But the truth is that I don’t give Preterism a fair shake in The Theology Program. In fact, I don’t give them a shake at all.

Why? Good question.

Preterism is a funny thing. It is something that causes quite a bit of passionate adherence, the degree to which shows great imbalance. The reason why we don’t cover it in TTP is because it is neither significant historically or contemporary. I know that this might seem like an arrogent statement to those who hold this position, but I feel I am qualified enough to make this assertion in good conscience.

Full- or hyper-preterism is the belief, in essence that Christ has already come, we are in the New Heaven and New Earth, and the resurrection has already happened. It is not taken seriously (at least full-preterism) in any academic circles. There are only outspoken fringe groups who would claim the docrine. It would be somewhat of a waste of our time to cover it in The Theology Program (and we don’t have a lot of time).

Really, it is not unlike the KJV Only movement. A lot of passionate followers who believe that they are right. But, in the end, it is found wanting to such a strong degree that no one wants to waste their time with it. As interesting as it is, we don’t cover the KJV Only doctrine in The Theology Program either.

I am sitting at my hotel in the lobby in Road Island. I am attending the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). ETS is society of great diversity and incredible scholarship. I think we have somewhere around 1500 scholars here. Wallace, Bock, Mounce (sitting right beside me right now), Blaising, Enns, Grudem, Moo (although I have not seen him), Copan, Bowman, Craig, Piper, Moreland, and many many others. In the convention area where we all hang out and buy books, there is a booth that a Preterist organization sets up each and every year. They are a very small group and they attempt to flag people down in efforts to proselytize the scholars. In truth, everyone walks past this booth with a little spice to their step and their hand slightly covering their face so as to avoid a conversation that will simply be an exercise in futility (a sinful waste of time). Could the entire world of Scholarship be wrong about this issue? Could the entire history of the church be wrong? Possible, but so could we be wrong about the KJV Only movement. Maybe the KJV is inspired. We have to act with integrity about what we give our time to study. This is simply not something that deserves the time. (BTW: I think that everyone would do the same if the flat earth society set up a booth).

In the end, I have a responsibility to teach what is either biblically viable, historically significant, or contemporarily relevant. I don’t mean to offend anyone with this but full-preterism does not meet any of the criteria at this point in time. Maybe if it is ever taken more seriously we will include it in our program.

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a blog that is arguing the exegetical merits or demerits of preterism. Please don’t take it down that road. It is not my intention any more than it is my intention to invite KJV Only advocates to present their view. I don’t want to give such a doctrine a platform at this time (if I do, then I may be having to present it in TTP someday!).

Both Calvinists and Arminians believe in predestination. In other words, whether or not God predestines people is not the issue. All Bible believing Christians believe this doctrine. The issue has to do with the basis of this predestining.

The Calvinist says that God’s predestination has no founding in the predestined in any sense. God did not choose people based on any merit, intrinsic or foreseen. This is called unconditional predestination because there are no conditions in man that need to be met. It does not mean that God did not have any reason for choosing some and not others, but that the reason is not found in us.

The Arminian says that God’s predestination has a founding in the faith of the predestined. In other words, God looks ahead in time and discovers who will believe and who will not and chooses people based on their prior free-will choice of him.

The Arminian chooses this position because, for them, it is the only way to reconcile human freedom and God’s choice. Both are clearly taught in Scripture. Therefore, in order to have a reasonable and consistant theology, one or the other must be altered. If God unconditionally choose people, then people don’t have responsibility in their choice, good or ill. Therefore, it is not human choice that is nuanced, but God’s choice. To make sense out of this, the Arminian says that God’s choice is based on man’s choice. Therefore, we have consistency. The tension is solved. There is no tension.

However, the Calvinist is not satisfied with a redefining of God’s predestination. To the Calvinists, man is fully responsible for his choice, yet God’s election is unconditional. Therefore, there is a tension that is created between human responsibility and God’s election. This tension is left in tact since, according to the Calvinist, it is best understood this way in Scripture. To redefine predestination to suit one’s need to alleviate tension seems to be a very rationalistic approach to doctrine. While there is nothing wrong with using one’s reason to understand truth, there are problems when reason takes priority over revelation.

This is one of the mistakes that I believe the Arminian system of conditional election/predestination makes. There is no need to solve all tensions, especially when the solution comes at the expense of one’s interpretive integrity. There are many tensions in Scripture. There are many things that, while not irrational, just don’t make sense. The doctrine of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, creation out of nothing all fit this category. So does human responsibility and unconditional election. God’s sovereign unconditional election can stand side-by-side with man’s responsibility without creating a formal contradiction. We may not know how to reconcile these two issues, but that does not mean God does not know how. Their co-existence does not take away from their collective truthfulness.

I believe that the Arminian system sacrifices biblical integrity for the sake of intelligibility and doctrinal harmony. The Calvinistic system allows tension and mysteries to remain for the sake of Biblical fidelity.

I have had people say to me (often) that they are not Calvinists because the system attempts to be too systematic with all its points for the sake of the system itself. I think that it is just the opposite. The Calvinistic system creates more tensions than it solves, but seeks to remain faithful to God’s word rather than human intelligibility.

Now, I must admit. I am confused as to why most emergers that I know of are more attracted to the rationalistic approach of the Arminians than the tension filled approach of the Calvinists.

