Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura originated in the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s as one of the five Solae, a set of statements that defined the Reformation.  They have become known as the pillars of the Reformation.

 The statements are Sola Fide (faith alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Sola Christo (Christ alone), Sola Scriptura (scripture alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (To God alone be Glory).  These formed the basis of what we know as the Protestant Reformation.  In the future, we may have posts on the other points, but we think it is especially important to understand Sola Scriptura.

The Westminster Confession of Faith puts the doctrine this way:

 “Chapter 1, Section VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

Consistency

One of the great theological debates between Protestants and Roman Catholics is what the basis of interpretation and authority of our Theology should be.  Protestants believe in "Sola Scriptura," that the Bible, in and of itself, is authoritative.  (Most) Catholics have historically quickly and quite intelligently objected that this reasoning is circular, for it would seem to be the case that scripture is giving authority to itself.  

The history of this debate begins in the 16th century with the Council of Trent.  Here, Catholic theologians declared that the revelation of God was not entirely contained within scripture, for He has also been revealed through oral tradition (or the tradition of the Church), so it would follow that “Scripture alone” is not a sufficient basis.  Despite the fact that Catholic circles are still very much in debate of the impact of tradition, the question remains, is scripture sufficient?

It’s extremely important to note that the early church very much believed in the authority of scripture alone, as attested by the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus..  Namely because scripture is comprised of authors personally given authority by God, so the sinfulness of man doesn’t deter its perfection.  From this it seems that the contention of tradition’s authority really comes from a perceived need rather than (ironically) tradition itself.  

The perceived need is precisely the problem raised earlier: the notion that Scripture’s authority is

circular. This is an important issue, for the conclusion of the debate guides each Christian in the proper way of interpretation of scripture.  If scripture is not authoritative in and of itself, then one must always consult tradition or the official teachings of the (Catholic) Church to be given the correct interpretation.  However, we think that this view, when examined, is nothing more than a denial of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. (side note: for questions on responding to these questions from atheists, see picture on the right. There will be a post on this in the future)

A really simple formulation of the problem:
1. Scripture is authoritative in and of itself (assumption of Protestants).

2. Scripture says that Holy Spirit guides interpretation of those reconciled in Christ (the Bible).

3. Necessarily, the Holy Spirit guides the interpretation of those reconciled in Christ (1,2).
4. Each person reconciled in Christ can read scripture (technical assumption).

5. Therefore, each person can interpret scripture through the guidance of the Holy Spirit (3,4).

Proponents of tradition will point out that without (1), not everyone can interpret Scripture.  That with (1), the circularity arises.  However, I think the above formulation can be re-written to circumvent this objection.

1. If the Holy Spirit exists, it would have the power to guide the interpretation of Scripture (assumption of Protestants).

2. Personal revelation in the hearts of followers of Christ confirm the existence of the Holy Spirit (this is an uncontested experiential truth and properly basic belief).  

3. Therefore, the Holy Spirit can guide the interpretation of Scripture.

This deduction seems really simple.  However, the fact that Scripture acknowledges the existence and effect of the Holy Spirit does not nullify any of these basis .  (2) is uncontested in Christian theology on almost all accounts, and (3) is a correct logical deduction, so the issue is (1).  The most common contention is closely phrased as “you cannot know if the Holy Spirit can guide the interpretation of Scripture without reading that in Scripture.”  However, I think that is insufficient to make (1) fall.  For example, my personal experience with the Spirit, apart from Scripture affirming the truth of this transformation, is that the Spirit truly transformed my heart and mind.  There is a conscious reality of the effects of the Spirit, and the truth value of those effects can be placed logically prior to the knowledge of Scripture’s prediction of such effects.  This experience has, in me, justified my “knowing” the power of the Spirit, and accordingly apart from Scripture’s affirmation of this fact.  Thus there is good reason to believe that this is logically valid.

 Again, these are only our views, and if you have any questions or concerns, please email us or comment!  Sorry we didn't post this past week, both of us have been extremely busy.

