|
|
Reflections on Doctrine
Probe Ministries as published by Leadership University:
Jimmy Williams
DID JESUS CLAIM TO BE GOD
<<back
 Must
We Believe the Virgin Birth?,
8/21/2003, by
Albert
Mohler, CrossWalk Weblog
Must we
believe in the Virgin Birth? In his recent column in The New York Times,
Nicholas Kristof pointed to belief in the Virgin Birth as evidence that
conservative Christians are "less intellectual." [see this week's WebLog
entries] Are we saddled with an untenable doctrine? Is belief in the Virgin
Birth really necessary? .....Millard
Erickson states this well: "If we do not hold to the virgin birth despite
the fact that the Bible asserts it, then we have compromised the authority
of the Bible and there is in principle no reason why we should hold to its
other teachings. Thus, rejecting the virgin birth has implications reaching
far beyond the doctrine itself."
Implications, indeed. If Jesus was not born of a
virgin, who was His father? There is no answer that will leave the Gospel
intact. The Virgin Birth explains how Christ could be both God and man, how
He was without sin, and that the entire work of salvation is God's gracious
act. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, He had a human father. If Jesus was
not born of a virgin, the Bible teaches a lie.
Carl F. H. Henry, the dean of evangelical
theologians, argues that the Virgin Birth is the "essential, historical
indication of the Incarnation, bearing not only an analogy to the divine and
human natures of the Incarnate, but also bringing out the nature, purpose,
and bearing of this work of God to salvation." Well said, and well believed.
Nicholas Kristof and his secularist friends may
find belief in the Virgin Birth to be evidence of intellectual backwardness
among American Christians. But this is the faith of the Church, established
in God's perfect Word, and cherished by the true Church throughout the ages.
Kristof's grandfather, we are told, believed that the Virgin Birth is a
"pious legend." The fact that he could hold such beliefs and serve as an
elder in his church is evidence of that church's doctrinal and spiritual
laxity -- or worse. Those who deny the Virgin Birth affirm other doctrines
only by force of whim, for they have already surrendered the authority of
Scripture. They have undermined Christ's nature and nullified the
incarnation.
This much we know: All those who find salvation
will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ -- the virgin-born
Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may
call itself. A true Christian will not deny the Virgin Birth.
Read More
Was Jesus Really Born
of a Virgin?,
by Michael Gleghorn, research associate with
Probe Ministries
Of the four canonical gospels, there are two,
Matthew and Luke, that provide details about the birth of Jesus. The
accounts may reflect the unique perspectives of both Joseph (in Matthew's
gospel) and Mary (in Luke's), for there are many differences between the
two.{1}
However, of the things they share in common, one cannot be missed. They both
declare that Jesus was miraculously conceived through the supernatural
intervention of the Holy Spirit in the womb of a young virgin named Mary.{2}
Today, some scholars regard the doctrine of Jesus' virgin birth as simply a
legendary development of the early church. The story is said to be myth--not
history.{3}
But if we ask why they think this, we may notice something very interesting.
For the virgin birth is usually not rejected on grounds of insufficient
historical evidence. Rather, it is more often rejected on the presupposition
that miracles are simply impossible.{4}
This is quite revealing. For if such scholars really believe that miracles
are impossible, then no amount of evidence can convince them that one has
actually occurred. Their minds are made up before they examine the evidence.
In theory, they view miracle claims as guilty until proven innocent. In
actual practice, however, they never reach a verdict of "Not Guilty"!
Read More
FIRST PERSON: Can a Christian deny the virgin birth?,
December 24, 2003,
By R. Albert Mohler Jr.
Baptist Press
"...Bishop Joseph Sprague of the
United Methodist Church offers further evidence of modern heresy.
In an address he presented on June 25, 2002, at the Iliff School
of Theology in Denver, this bishop denied the faith wholesale.
Sprague, who serves as presiding bishop of the United Methodist
Church in northern Illinois, has been called "the most vocally
prominent active liberal bishop in Protestantism today." Sprague
is proud of this designation and takes it as a compliment: "I
really make no apology for that. I don't consider myself a
liberal. I consider myself a radical." Sprague lives up to his
self-designation.
In his Iliff address, Bishop Sprague claimed that the "myth" of
the virgin birth "was not intended as historical fact, but was
employed by Matthew and Luke in different ways to appoint
poetically the truth about Jesus as experienced in the emerging
church." Sprague defined a theological myth as "not false
presentation but a valid and quite persuasive literary device
employed to point to ultimate truth that can only be insinuated
symbolically and never depicted exhaustively."
