the object of faith

Posted on October 18, 2011 by christopher fisher

Many theologians teach a static understanding of the Bible. We will call them Covenant theologians for convenience (although some who claim this are not Covenant theologians). These theologians will say, “since Adam and Eve, people had to believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ to be saved.” They then try pointing to various episodes in the Bible to prove this teaching. Naturally, to claim ancientness to this teaching they will assert Genesis was preaching the gospel from the beginning. They turn to Genesis 3 for this:

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

They say this is a reference to Christ and cite this as when the Gospel was preached to Adam and Eve. To non-Christians and Christians who are not wedded to wrangling doctrine out of vague verses, this does not even pass the sniff test. How on earth would Adam and Eve know this was a reference to Jesus? How does this even allude to Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection? How can this possibly, in any way, be an allusion to the gospel that Paul preached in 1 Corinthians 15?

To the extent of our knowledge, Adam and Eve never went to heaven before (and after) Christ died and never knew of the gospel that Paul preached. Specifically, we have no evidence that anyone before Christ’s death actually understood the basic salvation message that Christ was going to die, be buried, and rise again. Even as Jesus specifically told his disciples this, they still had no understanding and even rebuked Jesus (Mar 8:32). No person (especially religious Jews) understood the Messiah as one that was going to die as a sacrificial lamb. The Genesis passage could equally be interpreted as an allusion to the gospel of the kingdom.

Another example cited of faith based salvation is of Abraham. Two New Testament authors reference Abraham’s salvation, James and Paul. Dispensationalists (aka those who recognize that both authors taught different gospels) would predict that these references would be dialectically opposed.

James writes (in a letter intended to show “the twelve tribes” that they needed good works to be saved):

Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
…
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Paul writes (in the context of saying that attempting to do works put a curse on believers):

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
…
Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
…
Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Paul explicitly tells the reader the “gospel” which Abraham believed for righteousness:

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

So the object of Abraham’s belief was not that Christ would come, died, be buried, and rise again, but that God would eventually use the Jews to reach the gentiles. But this was no secret; in fact this is what the Jews expected, “To be a priest nation”:

Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

To the Covenant theologian, who claims the gospel (as preached in 1 Cor 15) was forever known and was always the method of salvation, they run into an acute problem; Paul says the gospel to Abraham was entirely different than the gospel Paul preached to the Gentiles. Did Paul teach that the Gentiles had to believe Israel would be the medium of their salvation? That seems like a circular and odd gospel to be preached to the gentiles. Instead, their object of faith was in Christ, a concept only tangentially related to what Abraham believed.

In James, the Covenant theologian’s problems only seem to multiply. The object of faith to which he refers is not the gospel to Abraham as described in Galatians 3. It is that Abraham would have countless offspring. James says about Abraham’s faith:

Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

This is a quote from Genesis 15:

Gen 15:4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
Gen 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

So, was Abraham made righteous by believing he would have a lot of children or because he thought his children would bring the Gentiles to God? Paul and James vary, and for good reason: they are each using one of the foremost Biblical forefathers to parallel to their respective gospels. Neither respective allusion fits perfectly with what either Paul or James was preaching, but it helped give primacy to their teachings.

Those who claim that “faith” has always been the method of salvation should clarify what they mean. Do they mean faith in anything, from space aliens to lottery tickets? When theologians try to overemphasis words, ensure they are being consistent, not using “bait and switch” tactics, and, above all, understanding all teachings in context.

