SATURDAY CONTROVERSIES - HOW OLD IS THIS EARTH? (PART 6)

Creation Museum, Petersburg, KY

The age of the earth is a controversy among believers. Are the non-theistic scientists correct in their calculations on when the universe began? Or do we take God's Word to mean what it says?

Let me start by identifying the four main views (there are others, but they are close to one of the four):

1. THEISTIC EVOLUTION. God started the evolutionary process.
2. PROGRESSIVE CREATION. This view rejects Darwinian evolution, but agree with the earth being billions of years old. Christian geologists and astronomers often hold this view. The professor who taught biology while I was at Bible College held to this view.
3. RECENT CREATION. This view goes to the Bible, and interprets "six days" to mean "six days." The omnipotent God created everything in 144 hours, as it says in Scripture. 
4. GAP THEORY. No connection to the clothing store. Believes that there's a gap between the first two verses in Genesis, with the creation account starting in verse 3 referring to a re-creation. I learned this view with it seeing Satan's fall occurring during this view; some see that as being when the dinosaurs showed up. The above mentioned teacher described the view in these two sentences: "There is no scientific proof to this theory. There is no Biblical proof to this theory."

Did I let my bias show? Well, if I didn't, I will now. I definitely am a recent creationist. I'm not a scientist, but there are Biblical and theological reasons I hold to this view. 

• Romans 5:12 states that by one man sin entered the world, and death through sin. The only view where death is seen as a result of sin as opposed to a natural occurrence is Recent Creationism. 
• Hebrews 11:6 says without faith it is impossible to please God. Recent Creationism believes God is able to create this universe in six days - this reflects faith in God being able to do anything (a truth reflected repeatedly in Scripture). Sorry, but my impression of Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creation has faith in the interpretations of scientists, some unbelievers and some antagonistically so.
• In the Pentateuch, "day" usually means a 24 hour period of time. Did the flood last 40 million years? Uh, no. In Exodus 20:8-11, God compared His command for Israel to work 6 days and rest the 7th with His creating the heavens and the earth in 6 days and resting on the 7th. Are we to work 6 million years and then rest a million? I don't think so. Now some appeal to 2 Peter 3:8, with a day with God being a thousand years and vice versa, but in context, 2 Peter 3:8 has nothing to do with creation, and is not giving us liberty to reinterpret Biblical numbers.

No, this isn't a salvation issue. However, I did hear one late Christian leader speak of recent creationism with disgust. What? Why should a Christian get upset when another Christian believes the Bible means what it says? 

SATURDAY CONTROVERSIES - IS GOD BOTH WILLING AND ABLE TO KEEP US SAVED? (PART 5)

 

The Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog by Caspar David Friedrich

In the previous installment, I mentioned the book Four Views on Eternal Security, and that the four authors are identified as "Classical Calvinist," "Moderate Calvinist," "Reformed Arminian," and "Wesleyan Arminian." So I ask you: is "eternal security" (aka "OSAS" or  "Once Saved Always Saved") an expansion on the Calvinism/Arminianism debate?

I say no. Why?

1. There is a difference between what is referred to as OSAS and the Calvinist belief of Perseverance of the Saints. The latter is the saints will persevere. I heard one person state that early Calvinists believed the elect could not lose their salvation, that the elect would live godly lives, and that no one - even yourself - can know if you're part of the elect. Thus, they lived good lives in hope of being saved. 
2. On the other side, Dave Hunt wondered if Jacobus Arminius could have believed in eternal security. In his book Arminian Theology: Realities and Myths, author Roger Olsen stated that the early Arminians did not have an official statement on security; thus, you can be Arminian and also eternal security (Hunt was an example).
3. Views on eternal security/losing your salvation, like most other views, are not simply A or B. Again, the book I referred to dealt with four views. Before I read it, I thought there was a nice line starting with Classical Calvinism and ending with Wesleyan Arminianism. By the way, there are subjects where the views form a nice line (e.g. Spectrum of Evangelicalism, Whether Supernatural Gifts Exist Today). 

In the above book, author Norm Geisler painted the line with three points - Strong Calvinists, Moderate Calvinists like himself, and Arminians. I read a book by Ron Rhodes that made the same division. I find this view problematic because 1) it shows a bias toward Calvinism, even though in the above book Reformed Arminian Stephen Ashby refers to Geisler as a 1 point Calvinist and Classical Calvinist Michael Horton called him a 0 point Calvinist. 

One major difference between Arminians is what causes someone to lose their salvation if they could. Some would say you can sin your way out of the Kingdom, requiring you to regain your salvation and hopefully not lose it. Others state that they are given free will to believe and be saved and maintain that free will so they can choose to walk away from the salvation. Though most of my life was influenced by those who believe in eternal security, I went through a period of time I was more like this latter Arminian view.

