Pepin z Hané

In our last episode, we examined the broad scope of scripture, stopping at many texts along the way that teach about a future kingdom when Jesus returns.  In this session, we’ll take a look at a number of sometimes misunderstood texts that seem to imply the kingdom is either already present or in heaven. Here is the picture of the Greek manuscript known as Codex Vaticanus on Luke 23.43 with an arrow pointing to the alleged comma: And here is Codex Sinaiaticus on 1 Timothy 3.16, with the hand of a later scribe “correcting” ?? to ??, changing “who” to “God.” —— Notes —— State the Doctrine Simply The kingdom is the age when Jesus rules over the world from the throne of David in Jerusalem.  It is present in that the sense that his followers already recognize him as king and submit to his kingdom way.  (It’s been inaugurated but not consummated.)  When it arrives, it will fill the earth. Texts that Support This Teaching Gen 1.28; Ps 2.6-9; 37.9-11, 22, 29, 34; 110; Is 11.1-9; 25.6-9; 35; Dan 2.44; 7.13-14, 18, 22, 27; Mic 4.1-8; Am 9.11-15; Zeph 3.8-20; 45.18; Mt 5.5; 6.9-10; 13.24-30, 36-43; 19.27-28; 25.31-46; Lk 1.31-33; 13.23-30; Acts 1.3-8; 3.19-21; 1 Cor 6.1-3; 15.24-28; 2 Tim 2.11-13; Rev 2.26-27; 5.10; 11.15-18 Difficult Texts: Kingdom Is Already Here (Either as Spiritual Reality or Came on Pentecost) Luke 10.9 Heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ Luke 11.20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. these two clearly imply the kingdom is not future but present in the ministry of Jesus we don’t have to take an “either or” hermeneutic; we can take a “both and” position Luke 17.20-31 20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed,  21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”  22 And he said to the disciples, “The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it.  23 And they will say to you, ‘Look, there!’ or ‘Look, here!’ Do not go out or follow them.  24 For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day.  25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.  26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man.  27 They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.  28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot– they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building,  29 but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all–  30 so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed.  31 On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back. Albert Nolan: “Many Christians have been misled for centuries about the nature of God’s kingdom by the well-known mistranslation of Lk 17:21: “The kingdom of God is within” Today all serious scholars and translators agree that the text should be read: “The kingdom of God is among you or in your midst.” The Greek word entos can mean “within” or “among” but in the present context to translate it “within” would mean that in answer to the Pharisees’ question about when the kingdom of God would come (17:20) Jesus told them that the kingdom of God was within them! This would contradict everything else Jesus ever said about the kingdom or about the Pharisees. Moreover, since every other reference to the kingdom presupposes that it is yet to come and since the verb in every other clause in this passage (17:20-37) is in the future tense, this verse must be understood to mean that one day they will find that the kingdom of God is suddenly and unexpectedly in their midst.”[1] another option is that Jesus, as the king, represents the kingdom, thus they are staring at the kingdom and yet they don’t perceive that its right in front of them Matthew 24.29-34 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.  30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.  31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.  32 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near.  33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates.  34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. three options for understanding “this generation:” This generation refers to the generation of his original disciples. Generation really means a race. The Jewish race will not pass away before the end. This generation is the future generation that sees the abomination of desolation. Once these signs come, the end will occur within a generation. could it mean both 1 & 3? Could it be that Jesus spoke in such a way that it related both to his immediate audience as well as his ultimate audience way off in the future? Perhaps Jesus grouped the two events—the temple’s destruction and the coming of the son of man—together because of their similarities not their timing. Craig Keener put it this way: “Old Testament prophets often grouped events together by their topic rather than their chronology, and in this discourse Jesus does the same. He addresses what are grammatically two separate questions: the time of the temple’s destruction and the time of the end.”[2] Matthew 16.28-17.9 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”  17.1 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.  2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light.  3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.  4 And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.”  5 He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.”  6 When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces and were terrified.  7 But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Rise, and have no fear.”  8 And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.  9 And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.” they received a vision of the kingdom with Jesus glorified and Moses and Elijah resurrected this fulfilled Jesus’ prophecy that they wouldn’t die before “seeing” the son of man coming in his kingdom Kingdom Is in Heaven John 14.1-3 1 “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me.  2 In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?  3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. some say these “rooms” refer to dwelling places in heaven where the faithful go at death God’s house is spiritual not literal (see the rest of the chapter where Jesus repeatedly talks about coming to dwell in the believers, obviously not physically) he is going away to prepare a place and will come again to receive them Jesus, of course, is coming back to establish God’s kingdom that where I am you may be also if Jesus is here reigning then so will we this is the role of the son of man (Dan 7.13-14) and the saints (Dan 7.18, 22, 27) John 18.36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” N. T. Wright writes: “’The world,’ as we’ve seen again and again, is in John the source of evil and rebellion against God. Jesus is denying that his kingdom has a this-worldly origin or quality.  He is not denying that it has a this-worldly destination.  That’s why he has come into the world himself (verse 37), and why he has sent, and will send, his followers into the world (17.18; 20.21).  His kingdom doesn’t come from this wolrd, but it is for this world.  That is the crucial distinction.”[3] Luke 23.39-43 39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!”  40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?  41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”  42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”  43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” some say that very day, the thief and Jesus went to heaven others say they went to a subterranean waiting area, aka Abraham’s bosom didn’t go to heaven b/c: John 20.17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'” and he said he would be in the heart of the earth Matthew 12.40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. context is king asked if he will remember him when he comes into his kingdom Jesus is not telling him he’ll be in the kingdom today, but that he doesn’t have to wait until then to remember him. he makes the decision “today” right then and there, that he will be (in the future) with him in paradise [1] Albert Nolan, Jesus before Christianity (1992), p. 58-59 [2] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), pp. 111-2. [3] N. T. Wright, John for Everyone: Part 2 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), p. 115. —— Links—— see KingdomUprising.com for more resources on the kingdom, including a video class by Victor Gluckin. check out my own audio kingdom of God class starting at podcast 84 See other episodes in this Theology Class Find more Restitutio classes here For more on the kingdom of God see these posts Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

We now begin a series of four lectures on the eternal destiny of the righteous and the wicked, including the kingdom and the judgement.  For today we are going to focus on what God promises for his own people in the age to come.  We’ll cruise through the entire bible (right from Genesis to Revelation), making key stops along the way to understand the golden thread, woven throughout scripture of the kingdom. —— Notes —— eschatology understanding of the last things or end times destiny of the righteous: kingdom destiny of the wicked: hell 3 dimensions to kingdom hope gospel way we are just talking about hope right now creation theology the first book of the bible begins with a poem, detailing God’s creation of universe Genesis 1 what repeats? And God said let there be and God saw that it was good and there was evening and there was morning—the ?? day every stanza begins with, “And God said” and “let there be” every stanza ends with, “and God saw that it was good” and “it was evening and morning” more patterns God creates heavens on day 1 God populates heavens on day 4 God creates the waters on day 2 God populates waters on day 5 God creates the land on day 3 God populates the land on day 6 Gen 1.26: The poem climaxes at the creation of humanity first time God brings others into creation the first thing he says about humans is for them to have dominion over everything else on earth Gen 1.27: God made us in his own image we are similar to him in some way also similar to the angels (cf. v26) he does not say the animals are in his image Gen 1.28: first commands God gives reproduce rule the world Gen 1.29: God gives his people food (vegetables, grains, & fruits) robust creation theology is the foundation for eschatology example of Gnostics who believed the physical universe was an accident people generally believe God will get in the end what he wanted in the beginning Isaiah 45.18 God’s plan is not to evacuate but to have his world inhabited last book reflects the first book Genesis records the beginning Revelation records the end river flowing out of Eden river flowing from God’s throne tree of life in the garden tree of life on either side of the river gold, bdellium, and onyx a ton of different precious stones God walking in the garden God dwelling with his people (see his face) garden city probationary permanent satan deceives satan done away with God curses ground no more curse first marriage last marriage what God originally wanted in the beginning he will get in the end! typically people conceive of the end based on what they believe God originally wanted in the beginning Promise to Abraham Gen 17.4-8 father of a multitude of nations (not just Israel!) to be God to you and your offspring give you land Canaan as an everlasting possession Promise to David 1 Chronicles 17.11-14 raise up one of your sins he will build me a house I will establish his throne forever Psalms Psalm 2.6-9 Psalm 37.9-11, 22, 29, 34 Psalm 110 Prophets Isaiah 11.1-9; 25.6-9; 35 Micah 4.1-8 Amos 9.11-15 Zephaniah 3.8-20 Daniel: hinge (1st to use term “kingdom”) Daniel 2.44 Daniel 7.13-14, 18, 22, 27 all of this background is critical because Jesus never takes the time to define the kingdom; he just expects his audience knows what he is talking about Jesus Luke 1.31-33 Luke 13.23-30 reclining at table with Abraham in kingdom Matthew 5.5; 6.9-102 Matthew 13.24-30, 36-43 explain “kingdom of heaven” Matthew 19.27-28 12 apostles judging the 12 tribes Matthew 25.31-46 sheep and goats Acts 1.3-8 Jesus kept right on talking about the kingdom after his resurrection see also Luke 23.50-52 for Joseph of Arimathea waiting for the kingdom Paul Acts 3.19-21 Jesus is in heaven UNTIL the time for restoring all things 1 Corinthians 6.1-3 don’t you know you will judge the world? 1 Corinthians 15.24-28 reign until he puts all enemies under foot 2 Timothy 2.11-13 Apocalypse Rev 2.26-27 Rev 11.15-18 —— Links —— see KingdomUprising.com for more resources on the kingdom, including a video class by Victor Gluckin. check out my own audio kingdom of God class starting at podcast 84 See other episodes in this Theology Class Find more Restitutio classes here For more on the kingdom of God see these posts Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