Jesus, Sprague insists, was born to human parents and did not
possess "trans-human, supernatural powers." Thus, Sprague
dismisses the miracles, the exclusivity of Christ and the bodily
resurrection as well as the virgin birth. His Christology is
explicitly heretical: "Jesus was not born the Christ, rather by
the confluence of grace with faith, he became the Christ, God's
beloved in whom God was well pleased."
Bishop Sprague was charged with heresy but has twice been cleared
of the charge -- a clear sign that the mainline Protestant
denominations are unwilling to identify as heretics even those who
openly teach heresy. The presence of theologians and pastors who
deny the virgin birth in the theological seminaries and pulpits of
the land is evidence of the sweeping tide of unbelief that marks
so many institutions and churches in our time.
Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth? The answer to that
question must be a decisive "No." Those who deny the virgin birth
reject the authority of Scripture, deny the supernatural birth of
the Savior, undermine the very foundations of the Gospel, and have
no way of explaining the deity of Christ.
Can a true Christian deny the virgin
birth? The answer to that question must be a decisive "No." Those
who deny the virgin birth reject the authority of Scripture, deny
the supernatural birth of the Savior, undermine the very
foundations of the Gospel, and have no way of explaining the deity
of Christ.
Anyone who claims that the virgin birth can be discarded even as
the deity of Christ is affirmed is either intellectually dishonest
or theological incompetent..."
Read More
Why Does Mark's
Gospel Omit the Resurrection and the Virgin Birth,
Probe Ministries
Could you answer these questions?
If Jesus really did rise from the dead, why
didn't Mark say he saw him after the fact? Is Mark not the first gospel
written? If I had hung around with a guy for three years and then seen him
after he had died I would certainly write about it. Also, why does Mark
not mention the virgin birth? If it were so important why didn't Paul
mention it?
Read
more for answers
Reflections on Virgin Birth by Cathy A. Bihler, Laity
Edmonds United Methodist Church, Edmonds, WA.
Cathy is one of eight Steering Committee Members of The Faithful
Christian Laity Of The United Methodist Church (FCL). The FCL is a laity led
group formed for the purpose of reviving and maintaining faithful Christian
witness in the United Methodist Church. You can learn more about the FCL on
their website:
www.FaithfulChristianLaity.org.
The
Importance of the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth
Cathy A.
Bihler
<<Word
Document>>
Quote:
What
is at stake in Christianity with the doctrine of the Virgin Birth?
If I were to try to put a "nutshell" definition on Christianity, my first
thoughts turn to God - Who He Is. Then, I think about who we are, and the
relationship between God and us. The Christian Faith is lived out by people
who believe that God is Our Creator[1]
and that He is Father/Son/Holy Spirit[2].
The Christian Faith is lived out by people who believe that humanity is
totally "messed up" by sin[3]
and that only Jesus Christ can and does save us from this human condition[4].
Christians believe that Jesus Christ is both the Son of God and the
Son of Man: Fully God and yet Fully Human[5].
Christians believe that when people accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, the
Holy Spirit comes to dwell with them[6]
and teach them and sanctify them, helping them become the people that God
created them to be[7].
God has created humans and enjoyed personal, interactive, and loving
relationship with the first of His created humans: Adam and Eve. They chose
to disobey God's commandment and brought sin and death upon themselves[8]
and to all who were born after them and even to all of the created world[9].
They were removed from the holy Garden of Eden[10].
Now separated by sin from Holy God, how is the relationship restored?
Ever since that day - the fall of humanity from the good and beautiful
beginning - God has been busy revealing Himself to us and working for our
redemption and total reconciliation. He loves us of His own free will and
chooses to give us free will to either:
1. Return
our love to Him[11],
demonstrating our love by choosing to obey His directions for a holy life[12].
This option includes becoming sons and daughters of God, adopted heirs,
and spend eternity in heaven with Him and all the angels and all the other
saints[13].
This option includes being forgiven for all that we have done wrong,
cleansed and purified from the effects of our sins, becoming holy and
righteous[14].
This option includes entering the Kingdom of God now[15]
and working toward sanctification[16]
and loving others as God has loved us[17].
This option includes a future entering into heaven in fully resurrected
bodies[18]
designed to last forever with love and light and life and joy and peace[19];
or
2. Chase after what we want: other things, other gods[20].
We can choose options of self-idolatry or self-made idols[21],
which we think will bring joy and satisfaction and love, but will actually
bring eternal death[22].
Eternal death is experienced in a place that is as far opposite from
heaven as is possible - -hell[23].
This place is described by God as a pit of fire, a place where the devil
and death are going to be placed on the final Day of Judgment[24].