Grace and Peace,

Excelsior

Athanasius

Miracles and the Mercy of God

A miracle, as defined by Webster’s dictionary is

1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

Throughout both the Old and New Testament, a reader is confronted with events and phenomena which fit the above description. From the book of Genesis when God created a spring for Hagar and Ishmael to more commonly known miracles like the parting of the Red Sea.  In the New Testament, Jesus proves to all who will see that he is the promised Messiah by fulfilling a prophecy from Isaiah 29:18.  One of the oldest and most popular attacks on Christianity is that miracles simply cannot occur.  There have also been many champions of miracles, who understood the consequences of a world without such occurrences.  Below we have listed a few of our favorite.

“The genuine realist, if he is an unbeliever, will always find strength and ability to disbelieve in the miraculous, and if he is confronted with a miracle as an irrefutable fact he would rather disbelieve his own senses than admit the miraculous also.” ~Fyodor Dostoevsky

“What was wonderful about childhood is that anything in it was a wonder. It was not merely a world full of miracles; it was a miraculous world.”~G.K. Chesterton

"There are only two ways to live life: as if nothing is a miracle or as as if everything is a miracle." ~Albert Einstein

"It is in the ordinariness of the events of life, and in the ordinariness of people that God unfolds His plan for you and me." -Alistair Begg

“Sometimes we get caught up in trying to glorify God by praising what He can do and we lose sight of the practical point of what He actually does do.”  ~Dallas Willard

“Jesus' miracles provide us with a sample of the meaning of redemption: a freeing of creation from the shackles of sin and evil and a reinstatement of creaturely living as intended by God.”~Randy Alcorn

This last quote will be the jumping off point for our defense of miracles.  Our goal is to show the compatibility of this intuition with God.  In doing so, we will address the two main conjectures to the reality of miracles: the impossibility of existence of miracles, and the impossibility of identification of miracles.

The existence of miracles was popularly criticized in the early 17th century by Baruch Spinoza.  He had numerous arguments for the nonexistence of miracles, the most convincing of which was the proposition that a world with miracles was imperfect, for it meant that God would not have created a perfect world, meaning He was not All-Powerful.  A flurry of responses came quickly after this claim.  
To generalize a few centuries worth of arguments, I’ll just list them:

1. Who is to say that God did not just create the world precisely so that miracles would occur. This is to say that assuming the plan for the universe was a consistent, law driven machine is to beg the question in opposition of God’s proposed intention.

2. A world with miracles is intuitively better with respect to perfection, for miracles are a certain presentation of God’s power, both proving His existence and demonstrating His glory.
3. The points in time when miracles occurred were important for a number of historical, cultural, and theological reasons, justifying logically the rare (or never before seen) nature of each particular miracle - God may have intended to “really make a splash” when it was necessary.

Each of these arguments presupposes God’s existence, for Spinoza was a deist, and contentions against miracles is by definition a critique of a theistic worldview.  It would be circular and invalid to say “There is no God, so miracles are impossible.”  This is much different from “If there is no God, then miracles are impossible.”  The first assumes what is trying to be shown to be false.  As you can see, for Christianity, those three simple contentions give good reason to think, given God, miracles are possible and likely from an Omnipotent Creator.

With regards to the identification of miracles, the champion has been, and perhaps will always be David Hume.  In his essay “Of Miracles” Hume proposes an In Principle, In Fact argument.  In other words, he aimed to show that given the Best conceivable scenario for miracles, the conclusion would still be uncertainty, but that in reality, there have been and cannot be any such circumstances, implying absolute uncertainty with regards to miracles.  

Hume claims that, In Principle, the evidence for any particular miracle is in direct clash with all of time and the experience therein.  That is to say, to confirm a miracle happened, you must deny all of the evidence you have, namely, the entire past of your life and others.  Thus, even if the instance was such that you would be certain, no wise man could believe it in confidence, for it is only equal with the supposed certainty of the reality of the past.

