God. He refers to building the ark (Noah) and sacrificing animals (the Levitical Priesthood system). However, lest we forget, it is Abraham (who also offered sacrifices) that is our prime subject in Romans 4 for illustrating that justification (salvation) has been, is, and always will be appropriated by faith apart from works. So while I would agree that understanding the different covenants of the Bible are important, they do not indeed change the way justification is applied to the believer, by faith apart from works, and so they are not terribly relevant to our debate after all.

Next I want to address the issue of John the Baptist and his baptism. The Scripture says of John in Mark 1:4 “John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” And I heartily affirm the biblical text here as always. But it needs to be noted that the Bible was not written in English, but the original language of the New Testament was Koine Greek. In this passage concerning John and also in the case of Acts 2:38 which states “And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” We need to take a look at the original language to note something very important:

An examination of the Greek text reveals information not available in the English translation. The word "for" is a translation of the Greek preposition eis. The Churches of Christ are correct when they point out that eis can sometimes express aim or purpose. If Luke intended that usage, then this passage would teach that baptism is necessary to receive forgiveness of sins. However, this is not the only meaning that the Greek term eis can have in this passage. Eis can also be used to indicate the basis or ground of something. According to A. T. Robertson, this usage "occurs at least three times" where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground" (Matt. 10:41; 12:41) (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures In The New Testament, Vol. III, p. 35). Acts 2:38 can mean that one is baptized because his or her sins have already been forgiven. Acts 2:38 does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.[1]

So then we see that while a possible way to understand what the Bible is saying about baptism is that it is “for” the remission of sins, it can also be understood that people are to be baptized “because of” the remission of sins. Both are legitimate translations of the same Greek word so how are we to know what the Bible intends to communicate on the subject? Well we must take the greater context of the New Testaments teaching about salvation, forgiveness of sins, justification, etc. What we can clearly see when we do this is that the great body of discussion in the New Testament about justification is in relationship to God’s grace and personal faith in Jesus Christ apart from human effort. So it is more legitimate to understand these baptism passages as meaning that people should be baptized as a result of having their sins remitted by repentance and faith rather than being baptized to receive that remission.

Concerning Mark 16:15-16 and the statement “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” I would like to note that scholars almost universally believe that Mark 16 originally ended with verse 8 and that everything that follows was a later addition by some scribe centuries after Mark wrote his gospel. However, even if this were to be considered on par with Scripture (which I maintain it is not), it is worth noting that according to this passage the basis of condemnation is said to be lack of belief rather than lack of a particular work like baptism.

James continues in his opening statement to say “I hear individuals such as Mr. Cade suggest baptism is unnecessary but then turn around and say that it is a command to be obeyed. Huh? In fact, he even stated that he was going to teach some individuals the need to obey it. Why, if it is unnecessary? Some say it is a demonstration to others that he or she has been saved. Is this true of the Eunuch in Acts 8? What his baptism to show Philip that he had been saved? What happens if individuals refuse to show an outward sign of an inward grace? Are they still right with God despite their rejection of said command?”

In response to this, let us suppose a person were to tell you he was a mechanic. In turn you tell him that your engine has been making this “clunking sound” and that you would love for him to take a look at it and see if he can determine the problem. In response the man says “I don’t really know much about cars.” Or perhaps we might put it this way, a person introduces you to their “dog”, but the dog doesn’t bark, doesn’t like to chase cats and squirrels and looks remarkably more like a hamster than a Doberman. Finally let’s say you meet a person who introduces themselves as a Buddhist monk. When you ask them what Buddha taught and how a Buddhist lives they respond “Oh I don’t really live like a Buddhist I like material possessions and I think Benny Hinn is a better teacher than Buddha, anyway.” From these three scenarios what would you conclude? I would conclude that the man was not really a mechanic because he was ignorant of cars, that the dog was actually a hamster and that the Buddhist wasn’t really a Buddhist by any definition that corresponds to Buddhism.

Why do I say all of this? Because I want to henceforth destroy the notion that a Christian can actually be a Christian and not desire to follow Jesus, nor lack all knowledge of Jesus, nor refuse to accept Jesus’ teachings. When I, a Baptist, say that Baptism is important but not necessary for salvation, what I mean to indicate is that justification (the moment a person is saved) will occur at the moment when they trust in Jesus and not at Baptism. But for all intents and purposes, we have good reason to question a person’s justification if they refuse to submit to the plain teaching of Christ and refuse to be baptized. But anyone can see the distinction between baptism causing justification and baptism being a work of obedience that points towards someone’s genuine justification by faith. Just as Ephesians 2:8-9 says “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” So then also verse 10 states “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” The person who is saved by faith will walk in good works and obedience to Christ Jesus. So let it be said that baptism, like the other commands of the Lord Jesus and his apostles matters, but it doesn’t bring about justification, faith in Christ does. Obedience is the fruit of salvation. So then the Ethiopian Eunuch didn’t get baptized merely to prove his salvation to Philip, but he did it because he was saved and as a follower of Jesus Christ he desired to be obedient to his new Lord and Savior.

One should not be surprised to see the constant accompaniment of salvation by faith with baptism because those who believe Jesus is Lord and Savior will follow His command to be baptized after trusting Him for their salvation. It is as simple as that.

As though the Scripture had not spoken clearly enough already I would like to end my first rebuttal with the words of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:17 “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” As Paul says so very plainly, baptism is not a part of the gospel message, it is subsequent to salvation.

By Faith Alone in Christ Alone,

Jacob Allee

www.jacoballee.com

[1] http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbdenominations.aspx?pageid=8589952154

James

My Response to Jacob's Introduction

I firmly agree that a proper understanding of baptism is absolutely essential. An improper understanding leads to false teaching about God's plan for saving man. Those who corrupt God's plan for saving man will be lost in Hell (Gal. 1:6-9; James 3:1). Those who hear error are led astray; they remain in their sins and they remain outside the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, baptism is either necessary for salvation or not necessary for salvation. Both positions cannot be correct.

Jacob concludes his introduction by writing, “So water baptism is an important work of obedience by which we publically declare our faith and unity with Christ, but it is faith and faith alone by which Christ’s work of salvation is applied to us.” He states that salvation comes by “faith alone” or “faith only”. Can you find one verse in God's word that says that an individual is saved by “faith only” or “faith alone”? There is not one passage in God's inspired word that states it.

Of course, God expects us to have faith (pistis). The Bible teaches that faith is generated by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). The Bereans “...received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so (Acts 17:11).” Those in Acts 2 were “cut to the heart” (Acts 2:37) when they heard the message of the crucified Christ. They believed that message and it caused them to inquire, "Brothers, what shall we do?" Meanwhile many others in the book of Acts heard the same basic message but rejected it (e.g. Acts 13:46). Faith was not generated in them because they would not allow it. Faith is the initial ingredient that leads one to do what God requires him to do. Naaman first had to have faith in God's word before he would ever be immersed in the Jordan River in anticipation of having his leprosy removed (2 Kings 5:1ff). Similarly, its faith that looks to Jesus today and asks “Lord what will you have me to do?”. Only true believers will take the next step and be immersed “for the remission of sins” (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, etc.). Notice “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal 3:26-27 ).” Does one “put on Christ” before or after baptism?

The fact that God expects other things in view of salvation negates a “faith only”position. Does God expect an individual to repent (metanoeo)? Jesus said one would perish without repentance (Luke 13:3, 5). Can a practicing homosexual knowing his lifestyle is contrary to God's word become a Christian without repentance (1 Cor. 6:9-11)? In John's baptism, were the people expected to repent (Luke 3:10)? In Acts 2, were the people told to repent (Acts 2:38)? In Paul's sermon on Mars Hill did he proclaim repentance for those that were idol worshipers (Acts 17:30-31)? The obvious, honest answer is yes. God expects repentance. The “faith only” position is therefore false. It it is at least faith (pistis) and repentance (metanoeo).

Similarly, is confession necessary (Matt. 10:32; Rom. 10:10)? The Apostle John described rulers that “believed in Him” but they would not confess Him (John 12:42). Were they saved by their belief only? In John 8:31; it said they believed in Jesus; however, in 8:59 they picked up stones to stone Him. So, now there is confession, repentance, and faith. Again the “faith only” position is false.

The following phrase in Jacob's introduction seemed contradictory, “Here in this passage we have a very clear teaching on the nature of salvation and how a person acquires (emp. mine) it for themselves, namely, by faith.” I thought it an odd word selection since he argues that baptism is a work of human effort or merit. After Naaman was immersed 7-times in the dirty Jordan, could it be said that he merited his health?

Is Jacob prepared to suggest that “through faith” excludes repentance, confession, and love? I guess so. He writes concerning Ephesians 2:8, “Again, a very clear and straightforward text that tells us with no uncertainty that salvation is by grace through faith. Salvation is not a result of something we do, such as getting baptized...” Acquiring faith, is that something a person must do before they can receive the free gift of God? Faith comes by hearing God's word and for some that may take a lot of study and effort (Acts 17:11).

Jacob then refers to Jesus Christ attempting to suggest that He taught “faith only”. Again, the same Jesus involved in John 3:16-18, demanded repentance and confession (Luke 13:3, 5; Matt. 10:32, etc.). He also paid special tribute to John the Immerser in defending the baptism he was instructed by God to perform (Matt. 21:25). Prior to leaving Earth, Jesus commanded immersion (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). Are you going to deny that? In Luke 24:46-47, Jesus said - “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” Isn't this exactly what happened in Acts 2:37-38?

Jacob does the same thing with the Apostle Peter. Yet he is arguing with the wrong man. Recall it was Peter whose inspired sermon is recorded in Acts 2 in which he responded to the people “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Act 2:38).” The Apostle Peter also wrote, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1Pe 3:21).”

Jacob believes that baptism is an outward sign, a picture of identification. He states several times that it is a “command to be obeyed” but it is not necessary for salvation. That does not make any sense. What if someone absolutely refuses to be immersed? Are they lost because of their “willful” disobedience? Recall, there were those in John's day that refused to be immersed and they defied the will of God (Luke 7:29-30).

Are you suggesting that the 3,000 in Acts 2 were baptized to indicate that they had previously been saved? Didn't the inspired Apostle Peter say that the baptism was “for the remission of sins”? He said nothing about baptism as an outward sign of their salvation; rather he said it was for the remission of sins. Those against baptism at this point will want to do something to the words here to try and make it say what they want it to say. Yet they have been proved to be incorrect each and every time.

In Acts 8:26ff, the Eunuch generated faith (Rom. 10:17) by reading Isaiah 53 and Philip helping him in his understanding. The Scriptures teach that Philip used the reading and “preached Jesus to him.” As a result of the teaching, the Eunuch sees water and inquires if he can be immersed. Are you suggesting that the Eunuch was immersed as merely an outward sign and not “for the remission of sins”? Was he only showing his faith to Philip by being immersed?

In Acts 16:25ff, the conversion account of the Philippian Jailer is recorded. Are you suggesting that his baptism after a full day of work, an earthquake and an attempted suicide was just an outward sign of an inward grace? No, it was necessary for salvation and that is why he did not delay it.

Baptism is always an urgent matter in the New Testament. This is demonstrated in Acts 2, 8, 9 (22:16); 16; 18:8, etc. Why is baptism an urgent issue? Because it is part of God's plan of saving man (1 Peter 3:21). It is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). It adds one to the church (Matt. 16:16ff; Acts 2:41) which is the Kingdom. Only those in the Kingdom will be saved (1 Cor. 15:24) when the Lord returns.

Baptism is not a work of merit, rather it is a work of God (Col. 2:12). An individual arising and being immersed has not earned or merited his salvation. Naaman did not brag, boast concerning his ability to heal himself, did he? He simply complied with the words of God and he found himself leprosy-free by the working of God.

Similarly, today an individual studies God's word or is taught it. Faith is generated in that person's heart and he or she inquires - “What Must I Do To Be Saved? One can either tell them what Peter told the 3,000 or something else. Sadly, there are many today who are tellingscores of people “something else”.

What to believe?

2011-07-13T10:26:00.000-05:00

Recently, I have had various conversations with individuals who come from a variety of different worldviews from Atheism to Wicca. I always have questions concerning how these individuals justify their belief system. Many times, their views are based on relativism and after asking questions, they too have questions of why they are holding to their particular view. I would like to offer three points that are necessary in order to justify and defend a belief system.

A few comments are necessary concerning relativism. Relativism holds that universal truth does not exit. Either what should be true is determined by the individual or the culture. In either case, the number of different belief systems are going to be incredibly huge. When talking of cultural relativism, the person or group in power gets to decide the so called true beliefs of the community. In the end, relativism is self defeating, because it makes an ultimate truth claim as to how things are, while at the same time denying the existence of objective truth.

For any belief system to be valid, it must withstand scrutiny over time and still be able to stand. In other words, if any belief system crumbles under the scrutiny then it lacks a foundation that must be in place for it to be accepted as true. What are the points that justify a belief system?