Posted in Bible, Dispensationalism, Figures of Speech, Theology | 3 Comments

kingdom of God

Posted on October 18, 2011 by christopher fisher

Pastor Anderson preaches a sermon in which he attempts to discount dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is the belief that God has given various methods of salvation to various people depending on contextual variables (when, where, who). Because, Pastor Anderson sets up a straw man dispensationalist who says that the method of salvation switched upon Christ’s death, Anderson sees fit to quote John as proof faith was utilized before Jesus’ death:

Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

So, to John the Baptist, what did “believing on the Son” entail? This statement seems more like a deferring to Jesus, saying to trust in Jesus’ message. It would be a mistake to equate modern Christian cliches with chance ancient phrases. To believe in Jesus was to believe in his message. Jesus’ ministry was not one of believing in his death, burial, and resurrection, but one of salvation of righteous Jews through the imminent coming of a worldly kingdom of God. Jesus’ gospel is explicitly labeled as the Gospel of the Kingdom of God:

Mar 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Elsewhere, the reader gets a glimpse of particulars of the coming kingdom:

Mar 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
Mar 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Here the chapter layout of Mark is a little deceiving. Mark 8:38 transitions directly to Mark 9:1 with no verses in between. Mark 9:1 is completing the thought of Mark 8:38. The kingdom of God is specifically when God returns to earth and establishes a physical kingdom, delivering the Jews from their oppressors. This is exactly what God prophesied through Zacharias (Luk 1:57-65). The Gospel of the Kingdom of God was the Jews returning to power under a righteous king. It was characterized by the wicked being destroyed and the righteous being elevated (Mat 25:33-41). It is no wonder that Jesus’ ministry was for the Jews only (Mat 1:21, Joh 4:22, Mat 15:24).

The Jews readily accepted this message. The kingdom of God has been prophesied to destroy earthly kingdoms and set up a Godly reign:

Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

In Luke 19, Jesus specifically tells a parable alluding to his death, but prophesying the kingdom of God would come to earth:

Luk 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

Jesus then goes on to tell a story about a king who goes away but then returns. Upon returning (referencing the kingdom of God appearing), the king checks the investments of his servants (progress of the disciple’s preaching). The kingdom of God, Jesus is teaching, first is postponed by an absent King. It is clear that the apostles were mistaken about the timeframe of the kingdom of God coming to earth, not the process.

Later in Luke, Jesus goes over the various signs of end times: wars, earthquakes, the sun being blotted from the sky. This, Jesus equates as signs that the “kingdom of God” is at hand:

Luk 21:29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
Luk 21:30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.
Luk 21:31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

Kingdom of God, at least when used by Jesus, in no way resembles the Christian concept of salvation in heaven. It is on earth. It is physical. It is thoroughly Jewish.

Jesus, does sometimes use this term figuratively, but not in the sense suggested by Pastor Anderson:

Mat 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Mat 12:29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

If a demon is cast out of a person then is that person saved? No Christian would think that. Instead this is an instance of Jesus using his power to foreshadow the blessings of the coming kingdom. The kingdom of God, figuratively, is anything under the power and control of God (as a side-note: this is antithetical to Calvinism). An alternate translation of “kingdom of God” is “reign of God”.

Jesus’ ministry was not one of salvation to an eternal life in heaven, but one of resurrection to eternal life in an earthy Kingdom of God to believing and righteous Jews. This is contrasted with Paul’s own ministry: one to the gentiles and one of faith alone. If those who want to discount dispensationalism want to contend that John the Baptist is preaching faith alone, they have Jesus with whom to contend.

Posted in Bible, Dispensationalism, Figures of Speech, Theology | 12 Comments

the rise of technology in early christianity

Posted on October 15, 2011 by christopher fisher

Early Christianity was timed very well to come into existence. In an age of prosperity (relative to historical standards) distinctively marked by personal religion and popularity of the mystery cults, Christianity had very fertile ground. What might be overlooked is how budding technology contributed to the spread of Christian doctrine. One major development that helped spread early Christianity was the advent of codex. D.C. Parker describes codex as such:

In its simplest format, a codex is made by taking a pile of sheets of writing material, folding them in half, and then (starting at the top of the first sheet) writing the text on them. The whole pile is then stitched together through the centre fold.

