Tag: Judeo-Christianity

Be A Window, Not A Wall

Posted in PoetryTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/27/2019

Be a window,

Not a wall.

Some stand tall,

Yet all eventually fall.

Some loom large,

While others seem small.

–

We’ve all heard the call,

But a few of us are still afraid to fall.

We’ve all failed,

But Christ has prevailed.

–

Windows let the Son shine through,

Yet walls shield people from seeing the real you.

Windows are open and transparent,

But walls are closed off and hide what sin has bent.

Windows crack and shatter,

While walls pretend to have everything together.

–

Be more like a beautiful flower,

Than this structurally unsound tower.

Let the light into every area of your life,

Before darkness hurts like an ill-intentioned knife.

If you want to grow,

Then the walls need to go.

–

There is no guilt or shame,

In the power of Christ’s name.

Be honest above all,

No one expects you to be Saint Paul.

Be a window,

Not a wall.

–

With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless.

Footnotes

  1. Free stock photos · Pexels

The Thief and the Cross

Posted in TopicalTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 4/10/2020

In light of Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday, I wanted to take some time to write about the thief on the cross. By thief on the cross, I am referring to one of the two thieves that were crucified with Jesus. One became a believer, while the other did not. So for now, any references to the thief on the cross are towards the thief that became a believer.

Why Were People Crucified?

Bart-d-ehrman-2012-wikipedia
Bart D. Ehrman, PhD | James A. Gray Distinguished Professor University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

This thief on the cross is an interesting figure in the historical account of the crucifixion of Jesus, but is often overlooked in the grand scheme of things. He most likely would have been a Jewish man due to a number of factors like his belief in one God (2) and his familiarity with the teachings of Jesus about the kingdom of Heaven (3), along with his punishment. Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar, points out the uniqueness of the crucifixion and why only a certain group of people would receive this form of punishment when he writes

“Crucifixion was reserved for special cases. But there were lots of special cases. Two of the most common were low-life criminals and enemies of the state. These are two very different matters – they are not the same thing… This was especially the case – I reiterate – for enemies of the state. Rare exceptions might be made for low-life criminals – escaped slaves, horse thieves, general riff-raff who did not matter to anyone in power (4).”

In other words, the two thieves were most likely crucified for either stealing something very valuable like horses as their names would suggest or for being insurgents that were sworn enemies of the state. Regardless of why they were hung in the first place, these two men died alongside Jesus and witnessed His final moments before His death. This will be the bedrock for the rest of this blog-post moving forward.

Artistic Depictions of Christ’s Crucifixion

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

What is also of note is how artists depict where the three men are in different works of art. For instance, Peter Paul Rubens and Titian seem to have placed the thief on the cross to the right of Christ, while the proud thief is to His left. This deliberate creative choice of putting the thief on the cross beside the right hand of God is significant.

In both Judaism and Christianity, to be on the right hand of God was a sign of God’s “ruler-ship, authority, sovereignty, blessing, and strength and is significant in Scripture (5).” We can see this in many places in the Bible such as Psalm 110:1b where it says “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” To be fair, there are other works of art like Rembrandt van Rijn’s Christ Crucified between the Two Thieves: The Three Crosses (6) that appears indifferent to where each thief is in the picture and is rightly so focused on Christ Himself.

Likewise, James the brother of Jesus once wrote “But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you (7).” It would seem that in the spirit of this passage and the current state of the thief on the cross, that Rubens and Titian visually depicted what was spiritually taking place inside this thief’s soul. That as the thief on the cross was up there next to Jesus, his heart and mind were radically changed. A series of events that brought this man to a point of understanding.

Things like Jesus asking for the forgiveness of His executioners (8), soldiers dividing His garments by way of casting lots, and those passing by railing blasphemous statements towards Christ in a taunting way (9) all occurred before the thief on the cross had a change of heart. In the Gospel of Matthew (10), it even records both thieves mocking Jesus until a certain point where only the proud thief is left to mock Jesus. Sometime between both thieves mutually mocking Jesus and the proud thief continuing to mock Jesus, was there a sharp change in attitude from the thief on the cross.

A Change of Heart

What happened so suddenly that a thief dying on a cross would suddenly have a complete change in how he perceived Jesus? I’d argue it is a combination of moments, but for now we will only focus in on one aspect. What Jesus said and how He acted during this whole ordeal.

Gamelin2_t01
Anatomical Crucifixion Sketch | Jacques Gamelin, 1779 (12)

Just for a little more context, their punishment by way of crucifixion was not so nice. In fact, it was one of, if not the most painful form of torture at that time. According to Maslen and Mitchell’s article written in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (11), crucifixion had many cruel ways of ending one’s life.

Some of those causes of death may have been, but are not limited to acidosis, arrhythmia plus asphyxia, cardiac rupture, hypovolemic shock, and so on. Death by crucifixion was a brutal, yet extremely prolonged way to die. For some, they died in a matter of hours. For others, they died in a matter of days.

I believe of the three events that took place before the thief on the cross had a change of heart, the moment of Jesus forgiving His executioners had the most impact on the thief. Christ’s response showed the thief a direct contrast to the way He lived His own life. A seed of regret was planted.

Jesus forgave those that were killing Him. The two thieves probably hated those that were crucifying them. Jesus was known as an exorcist and a teacher who wanted to help the poor and sick. The two thieves were most likely men that spent the majority of their lives only helping themselves.

As if the name was any indication, these thieves were probably selfish. Christ was selfless. The thieves died for crimes they committed. Jesus died for crimes we committed. For the thief on the cross and from his perspective, this man was different in almost every single way from him and the other thief. They deserved this death, but Jesus didn’t.

This strong distinction between a thief and the giver of eternal life is a drastic black-and-white difference. One died for taking that which was someone else’s, while the other died for giving all that He had for others. This I believe is what changed the thief on the cross from mocking Jesus to defending Him in front of everyone.

By everyone, I mean everyone. Gentiles and Jews. Pharisees and Roman soldiers. Family, friends, neighbors, and so on. Everyone there at the crucifixion knew of or had heard of these three crucified men and were probably shocked watching the thief on the cross have a change of heart. A thief for the first time encountering something he had never seen before: unlimited love in response to unbridled hate. The love of God in reaction to the darkest of human deeds. The Gospel happening before his very eyes.

The short story of the thief on the cross ends in a profound way. Luke chronicles the rest of that story when he writes

“But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you shall be with me in paradise (13).””

In response to the thief’s change of heart and his humble demeanor, God gives Him grace. A grace that surpasses all understanding. This is the thief and the cross. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless.

