This is another post in the series of emails between my friend and his dad. In one of my friend's dad's emails he says the following sentence:
"I hope that God sees me fit for mercy and on the appointed day welcomes me into the Holy Presence."
How can God see him as fit? If its by works, not by grace, of which he would have some part in, then he's not going to get in. (Eph. 2:1-10). How do we teach him how often in scripture God points to His salvation of the people instead of their work? How about showing him these examples?
Genesis 3 (in particular vs 7 & 21): Man tries to cover his sin ineffectively with a fig leaf. God instead covers it effectively with an animal skin. God kills the animal and makes the clothes, not man!
Genesis 7 (in particular vs 16): God destroys the world b/c of people's sin, but saves Noah. He tells Noah how to build the ark, and then when Noah is inside, God shuts the door for him. The ark is an illustration of Jesus that protects us from God's wrath. And God was the source of all of it.
Genesis 22 (in particular vs 13-14 ): Abraham is to kill his son Issac. Abe logically believes that God will raise him from the dead. Instead God provides a ram to be sacrificed instead. God provides, not man. And the son of the promise is effectively slain but raised from the dead. I know this one is a little harder to see.
Genesis 28 (in particular vs 12): Jacob (soon to be renamed Israel) sees a ladder between heaven and earth with angels ascending and descending. This ladder is Jesus. He connects earth and heaven as only God can. Man doesn't create this ladder. Jesus even refers t this incident in John 1:50-51.
Genesis 37,41-45: Joseph is the son of promise who is hated by his brothers and sold into slavery, aka death. The son rises out of prison and rules all of Egypt and is able to provide for his family. Just like Jesus who was hated by His Jewish brothers, slain, and who raised on the 3rd day and now provides mediation and salvation to us who repent and believe in Him. And by the way in both cases man does nothing. God makes it all happen.
I can keep going to include Moses leading the people across the red sea, something in possible that man couldn't do. Or Joshua who rolls back the Jordan to a town called Adam so that we can clearly see that sin is rolled back to Adam in Christ. Or Ruth, a foreigner, who is granted a kinsman redeemer and welcomed into the true people of God. All of these happen b/c God does the work not man. God won't see us fit on the final judgment day. Only by claiming Christ and His work will we get in.
By the way if you think he's struggling with the veracity of the Bible and he'd listen to a lecture on it. This is my favorite one. If you haven't listened to this before, its well worth your time.
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Email Apologetics 4
I wrote this response:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 08:59 PM, Doug wrote:
Friend's dad,
This is a very good question: "What then would allow me, a sinner, to think that I have a "complete" picture?"
The short answer is that the Holy Spirit makes the picture complete for you, and me. He is the one that draws us to Him and helps us understand the scriptures.
Just some examples to illustrate my point.
1) You're completely right that the disciples didn't understand half (maybe 3/4's ;) of what Jesus said to them while He was alive. The main reason for which was because they hadn't been given the Holy Spirit yet. Once God was living in them and through them in the Spirit, they could recall all that Jesus had taught them and apply it.
2) John 6 and 10 (and Romans 8, Ephesians 1, etc...) teach that the Spirit draws us and changes our hearts to understand. Ezekiel 36:24-27 is a great OT passage that describes how the Lord changes our hearts and makes it possible for us to understand the mercy of God that we can attain if we confess our sins via repentance and believe in Him.
I don't quite get your meaning when you say: "Our perception(revelation) Of the Old Testament is different than the New." Are you saying that the OT and the NT teach different stories or represent different concepts of God? If so, I think this is a common misconception. One that my own uncle and I were discussing just this weekend as a matter of fact.