   1. There must be a foundation - Without a foundation the structure of any belief system will falter. If the belief system fails to answer any question, then it must be discarded. There is no way for a belief system to withstand scrutiny without a foundation. The foundation would represent the basic structure of what the belief system is based on. The foundation includes the big answers for the particular belief system and the general principles by which the system is supported.

   2. It must be able to withstand testing - Any belief system that is put out there must be able to come through rigorous testing. The testing of a belief system is necessary to see if the foundation of the structure is solid. Most belief systems, with testing can be shown for what they are.

   3. It must correspond to reality - Simply put, any belief system that does not correspond to way things really are should be completely discounted. Correspondence deals with the heart of any belief system, for it drives the issue of truth. If truth is not present, then there is no way to defend a belief system. There are many avenues of correspondence that are necessary for any belief system to be considered valid.

       A.) Does the system correspond with science? Are there scientific inconsistencies in the belief
              system? If so, the system cannot be justified.
       B.) Does the belief system correspond with logic/reason? If the system is not able to be
              explained by way of reason, then the system is flawed.
       C.) Is the system historically accurate? If a system cannot be shown historically viable, then
              major problems exist with the system. For some belief systems history does come into play.
       D.) Does the system make sense of good and evil? There must be an answer to the objective
              nature of good and evil.
       E.) How does the belief system address freewill?
       F.) Related to (A), how does the system address human consciousness?

Any belief system that fails to address or hold up to the three above questions must be considered invalid. Ultimately, truth is what any belief system is after. If no foundation exist, truth cannot exist. Testing will show how any belief system holds up. And, finally, any belief system that is considered to be valid, absolutely must correspond to reality. Point one and two are both closely tied to point three. Arguments will exist between individuals of different belief systems, but the three points listed will provide a framework to sift through the multitude of belief systems that exist.

Will individuals disagree on how their system addresses the three points? Absolutly! Therefore, it is important to dialogue and continue to ask questions. It is an arrogant position to claim that you have it all figured out. There will always be questions on a variety of issues, but an honest peson interested in truth must be willing to defend their personal belief system. Likewise, the honest person must be willing to change if it can be shown that his/her belief system is invalid.

Click here to see an excellent article called, "Six Characteristics Which Make Up A Good Worldview" by Rob Lundburg

Is baptism necessary for salvation? - Opening statements

2011-07-06T14:41:00.000-05:00

James

A Biblical Debate: I Affirm Baptism In Water Is Necessary For One To Be Saved

I will begin my introduction by showing how this debate or discussion came into being. I knew
Mr. Shelby Cade as my High School Physics and Chemistry teacher back in the late 1980s.
In 1989, I graduated High School and our lives went different directions. Since then our only
contact has been through email a few years ago and most recently through Facebook.

On April 10, 2011, I wrote a friendly email to Mr. Cade which in one paragraph included
this question, “Do you preach immersion in water is necessary for salvation?” ( Realize, developing the genesis of this debate required me to use emails that were not scrubbed, corrected for spelling
errors, etc. I did not include the misspellings to embarrass anyone but simply to show the full quotes. I did not include quotes that included any personal information minus that which pertained to my purpose. ) About one hour later, Mr. Cade responded, “Water baptism-yes, I believe that all believers should be immersed. Jesus last words before the accension [sic] were to be baptized in the name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28). Do I believe that baptism is essential for salvation no.
I see within Scripture that one's trust must be in Jesus for salvation. I do believe that one
who has fully trusted in Jesus should be baptized as soon as possible (read the book of
Acts).” The same night I wrote Mr. Cade again, “I would disagree with you on baptism..
maybe we can have some conversation on it some day.”

Mr. Cade and I had a few more discussions on baptism via Facebook. Finally, on May
5, 2011, Mr. Cade suggested the following, “I hope we can stop this back and forth on
baptism. I don't see the point in this discussion, but I hope we can continue to dialogue with
questions of one another. I don't want to preach to you and would care not to have you
preach to me.” At this point, I respected Mr. Cade' request and quit discussing the subject with
him.

On May 8, 2011, Mr. Cade made a general post on his Facebook wall stating, “ What a
great day with God's people today. First, my wife found her missing cell phone. Second, we
had a gentleman come forward to place membership, and third, we had another come
forward to accept Christ as his Savior. It's a busy week upcoming, but today will definatly [sic]
make for a joyful week.”

The following day, despite Mr. Cade's request to end the back and forth discussions
concerning baptism, I wrote a lengthy email which began, “I have got to ask you a serious,
eternal question... I fear that this may end your desire to talk to me based on your previous
email. I do not want that; however, I feel spiritually obligated to inquire. I read your post and in
it you said you were excited because a man came forward and accepted Christ as his
personal Savior. If I did not realize and respect the value of a soul I would not write this email
(Mark 8:36-37) to you..” I continued in the email discussion my position on baptism and
expressing sincere concern for the soul of the man mentioned and others that may be
impacted by his position including the soul of the one doing the teaching.

A few hours later, Mr. Cade kindly responded to my email discussing further his
position on salvation and why he believed the individual was saved, etc. He concluded his
lengthy email with the following, “By the way, I stressed the importance of baptism to my
friend in following the Lord's command. I will be studying with him and two others here in the
coming [sic] weeks and pray that they make the decesion [sic] to be immersed.”

Our discussions on this subject continued I believe in the spirit of kindness and
gentleness. Finally, on May 10, 2011, Mr. Cade in a lengthy email suggested the following,
“Would you be willing to debate a friend of mine concerning some of the issues we have been
discussing? I really don't like this debate, but my friend has debated a C of C preacher (I
believe) on baptism. What I have in mind is an on-line debate to be posted on my blog or
yours if interested.” A few hours later I wrote, “I would be interested in a debate; however, all
the details would have to be ironed out and agreed to.”

There was some discussion about this debate being an oral debate. I would actually
prefer that; however, for the time being the discussion will be a written discussion only. It will
be posted by Mr. Cade on his blog - Flatland Apologetics and possibly on a page of mine that
has yet to be determined. The question for the debate - “Is Baptism In Water Necessary For
One To Be Saved?”

Mr. Cade has clearly stated and demonstrated that baptism is unnecessary in God's
plan for saving man. His friend and my opponent, who I have not met or spoken to, holds the
same position as evident by his willingness to participate in this debate. I appreciate their
candor and willingness to present their position on this matter.

Salvation is important to God the Father as evident by His eternal purpose prepared
before the world began (Eph. 3:11; John 3:16). He supervised the divine plan through the
Garden of Eden, the life of Abraham, the Law and life of Moses, through the sins and rebellion
of men, etc. Satan himself could not thwart God's efforts to bring Jesus to the world.

Salvation is important to Christ Jesus as evident by his willingness to leave Heaven
and live and die as a human-being (Phil. 2:6ff; 2 Cor. 8:9 ). He was willing to be tempted as a
man (Mk. 1:13; Heb. 4:15) but again Satan failed to corrupt God's plan. Jesus was willing to
be falsely accused, violently beaten, scourged and mocked. And finally, he was willing to be
nailed to a tree (Phil. 2:8; Gal. 3:13). In the end, death and Hades could not keep the Lord as
He rose from the grave. He became the source (author) of eternal salvation to those who
obey Him (Heb. 5:9).

Salvation is important to the Holy Spirit in that He played a pivotal role in the work of
presenting and preserving the words of salvation (John 14:26; Acts 11:14). He also played a
very important position in the work of the early church as recorded in the book of Acts. The
essence of this very debate will depend completely on the word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Rom.
10:17).

Similarly, salvation should be very important to us today, especially as preachers of the
Gospel. It should concern us individually as we contemplate our own eternal soul (Eccl. 3:11).
It should concern us as Christians when we contemplate the spiritual welfare of our family,
friends, neighbors and the world. It should greatly concern us as preachers and teachers of
the word of God knowing that God demands we use His word carefully, wisely, and lovingly (2
Tim. 2:15; James 3:1; Eph. 4:15).

This sincere concern for souls is part of having the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16; Phil.
2:5ff) or the mind of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9). While Jesus was on Earth His mission,
aim and goal was the salvation of souls. Truly He came to seek and save that which was lost
(Luke 19:10; cf. Matt. 1:21; John 1:29).

My sincere concern for souls is my motive for participating in this debate. I believe
firmly that God's plan for saving man includes baptism (immersion) in water for the remission
of sins (Acts 2:38). God commanded baptism for the remission of sins (Lk. 3:2-3). Jesus
observed and approved its practice while on Earth (Matt. 21:25; John 3:22, 4:5) and then
commanded its practice prior to ascending to Heaven (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). The
Holy Spirit guided the Apostles to preach it and write about it (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13; Acts
2:38, etc.). Everyone that has ever become a Christian has submitted to it. Those that have
refused it, post-resurrection, or still in their sins and lost.

So, my position is “Baptism in water is necessary for one to be saved.” Now, let me
define the terms so as to avoid any future confusion.

1. "Baptism" – The Greek word is baptizo which has been transliterated baptism, baptize,
etc.. It literally means immersion (submerge, dip, overwhelm, bury).
2. "In Water" - is the element into which one is immersed.
3. "Is Necessary" - Required to be done, achieved, or present; essential.
4. "For One" - the individual, a proper candidate lost in his or her sins.
5. "To Be Saved" - to enter into a position of salvation (forgiveness of sins; justification).

During this written debate, my goal and aim is to handle myself in a Christ-like manner.
I absolutely hold no ill-will towards Mr. Cade nor my unknown opponent. I may appear firm at
times but we are dealing with a very serious matter - souls are literally hanging in the balance.
Scores of souls have already been lost because of their failure to search the Scriptures on
this very important matter. Preachers, the world-wide, continue to offer a plan of salvation that
is not taught in the sacred pages of God's word. So, I am not trying to win an award or show
forth any debating or writing skills. I am simply trying to present the truth of the Gospel which
has the power to remove sin and save an eternal soul from an eternal Hell.

Without hesitation, the authority in this discussion must be the word of God. It and it
alone is our standard in reaching a final conclusion on this matter (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Both
positions cannot be correct. Specifically, we will be using the New Testament to learn and
ascertain the truth on this matter. Truly, there were faithful men and women in the pages of
the Old Testament but God never delivered to them the ordinance of baptism. Similarly, God
has never commanded us to build an ark or sacrifice an animal. An understanding of the
different covenants is essential in this discussion.

Let's begin by looking at the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, a man named John the
Baptist (Immerser). The Old Testament told of him and how he would come and prepare the
way for the Lord (Is. 40:3; Mal. 3:1, 4:5). Even while on the cross, some did not believe the
claim of Jesus because they had not witnessed the return of that fiery prophet (Mark 15:35).
Of course, they did not realize that the coming of Elijah actually was in reference to John the
Baptist (Matt. 17:13).

“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (AD 28/29)..the word of God came
to John...” (Luke 3:1-2). Immediately following this interaction with God, John began
preaching “...a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” It is important that one see
the implication in this passage. John heard from God and he immediately started doing
something he had never done before - baptizing people in water for the remission of sins
(Mark 1:4; Jonah 3:2).

It seems most individuals have missed this salient point, John's baptism was for the
remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). The message from God said it was for the remission of
sins. The Holy Spirit recorded it in the pages of Holy Writ that it was the remission of sins.
Jesus even confirmed its reality as evidenced by His discussion with the chief priests and
elders (Matt. 21:23-27) - “The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from
man?" Again by implication, the obvious answer is from Heaven (God).

The baptism of John was accepted and obeyed by sincere people. They came to John
confessing their sins (Matt. 3:6). They inquired about the meaning of repentance and John
explained it to them (Luke 3:10ff). Scores of people, even sinful tax collectors, submitted
themselves to John to be immersed for the remission of theirs sins (Luke 7:29). Notice, that
by submitting themselves to be immersed they obeyed the will of God (7:30). Meanwhile, the
Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God (7:30) in their refusal to be immersed. Jesus
had clearly stated, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven (Mat 7:21; cf. Luke
6:46).”

The Baptism of John was from God, it demanded an acknowledgment of sin and
repentance from sin, it was in water and it was for the remission of sins. however it depended
ultimately on Jesus who still had to come and die. It was a baptism that looked to the coming
sacrifice of Jesus. After Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, the baptism of John was no
longer valid (Acts 18:25-26, 19:1-10). John's work was complete; he had prepared the way of
the Lord fulfilling the prophetical utterances of the Old Testament.

It was Jesus who commanded the baptism of what has become known as the Great
Commission. Following Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:4), He walked on
Earth for 40 days allowing His resurrected body to be seen by the Apostles and scores of
other people (1 Cor. 15:4-8).