Footnotes

  1. https://www.pexels.com/
  2. Luke 23:40
  3. Luke 23:42
  4. https://ehrmanblog.org/why-romans-crucified-people/
  5. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2015/06/13/what-does-the-right-hand-symbolize-or-mean-in-the-bible/
  6. https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/41.1.31/
  7. James 4:6-8b
  8. Luke 23:34
  9. Luke 23:35-37
  10. Matthew 27:44
  11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420788/
  12. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/historicalanatomies/gamelin_home.html
  13. Luke 23:40-43

Don’t Judge Me By The Color Of My Eyes

Posted in TopicalTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Updated: 5/27/2019

A while ago, my older brother John wrote a really powerful Facebook post about the state of racism in the world. He considered the matter and concluded that racism is nothing more than a categorical error. The idea that because of a sole variable (i.e. the color of one’s skin), those that share that variable are less than those who do not have that variable (i.e. those of a dissimilar skin color).

Even if both groups shared almost every other variable (i.e. culture, DNA, religion, etc), they were and are still identified by a variable that bears little to no significance when compared to more appropriate labels of identification like one’s birthplace or cultural upbringing. With his permission and in light of the anniversary of Martin Luther King Day, I wanted to share his thoughts with you (1). So, let’s see what he said.

–

I’ve heard so much talk lately about “black” people and “white” people. Unfortunately, every single post has missed the point entirely. We live in a world where we’ve been taught to categorize by color. A process that if not taught to you since you were born, would make absolutely no sense. In fact, you would find it ridiculous because if you step back and think about it, color does not represent anything.

You would never consider categorizing people by eye color. It would be so stupid to even try. Close your eyes for a second and try to imagine a world where people were categorized by eye color. The whole idea is just stupid, right? Well, open your eyes. This is your reality.

So why don’t you even give it a second thought when someone says “white” or “black” people? The very moment that you define someone by their skin is discriminatory. That is the birth of racism. Allow me to explain.

The deep rooted problem lies in our fundamental thinking process that we all are guilty of being indoctrinated into believing. Somewhere in our messed up ideology we discarded categorizing other people by real connections like culture and heritage. Instead, we have substituted appropriate labels with something more superficial and shallow: the color of our skin.

The way we use the word color itself is ridiculous. Everyone’s a different shade of brown. Have you ever actually seen a person with white or black skin? Me neither.

Also, the word “race” is entirely incorrect in the context that we use it in when talking about people. If there is no biological difference between people of different shades, then there is only one race. I’ll say it again. If there is no biological difference between people of different shades, then there is only one race: the human race.

If you really break it down, there is only one thing that people of the same skin shades have in common: the way society views and treats them. This is the only thing that creates the bond between people who look similar and separates those who look different. But the way society treats you has entirely nothing to do with you.

Now we’re back to agreeing that there is really no difference, except the one that we created in our minds. So I leave you with this: as long as you yourself define people by categories of skin “color,” you are reinforcing racism. If you want to change society, then you must first change the way you think.

–

Again, I love what John wrote about this issue. Really spoke to me and I hope it speaks to you in light of MLK Day. So what’s the takeaway from this Facebook post written by John?

If you change the way you think, then you will naturally change the way you speak. Don’t judge others by the color of their eyes or skin, but instead judge them by the inner condition of their identity. Now before you go, here is some more food for thought from two very important men in history speaking on the same subject:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” – Christ Jesus (NRSV John 7:24)

With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless.

Footnotes

  1. John also gave me permission to make minor edits that help fit the format of a blog-post, as well as fix any grammatical errors present in his original Facebook post.
  2. For more from John Cribari, here’s his personal training business: https://lessons.com/ca/simi-valley/personal-training/cribari-training
  3. Disclaimer

How Should Christians Talk?

Posted in TopicalTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/27/2019

Within Christian circles, there has been a long and great debate over how we believers should talk. Whether that be with others in social settings, before a congregation at a church, or even by ourselves. There are many sides to this discussion and I think for the sake of brevity, I will outline the more popular sides before giving my two cents on the situation.

Some say that according to such passages of Scripture as Ephesians 4:29-32 and Colossians 3:8, we should not swear or say anything remotely close to “those” words. This is because Paul the Apostle, the author of both Ephesians and Colossians, follows up both passages with a contrast between the old sinful self and the new sanctified self (2). His frequent mention of this spiritual duality puts a special emphasis on outward distinction from how the rest of the world operates. This should presumably include the way we speak.

On the flip side, there are other believers who insist that because the Bible itself and some of its most famous historical figures used swear words (3), like Paul, that we should have the freedom to use them too. Many on this side refer to such passages as 1 Samuel 20:30 and Luke 13:31-32 where people like Jesus seem to use curses towards others as a way of describing them or of telling the truth of a certain situation. They argue that because these heroes of the faith use these sorts of words, that we too should have the freedom to use them as well in the proper context.

Several months ago, I was apart of a great community group at Peace Mennonite Community Church called Thrive and the discussion for one night revolved around “unwholesome” speech. At the time, we were going through the book of Ephesians and this particular night was focused on the latter half of chapter 4. We all gave great and thought-out answers, but today I’ll just share with you my input with the group that night.

There are many passages in the Bible that to me are more profound than other passages because they give insight to who Jesus was during his quieter moments in His 3-year ministry. Moments like that in Mark 10:13-16 where Jesus explains the Kingdom of Heaven to both His disciples and the children that wanted to be there with Him. But the moment that I referenced in this small group was from Matthew 14:13-14.

In this passage of Scripture, Jesus has just received news that one of His dear friends, John the Baptist, has been killed by King Herod. After hearing the awful news, Jesus goes away to a secluded place in Bethsaida and travels there by boat (4). The disciples and apostles went with Him, in order to rest and eat. Not long after arriving there, the crowds showed up and this is the beginning of a more famous part of His ministry where He feeds the 5,000 with loaves of bread and fish.

Now what interests me most about this passage is how Jesus responds to the death of a friend during a very busy and exhausting portion of His ministry. He removes Himself, along with His disciples and John’s closest followers to seek rest. When thinking about how the followers of John the Baptist must have felt during this horrible tragedy, I then turned my focus to what Jesus must have been thinking and/or saying about His good friend. That friend being the very one who baptized Jesus and was there at the very beginning of His ministry.

To be more precise, how did Jesus talk to others, to Himself, or even to His Father in Heaven about His deceased friend while He was on that boat headed to Bethsaida? Was He angry and because of that, spoke curses concerning the situation or towards King Herod? What was His attitude and response? How did He handle the situation?

Branching out even further, how does Jesus speak about you when talking to the Father? How would He talk about you? We should talk, whether in social settings or by ourselves like Jesus would talk in social settings or just by Himself. We should talk to one another and when talking to ourselves like Jesus talked when He was on Earth.

It would appear that the thread that links the way Jesus spoke about anything was that it had to be necessarily true. Necessary in that it needed to be said in that moment of time for that specific situation about those certain persons, places, or things. It also had to be true because Christ Himself claims to be the truth (5), so He cannot do otherwise then speak the truth. In more simpler terms, he said it as it is and/or said what needed to be said.