In our last episode we looked at what the scriptures teach about humanity, including creation, death, and resurrection.  I laid out a case for conditional immortality from several important texts.  This time, we will consider a number of challenges to this understanding including: Philippians 1.23 “depart and be with Christ” 1 Corinthians 5.8 “absent from the body…present with the Lord” Luke 23.43 “Today you will be with me in paradise” Revelation 6.9-10 “under the altar the souls…cried out” Luke 16.19ff Rich man and Lazarus 1 Samuel 28.7ff the witch of Endor —— Notes —— State the Doctrine Simply The dead are asleep—unconscious—until the resurrection when they are brought back to life at the return of Christ. Texts that Support This Teaching Gen 2.7; 1 Kings 2.10; 11.43; 14.20; Job 3.11-14; Ecc 9.5-10; Ps 6.4-5; 13.3; 115.17; 146.3-4; Dan 12.2; Jn 11.11-14;5.28-29; 6.39-40, 44, 54; Acts 2.29, 34; 7.60; 1 Cor 15.6, 21-23, 51-55; 1 Thes 4.13-17 Logical Arguments comfort to know loved one is just resting in peace (RIP) would be weird if they watched everything you do don’t need to pray for them a million times hoping to change God’s mind immortality of the soul opens the door for spiritualism Lev 20.6 people whoring after mediums and necromancers will be cut off Lev 20.27 any medium/necromancer will be put to death Deut 18.9-13 abominable practice, a reason why Canaanites were expelled derives from pagan sources Plato, Egyptians, Norse, Hindu, etc. creepy to think deceased loved ones are watching everything we do has led to church abuse, i.e. sale of indulgences Difficult Texts Hand out article by Matt Perman at Desiring God: The “intermediate state” is the time between the death and the resurrection. Some have held that during this time we are unconscious or possibly even go out of existence. We do not think that this is biblical. The biblical evidence is that our soul continues on after death and that we remain conscious in the intermediate state while awaiting our final destiny of resurrected existence in the new heavens and new earth. First, Paul spoke of having the desire “to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better” (Philippians 1:23). Notice first of all that Paul speaks of death as a departure (from the body) not into temporary nothingness or unconsciousness but to be with Christ. If we are with Christ once we have died, then we continue existing. Second, notice that Paul speaks of this state as “very much better” than the present state. It would be hard to say such a thing of a state of complete unconsciousness. Particularly when we consider that Paul’s passion was to know Christ, it would seem that the reason the state beyond death is better than this present life is because we are with Christ and know it. If we were suddenly unconscious at death until the resurrection, wouldn’t it be better to remain in this life because at least then we would have conscious fellowship with Christ? Second, Paul also said that “while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord” and that therefore he would “prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:6-8). First, it is significant that he speaks of the possibility of being absent from the body. This implies that we indeed do have souls which continue existing after the body dies. Second, notice again that he speaks of this state as his preference, which indicates (as in Philippians 1:23) that we not only continue existing between death and the resurrection, but that we are aware of our existence. Third, even though the thief on the cross has been used to prove about every point in Christian theology, his case is still relevant here: “And He said to him, ‘Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise'” (Luke 23:43). The Jehovah’s Witness’s New World Translation punctuates Jesus words as “Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise,” giving the impression that “today” refers simply to the time of Jesus’ statement. But the context demands that the “today” refer to when the thief on the cross would be with Jesus in paradise, because Jesus is responding to his request in the previous verse: “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom!” The response, “Today you shall be with Me in paradise” can in this context only be taken to mean, “Not only will I remember you when I come in my kingdom, but already today you shall be with me in heaven.” Fourth, Revelation 6:9 speaks of John seeing underneath the altar “the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God.” These individuals are surely not in a state of soul sleep because in the next verse they cry out “How long, O Lord.” Philippians 1.23-24  (depart and be with Christ) 23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.  24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. here Paul simply skips over the intermediate state this makes since b/c there is no awareness like getting knocked out for surgery we know he believes resurrection happens when Christ comes, not when we die (1 Cor 15.23) death is gain b/c then he will have relief from prison and persecution and the constant backbiting 2 Corinthians 5.6-8  (absent but present) 6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord,  7 for we walk by faith, not by sight.  8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. take a look at the context before 2 Corinthians 5.1-10 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling,  3 if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked.  4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened– not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.  5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.  6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord,  7 for we walk by faith, not by sight.  8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.  9 So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him.  10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. he’s already stated he doesn’t want to be naked—disembodied he’d rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord (in his resurrected body) Paul elsewhere clearly believes in the sleep of the dead followed by a corporate resurrection Sleep of death – 1 Cor. 15:6,18,20,51 (cf. Dan: 12:2); 1 Thess. 4:13,14. Resurrection and judgment – 2 Tim. 4:1,8; 2 Cor. 4:14 cf. 5:10. Luke 23.43  (thief on the cross) 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” take a look at the verse before Luke 23.42-43 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”  43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Revelation 6.9-10  (souls under altar) 9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.  10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” a literal interpretation here results in absurdity…see the next verse Revelation 6.11 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been. Rich Man and Lazarus Luke 16.19-31  (rich man and Lazarus) 19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.  20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores,  21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores.  22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried,  23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.  24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’  25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.  26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’  27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house–  28 for I have five brothers– so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’  29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’  30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’  31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'” Some argue that this is not a parable because (1) it starts with the phrase “a certain man.” But this assertion is groundless because the parable of the Unjust Steward in Luke 16.1 starts just this way. A second reason given that this is not a parable is (2) that it never calls itself a parable. But, 11 out of the 26 parables in Luke’s Gospel do not self identify as parables. A third reason given that this is not a parable is that (3) Lazarus is named. However, Lazarus means “God has helped,” which would certainly be an appropriate fictitious name considering the irony of the story. Some observations about this parable. (adapted from Wrested Scriptures by R. Abel, pages 107-110, also available online at www.wrestedscriptures.com/b03hell/luke16v19-31.html) No mention is made of either “heaven” or “hell” No mention is made of “souls” If taken literally of someone’s soul going off to Abraham’s bosom there is a problem because the passage speaks of bodies not disembodied souls Body parts mentioned include eyes, the tip of a finger, and the tongue If souls are immaterial then how can they be carried by the angels? If their is a great chasm or gulf fixed between Abraham’s bosom and hades, how is it that they can see across it and converse with each other effortlessly? Just imagine living forever within ear shot of the agonizing screams of the tortured. Would that not be torture itself? If taken literally then we have a contradiction with Hebrews 11.8,13, 39-40 because there it says that Abraham has not yet received his reward. (Note that Hebrews was written decades after Jesus told this parable). If one is being tormented in flames of fire, would he ask for just a drop of water? If the righteous dead go to Abraham’s bosom at death, then what about those who died before Abraham? Did Noah go to Abraham’s bosom at death? If one takes into account the fact that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable not a literal account, then all of these problems go away. Edward Fudge is insightful when he says, Two Views of Hell, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 41. Few serious interpreters attempt to make the details of the story literal. To do so would require us to imagine the saved and lost conversing with each other after death in full view of each other and at close range. We also would have to think of literal tongues that burn with literal fire and literal water that does not cool them. Not to mention physical bodies that can be tortured by fire but which somehow do not burn up. Another note about parables needs to be made. Warren Prestidge, Life, Death and Destiny, (Takanini, New Zealand: Resurrection Publishing, 1998), p. 39. First of all, there is no doubt that this is a parable, not a report of actual events. It begins the same way many parables do: “There was a (rich) man (19; compare 16.1, 15.11; 14.16). As with any parable, then, it is essential to distinguish between what it says and what it teaches For example, the parable in the first half of Luke 16 speaks of a steward cheating his master and says: good on him! But Jesus is not teaching that we should cheat our bosses. What he is teaching is that we should give to the poor, in view of God’s coming judgment. That, also, is what the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is teaching: it is simply a vehicle for his teaching. We are not supposed to imitate what happens in the parables. We are supposed to get the point of the parable—understand what Jesus is teaching through the parable. Now, I will have to admit that upon first inspection, instantaneously our minds go to the typical modern picture of someone burning mercilessly in hell while others are up in heaven. But, the audience of Jesus had a different worldview and would have read this parable in a different way.  In order to bring out what Jesus’ hearers would have understood we need to look at the parallels in their own literature. For example, if I make a reference about the Trinity from The Matrix. What would come to mind? Probably one would think of a young attractive girl who wears a lot of black clothing and does incredible martial arts. Obviously, no one would think about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is because we share the context of the word “Matrix.” We understand that The Matrix is a movie. However, if someone a thousand years from now looked back on a conversation two people had about The Matrix and Trinity they would be more likely to associate a matrix with a grouping of numbers and the Trinity as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (three yet one). They could totally miss what was being talked about because they would miss the cultural context. Unless we are familiar with the stories of a culture (movies are stories, by the way) then we might miss a reference to a well-known story and end up taking everything the wrong way.  This is why it is so important to do the historical research into the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth. It just so happens that there was a story going around during the time of Jesus in which fates were reversed after death. The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale 1982), p. 347. In Luke 16.23 it is the place of torment for the wicked after death in accordance with some contemporary Jewish thinking, but it is doubtful whether this parabolic use of current ideas can be treated as teaching about the state of the dead. Edward Fudge, The Fire that Consumes, (Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.com, 2001) pp. 203-204. The plot of the parable, the reversal of earthly fortunes after death, was familiar in popular Palestinian stories of Jesus’ times. Hugo Gressmann cites a Greek parallel from a first-century Egyptian papyrus, and he says there are at least seven versions of the story in Jewish literature. One of the most famous involved a poor student of the Law and a rich publican named Bar Ma’jan. There are differences between these stories and Jesus’, of course, and therein lies the Lord’s uniqueness. But the basic plot was well-known folklore. Froom cites a discourse of Josephus concerning Hades which paints almost precisely the same picture found in Luke. He concludes that “Jesus was clearly using a then-common tradition of the Jews to press home a moral lesson in a related field.” Although the Whiston edition of Josephus offers a lengthy defense of the treatise’s authenticity on internal and external grounds, most scholars today regard it as spurious, as conditionalists Edward White and Henry Constable both note. It was like the Jews had watched movies in which this idea of two people whose fates were reversed in the afterlife was common (that would be our modern equivalent). If this story was in fact common in the time of Jesus then what matters is not so much the idea of fates reversed in the afterlife but what Jesus does with the parable, how he sharpens it up to prick the Pharisees’ hearts. Joachim Jeremias, Rediscovering the Parables (New York: SCM Press Ltd.: 1966), p. 145. To understand the parable in detail and as a whole, we have to recognize that the first part derives from well-known folk-material concerned with the reversal of fortune in the after-life. This is the Egyptian folk-tale of the journey of Si-Osiris and his father Setme Chamois to the underworld; it ends with the words: ‘He who has been good on earth will be blessed in the kingdom of the dead; and he who has been evil on earth will suffer in the kingdom of the dead.’ Alexandrian Jews brought this story to Palestine, where it became very popular as the story of the poor scholar and the rich tax-collector Bar Ma’jan. So, the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable (not a literal story).  Furthermore it is a story that is very similar (in its first half) to other stories that were already around in the culture at the time. Jesus starts the story in the familiar way but then adds a twist half-way through once he has his hearers’ interest. Lazarus is a man in a wretched state who has sores all over his body. He is starving even for the leftover food that the Rich Man feasts on lavishly. He is so weakened that he cannot even drive away the dogs (who were scavengers not house pets) from licking his soars. The typical understanding people had at the time would dictate that this Lazarus is actually being punished by God for his sins. People who walked past him would be asking themselves, “What must this man have done for God to punish him like this?” So the first move of the parable is to reverse the fates of the two. This demonstrates that the Rich Man is really poor and Lazarus is really rich in the eyes of God. Lazarus is blessed to be at “Abraham’s bosom” which is the highest place of honor at a banquet (John 13.23). This honor is given to Lazarus who had the lowest position in society. Before we go on, it is important to realize that one of the keys to understanding the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus is that it works together with the parable from the first half of the chapter called the parable of The Unjust Steward. Sandwiched in between these two parables that each start with the phrase “there was a rich man” (Luke 16.1, 19) the Scripture says: Luke 16.14-15 14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. 15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God. So this entire chapter is addressing the issue of wealth. The first parable is speaking more to the disciples and the second parable is reproving the Pharisees. The Rich Man and Lazarus, article by Dr. Ralph Wilson from the Jesus Walk website www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/16_19-31.htm Jesus has been teaching about materialism and money–the unjust steward, serving Mammon, and stewardship. His audience includes his disciples (16.1) as well as “the Pharisees who loved money” and ridiculed his stand on money (16.14)…The parable we are studying…condemns the Pharisees love of money and neglect of showing compassion for the poor (16.19-31)… Many scholars believe that Jesus is drawing upon a popular Jewish folk tale that had roots in Egypt about a rich man and poor man whose lots after death are completely reversed. The story doesn’t have to be true in all its particulars, but the popular mind can relate to its stereotyped characters–rich man, poor man, and Father Abraham. Jesus is telling a common story about the afterlife in order to make a different point. What does the parable teach? In order to answer this question, let’s go through it section by section. I have divided up this parable into four sections: [1] the setting [2] fates reversed [3] the first question [4] the second question. (All references are from Luke chapter sixteen). [1] the setting 19 “Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 20 “And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, 21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.” We have already touched on the state of Lazarus to a certain extent. To summarize, he is poor, sick, and miserable. Lazarus “was laid” at the rich man’s gate. Perhaps Lazarus was also crippled and had to depend on others to put him in public areas where he could acquire food or money. The fact that Lazarus is at the gate tells us that the rich man passes by him every time he leaves his house or returns home. The rich man cannot claim to be ignorant of Lazarus nor can he claim that he is unable to help him, for he certainly has the means. Lazarus desired so little—the mere crumbs falling from the rich man’s table—yet there he laid, destitute. [2] fates reversed 22 “Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 “In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.” Now their fates are reversed. This is to be expected from the hearers’ familiarity with other stories like this that were circulating at the time. Notice that the poor man is again carried but this time by angels to Abraham’s bosom—the place of highest honor. Meanwhile the rich man dies, is buried, and then in the realm of the dead (Hades) is being tormented yet he can see Abraham and Lazarus at a distance. [It is noteworthy to mention that we are not talking about hell (gehenna) which will not exist until the coming of Jesus when judgment is passed (see Revelation 20).] [3] the first question 24 “And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ 25 “But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 ‘And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’” This question, asked by the rich man is to gain comfort while he is “in agony in this flame.” He wants mercy even though he had shown none while he was living. Notice that he still thinks Lazarus is someone to be ordered around and requests that Abraham to send him. Abraham’s response explains that because of their respective lots in life they have been reversed now. The chasm between them cannot be crossed, for that is its purpose–to keep the two realms separate. The point of the chasm is that no one can change their fate once he dies. Still there would have been nothing shocking up to this point in the parable; though I’m sure the Pharisees were already beginning to become aware that Jesus was reproving their love of money. [4] the second question 27 “And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house– 28 for I have five brothers– in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 “But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 “But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ 31 “But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’” He wants Abraham to send Lazarus back to tell his five brothers about this place of torment. The answer that comes back is, “No,” because his brothers already have a witness that tells them how to live–Moses and the Prophets. The rich man argues back that his brothers would repent if someone went to them from the dead. Yet Abraham does not change his prior answer. He is utterly convinced that if someone does not listen to Moses and the Prophets then he will also not listen even if someone rises from the dead. The living should already know based on the Scriptures how to treat the poor. (There is perhaps a foreshadowing here of the disbelief that many would maintain even after eye-witnesses testify that Jesus was raised from the dead.)  Two major points can be made from this parable: The Rich Man and Lazarus, article by Dr. Ralph Wilson from the Jesus Walk website (http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/16_19-31.htm) 1.   Wealth without active mercy for the poor is great wickedness. 2.   If we close our eyes to the truth we are given, then we are doomed …It isn’t their piety that he is condemning, but what they AREN’T doing–showing mercy to the poor, seeking justice for the downtrodden. It is ironic that the Pharisees who prided themselves on being such Bible scholars largely missed the spirit of the Old Testament–mercy and justice.   Joachim Jeremias, Rediscovering the Parables (New York: SCM Press Ltd.: 1966), p. 147. The parable is one of the four two-edged parables. The first point is concerned with the reversal of fortune in the life to come (vv. 19-23), the second (vv. 24-31) with the refusal of the rich man’s request that Abraham send Lazarus to him and to his five brothers. As the first part is drawn from well known folk-material, the emphasis lies on the fresh part that Jesus added—on the epilogue. Like all the two-edged parables, this one stresses the second point. That means that Jesus does not want to comment on a social problem, or intend to give a teaching about life after death—he tells the parable to warn people like the rich man and his brothers of the impending fate. Lazarus is therefore only a secondary figure, introduced by way of contrast; the parable is about the six brothers… With parables it is always important to get the point without getting lost in the details. It may be fine to speculate on all of the different symbolisms in a parable, and sometimes they are meant to represent many different things (like The Sower and the Seed or The Tares and the Wheat in Matthew 13), but we have to be careful not to obfuscate the intent of the parable.  This parable is about generosity towards the poor not the afterlife.  William Barclay has aptly titled this parable, “The Punishment of the Man Who Never Noticed.” Dr. Wilson is again insightful when he says: The Rich Man and Lazarus, article by Dr. Ralph Wilson from the Jesus Walk website (http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/16_19-31.htm) We are Bible-toting Christians who have the benefit of the Old Testament AND the New. If we don’t notice and minister to the poor, what excuse will we have? In the final analysis, the rich man’s punishment is not for riches, but for neglect of the Scriptures and what they teach. That doesn’t mean we should give out of guilt or give unwisely or give to whoever cries the loudest. Instead, we are to give out of the love of God within us. Not selfishly to assuage our guilt, but selflessly to care for someone else’s need. The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is about money, all right. Money and wealth and self-centeredness. And mercy. It is especially a parable about mercy–mercy now! The parable is about how we live now; because once we die we cannot come back and fix anything. We have the Law, we have the Prophets, and we have the poor man. The Scriptures teach that we should love justice and mercy. The poor man gives an opportunity to practice that teaching. The question is: are we going to do something about this or are we going to ignore the destitute, enjoy our lives, and in the end suffer as a result of it? Warren Prestidge, Life, Death and Destiny, (Takanini, New Zealand: Resurrection Publishing, 1998), p. 39. No, Jesus is not endorsing the story’s paraphernalia. He is using it simply to meet his opponents, the Pharisees, on their own ground: using a story familiar to them, in order to convict them out of their own mouths, as it were, for their indifference to the poor, and perhaps to “sinners” and even Gentiles in general. All that he actually endorses here is “Moses and the prophets” (29). “…it was not the intention of Jesus…to give a topographical guide to the underworld.” “…he does not intend here to give a preview of life after death. On this almost all commentators agree.” We should not allow ourselves to get distracted with theological discussions about life after death when it comes to this parable. We need to understand, not just what the parable isn’t saying but also what it is saying. David Smith summarizes the point of the parable well: David Smith, Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible: Lazarus, ed. by James Hastings, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), p. 539. The purpose of the parable is not to condemn riches and exalt poverty in the spirit of Ebionitic asceticism. [In other words, the parable is not saying that poverty is a virtue.] It is an enlargement of the Lord’s admonition in v9: ‘Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness, that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles’ (RV). The merit of Lazarus was not that he was poor, but that he had found his help in God; the offence of the Rich Man was not that he was rich, but that he lived a self-indulgent and luxurious life, regardless of the misery around him. Had he made friends to himself of Lazarus and others like him by means of his mammon of unrighteousness, he would have had a place and a welcome among them when he entered the unseen world. Let us take Jesus’ parable to heart. If we have money, then let’s open our eyes to see our Lazarus at the gate. If we don’t have money, there are still many things we can do for the poor (somebody had to put Lazarus at the gate of the rich man). This issue will not go away (“the poor you will have with you always”) until Jesus comes and makes things right on earth as in heaven, but that should in no way discourage us from carrying out compassionate acts of love toward the afflicted in this age. Witch of Endor 1 Samuel 28.1-25; 31.2-6 1 Chronicles 10.13 “So Saul died for his breach of faith. He broke faith with the LORD in that he did not keep the command of the LORD, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance.” Did the medium really call up Samuel from the dead? no she faked the whole thing an evil spirit spoke through her God gave her a vision yes she had the power to wake up the dead demons have the power to wake up the dead God enabled the séance to work “Ancient necromancy, essentially the same as modern spiritualism (spiritism) involves the medium’s coming under demon influence and consulting not the spirits of the departed dead, but evil spirts who have superphysical knowledge.” – Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology, p. 169 Leviticus 19.31 31 ‘Do not turn to mediums or spiritists [ESV=necromancers]; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God. “Necromancy is a form of magic involving communication with the deceased—either by summoning their spirit as an apparition or raising them bodily—for the purpose of divination, imparting the means to foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge or to use the deceased as a weapon…Early necromancy was related to – and most likely evolved from – shamanism, which calls upon spirits such as the ghosts of ancestors. Classical necromancers addressed the dead in “a mixture of high-pitch squeaking and low droning”, comparable to the trance-state mutterings of shamans.” –Wikipedia Deuteronomy 18.9-12 9 “When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations.  10 “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,  11 or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.  12 “For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you.  Talking to the Dead Offends God Leviticus 20.6 6 ‘As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people. Leviticus 20.27 27 ‘Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.'” Isaiah 8.19 19 When they say to you, “Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter,” should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? —— Links —— See Warren Prestidge’s book Life, Death, and Destiny on Amazon Check out the movie about Edward Fudge, “Hell and Mr. Fudge“ Here’s the commentary on the Rich man and Lazarus by itself See other episodes in this Theology Class Find more Restitutio classes here For more on conditional immortality see these posts For excellent podcasts and biblical resources on conditional immortality, see rethinkinghell.com Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