This option includes being judged by God as sinful and unholy and,
therefore, as ones who have chosen the ways of the devil, belong where the
devil is judged to go[25].
God has chosen to reveal Who He Is through the lives and actual historical
events of people, particularly in a people who came to be known as
Israelites, descendents of Abraham and Sarah[26].
The history of the People of God, their successes and failures (which
depended upon their personal and faithful relationship with God)[27]
are recorded for us in the Bible.
When the time was right[28],
God Himself came down from heaven, in the Person of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth[29],
born of Mary[30],
a virgin Israelite, who was betrothed to a man named Joseph.[31]
Jesus Christ, the Messiah[32],
The Word of God[33],
Who Always Was and Is and Always Will Be[34],
willingly left heaven, emptied and humbled Himself and came into the world
as a vulnerable baby[35],
born to a young Jewish woman, Mary[36],
who consented to this most amazing thing. "Let it be unto me," she said,
believing the angel's message[37].
Her fiancé, Joseph, too, agreed to this arrangement and consented to
continue the engagement and to take her as his wife and raise this Holy
Child, the Son of God[38].
One day, the Holy Spirit "overshadowed" Mary and she became pregnant,
"with child". She was a virgin, which means that she did not have sex with
her fiancé, nor with any man, and yet she became pregnant through and by
the power of God. This unique Child, was conceived by the Holy Spirit and
born of the Virgin Mary. This Child, was named Jesus, for He will save His
people from their sins.
The NICVOICE presentation makes this comment:
Quote: If the
Virgin birth did not happen, then Jesus’ father is unknown.
I know Who Jesus' Father Is. I cannot explain how the Son "emptied
Himself" or how the Holy Spirit "overshadowed" Mary and conceived the boy
child named Jesus. I know that the faith of Mary was extraordinary and
that of all women[39],
Yahweh chose her to carry His Only Begotten Son. I know that the faith of
Joseph, who was a righteous man, was also extraordinary and it was his
faith in God and the message from the angel that led him to marry a woman
who was "with a Child" not his own.
I know these things because the Bible, the Holy Scriptures say so.
Christians believe that the Holy Bible is God's Book for God's People and
that they contain truth that can be relied on for eternal life. In
addition, the Holy Spirit testifies to me that these things written are
truth[40].
I am convicted in my spirit and I choose to believe and act in accordance
with my beliefs. I stake my personal life on what the Bible says.
So, what is at stake in Christianity with the Doctrine of the Virgin
Birth? Everything Christian: Jesus Christ and the understanding of Who He
Is.
Jesus taught His Disciples many, many things. He demonstrated Who He Is by
what He taught and what He did. After Jesus was crucified, dying a
horrible criminal's death, He was resurrected. He was dead for three days
and was resurrected. He appeared to His followers, who recognized Him, ate
with him, and listened to more of His lessons and directions as to what to
do next. He ascended into heaven and left his followers with a command: to
pick up where He left and go out into all the world and make Disciples of
Jesus Christ, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit[41].
As the followers of Jesus went about doing just that, they did not agree
with each other. They had to discern, as a group, what was correct
(Doctrine) and what was incorrect (Heresy). Not an easy task, considering
that they were persecuted, imprisoned, killed, etc. for their beliefs.
Persecution has a tendency to scatter people and send them into hiding and
work quietly to spread the Good News so as to reach as many people as
possible. Yet, Christianity did spread because of the power of the Holy
Spirit.
Finally, the Christian faith became legal and it was possible for the
leaders of the church to gather and determine which teachings were correct
and which were incorrect.
Two creeds became established in the Christian Faith: The Nicene Creed and
The Apostles Creed. I want to present the Nicene Creed here.
Quote:
The Nicene Creed
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in the only holy catholic and apostolic church.
We acknowledge one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
The Nicene Creed was adopted by the Council of Nicaea
in 325. This contemporary version (above) of the creed reflects the
modifications made in the creed at the Council of Constantinople in 381.
Before all the "splits" and denominations of Christianity came into being,
the Church set about declaring what Christians believed. The early
Christians, the Church, has wrestled with various theologies and declared
what Christians believe.
The Nicene Creed is an official "nutshell" of the Christian Faith. This is
what Christians believe. There is a big section in the Creed about Jesus
Christ - - these beliefs are all essential. None can be omitted and
remain Christian.
Jesus is both Fully God and Fully Human. Fully God: Of one being with
the Father. Fully Human: he came down from heaven, was incarnate of
the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human.
The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church states the following
in Paragraph 103, Article II - Of the Word, or Son of God, Who Was Made
Very Man:
Quote:
The
Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one
substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the
blessed Virgin, so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to
say the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person,
never to be divided; whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man,
who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile
his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original
guilt, but also of actual sins of men.