In fact, this seems to be the pattern with every single word Jesus has ever said. He always only said what was necessary and true. Nothing more and nothing less. Sometimes, it would be blessings onto His most faithful followers and other times it would be curses onto those who knew better than the way they lived. Everything that has ever been said by Christ had to be said the way that it was said and it was always true.

But can the same be said of us when we speak? Do we say what is necessary and true or do we find ourselves saying a bit too much and a bit too little? I think we can all agree that we are the latter. We seem to always say too much or too little, but we never seem to tell the truth enough. We never seem to say what needs to be said. So before you ever ask yourself if you should say this or that word and this or that phrase, ask yourself if it is necessarily true.

Just as the tongue has the power to build up and destroy the subject that stands before it, so too do you have the ability to speak the truth or a lie. To speak life or death and praises or curses. Whatever encounter you find yourself in next, pause and ask yourself this question: is what I am about to say necessary and true? With that said, Godspeed and Jesus bless.

Footnotes

  1. https://www.pexels.com/
  2. Colossians 3:9-11, Ephesians 4:22-24
  3. https://markoftheredpen.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/curse-words-in-the-bible/
  4. Mark 6:14-32, Luke 9:7-11
  5. John 14:6
  6. Disclaimer

Thank You, Nabeel Qureshi

Posted in PersonalTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/27/2019

Dear Dr. Nabeel Qureshi,

Recently, the world has been at a loss for words on your tragic passing from this life into the better life to come for all who follow Christ. You had a long fight with stomach cancer and now you have entered into eternal rest with our Lord. Those that knew you mourn your loss, but we also know that you are in a far greater place than we could ever imagine.

With that said, your recent transition from this earthly life into eternal life has caused me to reflect on your impact on my life. How I was first introduced to you through Dr. David Wood and his ministry on YouTube that uses apologetics to reach the Muslim community. A ministry that might just have the greatest bromance in apologetic history as well. The friendship that you and David had in the Lord was unparalleled. You both displayed what it truly means to have a brother in Christ.

It was these moments and more that you showed all of us how to speak the truth in love in a practical way. Like when you had a formal debate with the famous Muslim apologist, Dr. Shabir Ally (2). A highly respectable figure within academia and a great debater, to say the least. Even then, you stayed civil and Christ-like in spite of the challenge of debating such an accomplished public speaker like Ally.

The greatest lesson you showed me was to always have compassion and love for those who do not know Christ. To build a bridge and reach people where they are at was so inspiring. To love people like Christ did was evidence enough of how much Jesus has changed you to be more and more conformed to His image. I have never met you on this side of eternity, but I can’t wait to meet you on the other side.

 Thank you for being a role model to apologists on how to intellectually engage others in love. Thank you for showing us believers what it truly means to live both a life of conviction concerning the Great Commission and joy in the grace of our Lord. Thank you for showing non-believers what it means to truly love your enemies as you loved those that hated you for leaving Islam. In short, thank you Nabeel Qureshi for showing everyone a better way forward. You may have lost the battle with cancer, but Christ has won your soul. Rest in peace, Dr. Qureshi. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless!

Footnotes

  1. https://www.facebook.com/NabeelQureshi.org/
  2. https://youtu.be/FWpqqqZn7Kg
  3. Disclaimer

The Greater Than Argument

Posted in TopicalTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 3 Comments

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/27/2019

A while back I wrote an argument for the doctrine of the Trinity called The Lovely Trinity Argument (2) and it was okay in retrospect. After further study and improvement in philosophical argumentation, I have a second argument for the doctrine of the Trinity. This new argument is called The Greater Than Argument. The argument goes as follows:

The Greater Than Argument

  1. Every human is a single person.
  2. God is greater than a human.
  3. Since God is greater than a human, He therefore must be multi-personal.
  4. The Christian Trinity is the best explanation of God’s multi-personal nature.
  5. Therefore, God is a tri-unity of persons, yet remains one nature.

Now this argument is meant to be presented after belief in God is philosophically proven. This can be done by showing the person that you are talking to any number of arguments for the existence of God. In the spirit of my argument, I think the Kalam-Cosmological Argument (3) makes the most sense as a foundation to then build off of and further understand who God logically must be if they exist. Although, one could just as easily use Norris Clarke’s World as an Interacting Whole Argument (4) or Peter Kreeft’s version of The Change Argument (5) first proposed by Thomas Aquinas in his famous Five Ways collection of philosophical arguments.

On the flip side, I also have an alternative version that is simply called The Alternate Greater Than Argument. This alternate version is more so meant to be used in broader contexts for those who don’t believe in God. The Alternate Greater Than Argument goes as follows:

The Alternate Greater Than Argument

  1. Every human is a single person.
  2. If God exists, then they would have to be greater than a human.
  3. If real, God would be multi-personal.
  4. The Christian Trinity is the best explanation of both God’s existence and His multi-personal nature.
  5. Therefore, God is a tri-unity of persons, yet remains one nature.

The basic concept for the Greater Than Argument was inspired by Alvin Plantinga’s philosophical work as a whole and a YouTube video from InspiringPhilosophy (6). I’d highly recommend those resources, along with James White’s book called The Forgotten Trinity. Both arguments have the exact same conclusion and start with the same first premise. Where they differ is in their next three premises, in order to get to the same conclusion.

It’s probably not going to become the most groundbreaking development in defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, but I would say it is a vast improvement over my first argument. Not only in its more focused nature, but also for the fact that it is a third of the length of that first argument (i.e. 15 point argument vs. 5 point argument). So the use of The Greater Than Argument or The Alternate Greater Than Argument in discussion will be far easier to defend in a dialogue, rather than The Lovely Trinity Argument because of said reasons mentioned above. Since the argument is shorter and more to the point, you can invest more time supporting the Christian worldview and get to a Gospel presentation sooner in conversation with others.

You may find it useful to use or might figure out a better way of defending the doctrine of the Trinity. Regardless, I hope it helps you out in some way. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless!

Footnotes

  1. Free stock photos · Pexels
  2. https://chriscribariblog.com/2016/01/
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0
  4. http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#8
  5. http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#1
  6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G2S5ziDcO0

Christian Reconstructionism Examined

Posted in TopicalTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/27/2019

As of late, I have noticed a strange phenomenon growing in the political climate. It’s one that concerns me because of its implications on American society and Christianity as a whole. That phenomenon is the Christian Right and its underlying belief by some within the movement in an ideology called Christian Reconstructionism. Before addressing the movement, let me properly define it and then get into why Christian Reconstructionism is a dangerous ideology that should not be upheld by Christians or those on any political platform.