It was during this time that Jesus further instructed the Apostles to further prepare them
for the work that they were about to begin. He carefully instructed them that He was going to
leave but in His place the Holy Spirit would be sent to teach them all things and bring to
remembrance the things taught to them by Him (John 14:26). Furthermore, the Holy Spirit will
testify of Christ (15:26) and guide the Apostles into “all truth”. This occurred in Acts 2 in the
city of Jerusalem as the Apostles were “filled with the Holy Spirit” (2:4). The Apostles were the
first, but not the last, to receive the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” (1:4-5, cf. 11:15-16).

Prior to leaving Earth, Jesus gave the Apostles their final instructions, "All authority in
heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them
to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of
the age” (Mat 28:18-20). In addition, Acts 1:8 records, “But you will receive power when the
Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea
and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” Also, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel
to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not
believe will be condemned (Mark 16:15-16).”

And this is exactly what the Apostles did. They observed the ascension of the Lord into
the clouds and then they went to Jerusalem and waited for the “baptism of the Holy Spirit”.
Approximately, ten days later on the day of Pentecost the Apostles received it. The miraculous
occasion and the subsequent speaking in tongues created a stir and allowed the Apostles to
stand and preach the first post-resurrection message.

The thrust of their message was Christ crucified. They were witnesses of the events
and they proclaimed them making reference to the Old Testament again and again to build
their case. In the end, 3,000 precious souls were “cut to the heart” (Acts 2:37) and inquired
“Brothers,what shall we do?” Peter simply told them, "Repent and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift
of the Holy Spirit” (Act 2:38).

Notice, Peter said nothing even remotely close to “Accept Christ As Your Personal
Savior”, “Say the Sinner's Prayer”, or “Raise Your Hand”, etc. It amazes me to see and hear
the mental and linguistic gymnastics that are done with this verse to try and twist it to mean
what they want it to mean instead of what God clearly has stated. One individual said that
Peter's recorded sermon is not the complete sermon but just a summary. He is probably right
about that (Acts 2:40); however, if baptism is unnecessary in God's plan for saving men then
why include it in a summary? If baptism is just an outward sign of an inward grace why
mention it in the Lord's final words before leaving Earth?

In addition, I hear individuals such as Mr. Cade suggest baptism is unnecessary but
then turn around and say that it is a command to be obeyed. Huh? In fact, he even stated that
he was going to teach some individuals the need to obey it. Why, if it is unnecessary? Some
say it is a demonstration to others that he or she has been saved. Is this true of the Eunuch in
Acts 8? What his baptism to show Philip that he had been saved? What happens if individuals
refuse to show an outward sign of an inward grace? Are they still right with God despite their
rejection of said command?

The preaching of the Jesus will be preached in Jerusalem and Judea (Acts 1-7), in
Samaria (8), and finally to the uttermost parts of the world (13-28). The theme of their
preaching was Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 6:14). And each time baptism plays
an essential part in the redemption of man (Acts 3, 8, 9, 16, 18, 22, etc.).

This morning, I read the following on Facebook which simulates what we read about in
the pages of the New Testament: “At 11:00pm last night, we BAPTIZED (name removed),
who will be 86 years old this September, into Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:27; Ro. 6:3-4). Because of
her age, physical limitations and the steep our baptistry, we took her to the Holiday Inn who
was gracious enough to let us use their indoor pool. Now that was a super ending to a great
holiday!!!”

For the record, I do not believe in works or merited salvation. I believe salvation is in
Christ and Him alone. He is the Savior and not me. Similarly, I do not believe there is
something in the water that somehow remits sin. Individuals then and now are saved by the
perfect, precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:20; Rev. 1:5; Acts 20:28).

Jacob

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

I’m honored to have been asked to do this debate by my friend and colleague Pastor Shelby Cade. I want to extend my thanks to him and also a welcome and thanks to my opponent who shares a passion for the truth about Baptism and was willing to have this important discussion with me. In this debate I will be taking the position that baptism, while important in regard to obedience to Christ, is not necessary for salvation.

To be sure this is not a new topic of debate in larger Christendom. Roman Catholics and Protestants have being debating the meaning and efficaciousness of baptism for centuries. While the Church of Christ position on baptism is certainly different than that of Roman Catholicism, it is still just as important of a discussion that we are having today. The issue of whether or not Baptism is necessary for salvation is a critical one as it involves the very nature of what the gospel of Jesus Christ is. Understanding the message of the gospel, that is the good news about how Christ has provided salvation, is at the very core of Christianity and ranks alongside issue of God’s nature and character such as the holy Trinity and the incarnation of Christ. While we may agree on God’s nature and even upon Christ’s sinless life, His death on the cross and His bodily resurrection as an atonement for sin, the crucial question still remains “How does one have Christ’s finished work on the cross applied to their account and thereby receive forgiveness of sins?”

In an attempt to avoid making any straw-man attacks against my opponents view, I will let him express the Church of Christ position regarding how salvation is attained or acquired and then I will respond after he has set out his view. For now, allow me to walk us through some Scripture to set out what I think the Bible emphatically teaches about salvation and what baptism is all about.
What does the Scripture clearly teach about salvation? Let us look at God’s word together:

Romans 3:21-16

Here in this passage we have a very clear teaching on the nature of salvation and how a person acquires it for themselves, namely, by faith. The text is clear that it is by faith that the righteousness of God is given to those who place their faith in Jesus Christ. God makes just (puts into right standing before Him) those who have faith in Jesus His Son. There is nothing coded about the words in this passage, they are plain and straightforward. Here is another passage teaching clearly that salvation is by faith in Christ:

Ephesians 2:8-10

8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9not a result of works, so that no one may boast.10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Again, a very clear and straightforward text that tells us with no uncertainty that salvation is by grace through faith. Salvation is not a result of something we do, such as getting baptized, but merely God’s gift to us received by faith in Jesus Christ who paid our debt for us. We could list other examples from the Pauline epistles, but what about Jesus and some of the other apostles?

John 3:16-18

16"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Here the apostle John writes that “whoever believes in him”, that is Jesus, will not perish but have eternal life. The basis is not upon human action, but recognition that Jesus is the Son of God who has provided salvation. Note further that the basis of condemnation is said to be disbelief, not a failure to comply with certain actions or works.

1 Peter 1:3-9

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,4to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, 7so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 8Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory,9obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

Here we are yet once again with the apostle Peter emphasizing faith as what obtains salvation, not any work, not baptism. In fact everywhere we turn there are emphatic declarations of salvation as a result of faith in Jesus Christ rather than on the basis of human effort or works of obedience, etc. So many more examples could be cited from Matthew to Revelation about salvation by faith in the finished work and person of Jesus Christ as opposed to salvation through a work. Baptism, which is something we must willfully achieve, set out to get done, is a work. It therefore is excluded from what is necessary for salvation because anything which we do that could be considered necessary for salvation is a point of boasting, something which we could say “I did this” and before Christ there will be none who can boast in themselves but only the finished work of Christ.

Baptism is a command to believers to both participate in and facilitate. Jesus’ great commission states that believers are to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." All who believe are to be baptized in the name of the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

For a believer to not be baptized would be to reject Christ’s command and therefore would be sin. Willful, continuing and unrepentant sin may be cause to doubt someone’s sincerity as a follower of Jesus and so someone who refuses to get baptized maybe worthy of being questioned. However, obedience is the product of a changed life and baptism is a part of obedience but it is not itself what causes or brings about salvation or “justification.”

Baptism is a picture of identification with our savior who died, was buried and rose to new life. We are baptized by immersion to represent our life hidden in Christ’s life, death and Resurrection because “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” (Galatians 2:20)

As Romans 6:3-4 states “3Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Here uses the picture of baptism as a way of identifying the believer with Christ death, burial and resurrection. This outward work of obedience is a declaration of the faith which saves us, the faith which causes the efficacious baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 1:13-14 states “13In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” By faith we receive or are baptized into the Holy Spirit. Note this is the prediction of the prophet John the Baptist which Peter recalled when the Gentiles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit when they believed the message of the gospel:

Acts 11:1-18

1Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, 3"You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them." 4But Peter began and explained it to them in order: 5"I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me. 6Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. 7And I heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.' 8But I said, 'By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' 9But the voice answered a second time from heaven, 'What God has made clean, do not call common.' 10This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. 11And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea. 12And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; 14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' 15As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning.16And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?" 18When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life."

So then, water baptism is an outward picture of identification with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection because the efficacious baptism (that is the saving baptism) is an invisible act by the Holy Spirit which He enacts upon the moment we place our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. So water baptism is an important work of obedience by which we publically declare our faith and unity with Christ, but it is faith and faith alone by which Christ’s work of salvation is applied to us.

Is baptism necessary to salvation? - Bios

2011-07-05T17:01:00.000-05:00

This question is one that comes up from time to time. There is a strong divide within the Christian community on not just this question, but on the the mode of baptism. Both participants agree that the mode of baptism is by way of immersion. In this debate, I will moderate and not take sides (though I fall on one side). Two friends of mine have decided to engage one another on this topic. I hope that if anyone chooses to respond on the blog subject, all of the responses are put forth in a respectful and responsible way. If any response is below the belt, I will choose to delete.

The format of the debate will consist of an opening statement, followed by two rebuttals, and then a concluding statement. Each participant will get one week for the follow up responses and closing.

Let me introduce the participants in the debate. I will use only their first name and if they choose to have their last name listed, I will do so in future postings.

Jacob

He will defend the position that baptism is not necessary to salvation

Jacob has served the Lord in ministry since January of 2004 in several different capacities including as a pastor of Student Ministries in two different Southern Baptist Churches and as a Christian apologist.

Jacob came to saving faith in Christ when he was 15 years old after having gotten involved as a young teen in drug and alcohol abuse. He had found himself in a downward spiral of anger and despair. At one point he even considered taking his own life, but it was in that darkest hour that Jacob called out to God and made a decision to trust Christ to save him. God radically changed Jacob’s life from that day on and surrounded him with new friends and eventually brought him into a group of Christian students who knew and loved Christ. It was at a local youth pastors house by the name of John that Jacob fell in love with studying God’s word and spending time with other believers. When he was 16 years old Jacob went on a mission trip to Mexico with that group of students and it was during that time that he felt the overwhelming call of God to serve Him in a life of ministry. That has been Jacob’s primary pursuit ever since. God has been very faithful to Jacob throughout the years and has blessed him with a wonderful family and a ministry of proclaiming and defending God’s truth.

Jacob holds a B.A. in Religion and Apologetics from Luther Rice University (www.lru.edu) and is now working on an M.A. in Biblical Studies from Piedmont Baptist Graduate School (www.pbc.edu) and an M.A. in Worldview Studies from Baptist Bible College (www.bbc.edu). In addition to this Jacob has also completed Apologetics certification with Biola University and Frank Turek’s Cross-Examined Instructor Academy. Jacob is a Certified Apologetics Instructor for the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention (www.4truth.net) and is a writer for the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (www.carm.org).

In addition to Christian apologetics Jacob is also a passionate advocate for adoption, helping the poor by meeting their physical needs and reaching the world with the gospel of Jesus through missions.

James

He will defend the position that baptism in water is essential to salvation.

James is a graduate of Beaumont Christian High School (Beaumomt, TX). He served with the United States Navy as part of the nuclear propulsion program aboard the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), and was honorably discharged in 1995.

James received a B.S. in Nuclear Engineering Technology from Thomas Edison State College in Trenton, New Jersey. He worked in the engineering field and then decided to become a preacher. He attended Browntrail School of Preaching in Hurst, Texas and later did work towards a Master's in Biblical Studies at Bear Valley Bible Institute in Denver, Colorado.

James has preaches at several different "churches of Christ" in Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Virginia, Michigan, California,and Arkansas. He has even had the opportunity to preach overseas in England and Ireland.

