This Week in Review - 3/31/2017

Some more links to share!

What Does Semper Reformanda Mean? from Ligonier Ministries - Pretty much what the title says; it's an explanation of the historical background for the phrase Semper Reformanda.

Moses Was Not Abraham from The Heidelbog - A good explanation of baptism in regards to the covenants in church history. Namely, between the distinction of the Abrahamic covenant (which became a spiritual one under Christ, but not undone) and the Mosaic covenant (from which we were freed by Christ).

Seven Reasons Why We Should Not Accept Millions of Years from Answers in Genesis - A simple, brief explanation on why taking a position of millions of years is not a biblical one.

If the Quran Is True, Then It’s False from Stand to Reason - A brief discussion on the Quran's teaching regarding Allah's sending down the Law and the Gospel, and how, if the Quran is correct in that Allah sent them down, then it's untrue, as the Quran contradicts the Law and Gospel

What is moral relativism and how can Christians respond? from Coffeehouse Questions - We've all heard people say "That's true for you, but not for me," and similar statements. What's so fallacious about that reasoning, and how do you respond to it? This blog post gives some answers.

New Atheism’s Undead Arguments from Saints and Sceptics - An analysis of Richard Dawkins' argument that God can't exist because the universe is too complex, and that would require a super-complex creator, which is improbable. As the article points out, this philosophical contention has been refuted by theists and atheists, and for good reason.

You’re Not as Dumb as You Think You Are: Five Reasons to Put Down that Devotional and Pick Up the Actual Bible from Michelle Lesley - Ms. Lesley gives encouragement to women on how to get spiritual nutrition, not candy. My wife read this post and was very encouraged by it - and I found it to be on the level, so...

Don't Get Your Theology from the Movies from Michelle Lesley - A brief explanation on why movies can be detrimental to your understanding of theological matters or biblical stories.

Parents Are the First Apologists Your Child Should Ever Meet from Southern By His Grace - A warning to parents that you shouldn't rely on a pastor or the church in general to teach your kids how to handle the conflicts within our culture - it's up to you to prepare them, just as it was commanded in scripture.

Motherhood–You Are Not Enough from Reform Like a Woman - Good discussion on how feminism, and indeed modern society, looks down on motherhood, as well as how our sinful nature can affect our motherhood.

And in the humor corner...

Cecile Richards Thanks Ancient God Molech For Continued Government Funding Of Planned Parenthood from The Babylon Bee - I seriously thought this was a real story for a moment. Talk about Poe's Law...

This Week in Review - 3/24/2017

Here's another list of interesting links and resources I discovered this week. Quite a few to share here, from a variety of topics!

Creation Accounts and Ancient Near Eastern Religions from Christian Research Institute - It's common for people to say the Genesis narrative is just a rehash of Near Eastern religions, or at the very least that the ancient Jews may have been influenced by them. As this study from CRI shows, a lot of those connections are at best weak or superficial. It's a lot like many of those supposed connections between Christ's death and resurrection and other "dying and rising" myths.

Did Moses copy the Law from the Code of Hammurabi? from GotQuestions.org - A common claim is that the Law of Moses didn't really present anything new that Hammurabi didn't already try. This article provides some comparisons, and shows that all similarities are due to the fact that Hammurabi, and countless other cultures, recognize that things like theft, adultery, etc., are serious crimes that deserve punishment (y'know, that whole Romans 1 thing). The key differences are that, while Hammurabi's code dealt with criminal and civil law, the Law of Moses expands things into the spiritual and personal realm.

The Human Kind from Answers in Genesis - A little known fact among many people today is that, in the early stages of the theory of evolution, racism, and the concept of different levels of racial development, was wildly popular and accepted. Nowadays evolutionists and atheists like to distance themselves from that truth, but, rationally speaking (and looking at the issue of human biodiversity), that is evolution's logical step.

Did Bible Authors Believe in a Literal Genesis? from Answers in Genesis - Good read that answers the question on if scripture itself interprets Genesis as a literal, or figurative account. A lot of these arguments are similar to ones I've made in the past, so it's good to see other, more learned men coming to the same conclusions.

Jesus Created The Universe: The Deity Of Christ from Reasons for Jesus - Christ is divine not only from His own claims to being divine, but also the fact that scripture attests to His role as a "causal agent" for the act of creation.

How Early Was Jesus Being Worshiped As God? from Jonathan Morrow - A short read that provides both a quote from scripture and a quote from Pliny on the issue of the historicity of the worship of Christ. Some additional links are provided.

Is the Original Text of the New Testament Lost? Rethinking Our Access to the Autographs from Canon Fodder - A common argument from many today is that, since we don't have access to the original copies of the books in the Bible, we can't really know what they say. Is that true? A few scholarly thoughts on the subject are found here.

Two Moral Atrocities God supposedly committed from DyerThoughts - William Dyer addresses two supposed moral dilemmas that God commits in scripture: creating people with disabilities, and the infamous she-bear incident with Elisha and the youths. Do these prove God isn't worthy of worship? Dyer addresses each, especially by clarifying what's going on in the Elisha narrative.

Did Daniel Accurately Predict a Succession of Nations? from Christian Research Institute - Nice read on the historical narrative found within Daniel, from the fall of Babylon to the rise of the Seleucid Empire. In some respects it could have gone into even deeper detail, or handled the troubling passages from Daniel 11:40-onward, but it's good for what it is.

God, The Shack, and the Christian Mind from Southern Evangelical Seminary - There are a lot of responses out there to The Shack, many of them strictly doctrinal. This article gets to the heart of the matter, by addressing the "experiential emotionalism" so rampant in modern western Christianity. It's a gracious and fine read.

The Most Dangerous Man in Christendom? from First Things - Carl Trueman addresses the charge made that he's "the most dangerous man in Christendom" due to a charge of "high sacramentalism." Trueman goes on to discuss the problem within modern Evangelicalism of loving conversion/witnessing tactics, while at the same time glorifying the men of the Reformation-era, many of whom would be deemed "high sacramentalists" by those same Evangelicals.

Leaving the NAR Church: Derrick's story from Pirate Christian - Derrick, from the UK, shares the experiences of how his family was sucked into the New Apostolic Reformation. He talks about how it left some family members homeless and without jobs due to the advice of a false prophet, while others became involved under false teachers like Mike Bickle. As it grew more stranger and destructive, Derrick eventually left the movement, seeing it for the demonic deception that it was.

The Mailbag: I “feel led” in a different direction from my husband from Michelle Lesley - As the title implies, what does a wife do when she "feels led" differently than her husband? How is she able to still "submit"? Ms. Lesley covers that question from a biblical viewpoint.

Breaking the Science-Atheism Bond from BeliefNet - Excellent article by Alister McGrath on the supposed disconnect science gives faith. He speaks a little on his own journey into faith, and how he eventually came to realize how philosophically shallow Richard Dawkins' arguments were. As he writes, "Dawkins and his circle" present a rationale which, "far from being an intellectual superhighway to atheism, it gets stalled at agnosticism, and is moved beyond that point by an aggressive use of rhetoric alone."

Secularism isn't a Neutral Position from Come Reason Ministries - Is secular thought really a "neutral" point compared to religion? On the contrary, it basically becomes a religion all its own.

What about the Similarity Between Human and Chimp DNA? from Answers in Genesis - Because it's a topic that comes up every now and then...

Ten quick responses to atheist claims from Christian Today - As the title suggests, these are some quick responses to common atheist objections like "I just believe one less God than you," "There are so many denominations," etc.

44 Quotes from Former Atheists from James Bishop's Theological Rationalism - What the title implies. Includes some well known former atheists like C.S. Lewis or Lee Strobel, as well as some lesser known ones.

3 Apologetics Strategies From the Book of Acts from Alisa Childers - Three quick points about the way the apostles handled apologetics against Jews and Gentiles in the book of Acts.