There are lots of ways to address this concern. Perhaps the easiest is when Jesus says in John 5 that '...Moses wrote about me...'. Jesus is making clear here that the intent of the OT was to be the womb or the incubator to explain the death and resurrection of Jesus. When Moses wrote the law, including the sacrificial system, he did it to illustrate Jesus because the ancient Hebrews (and us for that matter) wouldn't have understood Jesus' sacrifice without a picture of animal sacrifices to set the stage. The passover lamb is the best example of this. The lamb was without blemish and was sacrificed to protect the people, Just like Jesus 1500 years later. Romans 3 clarifies that God never intended for sins to be absolved by the lamb, but that its death pointed to Jesus.
So anyway, long story short, the best way to find out if what the Bible says is true, is it test it. I do this every day. I look at my life and I see the sin and desire to be selfish within me. I know that this causes a problem with me and God because it shows my betrayal of His rightful kingship. The Bible teaches me that the only solution to that sin problem is Jesus' death and my acceptance of it's power to save me, not through my efforts to get right with God.
Can I challenge you to read through the book of Romans and shoot some questions out to this email group as you go? I think it will cover many of your questions and perhaps raise some new ones.
Its a pleasure talking with you. I am continuing to pray for you.
--doug ><>
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 08:59 PM, Doug wrote:
Friend's dad,
This is a very good question: "What then would allow me, a sinner, to think that I have a "complete" picture?"
The short answer is that the Holy Spirit makes the picture complete for you, and me. He is the one that draws us to Him and helps us understand the scriptures.
Just some examples to illustrate my point.
1) You're completely right that the disciples didn't understand half (maybe 3/4's ;) of what Jesus said to them while He was alive. The main reason for which was because they hadn't been given the Holy Spirit yet. Once God was living in them and through them in the Spirit, they could recall all that Jesus had taught them and apply it.
2) John 6 and 10 (and Romans 8, Ephesians 1, etc...) teach that the Spirit draws us and changes our hearts to understand. Ezekiel 36:24-27 is a great OT passage that describes how the Lord changes our hearts and makes it possible for us to understand the mercy of God that we can attain if we confess our sins via repentance and believe in Him.
I don't quite get your meaning when you say: "Our perception(revelation) Of the Old Testament is different than the New." Are you saying that the OT and the NT teach different stories or represent different concepts of God? If so, I think this is a common misconception. One that my own uncle and I were discussing just this weekend as a matter of fact.
There are lots of ways to address this concern. Perhaps the easiest is when Jesus says in John 5 that '...Moses wrote about me...'. Jesus is making clear here that the intent of the OT was to be the womb or the incubator to explain the death and resurrection of Jesus. When Moses wrote the law, including the sacrificial system, he did it to illustrate Jesus because the ancient Hebrews (and us for that matter) wouldn't have understood Jesus' sacrifice without a picture of animal sacrifices to set the stage. The passover lamb is the best example of this. The lamb was without blemish and was sacrificed to protect the people, Just like Jesus 1500 years later. Romans 3 clarifies that God never intended for sins to be absolved by the lamb, but that its death pointed to Jesus.
So anyway, long story short, the best way to find out if what the Bible says is true, is it test it. I do this every day. I look at my life and I see the sin and desire to be selfish within me. I know that this causes a problem with me and God because it shows my betrayal of His rightful kingship. The Bible teaches me that the only solution to that sin problem is Jesus' death and my acceptance of it's power to save me, not through my efforts to get right with God.
Can I challenge you to read through the book of Romans and shoot some questions out to this email group as you go? I think it will cover many of your questions and perhaps raise some new ones.
Its a pleasure talking with you. I am continuing to pray for you.
--doug ><>
Email Apologetics 3
My friend's dad sent this one.
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Friend's Dad wrote:
Doug,
It is good to see that my son has friends in the “Spirit”. Since your study is in Hebrews, my question is, I think, fitting. I believe that Our God is unchanging and that God exists outside the boundary of time, but we are not. The latter I know. Therefore, it must be our perception of God that is subject to change. Our perception(revelation) Of the Old Testament is different than the New. God came to us in person. Jesus is the only Son. He clearly new his mission. However, even with Jesus as personal teacher, His disciples still misinterpreted His meaning. What then would allow me, a sinner, to think that I have a “complete” picture? This is what my reason compels me to think. My faith must do the rest.