Fire away…

Walking past the sign at John Marshall High in Oklahoma City which encouraged students to come to Bible study at 6:30 in room 208. Not me. No, not because I did not like the Bible, but because it would be filled with nerds whom I did not want to be associated with. I smirked as I thought that the only reason they were taking this path was because they could not be like me—cool like me. Sure I went to FCA, but all the cool kids did. One kid even approached me, Davey Peirce, and asked me about Christ. I remember his exact words. “Michael, I want you to tell me more about this Jesus Christ.” “Sure,” I responded, “I will get back to you.” I never did. He asked me because I seemed to know a lot about the Bible during that session. Indeed, relatively speaking, I knew more than most. But Christ was a hamper to my style. My indulgence would have to be put on hold if I walked that path right now. I told Christ that I would be back after high school. I was just too busy.

Fast-forward 5 years

With Smashing Pupkins and Blind Melon playing in the background, I lay on the carpet face down in Arizona on my best friends floor in his room. It had now been three years since I told Christ I would be back and here I was. Dropped out of school (although I took my fathers tuition money), drinking every night, playing Madden 93′, living part time with my girl friend, stoned and making jokes about how I would not live past 21. As I lay on the floor, I told the Lord I was sorry. I just did not know what to do. “Lord, forgive me. I don’t even want to be different and for this I am ashamed.”

Fast-forward 1 year

At my apartment in Oklahoma City alone late at night. I happened to have a copy of C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. I read through it over a weeks time. I was still living it up, but now a comtempative fear and unsettled emotion continually gripped me. “What? What do you want? I don’t know what to do? I don’t know how to change my desires.” This book further confirmed what I had known all along (and believed). Christ is indeed who he says he is. I am his. “I don’t know how Lord. Give me the desire to have the desire to serve you for I don’t even want to right now. But I want to want to.”

One night after reading the book (I really don’t know why I am telling anyone this!!), I had a rather odd experience that really scared me. In one of those times between awake and asleep, I felt the sudden presence of many evil entities in my room. I know that this is really strange coming from me, but, whatever it was, it shaped me at this time. These “entities”, it seemed to me, were all holding me down and I could not get up. My eyes were open, but I did not have any control. Suddenly, there was an incredible evil in the room. One greater than all the rest. It seemed to search me and examine my will, thoughts, and temptations. After this spiritual examination, this entity said (not audibly), “He is nothing. Don’t worry.” He then left. He said this after he examined how I could be tempted sexually. Since then, I have always been afraid that I would overcome much, but sexual temptation may be my downfall. Still don’t know what I think about that night.

Fast-forward 1 year (keeping track? 95′)

Cycling in and out of my spirituality, looking to my friends like I have multiple personality disorder from hell, I met with Chet Lackey. He was my pastor whose church I would go to before I would hit drown night at the Dug Out. “Chet, I have this crazy urge that has been building inside of me. I don’t know what else to say but I think I am supposed to serve the Lord . . . maybe even . . . ahem . . . go to seminary.” Chet was always so gracious and caring. He love me. I know he did. “I think you are too” was his response. “Wow!”

Fast-forward 6 months

Digging through my mothers book cabinet looking for anything that had the hint of Christian or Bible, I found a series of tapes from Insight for Living. Suffering was the subject. Chuck Swindoll? Never heard of him, but mom says he is the best. So I begin to listen to them. I listened so many times that I had the sermon memorized (still do). Job suffered so much, but would not deny God. I had suffered none, but denied him all the time with my inability to completely commit to him.

Fast-forward 3 months

Chet died. Why? He was very young. His wife, Suzanne, said that I was going to carry on his legacy. Ha! What a joke. But I gave her a hug and dreamed that one day I could be like Chet.

Fast-forward 3 months

Crying by my bed comptemplating my failures. I was drunk and had just sunken lower than I had ever sunk. It seems that every time I would “get out” of the life of sin, I would get back into it and multiply my sin and condemnation ten fold. This failure had come just after I had finished a teaching series called the “All-American Bible Study.” What a fool I was. All these people came to my teaching for months. I talked about the truthfulness of Christianity, the importants of the Scriptures, the prophecies about Christ, then I do something like this. I was making a mockery of Christ. “Lord,” I said with tears in my eyes, “Just leave me alone if I am going to do this! Why can’t I change. I truly want to now, but I don’t find the strength.” The next morning (Monday) I got up and recommitted myself (like I had done a hundered Mondays before). Friday came around and this is the time I fall. Over at a friends house, everyone was preparing for the night. They were all fixed up and in wonderment about what the night was going to hold, how drunk they were going to get, and what girl they would wake up with. I was there with them. The mini fridge opened and my friend offered me a beer. I started to reach out to get it, but I stopped and declined. “Oh, have you quite again” he said in a mocking way” (justifiably so). “Yes.” “Okay, we will see you next week” he said as I went down the stairs to go home alone. I hesitated, almost went back up, and then went on down. I never came back to that life.

Fast forward 6 months

I have a new PC Study Bible computer program. I read the Bible every day. I carry commentaries to work. I memorize large sections of Scripture. I am writing a book, just finished my 100th page. It is called “Defending the Faith to the Next Generation.” I was a know it all. I would scorn you for not reading the Bible as much as me. I had all the answers, theological and practical. Most people just tried to stay away from me. Even my mother said “Michael, all you want to talk about is the Bible.” “So!” I thought to myself, “You sound like you don’t love God as much as me.” Ouch! What a turn around.