In this lecture, you’ll learn about anthropology–the bible’s view of humanity.  In particular, we’ll focus on the two ends of the spectrum: creation and death.  We’ll see how the biblical view of humanity is rather exalted since we are made in God’s image.  We’ll examine what the bible teaches about death and resurrection and how the intermediate state is regularly labeled sleep.  —— Notes —— Why start here?  it’s where the bible starts (creation) anthropology: your understanding of humanity where do humans come from? two typical answers unguided natural processes based on huge amounts of time and inconceivably unlikely chance events (evolution) God made the first people (imago dei) Genesis account Gen 2.7: God personally creates humans with heavenly bodies God says, “let there be” with plants God says, “let there be” with animals (air, land, or sea) God says, “let there be” with humankind God stoops down he forms us; he shapes us from dust, like clay he breaths into our nostrils the breath of life sounds like mouth to mouth animals have the breath of life, but not such a tender description consider God’s human design 22 square feet of skin 206 bones 25 feet of intestines 45 miles of nerves 100,000 miles of blood vessels can live from hottest equatorial climates to the frigid polar caps skin provides waterproof barrier temperature regulation sensory input fingers are both finely tuned (painting) and strong (boxers) wrists enjoy 160 degrees of motion throw frisbee ride a motorcycle ball and socket shoulder joint allows 360 degrees of motion lift an object from the ground over our heads in one fluid motion hearts pump 2,000 gallons of blood each day never rest stomachs produce hydrochloric acid powerful enough to digest solid metal biped design allows for ridiculous range of activities climb trees run marathons ballet ears pick up incredible range of sounds soft sounds rock concerts voices can whisper, speak, yell, sing eyes allow for nearly 180 degrees of horizontal vision three dimensions brains process everything effortlessly and assemble a realistic perception of the external world capable of thinking abstractly (what’s better courage or integrity?) can imagine future possibilities mental simulator to run through plans art, science, relationships, sports, etc. people are capable of incredible creations Shakespeare your favorite song Burj Khalifa skyscraper in Dubai (more than a half mile high) Danyang-Kunshan Grand Bridge in China (more than 100 miles) bicycles, performance cars, submarines, airplanes, and spaceships we are discoverers charted a billion stars catalogued over a million animals species we are producers 130 million books over 28 million songs more than 2 million movies we peer into space far away and examine the minute DNA within the microscopic world you gotta admit, that God did a pretty amazing job making us! God’s creation was good (7x) significant b/c it means God made the universe and people the way he wanted it wasn’t some accident (Gnostics) was God’s original plan for humans to live forever? how do you know? Gen 2.9; 3.22-24 something went wrong our first parents rebelled what was the consequence? Gen 3.19 What is death? simple definition: the absence of life whatever death means it can’t be the same as being alive you can use the bible to support any view of death you have options include heaven (be a star like Lion King, float on a cloud, stare at God forever) purgatory (tortured for a little while before going to heaven) hell (tortured forever) reincarnation (turn into a bear) annihilation ghosts, spirits that haunt buildings (6th sense) asleep until the resurrection the question is: where does the preponderance of the evidence lie? what is the dominant phrase people use to talk about death? so-and-so “passed away” doesn’t that assume that they went somewhere? sleep is the dominant metaphor the bible uses to talk about death 1 Kings 2.10 David slept with his fathers 1 Kings 11.43 Solomon slept with his fathers 1 Kings 14.20 Jeroboam slept with his fathers Job 3.11-14 death is lying down, quietly in sleep, and at rest Ecclesiastes 9.5-6 the dead know nothing; they are clueless about what happens under the sun Ecclesiastes 9.10 no work, thought, knowledge, or wisdom in the grave (clearly teaches dead are unconscious) Psalm 6.4-5 in death/the grave people have no remembrance or praise of God Psalm 13.3 help me or else I’ll sleep the sleep of death Psalm 115.17 the dead do not praise the LORD Psalm 146.3-4 breath [ruach/spirit] departs, return to earth, plans perish John 11.11-14 Jesus calls Lazarus asleep when he is dead Acts 2.29, 34 David died, was buried, and did not ascend into heaven Acts 7.60 Stephen cried out and then fell asleep 1 Corinthians 15.6 some of the 500 who saw Jesus have fallen asleep death is like time travel ex 1: fall asleep in car and wake up a couple of hours later ex 2: getting wisdom teeth removed (Ruth: “How was it” me: “They didn’t do it yet”) two perspectives from one point of view king David has waited in the grave for 3,000 years from David’s perspective he instantaneously goes from his last breath to the resurrection resurrection is the key to immortality this is how someone escapes death and acquires immortality Daniel 12.2 John 5.28-29 1 Cor 15.51-55 resurrection happens at the coming of Jesus on the “last day” at the “last trump” 1 Cor 15.17-24 John 6.39-40, 44, 54 1 Thes 4.13-17 dangers of believing in conscious intermediate state opens the door for spiritualism Lev 20.6 people whoring after mediums and necromancers will be cut off Lev 20.27 any medium/necromancer will be put to death Deut 18.9-13 abominable practice, a reason why Canaanites were expelled advantages of the sleep of the dead comfort to know loved one is just resting in peace (RIP) would be really weird if they watched everything you do don’t need to pray for them a million times hoping to change God’s mind avoid abuses by church (sale of indulgences) conditional immortality: immortality is conditioned on God giving it at resurrection, rather than innate why are most Christians confused about this? ancient Egyptians believed in the kingdom of the dead and built huge tombs (Pyramids) Plato famously defended immortality of the soul in his Phaedo (talking about Socrates’ death) Socrates: Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? Simmias: To be sure, replied Simmias. Socrates: Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death? Simmias: Just so, he replied. the biblical idea was hard for people without a Jewish background to swallow two unique ideas the dead are asleep until resurrection (Jewish) souls escape their bodies at death (Pagan) hybrid view: bodies sleep while soul enjoys heaven until resurrection when it reunites with the body (“Christian”) contradicts all the scripture that says people sleep (not just their bodies, see also John 11.34; 20.15) makes the resurrection an awkward leftover why would you want to become restricted by your body after you had lived as pure energy in heaven what about Lazarus getting torn out of heavenly bliss to inhabit his body? eclipses the real hope by putting heaven-at-death doctrines are interconnected CI leads to a proper understanding of Christ CI leads to a proper understanding of the atonement CI leads to a proper understanding of the kingdom CI leads to a proper understanding of hell this one is really good to start with when talking to Christian friends it doesn’t seem all that threatening it’s so easy to show from so many verses —— Links —— See other episodes in this Theology Class Find more Restitutio classes here For more on conditional immortality see these posts For excellent podcasts and biblical resources on CI, see rethinkinghell.com Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

In this presentation you’ll learn about the core creed of the bible, both in the Old and New Testaments, the Shema, and how that relates to the smattering of texts in which Jesus may be called “God.”  If Yahweh alone is God then how can Jesus be God too?  Are there two Gods or is something else going on?  The answer is the principle of agency.  Jesus can be called God because he represents God. It is much  more likely that Jesus is called God because he represents God, just like Moses did to Pharaoh, the judges did to Israel, and the king did as God’s anointed one.  Jesus is the ultimate proxy, God’s agent through whom God’s word became a human being and spoke to his people.  Jesus was utterly transparent, always doing his father’s works, pursuing his God’s will, and speaking Yahweh’s words and thus can rightly be called God.  He’s not a separate God, but God’s human representative.  To meet Jesus is to meet God, not because he is God in himself, but because God was so at work within him. —— Links —— For a written version of this talk, see my article, “Explanations to Verses Commonly Used to Teach that Jesus Is God” Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Are you curious how Dale Tuggy thinks he did on the Trinity debate with Michael Brown?  In this post-debate interview I ask him about his strongest points as well as what he thought Brown’s strongest arguments were.  I ask Tuggy about Brown’s Trinity theory and he explains the “one self” version of the Trinity as well as some of the major problems with that position.  In the end, Tuggy both gave Brown a lot of credit for his rhetorical style while remaining completely unconvinced that Brown’s position can stand up to the bible or plain old logic. Stay tuned next time when Jerry Wierwille and I discuss Brown’s opening statement and give brief answers to his many opening arguments. —— Links —— Visit Dale Tuggy’s website and podcast at trinities.org Check out Tuggy’s excellent YouTube video entitled, “Who Should Christians Worship“ You can either listen to the entire debate on podcast 158 or watch it on YouTube Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Are you curious how Michael Brown thinks he did on the Trinity debate last weekend? In this post-debate interview I ask him about his strongest points as well as what he thought Dale Tuggy’s strongest points were. We talk about his reticence to use traditional trinitarian language in light of his own unique heritage and ministry focus. I press him gently to explain his view of the Trinity in light of some of the confusion that arose during the debate. Next time, I’ll be interviewing Dr. Tuggy and getting his response and then after that Jerry Wierwille and I are planning on thoroughly reviewing and rebutting Dr. Brown’s opening statement, verse by verse. Now, I realize that a number of you may not appreciate me giving Dr. Brown an opportunity to defend his view of the deity of Christ, but if you’ve listened to this podcast for any length of time, you know that I end every episode with the words “the truth has nothing to fear.” For me, that’s not just a tag line, it’s how I believe. I’m not afraid to hear arguments for the deity of Christ or the Trinity. It’s healthy for those of us who are biblical unitarians to be challenged by passionate defenders of opposing positions. If I’m wrong about Jesus, I want to be corrected and if I’m right then hearing another viewpoint shouldn’t be a threat. —— Links —— Visit Michael Brown’s website and radio show at askdrbrown.org You can either listen to the entire debate on podcast 158 or watch it on YouTube Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Last night Michael Brown (PhD NYU) and Dale Tuggy (PhD Brown U) debated the question, “Is the God of the Bible the Father Alone?” Tuggy affirmed while Brown denied. Both scholars recognize the inspiration and the authority of scripture over tradition. Both made an effort to found their beliefs using the bible, reason, and history. The debate went for nearly three hours and followed this format: Opening Statements (20 minutes each) Rebuttals (12 minutes each) 2 Rounds of Cross-Examination (7 minutes each) Concluding Statements (5 minutes each) Questions from the Audience (54 minutes total) Please leave your comments below. Who do you think won? Were both sides fairly represented? Whom should Tuggy debate next?

Before delving into specific biblical doctrines, we need to first think about what the bible is. In this lecture you’ll learn what the bible says about itself, some reasons to believe God inspired it, as well as the major types of biblical scholars and how they approach scripture. This episode, along with the last one, serves to round out the introduction to this course. —— Notes —— bibliology: one’s understanding about the bible what is the bible? a library of 66 books written by 40 people how should you interact with it?   claims that God inspired the bible Matthew 1.22-23 Mark 12.36 Acts 1.16 Acts 3.18 Acts 4.25 Acts 28.25-26 Hebrews 3.7 Hebrews 10.15-17 2 Timothy 3.16 2 Peter 1.16-21 Revelation 1.1-2   reasons why I believe the bible is genuinely inspired it claims it predictive prophecy unflattering honesty medical insights martyrdom archeology some more reasons ear-marks of eye-witnesses historicity of the resurrection of Jesus changed my life incredible preservation survived some Israelite and Judean kings who disregarded it (Manasseh->Amon->Josiah) survived 70 year exile in Babylonia survived Antiochus Epiphanes who tried to destroy the Torah survived destruction of Temple in a.d. 70 survived destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 135 survived several Muslim empires survived all the crusades OT survived in high quality manuscripts (Aleppo, Leningrad, DSS, LXX) Diocletian tried to destroy the NT NT survived in over 5,000 Greek mss 531 language for whole bible, 1329 languages for NT   dichotomy today between bible-believing and bible-critical approaches to doctrine refer to youtube video of my lecture on Losing Faith from 500 enlightenment gave rise to intense philosophical and biblical criticisms most bible professors in most secular universities examine the bible from an atheist worldview some Christians affirmed these criticisms but tried to save Christianity Schleiermacher (1822): feeling of absolute dependence; entering into Christ’s perfect God consciousness Albrecht Ritschl (1852): kingdom of God = community of brotherly love (focus on Jesus’ ethics not miracles) Adolf Harnack (1886): fatherhood of God, brotherhood of man, worth of each soul, love rather than law Walter Rauschenbusch (1917): social gospel movement—focus on humanitarian needs other Christians dug in and fought the criticisms John Locke (1695) published The Reasonableness of Christianity William Paley (1802) early proponent of intelligent design Charles Hodge (1874) defended infallibility and attacked Darwinism Fundamentalist Movement (1910) In 19th and 20th centuries the liberals and conservatives fight it out major denominations split (Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans) as universities go liberal and biblical conservatives leave and start new schools 1806 Harvard splits to form Andover Theological Seminary 1908 Lyman Stewart started BIOLA; he’s the man who funded the 1910 “The Fundamentals” 1929 Princeton splits to form Westminster Theological Seminary 1976 Liberty University Founded as Lynchburg Baptist College by Jerry Falwell 1978 Regent University Founded as Christian Broadcasting Network University by Pat Robertson four types of bible scholars today non-religious (majority) liberal Christians (mainline denominations) evangelicals Catholic/Orthodox   views of inspiration (list all 6 and describe for quiz) skeptical view (entirely a human creation, containing truth and error) the authors of the bible interpreted their experiences and told stories on the basis of what they believed God was and had done. mixed view (partially of human origin, containing truth and error) God inspired some parts of the bible but not others typically the parts of the bible rejected are those that conflict with present day views of morality, history, and science limited inspiration (partially of divine origin, containing truth and error (but not doctrinal)) the bible holds authority with regard to belief and practice, but not with regard to history or science infallible but not inerrant inerrant (of divine origin, containing truth only) superintendence view: God had worked with those who wrote the bible, giving them experiences and understandings such that when they came to write, they communicated the truths/concepts God wanted (though not exact words) superintendence plenary verbal view (every word is exactly what God wanted) dictation view: God dictated the exact words he wanted written even if the writer didn’t understand them, making God the sole author and everyone else mere secretaries   views 1-2 put the reader over the text, at least part of the time views 3-4 put the reader under the text, all of the time if you are over the text, you have a say in whether or not what it says is correct if you are under the text, when the bible disagrees with what you think, you are wrong and it is right   furthermore, depending on your view for inspiration, you will have a different methodology when it comes to forming bible doctrines   for this class we assuming the bible is true as it relates to doctrine (compatible w/ views 3 and 4) this is necessary to do biblical theology as opposed to liberal theology (ex. of Ehrman saying each gospel author had a different christology!)   principles of biblical theology Ask God for help to illuminate scripture through his spirit. Be willing to change if the preponderance of the biblical evidence turns out to challenge what you currently believe. The truth has nothing to fear. Don’t insist on figuring everything out. It’s better to live with uncertainty when it comes to a particular doctrine or practice than to force yourself to adopt a position that you know is flawed. Collect all the verses on the subject. This is best achieved by reading through the entire bible with your particular doctrine in mind. Alternatively, the internet or bible software can aid you in gathering the relevant texts. Take into consideration the history of redemption. In other words, don’t insist that something must remain unchanged from an earlier part of the bible to a latter section. Work to arrive at a position that has the greatest explanatory scope. Include others in your study. Invite criticism of your position. Iron sharpens iron (Prov 27.17). Figure out how to live this out today. What good are your beliefs if you don’t apply them to life?   —— Links —— See other episodes in this Theology Class Find more Restitutio classes here For more on correct bible study, listen to Interview 28: Exegetical Fallacies with Jerry Wierwille or these on bible interpreation Learn about the Atlanta Bible College