This Week in Review - 3/17/2017

Time for yet another roundup of highlights this week.

What Does The Shack Really Teach? “Lies We Believe About God” Tells Us from Tim Challies - An important read for any Christian tackling any debate that exists over The Shack. Tim Challies goes through William Paul Young's straight theological treatise Lies We Believe About God and presents excerpts and summaries of what Young truly believes, but might have kept vague in his fictional novel. Would you be surprised to learn Young isn't too fond of the topics of the crucifixion, sin, or God's absolute sovereignty?

Did Jesus Exist? All Scholars Agree He “Certainly” Existed from Reasons for Jesus - Do all scholars teach that Jesus never existed? Actually, that's far from the truth - even atheist or agnostic scholars widely believe he at the very least existed. This article provides relevant quotes to that very topic.

How Atheist Hate & Mockery Led a Richard Dawkins Fan, Richard Morgan, to Faith from James Bishop's Theological Rationalism - It wasn't a superficial reason like "Oh, these guys are mean, I'm going to stop being one." Rather, it was seeing how vitriolic they were towards all contrary thought, especially when a pastor joined the forum and started to present calm, reasonable, and kind answers to atheist objections, and only received more of the same. This article is a good read on that whole experience.

Darwin’s Problem: The Origin of Language from Reasons to Believe - A discussion on how language developed, and what makes a language to begin with. As the author points out, it's not just a bunch of grunts and barks.

Richard Dawkins’ Argument for Atheism in The God Delusion from Reasonable Faith - William Lane Craig responds to Richard Dawkins' six-part argument against the existence of God, and why it's philosophically unsound.

The Definition That Will Not Die! from Reasonable Faith - William Lane Craig and Kevin Harris discuss five common arguments in favor of atheism that even some atheists consider unsound. These include "You can't prove something doesn't exist," "Lack of belief isn't a belief," etc.

Answering the Galileo Myth from Stand to Reason - A small post dealing with the story of Galileo and the church, which is often cited to say that science and religion conflict with each other. I might add to this a post I shared quite a while ago, covering that same topic, and bringing up a few points rarely discussed in the Galileo story.

Basic Training: The Bible Is Sufficient from Michelle Lesley - A little guide on the sufficiency of scripture, especially in this day and age of the New Apostolic Reformation nonsense.

The Reliability of the Bible – 4 Quick Thoughts from Reasonable Theology - If you've read anything on manuscript evidence before, you'll probably already recognize these four "quick thoughts." Still, it pays to be reminded every now and then.

5 apologetics arguments Christians should avoid from Premier Christianity - Most of these are just silly claims (eg., the Blood Moons stuff), however, they're worth mentioning, just in case anyone takes any of these seriously.

And in the humor corner...

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Reject Santa Claus from A Clear Lens - Funny, short read. (It's not what you think.)

When Willful Ignorance Hits Close to Home

I've met a lot of people who bore what I call "willful ignorance." That is, they've received correction, and don't want to reform. They've been told what is light and what is darkness, and they still refuse to come to the light. They have the truth right in front of them, and they still refuse to believe it. I know full well that no argument alone can win a soul. I know that. I realize that a person's regeneration comes only by the will of God (Jn 1:12-13) - again, I know all that.

All the same, it gets hard when that realization hits a bit close to home. When family or friends are the ones displaying it. It gets even harder when you have immense respect and love for the individual, and you just want to shake them and say to them "Wake up!" You want to ask why they can be so intelligent and well rounded in certain areas, and yet such a dunderhead with this topic.

I recall once a story by Christian apologist James White, who, after a debate, got into a discussion with a passionate Roman Catholic over sola scriptura and related subjects. After blowing every argument he made out of the water, the guy threw his hands up and said, "Well look, you're the apologist, not me." Then sometime later, James White was headed out, and saw the man talking with someone else on the same subject. As he was passing by, James White overheard him making the exact same arguments he had made before. It's easy for us to hear a story like that and say, "Wow, that's really sad for that individual." It's hard, however, when we know that such a person is someone we consider a friend, or know as a family member. It's not easy to dismiss or disregard. It gets painful, and hurtful really.

It's a reminder, one might suppose, that we should treat all men like friends and family when it comes to the Gospel. It's a reminder that we should remember even those who are stubborn against the truth with whom we have no relation should be treated with respect, and should be given the truth of God no less than those we know personally. Whether its a random individual online, an in person encounter, a friend, or a family member, all who are without the truth need He who is Truth. God bless.

How IHOP-KC is defended

About a year ago, a Facebook friend had quoted from and referred to my post regarding Mike Bickle's minimizing of Biblical standards of discernment. Some of his friends, who participated with or supported IHOP-KC's ministry, began to respond. My friend tagged me to suggest I come in and join the discussion. I obliged, linking to the blog post to permit people to read it and respond.

A supporter of IHOP-KC joined the conversation, but did so without responding to anything I or anyone else had said or written, whether in the original article or in the Facebook. Instead, he began with a long response that was as follows. I've changed the gentleman's name (along with the name of my friend) because his personal identity is not important - what is important is what he said.

As for Tony and Joe...Neither one of you know Mike Bickle or have a relationship with him. You dont listen to anything he teaches with a heart that is impartial, discerning, or longing to learn more about God...instead you listen with judgement and pre-conceived ideas about who he is and what IHOP is all about...your voices whimsically fade into the clutter of the voices of all the other pharisees and self-proclaimed theologians of our generation who seek to contend with Mike Bickle and the House of Prayer...stepping out in a faith and missing it sometimes when it comes to the prophetic doesnt make someone a false prophet and looking at examples of what Paul teaches in the new testament concerning false prophets doesnt condemn mike or anyone in the kc leadership at ihop. You pronounce judgement on a man who has walked faithfully with the Lord in ministry for over 35 years and whose ministry has lead thousands to Christ and whose fruit has been consistent and awesome for many years now....Try walking in the prophetic and excercising a little bit of faith in your walk before you go around in what i perceive to be ignorance because you obviously dont know any better and render judgements and statements filled with condemnation on men who could easily sit with you and in less than 5 minutes dismantle every bitter and evil judgement coming from your mouth with his understanding of the Word of God which Mike has spent the great majority of his life studying...Repent for the arrogance and the evil in your heart that has brought you to a place where you feel okay about using a public forum like facebook to accuse and a slander a mans name...which is libelous and wrong anyway. I think that if either of you had to stand before the King of Kings today you might be surprised as to what he would say to you about the condition of your own hearts...Live to show mercy instead of rendering judgement so that you yourselves may know His mercy...Shame on either of you for using this forum to create more confusion in the body of Christ than there already is...you expect God to bless your ministries or lives while you sow seeds of discension and confusion in the lives of others...not gonna happen. Where is the humility in your hearts? The same humility that is seen in fullness in the life of the Lord Jesus which you both so adamantly proclaim to know...My heart in saying this is that you would consider with the fear of the Lord what you say and do especially when it comes to speaking about other believers particularly leaders in the body of Christ...in pronouncing judgments of this magnitude on someone you then invite the same magnitude of judgement into your own life. Consider what you have said and honestly find something better to do with your time then camp out on facebook to have virtual arguments about theology with people you feel intellectually and spiritually superior too...Lets just say for the conversation sake that Mike Bickle is a poor prophet and he has missed a few things along the way...I would rather be a poor prophet than a pharisee any day of the week...On the list of all the needs in the church right now what you two have chosen to do here is not found there and its sad that you find satisfaction or fulfillment in accusing leaders like Mike Bickle.The spirit in which your operating in is not of God...its of the Devil himself and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for what you have said here. I dont take everything that comes from Mike's mouth and just believe it nor do i actually agree with 100 % of everything he has ever taught but i do not go around publicly accusing him of being a false prophet because thats not my place or position. I pray that in reading this your hearts would turn...that you would delete what you have posted and publicly withdraw your accusations lest the judgments that flow from your hearts turn back on you more than they have already begun too...Come on guys...There are so many other things to do with your time that would be so beneficial to the Church than this...You both have been given spiritual gifts and talents...Now go out and use them to bring life to the body and not breathe death as so many others around us choose to do. Grace and Peace from the Lord Jesus be with you today my friends.