Fast forward 1 year

I was now the student body president at American Christian College and University. It was a charismatic school and I was not a charismatic. I sat down by Fred every day in class. Fred spoke in tongues, I did not. When I first began talking with Fred I felt I needed to convert him. He just needed some good theology and I was just the man to straighten him out. But as I got to know Fred I realized that he really did love Christ—the same Christ as me! How can that be? He speaks in tongues. My professor believed that Jonah was a parable and denied inerrancy. But he seemed to love Christ just like me—the same Christ. Ninty-nine percent correct with one percent false equals one-hundred percent false! Right? Well, I was rethinking some things.

I was now working at Southwest Radio Church. It is the longest running Christian radio program in America. It was KJV Only. I was talking to a girl on the phone who asked if KJV was the only version one could be saved by. According to my employer, this might very well be the case. But I was very uncomfortable with it. I began to study the text and the history of the Bible. My employment ended a few months later as I was in the office with the President and said that I could not, with good conscious, work there anymore.

Fast-forward two years

It was my first class at DTS . . . more to come.

[I will be at ETS all this week so it may come later rather than sooner]

But to begin with, I should mention a curiosity in the history of English Bibles. In 1537, John Rogers published, under the pen name, Thomas Matthew, the Matthew’s Bible. He essentially combined the Old Testament of Miles Coverdale with the New Testament of William Tyndale. Besides blatant plagiarism, Rogers also added about 2000 notes to his Bible, many of which were controversial. Far and away, the most controversial note was found at 1 Peter 3.7: “If [the wife] be not obedient and healpfull unto [her husband, he should] endeavoureth to beate the feare of God into her…”! This Bible soon earned the moniker, “The Wife-Beater’s Bible.” I suppose a silver lining in this story is that the fact that this label was so quickly given to the Matthew’s Bible shows us that our ancestors also thought that this little comment was inappropriate. Thank God that note didn’t make it into the King James Bible!

Now if someone could read 1 Peter 3.7 five hundred years ago to mean that he had the right and the obligation to beat his wife if she disobeyed, then certainly some corrective instruction needs to be given.

The first thing to note is that 1 Peter 3.7 ruins the flow of the argument. Beginning in 2.13, Peter had been discussing the person who functioned in the subordinate role in relation to a non-Christian superior. He speaks about obedience to the government—both the king and those he commissions, submission (of slaves) to one’s master, and submission of wives to their husbands. In each instance, non-Christian superiors are in view. But then, at the end of the discourse, Peter turns to Christian husbands. Why does he do this? He didn’t address Christian governors or Christian slave-owners. Why now address Christian husbands? There were Christian slave-owners and even some in government. Why not address them?

As I said, addressing the husbands ruins the argument flow. The reason that Peter does this, it seems, is because Christian husbands especially were not grasping what it meant to be a Christian husband. They needed his advice more than others in superior roles. So he wrecked the literary flow to address a serious problem in the church.

And what does Peter tell them? To beat them into submission? NO!! He says that husbands must treat their wives with profound consideration, with the recognition that in God’s eyes both were equal recipients of his grace. I take it that this means that husbands will be held accountable before God for how they have treated their wives in this life. Matthew’s Bible is as far from the mark of the meaning of this text as anything could be.

OK, some specifics. What does it look like for a complementarian husband to treat his wife properly? (I’m speaking of complementarian husbands here because I don’t want to get into debates over whether egalitarianism or complementarianism is biblical. For sake of argument, let’s just assume that complementarianism is biblical. The reason that this should not be hard to do is that, as my egalitarian friend said, complementarianism is a breeding ground for wife abuse. So, if that’s so, no complementarian husband can look at this blog post and say, ‘Well, he’s an egalitarian, so I don’t need to listen to him.’ Fair enough? Good. Let’s go.)