Hume takes it a step further claiming that, in fact, no miracle has such evidence.  Claiming :

1. Miracles are only believe by barbarous peoples.  

2. They have never been confirmed by nobles, or someone that had something to lose by believing in them.  

3. People are prone to believe the incredible.  

4.  Miracles are confirmed by all religions, so they contradict each other and must be false

My response:
To the in-principle argument, his characterization of probability is just wrong.  The advent of Bayes theorem (an important theory in statistics and set theory applicable to conditional probability) allows us to reason through broad, supposed “intuitive” claims like that of Hume.  People much smarter than Athanasius and I have proved this.  I recommend Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig (he proves the theorem and applies it to Hume’s argument).  If you have no money (like us), email us and I will write it up for you to see.  Furthermore, this doesn’t even seem intuitively right.  For example, if you saw someone die, and then later heard that that person was alive again, you would be skeptical. But of what?  Not their death for you saw it with your own eyes, but of the truth of that report.  Now if you saw someone that was alive, and later heard they had died a month ago, you would be skeptical; not of their being alive, but of the report of them being dead.  However, this has nothing to do with sense perception, but of reports.  We are perhaps inclined, therefore, to oppose miracles because the difficulty in believing the reports, not our senses.  This seems to align very much with the Dostoevsky quote above.  Identifying a miracle is no more difficult than being able to tell an alive person from one dead.  Just because something is contra-experiential doesn’t mean it is a logical contradiction.  The only way one could say a supposed miracle is impossible is if they confirmed it to be false.  

Consider this powerful illustration.  Imagine twelve men, among them a doctor, a lawyer, a laborer, a scribe, and all noble, respectable, and honest.  Further imagine them all claiming to have seen a man die, then after three day claim He had returned to life.  You have no reason to doubt they cannot tell someone’s being alive from them being dead.  Furthermore, you know for a fact they all witnessed the once-dead man at different times,and reported the incident indepently.  You finally observe them all subsequently put to death for affirming this miracle, denying the right to retract their claim to stay alive, all the while losing all they had (even while alive) and going against the state that ruled them.  No reasonable person could deny the certainty of their identification.

 Hume’s In Fact argument is more insulting than anything.  

1. False. For example, at least four philosophy professors at Oxford are Christians.
2. With respect to Christianity, this is blatantly wrong.  If you didn’t recognize the above illustration as the Biblical story of Christ’s resurrection, then now you know, and can appreciate the loss and seriousness with which the disciples of Christ treated their sightings.
3. This is the genetic fallacy.  The truth of something or some claim cannot be refuted by its origin.  For example, babies are genetically predisposed to believe that when something goes behind a wall or out of sight that that particular thing still exists, but just isn’t visible.  The fact that they did not “decide” that or even think about it has no effect on the truth of the perception.  In effect, (3) is just a surface claim.
4. In a lot of ways, this needs to be handled case by case.  If you want to read a refutation of each of Hume’s examples, email us for some suggested readings.  However, just in itself, this claim isn’t really true.  Christianity is the only religion that I am aware of that precisely claims that miracles are attestation of the Divine.

In scripture, there are two kinds of Miracles:

1) Supernatural Miracles- ie Lazarus being raised from the dead, world-wide flood, etc.

2) Natural Miracles- ie You just took a breath, gravity is working, the sun is shining, etc.

Most people don’t have a problem with the second type of miracle and simply call them scientific laws without a second thought.  These are just as much miracles and the second type however, and we ignore this to our peril.  Science can and does describe to us the how of such natural phenomena, but it cannot tell us why such events occur.  Primary causation is not a question which science can answer.  The simple miracle of existence is most complex.