I simply replied:

Bob, with all due respect, your argument is entirely emotional, and - once again - avoids everything that has been discussed. It's the classic "you're being a jerk!" fallacy combined with the "don't judge ever ever ever!" fallacy.

The fact is, I have not gone from second-hand sources. I went directly to Bickle's work. I read what he wrote. I listened to his sermons. I took notes on what he taught. I studied his history and what he had done previously. I then compared it to the word of God, and what I found is that Bickle distorted the word of God and taught falsely. These are not the signs of a Christian, let alone a Christian leader.

God does not want us to forgo discernment for superficial peace. That's what the devil wants. I can now see why there was Athanasius contra mundum - because the world ("mundum") is so easily swayed towards false teachings in the name of superficial peace, cooperation, and grace.

He replied:

I dont really wanna post another long paragraph...i forgot about how much guys like joe and tony get-off on people arguing with them. Your both pharisees and legalist lovers of judgment and wrath...What you sow will be returned to you in time i promise...If you ever are given a platform other than facebook in life it will not be one given to you by the Father but rather your father the devil who is using you to launch loads of accusations into the body of Christ...You are a brood of vipers and your hearts are malicious and evil...You do not seek unity or peace but rather satisfaction that comes from correcting and accusing people...I pray sincerely that neither one of you are ever promoted to a place where you have the attention of large groups of people that you can poison with your words. You say my argument is emotional...thats the zeal of the Lord in my heart that comes out when it sees to young intellectual bullies on facebook trying to force their misguided religious agendas down others throats...young men like yourselves have been part of the problem in church decades and will co ntinue to be until you recognize the error of your ways...In 20 years when the church is experiencing great revival and refreshment you will be the ones sitting on the side-line in your pathetic apologetics groups criticizing God's great move because it simply didnt happen through your dead and cold leadership in whatever denomination you so proudly claim or cling too...i dont answer most of your questions because i dont let you steer the conversation with all your religious jargon that your so proud of publishing...im not gonna answer joe's question because its irrelevant...using the rape illustration to bring about the conviction and the bloodshed your so hungry for isnt going to get me to join you in what your doing...if either of you are living in lakeland and helping to contribute to the problems we have here with the religious system then please pack up today and move as far away as possible...we dont need any more voices of accusation running around here...GO! Yea im emotional...Im passionate about the restoration of His bride and seeing the church walk in fullness and in the power of the Holy Spirit. If you think the height of your calling in this life is judgment then you have missed it completely anyway....learn to love first...and then when you have learned to love we shall see if the Father releases you to walk around doing what you feel justified in doing...NO. It saddens my heart to see that the enemy has gotten a hold of 2 more bright and gifted minds and is using them to attack God's people...like i said earlier...repent or reap the consequences of what your doing.

I replied:

Bob, again, with all due respect, that is sheer emotionalism. You haven't responded to anything anyone's said. You're putting up the blinders and throwing the Pharisee card. A person who is unable to answer a direct question and launches into imaginary ad hominems is not speaking from a heart for God. That is the clearest sign of a deceived heart. Your love is not for God, but for a group of men.

He replied:

im not out to prove you wrong...time will surely do that...God is emotional. He is not dead or stoic as you would have others believe. Yes i love God and yes i love men like Mike Bickle who have the tenacity and great heart to teach God's people with an open and humble heart.

Go to kansas city and accuse him yourselves or ask him whatever questions you have...Mike Bickle will be teaching at the onething regional conference in orlando on january 27th-29th...during that time he had Q and A sessions where you can say anything you want...so if your so confident in the accusations you have made then at least have the integrity and courage to go ask him yourselves...if your not willing to do that then shutup

...you are being given advance notice so find time off from work and go...no gas money? i will fill your tank myself...im off here...hav a nice day

I responded:

"if your not willing to do that then shutup"

Thank you for showing me what God's grace looks like. However, I pray someday you will realize there is nothing Pharisaical about discernment, and the goal of Joe and I is not to look for arguments and attack others, but to warn the people of God about false teachers. We do what we do BECAUSE we love the people of God, not against it. We have used nothing but scriptural truths to verify what we have said. You have used character attacks. I pray you will realize there is no dawn for your position, because it is bent on defending men and their doctrines rather than God.

He replied:

im not attacking character tony...suggesting you shutup if your not willing to confront the accused in person with the claims you so boldly post facebook is quite alright in my book...circle is right joe...i dont know why we do this but one thing is clear...ihop's ministry continues to be blessed by God and continues to consistently produce fruit that brings glory to the Name of Jesus and His Kingdom...i dont have to defend that...bless you guys

I replied:

Any "fruit" IHOP-KC produced is IN SPITE of its leaders, not because of them, or because God has particularly blessed them. God saved thousands of people by permitting Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery - that doesn't mean Joseph's brothers had any kind of special anointing. As I brought up in my article (which has yet to be responded to, at all), that God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick brings no glory to the crooked stick itself.

As it stands, you have yet to respond to anything the opposite side is saying. You're character attacking, whether you like to admit it or not (and accusing people of trying to look good on Facebook or being Pharisees is, indeed, character attacking); you're refusing to respond to direct questions and arguments; you are refusing to deal with points made by the opposite side; you are telling people to "shut up." None of this shows a love for God - it shows the signs of cultic mentality.

Like it or not, Mike Bickle and his ilk are teaching false doctrine. They've been recorded doing so for the past 20-years. I don't have to go ask him personally about it - it's all in writing, and oftentimes in his own writing. I've presented a case against him. You have yet to respond to it, and again I pray that God will lift the shadow from your eyes to see that what you are doing is defending wolves masquerading as sheep.

At this point the gentleman said he refused to respond because I was a "coward," and the conversation here ended. Cowardice, however, is not placing your arguments in public settings and permitting them to be reviewed - even encouraging review. Cowardice is name-calling, lambasting, character attacking, and using red herrings while all the while refusing to respond to your opposition, and constantly backing out when you are pressed to do so. That is the highest form of intellectual cowardice.

I decided to post this in the hope of permitting others to see this conversation. I hope they see that when IHOP-KC's supporters are pressed to answer direct questions, they are unable - even unwilling - to do so. I hope they see that IHOP-KC's supporters will accuse their opposition of working against God, despite the fact that their opposition are the only ones using scripture. I hope they see that in the face of sound and reasonable criticism, IHOP-KC's supporters are only able to launch into accusations of ambition and Pharisaical tendencies. I hope they see that when faced with the truth of scripture, IHOP-KC's supporters will jump to unscriptural conditions and fallacious arguments such as "Don't knock it until you've tried it," or "Don't judge until you know them personally," or "Don't criticize them until you've met them." According to such standards, Christian heroes such as Athanasius, Martin Luther, John Owen and J. Gresham Machen were all wicked men.

From the blog post to this conversation, I accused Mike Bickle of being under the influence of Satan because he is teaching contrary to the word of God. IHOP-KC's supporters accuse me of being under the influence of Satan because I am teaching contrary to the word of Mike Bickle. I hope and pray that God will open their eyes to see what that truly means.

As I said before in the conversation, this is not the mentality of Christianity - this is the mentality of a cult.

Common Misconceptions on the Council of Nicaea

In 318 AD, a dispute arose between the Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and one of his presbyters, a young man by the name of Arius. Alexander had been attempting to explain the Trinity, and in doing so explained that the Father and Son were homoousios - that is, "of the same substance."