• It does NOT mean that he EVER has the right to physically hurt her in any way. Anyone who reads 1 Peter 3.7 that way has got serious issues and needs to get counseling. And my advice to wives who are caught in a marriage like that is this: RUN! Get out before it gets worse. The first time your husband strikes you, take the kids and leave. I’m not saying get a divorce. That may be necessary. But I am saying show some self-dignity. If your husband won’t treat you with the respect you deserve, this doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t! And the longer you wait, the harder it will get.
• It does NOT mean that he has the right to bully his wife, verbally abuse her, bark orders at her like he’s Archie Bunker, belittle her, or treat her with any less respect than he would his most-respected friend. Husbands, your wife is not your doormat. She is not your slave. She is not there to serve your every whim. She is there to partner with you in the gospel so that the sum of the two of you working together is greater than what either of you could do apart. Peter gives a profound warning in this verse: Husbands who treat their wives right will not have their prayers hindered. In other words, if you mistreat your wives, you have no guarantee that God will answer your prayers. Husbands, if you’re having a multitude of difficulties in life—difficulties at work, difficulties with your children, difficulties with your relationships, difficulties with finances, difficulties with health, difficulties with sexual temptation (the list is endless)—maybe you should look at how you are treating your wife. Maybe God’s not answering your prayers because you’re not honoring her.
• It does NOT mean that he has the right to ask his wife to do anything that is illegal or immoral. And when husbands do this under the guise that their wives have to obey them, the wives need to stand up against such nonsense and challenge their husbands to be more godly. Wives, a complementarian viewpoint on the role of husbands and wives does NOT mean that you should obey your husband when he asks you to do anything illegal or immoral.
• It DOES mean that you are to treat your wives with the same respect that you treat yourself—assuming you do treat yourself with respect.
• It DOES mean that you are to love your wife as Christ loved the church. How did he do it? With self-sacrifice, with placing her needs above your own, with gently guiding her and your family in the ways of peace and righteousness.
• It DOES mean that before your children you two present a united front. The worst kind of parenting is that which the children can easily manipulate by pitting parent against parent. These little monsters are smart; you have to be smarter! Husbands, support your wife’s call in front of the children. NEVER contradict her when she lays down the law for the kids. You do that and you’ve just robbed your wife of any respect and honor that she could have before the kids. This goes for the wife, too. My wife and I have four boys. And they would always try to appeal to one parent after the other one already said no. They’d get smart and wait for a few hours, then spring the request on the second parent (usually me) who did not know that they already got turned down by the first parent (usually Pati). But we got smart too: We asked if they already talked to the other parent. Of course, we didn’t just take their word for it. (Children are totally depraved sinners, too.) We’d call the other parent. And never ever did the second parent say yes when the first one said no. I can’t stress how vital this is. You cross that line and you’ve just damaged the authority that your spouse MUST have with the kids.
• It DOES mean that you trust your wife. Read Proverbs 31 sometime (soon!), and see if your wife is living up to her potential. Ask her what she wants to get out of life. Ask her if she feels unfulfilled. Ask her if she feels threatened by you, or if she is scared by you. Ask her if she feels that you love her, if she feels that you put her needs before your own. Ask her if she thinks you’re a good husband and, if not, what you can do about it. I’m serious. But if you ask her, do NOT then turn the tables and tell her what you think of her as a wife. And don’t use her honesty with you as a weapon against her. If you’re really a complementarian husband, then you should also believe that men are designed to be initiators and wives are designed to be responders. (Not in everything and not in every way, my egalitarian friends; please, let this one go! See caution below.) If you’ve got a list of complaints about your wife, then guess what? You can do something about it by being a better husband, by taking the initiative to truly love your wife. You may be surprised by what you discover.

I’ve only touched the surface of some issues. I haven’t touched on alcohol (but here’s an obvious tip: If drinking tends to make you violent, abstain. Period.) I haven’t touched on pornography or unfaithfulness or a host of other issues. There are many reasons why husbands beat their wives. All of them are bad reasons, wrong reasons, utterly sinful reasons.

OK, enough for now. I’m interested to see where this dialog will go. But please don’t make it your own soapbox on why this view or that view is right. A couple of blog posts ago, that happened and now we’ve got a runaway blog on our hands. 150 comments and still counting! Let’s deal with what constitutes wife abuse and what does not, what a good marriage looks like and what it does not look like. If you get too far off course, either Michael or I will comment. This is too important an issue to get sidetracked.

Your turn.

Considering the activity on my recent blog posts and Theology Unplugged podcasts on the will of God and Barack Obama, I though I would squeeze this lemon one last time (and pour some salt). No, that does not mean take a shot of tequila before reading this!

My basic argument was that whatever faults one may be inclined to find in Barack Obama, he was elected president. In this, it was, in some very real sense, the will of God.

While I was a singles’ pastor for six years, I often dealt with issues from those whom I had married. I had these issue in both premarital counseling and post-marital counseling. In post-marital counseling things got interesting. I would often sit in the presence of a discouraged wife or husband whose marriage was less than happy. For some, things just weren’t clicking. For others, the problems were more serious. Much of the time people would suggest that they had made a mistake. In their mind, they simply married the wrong person and their “soul-mate” was still out there waiting.

These type of things quickly become a matter of theology—very practical theology. The question is this: Is it possible to have married the “wrong” person?

No matter how difficult things were I would always discourage such a direction in thinking. I don’t think that it is ever possible to have married the “wrong” person. I know that this sounds strange to some, but it is simply a natural outcome of my belief in God’s sovereignty. Just as the presidency is ultimately in God’s hands, even if and when people make evil choices, God’s will is ultimately being accomplished.

Getting personal: My wife and I met in a bar. Yes, that is right. Fifteen years ago, I was out, drunk and picking up on women. In a drunken stupor, I stopped my wife (my waitress at the time) and said “Before I get drunk, I want to say ‘I love you’” (sweet pick-up line, huh?) We hit it off, and to make a long story short, we got hitched. As I grew in the Lord, I questioned my motivations for marrying her. If you have seen her, you know she is very beautiful. This is not to brag, but to give you a sense of conflict that I have had (and, I am sure, Kristie has had as well). We have had our share of difficulties. I would like to say that things have been great with me and Kristie, but we have some very serious personality conflicts. Sometimes these are so severe, so discouraging, so long-lasting, so unforgiving, that the terrible question pop’s in my head, “Did I marry the wrong person?” It is in these times that my theology begins to lock certain doors.

Are you supposed to meet your wife in a bar? No, not ideal. Are you supposed to love her primarily because of looks? No, not ideal. Can you make wrong decisions that lead to an important decision such as marriage? Absolutely. So, was it God’s will that I marry Kristie. You bet.

You see, I believe that God works with us in our sin. Does he have any other choice? If he did not work through our sin, what does the world “grace” mean and, frankly, when would he work? God brought Kristie and I together and our togetherness has been hard. Yes, it could have been easier had we married someone else. We could have smiled more. We could have been more relaxed. Things could have more “click” to them. We could be setting an example of a “Christian marriage” for all to see. Although I hate to say this, the grass sometimes really is greener on the other side.