6157kb7Jk-L._UX250_
R. J. Rushdoony | 1916 – 2001

Christian Reconstructionism is a theonomic movement that really began in the early twentieth century by a man named R. J. Rushdoony and flourished during the 1980s in American politics as it seeped into the Republican Party as a major driving force (2). They are similar to a political action committee (i.e. a PAC or Super PAC), but instead of primarily using money to influence the political process they twist Scripture to push their ideology. Rushdoony’s philosophy of Christian Reconstructionism was largely influenced by the fact that his family were victims in the Armenian Genocide of 1915 and his strong resistance to the New Deal proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930’s, which led him to creating this new form of Christian political involvement.

The basic philosophy of Christian Reconstructionism is the idea that any given nation must be run as a theocracy by Christians and only for Christians. Just to be clear, let me define a few terms before moving forward. A theocracy is a form of government where a nation is ruled by the divine order of some type of deity. A theonomy is how a theocracy is run by any given governing institution in power. The difference between the two terms would be “what it is” versus “how it is” from what I could gather online. A couple examples of theocratic government include, the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages and Islam in the Middle East.

So, why is this scary? Why is this such a problem that people still have this mentality, albeit only a small minority? Well, let’s quickly look at those two examples for a refresher on the negative side effects to a theocratic government.

Church
Source: https://strangenotions.com/is-the-catholic-church-a-force-for-good/

When it came to the Catholic Church, they essentially ruled Europe during the Medieval Ages and had complete control up until both the Reformation and later the Enlightenment that flipped the world upside down. As PBS put it, “the church reinforced the political authority of the states, and the states reinforced the authority of the church (3).” What this meant was that they worked together to enforce law. The government enforced the law of the land, while the Catholic Church enforced the law of the LORD. If one broke either law, then they broke both forms of law. Thus, they would not only receive punishment in this life, but also in the life to come afterwards.

Because of this political snare, the common people were apart of the faith in fear of the tyranny that loomed above them. If they did not believe in the Catholic faith, then they were subjected to torture or even death like those that were implemented during the Spanish Inquisition. This fear drove the commoner to live in utter submission to whatever the government said. Likewise, the government lived in utter submission to whatever the Catholic Church said because in those days, spiritual concerns superseded material matters.

Regarding Islam in the Middle East, it is much more extreme when compared to the Catholic Church not only by the length of time, but also by the amount of torture inflicted onto non-believers throughout history. These modern methods include, but are not limited to forcing LGBT+ persons to jump off of buildings to their death, genital mutilation of women, stoning, and so on. The goal for both of these theocratic governments was to sustain control over the region by whatever means necessary. For the purposes of this blog-post, I’ll leave further information regarding these theocratic forms of government up to you to research on your own.

Going back to where we started, this is what a theocratic government would look like if the Christian Reconstructionist had their way and why it is a danger to the American way of life. Under theocratic rule, every American would have to be Christian or suffer the severe consequences for believing otherwise. Not only that, but a very specific type of Christian that upholds certain beliefs like rejecting antinomianism (opposite of legalism), upholding presuppositionalism (opposite of evidentialism), and affirming postmillennialism to name a few.

progressive-revelation
Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/progressive-revelation.html

The Torah, the first 5 books of the Bible, would become the new rule of law and it would be barbaric to say the least in its application to 21st century civilization. Things such as interracial marriage, individual autonomy, and even modern women’s rights would be abolished. In other words, the philosophy of Christian Reconstructionism reapplying the Old Testament Law as the new law in American society is the equivalent of reapplying the use of horses instead of modern-day subways for transportation. They had their use and importance in history, but their need in today’s society is no longer applicable as the world has advanced beyond that phase of human civilization (4).

At the time, the Old Testament Law was amazing when compared to the horrific cultures that surrounded the region. Other nearby nations like the Hittites and the Canaanites were absolutely wicked, so God commanded the Israelites to live differently in almost every way than these other cultures lived. This is why the Old Testament Law existed in the first place: to fulfill the Hebrew’s part of the Old Covenant. If the Israelites obeyed God, then they would be blessed beyond belief under this covenant. If they didn’t keep the covenant, then they would receive the repercussions of their actions in full (5).

Fast-forward to the times of Christ when the Old Covenant is turned obsolete as Jesus introduces the New Covenant not just with the Hebrews, but with all of mankind (6). Hence, the Christian Reconstructionist’s major selling points on their particular philosophy are in direct conflict with crucial biblical truths in Scripture. The Old Covenant is no longer necessary and yet the Christian Reconstructionist advocates the reintroduction of the old way of relating to God.

As history can attest, when the political and the spiritual are unnaturally bent into a particular agenda we all lose. When it comes to Christian Reconstructionism, this just happens to be one of many attempts to do just that. Forcing someone to live a certain way in spite of their convictions in order to show them what you believe is a better way is not loving, but tyranny. In the name of freedom, there must be flexibility. In the specific case of Americans, what could be better than each and every one of us freely doing as we will to do, without infringing on the dignity innate in others. Sharing ideas rather than controlling them to fit within certain boundaries that favor one sect, while simultaneously oppressing another.

So what is the solution to a theonomous culture? Well, there are only two other options: a heteronomous culture (totalitarianism) and an autonomous culture (libertarianism). For the sake of brevity, America began as a theonomous culture with the mutual belief in the natural law of God giving us unalienable human rights, but has overtime become an autonomous culture where the rights of the individual matter more than the rights of the collective group. Act, believe, and think how you want, but without stepping on the toes of another person’s freedom to do the same.

As I noted earlier, American politics and Christian Reconstructionism are simply not compatible. The movement would only cause more harm than help in the grand scheme of things. When choosing between compromise and extremism in the game of politics, compromise is always the better way out. Compromise is the reason that we as Americans can proudly say that we freely pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless!

Footnotes

  1. Free stock photos · Pexels
  2. http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr3.htm
  3. http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/people/catholic-church.html
  4. The idea that I am referring to in this section of my blog-post is called progressive revelation. It is a common concept in both Christianity and Islam. Read more about it here.
  5. Deuteronomy 30:15-20
  6. Luke 22:20

The Book That Made Your World: Review and Summary Part 1

Posted in The Book That Made Your WorldTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/27/2019

This blog-post was commissioned by Marjorie Wall-Hofer who is a member of my former church called Peace Mennonite Community Church (2). This will be different than other blog-posts in that I will be reviewing and summarizing a book called The Book That Made Your World by Vishal Mangalwadi (3). To be honest, I had never heard of him or his oddly titled book beforehand, but I went for it and thoroughly enjoyed it for the most part. There were a few minor issues I had with the book, but they are too minut to mention every single one in detail.

Primarily, my issues with the book were either grammatical spelling errors (i.e. “bcome” vs. “become”) or jumps in logic to unproven conclusions. Yet, those issues were brief and were my only nitpicks with the book itself. There was also the fact that it reads like an encyclopedia of information as it goes from subject to subject like a textbook of sorts. Then again, I guess there was no way around that problem either considering the subject matter in the first place.