Arius, however, feared that Alexander was reintroducing a heresy known as Sabellianism. This teaching (known as "Modalism" today) came from a man named Sabellius, who said that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were different manifestations, or modes, of the one God, rather than three distinct Persons within the one Being of God. Sabellianism had been condemned in 220 AD, but Arius, hearing Alexander speak of the Father and Son being the "same substance," worried that Alexander was bringing it back. Being heavy on reasoning and philosophy, Arius proposed that the Father and Son were actually heteroousios - that is, "of a different substance."

“If,” said [Arius], “the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing.” [Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, Book I, Ch. V]

Alexander eventually condemned Arius and his followers, but the presbyter found support in neighboring churches, and soon a war of words and condemnations erupted within the body of Christ. This eventually caught the notice of the Roman Emperor Constantine, who called the Council of Nicaea to settle the dispute in 325 AD.

This single council has become perhaps one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented events in history. The following are some of the most common misconceptions (or downright falsehoods) regarding the Council of Nicaea and the circumstances around it.

Misconception #1: Arius taught that Jesus was just a man.

This is actually untrue - in fact, Arius believed Jesus was divine. What perhaps confuses people was that Arius taught that the Son was a creature - however, not in the sense of complete mortality, but in the sense that he was not co-eternal with the Father and was instead a created being - what one might call a lesser god. Arius believed that Jesus was creator of the world, and acted, in essence, as a "middle creature" between God and man. To give a choice quote that explains the matter:

The Father alone is God; therefore he alone is unbegotten, eternal, wise, good, and unchangeable, and he is separated by an infinite chasm from the world. He cannot create the world directly, but only through an agent, the Logos. The Son of God is pre-existent, before all creatures, and above all creatures, a middle being between God and the world, the creator of the world, the perfect image of the Father, and the executor of his thoughts, and thus capable of being called in a metaphorical sense God, and Logos, and Wisdom. But on the other hand, he himself is a creature, that is to say, the first creation of God, through whom the Father called other creatures into existence; he was created out of nothing (not out of the essence of God) by the will of the Father before all conceivable time; he is therefore not eternal, but had a beginning, and there was a time when he was not. [Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol. III; § 124]

And another quote:

Arius was forced to admit, in his first letter to Eusebius of Nicodemia, that Christ was called God...But he reduced this expression to the idea of a subordinate, secondary, created divinity. [New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. I, pg. 281; source]

The teaching of Arianism is not unlike today's Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe that Christ is not God Himself, but a lesser spiritual being. Arianism itself, logically speaking, leads to a form of henotheism, which believes that there are many gods but only one worthy of worship.

Misconception #2: It was a Roman Catholic council called by the Roman pope.

This misconception is both anachronistic and fallacious. It is anachronistic in the sense that there was no such thing as a "Roman Catholic Church" back then, as the Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, and Church of the East would all contest. What we know today as the Roman Catholic Church is a historical development whose coming into being is worth another, longer blog post, but the point is we shouldn't read backwards into history and apply labels that wouldn't have existed. The words "catholic," "orthodox," etc., did not have the connotation as they do today with some churches.

This misconception is fallacious in the sense that there is no record of the Roman bishop being consulted regarding the calling of the council. When Constantine first heard of the conflict going on between Alexander and Arius, he initially wrote them a personal letter, asking them to reconcile. When this failed, he sent the Bishop of Corduba, the 70-year old Hosius, to negotiate between the two parties. This likewise failed, and so Constantine called for something entirely new: an "ecumenical" council. Keep in mind that, at this time, the distinction between "local" or "general" and "ecumenical" councils was not established, and the decades that followed would demonstrate few considered there to be any real distinctions.

The role of the pope at the council, in fact, was very minimal. Of the over 300 men who attended the council, only seven came from the Roman church, with two legates representing the pope, who stayed in Rome. Any idea of "secret backdoor deals" between Constantine and Pope Sylvester I at Nicaea is simply pure conspiracy theory and nothing else.

Misconception #3: Nicaea was an all white council.

This one is probably going to catch some people off guard, but it was inspired by a YouTube video I came across. In the video, an African American gentleman made the claim that the Council of Nicaea was an all white person council designed to create a white Jesus to enslave the black man.

I am not making this up!

In all seriousness, however, historical sources say that the participants of the council came from all corners of the Roman Empire. There were Syrians, Arabians, Thebeans, Libyans, Persians, Macedonians, Spaniards, and countless other groups represented. Athanasius, a deacon of Alexandria at the time, and the later champion of the orthodox faith, was nicknamed by his enemies as "the black dwarf." Clearly, the men at Nicaea were a little more diverse than most people assume.

Misconception #4: This was where the Trinity and Christ's divinity were invented.

This is likewise not true. Christ's divinity is plainly taught in scripture (see my posts here and here), as is the Trinity (see my post here). Also, several Church Fathers wrote on both subjects in the years preceding Nicaea. Some examples:

This is the way, beloved, in which we find our Saviour, even Jesus Christ, the High Priest of all our offerings, the defender and helper of our infirmity. By Him we look up to the heights of heaven. By Him we behold, as in a glass, His immaculate and most excellent visage. By Him are the eyes of our hearts opened. By Him our foolish and darkened understanding blossoms up anew towards His marvelous light. By Him the Lord has willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge, “who, being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” (Heb 1:3-4) For it is thus written, “Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.” (Psa 104:4; Heb 1:7) But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: “Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.” (Psa 2:7-8; Heb 1:5) And again He saith to Him, “Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” (Psalm 110:1; Heb 1:13) But who are His enemies? All the wicked, and those who set themselves to oppose the will of God. [Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 36; Clement of Rome (30-100)]

Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism; (Eph 4:5) and one Church which the holy apostles established from one end of the earth to the other by the blood of Christ, and by their own sweat and toil; it behooves you also, therefore, as “a peculiar people, and a holy nation,” (Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9) to perform all things with harmony in Christ. [Epistle to the Philadelphians, Chapter 4; Ignatius of Antioch (50-117)]

If any one says there is one God, and also confesses Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten God, and Wisdom, and the Word of God, and deems Him to consist merely of a soul and body, such an one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the destruction of men, And such a man is poor in understanding, even as by name he is an Ebionite. [ibid, Chapter 6; Ignatius of Antioch (50-117)]

“For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;” (1 John 4:3) and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning; “watching unto prayer,” (1 Peter 4:7) and persevering in fasting; beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God “not to lead us into temptation,” (Matt 6:13; 26:41) as the Lord has said: “The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matt 26:41; Mark 14:38). [Epistle to the Philippians, Chapter 7; Polycarp (69-155)]

Let us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ, “who bore our sins in His own body on the tree,” (1 Pet 2:24) “who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,” (1 Pet 2:22) but endured all things for us, that we might live in Him. (1 John 4:9) Let us then be imitators of His patience; and if we suffer (Act 5:41; 1 Pet 4:16) for His name’s sake, let us glorify Him. For He has set us this example (1 Pet 2:21) in Himself, and we have believed that such is the case. [ibid, Chapter 8; Polycarp (69-155)]

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught. [First Apology, Chapter 6; Justin Martyr (100-165)]

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” (Eph 1:10) and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven” and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess (Phi 2:10-11) to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” (Eph 6:12) and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. [Against Heresies I, 10:1; Irenaeus of Lyons (115-200)]

For, as I said, this was no mere earthly invention which was delivered to them, nor is it a mere human system of opinion, which they judge it right to preserve so carefully, nor has a dispensation of mere human mysteries been committed to them, but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one of those who bear sway over earthly things, or one of those to whom the government of things in the heavens has been entrusted, but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things — by whom He made the heavens — by whom he enclosed the sea within its proper bounds — whose ordinances all the stars faithfully observe — from whom the sun has received the measure of his daily course to be observed — whom the moon obeys, being commanded to shine in the night, and whom the stars also obey, following the moon in her course; by whom all things have been arranged, and placed within their proper limits, and to whom all are subject — the heavens and the things that are therein, the earth and the things that are therein, the sea and the things that are therein — fire, air, and the abyss — the things which are in the heights, the things which are in the depths, and the things which lie between. This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Savior He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. [Epistle to Diognetus, Chapter 7; Mathetes (circa 130 AD)]