Bishop Sprague "dissents" from the Christian faith when he says:
Quote:
"Thus,
if the Virgin Birth did not occur in a physical historical sense, if
Jesus were born of human parents, as I affirm he was, and if Jesus
did not possess trans-human supernatural powers, as I do not believe
he did..." and "this powerful myth was not intended as historical
fact, but was employed by Matthew and Luke in different ways to
point poetically to the Truth about Jesus as experienced in the
emerging Church."
Bishop Sprague is entitled to his own beliefs - but they are not
Christian. These same views have been held by others over thousands of
years and have been ruled by the Church as heretical. So, it is not
surprising that charges of heresy have been brought against him. I believe
that the outcome of the latest trial is unsatisfactory to God and will
also be ultimately found unsatisfactory to the whole of the UMC. Here we
are, struggling again, even as the early Church struggled, deciding what
we will allow to be taught within the walls of our local churches.
Holding these heretical beliefs, as Sprague does, a man of integrity would
step down from his position as a United Methodist Bishop and leave the
UMC. A Bishop of the UMC vows to defend the Christian faith in the
Methodist tradition, not dissent from it. How a man can be divided against
himself in such respects beyond me to understand. It's got to be pretty
painful. Jesus said that we can't serve two masters - - we will have to
love one and hate the other. Sprague has set himself against the Christian
faith and the UMC's Book of Discipline (which
contains Articles of Faith consistent with Christianity). Sprague took the
time to write a book to explain his position, he demonstrates beliefs
contrary to the Book of Discipline in thought, word, and deed. It isn't
really apparent to me which master he serves, but it's not Jesus Christ.
Sprague's religion is built on sinking sand - a human-only-Jesus. It can't
stand. It was dismantled by the church hundreds and hundreds of years ago.
How a loving church can allow such a person to remain a Bishop and add to
his condemnation by allowing him to teach the innocent flock heresies, is
also beyond my comprehension. This has to change. God is giving us time to
do the right, but difficult, thing. I'm praying for the Holy One of Israel
to move in our hearts and minds and have the same kind of tough love that
God demonstrates - discipline by removal until repentance is demonstrated.
As for me and my family: I love the Lord Jesus - Fully God / Fully Man. We
will serve the Lord. I find my faith to be in full concert with the
Doctrinal Standards of the UMC and I'm standing here. I have no problem
directing my gifts and service to the UMC. It is my joy to do so. For the
Lord has called me here and this is my home. All my efforts will be
directed in accordance with the Christian faith, in the Methodist
tradition. I do not pretend to have all the answers nor all wisdom. I
simply love the One Who Does: Jesus Christ. I do not know how much further
transformation that God has in store for me as I press forward, eagerly
taking hold of His hand. I do know from whence I came. And I know in Whom
I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have
committed unto Him against That Day.[42].
[1]
Scripture references provided are not intended to be exhaustive, but a
starting point for Bible Study and reflection. Genesis 1,2; John
1.
[2]
John 14; Mark 1.
[3]
Genesis 3, 6; Ezekiel 32; Matthew 5; Romans 5; 1 John 3.
[4]
Isaiah 52, 53; Matthew 1; Luke 19; John 10, 11; Acts 14.
[5]
Isaiah 9; Micah 5; Isaiah 61; Matthew 16, 17; John 1; Colossians 1, 2;
Hebrews 1, 2
[6]
John 14; Acts 2.
[7]
John 3, 16; Acts 10, 19; 1 Corinthians 12, 14; 1 John 4.
[8]
Genesis 3.
[9]
Romans 5.
[10]
Genesis 3.
[11]
Joshua 24.
[12]
Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5; John 14; 1 John 5
[13]
Galatians 3, 4; Romans 8.
[14]
Matthew 9; Luke 5; Romans 5; 1 John 1; 1 Peter 1; 2 Peter 5;
[15]
Mark 1; Mark 10; Luke 10; Acts 8.
[16]
John 17; 1 Thessalonians 5.
[17]
Matthew 5; Mark 12.
[18]
Matthew 22; Acts 24; Revelation 20
[19]
Matthew 6; Luke 23; John 14; Revelation 21, 22.
[20]
Matthew 19; Luke 12;
[21]
Galatians 5; Colossians 3; 1 Peter 4
[22]
Romans 1.
[23]
Luke 16.
[24]
Revelation 20.
[25]
Matthew 13, 22; Luke 13; Revelation 20.
[26]
Genesis 12, 15; Galatians 4.
[27]
Judges 17, 21; Acts 13.
[28]
Galatians 4; Ephesians 1.