Prior to the advent of Codex, Christians would have needed to use unwieldy rolls to communicate ideas via the written medium (other alternatives being wax tablets and wood planks which were not particularly suited for mass distribution). Codex started to become vogue in the second half of the first century. Paul explicitly says he owns his very own (2Ti4:13 “parchments”). D.C. Parker relates his translation of one advertisement for this innovative product:

Since you want my booklets with you
Round the house and on the road,
Buy these compact parchment tablets:
Leave the book box with the rolls;
Hold this in a single hand!
So you know where you can find them
I will tell you: seek Secundus
freedman of the Luccan savant
Behind the gate of Peace’s Temple
And the marketplace of Pallas.

This comes from the Roman author Martial who lived between 40-105AD, indicating codex had not universally replaced rolls at his time and was even then needing to gain marketshare.

Martial lists the benefits of codex. Codex was a smaller format that could be held in the hand and carried about on trips. It was more durable and even cheaper to produce. It was an amazing innovation that brought a literary revolution, at least in the Christian sphere.

Codex is the format exclusively found for all early Christian writings. Here D.C. Parker describes the state of existing manuscripts:

We have no copies of early Christian writings older than the middle of the second century, so we cannot at present know at what stage the codex replaced the roll, or even whether the codex was used for some or all of these writings from the beginning. The evidence of the forty or so manuscripts surviving from the second and third centuries is that by about 150 it was normative for Christians to copy the writings which later became the New Testament into the papyrus codex format.

If any book of the New Testament was represented on rolls within the first century, we have no evidence of this fact. Instead early Christians most likely read exclusively from Codex. The mere presence of the codex lends itself to suggest a wider literacy for early Christians than suggested by Bart Ehrman (the author quoted by Ehrman for his less than 10% literacy claim says his estimate may not be in the same ballpark). The codex, like the Guttenberg Bible and the internet afterwards, represented literature for the underclass, literature to the people, easy to distribute and cost effective. Paul himself encourages wide distribution (reproduction?):

Col 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Granted, wax tablets and wooden planks could have been used (both of which would not even conceivably last until the modern day), but most likely this was to be reproduced on codex (durable, relatively cheaper, and easy to handle). Without the codex would we have Christianity in its modern form? Most likely not.

Posted in Bible, Ehrman, History, Textual Criticism | 1 Comment

no winners with free trade

Posted on October 14, 2011 by christopher fisher

The US has just passed a “free trade” agreement with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. While this is not really free trade (elimination of all government barriers to trade), it opens up many doors which were not open before for consumers. From Fox News:

But Tarsicio Mora, president of Colombia’s CUT labor federation, said Colombia’s economy was not ready to compete with the U.S.
“Our country isn’t developed, it does not have the expertise much less the requirements for trade at this level,” Mora said. “The country should be clear as to who is responsible for the coming massacre, because industry, large and small businesses are going to be hit because we are not in a condition to compete.”

Alternatively, from the AFLCIO:

The agreement, left over from the Bush administration, is another in a series of bad trade pacts negotiated by the Bush White House, deals that have contributed to a U.S. trade deficit of $677 billion in 2008, massive job loss and shrinking paychecks. Such trade deals have contributed to the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs in the United States since 2001.

Apparently, the free trade agreement means lost of jobs for both(!) countries. They must magically disappear in the ocean after leaving each respective country. Protectionism is a movement led by con artists, selling snake oil to gullible saps to make personal gain.

Posted in Economics, Trade | Leave a comment

Bart Ehrman misses the plot

Posted on October 13, 2011 by christopher fisher

There is another striking story in Matthew. A rich man comes up to Jesus and asks him, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” Jesus tells him, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” When asked, “Which ones?” Jesus lists as examples some of the Ten Commandments. The man insists he has already done all these—what else is needed? Jesus replies that he should give up everything he owns, “and you will have treasure in heaven” (Matthew 19:16–22). Jesus then says, “And come, follow me”—but note: following Jesus comes only after the man will have inherited heavenly treasure by giving all away.