In regard to the second type, it has been said that the exception proves the rule.  And he who creates laws may bend them to accomplish his will since he is above his own laws.  In the end though, Jesus' miracles were not an aberration of the created order, but the beginning of its' restoration.  Creation was meant to be perfect, untainted by death, disease, or sin.  WIn many ways, Prophecy (which we will have a post on soon) and Miracles fulfill similar purposes; they are a sign and remembrance that the world will not always remain as it is, that Hope is coming and will not put us to shame.  Miracles are brief moments when God shows us that the world will be made right.  We do not see it at present, but if we look there are hints and whispers of the world that will be.  Christ is not actually violating the laws he put in place when he does miraculous works.  Instead, he is beginning to bring the world back to the state of being it is supposed to be. (Heb. 2:6-11)

Many people’s conception of miracles can be shown by the diagram below.

Miracles => Faith  
If they are shown miracles, then they will have faith and believe.

However, this is exactly the opposite of how Jesus works.  As we are faithful and have faith, he reveals miracles to us.

Faith => Miracles

Miracles do not come to us when we want them, but rather when we need them.  Not when we think or believe we need them, but when we actually need them.

“But when first the two black dragons sprang out of the fog upon the small clerk, they had merely the effect of all miracles – they changed the universe. He discovered the fact that all romantics know – that adventures happen on dull days, and not on sunny ones. When the cord of monotony is stretched most tight, it it breaks with a sound like song.” ~G.K.Chesterton

Love in Christ,
Athanasius 

Excelsior
P.S. For further reading, check out C.S. Lewis' indispensable book, "Miracles."

Apologetiception: An Apologetic for Apologetics (Part 2)

Disclaimer: We do not believe this sign depicts any official nor common stance of the Baptist church.

(This is a continuation of this post.)

Before I start this post, you, the reader, should know I just prayed that God would speak through me with wisdom and love.  I admit that I, Excelsior (such a great name, I know), really struggle with the appropriate approach to Christian Apologetics in practice.  In this post, I aim to show (giving Athanasius a break to read another dozen books) that Apologetics is Biblical, useful, and necessary, but only to a point.  I further aim to show where that point is. 

An "apology" is "a defense of."  Apologetics is a term almost always used in short meaning "Christian Apologetics" or "A defense of Christianity."  Thus it is in many ways an intellectual exercise, using reason as best one can to explain and make sense of all that Christianity teaches. 

In a previous post, Athanasius explained that above all else, love trumps.  This is the most important thing to keep in mind.  That any means one uses, it must be done with love to be of God and for God.  In that spirit, 1 Peter 3 (ESV)  commands a unique duty: "[13] Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? [14] But even if you should suffer for righteousness‘ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, [15] but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, [16] having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame."

This is a great starting point: we now know 1) We are called to always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in you. I.e. we ought to know and depend on the spirit to provide adequate reason for all that we believe.  This doesn't mean you need to be a philosopher - I think a simple "I have hope because of the truth confirmed in my heart through my relationship with Jesus" would more than suffice as a logical reason to have hope.  The point is we should have a reason. 2) The second point is simple, and follows from the first: that "reason" isn't ungodly, but necessary in this respect. It's true, we are supposed to have the faith of a child, with no doubt (Matthew 18-19, Mark 10, James 1).  So if the "reason" isn't apparent for certain questions, follow James 1 and ask God for wisdom in faith, but do not doubt that the answer will come.  3) Do it with gentleness and respect - this is where Athanasius and I can sometimes go wrong, especially with each other.  Intellectualism aside, love is always most important, and supersede's one's desire to reason in any situation.

Does the Bible have any examples of apologetics?
OH yeah.
a) Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord..." (Even God uses reason in his dealings with us)

b) Acts 17:2 "And Paul went in as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures."

c) Matthew 22:23-33 shows Jesus using arguments against the Sadducees, an inductive argument no less.

d) Luke 10:25-28 "And behold a lawyer stood up to put [Jesus] to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" [Jesus] said to him, "What is written in the Law? How do your read it?"  And he answered, "You shall love he Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."  And [Jesus] said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live."
     This example is especially cool.  First of all, notice how Jesus cleverly speaks with this man Socratically, reasonably, and lovingly, - what a boss.  But furthermore, notice the four ways we should love he Lord - heart, soul, strength, and mind. It's actually sin to not worship God with your intellect.  I'm by no means an authoritative exegetitor (or someone who interprets scripture with few errors), but I think this implies that we always must have faith amidst doubt, and that we should seek the wisdom to satisfy our minds nonetheless.  James 1 would say to ask God for that wisdom.  Our last post mentioned the organization RZIM that proclaims "Helping the Thinker believe, helping the believer think."