Happy New Year. I’m so excited to begin with you a new class that covers a whole range of biblical doctrines. In fact, I’m going to combine two classes into one and I think they will work together really well. The first class was originally titled “Basic Bible Doctrine” and it covered approximately fifteen different major beliefs. The goal was to explain these aspects of theology and give supporting scripture and reasons for them. I’m combining this with a more advanced class called “Solutions to Bible Texts,” which deals with commonly misunderstood verses on a bunch of doctrines. I’m going to attempt to interweave these two, so that you get a comprehensive understanding of theology. Now I realize that you very well may disagree with my understanding on some of these beliefs, so we may have some exciting dialog in the comments on these episodes.  I will freely admit at the outset that I don’t know everything and that I have been wrong in the past.  I just ask that you give this class a charitable listen and check it against the scriptures to see if it is true.  Hopefully, this will be a good way to lay it all out there and see what you think.  To begin with, this episode is an introduction that covers some important basics about approaching truth and building biblical doctrines. —— Notes —— In one sense there’s nothing basic about bible doctrine. Constructing a coherent biblical theology on any topic takes immense effort from collecting the many texts on the topic to interpreting each of them based on their own literary, historical, and theological contexts to conceiving of an understanding that simply yet elegantly embraces the most texts possible while minimizing the number of difficult texts to comparing other doctrinal systems both ancient and modern—the process is anything but “basic.” Even so, the end result is often simple enough to comprehend and communicate, though it rests upon the work of teams of specialists drawn from a variety of fields. the bereans Acts 17.11 what was Paul trying to convince them to believe? neither accepted nor rejected<–really impressed Paul tested Paul’s message against the scriptures   why is it so important to be willing to change our beliefs? b/c it’s easy to misunderstand the bible geographic separation (what’s the Arabah?) cultural separation (did they have divorce? could they read? did they have running water?) different religious groups (what’s the difference between a Saducee and a Pharisee?) language (what language did Jesus speak? how do we know that? ephphatha) metaphysics: function over essence (why did God call the light day?) anachronism: since everything is so different, it takes serious work to not read our own ideas into the bible   reasons why it can be hard to change our beliefs easier to keep them the same might need to leave our church might lose friends, relationship with kids (Ray Faircloth), marriage (1 Cor 7) might lose job opportunities identity might be wrapped up in being 3rd generation church of God or whatever remember when I went to BU and got asked what I was anabaptist, adventist, biblical unitarian, restorationist my core identity (what defines me at more core, but doesn’t change no matter where I am on my quest for understanding) love God follow Christ seek truth   typical to think doctrine doesn’t matter or worse that it’s divisive not taught to argue constructively head knowledge vs. heart knowledge mind vs. emotions vs. actions false way of splitting things up you should have emotional attachment to your doctrine your doctrine does affect what you do, how you live and vice versa the bible simply doesn’t talk this way don’t split yourself up, but recognize you are a whole person   how much deviation from the truth puts someone in trouble? Jesus had 10 apostles and was in the grave 4 days instead of 3? think Jesus is messiah but didn’t die for our sins (Muslims)? think Jesus came to America to preach to the natives (Mormons)?   a good double standard I want to know, so I’ll look into everything for myself I won’t judge others for disagreeing unless it is something that could compromise their salvation (i.e. not knowing the gospel, not following Jesus, practicing idolatry, etc.)   why doctrine matters how you think affects what you do a bad doctrine can lead to damnation a good doctrine can bring countless people to salvation   an example of a bad doctrine: burning heretics heretics are going to hell if we don’t do anything they will convince others of their ideas and cause others to go to hell hell is a burning fire of eternal torment burn them now as a public example to show everyone what hell will be like if you believe their ideas   an example of good doctrine: martyrs Christ has already broken the power of death when God raised him from the dead he will raise me up on the last day If I confess him, he will confess me; if I deny him, he will deny me I should follow his example of how he died dying for Christ is a high honor I can’t do this on my own, but God will strengthen me so I can testify   three levels of theology level 1: understand the biblical doctrine level 2: understand the alternatives, their reasons and texts level 3: develop a cogent and detailed response to criticisms of your beliefs   —— Links —— See other episodes in this Theology Class Find more Restitutio classes here For more on correct bible study, listen to Interview 28: Exegetical Fallacies with Jerry Wierwille or these on bible interpreation Learn about the Atlanta Bible College

Greg Deuble grew up in the Church of Christ in Australia, went to N.S.W. Bible College in Sydney, and spent fifteen years serving as a pastor and evangelist.  One day he attended a meeting during which Anthony Buzzard challenged him on his belief in the deity of Christ.  Rattled, Deuble began on a quest to reassess all of his doctrinal convictions in light of scripture.  As a lifelong member of the restorationist tradition, Deuble always wanted to practice the authentic Christianity of the apostles and couldn’t just slough off such important questions.  The result was his book, They Never Told Me This in Church, an exposé of how bad philosophy corrupted the teaching of scripture. —— Links —— Visit Greg Deuble’s website at thebiblejesus.com Get his book They Never Told Me This in Church on Amazon Take a look at this YouTube video where Deuble shares his testimony Get in touch with Deuble at [email protected] Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

For more than a decade, Sam An has faithfully served as an administrator and teacher at the Korean Extension of the Atlanta Bible College.  In this interview, you’ll learn about his own story of faith as well as what God is doing through his ministry to touch Koreans both in America and in South Korea. —— Links —— Check out the Korean Extension’s website at abcke.weebly.com Watch Steve An teaching in Korean on his YouTube channel Apply to be a student at the Atlanta Bible College Korean Extension Get in touch with Sam An at [email protected] or by calling (678) 392 – 2600 Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Have you heard of the Christian Disciples Church?  They are a biblical unitarian group scattered throughout Asia primarily.  In this episode Calvin Chan, who has been with the disciples since the beginning, will tell you the story of how this group got started as a student disciple movement.  He also shares about how the founder, Pastor Eric Chang, reexamined what the bible says about Jesus and had the courage to change his mind when he was in his seventies. —— Links —— Check out the Christian Disciple Church online Take a look at The Only True God online or on Amazon. Also, here’s the sequel, The Only Perfect Man Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

This is the fourth and final part of our Misunderstood Texts about Jesus series with Bill Schlegel.  In this episode he offers remarks on Philippians 2.5-6, Colossians 2.9, and Revelation 1.17.  After this, I ask him one of the biggest questions on this subject: if Jesus isn’t God then how can his sacrifice possibly pay for our sins?  As usual Schlegel points out that this is not a biblical question–Jesus never asked it, Paul never asked it, and John never asked it.  If no one ever makes this point in scripture, maybe we should wonder why our questions are so out of line with theirs? —— Links —— Check out the other episodes in the Misunderstood Texts about Jesus series. To learn about Schlegel’s backstory, listen to Interview 31: Master’s University Prof. Finds Son of God, Loses Job Check out his excellent book, the Satellite Bible Atlas Follow Bill Schlegel on his blog or on YouTube For an extensive list of verses and explanations from a biblical unitarian perspective, visit christianmonotheism.com (use the scripture index on the right) Watch “Five Major Problems with the Trinity” on YouTube Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

In parts one and two, we examined ten misunderstood verses in the Gospel of John.  In part three, we’ll examine seven more texts from the rest of the bible: Genesis 1.26 Isaiah 9.6 Matthew 2.2 Matthew 28.9 Matthew 28.19 (cf. 2 Cor 13.14) Romans 9.5 Acts 20.28 Repeatedly, Bill Schlegel calls us back to understand each verse within its immediate and canonical contexts, rather than reading in later theological commitments. —— Links —— Check out the other episodes in the Misunderstood Texts about Jesus series. To learn about Schlegel’s backstory, listen to Interview 31: Master’s University Prof. Finds Son of God, Loses Job Check out his excellent book, the Satellite Bible Atlas Follow Bill Schlegel on his blog or on YouTube For an extensive list of verses and explanations from a biblical unitarian perspective, visit christianmonotheism.com (use the scripture index on the right) Watch “Five Major Problems with the Trinity” on YouTube Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

This is part two of my series with Bill Schlegel, former professor of the Israel Bible Extension and long time bible teacher and geography expert.  Last time we discussed five major texts in the Gospel of John and this time we cover four or five more: John 10.30 John 10.33 John 13.18-19 John 20.28 1 John 5.20 Next time we’ll discuss a number of more important verses in the rest of the bible. —— Links —— Check out the other episodes in the Misunderstood Texts about Jesus series. To learn about Schlegel’s backstory, listen to Interview 31: Master’s University Prof. Finds Son of God, Loses Job Check out his excellent book, the Satellite Bible Atlas here Follow Bill Schlegel on his blog or on YouTube For an extensive list of verses and explanations from a biblical unitarian perspective, visit christianmonotheism.com (use the scripture index on the right) Watch “Five Major Problems with the Trinity” on YouTube Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Today we are beginning a new series called “Misunderstood Texts about Jesus” with Bill Schlegel.  Professor Schlegel lived and taught the bible and geography in Israel for more than three decades.  Recently, he came to change his mind on the deity of Jesus, seeing him now as God’s man rather than a God-man.  Since he made this change, several friends and acquaintances have brought up a number of scriptures that they believe prove Jesus is God.  This podcast series is Schlegel’s opportunity to answer these commonly misunderstood verses and explain what they mean.  In this episode we discuss the following texts: John 1.1 John 1.14 John 1.18 John 5.18 John 8.58 Next time we’ll discuss five more scriptures from John. —— Links —— To learn about Schlegel’s backstory, listen to Interview 31: Master’s University Prof. Finds Son of God, Loses Job Follow Bill Schlegel on his blog or on YouTube For an extensive list of verses and explanations from a biblical unitarian perspective, visit christianmonotheism.com (use the scripture index on the right) Watch “Five Major Problems with the Trinity” on YouTube Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Q: How do you know the bible is true? A: Because God wrote it. Q: How do you know God wrote it? A: Because the bible says God wrote it. Q: But, how do you know the bible is true? Here we encounter the classic circular argument for the bible’s inspiration. Surely, there’s a better way to go about establishing God’s influence on this book. In this episode we’ll take a look at three main comparative texts from the same part of the world and same time as the bible was written, including the Enuma Elish, the Code of Hammurabi, and the Ebers Papyrus. By comparing the bible to these Babylonian and Egyptian texts we can see just how unusual it was in its own context. This, in turn, helps up have more confidence that God in fact did work with the authors of his book, providing them with an alternative source of information that cut against the grain of wisdom of their age. Stay tuned afterwards for a couple of event announcements Winter Teen Camp held at Living Faith Christian Church in Warwick, RI (Dec 28-30) winterteencamp.com a weekend for teens to learn about God and spend time together building relationships and serving the community early bird rate is only $60.00 for those who register by December 9th. After December 10th the cost is $75 Revive 2019 held at Woodstock, CT (Jan 4-6) lhim.org/revive a weekend for young adults (20+) to worship and enjoy time with other believers theme is Wisdom, looking at the wisdom literature, including Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes $146 per person, please register if you know you’re coming so we can get a good count —— Links —— See also the YouTube video God Speaks through Scripture (10 reasons to believe the bible is true) More resources on the reliability and trustworthiness of the bible Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Our world seems intent on trotting out the same extremist examples of Christianity as either a homophobic religion (think Westboro Baptist Church) or a totally accepting faith (think Episcopalians).  However, these are not the only positions Christians take on this subject.  In this talk, Wesley Hill, assistant professor of biblical studies at Trinity School for Ministry, not only advocates for but lives out a third way. Hill identifies as gay while agreeing with the historic view of the church that marriage is only between a man and a woman.  Not only that, he wants to help other gay and lesbian people come into Christianity without compromising what the bible teaches on sexuality or lying to themselves about same-sex attraction.  Consequently, he is committed to singleness for life.  This is hard road to walk, but he believes it’s the best way forward.  Even so, he’s concerned about gay Christians getting their needs met for intimacy and friendship within the church.  How tragic would it be to heroically sacrifice marriage and parenthood on the altar of biblical faithfulness only to wake up at 65 years old, alone, single, isolated, and without meaningful connections to anyone? Hill says the church needs to step up not only by rooting out homophobia, but also building and strengthening friendship bonds between singles and singles as well as singles and families.  He concludes, “God calls us precisely in saying, ‘No’ to same-sex marriage to say, ‘Yes’ to intimacy,  ‘Yes’ to Christian community, ‘Yes’ to same-sex friendship, ‘Yes’ to a life of love in the body of Christ.” —— Links —— Read more about spiritual friendship at spiritualfriendship.org Hill’s faculty page at the Trinity School for Ministry Check out his book, Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality, which tells his story of reconciling his faith with his sexuality and how he came to think of celibacy as his calling. See also Interview 18 with Becket Cook, a fashion set designer who likewise embraced celibacy to follow Christ For more, search Youtube for testimonies by Christopher Yuan, Rosaria Butterfield, Jackie Hill, and Sam Allberry. Also, see Podcast 82: Biblical Boundaries for Same-Sex Attraction as well as Podcast 83: Questions about Gay and Lesbian Christians Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Our culture longs for authenticity. We’re tired of fakers and phonies who say one thing and do another. People should just be true to themselves and have the courage to flout tradition when it holds them back from genuine self-expression. However, this mentality results in major individual and social problems from sexually transmitted diseases to sexual harassment to racism and mass shootings. Christianity offers a better way, by providing a standard to conform ourselves to that maximally enables human flourishing. —— Notes —— Colossians 3:1-5 The terminology in v5 is excessively hostile: “put to death what is earthly in you.” Don’t reason with it, or seek to diminish its influence. Don’t try to understand it, or make excuses for it. Kill it! Put it down. Colossians 3:6 God did not design us to behave this way. He gave us passions but placed boundaries on them. When people defy His original intention, it bothers Him. Colossians 3:7-10 This is the language of clothing: put off and put on. We must strip off the old way of being a human (Adam) and clothe ourselves with the new way of being a human (Christ), which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its Creator—the way God originally designed us. Colossians 3:11 Not only behavior but social barriers need to change. Ethnicity, social status, education, independence are all outshone by the splendor of Christ’s radiant glory, enabling harmony between us all. Colossians 3:12-17 Imagine that there are two towns that live by each of these opposing ways: Freetown and Corpus Christi. Which would you rather live in? As you conform to the Christian lifestyle, it becomes second nature. It does not crush you or rob you of your humanity, but it provides the necessary boundaries to make human growth and flourishing possible. —— Links —— More episodes like this: Off Script 1: Seeing the Filter Off Script 2: Hyper-Individualism Off Script 3: Tolerance 72: Free as a Fish on Land Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