Bell, Baptists, and Hell

2011-06-19T16:12:00.000-05:00

After controversy, Baptists affirm belief in ‘eternal’ hell

June 16, 2011

Categories:Christian, faith, news, RNS

By ADELLE M. BANKS
c. 2011 Religion News Service
(RNS) Southern Baptists on Wednesday (June 14) called hell an “eternal, conscious punishment” for those who do not accept Jesus, rebutting a controversial book from Michigan pastor Rob Bell that questions traditional views of hell.
Citing Bell’s book “Love Wins,” the resolution urges Southern Baptists “to proclaim faithfully the depth and gravity of sin against a holy God, the reality of hell, and the salvation of sinners by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.”
Several leaders during the Baptists’ two-day meeting in Phoenix coupled warnings about hell with pleas for evangelism — especially in areas where there are no churches or missionaries.
“Is hell real? Is hell forever? Did God really say sinners would perish in eternal torment forever and ever?” asked pastor and author David Platt of Birmingham, Ala. “Oh, readers of Rob Bell and others like him, listen very carefully be very cautious, when anyone says, `Did God really say this?”‘
Bell’s book, released in March, criticizes the “misguided” view that “select Christians” will live forever in heaven while the rest of humanity will suffer eternal torment in a punishing hell.
Earlier this year, the Southern Baptist-affiliated Lifeway Christian Stores quietly removed warning labels from certain books — including Bell’s — that “could be considered inconsistent with historical evangelical theology.”
“At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church has been the insistence that … hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins,” Bell wrote in “Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Has Ever Lived.”
Southern Baptist Convention President Bryant Wright prayed that Southern Baptists would take to heart the statement they passed on hell.
“Father, because the reality of hell is so real, the permanent separation from you is so real, and our hours here on this earth are so limited, we pray that you will give us a fresh sense of conviction of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ,” he prayed right after the resolution was adopted.
On Tuesday, Baptists elected a black pastor from New Orleans as first vice president, the highest office in the denomination ever held by a black man. Pastor Fred Luter of New Orleans is already being talked about as a prime candidate for SBC president next year.
“It’s a great feeling,” Luter said in an interview Wednesday, comparing his election to the accolades he received when he was tapped as the first African-American to give the convention sermon in 2001.
The mostly white denomination, which traces its roots to Civil War-era defense of slavery, voted Tuesday on specific measures to increase the ethnic diversity of its top leadership — which Luter cited as a genuine shift.
“I think the change is that the denomination is purposely at the point where we know we have to open up the doors for more ethnics to be involved in leadership roles in the convention,” he said.
As for a possible presidency, Luter said he’s not campaigning.
“I do hear the people talking,” he said. “They talk to me about it. But I’ve been telling them, ‘Let’s just take this one day at a time, one year at a time.’ … I’m praying about it and just praying that God will just lead us.”

If I were an atheist

2011-06-16T10:00:00.001-05:00

The whole of Christianity stands on the resurrection of Jesus. In fact, Paul states, "We apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised" (1 Corinthians 15:15-16). Paul says that without the resurrection of Jesus, they (the apostles) are all a bunch of liars.

One of the biggest evangelist of all times, the apostle Paul, gives atheism the blueprint for the destruction of Christianity. If I were an atheist, I would not waste my time calling Christianity false because I believe it to be a fairy tale, I would go right for the jugular - the resurrection. If I were an atheist, I wouldn't waste my time on evolution as the best explanation, I would attempt to destroy the Jesus story. If it can be shown that the bodily resurrection is untrue then Christianity is toast. If I were an atheist I would use Paul's blueprint to blowup the Christian religion.

One problem exists for the atheist - the bodily resurrection of Jesus fits the evidence of truth. Throughout the centuries various stories have been put forth to counter the bodily resurrection of Jesus, but all have come to naught. If I were an honest and open-minded atheist, maybe I should reconsider the evidence, but where would that leave me?

Why God Allows Pain and Suffering - Lee Strobel

2011-06-16T08:11:00.001-05:00

When you hit reality

2011-06-15T12:14:00.000-05:00

"Where do we come from?" and "What is real?" are two of the most puzzling and debated questions in the history of philosophical thought. Today, the philosopher does not have the the microphone as in the past. Today, it is the scientific community that has been given the reigns of authority when truth is in question. In the past, the Christian community had some authority, but a paradigm shift occurred with Darwin's publication of the "Origin of Species" in 1859.

What does the scientific community have to make it the supposed bearer of truth? With the medical advancements and the continued progress of science, it is easy to see why many would turn to science for answers. But, what about the big questions of life, does science have absolute authority to answer?

One of the primary driving forces of science is the idea of empiricism. Empiricism deals with sense experience. In other words, all knowledge is driven by sense experience alone. This makes the natural world the only world by which knowledge can be achieved. Supernatural, therefore, is confined to superstition and fairy tale status.

If science is indeed king, then it follows that science should answer all, or at least point us to the truth of what is real. Does the scientific method or science in general meet the criteria for answering all truth claims? No, for the statement itself is not able to be tested in the lab, by the scientific method, or by any scientific means. There are many instances where the field of science can do nothing but make subjective statements, because the answers to the questions fall outside the scientific community. For example, the laws of logic, a human's first person awareness, the moral law, and mathematical entities all lie outside of scientific explanation.

Today, unfortunately, the culture has caved in to the idea that science is the purveyor of truth. Before giving science the scepter of truth, shouldn't we first confirm if science matches with truth? Truth is what happens when you hit reality, because truth corresponds with reality. Science can in no way hit all reality to justify that it is the sole possessor of truth. Many have opinions about science, but opinions don't count unless they match with truth. Truth is objective and knowable.

When looking at the big questions of life, maybe we should be cautious and consider all the evidence, even if the evidence falls outside the realm of science. Maybe we should be open-minded and follow the evidence without pre-conceived ideas. When we do so, we are able to see more clearly the answers to the big questions of life.

Get off my ethics

2011-06-07T14:48:00.001-05:00

We live in a very egotistical society today. It seems the culture is falling apart wherever you look. Most individuals will simply live for themselves. None of us are living a perfect life, as Paul states, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) ." But, greed and sexual promiscuity seem to be the order of the day. The sad fact is, some in the Church behave no differently than the world.

Embattled congressman, Anthony Weiner said yesterday, "I did nothing illegal." According to Weiner and others, it is man who decides what is right or wrong. Question: If Weiner did nothing wrong, why would he have to explain himself? In other words, if a moral law does not exist, Weiner was completely unjustified in trying to make amends for his actions. But, it is obvious that Weiner crossed some type of moral line. He did something that was not right ethically.

On an atheistic worldview, moral responsibility has to be seen as an evolutionary byproduct of the brain. In essence, on a Darwinian viewpoint, morality is nothing more than acting on one's predetermined evolutionary program. If this is the fall back position of society, then society is in trouble, because responsibility is thrown out the window. When Weiner said, "I did nothing illegal", he was only acting on his egotistical ethical system. Get off my ethics really boils down to man's wish to become autonomous in his relationship with the moral law-giver - God.

Is God just?

2011-06-07T11:15:00.000-05:00

One of the most often debated subjects deals with the Christian God's sense of justice. Statements like, "I would never serve a God who condemns individuals to hell" or "Why does God call for the destruction of others." Usually, most individuals are just acting on sound bites of information they have heard other spew their way. This perception of God has also troubled individuals within the church. Looking recently at Rob Bell's interview on CNN, would seem to indicate that he has trouble with a just God.

Why is it that some within the Church have trouble with this aspect of God's nature? I could be wrong, but it is my belief that a little egotistical attitude enters the equation. Within the "Emergent Movement" there seems to be a disdain for a God of justice. If hell is so wrong for some, the obvious push in the opposite direction would be toward universalism, but is this how God is described in the bible? Absolutely not! One of the aspects of God's nature is that of justice, for without justice, God is no longer loving.

2 Peter 3:9 states, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." In other words, God does not take pleasure in some one's choice to continually rebel against Him and consciously separate themselves from His goodness. For those who have a problem with the justice of God, are they not guilty of judging where only God can judge?

Physics Prove The Existence of God (On A Razor's Edge)

2011-05-31T08:23:00.004-05:00

One of the arguments against theism and fine-tuning is that someone had to win the lottery. Well, when one talks about the fine-tuning that exists, we are not dealing with lottery odds, but with an impossible scenario for chance creation of life. Psalm 19:1 states, "The heavens proclaim the glory of God.The skies display his craftsmanship." The universe being finely tuned can only mean one thing, a tuner exists. Astrophysicist, Paul Davies says, "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". Design implies a designer.

Prove it!

2011-05-30T12:00:00.001-05:00

In order to prove something you need evidence. Commonly, evidential proof does not have to be 100% in your favor, for this is difficult in almost all fields. The laws of chemistry and physics might be an exception of where evidence can be shown to line up consistently for all known situations. For example, the speed of light is a constant at 186,000 miles per second. We have no evidence of light speed varying. It must be noted, however, that the hard sciences cannot answer all questions. If fact, science has its limitations.

Proving your point can also be in the form of non-empirical evidence. For example, the law of non-contradiction. A cannot equal A and non-A at the same time, or an object cannot be both a square and a triangle at the same time. When talking of evidence to prove a point, both reasoning and science can be used to arrive at an answer that has the best explanatory power.

Recently, Stephen Hawking's made two bizarre comments. One of the comments made is that the universe caused itself. The second statement of Hawkin's is that heaven does not exist. What's really interesting is that both statements are not statements based on the field (science) that Hawking's holds to so dearly, but are philosophical in nature.

It is Hawking's belief that science should trump all other fields, so why would he make two non-scientific statements? This belief system of science being the ruler of all knowledge is referred to as scientism. Scientism comes in a couple of forms but basically states that science is the one and only worldview that can answer all the questions of life. However, when you look at Hawking's two statements, there is absolutely no way he can prove either by way of science or the scientific method. This empirical worldview assumes that only that which can be observed should count as knowledge. But, what about our conscious awareness, how is this explained by ways of science? What about the objective moral law that exist, does science have an answer to this? The laws of logic which we know to be true, can in no way be tested in a laboratory.

To prove an argument, evidence must be given to tip the scales in your favor. Various views can be examined to determine which has the best explanatory power. When Hawking's made the statement that heaven does not exist, a buzz was generated on-line. One questioner rightly asked of Hawking's - Prove it!

How to be open-minded

2011-05-27T22:34:00.000-05:00

In a past blog I garnered this comment, "If any of you have an open mind, please check out this." The obvious conclusion is that Christians are not open-minded. Why do some atheists and skeptics assume that belief in the Christian worldview is closed-minded? It seems that many who call themselves open-minded do so from an almost arrogant position. It's like one does not need evidence, but it is safe to assume that the open-minded person (atheist/skeptic) somehow has it all figured out.

What does it mean to be open-minded? I would like to suggest 3 points to consider for those who choose to call themselves open-minded.

The open-minded person is open to all evidence.
The open-minded person does his/her own study.
The open-minded person is only interested in truth.

Many times the Church is weak in its ability to be open-minded. Too many Christians are not willing to do their own study and simply follow what they have been fed. Atheism also falls victim to this same philosophy. One of the charges of the New Atheists against those who hold religious beliefs is, "If you are born in India, you would be a Hindu; If you are born in the Middle-East you would be a Muslim; or If you are born into a Mormon family, you would be a Mormon." Really? Where is the evidence for truth in a statement like that! Richard Dawkins has made this claim before (and there is some validity to that type of argument), but isn't he offering nothing more than a red herring? Those who make statements like this are in no way proving anything.

Ultimately, the truth question needs to be addressed. Those with an open mind are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. To be open-minded literally means to be impartial or receptive to new arguments. If truth is absolute and objective, then one can weigh the evidence in order to decipher the correct worldview. A truly open-minded individual cares not what others say or the direction of truth. He/She will follow truth no matter where it takes them. Are you willing to be open-minded or is that just an arrogant catch phrase to cover for your lack of evidence?

Is the Supernatural Real? - Dr. JP Moreland

2011-05-27T13:52:00.001-05:00

Why Christianity?

2011-05-24T19:11:00.001-05:00

By the end of the first century it is estimated that the Church had a population of over 1 million individuals. This all occurred within a 70 year time span. Christianity spread rapidly and it continues to grow at a rapid rate. In third world countries today, Christianity is spreading like wildfire. What is the reason for the rapid spread of Christianity?

This very question was proposed to a variety of scholars and this is what they said. Harvard professor of New Testament studies, Helmut Koester states, "One should not see the success of Christianity simply on the level of a great religious message; one has to see it also in the consistent and very well thought out establishment of institutions to serve the needs of the community." According to professor Koester, Christianity was a well thought out plan that addressed certain needs of the community. Michael White, professor of Religious studies at the University of Texas has this to say about the spread of Christianity, "there really is no empire wide persecution of Christianity throughout the entire second century and into the first half of the third century. It was always sporadic; it was always local concerns. The first time the empire as a whole says "We have to eradicate Christianity," is not until the year 249, 50, the persecution of Decius, ... but by that time, the Christians are so numerous that they can't possibly be eradicated; they've already grown that much." In other words, Christianity could have been snuffed out if a more organized Roman persecution had taken place. Finally, Wayne Meeks of Yale says, "In the final analysis, I think we don't know."

Out of all the explanations offered, not one addresses the truth question. While the spread of Christianity by no means proves that the Christian worldview is correct, it does show that it has never been defeated. In other words, there is no concise argument to show that the Christian worldview to be false. Perhaps, Christianity has stood 2000 years of attacks, precisely because it matches with the truth. Any and all truth claims can be measured on their merits. Truth, stands alone.

Ultimately, Christianity has to be evaluated on the claim that Jesus bodily rose from the dead.
If God exists, and Jesus was the Messiah of truth, then Christianity will never be stopped. As the Jewish leader Gamaliel rightly said during the early stages of Christianity, " If what they (Christians) are planning is something of their own doing, it will fail. But if God is behind it, you cannot stop it anyway, unless you want to fight against God (Acts 5:38-39)."