I wonder what would have happened if the same man had come up to Paul, twenty years later. If Paul were asked how someone could have eternal life, would he have said, “Keep the commandments”? Not Paul. The commandments have nothing to do with it. Jesus’ death and resurrection do. Would Paul have said that giving away all he owned would earn him treasure in heaven? No way. Only faith in Jesus could bring eternal life.

One can’t argue that Jesus was talking about salvation before his death, and Paul about salvation afterward, because Matthew was writing after Paul. Moreover, in Matthew, Jesus is talking about the last judgment, which obviously would take place after his death and resurrection. And so the problem is this: if Matthew’s Jesus was right, that keeping the law and loving others as yourself could bring salvation, how could Paul be right that doing these things were irrelevant for attaining salvation?
(Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted p. 92-93)

Bart Ehrman for all his familiarity with the Bible, Biblical concepts, and historical settings, seems to not understand the fluid plot of the Bible. It is as if a scholar researching the Titanic, knowing every detail of the ship (passenger names, daily food rations, cleaning schedules), looked at a picture of the sunken ship against a picture of a floating ship, threw up his hands in despair, and claimed a massive contradiction. To understand history, it is not sufficient to understand the minute historical settings, but also to understand the context. Who was the being addressed by whom, for what purpose, and when was it written. Ehrman seems to dismiss such context with a fleeting sentence on timeframes.

Although Bart Ehrman seems to indicate a semi-familiarity with dispensationalism in the last paragraph but seems to have not consulted a dispensationalist about his dismissal of the timeframe argument. It is a crude understanding of Paul’s ministry to think that different methods of salvation were implemented at the death of Christ. Paul’s missionary journeys were not until over a decade after the death of Christ and until that time, the apostles were not teaching anything resembling Paul’s gospel. Paul emphasizes these facts in Galatians, in which he documents his initial alienation from the apostles, traveling to Jerusalem to consult them about his unheard gospel, and his personal dispensation to the gentiles:

Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
…
Gal 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Paul names the leaders to whom he had to convince:

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

This passage illustrates the fact that Paul was preaching and traveling concurrent with the ministries of the apostles. It also details the various gospels to the Jews and Gentiles. Paul’s gospel did not begin at the death of Christ, but after it was revealed to Paul on the road to Damascus. Furthermore, it was not until 3 years later that any of this was preached to the public. Paul’s message was individual and new. Paul states that before him, none of this had been revealed:

Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

If Paul had not been specifically endorsed by the rest of the apostles, one might be prone to think he was a Gnostic heretic (using a loose definition of Gnostic). He upstages and denounces other apostles (Gal 2:11) and teaches doctrine specifically being attacked by disciples of the other apostles (Act 15:1, Act 15:24). Certain early Christian writings even characterize Paul as the greatest enemy of Christianity masked by the name Simon Magnus (Pseudo-Clementine Literature). If Paul was not specifically accepted by the apostles, he might today rank with the likes of Valentinus and Marcion. Some authors and writers have claimed Paul was this very thing, propagating a new mystery religion or version of Gnosticism, but that will need to be addressed at another time.

Contrary to Ehrman’s assertion, Paul was teaching a transitory and not permanent methodology of salvation. This is detailed in Romans (note: Ehrman thinks Romans is one of Paul’s genuine letters). Paul talks about God’s specific plan to go to the gentiles to make the Jews jealous after the Jews had rejected their risen messiah (Rom 11:11). Turning to the gentiles will hopefully cause the Jews to return to him at which time God will resurrect his plans for Israel (Rom 11:25-26). God has not forsaken the Jews, but, like a vineyard owners exhausting all farming methods to produce grapes, God is trying something new to get Israel to follow him. This would never have happened if, after the death of Christ, the Jews accepted a risen Savior. Christ would have returned at the time he predicted, and we would have never heard of Paul. Because God responds to his creation, he has changed his original salvation plan.