When it comes to Genesis 1, Christians tend to divide into two major camps: old earth and young earth creationists. The former sees the days as long periods of time (e.g. Hugh Ross) while the latter insists on literal twenty-four hour periods (e.g. Ken Ham). Professor John Walton of Wheaton College advocates for a different reading of the bible’s first chapter. By carefully comparing Genesis to other ancient near eastern creation texts, he proposes that it’s talking about God providing functionality to the already-existing cosmos rather than creating structures ex nihilo. —— Links —— For a much more in depth explanation of Walton’s perspective on Genesis 1, see his book The Lost World of Genesis One Visit his faculty page at Wheaton College See podcast Off Script 30: Stewarding the Earth or 84: Kingdom Restoration Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Do you ever stop and marvel at God’s creation?  Are you in wonder at what he has made?  Too often we take God’s masterful creations for granted, instead of seeing them as pointers back to God’s ingenuity, generosity, and artistry.  Although we can’t always take time out to praise God for plums, palm trees, and panthers, when we can it’s helpful to meditate on his handiwork. Here’s the video from this message that shows the relative sizes of our solar system’s planets and sun with other much bigger stars: Here are a couple of praise songs that tap into the proper sense of wonder we should experience because of God’s works:   Notes Psalm 19.1-6 The heavens declare God’s glory Psalm 104.1-35 The psalmist works through creation, marveling at God’s manifold artistry and brilliance. Psalm 8.1-9 Even though God is so powerful, so transcendent, so majestic, he still cares about us puny humans. C. S. Lewis’ attention to God’s every-day marvels: Lewis’s keen, penetrating sense of his own heart’s aching for Joy, combined with his utter amazement at the sheer, objective realness of things other than himself, has over and over awakened me from the slumbers of self-absorption to see and savor the world and through the world, the Maker of the world… Lewis gave me, and continues to give me, an intense sense of the astonishing “realness” of things. He had the ability to see and feel what most of us see and do not see. He had what Alan Jacobs called “omnivorous attentiveness” (Alan Jacobs, The Narnian, p. xxi.) I love that phrase. What this has done for me is hard to communicate. To wake up in the morning and to be aware of the firmness of the mattress, the warmth of the sun’s rays, the sound of the clock ticking, the coldness of the wooden floor, the wetness of the water in the sink, the sheer being of things (quiddity as he called it). And not just to be aware but to wonder. To be amazed that the water is wet. It did not have to be wet. If there were no such thing as water, and one day someone showed it to you, you would simply be astonished. He helped me become alive to life. To look at the sunrise and say with an amazed smile, “God did it again!” He helped me to see what is there in the world — things which if we didn’t have them, we would pay a million dollars to have, but having them, ignore. He convicts me of my callous inability to enjoy God’s daily gifts. He helps me to awaken my dazed soul so that the realities of life and of God and heaven and hell are seen and felt. I could go on about the good effect of this on preaching and the power of communication. But it has been precious mainly just for living. John Piper, “Lessons from an Inconsolable Soul,” Feb. 2, 2010, Desiring God Conference for Pastors   —— Links —— This message was inspired by Jerry Wierwille’s phenomenal sharing, “God — Our Spectacular Creator,” presented at Revive 2016. Check out Podcast 53: Does God Exist? for more examples of God’s creation pointing to him more sermons by Sean Finnegan see also John Cortright’s sermon, “The Living God“ Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License

Kenneth LaPrade lives in El Paso, Texas, on the border between the United States and Mexico.  His wife is Mexican and many of the folks in his house church are from Mexico.  In such a context, immigration is always a touchy subject, but lately some Christians have baptized certain political rhetoric and presented it as “the” Christian position on this complicated issue.  LaPrade sees this as merely one aspect of the much larger problem of Christians trying to take power in America as if establishing God’s kingdom here, now.  In this interview, he urges us to retain the bible’s teaching about the future kingdom and see ourselves as Christians first and Americans (or Mexicans) second. Here’s the text of Ken LaPrade’s statement on how Christians should orient themselves politically that inspired this interview: I honestly feel a bit frustrated concerning the following situation (which I will briefly describe), and I believe its persistence is related to Satan’s tricks to promote biblical unawareness concerning the priority of the future kingdom. I know that my attempted reminders, in certain cases, keep falling on deaf ears. Please, pray concerning this highly distracting issue. I am earnestly still prayerfully concerned about so-called Christian efforts at erroneous “kingdom NOW” thinking – such as an obsession with American politics, either defending or demonizing “Trump” or current social or political trends. I personally work with several immigrants who have been quite hurt by very strange, insensitive comments (even bullying remarks) posted quite publicly as if representing a “Christian” perspective! In my estimation, ALL such misguided trends (either to justify or condemn pagan leaders in a pagan nation) are a failure (among so-called Christians) to really grasp the Kingdom of God as FUTURE! Present hurtful rhetoric is tantamount (in my assessment) to the hypothetical absurdity of retroactively getting 1st century Christians to hotly debate whether Tiberius, Nero, or Domitian were better or worse for the Roman Empire! As is obvious, 1st century Christians were far too future Kingdom focused to be so distracted! We, as 21st century Christians, do not help anyone by being seduced into speaking for one side or another of two (or more) warring camps of Gentile hate-mongers who are ruled in typically corrupt Gentile fashion! “Christian” pop-culture labels pasted on political & social movements do not “Christianize” blatant disregard for Jesus himself. Neither do they “COVER” for outright demonic evil – whether from “the left” or from “the right.” We’d be better off suffering NOW for obeying him, rather than getting bamboozled by a pseudo-Christian ( with NO Future Kingdom focus) bandwagon to get our way now – as if entitled …. by an “American idol.” Biblically speaking, the USA, and all current nations (Gentiles by nature) await JUST dismantling when our true theocratic King (Jesus) comes to reign. I still pray that King Jesus’ perspective NOW have the priority that it should have, at least among those who try to faithfully await his much needed intervention. —— Links —— Get in touch with Kenneth LaPrade at [email protected] Listen to Interview 14: Ken LaPrade’s Baptism Journey Read articles by LaPrade that he wrote for Glad Tidings Books mentioned in this interview: The Coming Kingdom: What Is the Kingdom and How Is Kingdom Now Theology Changing the Focus of the Church? by Andy Woods Myth of a Christian Nation by Gregory Boyd In God We Don’t Trust by David Bercot Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Last week we examined what the bible teaches about heaven. This week we’ll see what it says about hell. John Cortright explains there are three meanings of hell in scripture, including tartarus where fallen angels are temporarily imprisoned, hades/sheol where the dead remain until resurrection, and gehenna where the wicked are destroyed in the final judgment. —— Links —— More Restitutio podcasts with John Cortright Also, get more of Cortright’s sermons, classes, and articles at Living Hope Community Church Listen to an excellent debate on hell (eternal conscious torment vs. annihilationism) Podcast 10: Is Hell Forever? Chris Date vs. Phil Fernandez Check out the kingdom of God class podcasts Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.  

What is heaven? Throughout the bible we find different layers of meaning, including (1) heaven as sky, (2) heaven as God’s throne, and (3) heaven as God’s realm or dimension. Although heaven is a reality, it is not where we go when we die. Rather the bible teaches that the dead are asleep until the resurrection when they inherit the earth, renewed and restored. —— Notes —— Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald famously sang about heaven: Heaven, I’m in heaven And my heart beats so that I can hardly speak And I seem to find the happiness I seek When we’re out together dancing cheek to cheek Yes, heaven, I’m in heaven And the cares that hung around me through the week Seem to vanish like a gambler’s lucky streak When we’re out together dancing cheek to cheek[1] 2 Samuel 18.9 9 And Absalom happened to meet the servants of David. Absalom was riding on his mule, and the mule went under the thick branches of a great oak, and his head caught fast in the oak, and he was suspended between heaven and earth, while the mule that was under him went on. he was between heaven and earth what does that mean? he was between the sky and the land heaven is the sky Heaven as Sky (Realm of the Birds) Genesis 1.14-20 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights– the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night– and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. 20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” Genesis 1.28 28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” this is where my title comes from heaven’s for the birds! Matthew 6.26 26 Look at the birds of the air [???????]: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? so heaven’s for the birds but, it’s more than that! Heaven as God’s Throne Isaiah 66.1-2 1 Thus says the LORD: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? 2 All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word. control room (throne): where God makes plans/decisions storehouse: where rewards are stored up w/ God Jesus says to lay up treasures in heaven where moth and rust cannot destroy (Mt 6.20) Peter says we have an inheritance imperishable kept in heaven (1 Pet 1.4) Paul says our citizenship is in heaven (Phil 3.20) N. T. Wright: “What then do the New Testament writers mean when they speak of an inheritance waiting for us in heaven? This has been much misunderstood…The point of such passages, as in 1 Peter 1.4, 2 Corinthians 5.1, Philippians 3.20, and so forth, is not that one must ‘go to heaven’, as in much-popular imagination, in order to enjoy the inheritance there. It is rather that ‘heaven’ is the place where God stores up his plans and purposes for the future. If I tell a friend that there is beer in the fridge, that doesn’t mean he has to get into the fridge in order to enjoy the beer. When the early Christians speak of a new body in heaven, or an inheritance in heaven, they mean…the new identity which at present is kept safe in heaven will be brought from heaven to earth at the great moment of renewal.”[2] The bible does not have a collection of precise words to distinguish between air, the sky, outer space, or the realm of God and the other angels. the ancients didn’t have our cosmology (cosmic geography)…they thought the sun and moon traveled through the sky…not realizing their true distance, composition, or what held them there. we are not smarter because we know more, we’re just better informed b/c we happened to be born now a hundred years from now your great grandchildren will probably think you were helplessly primitive and backwards my 10 year old is not smarter than Galileo, just b/c he knows about Neptune…Galileo’s telescope (that he invented) just wasn’t capable of seeing it Heaven of Heavens we do get some hints that they recognized God’s “heaven” is actually beyond the sky Yuri Gagarin (1961) punctured the heavens and failed to see God’s throne (57 years ago, last Thursday) Deuteronomy 10.14 14 Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. 1 Kings 8.27 27 “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built! One concept that is completely absent from ancient thinkers, but does wonders in explaining a physical reality beyond observation is dimension. Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, a novella by the English Edwin Abbott (1884) Earth as Future Reward however, this is not really what people mean when they talk about heaven usually they are thinking of the afterlife question is about where God’s people go thankfully on this question the bible has amazing clarity Matthew 5.5 5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Matthew 6.9-11 9 Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. 10 Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread Matthew 19.28-29 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. The Intermediate State Genesis 3.19 19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” Ecclesiastes 9.10 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going. Psalm 146.3-4 3 Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. 4 When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish. John 5.28-29 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. where are the dead? according to Jesus, they’re in their tombs dead people don’t go anywhere they are “asleep” until Christ comes to “wake them up” In between death and the resurrection on the last day, the dead are unconscious and inactive. Perhaps this is where the epitaph “RIP” originated. Justin Martyr: “For I choose to follow not men or men’s doctrines, but God and the doctrines by him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this, and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians. (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 80)” Egyptian: At death, the soul goes to the kingdom of the dead where it must recite secret formulae from the Book of the Dead. Judgment involves the demon Ammit devouring an unworthy soul, whereas the good would live on in the Fields of Yalu and accompany the sun on its daily ride. Only those who could secure embalming and a sarcophagus had a way into the afterlife. Greek: On death, Hermes takes the dead soul to the shores of the river Styx in the realm of the god Hades. Charon, the ferry-man, brings the deceased across the river. Based on how someone lived, he or she would go to Elysium (paradise for the good and heroic), the Asphodel Fields (for people who did as much bad as good), the Punishing Fields (for the mediocre bad), or Tartarus (a place of torment by hot lava or the rack). Norse: The soul stays in the body until released through decay or cremation. It goes to one of four places: Valhalla (where warriors who die in battle join Odin in Asgard), Folkvangr (a great meadow where Freyja reigns), Hel (a place where those who are neither good nor bad go to reunite with loved ones), or Niflhel (punishment for those who break oaths or commit wickedness). Zoroastrian: Zoroastrians are dualists who believe that matter itself is a corruption. At death, Ahirman, the evil god, enters the body and contaminates it, whereas the immaterial spirit escapes to remain in the vicinity for three days and nights and suffers anxiety from the recent separation. The angels Vohuman and Mithra prepare an account of good and evil the person committed. Once Daena leads the soul into the spiritual world, it must cross a Bridge of Judgment. Good souls enter a paradise, and evil ones a realm of punishment. Buddhist: At death, the person reincarnates based on the qualities of that one’s actions (karma) to higher or lower forms of life. For Buddhists, the soul is not eternal, and believing so is a prime consequence of ignorance. When one succeeds in eliminating desire, delusion, and ignorance, he or she can escape the cycle and cease existence. Hindu: After death, an immortal soul reincarnates, based on one’s deeds. Eventually one can escape the cycle by improving his or her karma over many lifetimes and enter a state of perpetual disembodied bliss. Taoist: A goal for Taoists is to achieve immortality through breathing techniques (meditation), sexual practices, physical exercises (yoga), purified metals ingestion (gold), and moral living with the goal of eliminating impurities and demons from their bodies to increase their soul’s energy. What do these all have in common? they are locate the arena of final redemption off world the bible is radical, but it makes sense it says God is able to fix this old place and restore it to paradise [1] originally Fred Astaire sang “Cheek to Cheek” in 1935 [2] N. T. Wright, “Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins,” Gregorianum, 2002, issue 83/4, pp. 615-635, accessed April 13, 2018 at http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/jesus-resurrection-and-christian-origins/. —— Links —— See podcast 110 Heaven Is Not My Home for more on heaven and the kingdom More posts about conditional immortality (the sleep of the dead) Listen to an excellent debate on hell (eternal conscious torment vs. annihilationism) Podcast 10: Is Hell Forever? Chris Date vs. Phil Fernandez Check out the kingdom of God class podcasts Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.  

Robin Todd has faithfully served as the director of the Worldwide Scattered Brethren Network for the last 10 years.  He helps biblical unitarians find each other all over the United States as well as some other countries.  In this interview, we talk about how he got started, what it takes to get on his list, and how he sees the future of the network. —— Links —— Visit the Worldwide Scattered Brethren Network or email Todd to get on his list or to volunteer to help with the website: [email protected] If you live in Europe and you’d like to get in touch with Werner Bartl, you can reach him at [email protected] For more about virtual church, see Interview 32: Virtual Fellowship for Isolated Believers (John Truitt) To tune into Living Hope’s weekly live webcast, go to lhim.org/webcast on Sundays from 10:30 am – 12:00 pm EST Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.    