For the article on the question of why Christianity succeeded, click here.

The David Hume god

2011-04-23T18:33:00.001-05:00

It seems that David Hume always comes up when a Christian and Atheist dialogue. His name may not appear in the conversation, but his evidential proof seems to always be implied. What is the evidential proof of Hume?

Consider some of these quotes from Hume: "We should never repose the least confidence in human testimony," or "It is a miracle, that a dead man should come back to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event," or "We readily reject any fact which is unusual and incredible in an ordinary degree."[1] The evidential proof of Hume is the outright denial of miracles, even miracles attested to by witnesses should never be accepted. On Hume's account, unless one has 100% proof, the event should be rejected. How does Hume's testimony hold up by using his own criteria?

Hume fails the test, when his criteria is applied to himself, for no one can give 100% evidence, atheist or Christian. If we are to reject human testimony, then what shall we do with Hume's testimony? Philosopher William Lane Craig states, "For an argument to be a good one, it isn't required that we have 100% certainty." [2] In a court of law, the evidence only needs to be tipped in your favor (51% or greater). When looking at miracles, like the resurrection story of Jesus, 100 % proof is not what is needed. All claims can be evaluated on their merits and an inference to best explanation is what should count. The late atheist turned theist, Anthony Flew, was honest when he said, "we should follow the evidence wherever it leads." [3]

So why do atheist seem to worship at the feet of David Hume? It is my belief that some simply do not have any evidence to their view in the non-existence of God, but also, and I think most importantly, many who reject Jesus do so because they do not want to submit to who he is. In other words, they want to live an unhindered life to indulge themselves in whatever they want. Philosopher Thomas Nagel summarizes the view of many atheist nicely by saying, "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God. I don't want a universe like that." [4] At least Nagel is honest. When the atheist has his mind made up because of Humeian evidence, they no longer are atheist, but worship the David Hume god which turns out to look strangely like themselves!

[1] Hume, David, Of Miracles, 1776

[2] Craig, William Lane, God, Are You There?, p.7

[3] Interview with Anthony Few at Biola University, 2004

[4] Nagel, Thomas, The Last Word, p. 130

Are Mormons Christian?

2011-04-23T11:09:00.000-05:00

Is Mormonism Christian?:

A Comparison of Mormonism and Historic Christianity

Copyright © 1999 Institute for Religious Research. All rights reserved.

Is Mormonism Christian? This may seem like a puzzling question to many Mormons as well as to some Christians. Mormons will note that they include the Bible among the four books which they recognize as Scripture, and that belief in Jesus Christ is central to their faith, as evidenced by their official name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, many Christians have heard the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing Christian hymns and are favorably impressed with the Mormon commitment to high moral standards and strong families. Doesn’t it follow that Mormonism is Christian?

"To fairly and accurately resolve this question we need to carefully compare the basic doctrines of the Mormon religion with the basic doctrines of historic, biblical Christianity."

To fairly and accurately resolve this question we need to carefully compare the basic doctrines of the Mormon religion with the basic doctrines of historic, biblical Christianity. To represent the Mormon position we have relied on the following well-known Mormon doctrinal books, the first three of which are published by the Mormon Church: Gospel Principles (1997), Achieving a Celestial Marriage (1976), and A Study of the Articles of Faith (1979) by Mormon Apostle James E. Talmage, as well as Doctrines of Salvation (3 vols.) by the tenth Mormon President and prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Mormon Doctrine (2nd ed., 1979) by Mormon apostle Bruce R. McConkie and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

1. Is There More Than One True God?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that there is only one True and Living God and apart from Him there are no other Gods (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10,11; 44:6,8; 45:21,22; 46:9; Mark 12:29-34).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20; Gospel Principles, p. 245; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 130). It also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302).

To finish the article click here.

To view the Institute for Religious Research click here.

Misconceptions

2011-04-21T14:53:00.001-05:00

Many times the atheist community likes to refer to themselves as the free-thinkers. Obviously, this implies, that those who hold to a theistic point of view are close minded. This video illustrates that not all who promote an intellectually superior high ground, are in fact open-minded. What you believe may not actually match with the truth. It is important to dialogue without pre-conceived ideas.

Easter apologetics

2011-04-18T12:34:00.004-05:00

The apostle Paul correctly defined the importance of the resurrection by saying, ^"If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins (1 Cor. 15:13-17)." If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then all who have claimed him to have risen are the most deceived people in the history of the world.

Paul goes on to say a few verses later that, "But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:20)." The evidence for the resurrection is not blind, but in fact, overwhelmingly supports that Jesus bodily rose from the dead. It is this evidence that has compelled millions throughout history to take up the cause of Christ.

Paul understood the importance of apologetics. Apologetics comes from the Greek, meaning to give a defense of. In the case of Christianity, apologeitcs is to give a reasoned defense for the Christian worldview. Not only can the Christian worldview be defended, but the Christian worldview should be spread throughout the entire world. Easter and apologetics go hand in hand for the Christian man or woman. If all Christians are ambassadors (2 Cor. 5:20) of Christ then it is incumbent upon all Christians to be apologetically trained. In fact, this is exactly the charge of the apostle Peter (1 Peter 3:15). Defending and evangelizing must co-exist. However, this symbiotic relation is often missing in today's Church.

Too many of God's people have dropped the ball when it comes to apologetics. So many issues are present today, especially in the West, that need to be addressed by God's people. When God's people are unable to bear witness to his truth, disastrous results will take place. David Koresh and Jim Jones are just two examples of deception that has taken place under the guise of Christianity. Paul warned the church of false teachers at Colasse and John, likewise, warned of false teachers in his three epistles. Gnosticism presented an early challenge to the Christian worldview and it was met squarely with Christian apologetics. Today, the Jehovah's Witness and Mormonism present deceptive philosophies that have borrowed from the truthfulness of Christianity. It is crucial for the entire Church, not just pastors and leaders, to be trained in how to defend God's message of truth.

If more individuals within the Church took apologetics seriously, it would benefit and strengthen the Body. Apologetics allows the Christian to not only strengthen his/her relation with Christ, but provides a springboard to engage the culture that is constantly asking questions. Apologetics gives confidence to God's people and opens doors to better share the hope Christians have in Jesus.

Paul understood full well the relationship of apologetics and the gospel message of Jesus. Easter is not a celebration that should be observed on a yearly basis and then forgotten, but it should compel Christians to share the good news of Jesus resurrection whenever the opportunity presents itself. Being apologetically trained allows the believer to share the good news with those where they are at. Being relevant on current apologetic topics allows for more discussion between the Christian and non-Christian. Paul perfectly illustrates this point in how he dealt with the Jewish people (Acts 17:2-4, 10-12) verses the secular Greek culture (Acts 17:16-34). In both cases, Paul tailor's his message to address the group he is dealing with. With the Jews he shares from scripture, but with the Greeks he quotes from known poets to make a point concerning Jesus and the resurrection.

The Easter story and apologetics have always existed side by side. Apologetics supports the Christian worldview by defending it, and providing a foundation to evangelize a world that desperately needs to hear the good news of the Messiah.

A Review of John Caputo by Wes Widner

2011-04-13T09:22:00.002-05:00

After listening to John D Caputo’s interview by Luke Mulenhauser on commonsenseatheism.com (mp3) I decided to get John’s book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct, and see what sort of case he could build for postmodern Christianity that would compel emergent pastors like Brian McLaren to endorse it.

I first encountered JackCaputo’s writings in the introduction to God, the gift, and Postmodernism, which he edited with Michael Scanlon (Indiana University Press, 1999). Since I’m not a professional philosopher, a number of the book’s chapters (sur)passed the reading comprehension capacities of my bald layman’s head, but not the introduction. There Caputo and Scanlon spoke in down-to-earth terms of our need to become “enlightened about the Enlightenment” (meaning, for my fellow less-philosophical laypeople, the eighteenth-century movement that eventually reduced reality to phenomena that could be measured and dissected by “objective” human reason).
-Brain McLaren, pg 9

McLaren goes on to provide a very brief outline of the book which I find rather helpful,

First you’ll notice that Jack flies you into a “zone of intertextuality,” meaning that he is going to suspend you between several texts, notably Sheldon’s In His Steps (the unlikely inspiration of the WWJD craze), the writings of Jacques Derrida, and the New Testament. This may strike you as an unlikely combination, but it will make perfect sense by the time you’re halfway to the last page.

John does rely heavily on Sheldon’s book to, ironically, provide some structure for his book which deals mostly with deconstructionalism. In fact, if you haven’t read Sheldon’s book you might find it worthwhile to put John’s book down and read Sheldon’s work before returning.

To finish the review click here.
Check out Reason to Stand - click http://reasontostand.org/

Is Jesus the Jewish Messiah? (1 of 2) Debate - Dr. Michael Brown vs Shmu...

2011-04-11T19:12:00.000-05:00

Consider the evidence

2011-04-10T17:41:00.001-05:00

It seems that every Easter an attack is made on the resurrection story. A few years back the DaVinci Code by Dan Brown caused a stir. After the DaVinci Code, the gospel of Judas was pushed to show the Jesus of history to be false. Most recently, James Cameron, of Avatar fame, produced, The Jesus Family Tomb (2007), which called into question the empty tomb. Each attempt to disprove the Jesus of the New Testament has fallen flat. In fact, there is no credible evidence out there to disprove the resurrection of Jesus.

The New Testament is written in such a way to invite questions. The apostle Paul even challenged people of his day to examine the evidence (1 Cor. 15:6). Christianity does not shy from testing, but in fact, encourages it (1 Thes. 5:21). Concerning the resurrection, Paul states, "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith (1 Cor. 15:14). Paul understood, that a blind faith in Jesus simply would not suffice the attacks on the resurrection.

For 2000 years, various attacks on the resurrection have taken place. Most of the attacks have occurred within the last few hundred years of Christianity. No attack has disproved the resurrection story, because the attacks have never answered all the cumulative evidence for the resurrection. What evidence for the resurrection exists?

1. Prophesies exist about the birth, life, and the kind of death Jesus would experience.

2. Jesus, himself, predicts his own resurrection (Matt. 26:61, Matt. 16:4).

3. The known tomb was found empty three days later.

4. Jesus appeared to many.

5. Jesus first appeared to women.

6. The changed lives of those who encountered the resurrected Jesus.

7. Those skeptical of Jesus become his followers (John 7:3-5, Acts 8:3).

8. The Church starts at the center of Judaism.
9. The resurrection story was early (1 Cor. 15:3-8).

Many alternative stories to the resurrection of Jesus have been put forth over the years, but none has sufficiently explained away the resurrection story. Why? Like anything that is believed to be true, there needs to be sufficient explanatory evidence to back up the claim. 2000 years after the resurrection, only one story can fit the evidence, and that is Jesus bodily rose from the dead. Paul accurately frames the importance of the resurrection story by saying, if Jesus did not rise, all who believe in him are pathetic followers of false belief (1 Cor. 15:19). Paul and others believed the evidence and were not interested in deception.

The resurrection has stood the test of time for a reason. Considering the evidence, there is no comprehensive set of explanations that fully answer the resurrection story outside of the New Testament documents. The resurrection story of the New Testament shows the story fits the evidence in a comprehensive way in matching with the truth of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection.

Resurrection Part 1.m4a

2011-04-08T13:55:00.002-05:00

To see all five video segments click here.

What is the meaning of Life?

2011-04-05T21:14:00.000-05:00

Our limited friend

2011-04-02T11:14:00.002-05:00

Many times science is pitted against the existence of God, as if you need to accept one or the other. Is science in direct opposition to God? Many who are naturalist would agree that the two fields of science and theology have nothing to do with one another. For the naturalistic scientist, science trumps all arguments as the only reasonable avenue for ultimate truth.

Those who hold a naturalistic view do so with the assumption that the material universe is all there is. Evolutionary scientist, Richard Dickerson has this to say about science, "Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural."[1] Niles Eldridge adds, “If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena … it’s simply a matter of definition—of what is science, and what is not.”[2] But, can all reality be explained on a purely naturalistic level?

On a naturalistic level, all truth is determined by scientific investigation, but can this view take us to an ultimate truth as to how things really are? What if a supernatural realm exists? Obviously, if this is the case, then science only offers a limited view of truth. Science writer, Kitty Ferguson, states, "if the supernatural world exists, and if it is inherently beyond testing by the scientific method, then there is truth beyond the range of scientific explanation."[3]

Science, although helpful in many ways, is itself limited. There are a multitude of questions that science will never be able answer. Where did the universe come from? Surely, no credible scientist would say it came to be from nothing? Why do we have the freedom of thought? Will the naturalist say that we are simply programed machines? And, if that is the case, why should anyone be held responsible for their actions? How does one explain history on a naturalist scheme? What formula can be offered to account for the resurrection of Jesus? How about philosophical knowledge; is logic testable by way of the scientific method? Do moral values open themselves up to the realm of science?