Mangalwadi’s The Book That Made Your World is a very informative take on the Bible’s influence in twenty key areas of the human experience like the origins of science to the concept of compassion in the face of utter barbarism in the early first century. Its aim was to show how the Bible has shaped the West in some of the most profound ways imaginable, even in some ways unexpectedly. In that respect, the book succeeds. Although it does tend to lack the artistic appeal of more expressive writers.

Related image

Chapter 1: The West Without Its Soul | Photo Cred: (4)

The book begins with how the Bible was crucial in the conceptual development of the human soul. Comparing both Johann Sebastian Bach and Kurt Cobain from Nirvana, we see a stark contrast in their lives and striking similarities. Bach’s biblical upbringing versus Cobain’s Buddhism, which led to his belief in Nihilism later in life.

For Bach, his worldview produced some of the most celebrated classical music of all time that gave a sense of hope to its audience as they admired the art of his compositions. For Cobain, his worldview led to producing music that bears nothing meaningful or worthwhile in substance. The soul can express itself best through music and music allows us to see into the souls of one another. The Bible shapes our souls into redeemed wretches, while its absence allows our souls to rot in utter decay. On the one hand, everlasting life and on the other a life that left too soon.

Related image

Chapter 2: Service | Photo Cred: (5)

The next chapter focuses on the biblical value of service when compared to other worldviews. Drawing from his own experiences growing up in India, Mangalwadi explains how someone who lives out the statutes of the Bible in a real-world way will see their whole outlook on life change as they do less for themselves and more for others in the name of Christ. While others worry about getting to the other side where the grass is always greener, Christ compels His followers to seek out those whose grass is not so green and to help them flourish as they soak in the love of the Son. The world promotes self-love for our own good, but Christ commands selfless love as we serve others for the greater good.

Image result for journey

Chapters 3 – 4: Quest and Self | Photo Cred: (6)

Mangalwadi continues into more particular ways in which the Bible has influenced and helped make the modern West by going into the quest of life, along with our role in that quest as free creatures. The Bible helped give humans the ultimate quest in life: to be known by God, to know God, and to make God known. In the same respect, it also gives us a true sense of self as we now know that we are neither equal to God nor to a dog, but rather exist in the middle of the spiritual and the natural.

We are free creatures that create like our Creator and yet are the cherry on top of Creation itself. He asserts that “I am a creative creature” and a free one at that too as we journey on our unique quests into the unknown reaches of what truly makes us human. As we draw close to God, we at the same token draw close to a proper understanding of ourselves in light of His light: the Word of God.

Image result for george lemaitre

Chapters 5 – 6: Humanity and Rationality | Photo Cred: (7)

From here, Mangalwadi touches on our humanity and rationality as self-conscious beings. When it comes to humanity in particular, the Bible was the very spark that ignited the Renaissance, along with the reintroduced idea of human dignity. Even in the most cruel cases of people living in rejection to God in history, our human dignity cannot be erased from the human consciousness. It remains an ever-present element in our lives as a mark that we were made for more.

For rationality, the greatest movements post-11th Century Europe all involved in some shape or form a strong emphasis on learning, especially through reading and writing. This can be traced back to Augustine, Boethius, William Tyndale, and other brights that sought to bring the truths of Scripture to the commoners who lived in ignorance. It was people like these who brought about new generations of free thinkers that could now test the claims of the corrupt and powerful.

Image result for lateen sail

Chapters 7: Technology | Photo Cred: (8)

When it came to the advancements of technology throughout the ages, notable scholar Ernst Benz clearly pinpoints the four key ways that a Judeo-Christian worldview helped the development of technology on a worldwide scale. His reasoning is summarized below by Mangalwadi:

“First, the Bible emphasized intelligent craftsmanship in the world’s design. Second, the Bible suggested that human beings participate in divine workmanship by being good artisans themselves. Third, the Bible taught that we follow divine example when we use the physical universe for righteous ends. And fourth, the Bible challenged the West to use time wisely, because each moment is a valuable, one-time opportunity (P. 97).”

In short, most of the most important inventions of the last several centuries can be attributed to a Biblical worldview that fueled the passion of many inventors over time. These inventions include the lateen sail, the wheeled plow, the horse as a tool in the workforce, the water mill, the windmill, the crank, the wheelbarrow, the flywheel, the pipe organ, the mechanical clock, eyeglasses, and dozens of other inventions that are the basis of Western technological advancements.

avengers

Chapter 8: Heroism | Photo Cred: (9)

The idea of a hero has changed as the culture in Western society has transformed with the passing of time. The classical hero exemplified the traits that would be expected of the Greco-Roman mentality and that meant powerful leverage over others, whether politically, militarily, or any other barbaric means necessary to control those beneath you. The medieval hero was the next idea of heroism and they sought glory, skill, prowess, loyalty, generosity, and courtesy. This eventually led to what is known as religious chivalry and this was basically the equivalent of placing a spiritual mask onto a sinful practice.

That is, fighting for the LORD would guarantee salvation, which was a lie. This idea has evolved into what is known today and what I like to call “good-person salvation.” The idea that because someone “lives a good life” and is a “good person,” that they will inherit eternal life in Heaven. As this idea flourished over the years, it was the Reformers of the 15th and 16th centuries who brought back the idea of true heroism. A heroism based off of Christ himself and His selfless sacrifice for his enemies. This is the backbone behind what most people refer to in Western society as a real hero: someone who is sacrificial, loving, true, and giving to those in need.

Image result for reformation

Chapter 9: Revolution | Photo Cred: (10)

A true revolution is one that either goes back to the way things were or changes the culture into something better. The Protestant Reformation was one of the most influential revolutions because it did both. This revolution was different in a sense from other revolutions because it started from the top and worked its way down.

Starting in universities and growing in pubs all across Europe, this revolution stood firmly on God’s Word as its source of reform. The reformers consisted of a team of ragtag “heretics” who just wanted the Word to be the final say in the World, even greater than the Pope. The result of the revolution? Two Bible translations for the commoner, the Geneva and the KJV, along with the most powerful force in any society: an informed public.

Well that’s just half of my review and summary of The Book That Made Your World! Stay tuned for Part 2 and the rest of my thoughts on this book. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless!

Footnotes

  1. https://www.facebook.com/VishaMangalwadi
  2. http://peace-mennonite.org/
  3. http://amzn.to/2wlAnCZ
  4. http://movies.ndtv.com/photos/forever-27-kurt-cobain-would-have-been-46-yesterday-10981
  5. http://www.nlb.gov.sg/sure/a-good-deed-goes-a-long-way/
  6. https://rgyan.com/blogs/omens-while-starting-for-a-destination/
  7. http://thelibertariancatholic.com/raising-your-child-with-the-bible-you-may-be-raising-an-atheist/
  8. https://hhswhi.wikispaces.com/Lateen+sail
  9. Captain America: Civil War (2016)
  10.  https://thecompassmagazine.com/adventism/reformation-and-the-remnant-a-review

Deception Part I: After An Innocent Mistake | Mark Cribari

Posted in Deception | Guest SeriesTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/27/2019

In this first segment of a three-part series on deception, I would like to focus on where it all began: in the beginning. Since the Bible clearly tells us in multiple places that Satan was the source of the very first lie spoken through an animal in the Garden of Eden, we have our starting point. Then, we will follow the progression of deception from the serpent to separation to “The Secret” in parts II and III.