Naturally, implementing this change while disciples of the old plan are still in circulation would cause some major issues. That causes a transitory and disruptive state in which disciples from the various teachings would argue among themselves. This is specifically described in Paul’s earliest letter, Galatians. Paul had to travel specifically to Jerusalem to quell this strife (Act 15:2). It was decided there that Paul would continue to the gentiles and the apostles to the Jews, both with their respective gospels (Gal 2:7). Within a century, Christianity turned from a Jewish following to a Gentile following and the gospel of the circumcision faded, although the teachings have not died even until the present day.

If one looks at these facts like a 2 dimensional picture book, they can be very confusing. The key is timing and context. Development must be traced throughout the lifespan. Extracted quotes might look contradictory, just as a picture of a sunken Titanic next to one of the Titanic in its heyday, but placed property they tell a dynamic and important story.

Paul Ehrman does his best to provide a static understanding of the Bible which he can tear to pieces. Perhaps that is his best strategy because most Christians understand the Bible as a static text. Two verses saying opposite things will cause many of the best Christian scholars to digress into trivial wording tricks to circumvent contradictions. But more astute Bible scholars should attempt to understand the context, the plot and plot changes in the Bible.

Posted in Bible, Bible Critics, Dispensationalism, Ehrman, People, Theology | 1 Comment

speaking in tongues vs the Bible

Posted on September 27, 2011 by christopher fisher

In this paper I argue that when Paul refers to “Tongues” in Corinthians that he is referring to foreign languages.

Posted in Bible, Figures of Speech, Theology, Women | Leave a comment

letter to an open air preacher

Posted on August 27, 2011 by christopher fisher

[I wrote this last January]

Sir,
I had the good fortune of meeting you last night (Saturday the 8th). More specifically, I met the man holding the large sign listing sins. We had a short conversation concerning salvation by faith or by works, before I was handed your card and left.

I thank you for your love for Christ, and your willingness to stand up for God and save the lost. Such passion is non-existent in the modern church.

I had similar pleasure this morning when reviewing your website. In your list of references you prominently list Did God Know by Roy Elseth. This is the best book on Open Theism in existence. Your listing of that book is a clear sign you care about God’s word and understand that modern Christianity is plagued with Platonism. I would argue that the modern works-salvation movement is an extension of the platonic Greek Mystery Cults (Gnosticism), but more on that later.

With that being stated, I wish to admonish you, with brotherly love, for erring concerning the truth of the gospel. This is the same mistake Peter had made in Galatians:

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Gal 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

If you object that the works of the law stated here are a reference to the Old Testament symbolic law (and I do recognize that sometimes “law” refers only to the OT symbolic law), I would counter with Paul’s follow-up in Gal 2:16-17 as well as his elaboration further in Galatians. Paul creates a contrast between sin/works and faith. Why in 2:17 would Paul start talking about sin, if the works to which he was referring in 2:16 (notice he brings up sin also in Gal 2:15) was only symbolic law? Is it sin to not follow symbolic law? If one is a gentile, furthermore?

Galatians is all about OT moral and symbolic law, which Paul also links with flesh. If that contextual evidence was not enough, Paul specifically lists the sins ascribing them to law:

Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Sir, I suspect after reading this passage, you might try to claim victory. It looks at first glance that this quoted block of verses says those who commit these sins will not go to heaven. But then what does the phrase “against such there is no law” mean? Especially when sandwiched between verse 18 which states that we are not under the law? This is because we are not under the law, when we are not under the law we cannot be defined by our sins. Contrawise, we can be defined by the fruit of the Spirit, because this definition is not of the law. Paul makes this clear in the very next verse:

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

We are no longer slaves to sin, but that does not mean we should take advantage of salvation with sin. We should subjugate ourselves to Christ, in spite of the gift of salvation:

Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

This verse suggests that we could be in the Spirit yet not walk in the Spirit. But we should walk in the spirit. “Should” and “must” mean different things and it is dangerous to confuse the two. This “work to please God although it is not required” is a consistent theme in the writings of Paul:

1Co 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. [note in this verse Paul had just finished listing all manner of vice]

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? [not only does this suggest that we CAN sin and still be covered by grace, but Paul also follows this verse up with the reason we should not continue to sin. It is not because we will lose our salvation]

Sir, you had made the strange claim last night that I call Christ a liar when Christ preaches salvation by faith-works. I would point you to your own writings on women in the church to draw a parallel:

“For instance, I can’t write a corrective letter to the church in Harrisville, addressing problems some uneducated, rowdy female members are inciting there, and then expect the counsel to apply to the entire Christian assembly of all females everywhere in every city until the end of time, even though the women in other churches are educated, self-controlled, and not at all responsible for the problems that the women in Harrisville were creating.”

When reading someone else’s mail, one can easily become confused. I am not currently constructing an ark because I understand when God says “Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch” that God is not speaking to me. Christ’s ministry, likewise, was not to me:

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

When looking at the books written by those teaching works-faith it is evident that they too were talking to Israel:

Jas 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, [here he is talking about the diaspora]

Of course, the book of Hebrews was written to the Hebrews.

As you stated about the unruly women, it is wrong to take someone else’s mail and apply it directly to ourselves. To do so creates contradiction in the Bible and also makes us a mockery to atheists:

Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Also see: [link]

If you want to understand why there are two gospel salvation messages and why we are saved by faith alone, the book of Romans is crucial, specifically chapters 9-13. In short, Israel rejected their risen savior, God wished to make the Jews jealous, gave Gentiles equal status with free salvation, and hopes for Israel to return to him. We Gentiles are a pawn in God’s love affair with Israel. I, for one, thank God for this because this makes my salvation much more easy than it would have been otherwise.

Please consider my words. Search the Bible to ensure what I say is accurate, and follow up with me. I wish for the truth alone, and, as such, am willing to be wrong. What good is believing a lie to my own destruction?

Posted in Dispensationalism, Theology | Leave a comment

Christian cliches – idolatry is valuing anything above God

Posted on August 26, 2011 by christopher fisher

Whatever your heart desires most, that is your god. -Luther

Christians say over and over that idolatry is to have anything with more focus than God. This meme takes various forms: calling drinking a god, calling video games a god, calling sports a god. The problem with this, however, is that the Bible never describes hobbies or obsessions as a god. There may be other sins involved with these things, but it is definitely not the sin of idolatry. The formal commandment against idolatry is as follows:

Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

The problem here, is that this the word here used for gods is el-o-heem’, a word never used for actions, thoughts and priorities, but always used for people, false gods, and most commonly used for God himself.

Why then does modern Christianity try to redefine this sin? It is most probably because most modern Christians have no experience with idols, false gods, and the worship of the same. They attempt to redefine a foreign concept to more fit their direct experience. This holds a dual purpose of also giving ammunition against activities with which they may not agree (going to the movies, watching sports, playing video games, etc). This is wrong to do for several reasons.

The primary reason this is wrong is that it diminishes the severity of the real sin. If one condemns going to movies on the basis of idolatry, then people will start thinking that worshiping a false god is as dangerous as going to the movies.

A second reason is that it is inherently dishonest and false on the face value. If I spend more time sleeping then I spend at church, then does that mean I value sleeping more than church or that sleeping is my God? If I distribute my activities as not to engage in any one activity for more than 1 hour per week, and then worship God for two hours, do I skirt the charges of idolatry? How does one shuffle and categorize activities to make this determination?

Does God ever tell us not to have hobbies or not to devote hours per day to a leisure (or work) activity?

While the goals of these Christians may be pure, trying to sway people towards focusing on God, their methodology (redefining sins) is destructive. We should never add to the law what is not there.