Scientific naturalism seems to be severely limited. In fact, scientific naturalism assumes that we can only think in one direction. Richard Lewontin makes this point by saying, "We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”[4] But again, if truth is ultimately what is important, naturalism fails to answer in a comprehensive way.

What exactly is naturalism? It is a one way, limited pursuit, as to what can be known in the material universe. Naturalism can never answer the ultimate truth question, because of its limitations. Not only does scientific naturalism turn out to be limited, but it presents itself as a philosophy in which to view the world. Philip Johnson sums up naturalistic science, stating, "Evolutionary naturalism takes the inherent limitations of science and turns them into a devastating philosophical weapon: because science is our only real way of knowing anything, what science cannot know cannot be real."

[1] Dickerson, Richard, The Game of Science:Perspectives on Science and Faith (Vol. 44, June 1992), p. 137
[2] Eldridge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press, 1982
[3] Ferguson, Kitty, The Fire in the Equations, p. 82-83
[4] Lewontin, Richard, Billions and Billions of Demons, p. 28

Bell's firestorm

2011-03-28T18:20:00.000-05:00

I wanted to offer three posts that deal with Bell's recent book, Love Wins. The first post can be found here. This post is from Tawa Anderson who runs the blog, "Tawapologetics." The article analyzes the book, as Anderson has just finished reading it. The second post is from Dan Grossenbach and can be found here. Dan runs the apologetic site, "Apologetic Junkie." Dan focuses on the subject of hell, and the many misconceptions of hell. The third post is one I wrote a few months back called, "Reconciling God and Hell."

I think this (the truth question) has always been the problem with certain aspects of the "Emergent Movement." At what point does one say truth does not matter? Ultimately, if truth does not matter then we might as well create our own feel good religion. But, if God's word means something, we have to look at it in its entirety and not pick and choose what we want to believe.

The Son shines

2011-03-27T14:41:00.000-05:00

I serve bi-vocationally as a pastor and school counselor. Today was a special day for me at school. Every other week I make character presentations to elementary school kids. Today the students and I had the privilege of listening to Ward Foley. Foley was born with club hands and feet. He had no bicep muscles at birth either. The actual name of his disease is arthrogryposis.

Foley told of the struggle he had growing up, getting picked on, and also how he had to adjust to his handicap. One of the impacting parts of his story relates to what his mother told him. Early on, he had to attend school for handicap children. Ward came home from school and asked his mother why all the kids are weird. He wondered why he had to go to that school. His mother told him that he was there to help them. His mother and father reinforced within him to always look to the positive blessings of life.

I started thinking of the impact Ward Foley had on the students. The teacher and I were both riveted to his message. I also started thinking of how true his mother and father's life lessons were and how they shaped the kind of person he turned out to be. God was able to use someone who could have been discarded before birth knowing the struggles he would have had. Life had meaning in Ward Foley's world. For the atheist, life has no ultimate meaning. All the troubles of life on an atheist worldview, are just that, troubles. On a Christian worldview there is hope. While this is not an argument for theism, it makes a big difference on how one perceives life. Today, I was the student, and learned how special life is when the Son is able to shine brightly.

For more on Ward Foley click here.

Miracles

2011-03-25T08:21:00.000-05:00

The following is a blog post from my daughter. Although it is not specifically related to apologetics, I wanted to share it here. Of course, I'm proud of my daughter and love her very much. As you can see she loves Justin Bieber. Here is the start of her story and if you click on the link, you can finish the story on her blog.

Miracles by Alyssa Cade

Holly Ann woke to a terrifying shout. Tears ran down her face as soon as she heard it, but she didn’t make a sound. It wasn’t because she had been awaken and it wasn’t because she thought that someone was hurt; it was because she was scared. Of course she knew exactly what the shout was from, but she liked to tell herself that it wasn’t what it really was.

Holly Ann jumped out of bed and slipped on her slippers. She climbed upstairs and grabbed a bagel. She had to get breakfast herself lately, and in fact, she really was doing most everything on her own. She was waking herself up for school, which wasn’t entirely hard with all the shouting, getting ready for school and since she didn’t know how to use the washer and her mom hadn’t done the laundry lately, she had to reuse some of her dirty clothes, and of course, walking three blocks to get to school.

But today was Sunday. Holly Ann missed the days when she and her family went straight to church on Sunday, but they hadn’t gone since the year before. She knew for sure that today wasn’t the day her parents would come to her and say they were going back to church.

Holly Ann finished up her bagel and hopped on the counter to get a glass of water. Then she heard a louder scream and a howler. Next came a crash, or maybe it was more like a shatter. There was loud cry that she could hear and then a boom sounded. She suddenly didn’t want a glass of water. All she wanted was to get away from the screams. She slowly slipped off the counter and headed towards the back door, down the hallway.

Suddenly she stopped in her tracks and paused to stare at the family pictures hanging up on the hallway wall. It was only about a year ago when she was just seven. They looked happy, the whole family. Her mom was smiling with a sparkle in her eye, her dad looked like he was laughing. And she looked like she had just got back from Disneyland. She longed for those days when her family was all happy together and there were no fights and arguments.

To finish the story click here.

What the stories say

2011-03-21T05:54:00.000-05:00

One of the charges leveled toward the New Testament is the books can't be trusted to give an accurate representation of Jesus, being that they were written years after his life. Often those antagonistic toward Christianity will say that additions occurred in time shaping the person of Jesus the world presently knows. The big question is, "Do we have the correct story of Jesus?"

Before examining this question, it needs to be understood that the story of Christianity rests entirely upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus never rose from the dead, then Christianity is a hoax (1 Cor. 15:13-19). Is there any evidence that the story of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection was early and was not a later invention?

Before the gospels and the epistles existed, certain creeds and songs were in circulation that spoke of the person of Jesus. These creeds and songs were early oral stories that had originated from Jewish converts to Christianity. In other words, these stories predate the New Testament documents. It is important to note that Christianity started in Jerusalem and was exclusively made up of Jews. Why is this important? There are many reasons why the story of Jesus we have today can be trusted, but probably no reason is better than the rich history and content of the Jewish community.

The Jews prided themselves upon memorization and the passing of oral tradition. In fact, this was a fabric of their culture. For those who were esteemed, like prophets and popular rabbis, the sayings of these individuals were preserved through the oral stories and subsequent writings. Jesus certainly qualified as one who's words would have been memorized and recorded.

To understand the importance of memorization, one can look at the orthodox Jewish culture today. One of my great friends (Brian Eckstein) is a descendant of an orthodox Jew. His grandfather, Stephen Eckstein came to the United States from Russia at the turn of the 20th century. [1] In talking to my friend, he tells the importance of his grandfather's heritage in memorization. In fact, Brian has told me that his grandfather had memorized the entire Psalms as a boy, as did the other boys that were taught by the local rabbi. The point is, the early creeds and songs of the New Testament can be trusted to give us first hand information concerning Jesus. Additionally, it is defiantly not far fetched to believe that the gospel accounts of Jesus accurately report the historical eyewitness sayings and events of his life.

Early creeds and songs are numerous within the New Testament. Some of these include:Rom. 1:3-4; 1 Cor. 11:23-26; 1 Cor. 15:3-8; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 1:15-18; 1 Tim. 3:16, 2 Tim. 2:8; John 1:1-18; 1 Peter 3:18-22; 1 John 4:2. A common thread that ties each of these early sayings together is the death, resurrection, and Deity of Jesus. Each of these passages can easily be translated back into Arabic, showing they are early stories of Jesus. In other words, each creed or song predates all of the New Testament writings which were written in Greek.

Perhaps one of the most agreed upon passages as being early is 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Even critical scholars agree that this creed predates the New Testament and could go back to the resurrection of Jesus. [2] In this short creedal statement, Paul tells us the early story of the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus to specific individuals. Why is this passage so important? This passage was a very early story that validates the central message of Christianity. If Jewish people were spreading false information in Jerusalem and within the Jewish world there should have been a tremendous outcry against the lie of this story, but no outcry to counter this early story was ever given. This early story of the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus surely would have been squashed, early on, if the message was a fabricated story.

The central theme of the early creeds and songs is that the Christian message was not a later invention. The entire New Testament, by eyewitnesses of Jesus is buffered by the early creeds and songs. What the early stories say is, Christianity is not an invention by Paul or any of the New Testament writers. The early stories attest to actual events of the person of Jesus. The early stories attest to the fact that Christianity is not a contrived religion. By just taking the early stories of Jesus, we have all we need to piece together the reason for the birth, spread, and accuracy of the Christian message.

[1] Eckstein, Stephen, From Sinai to Calvary - This is a great autobiography telling the story of Stephen's adventure in coming to America and the process of coming to know the Messiah. If interested in purchasing this book, mail Stephen Eckstein Jr. at: Stephen D. Eckstein Jr. - 6808 6th Street, Lubbock, Texas, USA 79416 or e-mail: sdeckstein@juno.com or by phone: 1-800-771-7061 (Feel free to mention you received this information from Shelby)
[2] One critical scholar, Jack Kent, who wrote, The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth, said of the 1 Corinthians 15 passage, this "could be dated very close to the actual resurrection (p. 16-17)."

Do not judge?

2011-03-19T10:39:00.006-05:00

Recently Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church, generated a firestorm with his upcoming book and interview. The book is titled Love Wins. In one particular interview Bell seems to dodge every question thrown at him. The overriding question being asked of Bell is, "Is Jesus the only way?"; Bell never answers. Why? It is my belief that Bell does not want to pronounce judgment or suggest that anyone will be condemned to hell. Christian universalism is the belief that all will eventually be saved by Jesus. Is Bell correct, if this is his view, and how are Christians to answer the judgment questions?

Jesus does indeed say that we should not be judgmental in Matthew 7:1. This judgment is a hypocritical judgment where one is solely wanting to tear someone down. It is also clear that as Christians we should not condemn anyone to hell, as this type of judgment is left only to God. However, Later on in Matthew chapter 7, Jesus tells his followers to enter through the narrow gate (vs. 13) and to watch out for false prophets (vs. 15). Both of these verses imply that Christians need to make certain judgments. God expects us to make judgments as James indicates, "You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God (James 4:4)." Hell itself is a choice. So, why does Bell not want to say that Jesus is the only way? Again, I suspect Bell wants to create the impression that part of God's nature does not involve judgment.

Being a loving God is just one aspect of God's nature. Being a just God is another aspect of God's nature. Will individuals who rebel against Jesus (sinners) be condemned to hell if they persist in their rebellion? Yes! This is the story from Genesis on, that sin separated all humans from a holy God. The other message, that gives us all hope appears early also (Genesis 3:15), in that redemption can occur through the promised messiah - Jesus. Hell is a reality that the bible describes as many choosing to go to (Matthew 7:13-14).
One of the problems of the "Emergent Movement" is the relativizing of truth. I believe one of the reasons Bell leans this way is because of his belief and many "Emergents" that you should never offend anyone. Jesus claimed to be the exclusive way (John 14:6) and he also stated that the truth of his message would be hated (Mark 13:13). Is Jesus the only way? Absolutely! Will the message of Jesus offend? Yes! Should Christians be offensive in how they present the gospel? Absolutely not!

There is an aspect of Bell and other "Emergents" that all Christians need to follow, and that is being aware of our Christian witness. Unfortunately many Christians come across as too judgmental. Many non-Christians view the Christian community as quick to condemn. This type of attitude only hinders the Christian's ability to dialogue with those who do not know Jesus. Jesus came full of grace and truth (John 1:14). Too many Christians get involved at one end of the spectrum or the other. In other words, some Christians are all about grace leaving truth by the wayside, while others are on the truth side abandoning God's grace that needs to be extended to all people.

Should Christians judge? It depends on the type of judgment being addressed. All followers of Christ would agree that judgments are required on a daily basis on how to live your life. The real question that Bell and others seem to have problems with is, "Should we throw God's truth out so as not to offend others?"

To read a blog I did on the need for Grace and Truth click here.
Rob Bell's promotional video for his book, Love Wins, can be found here.
A review of Bell's book, Love Wins, can be found here.
To read what some (Southern Baptists) are saying about Bell and the emergent Movement click here.

Smith vs. Meek Debate: An Analysis

2011-03-18T17:35:00.002-05:00

On March 17th, 2011, I was privileged to attend the Khalil Meek - Jay Smith debate on the topic of, "Which way America: The Bible or the Qur'an?" Meek defended the Qur'an while Smith defended the Bible. Being that I hold a Christian worldview, my view was biased in that direction. However, I believe anyone listening to the debate would say Smith clearly won. The debate was won on the issues that Smith presented. Even though I am biased toward the Christian worldview, I am not biased to the point where I would say the Christian always is the winner. In fact, I have attended a debate concerning the existence of God where I believe the atheist actually won the debate. So, why did Smith win the debate?