We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun — there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled. [Apology, Chapter 21; Tertullian (145-220)]

But lest, from the fact of asserting that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Creator, was manifested in the substance of the true body, we should seem either to have given assent to other heretics, who in this place maintain that He is man only and alone, and therefore desire to prove that He was a man bare and solitary; and lest we should seem to have afforded them any ground for objecting, we do not so express doctrine concerning the substance of His body, as to say that He is only and alone man, but so as to maintain, by the association of the divinity of the Word in that very materiality, that He was also God according to the Scriptures. [Trinity Treatise, Chapter 11; Novatian (210-280)]

Moreover, names are such as these - Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob: these, I say, are names. But the Divine Persons are names indeed: and the names are still the persons; and the persons then signify that which is and subsists - which is the essence of God. The name also of the nature signifies subsistence; as if we should speak of the man. All (the persons) are one nature, one essence, one will, and are called the Holy Trinity; and these also are haines subsistent, one nature in three persons, and one genus. But the person of the Son is composite in its oneness (unita est), being one made up of two, that is, of divinity and humanity together, which two constitute one. Yet the divinity does not consequently receive any increment, but the Trinity remains as it was. Nor does anything new befall the persons even or the names, but these are eternal and without time. No one, however, was sufficient to know these until the Son being made flesh manifested them, saying: "Father, I have manifested Your name to men; glorify me also, that they may know me as Your Son" (John 17:6). And on the mount the Father spoke, and said, "This is my beloved Son" (Matt 3:17). And the same sent His Holy Spirit at the Jordan. And thus it was declared to us that there is an Eternal Trinity in equal honor...

This Word took our substance of the Virgin Mary; and in so far as He is spiritual indeed, He is indivisibly equal with the Father; but in so far as He is corporeal, He is in like manner inseparably equal with us. And, again, in so far as He is spiritual, He supplies in the same equality (aequiparat) the Holy Spirit, inseparably and without limit. Neither were there two natures, but only one nature of the Holy Trinity before the incarnation of the Word, the Son; and the nature of the Trinity remained one also after the incarnation of the Son. But if any one, moreover, believes that any increment has been given to the Trinity by reason of the assumption of humanity by the Word, he is an alien from us, and from the ministry of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is the perfect, holy, Apostolic faith of the holy God. Praise to the Holy Trinity for ever through the ages of the ages. Amen. [Gregory Thaumaturgus (213-275)]

The very term used by the orthodox party - homoousios - predates the council as well. One can find it used in regards to the Father and Son in the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others. It is true that at times it was met with trepidation in the eastern churches, but this was due to the fear, similar to Arius', of reintroducing Sabellianism.

Use of the Persons in the Trinity, in fact, was seen among the Arians. The Arians upheld that the Father was God, and that the Son and the Holy Spirit were lesser gods, or demi-gods. Another group that arose at the council, the Semi-Arians, who upheld that the Father and Son were homoiousios ("of a similar substance"), believed the Father and the Son were co-equal, but that the Holy Spirit was a lesser divine being or demi-god. It was from this group that another heresy of the time arose called Macedonianism (named after its founder, the Bishop Macedonius), which upheld the Holy Spirit was not divine and not worthy of worship.

Misconception #5: It was from Nicaea that we got the books of the Bible.

There is positively, absolutely no evidence for this. The Bible was not even a topic for discussion. Anyone who wants to contest this, I will present the challenge I give to everyone who does: find the documents recording the events of the Council of Nicaea, and point to me the one line that mentions the books of the Bible, let alone declares anything regarding their canonical status.

Misconception #6: Emperor Constantine enforced his will on the council.

Constantine's role was actually very minimal. His main concern was to have unity, and desired the leaders of Nicaea to come to some resolution to ensure stability in the empire. Whatever agreement the council came to, he would agree with. To quote one church history source:

Finally all the priests agreed with one another and conceded that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. At the commencement of the conference there were but seventeen who praised the opinion of Arius, but eventually the majority of these yielded assent to the general view. To this judgment the emperor likewise deferred... [Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Book I, Ch. XX]

There is no evidence that Constantine enforced his will upon the council in any way. His actions after the council, in regards to who he really sided with, were likewise very telling, but we will get to that shortly.

Misconception #7: The council came to a close tie.

This misconception is the most humorous because, even though it's popular in some circles, it's completely false. Of the over 300 men there, only two refused to agree.

Only two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, persistently refused to sign, and were banished with Arius to Illyria. [Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol. III; § 120]

There is no evidence of there being a close tie or some disagreement that had to be settled through other means.

Misconception #8: After the council, heretics and non-Christians were persecuted.

This is perhaps the biggest - and sadly least contested - misconception about the council. I say "sadly' because it is probably the most disprovable, and all one would need to do is study a layman's work on church history to see that. Let's go over this in two parts:

Firstly, heathenism actually enjoyed a good amount of freedom at this time, and wouldn't experience any form of persecution until later on. The Edict of Milan in 313 AD merely permitted Christianity to exist, and although Constantine began to show favor towards those who called themselves Christians, he permitted heathens to maintain their offices and government positions, and heathen worship continued to be protected by the state. A relevant source on the matter:

Nevertheless he continued in his later years true upon the whole to the toleration principles of the edict of 313, protected the pagan priests and temples in their privileges, and wisely abstained from all violent measures against heathenism, in the persuasion that it would in time die out. He retained many heathens at court and in public office, although he loved to promote Christians to honorable positions. [Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol. III; § 2]

It wasn't until his son Constantius came to power in the middle fourth century that we begin to see persecution of non-Christian faiths by the state. What developed over time was a gradual removal of heathen rights by the Roman emperors, leading to the destruction of heathen temples in 435 AD by Emperor Theodosius II. Even then, heathenism (now called paganism by this time) continued to have some presence within the empire, right up until the last major school of pagan thought was shut down by Emperor Justinian I in 529 AD.

Secondly, anyone who makes this claim shows that they are either repeating what someone else said or they are completely ignorant of church history. Why is this? Because they are forgetting something called the "Arian Resurgence": soon after the council, the Arians returned to power, and obtained so much that, at one point, all the top church positions (Rome included) were run by Arians. Jerome, a Church Father who lived at the tail end of the Arian controversy, wrote regarding the Post-Nicene era: "The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian" (Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 19).

This Arian resurgence began when Constantine was persuaded by Semi-Arians to let Arius back into the empire, and Arius was absolved of the charge of heresy by the Council of Jerusalem in 335 AD. Constantine himself began to show favor towards the Arians, and at his death in 337 AD was baptized by a Semi-Arian bishop. The successive emperors (save for Julian the Apostate's brief pagan rule) continued to persecute those who held to the non-Arian view, and hundreds of pro-Arian church councils were held affirming the Arian belief. This finally came to an end when the Arians and Semi-Arians turned against each other in the middle fourth century, followed by the rise of Emperor Theodosius the Great in 379 AD, banning Arian theology the next year and calling the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD to affirm Nicaea.

Most telling of the Arian power is the story of Athanasius, the lead proponent of the orthodox cause at Nicaea who later became bishop of Alexandria after Alexander's death. During this time period - up until his own death in 373 AD - Athanasius was removed from his position as bishop five times, either by Arian councils or by pro-Arian emperors. The first time was in 336 AD, after his condemnation by two church councils and at the orders of Emperor Constantine himself. One time, in 356 AD, Athanasius had to literally run out the back door of his church mid-service because Roman soldiers were pouring through the front door. It was from this era that the phrase Athanasius contra mundum ("Athanasius against the world") came.

Again, as I said before: anyone who wants to try to argue that Nicaea resolved all issues (as some Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox claim), or wants to try to argue that after Nicaea all contrary thought was eliminated (as many non-Christians and skeptics do), simply does not know what they are talking about.