Friend's Dad
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Friend's Dad wrote:
Doug,
It is good to see that my son has friends in the “Spirit”. Since your study is in Hebrews, my question is, I think, fitting. I believe that Our God is unchanging and that God exists outside the boundary of time, but we are not. The latter I know. Therefore, it must be our perception of God that is subject to change. Our perception(revelation) Of the Old Testament is different than the New. God came to us in person. Jesus is the only Son. He clearly new his mission. However, even with Jesus as personal teacher, His disciples still misinterpreted His meaning. What then would allow me, a sinner, to think that I have a “complete” picture? This is what my reason compels me to think. My faith must do the rest.
Friend's Dad
Email Apologetics 2
Email number two is from me.
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Doug wrote:
I haven't heard of open theism before.
I'm in Hebrews right now, so a lot of my thinking about who God is, is affected by that book at the moment. Heb. 1:1-4 is the author's way to grab our attention and get us to see that Jesus, not only is God, but that He is also the provider of purification for our sins. And let me tell you, I need that.
See for me, a lot of who God is, makes sense to me in the context of His promises to save us from our sins if we repent and believe in Him. God repeatedly promises to save us to the uttermost, to be the anchor of our soul, to never leave us nor forsake us, etc... He can only make those promises if He is completely in control and has full knowledge of the past, present, and future.
One way its been explained to me is that God is outside of time. He exists in eternity, which means that finite time is like a filmstrip that He is standing back and looking at. He can see all points on the time line all at once. And this is no problem for Him because He is infinite. Our little minds would just be blown by the thought of such an experience. But being the creator of all, even time, it's no big deal for Him.
Anyway all that to illustrate that when God makes a promise, He's actually able to keep it because He has existed before, during and after time. And since God cannot lie, then I can trust His promises and know that He will save me forever.
Let me know if this doesn't make sense.
--doug ><>
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Doug wrote:
I haven't heard of open theism before.
I'm in Hebrews right now, so a lot of my thinking about who God is, is affected by that book at the moment. Heb. 1:1-4 is the author's way to grab our attention and get us to see that Jesus, not only is God, but that He is also the provider of purification for our sins. And let me tell you, I need that.
See for me, a lot of who God is, makes sense to me in the context of His promises to save us from our sins if we repent and believe in Him. God repeatedly promises to save us to the uttermost, to be the anchor of our soul, to never leave us nor forsake us, etc... He can only make those promises if He is completely in control and has full knowledge of the past, present, and future.
One way its been explained to me is that God is outside of time. He exists in eternity, which means that finite time is like a filmstrip that He is standing back and looking at. He can see all points on the time line all at once. And this is no problem for Him because He is infinite. Our little minds would just be blown by the thought of such an experience. But being the creator of all, even time, it's no big deal for Him.
Anyway all that to illustrate that when God makes a promise, He's actually able to keep it because He has existed before, during and after time. And since God cannot lie, then I can trust His promises and know that He will save me forever.
Let me know if this doesn't make sense.
--doug ><>
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Email Apologetics 1
This starts a series of posts where I'm interacting with a friend of mine's dad. Its a great exchange. I hope you can benefit from this exchange as I have. I'll post the emails one at a time. I'm sanitizing the names. The first is from my friend.
From: Doug's Friend
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 8:33:40 PM
Subject: new question from Dad
Hi Doug (and Dad),
Just spoke with Dad on his way home from a weekend down the shore. I let him know that he has some e-mail waiting in his inbox. Dad asked another question:
"Does God know the future?"
This is clearly the leading question that an open theist (like Greg Boyd) would ask. My Dad remarked that if God does not know the future then "it gets Him off the hook" for alot of stuff.
I'll say this now: it's absolutely unorthodox. It is aberrant teaching in my opinion.