Posted in Bible, Christian Cliches, Theology | Leave a comment

augustine thought sex was the original sin

Posted on August 26, 2011 by christopher fisher

Augustine viewed the Original Sin, not as eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but as sex between Adam and Eve:

For it was not fit that His creature should blush at the work of his Creator; but by a just punishment the disobedience of the members was the retribution to the disobedience of the first man, for which disobedience they blushed when they covered with fig-leaves those shameful parts which previously were not shameful.

Although, if those members by which sin was committed were to be covered after the sin, men ought not indeed to have been clothed in tunics, but to have covered their hand and mouth, because they sinned by taking and eating. What, then, is the meaning, when the prohibited food was taken, and the transgression of the precept had been committed, of the look turned towards those members? What unknown novelty is felt there, and compels itself to be noticed? And this is signified by the opening of the eyes… As, therefore, they were so suddenly ashamed of their nakedness, which they were daily in the habit of looking upon and were not confused, that they could now no longer bear those members naked, but immediately took care to cover them; did not they–he in the open, she in the hidden impulse–perceive those members to be disobedient to the choice of their will, which certainly they ought to have ruled like the rest by their voluntary command? And this they deservedly suffered, because they themselves also were not obedient to their Lord. Therefore they blushed that they in such wise had not manifested service to their Creator, that they should deserve to lose dominion over those members by which children were to be procreated. [Letters of the Pelagians 1.31-32]

This view that sex was an evil was prevalent in Augustine’s time. Plotinus, a neo-Platonist that Augustine praises in his Confessions, taught that only through disdain for fleshly desire could one reach the ultimate state of mankind. Augustine, likewise, had served as a “Hearer” for the Manicheans for about nine years, and they also taught that the original sin was carnal knowledge. Augustine was definitely influenced by the Platonism of his time.

Posted in Augustine, People, Theology | 5 Comments

Jesus spoke Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew

Posted on August 20, 2011 by christopher fisher

In the Gospel of John, chapter 3, Jesus has a famous conversation with Nicodemus in which he says, “You must be born again.” The Greek word translated “again” actually has two meanings: it can mean not only “a second time” but also “from above.” Whenever it is used elsewhere in John, it means “from above” (John 19:11, 23). That is what Jesus appears to mean in John 3 when he speaks with Nicodemus: a person must be born from above in order to have eternal life in heaven above. Nicodemus misunderstands, though, and thinks Jesus intends the other meaning of the word, that he has to be born a second time. “How can I crawl back into my mother’s womb?” he asks, out of some frustration. Jesus corrects him: he is not talking about a second physical birth, but a heavenly birth, from above.

This conversation with Nicodemus is predicated on the circumstance that a certain Greek word has two meanings (a double entendre). Absent the double entendre, the conversation makes little sense. The problem is this: Jesus and this Jewish leader in Jerusalem would not have been speaking Greek, but Aramaic. But the Aramaic word for “from above” does not also mean “second time.” This is a double entendre that works only in Greek. So it looks as though this conversation could not have happened—at least not as it is described in the Gospel of John. (Jesus Interrupted, p 155)

Bart Ehrman, premier critic of the Bible, is wedded to the notion that early Christianity was born in a world of widespread illiteracy and ignorance. It is due to this presupposition that he discounts the story of Nicodemus. After all, the story only makes sense if the conversation was in Greek, but Ehrman claims, Jesus does not speak Greek, especially not to a leader in the Pharisee movement. This, of course, is speculation. Greek was the language of commerce, government, and scholarly writing. In fact, the earliest Bibles we have are all written in Greek!

It is apparent Jesus spoke multiple languages, as did many in the multicultural society. On the cross he speaks in Aramaic. His listeners apparently do not understand this as his native language. It was definitely not the language Jesus had been speaking to Pilot in Jerusalem (Greek). This was not the language Jesus used to debate the Bible as a child (Hebrew). Jesus spoke all three.

Posted in Bible, Ehrman, Jesus, People | Leave a comment