But my shade of green is not necessarily God’s.

Is it God’s will for Kristie and I to be together? You bet. Could there have been better choices made? “Better” is rather relative and can get you into trouble. From a human perspective which does not see all ends and is foolishly self-serving, yes. From a divine perspective, no.

God has a purpose for Kristie and I to be together. We did not marry the wrong person. Sometimes we cannot see what is really going on and our passions are clouded by the pain, but we must keep our eyes on the sovereignty of God and find a much deeper level of satisfaction in each other knowing that God—the all-knowing God—has put us together for a reason. In this we swallow our thoughts of mistake and we let go of the humanistic “soul-mate” theory. Once this is done, we find a new fairy-tale marraige that is better than any we could have chosen. Why? Because God knows best. Because God works through sin. Settled, satisfied, and in constant delight describes my marraige when I take this perspective. Don’t catch me on one of those other days.

EDIT: Before you react to this post in a very critical matter, believing I have lost my bearing, heading toward some sort of radical Calvinism, please answer this. If you were talking to someone who was the result of a rape/incest union and they asked you, “Was it God’s will for me to be conceived?” What would you say?

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries is supported by the financial partnership of those who believe in what we are doing. Consider partnering with us today.

(HT: Bring the Noiz)

Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.

2. Teleological Argument: (Gr. telos, “end” or “purpose”) This is also know as the argument from design. This argument moves from complexity to a necessary explanatory cause for such complexity. The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of the cosmology, the voice of God is heard. Therefore, God’s existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the undesigned designer.

3. Moral Argument: This argument argues from the reality of moral laws to the existence of a necessary moral law giver. The idea here is that if there are moral laws (murder is wrong, selfishness is wrong, self-sacrifice is noble, torturing innocent babies for fun is evil), then there must be a transcendent explanation and justification for such laws. Otherwise, they are merely conventions that are not morally binding on anyone. Since there are moral laws, then there must be a moral law giver who transcends space and time. This moral law giver is God.

4. sensus divinitatus (”sense of the divine”): While this argument goes by many names, the sensus divinitatus argues for the existence of God from the innate sense of the divine that exists within all people. This sense of the divine, it can be argued, is the “God shaped void” within all people. This explains why people, societies, and cultures of all time have been, by nature, those who sense a need to worship something greater than themselves.

5. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience: This is the argument from universal beauty and pleasure. Beauty and pleasure are universally recognized as such. Even subjective variation in one’s definition of what is beautiful are not distinct enough to relativize this principle. From the beauty or the sunset over the Rockies to the pleasure of eating certain foods, there is a common aesthetic experience that transcends the individual. This transcendence must have a ultimate source. This ultimate source is God.

6. Argument from the Existence of Arguments: The idea here is that there is no such thing as an argument without order and rationality. In the absence of God, all that exists is chaos. Chaos does not give birth to order. Arguments assume order. Order assumes purpose and design which in turn requires a transcendent being for its genesis. To even argue against the existence of God assumes his existence and is therefore self-referentially absurd. Therefore, there is no such thing as an “argument” against Transcendence (God).

7. Argument from the Existence of Free-will Arguments: If there is no God, then all we have is a meaningless series of cause and effect stretching back into eternity. This series of cause and effects is necessary and determined, being the result of the previous cause and effect. As a billiard ball is hit by another and has no self-motivated movements of its own, so all of human existence exists under the same attributes. All things are determined, not self-motivated, including beliefs. Therefore, if someone does not believe in God, it is not the result of self-motivated free-will beliefs, but because of a determined and fatalistic series of causes and effects stretching back into eternity. To argue against the existence of God would not be the result of looking at the evidence and making a more reasoned decision to not believe in God, but because that is what people were fatalistically determined to do. Therefore, all arguments are absurd and unjustified without God.

8. Argument from the Existence of Evil: Like the moral argument, this argument assumes the existence of a universal characteristic that is meaningless without God. Some argue that the existence of evil disproves God (or at least a good God), but to argue such is formally absurd since one would have to have an ultimate and transcendent standard of good in order to define evil. If evil exists, goodness exists. If both exist, there must be a transcendent norm from which they get their meaning. Since evil does exist, God exists.

9. Argument from Miracles: There are events in human history which cannot be expained outside of the existence of God. Many people have their subjective stories that bend them in the direction of theism, but there are also historical events such as the resurrection of Christ and predictive prophecy which cannot be explained without an acknowledgment of God. In short, from the Christians standpoint, if Christ rose from the grave, then God exists. There is no alternative reasonable explanation which accounts for such an event outside a belief in God. History convincingly demonstrates that Christ did rise from the grave. Therefore, God exists.

10. Pascal’s Wager: Popularize by French philosopher Blaise Pascal, Pascal’s Wager argues that belief in God is the most rational choice due to the consequences of being wrong. If one were to believe in God and be wrong, there are no consequences. However, if one were to deny God and be wrong, the consequences are eternally tragic. Therefore, the most rational choice, considering the absence of absolute certainty, is not agnosticism or atheism, but a belief in God.

What do you think. Put these in the order of the most persuasive to the least.