The Genesis record reveals that every physical thing God made in its original state was declared “good” in the opening two chapters. The only exception to this was loneliness as described in Genesis 2:18, but then again, the LORD wasn’t finished creating at that point. The results from His short surgery (v21‭) included the beauty of ceremony (v22), poetry (v23), unity (v24), and shameless transparency (v25). Even verses 16‭-‬17 imply God’s love by the mere fact that He warned the first man within His first command. Then things took a turn for the worse in chapter 3 when doubt was introduced by that serpent of old (Revelation 20:2).‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

One of my favorite aspects about the Bible is that God used progressive revelation to continue revealing to us things He wanted us to know. What amazes me is that He was also able to use different types of literary genre to do so like historical narratives, poetry, prophecy, and even letters. A good example of this can be found in John 8:44 where Christ gave us more insight about the devil than Moses did in Genesis 3:1 when Jesus said, “He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.” Details like this should be helpful as we take a closer look at the subject of deception throughout Scripture.

Since the Gospel according to John and Genesis are both in the genre of historical narratives, it becomes almost seamless to use Scripture to interpret Scripture since that literary style deals primarily with people, places, things and events. It could get interesting when we use other styles to help us understand this historical event and possibly assist in answering some of the questions I have for you as well. Now before I get to these specific questions so you can come to your own conclusions about the first deception and, at the same time, test what I’m saying based on the facts presented (1st Thessalonians 5:21), I’d like to remind you about the difference between explicit and implicit observations.

Explicit facts are those that are usually obvious to most people whereas those that are implicit would be those truths that are implied by the text within its context. I’m clarifying this distinction so that you as the reader know that if the things I share from this point forward are not supported by the text and the context, you’re welcome to throw them out as assumptions. There is a phrase used by many to describe this as “chewing the meat and spitting out the bones.”

Now there are two reasons why I titled this “After An Innocent Mistake.” First of all, this brief conversation with the serpent reflects the purity and innocence Eve had when she made the mistake of trusting that what he said could be the truth, even though this creature was planting doubt in her mind and denying what God said to her husband in chapter 2. Secondly, the terrible consequences of sin took place only after they both broke God’s original command. At this point, I’d like to present you with some inductive questions to consider in regards to when Adam was actually with Eve during this account.

First off, working from the New King James Version of the Holy Bible, why do Genesis 3:1 and Genesis 3:4 record that “the serpent said to the woman” instead of saying to them (i.e. Adam & Eve) if her husband was there when this initial conversation took place? Why do most people assume that “her husband (was) with her” during the serpent’s deception in the verses previous to verse 6 since we don’t know “when” Eve “saw, took, and ate its fruit” in Genesis 3:6?

Why does the wording in Genesis 3:6b, “She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate” appear to be an afterthought as if it could be a separate event from her choice? The Holy Spirit confirms a fact about this event in 1st Timothy 2:14 when it is written, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” If Adam was there when the serpent lied to Eve as many people believe, wouldn’t “they” have been deceived instead of the strong clear wording of 1st Timothy 2:14? It’s safely been said that Scripture interprets Scripture, so we can’t ignore this New Testament insight into Old Testament history.

Since all the pronouns turn plural in Genesis 3:7-8 after Adam ate (e.g. them, they, themselves, up to the phrase “Adam and his wife”), why did Adam blame her instead of the serpent? As well as in Genesis 3:12 when addressed by God and she then blames the serpent in the singular when she admits in verse 13, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” instead of including her husband if he was actually there when she was lied to? When Paul expressed his concern in 2nd Corinthians 11:3, why didn’t he include Adam when he wrote, “as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness” if her husband was actually with her during moment that lie was delivered by the Devil?

Genesis 3:17‭ reads: Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of the serpent…” Oh, wait a minute. He didn’t say that at all! Adam’s curse and consequences were because he listened to his “wife.” Don’t you think this would have been a great opportunity to clear things up for us since “God is not the author of confusion?” (1st Corinthians 14:33a). God says what He means and means what He says. Nowhere in Scripture does He say nor infer that the serpent said to the man or that Adam heard from the serpent.‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

Finally, when reading through Romans 5:10-21, I find it interesting that the Spirit of God holds Adam solely responsible for disobeying the LORD’s command and bringing sin into the world instead of holding both Adam and Eve liable for it in phrases such as “through one man sin entered the world,” “those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam,” “by the one man’s offense many died,” “through the one who sinned,” “the judgment which came from one offense,” “by the one man’s offense,” “as through one man’s offense,” and lastly “as by one man’s disobedience.” My only question at this juncture is why do some sermons and many pieces of art depict both of them together in the garden with the serpent when the source material, Holy Scripture does not seem to support it? For more on this, click here and this here.

Although I’d prefer not to be dogmatic about this, I do believe that it’s important to understand the true circumstances of that first deception to the best of our ability in light of 2nd Corinthians 2:11 which warns us that “lest Satan should take advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his devices.” That last word has also been translated “schemes” and this brings me to my final thought. Could it be that the progression of the devil’s plan as recorded in Genesis chapter 3 to destroy Adam and Eve by introducing doubt, denial, deception, and disbelief of God’s loving warning in Genesis chapter 2 actually began with the strategy of separation? If the old adage, “there is safety in numbers” proves true, then his scheme worked if Satan intentionally waited for these two to be apart from each other before he approached the weaker vessel (1st Peter 3:7). Stay tuned for part two in this series on deception in the future.

Footnotes

  1. Free stock photos · Pexels
  2. https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/adam-and-eve/was-adam-with-eve-when-she-spoke-to-the-serpent/
  3. https://www.gotquestions.org/amp/Adam-with-Eve.html

What are the Christian Essentials?

Posted in TopicalTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 3 Comments

Photo Cred: (1) | Updated: 5/27/2019

Through the years of Christian development and especially in recent times, there has been a dwindling of understanding concerning what exactly makes someone a follower of Christ. What is a Christian really? What does someone need to believe and do in order to adopt such a distinct worldview like Christianity? What separates a Christian from a Latter-Day Saint or a Muslim? With all of these questions in mind, let’s look at what others have laid out as the Essentials of Christianity and see if it is a biblical understanding of what makes someone a Christian.

Most sources you find will list out 5 to 7 Essentials that must be affirmed in order to be a Christian. For instance, gotquestions.org says that there are 7 Essentials (2), yet the Gospel Coalition has up to 20 Essentials (3)! Specifically, 10 Essential beliefs and 10 Essential behaviors as written by Kevin DeYoung, respectfully. But are there truly this many Essentials or are we misunderstanding what an Essential actually is in Christianity? I think we should start by identifying what an Essential is before pinpointing how many Essentials there are and what they actually entail.