Did someone ask that I'm hinting that I returned to being an eternal security advocate? Well, I'm not sure it was a hint, but yes, I'm back in believing in eternal security. Why? Because I believe that's what the Bible teaches. Let me look at three verses:

• 2 Corinthians 5:17. "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away; behold, all things have become new." I heard this view from Bob George, and I think he's onto something. Opponents of eternal security come across as thinking we need the possibility of losing our salvation to keep us in line. No, we've been changed. All things have become new, as this verse says, and that includes our desires.
• John 10:27-28. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them and they follow Me; and I give to them eternal life and they shall never perish, neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand." One of the first verses I memorized, my favorite verses, as well as a strong verse on us not losing our salvation. First, this verse says we belong to Christ. Second, it says those who are His sheep WILL follow Him. Third, we're given eternal life and shall never perish (contrary to being able to lose that life and perish). Finally, in response to the view that we can crawl out of His hand, it's hard to do that when you're following Him."
• Galatians 5:4. "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." Anti-eternal securityists talk about "falling from grace" as "losing your salvation." But is that what it means in this verse? No, falling from grace is seeking works (or law) to save us. How about other times that phrase is used in Scripture? Unfortunately for that theory, there isn't any.

Not just because I held that view, but I see a difference between those who say we can renounce our faith and those who think we can lose our salvation due to sin. One friend of mine asks how much sin causes us to lose our salvation, and not getting an answer backed by Scripture. I asked another person whose tag-line was "OSAS is wrong" if you could lose your salvation by pride or worrying or judging others; he said no, and that if it did, no one can be saved.

As I mentioned in the title, I believe that God is willing to keep us saved (2 Peter 3:9; see also Ezek. 18:32) and able to keep us saved (Jude 24); if both are true, eternal security is the rational conclusion. 

Of course, opponents of OSAS have the example of people claiming that since they're saved they can live however they want, which is unbiblical and more Gnostic than Christian. I don't fault them for opposing this. However, in my case, I sometimes think that I'm not worthy of being saved; for me, eternal security is not license but much needed hope. In other words, I need to trust Christ to save me, not my feeble finite flawed efforts.

SATURDAY REVIEWS - IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE DEBATE BETWEEN CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM SHOULD UNITE AND NOT DIVIDE BELIEVERS? (PART 4)

 

The Day of His Great Wrath by John Martin

"Lord, my heart is not haughty 

Nor my eyes lofty, 

Neither do I concern myself with great matters,

Nor with things too profound for me."

Psalm 131:1, New King James Version

Is it possible trying to figure out if the universe is big enough for both God's Sovereignty and human free will and their relation in salvation is a great matter, too profound for us, past our pay grade?

I wish people debating this issue would:

1. Realize that this is a family squabble between people who are trusting God alone for their salvation.
2. Recognize those on both sides have studied Scripture with equal depth and love for the Word of God and the God of the Word.
3. Remember that Satan and Persecutors don't care which side you're on but are out to defeat you because you believe Jesus is Lord and not them.

The reality is too many overestimate human freewill. It's not as great as proponents think it is, nor is it the bogeyman Calvinists make it out to be.

You know, free-will makes me think about a '70's song called "Best of My Love." But who did it? I think it was a group that starts with the letter "E." Wait, I hear someone say The Eagles? "Best of My Love" by the Eagles is a great though depressing song, but I'm not talking about that song; the one I'm referring to is more upbeat with some girl singers. Oh, I remember. It was by the group The Emotions. 

Likewise, when I hear "free-will," I hear two different things. Some boast God is a perfect gentleman and would not violate our free-will. This theory makes me sick to my stomach - it can be described as "self-sovereignty." And while we can debate if Calvinists are right on their view of God's Sovereignty, it's evident God is Sovereign, not us.

To others, free will means God gives us the ability to choose whether we will be obedient to Him or disobedient. We can call this "human responsibility." The focus is on God, as it should be.

One of my all time favorite books is "Four Views on Eternal Security." It was uplifting to read the four authors - who identify themselves as Classical Calvinist, Moderate Calvinist, Reformed Arminian, and Wesleyan Arminian - as they talked about the wonder that God saves us. One author mentioned from the start he was convinced that John Calvin, Jacob Arminius, John Wesley, and the other authors were all saved, and later stated his responses to the other three were written not to win but to learn.

Folks, we've spent half a millennium debating this subject as Calvinism vs. Arminianism and a full millennium before that dealing with the theologies of Augustine and Pegaleus, and I personally feel it's arrogant to think we can solve it now. But if we look over the horizon, we see the real war we're fighting, and it's not against each other!

SATURDAY CONTROVERSIES: ARE WE CALLING ON GOD AND JESUS PROPERLY? (PART 2)

Jesus and the Children; artist unknown (at Rutland Chapel at Ridgecrest).