Do Calvinists worship a monster?

Recently I had an online exchange with a gentleman who was offering protests against the doctrines of Reformed theology. Many of these contentions are based on simple misconceptions that are fairly commonplace, but I thought it would be worth going over for the benefit of those who perhaps have never seen this arguments addressed or perhaps have never experienced them used. I'm going to post the entire thing just to give the full context, and then respond to it piecemeal:

And I still feel that the only conclusion, based on Reformed thinking, is that God is not only unfair but somewhat monstrous. He creates a massive planet of millions of people concocting a pre-determined list of people he wants to save and others he plans on casting to the fires of hell making it so some CANNOT receive His love, and some who CANNOT HELP it!? Can you fathom doing that to someone? It flies in the face of common sense.

I'm a sixth grade teacher, as you know. In about 3 weeks, 30 kids are going to enter my room. Imagine if, before meeting all 30, I look at their pictures on their pink and blue cards, read their names, and think, "I'm going to make sure, double sure, that 22 of them fail my class. I'll pick on them, make them hate learning, ignore their questions, make things unclear to them, pair them up with the worst students, and generally not teach them well. I'll make sure this other 8 kids are treated with royalty, given the full treatment, paired right, given extra help, favored and adored. They WILL pass!"

the truth is, they have free will. All 30 I plan for 100% success. I plan for every single kid to pass and thrive. The kids make the decision to care, work hard, and excel. Realistically about 6 of them won't give a damn, about 15 of them will be part-timers with caring and up and down in the middle, and about 9 will kick total butt and perform like champs. But my plan is all thirty being winners!

Same with my own kids. I have 3 kids. Imagine me planning on loving one and screwing the other 2? Weird.

If I'm this caring and loving toward my home and school children, what MORE care and love has Almighty God for us as his children!

God does indeed "know" who will be saved and who will perish. If He didn't, then He wouldn't be sovereign and almighty and omnipotent. But that doesn't mean He doesn't desire and give us every lifeline to be saved. Jesus died for the sins of the world, not just a chosen little clan. But will the whole world accept His love? Will the whole world react positively to the Gospel? Will the whole world embrace the cross? No way. Just because Jesus died for us all doesn't mean all will take up His offer. To not offer it to all his children would make God a monster. That is not a God I can worship. I don't believe in that God. Our God is a God of second chances, a fisher of men who goes after lost sheep. Jesus talks a lot about lost sheep and the stray and "other sheep not of this fold," and I'm not talking Mormon thinking here!

Now let's answer this in individual parts:

And I still feel that the only conclusion, based on Reformed thinking, is that God is not only unfair but somewhat monstrous. He creates a massive planet of millions of people concocting a pre-determined list of people he wants to save and others he plans on casting to the fires of hell making it so some CANNOT receive His love, and some who CANNOT HELP it!? Can you fathom doing that to someone? It flies in the face of common sense.

This contention contains a few presuppositions we should quickly identify and address:

1) God created a planet to send people to hell. The goal of God in creation was not to send people to hell, and no Reformed church believes this, as everything from the Reformers to the 1689 London Baptist Confession will demonstrate. Likewise, God does not send anyone to hell for an arbitrary reason. What we should establish early on is this: men are sent to hell for no other reason but their sins. Hell is judgment upon them. There is no one in hell who does not deserve to be there...and there is only one person in heaven who deserves to be there.

2) God will make it so some cannot receive His love. This forgets that man, by his nature, does not desire God's love. Paul, quoting from the psalms, said: "There is none who seeks after God" (Rom 3:11). Our Lord, in one of the greatest expositions of salvation, said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). God has not "made it" so that man cannot receive His love...it already is that way. This biblical fact is something that most synergists recognize as well, and so Calvinists are not alone in their belief of this.

The gentleman who sent me this message had earlier made the question: "Is humanity so depraved that it cannot with free will accept God and change?" The idea that man is able, by his individual nature, to freely choose salvation or damnation - and then change on his own accord - breaks away from the opinions of most monergists or orthodox synergists, as well as the general teachings of scripture. In fact, it draws closer to Pelagianism (man is able to save himself) and semi-Pelagianism (man is able to save himself with a little help from God), both of which are considered heresies. When Christ says "no one can come to Me...", the original Greek literally translates into: "no one has the power" or "no one is able." Man cannot, by any power of his own with no help from God, come to know and believe in God.

3) God will make some who cannot help whether or not they receive His love. Again, this forgets that man by his nature does not want to have God's love. Likewise, logically speaking, this situation is not exclusive to monergism. In a synergistic world, you still have people (isolated tribes in the Amazon, etc.) who are in a situation where they cannot help whether or not they receive God's love. This is why inclusivists have to come up with the extra-biblical beliefs they do regarding how one is saved by circumventing the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

So when it's said that this scenario that "flies in the face of common sense," I fully agree. The problem is, no Reformed church believes in such a scenario.

I'm a sixth grade teacher, as you know. In about 3 weeks, 30 kids are going to enter my room. Imagine if, before meeting all 30, I look at their pictures on their pink and blue cards, read their names, and think, "I'm going to make sure, double sure, that 22 of them fail my class. I'll pick on them, make them hate learning, ignore their questions, make things unclear to them, pair them up with the worst students, and generally not teach them well. I'll make sure this other 8 kids are treated with royalty, given the full treatment, paired right, given extra help, favored and adored. They WILL pass!" 

This isn't the scenario in Reformed theology. Permit me to present an alternative:

You, a teacher, have thirty children. They all hate education. They all hate learning. Most of all, they all hate you. They want nothing to do with their lessons. You don't need to "ignore their questions, make things unclear to them, pair them up with the worst students," etc. - left on their own, they will fail on their own accord. Some of them might be kinda funny, and some of them might be kinda cute, but when it comes to education, they'd sooner tear up their textbooks and throw them at you. You could try to be nice and offer them education, but they would just laugh at you, and encourage those who laugh with them. They deserve to fail, and you would have every right to fail them. If you failed the entire class, you would be acting rightly and the fault for failure would be on them. All of this which I have described is the situation of the world seen in Romans 1:18-32.

Now imagine if, by some power on your part, you could change the hearts of an unknown number of students so that instead of hating learning...they will love it. They will love learning and love you. In the end, they will pass and all glory will go to you, and those whom you fail will have failed for proper reasons. You have no reason to help any of them pass, and indeed anyone should be shocked you helped any pass. This scenario is far closer to the Reformed (and biblical) interpretation of the situation between God and man, and how by grace we are saved.

Same with my own kids. I have 3 kids. Imagine me planning on loving one and screwing the other 2? Weird.

Again, this is a misunderstanding of the real scenario. God's choice and purpose is not based on some arbitrary cruelness. God does not line up a bunch of photographs and throw darts, and whichever dart lands on whichever picture, that person gets saved. It also again presupposes that God causes the destruction of some when they are already on their own path to destruction.

If I'm this caring and loving toward my home and school children, what MORE care and love has Almighty God for us as his children!

What is the definition of "God's children"? It's popular in our modern world to say "We are all God's children!", but what does scripture teach? As Luke 20:36, John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Galatians 3:26 and many other verses demonstrate, God's children are those who are in Christ. They are believers. God indeed has love for His children, but it is those in Christ for whom God will truly care and nurture.

God does indeed "know" who will be saved and who will perish. If He didn't, then He wouldn't be sovereign and almighty and omnipotent. But that doesn't mean He doesn't desire and give us every lifeline to be saved. 

If God knows who will be saved and who will perish, why would He bother to "give us every lifeline to be saved"? That is, if God knows that Person A will accept the gospel and Person B will not, why bother giving Person B "every lifeline"? Evangelists - Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike - do not know who will be saved and who will not, and so can give their 110% and not worry about the results, knowing it is in God's will. However, the line of reasoning presented in this section turns God into an evangelist who gives 110% for an effort that He knows ahead of time will end in failure.