Smith was obviously much better prepared and actually had a better command of the the Qur'an than his Muslim counterpart. Smith repeatedly challenged Meek concerning troubling passages of the Qur'an, in which Meek had no answer. One of the telling points of the debate came near the end where Meek was trying to counter Smith's accusations of the verses within the Qur'an calling for violence and discrimination against Jews and Christians. Meek answered by quoting various passages of the Qur'an to show how inclusive and loving all individuals need to be toward one another. Smith then delivered a severe blow to Meek by saying that all the passages quoted by Meek were dealing with how Muslims are to treat fellow Muslims, and not how humans are to interact with one another in general. In other words, Meek was never able to defend the troubling passages in the Qur'an dealing with calls of violence toward other non-Muslims. Before proceeding further it should be noted that Smith had a tremendous handle of the Qur'an and the religion of Islam. Smith was quoting the Qur'an and Bible at will, even giving Arabic translations of several key words within the Qur'an. Smith was also at an advantage due to his numerous previous debates. Smith even engages with radical Muslims on a weekly basis back home in London.

I would like to address some of the main points of the debate. The debate can be listened to here.

1. Smith was interested in defending the New Testament being that the Testament contains the story of Jesus and presents the Christian worldview. Smith started by saying that he was going to compare the New Testament ethics with the Qur'an's. He brought both holy books to the podium to compare and contrast what they say.

2. Smith opened by presenting troubling passages within the Qur'an that deal with the treatment of women, Christians and Jews. Meek did not address any of the troubling passages of Smith and instead would only quote passages of the Qur'an that dealt with relationships of how people should treat one another. Remember, according to Smith, all the beautiful passages dealing with proper relationships of the Qur'an was only Muslim to Muslim relations. Meek never countered Smith with troubling ethical passages within the New Testament.

3. Toward the end of the debate the subject of violence came up. The Crusades, Inquisition, and present and past terrorism was addressed. The Crusades and inquisition were not really focused on, but the subject of which book promotes violence was. Smith quoted several passages of the Qur'an calling for violence against non-Muslims. Smith then quoted recent history (within the last 150 years) of Muslim violence against Christians and Jews. Smith then caused quit a stir by asking for any recent violence of Christians against Muslims. Several Muslims in the front row started saying, "What about Iraq or Afghanistan?" Smith countered by saying these instances are state controlled situations and not a Christian response to Muslim communities.

4. One of the issues I knew would come up dealt with the trustworthiness of the New Testament. The only counter that Meek had was that scholars such as the "Jesus Seminar" and the early Church councils show that the New Testament can't be trusted. This point caused many of the Christians within the room to moan, knowing that this was a very week argument.

5. One of the interesting points of the debate revolved around how Meek viewed the John 14:6 passage. Early in the debate, Meek said he believes everything Jesus said, but when confronted with the John passage, he said this refers to Jesus having a message from God just as Moses did. In other words, Jesus was not claiming to be the exclusive way, but was saying his words are the way of God just as Moses words were the way of God.

6. The issue of the Trinity came up toward the end of the debate. Meek pointed out that it is impossible for God to die on the cross, for who is in charge of the universe at that point? Meek also found it hard to believe that God could die. Smith countered by listing verses within the the Old and New Testament that point to the Triune God. Smith even countered Meek's point that God cannot be contained by quoting the Qur'an where God was located within the burning bush.

The debate was cordial from both sides. Smith was very well versed in the Qur'an and Islam. Even a casual observer would say that the debate was no contest. One of the main points that I would like to emphasize is the openness of the debate. Over and over again, Smith pointed out that this would not be the case in Muslim controlled countries. I appreciated both Smith's and Meek's attitude during the debate toward one another. They both had serious disagreements, but were willing to dialogue without ad hominen attacks. I have listened to several Christians debate Muslims, but none that I have listened to have a command and knowledge of Islam like Smith. Rarely do debates end up being a draw and this held true for the Smith - Meek debate. Smith clearly won the debate and stayed on topic, while Meek constantly avoided the challenges of Smith.

For more information of Jay Smith click here.

Get real

2011-03-13T22:53:00.002-05:00

If Christianity is to be shown false it will occur when someone can show by the preponderance of the evidence that the empty tomb can be explained without a bodily resurrection. Scholars are almost in universal agreement that Jesus was a historical figure, who died on a Roman cross, was buried in a known tomb, was reported missing from the tomb days later, and was reported to be seen by many.

What are the theories explaining this known information, and which theory has the best explanatory power? I will consider some of the popular arguments and close with the theory that Jesus actually rose from the dead in bodily form.

1. The Swoon Theory - The Swoon Theory has Jesus not dying on the cross, but resuscitating in the tomb.

This can't be a proper explanation as the Romans at the cross would have been held accountable if Jesus was not dead. In fact, Roman law pronounced a death penalty for any soldier who does not make sure an individual dies on the cross.
Jesus legs were not broken showing the guards believed Jesus was already dead.
Blood and water was reported to have flowed from Jesus body due to a spear thrust through his heart. A spear through the heart = death.
Jesus was buried in pounds of bandages and wrappings from head to toe. It would have been impossible for him to breath and resuscitate.
The disciples never would have followed a swooned Jesus.
Jesus could never have overpowered the Roman guards. Additionally, how does Jesus move the stone?
There is no early story of a swooning Jesus.

2. The Conspiracy Theory - The story of Jesus resurrection was a concoction of his disciples.

Early Christians never believed the story to be an invention. The Jewish culture was not one to believe in non-historical stories.
It is hard to believe that fishermen could construct such an elaborate story.
The Conspiracy Theory goes against the disciples character.
Why would the disciples construct such a story knowing it would condemn them to hell and pronounce a death sentence upon them due to persecution?
There is no way this lie could escape Jerusalem without being exposed by the Jewish people.
The story of the bodily resurrection was early (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
How do you explain the empty tomb?

3. The Hallucination Theory - The disciples merely hallucinated a resurrected Jesus.

Hallucinations are not shared group experiences.
Hallucinations are short (a few seconds) and never are prolonged, such as the disciples spending hours with Jesus.
Hallucinations usually happen as a one time experience and never occur multiple times later.
Early Jewish converts of Christianity would never have been convinced of a hallucinated Jesus.
The Hallucination Theory does not match with the disciples character.
Hallucinated persons can't be touched and they never eat (Luke 24:42-43; John 21:1-14).
Hallucinations do not explain the empty tomb.

4. Grief Related Hallucination Theory - Hallucinations where individuals are so grieved they project
the person that is being grieved for. Some say Paul was so grieved at persecuting Jesus that he
hallucinated in seeing Jesus.

The same problems apply for the Hallucination Theory.
It is hard to believe that Paul, who thought he was serving God by persecuting Christians, would ever feel sorry for what he was doing, causing him to suddenly project Jesus out of grief.

5. The Myth Theory - Similar to the Conspiracy Theory, the Myth Theory has subsequent writers inventing a resurrected Jesus.

The gospels don't read as myth, but as historical documents.
There is not enough time for myth to develop.
Anyone creating a myth in the 1st century never would have used women as the first discoverers of the resurrected Jesus, knowing that the testimony of women in 1st century Palestine was invalid.
The writings of the New Testament were early enough that anyone could have countered them if they were myth.
Myth goes against the Jewish culture.
Why create a myth that would carry with it a certain death sentence?

6. The Stolen Body Theory - The body of Jesus was stolen by his disciples.

What motivation would cause the disciples to do this if they knew the resurrection story would bring certain persecution?
The disciples were afraid after the death of Jesus.
This is against the character of the disciples.
How did the disciples get past the Roman guards?
How did the Jewish disciples get away with this hoax in Jerusalem where Christianity was birthed?

7. The Twin Theory - Jesus had a twin or someone who looked just like him who died on the cross.

Wouldn't some have know it was an impostor who died on the cross?
Wouldn't someone have known Jesus had a twin?
How do you explain the empty tomb?

8. The Alien Jesus Theory - This theory has Jesus as an alien who possessed advanced technology to make it appear that the resurrection took place.

Ummmmm, really?

9. The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Theory - Jesus bodily rose from the dead.

Prophesies exist to confirm the person of Jesus, even detailing the type of death he would receive (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53).
The bodily resurrection explains the empty tomb.
The bodily resurrection explains the encounters that numerous people had with Jesus.
The bodily resurrection explains the times Jesus had physical contact after the resurrection (eating, being able to be touched).
The resurrection was the earliest story (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
The resurrection story explains the changed lives of the disciples. It is hard to believe that 1st century Jews who witnessed Jesus would be willing to die for a lie.
In sum, the bodily resurrection of Jesus has the best explanatory power when all theories of the resurrection story are lined up.

Much of the material derives from Kreeft and Tacelli's book, Handbook of Christian Apologetics. To see more detailed information click here.

Is the New Testament Historically reliable?

2011-03-12T11:23:00.001-06:00

You can't say that!

2011-03-05T11:34:00.000-06:00

Anyone wanting to invent a religion would surely never say anything that might cause problems for your future devotes. Would you want to have any embarrassing sayings? Would you want to mention that the leader of your religion is ignorant in a certain area? Would you want to have confusing statements that are not crystal clear to the masses? The answer to all of these questions is, surely not! If one is to invent a religion, it should be expected that the religion answers all questions, without embarrassment, and the leader(s) would be be completely above reproach and knowledgeable of all facts.

The above mentioned problems are exactly what we see in the New Testament. Consider the problem of embarrassment. In the 1st century, a woman's testimony was considered invalid, but yet we see that the discovers of the empty tomb of Jesus are all women (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20). Why would the writers of the gospels include this embarrassing situation?

What about ignorance? Ignorance simply means to lack knowledge. Most would agree that Jesus was not ignorant, but there is recorded an incident where Jesus lacked knowledge of an event. When Jesus was speaking about the end times he said concerning this event, "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (Matthew 24:36)." Why would you want to include this fact of ignorance about the leader of your religion?

What about difficult statements? One of the most bizarre statements of the New Testament occurs in Matthew 27:52-43. In this passage Matthew notes that the tombs of Jerusalem were breaking open and holy saints of the past were entering the holy city. This is the only mention in the entire New Testament of this event. Why include this difficult statement if all you are trying to do is invent a religion?

What about Peter, one of the closest disciples of Jesus? Peter is mentioned in the New Testament (Mark 14, John 18) as denying that he even knew Jesus. Why would one want to include this character flaw of an early leader of the church? How about the brother of Jesus, James? James did not even believe in Jesus at one time (Mark 6:3), so why would anyone want to include this damaging statement? Even Paul, the great apostle responsible for much of the New Testament and spread of Christianity said this, "For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing (Romans 7:19)." Again, Paul says, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst (1 Timothy 1:15)." Why would anyone who is inventing a religion want to portray severe character flaws with the individual leaders of the movement?

The New Testament presents itself in an honest and open way. If one is to make the charge that the New Testament is a later invention, then why do we have embarrassment, difficult passages, and ignorance from the founder of Christianity? The New Testament documents can be trusted because of these difficulties that are included. In other words, in trying to invent a religion, one would never have the damaging statements that are presented in the New Testament. Instead, if a religion is invented, the leaders of the religion would be fluffed up without the appearance of any flaws. The embarrassing and difficult passages of the New Testament only validates the fact that the writings cannot be an invented religion.

Anjem Choudary vs. David Wood: Would Sharia Help the West? (Debate)

2011-03-04T19:52:00.001-06:00

Interview with Nabeel Qureshi

2011-03-04T17:43:00.000-06:00

This is an interview of Dr. Nabeel Qureshi by Dr. Mike Licona. Mike heads up the apologetics program of the North American Mission Board, which is a part of the Southern Baptist Convention. I actually was able to spend some time in discussion with Nabeel one Summer at Biola, as we were both pursuing a Master's in Christian apologetics. Not only did Nabeel provide a wealth of information on Islam, but he also had much to say on a variety of other apologetic topics in some of the classes we took together. I encourage everyone to listen to this interview as Nabeel discusses his conversion to Christianity and a variety of issues that relate to the Islamic faith. The interview can also be found on "Apologetics 315." To listen to the interview, click here.

An Appearence of Age

2011-02-25T19:50:00.001-06:00

by John Morgan

When you read the words of atheist evolutionist Richard Dawkins "Biology is the study of complicated things which give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose[1]," how do you react? Do you say "Of course they appear designed; they are designed." When you hear the argument that Christ did not really die on the cross, He only appeared to have died, how do you react? If someone came into your church teaching the Gnostic doctrine that Christ did not really have a physical body but only appeared to have one, how would you react? When presented with the popular Christian doctrine that the earth and universe are not really billions of years old but only appear to be old, how do you react?