In this concluding teaching of our apologetics conference, John Truitt gleans from Christ’s example key ways that we can imitate him in our own evangelistic efforts today.  He begins by looking how Jesus was completely obedient to God and how he prepared himself (both in knowledge and experience).  Next Truitt urges us to get moving, expecting God to direct us as we are obedient.  Lastly, he emphasizes the importance of radical love to our neighbors and the need for community. Here now is podcast 148 Evangelism, Jesus’ Way with John Truitt —— Links —— To find out how to join John Truitt’ s virtual church online watch this video or contact him directly at [email protected] Check out the podcast episode with Truitt: “Virtual Fellowship for Isolated Believers“ Check out the other talks in this Apologetics Conference For more, here’s an entire Apologetics Class Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Have you ever been in a corn maze?  The reason they work is because you can only see right in front of you.  If you had a live drone feed, you could easily orient yourself and find the way out.  This is the benefit of history.  We live in a postmodern culture, but it’s hard to see or understand what that means since we’re surrounded with it.  In this exceptional presentation, Kegan Chandler guides us through the history of premodernism, modernism, and postmodernism so that we can orient ourselves to how many people in our world think and approach life.  Not only will this give you a drones-eye perspective of our current situation, but it also will help you understand how to better share your faith with postmodern people. —— Notes —— Metanarratives and Postmodernism (Kegan Chandler) What is postmodernism? How in the world did we get here? Where do we go from here? Postmodernism is a worldview based on French philosophers, Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard w/ these four characteristics: no objective truth (Derrida) only interpretations (Derrida) no meta-narrative (Lyotard) interpretation in society results from power not truth (Foulcault) meta-narrative: overarching account that provides a pattern or structure for ppls beliefs and experiences postmodernist mission: deconstruction identify social constructs in the world and break them down if everything is deconstructed, what do we fill it with? our experiences community First Star Wars w/ Luke vs. last star wars w/ Luke, deconstructs everything premodernism belief in objective truth problem: priestly class determines truth problem: superstition authority structure suffocated learning and creativity Renaissance was a way to recover art and classics that the church had suppressed premodernism crumbles Reformation Galileo defeats Aristotle (dropping 2 lead balls from leaning tower of Piza) this challenges authority of Aristotle heliocentricity also challenges church’s imprimatur of Ptolemaic geocentricity modernism rejection of authority time and numbers don’t guarantee truth reason alone can find truth naïve optimism (holocaust, communism, eugenics) epistemological revolution, exalting empiricism, which reduced miraculous to superstition we can save the world if we just apply reason and science postmodernism glad that modernism rejected authority reject the idea that human institutions and states can save us only the individual can be free get rid of objective truth to build our own realities rejection of meta-narratives distrust that reason can bring enlightenment or satisfaction pomo is good for Christianity b/c it defeat naïve secular utopian dreams defeats empiricisms accepts supernatural, transcendent ennobles the individual’s journey of discovery problems w/ postmodernism the statement “there is no objective truth” is self-defeating you can always disagree, saying “that’s just your interpretation” I can just say “pomo is wrong” and no one can disagree b/c then they would have to appeal to objective reality just b/c everyone has their own interpretation doesn’t mean that there isn’t one correct one on any given subject a post-postmodernism worldview belief in objective truth belief in the right authoritative sources of truth (scripture) value reason, but don’t believe it alone can lead is into truth also need revelation true human happiness is only available when Christ returns a worldview built on hope —— Links —— Visit Kegan Chandler’s websites thegodofjesus.com and burieddeepblog.wordpress.com Listen to other podcasts with Kegan Chandler Check out the other talks in this Apologetics Conference For more, here’s an entire Apologetics Class Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.  

How should we think through the different major religions of our time? Are they all the same? What are their differences? In this presentation, philosopher of religion, Dale Tuggy, works through key questions that can help us differentiate and distinguish religions from each other. In the second half of his talk, he invites the audience to diagnose various quasi-religious perspectives popular in our culture, before offering comments on each.     —— Links —— Visit Dale Tuggy’s website and podcast at trinities.org Listen to other podcasts with Dale Tuggy Check out the other talks in this Apologetics Conference For more, here’s an entire Apologetics Class Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Kenny Willenburg How do you know the difference between what’s right and wrong?  Do morals have an absolute source or does society determine them?  In this talk, Kenny Willenburg explains the classic moral argument as well as how we can use this approach to “turn the tables” when people object to Christianity on moral grounds.  I’ve also left in a fair amount of discussion following Willenburg’s presentation. —— Notes —— if morals are objective then they are obligatory there must be a source for morals the most reasonable source is God if there is no God, there couldn’t be objective morality Richard Dawkins (God Delusion) – God of the OT is jealous, petty, control freak, etc. three problems saying God is immoral doesn’t disprove God’s existence ? Hitler didn’t exist b/c the things he did were too bad saying the creator is evil is arrogant ? if there is a creator then he would have the right to interact w/ creation however he wanted can’t claim God is immoral b/c w/o God’s existence there’s no standard by which to judge God relativism is taught in our culture as the only absolute truth tolerant of anything but intolerance can’t push religious ideas on others, but that is pushing secularism on us no one is allowed to criticize anyone’s actions sources for morality morality can’t be individually determined morality can’t be socially constructed ? actually, our culture got its ideas from a Judea-Christian background ? thus, this proves what the non-theist is trying to disprove morality comes from nature (i.e. Darwinian evolution) ? how is self-sacrificial care of the weak/unproductive helpful to the herd? ? morals are simply evolutionary hold overs ? not clear how this is obligatory —— Links —— Check out the other talks in this Apologetics Conference For more, here’s an entire Apologetics Class Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

In the second presentation of this Apologetics Conference, we delve into a comparison of three major time periods: (1) the age of authority, (2) the age of reason, and (3) the age of authenticity.  We look at how people practiced their faith in each as well as what criticisms apologists answered.  For our post-modern time, I recommend the strategy of discussing a social issue, showing how our society is failing to address it, and how Christianity can offer a solution.  Last of all we try out this strategy on a number of controversial issues, including gun violence, sexual harassment, and  technology use. Here is the handout I used: Apologetics Handout (Kentucky KY young adult weekend)Download —— Links —— Check out the other talks in this Apologetics Conference For more, here’s an entire Apologetics Class Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Today we are starting something new. I’m very excited to present to you in its entirety, the apologetics conference held in Paducah, KY last June. We’ve got a great line up of speakers for you including Jerry Wierwille, myself, Kenny Willenburg, Dale Tuggy, Kegan Chandler, and John Truitt. It was a wonderful time of meeting people and working together to figure out ways of reaching the millennial generation with the gospel. As it turned out, a great majority of the presentations focused on understanding the post-modern worldview. This was so helpful, because it’s nearly impossible to discuss important issues if both people are unaware of the fact that they are each coming from incompatible worldviews. Although, for many of us, our natural inclination is to show someone why their underlying assumptions are invalid, a better starting point for evangelism is to work within their post-modern outlook to show how attractive and awesome the gospel is. In this first presentation, Jerry Wierwille covers a brief history of how major philosophers initiated a movement that led to sequestering away of faith as something personal and private.  Then he shares how to broach spiritual topics with secular people around us. His talk is relatively short, only 34 minutes long, but I also included the questions and comments, which went for another half hour. —— Links —— Listen to Jerry Wierwille’s previous interviews here Check out these sermons and articles on Wierwille’s website (JerryWierwille.com) More info about KingdomFest (Sep 7-9, 2018) For John Truitt’s Virtual Church email him at [email protected], visit him on YouTube, or listen to this interview To connect with other isolated biblical unitarians in your area, email Robin Todd at [email protected] or visit the Scattered Brethren Network Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.  

How much does truth matter to you?  In particular, how should we think about Christians who hold very different views on key subjects?  For example, I’m a biblical unitarian, someone who believes that we should take Jesus literally when he called his Father “the only true God.”  Of course I believe Jesus is God’s only begotten son, the anointed Messiah who died for our sins, but I don’t affirm the fourth century doctrine of the Trinity.  Some Christians would call me a heretic beyond the pale of fellowship or even salvation (even if I do believe the gospel message with all my heart).  Others would say I’m deceived but would have no problem working together in various areas.  Chuck Whitlock, a bible student, husband, and father of five has been wrestling with precisely these questions over the last 5 or so years.  Having grown up in strong evangelical denominations his whole life, he had to rethink his relationship with mainstream Christianity when he began changing several of his key beliefs.  In this interview, we discuss various ways to think about this issue, based on Whitlock’s paper (see below).  He steaks out a balanced position between writing everyone off who disagrees with him and accepting everyone as brothers and sisters without regard for their beliefs. —— Links —— Read Chuck Whitlock’s entire paper below Email him at [email protected] Check out his blacksmith forges For Dale Tuggy’s presentation on John Locke’s minimalist definition of Christians based on the simple confession that Jesus is Messiah, see Heretic! Four Approaches to Dropping H-Bombs For more on biblical unitarianism, check out these podcasts, especially Podcast 44: The Immutable Shema as well as christianmonotheism.com More info about KingdomFest (Sep 7-9, 2018) Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.   Does Truth Matter? Truth matters! … but how much?   Introduction: There is a significant distance between the Biblical Unitarian faith and ‘orthodoxy’ in its various forms. If you haven’t come to this conclusion, just try to advance the idea that Jesus is not God and see what kind of reception this gets:)  Even less divisive topics, such as resurrection or the gospel of the kingdom, meet with great opposition. The apparent incompatibility between Biblical Unitarianism and ‘orthodoxy’ causes one to wonder what it means that other Christians don’t seem to be interested in the truths we’ve discovered. Both parties reference the same book and so there is something very familiar in ‘orthodoxy’. A little scholarship shows us how ‘orthodoxy’ represents the Hellenization of the original Jewish Christian faith.  Most of the terms and characters are retained but the meanings are either co-opted or obscured such that, today, in very real terms, they have a different Jesus, a different God, and a different Gospel.    How much does that matter? What does it mean?   Who is saved?: I recognize that this bumps into the impossible question of who is truly saved.  That subject shadows this topic, but because we don’t have access to such binary solutions I’m going to side step that question and focus on how elevating the significance of the truth affects our relationship with the ‘orthodox’ and the scriptures. Even if we can’t know who is saved, we still have to adopt a stance that assumes either; -the ‘orthodox’ are brothers (though in error), who are therefore close to us, or, -they are quite distant, and possibly outside all together, to be approached like any other heathen.   The questions: Should we consider those with a self confessed different God, Savior, Gospel, and Hope, our brothers? In doing so are we subtlety affirming a falsehood?  By treating them as brothers do we fail to adequately warn them of the danger they are in?  Are they in danger?   There is a mutual incompatibility in saying the truth of God really matters, and including as brothers all ‘Christians’ who do not have those truths. If you elevate the significance of truth you automatically take to task those who deny it. If they are brothers then the truth can’t matter that much.   Since you can’t know who is actually your brother, are we talking about social issues?  Affiliation and association?  Perhaps it is about who we TREAT as brother.  Is it possible to know that some are saved  and are being saved in the ‘orthodox’ camp, but refuse to associate because of their great error? . What does it mean that so few are interested in the truth? The Biblical Unitarian position is obvious and rests on solid foundations, yet very few ‘orthodox’ folks are interested. Why?   Two positions on the relationship between truth and salvation: Looking into the scriptures in order to determine if we are being faithful to the Apostles in who we call ‘brother’, there seems to be a spectrum of evidence;   The Low Bar: The inclusive position takes note of the formulas for salvation in the scriptures that are simple.   Rom 10:9-17 NIV  That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.    Joh 3:16 NIV  “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  John 6:47 NIV I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.   Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved (Acts 2, Acts 16).  This is magnificently inclusive, and unless you insist on qualifying what ‘belief in Jesus’ means, it would include just about every Christian and pseudo-Christian group out there. This position would make the differences between us and ‘orthodoxy’ a matter of degree.  Perhaps we have journeyed further into the truth than they have, but we are both in the same family and are on the same journey.   The inclusive perspective would view ‘orthodoxy’ as something that is relatively intact with only the need for improvement.   The Exclusive Position: There are other passages that describe a much more exclusive view of the truth.   1Co 15:1-4 NIV  Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.  (2)  By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.   Paul is clear that he believes salvation comes through the specific word he preached, without which the aspirant has no hope.   Gal 1:6-9 NIV  (9)  As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!   Paul is not sanguine about ‘a different gospel’ in Galatians either.  He damns the preacher of another gospel repeatedly, leaving no doubt about the significance of the truth in his eyes.  If modifications to the gospel held no peril, why the vehemence?   1Jn 4:5-6 NIV  They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them.  (6)  We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.   John is unapologetic about knowing and representing God’s truth.  He tests others by whether or not they listen to him, declaring them ‘not from God’ if they will not listen.   2Jn 1:9-11 ISV  Everyone who does not remain true to the teaching of the Messiah, but goes beyond it, does not have God. The person who remains true to the teaching of the Messiah has both the Father and the Son.  (10)  If anyone comes to you but does not present his teachings, do not receive him into your house or even welcome him,  (11)  because the one who welcomes him shares in his evil deeds.     John, having just spoken about the centrality of love, rejects anyone who does not ‘remain true to the teaching of the Messiah’, and commands a strong social separation lest you ‘share in his evil deeds’.   It is interesting to imagine transporting Peter, Paul, or John to our day to watch their reaction to the state of Christianity.  Personally I can only imagine them to be distraught and impassioned over how very far we’ve drifted from what they were faithful to preach. There can be no doubt that “three who are god” is not Yahweh, the incarnate god hybrid is not Jesus, and heaven for immortal souls is not the gospel…  ‘orthodoxy’ has not remained true to the teaching of Messiah. Argument: The Biblical Unitarian distinctive seems to be the approach to scripture that tries to understand and respond to the true voice of Jesus and His Apostles, to believe what they believed. With such a foundation, the convictions of the Apostles must be our guide or we risk hypocrisy. This is the heart of my argument; the same method and foundation that leads to the gospel of the kingdom and a unitary theology and a ‘second Adam’ christology, also dictates separation from those who contradict the words of the Apostles.   As uncomfortable as it might be, can we be true to God and call ‘brother’ someone with a ‘three who are god’ god, a god/man hybrid messiah, and a heavenly hope for immortal souls (let alone the eternal fiery roasting of the damned)? If we call the ‘orthodox’ brothers, I don’t think we can be true to Jesus and His Apostles.   What did the Apostles really believe?: Unless the scriptures are in conflict with one another, harmonizing them suggests the exclusive position is a better reflection of the Apostles views.  This means that we are forced to qualify ‘belief in Jesus’ in order to reconcile it with the more adamant teachings.  ‘Belief in Jesus’ must then become synonymous with ‘listening to John’ and ‘holding firmly’ to the gospel Paul preached, and ultimately, clinging to ‘the words of Messiah’ Counter Argument: Perhaps you can grant the Apostles their vehemency, but define what they are upset about to be something other than the points Unitarians and ‘orthodoxy’ disagree on.  Perhaps it is enough to have an ‘orthodox’ understanding of God, Jesus, and the Gospel, as long as you retain elements such as ‘salvation by grace through faith’ and aren’t legalistic.  Maybe what they meant by ‘another gospel’ was something more extreme than the differences between Unitarians and ‘orthodoxy’, something more like the Unitarian Universalist’s beliefs. Is it valid to include the errors of ‘orthodoxy’ in the ‘another gospel’ category that had Paul so upset? It seems to me that getting the nature of God, His Son, and His promises wrong qualifies if anything does.   The real problem: There is a cultural affinity between Biblical Unitarians and ‘orthodoxy’ that works both for and against us.  We could easily mistake the similarities for actual fellowship.  This is complicated all the more by the ignorance and lack of clarity within the ‘orthodox’ camp.  Generally they are terrible trinitarians, leaning toward modalism most of the time, their ideas about the destiny of the Saints are muddled and can seemingly accommodate our views (unless you tell them they are not inherently eternal), and the Kingdom is so vague in their minds the conflict is one of finding a functional definition rather than competing views. The fact that the ‘orthodox’ might accidentally agree with you does not fix the problem, because the real problems are epistemology and discipleship, not the actual points of doctrine.   Foundations: The Biblical Unitarian position rests on a foundation of ‘believing what Jesus and the Apostles believed’.  It is a position that rejects the idea that ‘Biblical’ means ‘any idea you can find words in the Bible to support‘. It is not valid to use the words of the Apostles to support ideas they themselves did not have. This is the true gulf between Biblical Unitarians and ‘orthodoxy’. The answer to the meaning of the distance between us, when we seem to have so much in common, is this division of loyalties.  How can ‘orthodoxy’ promote a post Apostolic theory, that has no clear teaching in scripture, as a doctrine necessary for salvation?  They do it by abandoning loyalty to the Apostles and promoting the Church and its creeds and traditions as the ultimate authority on doctrine.  The trinity is the acid test of ‘orthodoxy’ because it is a test of loyalty to the Church.  If you will submit yourself to mystery, you are well prepared to bow your knee to the enlightened priests of that church.   Discipleship: The pursuit of truth is a discipleship issue.  As a follower of Jesus, you are supposed to care about what He thought, taught, and commanded.  When you claim to love God you must also demonstrate that you listen to Him.   For those of us who left ‘orthodoxy’, our accomplishment is not a great intellectual feat (though there is some work to be done).  Our discoveries are in fact the most basic facts of the faith.  Congratulations!  With years of study and the application of your penetrating intellect,  you have discovered that God is One and Jesus is His Son!!  No, our accomplishment is a triumph of devotion, our willingness to pay the social price for challenging those defining doctrines and being willing to cross the line for Messiah’s sake.  We were willing to go where ever the truth took us.  Our boast should be in our humility:) We should not take from the ‘orthodox’ the burden of discipleship by pretending there is no great distance between us.     Humility: Much of this argument rests on the level of confidence you have in knowing that you possess the truth. Do you know? I’m not sure that academic self doubt and scholarly skepticism has a place in presenting the truth.  Saying ‘I might be wrong’ does seem humble, but…   …ARE YOU WRONG? If we aren’t wrong, we need the boldness that comes with that solid foundation. Yes, we were wrong in the past, and, no, we are not infallible.  Its not about arrogance, it is about humbly receiving what was handed down to us. Is what we believe clearly communicated?  Do we possess supernatural reading comprehension?  No, we are merely believing what another wrote to us.  In this case, the humble position is to acknowledge that you are right in simply believing the Apostles.   Balance: To be clear, while I advocate NOT calling the ‘orthodox’ brothers because it cheapens truth and likely puts us at odds with the Apostles, I’m also NOT suggesting that we relegate them to a derogatory category. If we divorce ourselves from the ‘orthodox’ family, do we then have to declare them our enemies?  I don’t think that is how it works.  A lack of love on our part would suggest we do not possess the truth. Can we pursue the truth fully while humbly acknowledging that we don’t know who is saved? Surely it is possible to both hold a high view of truth, AND to allow our ignorance of peoples hearts and their ultimate destiny remain.   We need to recognize and value the attempts of others to follow God as they understand Him AND challenge them to a better understanding.   There are hard hearted wicked souls in the ‘orthodox’ camp too.  You might not get burned at the stake these days, but we should recognize the limits when we reach them.  It is not true that everyone in ‘orthodoxy’ is waiting eagerly for the Biblical Unitarian truth to be revealed.   I’m not promoting bullish dogmatism or unkind closed mindedness.  I’m suggesting we be less distracted by ‘orthodoxy’ and more free of it.   Being a Biblical Unitarian is no guarantee that your name is in the Lamb’s Book of Life.  It is possible to have the facts of the faith correct and miss the heart of it.   A highly polished set of doctrines does not a living faith make.  Doctrinal purity may actually be lower on God’s list than loving kindness, victory over sin, and a heart of faith.   We all started with a simple faith in a God who loves us and offers us life in His Son… a free gift received by faith.  Was it enough?  Was it invalid because it happened in an ‘orthodox’ church?  Did we need a comprehensive biblical theology at that moment?   Is there an important distinction between seeking God and seeking the truth about Him?   1Co 8:1-3 NIV  Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.  (2)  The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.  (3)  But the man who loves God is known by God. Ironically, it seems possible to focus on knowledge to the point of ignorance and error. Many of us with a history in ”orthodoxy” can attest to the fact that we were sincere disciples long before coming to the truth of the One God.  God disciplined and grew us for many years before unitary insights came.   I’m not tempted to believe our conversion experiences were invalid or that our years of service count for nothing.   I’m confident that there is a process component to ‘being saved’. There is plenty of room for patience, recognizing the sometimes lengthy process that is involved in exiting false doctrines. Any stance, however doctrinally pure, that is arrogant or self righteous, that throws out ‘anathemas’ in all directions, is not a reflection of the true faith either.   Identity: Part of the question of how to relate to ‘orthodoxy’ is about identity. For those of us who have left orthodoxy there is more than a bit of an identity crisis.  There is no alternate thriving and available institution to join and it leaves us out in the cold.  Perhaps there is a similar experience for JW’s who awaken to the Biblical Unitarian faith.  It is as though we can’t avoid relating to what we left, as though there were an irresistible urge to fix it.  It seems as though we have had an identity something like ‘post orthodox’ or ‘previously orthodox’, (or in the case of my family, ‘heretic’) or some other blend that doesn’t quite stand on its own, always having some reference to ‘orthodoxy’.  (I’ve used the parenthetical ‘orthodox’ this entire document, because that is their identity, but I’m not willing to grant them that high ground.) The Biblical Unitarian crowd that I’ve encountered so far is very much missing that rugged, vivid, and self standing identity.  Rummaging around in history doesn’t seem to provide it, and classic Unitarian denominations don’t quite do it either.   We need that solid identity.  My children need something besides ‘heretic’ as their Christian label (though they do enjoy the irony). There is something  broadly appealing in a bold and authoritative stance.  It suggests that the truth is alive in us.  If we truly do know who we serve, if His promises have taken hold in our hearts, there is no room for an alliance with (or apology to) the misinformed.  Our identity needs to be distinct from ‘orthodoxy’ in every way. There is more to following God than constantly worrying over the trinity or whatever else separates us from ‘orthodoxy’.  Identities bases on opposition (anti-this, anti-that) are stunted and stunting. We need to adopt our healthy post-‘orthodoxy’ identity, wrest the word ‘Christian’ away from them, and get on with it.   Finally: Does ‘orthodoxy’ just need ‘sprucing up’?  A bit of paint here and there, some polish perhaps? If we can’t call ‘orthodoxy’ false, what do we have to offer them? The greatest adversary of Jesus’ ministry was the religious establishment of His day… those that claimed to have an interest in God, to represent Him and the things of God.  Sound familiar? As in Jesus day, the problem between us and ‘orthodoxy’ is fundamentally one of loyalty; ‘church authority’ on the one hand and Apostolic doctrine found in the scriptures on the other. You are not going to get along with the ‘orthodox’ if you insist on Apostolic truth. You will only ‘fellowship’ if you are willing to compromise in some way.   Practically, you can not fellowship when your ideas are incompatible.  You can have a semblance of fellowship with the ‘orthodox’ by constantly running a translator in your head, and ultimately, by keeping your mouth shut, which is no fellowship at all.   If you treat the ‘orthodox’ as brother, it lowers the tension between truth and falsehood and subtly undermines the impulse to minister to them (they don’t really need it after all).  It assumes they are not in peril, a position that doesn’t account for the vehemence of the Apostles and the teachings of Jesus.   Inclusiveness undermines our care and concern for them, even though the foreign doctrinal system of ‘orthodoxy’ cuts its adherents off from the sanctifying power of the Good News!   Where does the power to ‘purify yourself’ come from when you fail to believe that you will be ‘like Him’ when He appears (if you even believe He will appear)!?  How can you make ‘every effort’ to add “goodness, self-control, and brotherly love” when you are cut off from His ‘divine power’ because of your lack of knowledge of His ‘precious promises’?!   There is a great gulf between Biblical Unitarians and ‘orthodoxy’.  It is true that most orthodox evangelicals today would find our position very familiar should they ever make the journey, but we should not make the mistake of underestimating that journeys distance or difficulty.   Our message to the ‘orthodox’, as well as the heathen, should be ‘repent and believe’, something we are unlikely to say to a brother.   We need to become less distracted by the various ‘orthodox’ churches of today, less jealous of their institutional successes.  We need to fully detach ourselves from compromised faiths and boldly go on with the truth.   If this is an unsatisfying treatment of these subjects I do apologize.  It is merely the truth of my personal struggle revealed. Chuck Whitlock [email protected]