e) Perhaps the best example of Apologetics in Scripture is found in Acts 17.  I encourage the reader to read this awesome chapter.  In verse 23, Paul uses reason to make an amazing point about the altar to "the unknown God" to the Men of Athens at the Areopagus (a forum for philosophical debate in Athens, Greece).  It's actually a pretty cool story.  Read it here.

There's other good biblical evidence to back-up this claim of using one's reason to find answers:
a) Philippians 4:5, "Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand;"

b) Isaiah 26:3, "You keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on you, because he trusts in you."

c) 2 Corinthians 10:5, "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,"

d) Romans 14:5, "One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike.  Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."
e) 2 Timothy 2:24-26, "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness,  God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."

Conclusion:
Reason and logic are not unimportant or sinful, but necessary aspects of evangelism and the Christian life, and are required to love God the way we ought to love Him, completely.  However, if any instance of providing a reason leads someone to quarrel, or be unloving, not gentle, or disrespectful in anyway, it is best to avoid the issue and simply love without bringing arguments into it.  We cannot with logic convince someone to believe in God (Romans 1:17), but God may use us  to dissuade their doubts in some way so that they are more open to seeking a loving relationship with our God.  All in all, talking about God's reasonableness is just another way we can show God's love, and through that, we will plant seeds for God.

Takeaway:
"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12:2.

With love (Notice the English for once),
Excelisor.

P.S. please email us at theology.guys@gmail.com with any questions, concerns, or criticism!  We are not and do not believe that we are always right and simply hope that what we write somehow helps fellow believers in their eventful travels on the inter-webs.  God bless.

Don't Lose Sight of the Goal: Using Apologetics and Theology

Hey Y'all,

This is Athanasius, Excelsior is really busy this week/end and so I am going to write today's post.  I'm also going to deviate a bit from our current trajectory.  We're both incredibly excited about our current series on God's love and logic, and an upcoming guest poster.  However, I think this short aside will be both beneficial in understanding our blog and future posts.

In this post, I'd like to briefly discuss how, why, and when to use apologetics and theology.  This will by no means be an exhaustive post.  Please feel free to email or comment with questions, comments, or "You're crazy!" haha

One of them men currently alive who I admire the most is Ravi Zacherias (for information on Mr. Zacharias refer to this page).  His ministry, RZIM has a simple, but profound mission statement.

HELPING THE THINKER BELIEVE. HELPING THE BELIEVER THINK.

I believe this idea is central to our understanding and use of the gifts God has given us.  Thinkers here is used to describe non-Christians who struggle to believe what Paul calls "the mystery of the gospel." (Romans 16:25, Ephesians 6:19)  For this occasion,we must show the Love of God, because this is the only thing that can save anyone.  The incredible love of God that transfers those who believe from the kingdom of death and darkness to that of His son's glorious life and light.(Colossians 1:13)

The believer is obviously a Christian, and many times needs to be taught to think.  Now, before anyone jumps up to say they think, hear me out.  I mean by "think" to think critically and understand in their own minds the truths and defense of Christianity so that they may give a defense of the hope within them.  (1Peter 3:15, Romans 14:5)  It is incredibly important that we understand how reasonable and logical the Scriptures and God's existence are.


This can often also be helpful in opening stages of helping unbelievers to give the Gospel a hearing.  In this though, we cannot get caught up in philosophy and logic and lose sight of God's love and his call on our lives.  Three scripture passages explain this better than I ever could:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:1-2, ESV)

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.   (1 Corinthians 1:18-19, 21-25 ESV)

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20, ESV)

A future post will give an apologetic for apologetics and why we believe it is worth studying.  For now, I hope this serves to explain how we must be discerning and prayerful in our study and use of both theology and apologetics, because otherwise it is incredibly easy to make Logic and Philosophy our God and lose sight of the scandalous nature of the Gospel and God's love.