Perhaps both old earth creationists and young earth creationists can agree on this: there is some irony associated with the appearance of age doctrine. There is irony in the fact that the appearance of age arguments parallel those of doctrines almost all Christians oppose. There is irony because those who embrace the appearance of age still embrace the truth that the heavens declare the glory of the God of truth. But, if the universe only appears old, then those heavens must be giving a false report and objects more than, say, 10,000 light years never really existed as we see them.

Still, many Christians have embraced some version of "Appearance of Age" related to the age of the earth and universe. This position states that God created the earth and universe with an appearance of age. Some hold Adam and Eve up as an analogy because he created them as adults. There was some necessity that God create Adam and Eve as adults so they would survive. Analogously, there was a need to create the earth with coal deposits, limestone deposits and the many other features that suggest long periods of time. Others take the tack that God is an artist or craftsman. A craftsman could make a table and give it a distressed finish so that it looked weathered. The craftsman is not lying. He is simply doing with his art as he wishes.

This whole issue raises many questions. And, at each point Christians should ask, "what does the Bible say?"

What is the Bible's expectation about the trustworthiness of experience - sight, touch, etc.
What does the Bible say about how we can know?
What weight does the Bible give to evidence in general and historical events in particular?
Does the Bible give any suggestion that the world, including the heavenly bodies are not real?
If evidence contradicts verbal testimony or prophesy, which should we believe?
Can I distinguish between an inspired message and my understanding of it?
In the Bible, how did men of faith know things?
What do the words of God or Jesus say about what should persuade us of the truth of a claim?

To read the entire article click here
This is a great site I just discovered called sword and spirit ,check it out.

2011-02-24T20:13:00.004-06:00

Deconstructing Bart Ehrman

by Charles Lehardy

Back before cable and the internet, we used to depend on Uncle Walter for news. A consummate professional, CBS News anchorman Walter Cronkite could always be relied on to get his facts straight and the questions of the day answered with precision.

Today, the inescapable 24/7 news cycle and the tsunami of information have biased us to think of everything as an experience in journalism, where carefully arranged factoids lead us like Hansel's pebbles back to the truth.

In truth, this materialistic, hard-evidence bias of ours leads to a peculiarly modern way of framing history and the events of the day.

It is impossible to understand the Bible, much less discover the God who is revealed there, by pretending to be journalists asking gotcha questions.

This does not mean we must check our brains at the door of the church. Jesus said the greatest commandment of God is to love him with all of your heart, soul, and mind.

That implies a God who expects us to pursue the truth with intelligence. It also points up one of the ways ancient writers of the scriptures saw the world differently than we do: they believed that every human being has a moral center, the soul, which is capable of responding to God's truth, directing our decisions, and accepting responsibility — eternally — for our moral choices.

The Bible was written by men who were no less intelligent than we are, but who nevertheless saw life very differently than we do. They saw God at the center of everything.
If we claim to want to understand the Bible but are dismissive of the cultural-historical perspectives of its writers, or worse, if we read it through the blue-blocker lenses of our modern biases about truth and human nature, we just won't get it.

To read the entire article click here

It appears

2011-02-23T09:35:00.014-06:00

In Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, he makes this startling comment in the preface, "The problem is that of complex design." Dawkins realizes that design is present and further states, "The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone does not agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up." Of course, Dawkins would never admit that the complexity of living organisms was designed by God, but what if the argument were developed further for not just the complexity of life, but for all the complex questions of the universe?

It appears that there are numerous gaps within the fossil record linking a multitude of organisms.
It appears that at times life did not evolve slowly over time as predicted by Darwin, but, in fact, life appears suddenly (i.e. Cambrian explosion).
It appears the simple animal cell is incredibly complex, especially the component parts that allow the cell to operate properly.
It appears that the parts of the cell exhibit irreducible complexity. In other words, the parts had to all be in place at the same time for the cell to properly function. It appears the cell parts were not added slowly over time.
It appears that Darwinian evolution does not have enough time to evolve into the complexity we see today, if life exploded (Cambrian Period) some 600 million years ago.
It appears mutations will not facilitate Darwin's evolutionary model, given that most mutations are degenerate and do not add new parts.
It appears that DNA exhibits specified complexity and chance evolution does not suffice as an adequate answer. The DNA information seems to cry out for an informer or God.
It appears that the beginning of the universe by way of the Big Bang needs to have a banger or God.
It appears that nothing pops into existence by chance, because for anything to begin there needs to be a causer or God (i.e. Kalam Cosmological Argument).
It appears that the universe is fine-tuned for life and would need to have a tuner or God.
It appears that objective morals exist meaning an objective moral law giver or God exists.
It appears that the conscious mind cries out for an ultimate mind or God.
It appears that science is not able to answer all questions such as why we have 1st person awareness and the laws of logic. In other words, science cannot test why certain quantities exist in the universe.
It appears the best explanation of the empty tomb and the eyewitness accounts of Jesus after his death is the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

It appears that much within the universe cries out for explanation as Dawkins so eloquently stated, the question is, what best explains apparent design and the multitude of questions presented? In Dawkins world, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it cannot be a duck.

Tim Keller - What is the New Atheist message?

2011-02-21T10:43:00.001-06:00

The trial of truth

2011-02-12T17:20:00.000-06:00

This past week I was summoned for jury duty. I was pretty sure I would not be picked being that the entire Sheriff's department meets with the church I pastor. Sure enough, I was not one of the 24 that was originally called before it had to be narrowed down to 12. The process was interesting and I hope to serve one day as a juror. One of the interesting statements made by the district judge was, "Drawing from a large diverse group of individuals will help in finding truth." The statement implies that truth can be known. A second statement made by the judge was, "The evidence should lead the decision process."

Concerning truth, it was not only clear from the judge's statement that it is knowable, but was implied that truth is objective. What is truth anyway? Truth is that which corresponds with reality or representing things as they really are. This is referred to as the correspondence theory of truth. All individuals use the correspondence theory of truth in their everyday life. Giving directions in how to go from point A to point B is using the correspondence theory. Think of what the world would be like if we didn't believe in the correspondence theory of truth? We could never know if someone was telling the truth or crying wolf.

For anyone to deny the knowability or objective nature of truth is an impossible feat. Relativism does just that. Relativism, in essence, denies that truth can be known or that it is objective, hence the term relativism. The problem that makes relativism untenable is that it can not show why anyone should accept relativism. It is logically impossible to support relativism, for when one states that relativism is the correct view they contradict themselves by making objectively true statements.

The judge was completely justified in asking the potential jurors to consider the evidence, because evidence will tip the scales toward the truth. The evidence is important in deciding the truth. It must be pointed out that even if evidence points towards truth, jurors or individuals can still disregard the evidence. If one is to be honest though, he/she should consider all the available evidence in order to arrive at an informed decision of truth. Truth in the courtroom was not viewed in a Humeian way. Philosopher, David Hume had set the bar of truth to an unrealistic level by requiring 100% certainty. The judge in the case was only looking for the preponderance of the evidence.

When arguing for any position (i.e. theism vs. atheism, resurrection vs. non-resurrection) it is incumbent upon the individual to lay out the evidence in a convincing manner. Looking at questions such as the beginning of the universe, moral values, the conscious mind, the structured universe, and the resurrection of Jesus, the evidence tips the scales toward the Christian worldview. If the Christian worldview is discarded in the future it will not be because the majority of people feel it is an outdated concept. Christianity or any view will fall because it does not conform to truth.

The mysterious mind

2011-02-08T10:10:00.006-06:00

There are many arguments for the existence of God, but perhaps the strongest argument for God's existence is the argument from mind or consciousness. Listening to a debate between J.P. Moreland and Clancy Martin, Martin who was arguing against the existence of God made the point that the mind is puzzling to explain on a purely naturalist level.

Looking at the mind, there are two opposing worldviews as to how the mind developed. One view explains the emergence of mind without the need for God. Many who take this view see the mind as a by product of Darwinian evolution. In other words, everything can be explained by materialist means. A big problem arises when trying to explain the mind on a purely naturalist level. Think about your first person awareness, how is this to be explained by way of science? So, the mind causes problems for naturalism, if this is how we are to view the world.

Some say the rescuer of the materialistic development of the mind is physicalism. Physicalism is defined as, "everything that exists is nothing but a single spatio-temporal system which can be completely described in terms of some ideal form of physics." [1] A simpler way to express this idea is that the physical is all that exists, there is no such thing as God or the soul; no non-physical entities exist. Is physicalism true? Can physicalism/naturalism explain the existence of the mind?

The primary way by which physicalism tries to explain the mind is that the mind supervenes the brain. On this view, the mind is the result of the brain, like smoke is the result of fire. All things of the mind are triggered by the brain. If this is the case, then God is not necessary.

In his book, Scaling the Secular City, philosopher J.P. Moreland points out the problems with physicalism. First, physicalism is self-refuting. If physicalism is true then so is determinism. In other words, we are just programed machines of Darwinian evolution. Philosopher Michael Ruse has said, " Free will as traditionally conceived...simply does not exist. There is no way the evolutionary process as currently conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make choices." [2] If all is determined on a naturalistic/physicalist view then we have no free will, but this does not seem to be the case with our mind. If physicalism is true, then so is determinism. J.R. Lucas says, "Determinism, therefore, cannot be true, because if it was, we should not take the determinists' arguments as being really arguments, but as being only conditioned reflexes." [3]

A second problem exists in that humans are rational beings. Where does this sense of rationality come from? J.P. Moreland makes several points to show that we are rational, and therefore, physicalism is the incorrect view. First, we have intentionality or thoughts about the world. Second, reason, propositions, morality, laws of logic and truth seem to stand against physicalism. Third, we have an agent view of the world. An agent view means we can, deliberate, have free will, and be an agent to act on our free will.

A third problem with physicalim/naturalism is that scientific knowledge cannot explain the mind. How will science ever be able to test a person's first person awareness? How is love, hate, laws of logic, morality and the like measured by way of the scientific method? The mind is a tremendous problem for the physicalist/naturalist as stated by physicalist D.M. Armstrong, "It is quiet a different matter to hold that the nervous system should have the power to create something else, of a quiet different nature from itself, and create it out of no materials." [4]

The mysterious mind is a difficult explanation on a naturalistic or physicalistic view. Perhaps the best explanation for mind is that there exists a Master Mind from which the mind originated. There does seem to exist in all humans both mind and body. We seem to be more than just blobs of matter that accidently arose. This is exactly the view of Scripture when it says, "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them (Genesis 1:27)." John Calvin the famous reformer once said, "the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves. They point to the Ultimate Mind and ground of rationality himself." [5]

[1] Moreland, J.P., Scaling the Secular City, p. 80

[2] Michael Ruse as quoted in J.P. Moreland's, Kingdom Triangle, p. 49

[3] Lucas, J.R., Freedom of the Will, p. 114-15

[4] Armstrong, D.M., A Materialist Theory of the Mind, p. 30

[5] John Calvin as quoted in J.P. Moreland's, Scaling the Secular City, p. 103

When your house of cards falls

2011-02-04T19:46:00.001-06:00

As a young boy I would often construct card buildings. I would start with three cards as my base and the wall of a particular room as the forth side of the base. I then would lay two cards on top of the three vertical card pieces. I would try to see how high my card building would go before it crumbled. I sometimes could get three to four floors before the structure became too week to stand. Each floor was more precarious because the new foundations became increasingly weak as the cards went up. Without the initial foundation of carpet to solidify the base cards, it would have been impossible to even construct the first floor.

The foundation was crucial for my card structure to even be erected. A foundation is necessary for any structure to go up. Similar to structure in architecture is the necessity for foundationalism in truth. Foundationalism is, "The theory of knowledge that affirms the need for certain foundational principles as the basis of thought." [1] Simply put, foundationalism argues that knowledge of truth is not possible without these principles (called first principles, such as the law of non-contradiction). Foundationalism ties directly into truth, for without a foundation, truth has nothing to stand on.

Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias was once taken to what was referred to as the first post-modern building. This building was held in high esteem because of its randomness in design according to the architect. One of the main tenants of post-modernism is that truth is relative or truth has no foundation to stand on. If truth is relative, then truth cannot be known, but when one says truth is relative she is using foundational talk. In essence, relative truth turns out to be contradictory, because the statement that truth is relative is based on a foundational principle while at the same time being denied by the statement. Without a foundation it is impossible to know truth. Ravi Zacharias rightly inquired about the foundation, because without the foundation, you have no building. To make matters worse the architect further contradicts himself by saying he had "no design in mind." [2]

Truth must rest upon a foundation or there is no way to know the truth. Truth by its very nature is exclusive and must correspond with reality. When building my card structures of the past, it would have been impossible to construct a single wall without a foundation. Similarly, relative truth is a like a foundational - less structure. A truth without a foundation doesn't just cause your house of cards to fall, but it becomes impossible to build in the first place.

[1] Geisler, Norm, Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 259
[2] Postmodern Architecture