Are you looking for a Christian blog to encourage you in your faith?  In this short interview Kirk Walden shares about his new website, 1stfaith.com, and the work he and his team are doing to live out 1st century Christianity in the 21st century.  First Faith aims to simplify and strengthen your faith so you can take the next step in your journey with God. —— Links —— Visit 1st Faith at 1stfaith.com Check out Jennifer Walden’s fine articles “Buried Desires” and “When Life Sucks, Jesus Carries Us“ More about Kirk Walden’s pro-life work here Listen to his earlier interview, “Advocating for the Unborn“ Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Kirk Walden has been advocating for the lives of the unborn since 1991 when he became the director of a small pregnancy help center in Auburn, Alabama.  Over the last 17 years, he’s focused on fundraising for Heartbeat International, which supports pregnancy centers, adoption agencies, and maternity homes.  In this interview I ask him about how he talks to both Christians and non-Christians about this sensitive and emotionally explosive issue.  He lays out his case using biblical and scientific reasoning, but what really comes through strongest is his incredible sense of compassion for those who find themselves in this situation. —— Links —— More about Kirk Walden here Get a copy of his book, The Wall, on Amazon Find out more about Heartbeat International Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

This is part 6 of the Calvinism Debate Can you lose your salvation?  If God saves someone, will they always persevere?  What about people who leave the church?  These are important questions and they are at the heart of this last discussion on Calvinism.  Blake affirms that after regeneration, absolutely nothing can separate someone from God’s saving love.  Jacob denies “once save always saved,” putting forward instead that the warning passages in the bible make the most sense if someone can actually fall away. Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll. —— Links —— Check out the other posts in this Calvinism debate here More info about Jacob and Blake here See Jacob Roher’s interview on the gospel or watch his sermon, “How to Treat Other Christians.”  His email is [email protected] See Blake Cortright’s podcast on spiritual disciplines as well as how to quit pornography.  Follow him on Twitter @blakecortright Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

When God calls you, can you say, “No?” According to Calvinism, God’s grace is irresistible, meaning when he determines to save someone, he always achieves his goal. In other words, his call is always effectual.  On the other side, Arminianism teaches that God offers grace, but people can freely choose to accept it or reject it.  His call is general and people respond differently. —— Links —— Check out the other posts in this Calvinism debate here More info about Jacob and Blake here See Jacob Roher’s interview on the gospel or watch his sermon, “How to Treat Other Christians.”  His email is [email protected] See Blake Cortright’s podcast on spiritual disciplines as well as how to quit pornography.  Follow him on Twitter @blakecortright Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Did Jesus die to make it possible for anyone to be saved or did he only die for the elect? In this discussion between Blake Cortright and Jacob Rohrer, they discuss this important issue and how it relates to evangelism. Blake affirms limited atonement while Jacob argues that Jesus died for sinners in general. Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll. —— Links —— Read my biblical and historical survey of the atonement, called Why Did Jesus Die?, or watch the video presentation.  Also check out these other posts on the subject. Check out the other posts in this Calvinism debate here More info about Jacob and Blake here See Jacob Roher’s interview on the gospel or watch his sermon, “How to Treat Other Christians.”  His email is [email protected] See Blake Cortright’s podcast on spiritual disciplines as well as how to quit pornography.  Follow him on Twitter @blakecortright Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Does God predestine everyone who will ever be saved before they’re even born?  Blake affirms that not only does God choose whom he will save in eternity past, but he did so without regard to any conditions or qualities of what these people will do.  Jacob denies, arguing that everyone has free will to choose God or reject him.  God does predestine, but in a general rather than specific way. Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll. —— Links —— Check out the other posts in this debate here More info about Jacob and Blake here See Jacob Roher’s interview on the gospel or watch his sermon, “How to Treat Other Christians.”  His email is [email protected] See Blake Cortright’s podcast on spiritual disciplines as well as how to quit pornography.  Follow him on Twitter @blakecortright Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Just how fallen are we? What does it mean to be dead in trespasses and sins? Are we so depraved and mired in sin that we cannot even have faith in God? Blake Cortright says answers, “Yes.” Unless God quickens us through his spirit, we are innately unable and unwilling to reach up to him in faith. Jacob Rohrer says, “No.” Though we are fallen, we are still capable of responding to God’s call. Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll. —— Links —— See Jacob Roher’s interview on the gospel or watch his sermon, “How to Treat Other Christians.”  His email is [email protected] See Blake Cortright’s podcast on spiritual disciplines as well as how to quit pornography.  Follow him on Twitter @blakecortright Check out Living Hope Community Church and Lawrenceville Church of God Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Today we begin an extended series on Calvinism and Arminianism.  For those of you not familiar, Calvinism, named after John Calvin (d. 1564), holds that God sovereignly chooses and effectually saves all whom he decides to save based on his predestined will whereas Arminianism, named for Jacobus Arminius (d. 1609), asserts that people freely choose to accept or reject the gospel message that God graciously offers to all.  Traditionally, Calvinism breaks into five major points, summarized by the acronym, TULIP, which stands for the following: Total Depravity Unconditional Election Limited Atonement Irresistible Grace Perseverance of the Saints In this episode we begin by laying down the framework for future discussions.  Subsequent episodes will each take up one of these five points of Calvinism. Jacob Rohrer Holding the Arminian position is Jacob Rohrer, a graduate of the Atlanta Bible College. At the time of this recording he served as the Lead Worship Pastor of Living Hope Community Church in Latham, New York. Now he serves as the Assistant Pastor and Worship Leader at Lawrenceville Church of God in Springfield, Ohio. Blake Cortright On the Calvinist side, Blake Cortright graduated from Regent University in Virginia. He serves in missions work to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and leads worship at Living Hope Community Church in Latham, New York. Cortright also wrote and directed The 46ers, a documentary about the high peaks in the Adirondacks of New York State. Sean Finnegan is the moderator.  He serves as the Associate Pastor at Living Hope Community Church and has degrees in theology (B.A., Atlanta Bible College) and church history (M.T.S., Boston University). You can find out more about Sean here. Our aim in this initial episode is to briefly discuss the origins of Calvinism and Arminianism, as well as their predecessors.  Additionally we urge listeners to have an open mind going forward, regardless of which side of the issue you are approaching it from.  Don’t confuse the value of an idea with the person’s name associated with it (the genetic fallacy).  Instead measure the theology against scripture, logic, and life experience.  Pray and ask God to help you understand his book. Here is proof that discussing deep theology and leading worship are not mutually exclusive. In this shot, Jacob is on the drums and Blake is playing guitar at Living Hope Community Church. Subsequent episodes will be audio only and appear on http://restitutio.org/tag/calvinism-debate each Thursday at 8pm EST, starting on May 31, 2018 and following. —— Links —— See Jacob Roher’s interview on the gospel or watch his sermon, “How to Treat Other Christians.”  His email is [email protected] See Blake Cortright’s podcast on spiritual disciplines as well as how to quit pornography.  Follow him on Twitter @blakecortright Check out Living Hope Community Church and Lawrenceville Church of God Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Last time, Jerry Wierwille explained the concept of covenantal nomism–the idea that rather than seeking to earn their salvation through perfect obedience, Jews at the time of Christ looked at the Law as a covenant God graciously entered into with his people.  They enter that covenant by birth and then need to remain faithful to it through obedience to Torah.  This time he shows how this new perspective on Paul affects how we read his epistles.  Looking at the first few chapters of Galatians, Wierwille deciphers what Paul was saying about the Law for Christians both Jewish and Gentile. —— Links —— Listen to Wierwille’s previous interviews here Check out these sermons and articles on Wierwille’s website (JerryWierwille.com) Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