Besides affirming the deity of Christ in both of these passages, the book deals with constructions that do not fit Sharp’s rule and thus have a different force. “Pastors and teachers” in Eph 4:11 and “apostles and prophets” in Eph 2:20 are discussed at length, for example. In neither of these passages is it likely that the groups are identical. The fact that the book came out after Gordon Fee’s magisterial Pauline Christology has afforded me the opportunity to interact with Fee’s arguments that “our great God and Savior” refer to the Father rather than the Son. I disagree with him on this, and argue that the epithet speaks of Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, the book had several typos in the Greek due to some font issues at the printer’s. But a corrigenda sheet will accompany each hard copy so that you can spot the errors and make the corrections. If you write to me (dbw@csntm.org), I can send you the corrigenda sheet (in case you buy a copy that was already dispatched to the reseller before the typos were detected).
The monograph will be on sale at the Society of Biblical Literature’s annual meeting coming up in Boston later this month.

Working in my field, I often wonder if we don’t have more modern day Abecedarians in the Evangelical church than we know.

What do you think?

I tell all. Don’t miss this . . .

Enjoy . . .

A friend sent me the blog that was posted at CBMW about my recent essay on the role of women, posted at bible.org. I’m honored that my views would be considered worthy of discussing at CBMW. But I have to say, I think I was misrepresented.

Here’s what the blog post said, “Wallace responded by admitting that he could never embrace egalitarianism because it is clearly unbiblical; the text just does not support egalitarian claims…”

That’s far more than what I actually wrote on two fronts. First, nowhere in the essay did I say that I could never embrace egalitarianism. Not even close. Instead, what I said was that I could not go against my conscience and that, in my view, egalitarians were doing exegetical gymnastics. But even here I couched my statement with a note of personal perspective. Throughout the essay you will see qualifiers such as “For me at least,” “I think,” “probably,” etc. These points were mentioned specifically in relation to my exegetical certainty about the role of women in the church. Probably the strongest statement I made in terms of certainty was “I may not be comfortable with my complementarian position, but I am unwilling to twist scripture into something that it does not say. (I’m not saying that those who take an egalitarian position on this passage are willing to twist the scriptures! But I am saying that I think they are, in effect, probably doing this just the same.)”

Second, I did not say that egalitarianism was clearly unbiblical. Again, I couched all from my own perspective. As I concluded my essay, “after all the exegetical dust has settled, to deny some sort of normative principle to 1 Tim 2:12 is probably a misunderstanding of this text.”

I believe that the blogger got wrong his whole premise for the post because he assumed that I was certain in my exegesis and cowardly (or at least wishy-washy) in my behavior.

The irony here is that I was quoted out of context and misexegeted. I’m sure that some egalitarians will jump on this and say that complementarians do the same thing with scripture!

Allow me to clarify my view: Both since my exegesis is not certain and since this is not a central issue to the Christian faith, I cannot be as firm in my position or attitude as I can be on other issues. What is at stake here is one’s doctrinal and pragmatic taxonomy. The way the blogger wrote about my views it sounded as if he had a flatline in doctrinal nuancing. That, in my view, is not the healthiest way to think about scripture.

Daniel B. Wallace, PhD
Executive Director,
Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
www.csntm.org

The rise of the New Atheism, led by what Stark calls “angry and remarkably nasty atheists,” is attested to by several bestsellers, which have presumably signaled a breakthrough for atheism—“that large numbers of Americans were now ready to stand up and admit they didn’t believe in God.” Despite recent claims that the number of atheists has risen sharply in recent years, the evidence reveals something else: “what most people who say they have no religion mean is not that they are irreligious, but that they have no church.”

The percentage of atheists in America revealed by, say, Gallup polls and the Baylor Survey, shows a tenacious consistency over the years: 1944: 4%; 1947: 6%; 1964: 3%; 1994: 3%; 2005: 4%; 2007: 4%. I found it interesting that “the majority of children born into an irreligious home end up joining a religious group—most often a conservative denomination.”

This is true in other countries as well: even in secularized Europe the vast majority don’t claim the title “atheist” (the highest is France with 14%—the same percentage as China). The former Soviet Union and its Eastern bloc satellites—despite decades of atheistic indoctrination—now show only a mild residue of atheism: just 1% in Poland, Romania, Georgia—though the atheists in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic are 6% and 8% respectively. In Russia the score is the same as in the United States: God 96%, atheism 4%! Despite systematic efforts to “cram” atheism down the throats of citizens in the former Soviet Union and China, these have failed miserably. The Communist authorities just didn’t understand religion, and neither do the new Atheists. Rodney Stark’s says this about the New Atheists’ attempts to stamp out religion: “To expect to learn anything about important theological problems from Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett is like expecting to learn about medieval history from someone who had only read Robin Hood.”

Why all the hype about a surge of atheism? Well, what appears to be a rising tide of atheism in America is simply the result of an overrepresentation of New Atheism by the media. And despite receiving maximum coverage on all fronts, Michael Novak notes that “there is an odd defensiveness about all these books—as though they were a sign not of victory but of desperation” (http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5922).