In God's Unsearchable Love,

Athanasius

P.S. John 13:1-19 is this lived out by Jesus just prior to the Last Supper.  As his disciples argue about who will be greatest and why, Jesus begins to wash their feet, and teaches them that if he as their Lord and teacher will wash their feet (aka serve and love them) how much more should we as the Body of Christ serve each other?

God's Love and his Logic Part 1

In the church we often have a wrong mindset about how to deal with problems.

This comes many times from our inability to reconcile two seemingly impossible characteristics of God.  We believe that God is both the incredibly reasonable God of
Isaiah 1:18 who says "Come let us reason together," but also the God of 1 John 4:8 who tells us that "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love."

Over the next two weeks, we want to address the problems theological and apologetic related to this question.  Among the topics we'll be covering: The Problem of Evil, The Problem of Pain, Does God Love Everyone, and What was the point of Jesus death.  Today though, we will simply examine the incredible nature of God's love.

Because of the incredible magnitude of the Problem of Evil, etc, we aim to be rather rigorous in our explanation of both our understanding of God's love and the corresponding consistency with it and the presence of evil in the world.  This question of a loving and just God has plagued philosophers and thinkers for generations, so this is no small task.

We firmly believe that one cannot absolutely know the truth of God's existence, and can only be ultimately convinced through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  To many, the idea of God's existence, let alone a relationship with Him, may seem unprovable, untenable, or unimportant in conception at best.  With this in mind, we recognize each person has fundamental assumptions about the worldview to which they subscribe (i.e. Naturalism, Deism, Pantheism, Christianity, etc.).  Our contention is that the validity of a worldview is determinable by means of examining the consistency of the deductions that follow from a particular worldview's presuppositions.  Through this method we aim to show Christianity's superiority logically, so that each person can experience the love and confirmation of God's presence in their heart.  For Christians, our presupposition is the Word of God, or simply, the Bible.  Thus to address all problems evil, we must state the Bible's portrayal of God's Love and God's justice.  Because Scripture will function as our axioms, we will make continuous reference to this post in the following weeks.

God's love is the most incredible thing in and out of our Universe.  It is what gave birth to the Universe and knit us together as beings.  God's love is also seen as part of his Justice and vice versa. "Why boast of evil, mighty man?  The steadfast love of God endures all the day" (Psalm 52).  God's love does more than endure; it's of incredible power:
     So we come to know and believe the love God has for us.  God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.  By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgement, because as he is so also are we in this world.  There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.  For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.  We love because he first loved us.  If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.  And this commandment we have from Him: whoever loves God must also love his brother. (1 John 4:16-21)
This passage is rather self-explanatory about the purpose of and magnitude of God's love.  We love because He loves us, and by His love, we can abide in him.  There are great examples of His love as well.  The (in)famous John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that He gave his only Son, so that all who believe in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."  


Crash course in resurrection theology: we are all broken - separated from God in our original created nature - by our sin (Romans 5).  It is not necessarily a particular sin that separates us from God because all of sinned (Romans 5) and, more precisely, it is our very nature to sin (Romans 1).  We are unable to be reconciled by God by means of our works - that is, anything that we do - because of this separation ("but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear," Isaiah 59:2).  If we stopped here, life could not be a more depressing story.  There would be no hope.  How could a sinful creature look toward his creator?  However, this is not the end of the story.  His love for us is such that he refused to abandon us, and so by His grace we are saved ("For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them," Ephesians 2:8-10).  In order to punish sin, for God is Holy and Just, something needed done.  Our sin had to be paid for, but how?  In the Old Testament, God placed a symbol of this need.  Leviticus 16:6-10 details how a goat must be chosen, and that the High Priest will place upon it all the sins of the people for a year.  The goat will then be driven into the Wilderness and left to die.  This foreshadowing of our needed sacrifice is incredibly vivid.  (For more about Old Testament references, have patience.  We'll write on that later.)  Jesus is the scapegoat, the intercessor for our sin.  As He died on the cross, he carried upon himself all the sin for those would believe.  The holy son of God who never sinned was punished for our sin so we could be holy.  The theological term used for this is substitution atonement.  It is the idea that as Jesus died taking upon himself our sin, we receive his righteousness.  Because he was innocent, and died on our behalf, Christ rose again conquering where we never could have.  Thus, God's love and justice are both satisfied.  God has adopted all those who have faith in Christ's sacrifice as his sons and daughters. 