An Essential is a fundamental core value, whether a deed or doctrine, that if removed from the other fundamental core values of said belief system would completely cause that belief system to collapse on itself. Islam, for example, has the 5 Pillars of Islam (3) that indicate the basic tenets of the faith that make someone a Muslim. These would be the Islamic Essentials. These 5 Pillars of Islam include the Shahada (Profession of Faith), the Salat (Daily Five Prayers), the Zakat (Giving of Alms), the Saum (Fasting of Ramadan), and the Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mecca). If a Muslim does not affirm the Shahada, the other 4 Pillars are useless. If a Muslim does not affirm all 5 Pillars, then their Islamic belief should be called into question for either heresy or ignorance.

Now can or does Christianity have a small list of criteria that distinguishes Christians from other belief systems? Yes and for Christians there are even less Essentials than Islam. In fact, I would argue that Christianity has only 4 Essentials. Not 5 Essentials, not 7 Essentials, and certainly not 20 Essentials.

These 4 Essentials are the Nature of God, the Hypostatic Union of Christ, the Gospel, and the Inspiration of Scripture. Let me explain each one individually in further detail below and show why there are only 4 Essentials at the root of Christianity. I refer to them as the “Four Cornerstones of Christianity,” but we will stick to the Christian Essentials for simplicity sake. First of the Christian Essentials is the Nature of God.

1) The Nature of God

The nature of God is comprised of 2 unique beliefs: Monotheism and Trinitarianism. The belief of Monotheism affirms God’s unique oneness and the idea that there is only one God (5), while Trinitarianism affirms God’s tri-unity as three persons, yet one being (6). As Dr. Michael Brown would put it, God is “complex in His unity” (7) and this truth is best known as the doctrine of the Trinity. Now the Christian Essential regarding the nature of God also includes His divine attributes as He is omnibenevolent (all-loving), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (all-enveloping), and omniscient (all-knowing). God is eternal, immaterial, non-contingent, non-physical, personal, and uncaused. I believe St. Anselm of Canterbury sums up God’s divine essence best when he concludes in his Ontological Argument the following:

“Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence there is no doubt that there exists a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality (8).”

Suffice to say, Christians believe God to be indescribable in His grand majesty and He is beyond human comprehension, yet He is near to all who seek Him with sincere hearts. He is the one true, triune God and His presence is near to our souls. But how does God, a being beyond definition, interact with His Creation? How could God bridge the gap between finite minds and His infinite mind? Well, that leads us to the second Christian Essential: the Hypostatic Union of Christ.

2) The Hypostatic Union of Christ

The hypostatic union of Christ is similarly divided into 2 distinct sub-Essentials: that Jesus is both fully God (9) and fully man (10). Hypostatic originally means “personal,” so the hypostatic union of Christ really means the personal union of Christ. In this case, the personal union of two natures within the person that is Jesus.

At certain points in time (11), Jesus adopted a second nature and that would be His human nature. This was for the sole purpose of bridging the gap between Creator and Creation. As the ultimate mediator, Jesus inhabits the best of these two natures. He is both the only good God and the only sinless man. He is the mediating messiah who has taken the task of healing the world from the sin in the Garden of Eden and is at the same time the ultimate human ambassador for the holy Godhead (12).

If His deity is denied, then you find yourself aligned with cults that deviated from Christianity like the Latter Day Saints, Jehovah Witnesses, and large portions of the Church of God Movement. These cults most likely came from early historical heresies like adoptionism, arianism, nestorianism, and the like. If His humanity is denied, then you find yourself conforming to some heretical views such as docetism, apollinarianism, eutychianism, and other deviations of the Hypostatic Union (13). Needless to say, Scripture is quite clear that Jesus is both fully God and fully man.

If Jesus was not fully man, then He could not be the unblemished sacrifice that atoned for the sins of the world. If Jesus was not fully God, then He could not be the Messiah that the Old Testament proclaims will enter the world and save it from itself. Jesus fully inhabits both natures and if we do not believe this Essential, then Christianity collapses as a worldview. Jesus is one person with two different natures that are in complete harmony. These two natures are not contradictory, but complementary. Understanding the Hypostatic Union is the second Essential of Christianity and the next Essential is the Gospel.

3) The Gospel

The Gospel is grounded both in the historical reliability of the physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead back to life (14), along with the theological understanding that salvation is by God’s grace and not of works because of Christ’s atonement on the Cross (15). We will observe the biblical and theological side of the Gospel, before going into the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Now there are many quick ways to understand the Gospel, so we will observe the two most common explanations that reveal what the Gospel message is and why it is an Essential in Christianity. When it comes to understanding the message of the Gospel, Scripture paints the best picture. The most common Scriptural guide in understanding the Gospel is the infamous Romans Road. It goes as follows:

The Romans Road

  • Romans 3:23 | Everyone has sinned and is fallen.
  • Romans 6:23b | Sin leads to death and therefore everyone who has sinned will die.
  • Romans 5:8 | God gives grace and Jesus pays our sin debt.
  • Romans 10:9 | Salvation to all who confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised Him from the dead.
  • Romans 10:13 | Whoever calls on the Lord will be saved.
  • Romans 5:1 | We are justified by faith and now have peace with God.
  • Romans 8:1 | We are no longer condemned to Hell for our sin.
  • Romans 8:38-39 | Nothing can takeaway our salvation because it is sealed by the love of God.

Now the Romans Road is a great resource to use in sharing the Gospel, but not all of us can memorize or remember that many passages of Scripture on the spot. So how do we explain the Gospel in a shorter and more straightforward way? Here is how I share the Gospel whenever I present it to people: 

The 4-Point Gospel Message

  • Creation | God created everything and it was good.
  • Condemnation | Adam sinned and we inherit his sin debt now that everything is bad.
  • Propitiation | Jesus atoned and paid our sin debt, which causes those who repent and believe to be free from sin’s consequences.
  • Salvation | We receive new life in Christ and enjoy living for the Lord.

Still too complex? Try this simplified version of my way of sharing the Gospel instead. In all honesty, I use the Abridged 4-point Gospel Message more often because more people can understand it. Anyways, here it is:

The Abridged 4-Point Gospel Message

  • Creation | God made everything good.
  • Condemnation | We made everything bad.
  • Propitiation | Jesus has made everything better, so now we should believe in what He did and put all our trust in Him.
  • Salvation | Enjoy new life with Christ.

Because the Gospel in it’s biblical and theological sense is so simple to comprehend, as it should be, we will move onto the historicity of the resurrection since it carries so much weight in the defense of Christianity. For another Scriptural explanation of the Gospel in the form of a video, I would refer you to David Wood’s great YouTube video called “What is the Gospel?” (16). Bottom line: when it comes to the Gospel, keep it Scriptural and simple. That’s what Jesus did and that’s we will continue to do as Christians.