This is no occasion for smugness and apathy, however. There is much work to do! As David Kinnaman’s book unChristian (Baker) reminds us, many outsiders to the church have negative reactions to “Christians,” who appear judgmental, out of touch, hypocritical, and so on. On the other hand, Rodney Stark gives us statistical reminders that God has placed eternity in our hearts and that human beings are incurably religious. Even the New Atheists’ affirmation that human beings are “hard-wired” to believe in a supernatural agent (the Oxonian Christian philosopher Justin Barrett talks about the worldwide phenomenon of children being “intuitive theists”), but the New Atheists think this “reductionistic explanation of religion” actually eliminates the reality of God. Actually, this genetic hard-wiring actually reinforces the reality of God’s existence! In Augustine’s words, “You have made us for Yourself, O God, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in you.”

Whether you voted for him or not, my fellow American citizens, Obama is our new president. The balance of powers has now completely shifted. Agree or not, the people have spoken.

I praise God for this. In fact, I will rejoice at the revealing of his will.

Why?

Because, ultimately, God is in control of who sits in the White House. The plans of the heart belong to man, but the Lord makes things happen (Prov. 16:1). God placed Obama in the presidency according to his sovereign will. That is right. Obama is the man God decided would be our next president. This is exactly what he wanted to happen.

Argue with him if you will. Argue about the history of this country, the supreme court judges, the issues of morality, and the moral superiority of our view on taxes but, in the end, “no wisdom, no understanding, no counsel can avail against the LORD” (Prov. 21:30).

Don’t bother inviting him to your morning party either. He will not come. No RSVP either. In fact, he won’t even send an angelic representative.

He will simply send a note saying,

“My dominion is an everlasting dominion, and my kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of America are accounted as nothing. I do according to my will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of America. No one can ward off my hand or say to me, ‘What have You done?’ (Dan. 4:35). The President’s heart is a stream of water in my hand; I turn it wherever I will (Prov. 21:1). Let every American be subject to President Obama. For there is no authority except from me, and those that exist have been instituted by me. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what I have appointed” (Rom. 13:1-2). —God

This is why I rejoice with great anticipation, following the Lord in the direction he is leading. In this, I celebrate the election of Barack Obama in as much as I celebrate the revealing of the will of the Lord.

Here is my letter to Barak Obama,

“Congratulations for being my next president. Rest assured that you will have my respect and allegiance for as long as you are in office. I pray that God gives you wisdom and guidance, strength and courage, and clarity and judgment. If you fail in any way, I will not say, ‘Ah ha! I told you!’, but I will stand behind you with prayers of hope. If you succeed in any way, I will rejoice with you. In everything, I promise that I will lift you up in prayer as you are God’s instrument in leading this country.”

Romans 11:33 “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” 35 “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries is supported by the financial partnership of those who believe in what we are doing. Consider partnering with us today.

(Gk. theos, God + tokos, “parturition, childbirth”)

Theotokos is a historic designation given to Mary in relation to her role as the mother of Christ. Theotokos means “God bearer.” This designation was approved by the third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. Nestorius apposed the use of the term theotokos, preferring christotokos (”Christ-bearer), believing that Mary was the mother of the human nature of Christ, not the divine nature. Most, however, felt that this would divide Christ into two persons. Led by Cyril of Alexandria, the council chose theotokos to acknowledge a belief in the dual-nature of Christ. It is important to note that this designation was not meant to venerate Mary, but to make a theological statement about Christ. He must be fully God and fully man if man is to have redemption.

Read Cyril’s letter to Nestorius defending theotokos.

“Lord Jesus, I know I am a sinner and don’t deserve eternal life. But I believe you died and rose from the grave to purchase a place for me in heaven. Lord Jesus, come into my life; take control; forgive my sins and save me. I repent of my sins and now trust in you to save me. I accept the free gift of eternal life.”

So far so good, right? Well, yes . . . but . . . I am not going to pick the prayer apart with a theological fine tooth comb, but I do want to show you what the next slide in the presentation said. Here it is:

• If you have truly repented (turned away; forsaken) from your sins
• Placed your trust in Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death
• And received the gift of eternal life
• You are now a child of God forever.

Now, I don’t know about you, but that first bullet point has me slightly concerned. Now I am not sure I am a child of God. Has anyone forsaken their sins? I have and continue to try, but no luck yet.

Yes, this is the infamous (and often nauseating) Lordship salvation debate. How much does one have to do, believe, and change to be saved? No, I am not a proponent of Lordship salvation or its so-called opposite extreme called “easy-believism.” I can be often found eating popcorn right in the middle. This does not mean that I don’t have any convictions about the issue or that I think it is unimportant, it is just that I think that both sides have their points. In fact, I hold to a more mediating position called “Free Grace.”

Let me give you some brief definitions:

Lordship Salvation: The belief that salvation involves both a belief and repentance of one’s sins. Repentance is the “turning away” from all known sin, giving complete (not partial) “Lordship” of our lives to Christ. Without this full commitment, one is only a nominal Christian and has yet to experience true conversion.

Free Grace: The belief that salvation involves a complete trust in Christ for salvation. Repentance is the changing of one’s mind about who Christ is and their general attitude toward sin (i.e. that sin is bad and we don’t like it). This change of the mind will necessary bring forth the fruit of a change life, but one cannot determine what aspects must change or when the Holy Spirit will bring certain changes about. Christ is our “Lord” in the sense that he is God, not in the sense that we have abandoned all known sins. The abandoning of all sins requires a life long process called sanctification.

Easy-Believism: The belief that salvation involves a complete trust in Christ for salvation. Repentance is the changing of one’s mind about who Christ is. This change may or may not bring change in the life of the believer. Christ is “Lord” in the sense that he is their God, not in the sense that they have abandoned all known sins. The abandoning of all sins requires a life long process called sanctification.