[29]
Philippians 2.
[30]
Isaiah 7; Matthew 1.
[31]
Luke 1, 2.
[32]
Matthew 1, 26, 27; John 20; Acts 2, 3, 5, 17, 18; Ephesians 2, 3; 1 John
2, 5; Revelation 20.
[33]
John 1.
[34]
John 1; Revelation 1.
[35]
John 10; Philippians 2
[36]
Luke 1.
[37]
Luke 1.
[38]
Matthew 1.
[39]
Luke 1.
[40]
Romans 8; Hebrews 10; 1 John 5.
[41]
Matthew 27, 28; Mark 15, 16; Luke 22, 23,24
[42] 2 Timothy 1:12b
<<back
Reflections on Trinity
 Is
the Trinity Biblical? CRI
PERSPECTIVE CP0704
The Trinity is a basic doctrine of orthodox
Christianity. Yet the word "Trinity" is not found anywhere in the Bible. Is
the doctrine of the Trinity really biblical?
The doctrine of the Trinity says that there is one God who
exists eternally as three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. I can assure you that the elements of this doctrine are all
taken directly from the Bible.
The first plank of the Trinitarian platform is that there is
only one God. The Bible could not be more explicit on this point, which it
states explicitly about two dozen times. In Isaiah 44:8 God says that even
He does not know of any other gods!
Read More
N.T. Wright defends resurrection in first
point-counterpoint forum By Gary D. Myers Mar 17, 2005
NEW ORLEANS (BP)--"Enormous forces in our culture are determined to deny
that Jesus was raised from the dead," N.T. Wright, an Anglican evangelical
scholar, said.
"Over and over again, they use arguments that can be shown to be invalid and
propose alternative scenarios which can be shown to be impossible."
Wright and John Dominic Crossan, a member of the Jesus Seminar, voiced
divergent views of the resurrection during the inaugural Greer-Heard
Point-Counterpoint Forum at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary March
11.
Wright, bishop of Durham, England, defended the literal, bodily resurrection
of Jesus as the only tenable view, while Crossan, a professor emeritus at
DePaul University, set forth a metaphorical interpretation of the
resurrection.
To begin the forum, each speaker was given 20 minutes to explain his
beliefs. During the following dialogue, both Crossan and Wright questioned
each other and clarified their positions.
Wright began by examining some of the common attempts to explain away the
resurrection. He said one argument proposes that ancient people did not
understand the laws of nature and were, therefore, more inclined to accept
unsophisticated answers.
"That is simply absurd," Wright said. "The ancients knew perfectly well that
dead people didn't rise. We didn't need modern science to tell us that."
Others have pointed to Hellenistic and pagan stories featuring empty graves
and visions of the dead as the reason the early church began to believe in
the resurrection. But Wright said these stories are completely different
from the biblical resurrection accounts.
The presence of resurrection beliefs in Judaism cannot account for the focus
on Jesus' resurrection in the early church either, Wright said, noting that
resurrection was peripheral in Judaism, or not a foundational part of the
Jewish beliefs. In Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus is central.
"I've shown conclusively that [the Apostle] Paul really did believe in the
bodily resurrection despite generations of critics going back as far as the
second century trying to make out that he didn't," Wright said.
The empty tomb and Jesus' appearances caused the early church to believe in
His bodily resurrection, Wright said, noting that the empty tomb and the
resurrection appearances taken together constitute a sufficient condition
for belief in the resurrection.
"Having examined as many of the alternative explanations I could find and
having shown them all to be completely inadequate, the one we are left with,
however unlikely, must press itself upon us as being true," Wright said. "It
is only with the bodily resurrection of Jesus, demonstrating that His death
dealt a decisive blow to evil, that we could find the proper grounds for
calling the kingdoms of earth to submit to the Kingdom of God."
Crossan, on the other hand, said he believes the mode of the resurrection is
secondary to the meaning of the resurrection. Though taking a metaphorical
approach to the resurrection, Crossan maintained that, whether one believes
in a literal or metaphorical resurrection, the implications of the
resurrection should make a difference in the world today.
"We are talking about cosmic transformation from a world of injustice,
impurity and violence into a world of justice and peace and purity and
holiness," he said.
Crossan denied that the empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus served as a
sufficient cause for the rise of resurrection belief in the early church.
"That would get you to the exaltation," Crossan said. "It would get you to
the conclusion that Jesus has been exalted, maybe even to the right hand of
God.... Something else is absolutely needed to make that leap of faith [to
belief in a literal, bodily resurrection]."
Crossan said Jesus' words about launching the Kingdom of God caused the
early church to believe in the resurrection.