Many might say that the rejection of God's "lifeline" is given to all in that part of a person's judgment will be the fact they rejected it. Here we must make two points, however:

1) The danger in this argument. Many might interpret that this argument says this is the only reason someone will be sent to hell. Hence many inclusivists will say that if a person hasn't rejected the "lifeline" because it has not been offered to them, then they will get a free pass and be allowed into the company of the Lord.

2) Reformed Christians believe this as well. Reformed Christians believe that God gives a general call through evangelism, but gives an effectual call for His sheep. This is the key behind "many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14) - the "called" used here (κλητός) is not the same Greek word used for "called" in Romans 8:30 (καλέω). κλητός is simply an invitation, whereas the word translated in the same verse as "chosen" (ἐκλεκτός) means a much more effectual calling, and is translated by some to mean "the called of the called."

Jesus died for the sins of the world, not just a chosen little clan. But will the whole world accept His love? Will the whole world react positively to the Gospel? Will the whole world embrace the cross? No way. Just because Jesus died for us all doesn't mean all will take up His offer.

Did Jesus die for literally everyone? Reformed theology of course disagrees, pointing instead from general atonement to limited atonement. Scripture says that He saves His people from their sins (Matt 1:21), that He laid down His life for His sheep (John 10:11), that His blood purchased the church (Acts 20:28), that He was delivered for His elect and justifies them (Rom 8:32-33), and that He gave Himself up for the church (Eph 5:25). This is just a sampling of examples that many go to in regards to limited atonement.

I might ask the person who posed these contentions a question in regards to their statement that "just because Jesus died for us all doesn't mean all will take up His offer." What, then, did Christ's death do? Was it just an example? Was it just a beginning phase of salvation? Was it just a minor thing in God's plan? When Christ, bleeding profusely on the cross, said to the Father "It is finished" and gave up His spirit, what did that mean?

To not offer it to all his children would make God a monster. That is not a God I can worship. I don't believe in that God. Our God is a God of second chances, a fisher of men who goes after lost sheep. Jesus talks a lot about lost sheep and the stray and "other sheep not of this fold," and I'm not talking Mormon thinking here!

Here we have the reason that Calvinists worship a God who is a monster: because He does not "offer" His love to "all His children." Yet we've already established that God's "children" are believers. We've also established that if God simply threw out an "offer" to mankind with no grace involved, mankind in toto would reject it. We are calling God a monster based on faulty definitions and expecting God to do something that would ensure absolute failure.

It's common for people to believe Reformed Christians "worship a monster" when they have false presuppositions that are based on misunderstandings or a poor knowledge of the topic. This is not a fault on themselves, as many who teach comparative theology fail in accurately defining or representing another side, and so misunderstandings multiply. That is why these discussions are good - for the edification of all parties involved: one party understanding where the other side is coming from, and the other learning what their brothers really believe. The important thing from this is that the brethren are edified and lessons are learned. If we continue to teach error after that error has been addressed, and do not even attempt to give an address to this error, then we are simply committing willful ignorance. Men cannot be held guilty for ignorance - they can be held guilty for willful ignorance.

When you borrow (bad) Protestant hermeneutics

Often Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox will attempt to assert the equality of church authority with scripture by using the argument that in the early church not everyone had all of what we know today as the Bible. That is, when Paul wrote to the Romans, the Romans did not have a leather-bound Bible like most Christians attending church today do. While this is somewhat true, the inferred rationale here is that scripture cannot be the final authority since not everyone within the early church had all of scripture yet, and therefore had to have another authority. I recognize this is only one such argument made, but nonetheless many make it.

And yet, often in my dialogue with both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, whenever a scriptural topic comes up, one of the most common tactics is to commit scriptural acrobatics and jump to another verse, disregarding the original passage entirely (one example: jumping to James 2:24 in response to Romans 4:1-5 when talking about justification). When I ask them why they are doing so, the most common answer is something along the lines of: "The Bible has to be understood in its entirety."

Wait a minute - isn't that precisely how some Protestants argue?

I might ask, for the sake of consistency, which is it? For if you argue that the Bible must be understood in its entirety, then you inadvertently argue that the original readers of scripture would have been able to read scripture in its entirety. To refer back to the previous example, you argue, by jumping from Romans to James, that the original readers of Romans would have been able to jump to James and do a cross-reference study. And yet, your apologetics regarding scripture and church authority is also based on the assumption that they would not have been able to do so.

The simple reason as to why many Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox commit such scriptural acrobatics is the same reason many Protestants commit scriptural acrobatics: they can't deal with the text given them. They have to jump from the text put before them, jump to something else that they believe will help their case, disregarding how irrelevant the other passage might be. It's no different than synergist Protestants who jump from John 6:44 to John 12:32 (as I touched on here).

The problem is, of course, while a Protestant can commit this error and at least pretend consistency under the guise of scriptural authority, a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox committing this error is simply falling into an inconsistency. It is also a double standard. When scriptural authority undermines the authority of an individual church, we must demand that scripture was, at one point, incomplete, and logically scriptural acrobatics would be impossible. However, if scripture can be twisted to suit an individual church's theology, then scriptural acrobatics may be employed.

Of course, neither Protestants nor non-Protestants should be using scriptural acrobatics. When a text of scripture is reviewed, it should be reviewed within its immediate context and with regards to its author, audience and purpose. While it's true that the original readers of Romans would not have been able to jump to many other books of the New Testament, we stay in Romans for the same reason we stay in John 6 when explaining what Jesus meant rather than jumping nearly a year in the narrative to John 12, leaping out of the immediate context. If you have to jump context and try to grab onto something else, completely abandoning what you were given, then you are not being honest with the text, the other person, nor yourself.

I might ask any Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox reader who comes across this post not to immediately give a knee-jerk reaction and simply accuse me of being wrong. Rather, review your own method of responding to verses of scripture - are you guilty of this? If so, why is this? Or perhaps you yourself are not, but you know others - maybe even those whom you respect - of doing this. If so, are they truly being honest? If they are not, why is that? Again, this is all simply a call both for honesty in discussion and a call for discernment.

Some of the worst arguments against the Bible

The following is just a meditation on things I've heard in the past few months. I'd been joking over them with some friends, and thought it worth sharing.

"It's an old book!"

Yes, people have actually used this argument. It's fallacious for a few reasons:

For one, the Bible itself is not necessarily an old book, but a collection of old books, some older than others.

For another, the very idea that the accuracy of a book is negated by its age is quite obviously fallacious. Should an astronomer be banned from ever quoting the works of Isaac Newton because they're old books? Should a literature major be banned from quoting the works of Chekhov because they are all old books?

Furthermore, if what a book teaches is negated for being old, then how old would a book have to be in order to be considered irrelevant? Fifty years? A hundred years? A thousand years? A million years? At what point can we consistently say a book is no longer relevant based solely on the fact it's "old"? Is this something which can truly be measured by age? Again, this argumentation is clearly fallacious.

"It's written by dead men!"

Yes, sadly, I have also had this thrown at me as a reason to reject the teachings of the Bible.

Let's ponder on just how fallacious this thinking is: does the state of death of an author negate everything he has ever written? Should we throw out the teachings of Galileo, Isaac Newton, or Albert Einstein solely on the fact that the men themselves are dead? Let me put it this way: if a local meteorologist reports that Monday's high was in the 70's, then the next day he passes away...does that make it untrue that Monday's high was in the 70's? Does a fact automatically become untrue simply because the person who stated it has died? Of course not. Again, obviously fallacious.

"It was written by fallible men!"

This is actually a common argument by some against the Bible: either that it was written by men, or that it was written by fallible men. Unfortunately for them, most Christians are already aware of this. Read the book of Jeremiah and see why Jeremiah was known as the "weeping prophet." Read the psalms and tell me the psalmist wasn't like any other person who's ever lived.