Last week, I looked at the doctrine of the Trinity and whether it was a first tier (i.e. salvation) issue. I'm staying with the doctrine of God, but I'm dealing with an issue that most Christians aren't concerned with but those that are make a big deal about it: God' and Jesus' names.

Let's start with looking at how God is addressed. He has several names but most add one of these four names: 

1. God (Hebrew El or Elohim; Greek Theos) - the word for God, whether the one true God or false gods (idols).
2. Lord (Hebrew Adonai; Greek Kurios) - the word for Lord, whether the heavenly Lord of all or the earthly Lords and kings (sometimes Kurios is translated "sir").
3. Father - this is primarily  used of God the Father in the New Testament. There are a few OT references to God as the Father.
4. Yahweh/Yah - The name of God. (Erroneously written as Jehovah.) In the OT, it's translated as LORD or GOD (all caps in both situations). 

Now, should we call Him by His name? Some make a big thing about His name, but I see that more as something to boast over others about. Israelites felt they weren't worthy to say His name, so they substituted "Adonai" (Lord) for Yahweh. Originally, Hebrew didn't have vowels and later added vowel points; when they got to Yahweh, they put in the vowel points for Adonai, which is where they got Jehovah (more on the letter "j" later). 

My dad had a good answer for a Jehovah's Witness on why we don't use God's name. He pointed out he never called his earthly father by his name out of respect. Same reason the Jews wouldn't say "Yahweh," why the New Testament writers used "Kurios" instead of transliterating Yahweh into Greek, why most English translations use LORD/GOD. If you want to use His name, go for it, but it's not a salvation issue.

Then, we come to Jesus. Some point out that when He was on earth, He was called by his Hebrew/Aramaic name Yeshua (the vowels may vary, because of what I mentioned before). I know a person who's offended when He's called by Jesus instead. Allow me to point out three facts:

1. Yes, He was called Yeshua during the incarnation. But Yeshua was not a unique name - it was also the Hebrew name of Joshua Son of Nun or Joshua the priest in the return to Judah. The importance is on the meaning - Yahweh saves - than on the letters and sounds.
2. He was the savior, not just of Israel but of the whole worlds. He also told His disciples to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. He didn't tell them to teach the world Hebrew so they could understand the Gospel. At that time, most of the known world spoke Greek, so that made it easier to spread the good news. Was that an accident? Nope. So it would be expected to be preaching the Messiah in Greek to the Greek speaking world.
3. Unfortunately, not all alphabets have every sound. Spanish has no "j" sound (nor does Hebrew or Greek) and English does not have Spanish's trilling double "r." Greek lacked a single letter making a "y" sound, and lacked an "sh" sound. They did get the "y" sound by putting an iota ("i") before another vowel. This problem was dealt with a couple of hundred years before Jesus' birth - Jesus (or Joshua) became Iesous. So as the Gospel spread, the Messiah was known as Iesous instead of Yeshua. Did this take God by surprise? Seriously? No, not at all. 

Add these together, and I don't doubt that it was a big deal to God or Jesus that in different languages His name fit the language.

By the way, one argument I hear is that "j" is a new letter. Ah, but what sound does "j" make? In Spanish, "j" makes an "h" sound; In Serbo-Croation, "j" makes a "y" sound (the "j" sound is spelled "dz"). My hunch is originally it made the "y" sound, because the "j" replaced the "i" in names starting with a "y" sound.

The reality is God and Jesus knows who is being addressed whether by Yeshua or Jesus. The Devil and the world hates us equally whichever name we use.

 

SATURDAY CONTROVERSIES: IS THE TRINITY AN ESSENTIAL OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH? - PART 1

 

The Plains of Heaven by John Martin

In introducing this series, I tried to say that I'm dealing with issues that are second and third tier issues, not those of utmost importance. But is the Trinity a first tier issue? 

One thing that made me feel good about my thinking is to hear something I had thought about in dealing with a theological issue stated by a respected theologian. In this case, I'm referring to a concept that James White, author of the excellent "The Forgotten Trinity" mentioned. This thought is represented by a triangle, but not what you think it stands for. One of the sides is labeled "Only one God." The second side is labeled "Jesus Is God." Finally, the third is "Three Persons, One God". 

Allow me to say that the Trinity is a simple concept to say but difficult to comprehend. Any attempt to illustrate it - such as H20 being ice, water, steam, or an egg being yolk, white, and shell - fails in at least one point  Does that weaken this doctrine? I. Don't. Think. So. We are talking about God. Of course, dealing with God and His nature should be expected beyond our fallible mortal paygrade. To be able to comprehend God is lowering Him to our level.