This is the story of his glory. We'll be make with more on it in a couple days



Soli Deo Gloria!

Excelsior

Athanasius

P.S. Sorry this post was late. Here are some sea turtles to make up for it.

What's a Cult Wednesday: Mormonism

Every Wednesday night, we hope to discuss some matter of uncertainty with respect to Christianity, to offer an apologetic.  This week: is Mormonism a cult?

 Cult, as defined by all-things truth, (aka) Wikipedia, is " in current popular usage, a pejorative term for a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre by the larger society."  In relation to orthodox Christianity (i.e. the basic fundamentals of Christianity agreed upon by the major Christian sects, including Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and various protestant denominations), we must question whether it agrees with the Apostle's and Nicene Creed (links to which are posted in our previous post ).  These historical creeds are considered the basis upon which Christian theology is built.  If a particular religious group's doctrine does not agree on basic tenets of the faith then one can know a movement is not orthodox.  Paul warns the Church at Phillipi that they should test every spirit which comes to them and if it preaches any other Gospel than that which he preached they should reject it.  We must then know when to reject false Gospels and how to perceive what is the truth.

In the mainstream, especially during the last presidential election, it became increasingly common to hear the media refer to Mormonism as Christianity.  It is not only our duty as Christians to reject false Gospels, but also particularly important as Christians in this media-driven world to ensure the real Gospel in communicated accurately.  In response to the recent rise of and attention give to Mormonism, we feel it necessary to emphasize the disparities between each fundamental doctrine.  For a different description of our criticisms, read this article.  We argue Mormonism is not orthodox for several reasons.

First, the method by which supposed divine revelation was given to Joseph Smith.  Smith claimed that God the Father, Jesus, John the Baptist, and the angel Moroni appeared to him in a series of visions and gave him golden tablets inscribed in  an ancient language, "Reformed Egyptian," from which he translated the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Books of Esther and Moroni.  However, he claimed that these tablets were taken back into heaven so we cannot examine them or see how well they were translated.  With Biblical texts, scholars routinely perform diagnostics and tests on the manuscripts of Scripture.  Not only does the 1800 years separating the texts of the book of Mormon and the books comprising the New Testament account for a lot of the stylistic differences in the texts, but they also contradict the basic theological principles.  Depending upon the teachings of Joseph Smith as opposed to the teachings of Christ is, by definition, not Christian.

Second, the interpretation of divinity is contradictory to Christianity.  A major tenant of orthodoxy, the Trinity is an undeniable aspect of the Gospel, describing God's nature as the perfect triune being, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Thus embodying each aspect of love (one who loves, is loved, and the spirit of love), for "God is love (1 John 4:8).  Joseph Smith's vision of God is very different.  Indeed, Christ was "a god," but no more of "a god" than Joseph Smith was.  This contradicts the very Ten Commandments. (Exodus 20:3,5; Deut. 6:4)  Mormons believe that when one dies, their belief and praise of God exalts him to a higher level of exaltation, leaving His current level empty, and thus taken place by that particular believer.  Very literally, each Mormon believes that they become a God at death.  This could not be a more different conception of God, and believers, in Christianity.