How did Jews at the time of Jesus understand their relationship to the Law?  Did they believe in “works righteousness”–the idea that only by obeying the commandments of Torah could they earn salvation?  Did they believe in grace?  Jerry Wierwille leads us through this important issue so that we contextualize the epistles of Paul within their own thought-world.  Drawing on the work of Krister Stendahl, E. P. Sanders, and James D. G. Dunn, Wierwille presents the view known as covenantal nomism, often associated with the new perspective on Paul. —— Links —— Listen to more Restitutio interviews here Check out these sermons and articles on Wierwille’s website (JerryWierwille.com) Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Pastor Daniel Calcagno lays out a his case for what he calls a positive view of Torah. He believes that the cleavage with Judaism in early church history is something the apostles never envisioned. Sadly, this parting of the ways led to confusion, doctrinal drifting, and persecution. Although Calcagno does not believe Gentiles need to keep the Law, he sees no reason for Jews to stop observing Torah. Here are his notes: TOWARDS A POSITIVE VIEW OF THE TORAH by Daniel Calcagno Restoring the Jewish Identity Markers to the Church The Hebrew word “torah” means “instruction” and refers primarily to the first five books of the Bible but more specifically can refer to the commandments of God in those books. In this podcast, Daniel attempted to show that it is biblical and proper for a disciple of Jesus to have a positive view of the Torah, specifically those elements of the Torah that are usually associated with Jewish identity (i.e. the Sabbath, the festivals, keeping kosher, etc.). The Torah’s own presentation of the enduring nature of the commandments associated with Jewish identity: The Sabbath: Exodus 31:13 Passover: Exodus 12:14 The Day of Atonement: Leviticus 16:29 The Aaronic priesthood: Exodus 29:9 Sign of a False Prophet: Deuteronomy 13:1-5 Positive Statements about the Torah in the rests of the Hebrew Scriptures: Psalm 19; Psalm 119; Joshua 1:7-8; Jeremiah 9:12-13; Malachi 4:4; Ecclesiastes 12:13. Jesus and the Apostles were Torah-observant: The Sabbath: Luke 4:16-17; Mark 1:21; Luke 23:56 Passover: Luke 22:15-20; 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 Pentecost: Acts 2:1; Acts 20:16, 1 Corinthians 16:8-9 The Day of Atonement: Acts 27:9 The Feast of Booths: John 7:2, 10, 14, 37 Hanukkah (extra-biblical Jewish holiday): John 10:22-23 Daily Jewish Prayer: Acts 2:42, 3:1, 6:4 Liturgical Blessings: Matthew 14:19-20, 26:27; Acts 27:35 Tzitzit: Matthew 9:20-21 Keeping Kosher: Acts 10:14 Circumcision: Luke 1:59-60, 2:21, Philippians 3:5, Acts 16:3 Offering Sacrifices: Acts 24:17 Baptism/Ritual Immersion: Acts 2:41, 9:18 They Torah will be observed in the kingdom: Isaiah 2:3; Isaiah 66:23; Ezekiel 45:17; Zechariah 14:16-17; Isaiah 56:6-8 Positive Statements about the Torah by Jesus: Matthew 5:17-19; Matthew 23:23 Paul was a Torah-observant Jew: Paul was born to Jewish parents: Philippians 3:5 His name was both Saul and Paul: Acts 13:9 Paul was educated under Rabbi Gamaliel: Acts 22:3 Paul attended synagogue on the Sabbath: Acts 17:2-3, 18:3-5 He said that served God “…believing everything that is in accordance with the Torah…” (Acts 24:14). He testified that he had “…committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews” (Acts 25:8). He was NOT teaching the Jewish people to forsake Moses, to not circumcise their children, nor keep Jewish tradition. James said about Paul: “…there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Torah.” (Acts 21:24). Positive Statements about the Torah by Paul: Paul said “…it is not the hearers of the Torah who are just before God, but the doers of the Torah will be justified.” (Romans 2:13). He said “Do we then nullify the Torah through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Torah.” (Romans 3:31). He said “the Torah is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” (Romans 7:12). He said “…I joyfully concur with the Torah of God in the inner man” (Romans 7:22). He said “…the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the Torah of God…” (Romans 8:7). In Romans 9:4, he listed the giving of the Torah as one of the blessings God has given to Israel. In 1 Corinthians 7:19, he said that “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.” (1 Corinthians 7:19), which I believe means that Jewish and Gentile identity don’t matter as long one is faithful to the commandments God requires each to keep. He said that followers of Jesus were not “…without the law of God but under the law of Christ,” (1 Corinthians 9:21) which I believe means the Torah as taught by Christ. Paul charged Timothy to “…keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Timothy 6:14). The phrase “the Commandment” was used by Paul to refer to the Torah in Romans 7 and is found in Psalm 19:8 referring to the Torah. Paul said to Timothy that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness,” (1 Timothy 3:16), “all Scripture,” of course, includes the Torah. The importance of the salvation of the Jewish people and how having a positive view of the Torah might affect that. In Romans 1:16, Paul said that the Gospel is a message firstly for Jewish people. And he said in Romans 9:3 that he would give up his own salvation for the salvation of the Jewish people. In Matthew 23:39, Jesus said to the Jewish people that they won’t see him again until they say “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Matthew 23:39). And Paul said this in Romans 11: “For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (Romans 11:15). I believe that when the Jewish people embrace Jesus as the Messiah, it will bring about the kingdom. A major reason why the Jewish people reject Jesus as the Messiah is they believe that he is a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 13. The Jewish people will never accept Jesus as the Messiah if we continue to present him and Paul as teachers who taught against the Torah. ANSWERING OBJECTIONS Objection: “We’re saved by grace, so we don’t need to keep the Law.” Answer: Salvation has always been by grace through faith. The Torah does not save you; it provides God’s people with a way of life. The Apostolic message of salvation by grace through faith is based on the Hebrew Scriptures: Isaiah 53:10; Psalm 16:10; 2 Timothy 3:15; Galatians 3:6-9. The Torah Points to Jesus: Luke 24:25-27; 44-47; John 5:46-47; Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:24. The people before Jesus were not saved by keeping the commandments or through the sacrifices, but were saved by grace through faith: Galatians 2:21; Hebrews 10:4; 11:39; John 14:6. Jesus proclaimed that “…Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56) and, in Galatians 3:6-9, the Apostle Paul taught that Abraham was saved by faith. “…if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Galatians 2:21) “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” (Hebrews 10:4) The animal sacrifices were for the purpose of securing ritual purity so that the believer could draw near to God in worship at the Temple in Jerusalem. This is why the death of Jesus is likened unto a sacrifice (cf. 1 Peter 1:18-19), since his death secures eternal salvation so that the believer can be forgiven of their sins and gain immortality in the resurrection. The death of the Messiah did not do away with the animal sacrifices because the animal sacrifices would still serve the same purpose today if the Temple were to be rebuilt. The letter to the Hebrews does not teach that the Law is done away with or that the Temple/Aaronic priesthood are done away with. Hebrews teaches that the Jerusalem Temple/Aaronic priesthood/animal sacrifices are for this age, but the sacrifice of Jesus and the priesthood of Melchizedek in the heavens are for the age to come. He even says in Hebrews 2:5 that it is the age to come that they are speaking about. Objection: We’re in the New Covenant now, we don’t need to keep the Law. Answer: The New Covenant does not replace any of the previous covenants. Abrahamic: blessings, many descendants, the land of Israel forever, etc. (Genesis 12:1-3, 7; 15; 17:1-14). Sinai: blessings for obedience/curses for disobedience to the Torah (Exodus 19; 24; Deuteronomy 27-29). David: a descendant of David will rule as king over Israel forever as long as he is obedient to God’s commandments (2 Samuel 7:9-16). Israel’s failure to keep the Sinai covenant does not invalidate the covenant made with Abraham (Galatians 3:15-17) and every new generation has the opportunity to keep the Sinai covenant. In fact, the New Covenant is an agreement made with Israel that consists of promises made by God that He will forgive Israel of their sins, enter into relationship with each person among Israel, and write the Torah on their hearts, causing them to obey His commandments (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:24-28). When the New Covenant is fully realized, Israel will finally become faithful to the Sinai covenant as a nation, which will ensure the regathering of the exiles back to the land of Israel, blessing in the land of Israel, a rebuilt Temple, and the Davidic king, Jesus the Messiah, reigning over them. In other words, in the Messianic era and beyond, all previous covenant promises will be finally and fully realized. All true believers in every generation have received a spiritual foretaste of this coming reality (Ephesians 1:13-14). None of God’s covenants are the “old covenant” in the sense that Paul used the term in the one place in the Bible the term is used (2 Corinthians 3:14; cf. Ephesians 4:22; Romans 6:6). Objection: “We’re a part of the Church, not Israel, so we don’t need to keep the Law.” Answer: The Church is not distinct from Israel; therefore we have a connection to the Torah. Believing Jewish people and Gentiles are indeed the Messiah’s community (normally referred to as the Church), but this community is not distinct from Israel, especially since those Jewish people within this community obviously remain a part of Israel. Salvation spiritually brings Gentiles into Abraham’s family and the commonwealth of Israel as participants in the covenants of the promise (Galatians 3:29; Ephesians 2:11-13). Romans 11:17-21 — The Messiah’s community cannot be considered an entity distinct from Israel, because it is made up of faithful Jewish people (the branches that remain on the tree)! Gentile believers too are not distinct from Israel because even though Gentile believers are not Jewish, we are united with believing Jewish people in the Messiah’s community (grafted onto the tree). So, the Messiah’s community is not a new entity that replaces Israel, but is instead made up of faithful Jewish people and believers from among the nations; together we constitute those who are witnesses for the Messiah. It is impossible to make a rigid distinction between the church and Israel Objection: “We’re Gentiles, not Jews, so we don’t need to keep the Law.” Answer: Being a Gentile does not mean you have no relationship to the Torah. Acts 15:1 — The common notion among the Jewish people in the first century was that being legally counted among the Jewish people (either through birth or conversion) and keeping the Torah was what mattered when it comes to salvation. Those who were not legally Jewish could not be saved. This is analogous to Christians thinking that membership in their church and abiding by their beliefs/practices is what guarantees salvation. Galatians 2:1-3 | Acts 15:11 | Acts 15:19-20 | Galatians 5:2; 3:7 If Gentile believers do not need to become legally Jewish in order to be counted among God’s people, do we have any obligation to the commandments of the Torah? Yes! All people are obligated to recognize the one true God and to love Him with complete devotion. This means that any commandment in the Torah that deals with areas of idolatry or blasphemy apply to everyone. Additionally, all people must obey the commandments of the Torah that deal with murder, theft, sexual immorality, and other ethical issues. But what about those commandments of the Torah that were given directly to Israel: the Sabbath, the holidays, the kosher laws, and more? Put simply, God will not punish a Gentile who does not keep those commandments. That being said, when Gentiles become believers, they are to take on a life of imitation of Jesus, the perfectly Torah-observant Messiah of Israel. Jesus said in Luke: “A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40) and John said: “…the one who says he abides in [Jesus] ought himself to walk in the same manner as he walked” (1 John 2:6). The Apostles envisioned that the Gentile believers would be congregating in the synagogues along with the Jewish people to listen to the Torah (Acts 15:21). It is unlikely that the Apostles envisioned the Gentiles eventually creating a new religion distinct from Israel and distinct from the practices of the Torah. —— Links —— Follow Daniel Calcagno on Twitter, YouTube, or at MessianicNiagara.com Visit him at Glad Tidings Church of God in Fonthill, Ontario, Canada Listen to more Restitutio interviews here Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Born to Italian immigrants, Daniel Calcagno grew up in Canada, near Niagara Falls and attended a Pentecostal church.  After he began taking his faith seriously, he started researching the Jewish people–especially those who believe in Jesus.  Over time he founded Messianic Niagara, a local home group with a website that promoted audio teachings.   However, it was in listening to Michael Brown’s show that Calcagno came across the biblical unitarian theology of Anthony Buzzard.  For some time he had felt uneasy about the Trinity, and now he had an alternative that fit much better with the bible’s Hebrew context.  Now he serves as the pastor of Glad Tidings Church of God in Fonthill, ON. —— Links —— Follow Daniel Calcagno on Twitter, YouTube, or at MessianicNiagara.com Visit him at Glad Tidings Church of God in Fonthill, Ontario, Canada Listen to Michael Brown’s discussion with Anthony Buzzard on his show Line of Fire Listen to more Restitutio interviews here Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Having believed in the permanence of salvation for 46 years, Dan Gallagher recently changed his mind to believe in what he calls continuance in faith–the idea that those who fail to continue in faith can be lost. The whole process took about fourteen years from when a book introduced him to a number of verses that are difficult to interpret from a once-saved-always-saved perspective. Here is his account of how he came to a new understanding on this issue and why he thinks it’s so important. —— Links —— Email Dan Gallagher at [email protected] His ministry is called Lean on Jesus and you can follow him on his podcast, YouTube, facebook, or at leanonjesus.com Listen to more Restitutio interviews here Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Are you longing for fellowship with other like-minded believers?  In this interview, John Truitt of Kentucky shares how he uses video conferencing to have interactive and encouraging virtual fellowships.  Whether you want to join in with what he does or you want to start your own, this conversation is loaded with helpful guidance on how to succeed. —— Links —— Get in touch with Truitt at [email protected] Here’s a link to Truitt’s facebook See the STF Virtual Fellowship YouTube channel More information about the 20s and 30s Apologetics Conference (June 8-10) Listen to more Restitutio interviews here Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Bill Schlegel, professor and cofounder of The Master’s University extension program in Israel (IBEX), was studying the phrase “Son of God” and came to understand the term did not correlate with the traditional “God the Son” teaching, but instead meant God’s heir, the king he has designated to rule the world.  Although he had taught the bible faithfully in Israel for more than two decades, he knew that this discovery would cost him dearly.  In the end he lost his job at the institution he founded as well as any opportunity to preach and lead the church he helped to start.  He’s been maligned by many who used to regard him as a brother and blackballed in the evangelical world.  Why would Professor Schlegel go through all of this?  Why wouldn’t he just sign the statement of faith for another year and carry on in his work?  He had discovered a truth so profound and so irrefutable, that he could not hide it under a basket–he had to let it shine, even if it cost him everything.  Here is his story. —— Links —— Follow Bill Schlegel on his blog or on YouTube Purchase The Satellite Bible Atlas on Amazon Master’s official statements about the termination of Schlegel Israel Bible Extension (IBEX) John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary Listen to more Restitutio interviews here Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

Join Professor N. T. Wright as he shows how well Paul’s epistles fit with the Hebrew prophets and the Gospels.  Rather than seeing Paul as the purveyor of a heavenly hope wherein saints may enjoy disembodied bliss, Wright highlights a number of key passages that unlock Paul’s kingdom-centered hope. —— Links —— Take a look at Wright’s big book on Paul or his recent shorter one Delve deeper into Wright’s courses at ntwrightonline.org Access free audios/videos at the ntwrightpage.com Check out my youtube talk on Pauline Eschatology Listen to more Restitutio podcasts on the kingdom of God, including “Heaven Is Not My Home“ Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.

This is part six in our series on responding to your questions and comments.  In light of our killing series, we considered whether Christians should kill the old, the young, enemies, or criminals, however we never addressed the morality of God killing. Brian asked: Can I expect a subsequent episode where you discuss a sort of ‘divine inflicted’ death, for example, the event with Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10; also the deaths of Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, in Acts 5? If yes, wonderful, if no, then perhaps you could consider it. Hopefully in the future we can delve more deeply into this subject, but for now, here is a brief response to this important question. —— Links —— Check out the episodes in our killing seres See other episodes responding to your questions and comments Intro music: “Protofunk” by Kevin MacLeod.  Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.