Paul the Apostle once said that if Christ did not rise from the dead, then our faith is in vain (17). If we cannot defend this claim, then our faith is in jeopardy. When it comes to defending the resurrection of Jesus, there are many approaches to take and ways to go about supporting this quintessential truth. Some might use extra-biblical sources or manuscript evidence, but I like to keep this just as simple as a Gospel presentation and use basic logic. I have a three point argument called “The Resurrection Argument From Reason” that concludes the resurrection of Jesus to be the most logical explanation of the historical evidence. This argument goes as follows:

The Resurrection Argument From Reason

  • The empty tomb of Jesus is due to either the apparent death theory, the conspiracy theory, the displaced theory, the hallucination theory, or the resurrection theory.
  • Based off of the evidence, it is not due to the apparent death theory, the conspiracy theory, the displaced theory, or the hallucination theory.
  • Therefore, it is due to the resurrection theory.

Now this is a very short argument that is inspired by analytic philosopher William Lane Craig and his “A Case for the Historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection” argument, as well as the contributions of New Testament scholar Gary Habermas. For more information regarding the resurrection of Jesus, I would point you to both William Lane Craig’s book, On Guard, where his previously mentioned argument can be found and to the book, Did the Resurrection Really Happen?, which is the written version of the third and final debate between Gary Habermas and former atheist Antony Flew concerning the resurrection. Last of the Essentials is the Divine Inspiration of Scripture.

4) The Divine Inspiration of Scripture

The inspiration of Scripture is the final Essential and it is the root belief that guides the idea of the inerrancy of Scripture. For those unfamiliar, the inerrancy of Scripture is the idea that all that God says to be true is true. At the same time, this final Essential gives us Christians the other three Essentials. In order to understand biblical inerrancy, we must properly understand biblical inspiration. If the Bible was not divinely inspired, then why should we believe the Bible to be inerrant as the infallible Word of God?

The idea of inspiration can be traced far back in history to the Israelites and their beloved fondness for the Torah, as it was the very Word of God that inspired Moses to write those first five books of the Bible. It was the Law that the Hebrews lived by and this was the start of the canon of Scripture. Since then, that understanding of the holy canon of Scripture now includes the entirety of the Old and New Testaments. Once belief in the inspiration of Scripture is established, we can then conclude the inerrancy of Scripture.

We believe the Bible to be God’s inerrant Word for a number of reasons. When it comes to presenting said reasons the Bible must be divinely inspired, I have both an argument and an acronym from Charlie Campbell (18) that will aid in remembering key reasons to believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired and inerrant Word of God. First, we’ll observe my own argument for the inerrancy of Scripture below:

The Inerrancy of Scripture Argument

  • The inerrancy of Scripture is due to either chance, divine inspiration, or human manipulation.
  • It is not due to chance or human manipulation.
  • Therefore, it is due to divine inspiration.

With this in mind, the divine inspiration of the Bible logically infers the inerrancy of God’s Word. If God was behind the scenes guiding the process of developing the canon of Scripture, then why can we not conclude that it is without error in its truth claims? But can we empirically prove that because the Bible is inspired, that it is also inerrant in its truth claims? Using Campbell’s M.A.P.S. acronym, we can do just that. The M.A.P.S. acronym goes as follows:

  • M = Manuscript Evidence
  • A = Authors’ Forthrightness About Failures
  • P = Persecution Endured By The Early Christians
  • S = Son of God’s View of Scripture

In short, we Christians believe the Bible to be God’s inspired Word because Jesus believed it was and not the other way around. Because we believe it is inspired by God, we also believe it to be God’s inerrant Word. We support this claim with the M.A.P.S. method of providing evidence. Our understanding of the other three Essentials hinges on our understanding of this final Essential.

Like the above picture, the Essentials of Christianity all work together and uphold the very essence of what Christianity is as a whole. Everything is built off of these four key pillars of our faith. If you remove one pillar, the whole worldview collapses.

Therefore, just as a Muslim has the 5 Pillars of Islam, we too have the 4 Pillars of Christianity. When you understand the foundation for Christianity, then you will understand the Christian faith. When you understand why you believe what you believe, then defending what you believe is that much easier. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless!

Footnotes

  1. The Four Posts of Avila, Spain (1566) by Francisco de Arellano
  2. https://www.gotquestions.org/essentials-Christian-faith.html
  3. https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2013/09/12/what-are-the-essentials-of-the-christian-faith/
  4. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/medieval-times/islam-intro/a/the-five-pillars-of-islam
  5. Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10-13, 1 Corinthians 8:4b-6, Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5
  6. Genesis 1:26, 3:22-23, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19-20; 2 Corinthians 13:14
  7. The Real Kosher Jesus (P. 134-135). See also Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus Vol. 2: Theological Objections (P. 3-14) by Michael Brown for a theological understanding of the Christian Trinity in response to Orthodox Judaism, along with The Forgotten Trinity by James White for an exegetical understanding.
  8. https://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html
  9. John 1:1-3, 10:30; 20:28-31
  10. John 1:14, Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 2:14-18
  11. Genesis 14:17-20, 16:7-14, 18:1-33, 22:11-18,  32:24-30, Exodus 24:9-11, Joshua 5:13-15, Judges 6:11-25, Daniel 3:23-28; John 1:14-18
  12. In his book Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth, John MacArthur & co. make the following statement regarding Jesus being an ambassador or messenger of the Godhead: “When the biblical account associates “the angel of the LORD” with a theophany, “messenger” might provide a better translation than “angel,” because this title denotes the function or office of the individual, not his nature. In addition, the Scripture speaks of him [the angel of the LORD] as actually being God. He bears the name “LORD,” he speaks as God, and he displays divine attributes and authority. Most significantly, however, he receives worship (Matt. 2:2, 11, 14:33, 28:9, 17). Given what John 1:18 says about the Son-that “no one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known” -the appearances of God in the Old Testament must have been the Son, not the Father. The phrase “made him known” in Greek (exégeomai) is the word from which we derive the verb exegete and its cognate noun, exegesis. Literally, the Son of God “exegeted” the Father to mankind (P. 241).”
  13. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/historic-heresies-related-to-the-nature-of-jesus/
  14. John 2:19-22, 1 Corinthians 15:1-22; Galatians 1:6-9
  15. John 14:6, Acts 4:12; Ephesians 2:8-9
  16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0maL4cQ8zuU
  17. 1 Corinthians 15:13-14
  18. Scrolls & Stones: Compelling Evidence the Bible Can Be Trusted (P. 93). See also The Canon of Scripture by F. F. Bruce and From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible by Norman Geisler & William E. Nix for more information on biblical inspiration and biblical inerrancy.