Anybody disagree that the Bible teaches Monotheism as an essential belief? If you're not a Trinitarian, let me give a fact that some are either unconsciously or consciously ignoring: All Trinitarians believe Monotheism is an essential belief. Trinitarians do not believe in three Gods, but one God in three persons. Any other "god" deserves the quotation marks. 

Most Trinity deniers have one target they attack - the Deity of Christ. Some say He was just a man, while others say He was a spiritual being such as an archangel. But the deity of Christ is not only taught throughout the New Testament (Jesus forgiving the sins of the paralytic, which only God could do in Matthew 9:1-7; saying "Before Abraham was I Am" in John 8:58; Jesus accepting worship which the disciples and angels didn't and Herod did and died as a result), but in the Old Testament there are appearances of God to Jacob, Samson's parents, and Gideon; since no one saw God (John 1:18) and God is Spirit, it is logical that these were pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus Christ.

There is another group of Trinity rejecters that affirm that Jesus is God. But they don't believe in three persons to the one God. Rather, they believe Jesus is God and that He sometimes take the role of the Father, sometimes that of the Son, and yet other times as the Spirit; this belief is called Modalism or Sabellianism. Now, while Scripture makes the case of Monotheism and Christ's Deity are essential, does it state that believing one God in three Persons is a salvation requirement? While most Trinitarians believe it is, others are open to Modalists being considered believers. One problem, though, is that most Modalists also believe their view is an essential tenet of faith.

I do believe the Bible clearly teaches the Trinity (see Matthew 3:5-7; 28:19). Main reason - it's a uniquely Christian doctrine. There are triads, but no other religion teaches in a Trinity, or maybe better called a Tri-Unity. There are religions, though, that are Monotheistic but not Christian.  

Some claim that the pope originated Trinitarianism. Uh, at that time there was not an official pope - that happed a couple of centuries later with Leo the Great. More often, Constantine is blamed for starting a new religion to control the people, but why then did he not hold on to emperor worship? Plus, the originator of the term "Trinity" was Tertullian, a century before Nicea. 

One other point - Under Trinitarianism, God had fellowship between the Three Persons before man was created. God didn't need us for fellowship, nor were the created angels sufficient for fellowship. To me, the Trinity makes perfect sense.

SATURDAY CONTROVERSIES: CAN WE ALL GET ALONG? - INTRODUCTION TO A WEEKLY SERIES

 

Pandemonium by John Martin

"Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be like-minded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus, that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" Romans 15:5-6

"Fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind." Philippians 2:2

I have a friend who points out that Scripture tells us many places that we are to be like-minded. He's right. But what does it mean to be like-minded? Does it mean we're to agree on everything? Or is "like-minded" more like "keeping the main thing the  main thing," to be agreed on who the real enemy is?

In the next several weeks, I'll cover various controversial topics. And when I'm done, you'll know what the correct view is on every issue, right? Wrong! My goal in this is to try to encourage us to realize we're on the same side, with the same Savior, with a common enemy. Too often, there are people who have the uniform of the Lord's army, considering those not in that uniform their foe, and declare war on the Lord's navy, the Lord's marines, the Lord's air force, the Lord's coast guard, the Lord's national guard, and the Lord's local police departments. 

Of course, there are things that divide the saints from the ain'ts. Jesus is either God or He's not, and that is an essential. We either are saved by God's grace or we have to do our part, and that is an essential. Either the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God or it isn't. But there are many who agree on these issues that disagree on others. Yes, there are those who want to unite with those we should be divided from, but there are too many who want to divide from those we should be united with.

I've heard some say on any particular issue, "We can both be wrong, but we can't both be right." To be honest, I doubt many who take that view really believe that both sides can be wrong; they just are certain that I'm ever right when I disagree with them. This is based on a presupposition that I don't love God as much as they do, that I haven't studied the Bible as much as they do. But that presupposition is wrong, both ways.

Of course, dealing with free will and predestination will be one of the topics, but let me use it in pointing out that God desires us to realize His Church will have diversity on several issues. If He gave us free will, then we have the freedom on which side of a second or third tier issue is and still be part of the Family of God. If He didn't but predestined us, He obviously fashioned us to have different views, or we wouldn't. I remember a cartoon where two men were standing with their backs to each other and the one on the left had his arms crossed, and the wife of the other man said, "He can't help it if he's predestined to believe in free will."

Let me close this intro by asking for you to pray for me as I write this. My goal is to aim for unity, not division. My goal is when I present an opposing view, I do it in such a way one holding that view would say I accurately presented their view.

One last comment. You noticed I titled this "Saturday Controversies?" And you also notice I usually post on Sundays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays? I thought of having this series on Sunday, but I didn't want Sundays to be a day of dealing with disputes. So I'll be posting on Saturdays instead of Sundays.