Back to the prayer . . .

Bullet point one: “If you have truly repented (turned away; forsaken) from your sin [you are a child of God]”

Do you agree with this statement?

Can one be saved without “forsaken” their sins?

Have you forsaken you forsaken your sins?

Thoughts?

Whether Christ was the cause of His own Resurrection?

Objection 1. It seems that Christ was not the cause of His own Resurrection. For whoever is raised up by another is not the cause of his own rising. But Christ was raised up by another, according to Acts 2:24: “Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell”: and Romans 8:11: “He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies.” Therefore Christ is not the cause of His own Resurrection.

Objection 2. Further, no one is said to merit, or ask from another, that of which he is himself the cause. But Christ by His Passion merited the Resurrection, as Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.): “The lowliness of the Passion is the meritorious cause of the glory of the Resurrection.” Moreover He asked the Father that He might be raised up again, according to Psalm 40:11: “But thou, O Lord, have mercy on me, and raise me up again.” Therefore He was not the cause of His rising again.

Objection 3. Further, as Damascene proves (De Fide Orth. iv), it is not the soul that rises again, but the body, which is stricken by death. But the body could not unite the soul with itself, since the soul is nobler. Therefore what rose in Christ could not be the cause of His Resurrection.

On the contrary, Our Lord says (John 10:18): “No one taketh My soul from Me, but I lay it down, and I take it up again.” But to rise is nothing else than to take the soul up again. Consequently, it appears that Christ rose again of His own power.

I answer that, As stated above (50, 2,3) in consequence of death Christ’s Godhead was not separated from His soul, nor from His flesh. Consequently, both the soul and the flesh of the dead Christ can be considered in two respects: first, in respect of His Godhead; secondly, in respect of His created nature. Therefore, according to the virtue of the Godhead united to it, the body took back again the soul which it had laid aside, and the soul took back again the body which it had abandoned: and thus Christ rose by His own power. And this is precisely what is written (2 Corinthians 13:4): “For although He was crucified through” our “weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God.” But if we consider the body and soul of the dead Christ according to the power of created nature, they could not thus be reunited, but it was necessary for Christ to be raised up by God.

Reply to Objection 1. The Divine power is the same thing as the operation of the Father and the Son; accordingly these two things are mutually consequent, that Christ was raised up by the Divine power of the Father, and by His own power.

Reply to Objection 2. Christ by praying besought and merited His Resurrection, as man and not as God.

Reply to Objection 3. According to its created nature Christ’s body is not more powerful than His soul; yet according to its Divine power it is more powerful. Again the soul by reason of the Godhead united to it is more powerful than the body in respect of its created nature. Consequently, it was by the Divine power that the body and soul mutually resumed each other, but not by the power of their created nature.

From the Theological Word of the Day:

“Sacerdotalism

(Lat. sacerdos, “priest”)

Sacerdotalism is the belief in an established hierarchy that separates man from God. In such a system the priesthood stands as an essential mediator between God and man. This priesthood, according to sacerdotalists, is a necessary component in worship, receiving communion, confessing sin, baptism, and other acts of administering grace. This “caste” system is generally rejected by most Protestants who traditionally hold to the doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” (1 Pet. 2:5). Protestants believe that the only mediator between God and man is Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). Advocates of sacerdotalism reference the priesthood established in the Old Testament which was sacerdotal. Opponents will emphasize the difference between the New Testament church and the Old Testament theocracy, believing that the Old Testament sacerdotal system is completely fulfilled in Christ and, therefore, no longer necessary (Heb. 10:19-20).”

The priesthood of all believers is primarily illustrated as the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51), symbolizing the fulfillment and overshadowing of the old temporary sacerdotal system. Now, you and I as believers don’t need any representation to God other than the God-man, Jesus Christ.

What does this mean?

It means that the ministry is not an elite force of those who are “called” into full-time service. Pastors, elders, priests, bishops, and deacons are no better, more powerful, or more respected by God than any other person. Ministry is not an elite force of the few and the proud. Ministry is everyone’s job, not just the clergy. I am no better or more favored by God because of my ordination. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that ordination is not important anymore than I would say that medical school is not important for a doctor. But what I am saying is that there is no caste system whatsoever in Christianity. Caste systems deny an important aspect of the effects of the cross. They fail to recognize Christ as the second Adam. The veil has been rent.

Included in this renting, I believe, is any semblance of a necessary mediation, even in the most sacred events, including baptism or marriage.

However, I have been at Protestant churches that do not allow lay people to baptize. In fact, I would say that this is true of most Protestant churches. Only the pastor is allowed to perform the “rite.”

Marriage is another story since the government supports an assumed sacerdotal system, not recognizing the marriages of those who perform such without a valid ordination.

As well, I have also been in situations where the church would not allow communion to be administered outside of the church. The walls of the church, in this case, form a sacerdotal architecture. Some simply do not allow anyone to administer the Lord’s table but the clergy or eldership.

The question that I have is Are not these circumstances representative of a denial of the priesthood of all believers? Shouldn’t lay-people be able baptize, administer the Lord’s table, regardless of who or where, and perform weddings?

If not, isn’t this just another form of sacerdotalism? Has the curtain really been rent or not? What am I missing?

Source Unknown (if you wrote it, claim it).

Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too.

It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got’ ‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.