From: Doug's Friend
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 8:33:40 PM
Subject: new question from Dad
Hi Doug (and Dad),
Just spoke with Dad on his way home from a weekend down the shore. I let him know that he has some e-mail waiting in his inbox. Dad asked another question:
"Does God know the future?"
This is clearly the leading question that an open theist (like Greg Boyd) would ask. My Dad remarked that if God does not know the future then "it gets Him off the hook" for alot of stuff.
I'll say this now: it's absolutely unorthodox. It is aberrant teaching in my opinion.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Quick Bibliology...
Here's the text of the 'worksheet' I prepared for home group (aka Bible study this week). The idea is that the attenders would read Psalm 19 in addition to answering the open-ended questions at the beginning of the study. I then answered the rest of the questions because I wanted this to be more of a resource than a pure question/answer session.
My list of references is as follows:
What was your exposure to the Bible growing up?
How would you describe your current perspective on the Bible?
What role does the Bible play in your daily life?
Psalm 19 describes Scripture as perfect, trustworthy, right, beautiful, etc.. Are these descriptions overstated? Why or why not?
Why do people struggle so much with believing that the Bible is really the word of God?
How does God communicate with man?
Revelation (Hebrews 1:1-2, Psalm 19) -- Idle speculation about God is foolish. If we wish to know who God is, we must rely on what he says about Himself.
-- General - That which is expressed to all men through creation and internal conscience
-- Specific - That which is expressed in His Scripture or direct immediate 'voice of God'
The Bible contains Paradoxes and Mysteries, but no Contradictions:
-- Paradox -- an apparent contradiction that under closer scrutiny yields resolution.
-- Mystery (Romans 16:25-27) -- something unknown to us now, but which may be resolved in the future.
-- Contradiction (1 Corinthians 14:33) -- a statement that claims something both is and is not in the same time and context. These are not understandable.
If the Bible was written by man, how can it be the Word of God?
-- Its the word of God because, the Bible itself claims to be so. 2 Timothy 3:16 "For all scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
-- God inspired the authors to write the words of God through their direct human experience. 2 Peter 1:19-20
Who wrote the Bible?
-- Kings, shepherds, outcasts, scholars, laborers.
-- 3 Continents (Africa, Asia, & Europe)
-- 3 Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek)
-- 40 different authors
-- Covers more than a thousand years of authorship, yet covers one theme: A loving God working to draw people to Himself via redemption.
How were the books in the Bible decided on as the authentic word of God?
-- Important to note that the church did not decide what books should be included. That would put the church above the Scripture. Instead they recognized the books that were inspired from their inception, and 'received' them from God.
-- The cannon of scripture means the standard of scripture.
-- The Old Testament cannon decided well before Christ by the Jews. A.D. 70 they codify the list to distinguish the Jewish texts from the rising Christian ones.
-- The cannon list published as early as 367 A.D. by Athanasius (church leader of the time) Repeated again at the Synod of Hippo 393 A.D.
-- New Testament books were recognized based on three criteria:
(1) They must have apostolic authorship or endorsement.
(2) They must be received as authoritative by the early church.
(3) They must be in harmony with the books about which there is no doubt.
-- No argument between Catholic and Protestant on NT. Some disagreement on apocryphal books. Those that fell between the Old and New Testament time periods. Most evidence points to a Jewish exclusion of those books in their OT. Also some things in those books contradict things stated in the New Testament. Council of Trent in 1546, the Roman Catholic church officially recognizes apocryphal books as cannon. A bit late if you ask me....
How do we measure the authenticity of any ancient text?
(1) How many copies do we have of the original and how close are they to when we think the original was written?
(2) Are the texts internally consistent and truthful?
(3) Is there external archeological evidence to support claims in the ancient text?
What are some facts and figures to support the authenticity of the document we have today is the same document they had back then?
Old Testament
-- Dead Sea Scrolls found in 1947 & 1956 are dated around 100 B.C.
-- Talmudists (A.D. 100 - 500) Followed a strict 17 rules about copying the OT books, including rules like not copying anything from memory, or only using new skins etc.