The fact is, it is not the men themselves that make the words of scripture infallible - it is the source of their words and teachings, which is the Lord our God. 

"It's been translated so many times! It has to have error!"

I think these people need to study the difference between translation and manuscript history. A translation is merely taking a text and rewriting it into another language, whereas transcription is the copying of a text for use.

Let me put it this way: John 1:1 reads in the original language:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

It has been translated in various ways in the English, but in all ways (save for the Jehovah's Witness's NWT) it means the same thing. It has likewise been translated every which way in every which language, but still maintains the same meaning. Even if it were mistranslated or the original context had to be explained to someone, the original language would be the same. To put it another way, if I wrote the sentence "I went shopping," the original context and wording of that sentence would remain the same no matter how many times it was translated.

If someone wishes to argue manuscript history and how the various books of the Bible have been copied by scribes down throughout history, that is one thing. If they want to say we shouldn't believe the Bible because of so many translations...well, that thinking is fallacious to begin with.

Two Easy Ways to Make Someone Mad

Over time, I have found there are two easy ways to make someone mad:

1) Ask someone to demonstrate their argument.

People these days love to make bold claims. "You're wrong! It's this way!" or, "I believe this and that's the way it is!" Many times, this is because we are taught simply to repeat what we are told rather than being able to defend what we are told.

Recently I went into a conversation with someone who, wanting to disprove my argument, accused me of mishandling scripture. I asked him to show how I had done so. He refused to answer, so I pressed him again. He again refused to answer, saying that wasn't the topic (even though that was what he was using to say I was wrong). I pressed him again, and he simply ended the conversation then and there.

I heard a story recently of a Jehovah's Witness woman who gave a biblical scholar a long, memorized speech regarding John 1:1 and why they translate it as "the Word was a god" because of the lack of a definite article. The scholar then handed her a Greek New Testament and asked her to show him what a Greek definite article looked like. The woman didn't even know how to hold the book up straight. She had a memorized argument, but when asked to demonstrate the argument, she fell on her face.

2) Ask someone to back up their argument with sources.

If you ask a person this, they might do one of a few things.

1. Throw the weight of the evidence upon you. That is, say something like, "Well, you can figure it out," or, "Well, you can do research for yourself." The weight of the evidence falls on the person making the claim. There is a good reason why, in the United States, a charged person is "innocent until proven guilty" - the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.
2. Demand you prove a negative. Example: someone claims that their horn scares away burglars, and when asked how they know it does, they reply, "Well, can you prove it doesn't scare away burglars?" This is a cop out because they are: 1) not giving a response; 2) forgetting that by nature you cannot prove a negative.
3. Get very, very irate with you. I had one person tell me literally: "I DON'T HAVE TO GIVE YOU ANYTHING!" If a person gets emotional, it's a good sign that their argument has no substance.

Top Five Arguments Muslims Need to Stop Using Against Christians

Much like my post here, this was written mostly for the benefit of the Muslim reader. I've seen this arguments used so many times that I've begun to wonder if Islamic apologetics are simply behind Christian apologetics by perhaps about ten years. Half of them I can only imagine are used to earn points on the Muslim side, as I've never seen a Christian (at least a semi-knowledgeable Christian) wowed or won over by any of them. I'm not writing this to mock or condemn, but hopefully to at least make the discerning Muslim think a little harder or argue a little better.

1. Jesus never said "I am God."

I often call this the "declaration fallacy." This is an incredibly popular argument to make (mostly thanks to Ahmed Deedat), which is unfortunate because it is one of the most fallacious to make, and for a few reasons:

• We are told that Jesus never said the exact words, "I am God." Well, neither did He ever say "I am a prophet," nor "I am just a messenger" either. Therefore by the Muslim's own standards Jesus is neither God, prophet nor messenger. 
• The mere statement "I am God" would not have to be given to prove that Jesus was divine. This would be like saying Hitler wasn't racist because he never said the exact words "I am racist." It's essentially inventing a scenario and then demanding the other person respond.
• Even if Christ did say "I am God," those words alone would not make it true. If I wrote a blog entry where I simply said "I am God," would that mean Muslims had to worship me? I don't think so, yet this is the kind of logic being presented.

As I've said before, the old saying goes, "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a ducks, and swims like a duck, then it must be a duck"...but according to some Muslims that duck would never be considered a duck unless it stopped quacking and said "I am a duck."

2. There are textual variances in the Bible, therefore it's corrupt.

There are textual variances for every piece of literature before the invention of computers - that does not necessarily denote corruption. According to this logic, even accepted works of antiquity such as Plato's Republic are considered untrustworthy (although the New Testament is certainly far more trustworthy in terms of closeness to the authors and number of comparable manuscripts).

The variances within the New Testament itself is more a grammatical and spelling issue than theological. I often tell people to pick up a copy of the NASB and NKJV (two translations based on manuscript traditions several centuries apart) and show me any major theological differences between the two. One will not find any (unless you're a wild-eyed KJV-Onlyist).

Furthermore (and contrary to popular Muslim belief), there exist textual variances throughout the history of the Quran. While it is popular for Muslim scholars and laymen alike to claim there exist no variances in the Quran (mostly because they do not like even talking about the possibility), this is simply not the case. However, I would never use this as an excuse to say the Quran was untrustworthy, mainly because I believe in remaining consistent. Despite this, I have run into Muslims who will declare the Bible corrupt even if the variances are minor, yet will declare the Quran free of corruption because the variances are minor. This is a gross double standard.

3. There are no original New Testament manuscripts!

There are no original manuscripts of many works of antiquity, but I doubt most Muslims (at least the learned ones) will deny we don't know what they say. No one says that Plato's Republic is untrustworthy simply because we don't have the original copy writtten by Plato himself; likewise, no one will say that Caesar's Gallic Wars is untrustworthy simply because we don't have the first edition as those who first read it would have known.

The other problem with this argumentation is that it again presents a double standard - there does not exist an original copy of the Quran as held in the hands of Mohammad himself. Partially this is become the Quran only stopped being written after Mohammad died (thereby ending the continual revelations). This is also because, as sahih ("trustworthy") hadith sources say, all the originals were burned by Uthman when he made his "standard" Quran for Muslims to use. Therefore, according to this argumentation, even the Quran itself cannot be trusted! Once again, a self-defeating argument.

4. You can't use hadith sources!

This argumentation goes either one of two ways. Either...

Muslim: "Mohammad never did anything bad."
Non-Muslim: "What about what he said and did here?"
Muslim: "Oh! That's a hadith! You can use that!"

Or...

Non-Muslim: "I think the Quran is saying this in that verse."
Muslim: "Actually, according to this hadith, this is what it meant."
Non-Muslim: "But this other hadith clarifies that and contradicts your whole point."
Muslim: "Oh! That's a hadith! You can't use that!"

The most common argumentation lobbied in favor of this objection is, "Well, there's a scholarly way of showing what hadith sources are trustworthy and which aren't." My response is usually then, "Yes, I'm well aware of that, could you please show me then how these sources cannot be trusted using that criteria?" At that point, they can't answer. The whole argument is simply a non sequitor meant to distract from the damning evidence found within the hadith.

The fact is, many hadith sources are accepted by several Muslim scholars and many are even used for teachings on the daily Muslim lifestyle and theology. Many more are used to explain confusing beliefs found in the Quran. Like it or not, the hadith sources are an intricate aspect of Islamic theology. If a Muslim wishes to use this kind of argument, they had best be a Koran-only Muslim so that they can at least remain consistent. Otherwise, the whole thing will simply appear foolish.

5. The Council of Nicaea made the Bible!

There is not a shred of evidence that the Bible was collected at the Council of Nicaea, let alone that time period. Those who wish to contest this point may quote me which section of the Council of Nicaea dealt with the Bible. Otherwise, it is not worth mentioning.