"If you want to debate what has to be taken literally and what has to be
taken metaphorically, it is a perfectly valid debate," Crossan said. "But
there is something else -- the question of meaning."
Crossan said he would like to hear someone who takes the resurrection
literally share the implications of that belief, asking how that belief
could change the world.
"Tell me that from your literal reading," he said. "I will try, as one who
takes it metaphorically, to spell out the implications from a metaphorical
reading."
Those who disagree over the mode of the resurrection, whether literal or
metaphorical, will find common ground in the area of meaning, Crosson said.
During the dialogue time, Wright pressed Crossan on the use of "literal and
metaphorical." Wright argued for the use of the terms "concrete and
abstract."
"Often we use the terms literal and metaphorical when, actually, we mean
concrete and abstract," Wright said. "I do think it makes an enormous
difference if you say that what happened on Easter day was not a concrete
event."
Wright also challenged Crossan to explain the changes that occurred as
believers in Christ moved from Judaism and other cultures to Christianity.
"Something happened which caused all those Christians from very different
backgrounds to transform the beliefs their cultures had given them into this
remarkable new shape," Wright said.
Crossan, however, spoke again of Jesus' teaching on the Kingdom of God.
"I think for me it's extraordinarily important that the historical Jesus,
the Jesus of the Gospels, has already made an announcement," he said. "It is
not that the Kingdom is beginning. It is that the Kingdom has begun. When He
sends people out, I think these people ... experienced part of the Kingdom."
Crossan said he believes the early believers saw apparitions rather than the
literal risen Jesus. The apparitions along with their experience with the
Kingdom, Crossan said, caused the dramatic shift in their beliefs.
Wright responded, "I agree with you that Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom
and their awareness of the power of God through the preaching of Jesus is
one of the preconditions for the eventual interpretation at which they
arrived." But, he said, "I don't think those by themselves would have been
sufficient to generate anyone saying, 'He has been raised from the dead.'"
New Orleans Seminary President Chuck Kelley described the dialogue, which
was attended by about 1,000 people in Leavell Chapel, as "a great
opportunity for our seminary family and many other guests to see how we can
dialogue with the world and get the Gospel out there without sacrificing our
convictions ... a great model for how to take a strongly held belief like we
have in the resurrection and then share and defend that belief with those
who don't accept it."
The forum continued on March 12 with a number of noted scholars responding
to Crossan and Wright, including presentations by Gary Habermas,
distinguished professor of apologetics and philosophy at Liberty University;
Craig Evans, Payzant distinguished professor in New Testament at Acadia
Divinity College; R. Douglas Geivett, professor of philosophy at Talbot
School of Theology; Chuck Quarles, associate professor of New Testament and
Greek at NOBTS; William Lane Craig, research professor at Talbot School of
Theology; and Ted Peters, interim president at Pacific Lutheran Seminary.
Responses from Wright and Crossan followed each speaker.
Numerous other evangelical scholars were present because the Southwest
regional meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, the Evangelical
Missiological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society met that
weekend on the NOBTS campus in conjunction with the Greer-Heard Forum.
Established through a gift from Bill and Carolyn Heard, the forum was
designed to help students and ministers learn to think critically and to be
prepared to engage secular society. The Heards were on hand for the
inaugural event.
"This is exactly what Bill and I initially envisioned for this event," said
Bob Stewart, assistant professor of philosophy and theology at NOBTS.
Stewart occupies the Greer-Heard Chair of Faith and Culture and was
responsible for planning the forum.
Stewart announced that the Friday night dialogue, along with the papers
presented Saturday and a few additional articles, will be published by
Fortress Press in North America and by SPCK in Europe in the spring of 2006.
Audio CDs of this year's forum are also available, and may be ordered online
at www.greer-heard.com.
Stewart also announced that the 2006 Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum is
scheduled for Feb. 10-11, 2006, on "Debating Design" -- whether the universe
was created by intelligent design or by evolution. The dialogue will be
between one of intelligent design's leading thinkers, William Dembski, the
newly named director of the Center for Science and Theology at the Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary, and evolutionist Michael Ruse, a professor at
Florida State University.
I
Believe in the Resurrection of the Flesh,
by Dr. Norman L. Geisler, article first published in
Christian Research
Journal, Summer 1989,
Christian
Research Institute Statement DR165
Dr. Geisler is Dean of the Liberty Center for Research and
Scholarship and Professor of Philosophy of Religion at Liberty University,
Lynchburg, Virginia. He is the author of nearly 30 books, including the The
Battle for the Resurrection (Thomas Nelson Publishers).