Third, Joseph Smith could not be considered a prophet by any New Testament standards.  In fact, it would be hard to conclude that he was moral, even using lenient standards.  In his lifetime, Joseph Smith had 33 (documented) wives.  This includes four pairs of sisters, and one mother-daughter combination.  It is indisputable that he also coerced teenagers into marrying him through promising their families salvation.  In one case, he threatened eternal damnation to a woman if she would not leave her current husband and marry him.  Besides the clear teaching of Christ of monogamy (in order to more perfectly represent the union between Christ and the church), any claim of power of justice or power over the damnation or salvation of souls apart from Christ is completely heretical, and inexplicably offensive to Christianity.  Paul is very clear in his description of marriage.  The purpose of marriage is to consecrate relations between a male and a female, making them one-flesh: a holy way to succumb to our natural sexual inclinations in a Godly manner.  The notion that marrying a particular man is the requisite to salvation is a contradiction to Christianity's conception of marriage, John 14:6 ("I am the way, the truth, and the life.  Nobody gets to the Father EXCEPT THROUGH ME" - JESUS), and our fundamental understanding of morality as human beings.

Although there are more reasons to think that Mormonism is completely contradictory to Christian doctrine, these reasons are necessary and sufficient in showing it is thus.  Although this post is not meant to address the validity of the claims made by Mormons, we strongly recommend the link posted at the top of this post for a succinct and candid introduction to the problems of Mormonism.



Semper Reformanda (Always Reforming),

Athanasius

Excelsior

Introductions

Hello!


We are students at one of America's top academic institutions with a passion for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Apologetics and Theology.  After a long discussion, we decided to write this blog anonymously.  While we agree on the core of the gospel, the Nicene and Apostles creeds, we have disagreements on other issues such as the age of the earth, freedom of the will, and other common matters of dispute.  In this post, we are just going to introduce ourselves and give a little bit of background on our beliefs and positions.  After that, we'll begin posting on issues we believe are important and worth discussing.  If readers have questions they want our take on or want us to discuss, we'd love to do that too!

Guy 1 aka Athanasius: Is originally from the south, and grew up going to Southern Baptist and PCA churches.  I would now consider myself reformed baptist in the tradition of Spurgeon.  God has blessed with a gift for understanding others and how they reach their conclusions.  I would like to think I am the human element to Excelsior's logic and precision.  I am a young earth creationist, reformed, and not really sure what I believe about eschatology.  Besides theology/apologetics, I am a history buff, economic theoretician, literary aficionado with newly discovered interests in psychology, anthropology, and business.  I have a great interest in politics and Christianity in the public arena.  I would consider myself a southern gentleman and a scholar of God and humanity.  My life and growth have been heavily influenced by: C.H. Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, Blaise Pascal, William Wilberforce, Fyodor Dostoevesky, Joseph Conrad, John Calvin, Augustine, Athanasius, Cormac McCarthy, John Piper, John Owen, John Bunyan, and a few others. P.S. Excelsior was predestined to think he's funnier than me...for now

Guy 2 aka Excelsior: Is originally from the north (we won), and grew up going to Baptist and Presbyterian Churches.  I would now consider myself seeking in my Theological positions.  Unlike Athanasius, I am not as well-read as this journey is one I've not been seriously pursuing for long.  At the moment, I believe in traditional Big Bang Cosmology and am a strong proponent of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  Further, I identify most with Molinism, although I am enjoying the literature on all sides of this debate as I proceed further on my spiritual walk.  At our "elite institution" I am studying Systems Engineering and Mathematics and would like to think God has blessed me with a strong inclination for logic.  Rigor is my specialty, consistency my niche.  Ever since Christ came into my heart I have felt drawn to apologetics and continue to be influenced by apologists and believers.  My background is very strong in metaphysics, with great understanding of theoretical physics and most recent cosmological models with a close second in philosophical areas of interest being morality.  Lastly, I'm terrible with word economy, way funnier than guy 1, and much better looking.

We'll post again this weekend.  Hope to see y'all around!



Love in Christ,

Athanasius and Excelsior