-- Massoretics (A.D. 500 - 900) Followed additional word counts and calculations to ensure that nothing was out of place in a copy. For instance they calculated teh middle word and middle letter of each page geographically and made sure that each copy matched the original.
New Testament
-- More than 5,700 copies in Greek; 10,000 in Latin; another 10 - 15,000 copies in other languages and more than 1,000,000 quotations of early patristic writings that cover the entire NT except for eleven verses.
-- Earliest NT fragments are from 100 A.D. that's within decades of when the authors probably wrote. Its well assumed that Book of John was written between 70 and 90 A.D., 1 Revelations, around 95 A.D.
-- Of the supposed translation differences, 90% of them are actually untranslatable as differences in English. E.g. 500 different ways to say Jesus loves Paul in Greek.
-- Less than 1% of variants are both meaningful and viable. They concern no important doctrinal issues. E.g. The number of the beast is either 666 or 616.
How do we interpret the Bible? (2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:14-18; 2 Tim 2:14-15)
-- Scripture always interprets scripture. Meaning that we understand a passage by understanding both its local context, and all of scripture's perspective on a particular topic.
-- Scripture must be interpreted with respect to the original audience and their intended understanding of the words spoken to them.
-- Scripture's genres must be interpreted as those genres would be in non-scripture. I.e. poetry as poetry, history as history, hyperbole as hyperbole etc...
-- The explicit scriptures always interpret the implicit verses.
-- The rules of logic apply to interpreting scripture.
-- A particular passage can only have one correct meaning. It is our responsibility to do our best to seek that singular correct interpretation.
What about those "contradictions" like the seemingly different accounts of Christ's death?
Bottom line:
The Bible is the word of God because the Holy Spirit testifies that it is. When a believer, or even a non-believer sometimes, reads the text he or she can feel the weight and reality of the text. If God is truly the God of the universe and capable of all things, then He's also capable of making sure the words that He wants communicated about Himself are actually communicated in an authentic way.
My list of references is as follows:
- Essential Truths of the Christian Faith by R.C. Sproul
- Now that's a Good Question by R.C. Sproul
- A Ready Defense by Josh McDowell
- Starting Point by North Point Church
- Is what we have now what they had then? By Dr. Dan Wallace.
Proving that the Bible we have today is the authentic word of God.
What was your exposure to the Bible growing up?
How would you describe your current perspective on the Bible?
What role does the Bible play in your daily life?
Psalm 19 describes Scripture as perfect, trustworthy, right, beautiful, etc.. Are these descriptions overstated? Why or why not?
Why do people struggle so much with believing that the Bible is really the word of God?
How does God communicate with man?
Revelation (Hebrews 1:1-2, Psalm 19) -- Idle speculation about God is foolish. If we wish to know who God is, we must rely on what he says about Himself.
-- General - That which is expressed to all men through creation and internal conscience
-- Specific - That which is expressed in His Scripture or direct immediate 'voice of God'
The Bible contains Paradoxes and Mysteries, but no Contradictions:
-- Paradox -- an apparent contradiction that under closer scrutiny yields resolution.
-- Mystery (Romans 16:25-27) -- something unknown to us now, but which may be resolved in the future.
-- Contradiction (1 Corinthians 14:33) -- a statement that claims something both is and is not in the same time and context. These are not understandable.
If the Bible was written by man, how can it be the Word of God?
-- Its the word of God because, the Bible itself claims to be so. 2 Timothy 3:16 "For all scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
-- God inspired the authors to write the words of God through their direct human experience. 2 Peter 1:19-20
Who wrote the Bible?
-- Kings, shepherds, outcasts, scholars, laborers.
-- 3 Continents (Africa, Asia, & Europe)
-- 3 Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek)
-- 40 different authors
-- Covers more than a thousand years of authorship, yet covers one theme: A loving God working to draw people to Himself via redemption.
How were the books in the Bible decided on as the authentic word of God?