Down through the centuries
orthodox Christians have always confessed with the Apostles' Creed: "I
believe...in the resurrection of the flesh." This affirmation of faith in
the believer's resurrection is grounded in faith in Christ's
resurrection. A major purpose of the latter resurrection was to make
possible the former; thus they are both of the same nature (2 Cor.
4:14; 1 Cor. 15:20-23, 48; Phil. 3:21). The two doctrines are therefore
interdependent, and will be treated as one doctrine in this article.
In spite of the historic church's unwavering belief in the resurrection of
the flesh, there are those today who call themselves "orthodox" but do not
adhere to the doctrine. In the past, those who deviated from this venerable
truth of apostolic Christianity did so by denying the reality of the
resurrection. Today, some veer from course by denying its materiality.
What makes their view unique is that they affirm an "empty tomb" while
ironically denying that a material body emerged from it. In short, while
they deny the materiality of the Resurrection they confess its objectivity,
and on the basis of this confession they conclude that their faith remains
biblical.
Read More
Evidence for the
Resurrection, by
Rev. Wallace Cason, pastor of the Tupelo-St. Mark
Charge. He has been a pastor and in the United Methodist Church in
Mississippi since 1973. He has been a church
planting missionary serving in Colombia, South America, for four years; a
Methodist missionary in Bolivia for one year; and a street evangelist in
Puerto Rico for three months. He has served over 20 United Methodist
churches in Mississippi.
Review: The Resurrection of the Son of God' by the Rev. N.T. Wright The
Resurrection of the Son of God' by the Rev. N.T.Wright
Wright, 54, a prolific writer of both
scholarly and popular books, is currently canon theologian of
Westminster Abbey and a former university instructor at Cambridge,
Oxford and McGill in Montreal.
Wright's 817-page The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress
Press) marches through a clearly organized case that confronts every
major doubt about Easter, ancient and modern.
He disputes those who think the Resurrection is "beyond
history."
Read More
Why EASTER MATTERS, by N. T. Wright
<<back
The
Christian and Authority,
Parts 1 & 2, by Elliot
Miller - These
articles first appeared in the Volume 8 / Number 1 & 2 / Spring and Summer
1985 issues of the Forward, now known as
Christian Research
Journal,
Christian Research Institute
Statement DA-310The
authoritative character of Christianity often “goes against the grain” of
today’s “open-minded” advocate of religious toleration. This dogmatic character,
however, is grounded in its very origins. For Christianity to be true to its
historic nature, it must be authoritative, because it has always understood
itself to be a product of revelation, or acts of divine disclosure. Its
legitimacy inevitably hinges upon the factuality of this claim.
The coming of Christianity was
seen to be in continuity with a series of revelations that had previously
transpired in the history of the nation of Israel and the church, the God of
heaven and earth made Himself known by breaking into history to perform mighty
acts and to speak words (usually by His prophets) which explained the
significance of those acts. This pattern was consummated in Jesus Christ, His
incarnation, life, death and resurrection, whose meaning was expounded by His
apostles. Through Jesus Christ, God was making His one and only provision for
man’s salvation: this fact rendered Christianity in inescapably dogmatic faith.
By virtue of God’s special act of revelation in Christ, divine authority was
invested in the enterprise. Thus, instead of merely offering one more
speculation teaching in the Athenian marketplace of ideas, the apostle Paul
affirmed that God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30, NIV.
All future quotes in this study will be from the NASB.)
Read More
Authority of the Bible
There are many books today that claim to be the Word of God. The
Koran, the Islam holy book, claims to be the Word of God. The Book of
Mormon claims to be the Word of God. The Hindus believe the Bhagavad Vita
is the source of eternal truth. Karl Marx, with his atheistic worldview,
claimed his writing, The Communist Manifesto, was the ultimate truth.
We Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God and the
eternal source of truth we live by. How do we know the Bible is the Word
of God? Can we actually prove that the Bible is truly the Word of God? The
answer is yes.
Read More
<<back
What happens
to people who have never heard the Gospel, Christian
Research Institute,
Statement CP0207
If Jesus is the only way to God, what
happens to those who’ve never heard the gospel, but follow their own
religions? Can they be saved?
“Isn’t it unfair for
God to send people to hell even if they’ve never heard about Him or His Son,
Jesus Christ?” Whether it’s asked with the utmost sincerity or used as a
convenient excuse to reject God, we must realize that Christianity’s
truthfulness depends not on how this question is answered, but upon the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:13-19).
While the Bible affirms
that Christ is the only Savior (Acts 4:12), it also states that God is truly
just (Gen. 18:25; Job 34:12; Acts 17:31) and he loves us with an everlasting
love (Jer. 31:3; John 3:16; cf. 2 Pet. 3:9). He continues to demonstrate
this by making Himself known through His handiwork in creation (Rom.
1:19-20), but he also inscribes his knowledge on the very tablets of our
hearts, or conscience (Rom. 2:14-15). Because no one has been kept in the
dark about God, we’re all accountable to Him (Luke 12:47-48).
In spite of this, man has answered God’s love with rebellion, repeatedly
rejecting what God has revealed (Rom. 3:10-18). All of us deserve to be
sentenced to hell. But despite our depravity, God has mercifully chosen to
provide a way to save us.
Read More
The Good News of God's Wrath:
At the heart of the universe, there is a just and gracious God,
By Peter Jensen
| posted 02/23/2004
Christianity Today
Some Christians today are nervous about the
Atonement. They think that we can know little or nothing about how God has been
righteous and yet he "justified the ungodly" (Rom. 4:5)
at the same time. Especially because of the doctrine's associations with "the
wrath of God" and "punishment" and other harsh language, they would prefer to
leave the question of How? in the sphere of theory and speculation, if it
is to be handled at all.
About such people theologian James Denney said, "They profess to believe in
the fact of the Atonement, but they despair of finding any theory of it.
There are even some who glory in this situation; it is not with despair, but
with triumph, that they find in the very heart of the gospel a mystery which
is simply insoluble, in the very focus of revelation a spot of pure
impenetrable black."
Mystery is all well and good,
but I fear that the hesitation to be clear in this doctrine robs us of
something important. We may not want to go too far, but surely we may go as
far as the Bible itself takes us. When we do, we have the joy of learning
from the Lord himself something of how the death of his Son has brought
forgiveness and redemption. We cannot understand it all, but what he gives
us illumines all the rest, and gives us a proper and an amazing sense of
satisfaction that at heart of the universe, there is a just and
gracious God.
Read More
The
Atonement of Christ and the "Faith" Message, by
Brian Onken,
Christian
Research Institute,
Statement DP060
There are many winds
of doctrine that blow through the church from time to time. Some whip up
for a brief, passing moment only to be wisely resisted by the maturing body
of Christ. Unfortunately, other ill winds blow through the church with gale
force; catching up believers, tossing them around, disrupting sound teaching
and settled hearts. Such a wind seems to be upon us.
Since the days of E.W. Kenyon and others of
similar mind, there has grown in the church a doctrinal "school" that has
come to be known as the "Faith" message, "Positive Confession," the "Word of
Faith" or the message of "the prevailing Word." With an emphasis on
"speaking the Word" and an insistence that divine health and freedom from
poverty are absolute rights of the children of God who "walk by faith," this
school has grown to be a major force in evangelical Christianity here in the
United States.
Occasionally, voices
have been lifted up against these teachings pointing out extremes or
imbalances in the areas of "guaranteed" health and wealth, the "speak it
into existence" concept and the basic misunderstanding of faith.[i]
In spite of what has already been done, nothing has surfaced that addresses
what may be one of the movements most dangerous errors: the "Faith"
teaching on the Atonement of Christ.
As Christians, we
affirm that our salvation is based solely on what Christ did for us. And,
we appropriate by faith what He has accomplished for us (Romans 3:21-4:5;
Ephesians 2:8,9; II Timothy 1:8-11; Titus 3:4-7). By this affirmation we do
not mean that saving faith involves nothing more than simply acknowledging
that Jesus died for us, nor do we insist that a thorough and complete
understanding of the Atonement is essential for salvation. Faith in the
Lord Jesus Himself saves. And yet, such faith is based not only on who
Jesus is, but on His finished work on the cross.
As Archibald Hodge
clearly points out in his work on the Atonement, the doctrine of the cross
is the central truth of the Christian message. Our conception of the
Atonement necessarily affects our conceptions of all other basic doctrines
-- everything from the person of Christ and the moral attributes of God to
the place of faith and "hence the entire character of our religious
experience."[ii]
But, is it really
crucial to have an understanding of what happened on the cross? Let's let
Paul Little answer:
Some question the
necessity for understanding the meaning of the Cross and the Atonement.
After all, they argue, we are not saved by any theory of the Atonement, but
by the actual death of Christ. This, of course, is true. We must be
careful not to try to reduce the Atonement into merely a neat formula. On
the other hand, just as what we believe about Christ's person is crucial --
even though we are saved by what He has done --
so it is important for us to understand the meaning of
His mission to die for man's sin. Otherwise we may find ourselves wittingly
or unwittingly opposing the Gospel in one of its most vital and fundamental
teachings[iii]
(emphasis ours).
Read More |