-- Important to note that the church did not decide what books should be included. That would put the church above the Scripture. Instead they recognized the books that were inspired from their inception, and 'received' them from God.
-- The cannon of scripture means the standard of scripture.
-- The Old Testament cannon decided well before Christ by the Jews. A.D. 70 they codify the list to distinguish the Jewish texts from the rising Christian ones.
-- The cannon list published as early as 367 A.D. by Athanasius (church leader of the time) Repeated again at the Synod of Hippo 393 A.D.
-- New Testament books were recognized based on three criteria:
(1) They must have apostolic authorship or endorsement.
(2) They must be received as authoritative by the early church.
(3) They must be in harmony with the books about which there is no doubt.
-- No argument between Catholic and Protestant on NT. Some disagreement on apocryphal books. Those that fell between the Old and New Testament time periods. Most evidence points to a Jewish exclusion of those books in their OT. Also some things in those books contradict things stated in the New Testament. Council of Trent in 1546, the Roman Catholic church officially recognizes apocryphal books as cannon. A bit late if you ask me....
How do we measure the authenticity of any ancient text?
(1) How many copies do we have of the original and how close are they to when we think the original was written?
(2) Are the texts internally consistent and truthful?
(3) Is there external archeological evidence to support claims in the ancient text?
What are some facts and figures to support the authenticity of the document we have today is the same document they had back then?
Old Testament
-- Dead Sea Scrolls found in 1947 & 1956 are dated around 100 B.C.
-- Talmudists (A.D. 100 - 500) Followed a strict 17 rules about copying the OT books, including rules like not copying anything from memory, or only using new skins etc.
-- Massoretics (A.D. 500 - 900) Followed additional word counts and calculations to ensure that nothing was out of place in a copy. For instance they calculated teh middle word and middle letter of each page geographically and made sure that each copy matched the original.
New Testament
-- More than 5,700 copies in Greek; 10,000 in Latin; another 10 - 15,000 copies in other languages and more than 1,000,000 quotations of early patristic writings that cover the entire NT except for eleven verses.
-- Earliest NT fragments are from 100 A.D. that's within decades of when the authors probably wrote. Its well assumed that Book of John was written between 70 and 90 A.D., 1 Revelations, around 95 A.D.
-- Of the supposed translation differences, 90% of them are actually untranslatable as differences in English. E.g. 500 different ways to say Jesus loves Paul in Greek.
-- Less than 1% of variants are both meaningful and viable. They concern no important doctrinal issues. E.g. The number of the beast is either 666 or 616.
How do we interpret the Bible? (2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:14-18; 2 Tim 2:14-15)
-- Scripture always interprets scripture. Meaning that we understand a passage by understanding both its local context, and all of scripture's perspective on a particular topic.
-- Scripture must be interpreted with respect to the original audience and their intended understanding of the words spoken to them.
-- Scripture's genres must be interpreted as those genres would be in non-scripture. I.e. poetry as poetry, history as history, hyperbole as hyperbole etc...
-- The explicit scriptures always interpret the implicit verses.
-- The rules of logic apply to interpreting scripture.
-- A particular passage can only have one correct meaning. It is our responsibility to do our best to seek that singular correct interpretation.
What about those "contradictions" like the seemingly different accounts of Christ's death?
- Matt. 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
- Luke 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he breathed his last."
- John 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up His spirit."
At first glance these may appear to be contradictions, but they actually represent different degrees of emphasis. And even more so they lend credibility to different eye-witnesses remembering their encounters with the actual experience. If all of the accounts were in lock-step it would lend less credibility b/c it would seem as if only one person saw things and the others merely parroted him.
Bottom line:
The Bible is the word of God because the Holy Spirit testifies that it is. When a believer, or even a non-believer sometimes, reads the text he or she can feel the weight and reality of the text. If God is truly the God of the universe and capable of all things, then He's also capable of making sure the words that He wants communicated about Himself are actually communicated in an authentic way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)