wegotITgood

Entries categorized as ‘theology’

real questions: 3 in 1?

August 20, 2008 · Leave a Comment

Ned Anzers: The idea of the Trinity seems farfetched. How can three persons be one God?

Though the word “Trinity” is not found anywhere in the Bible, the theology behind it is seen throughout. The Trinity does not follow logic, but we must understand that theology is not always logical. In mathematics 1+1+1=3, but in the Theology Proper 1+1+1=1. John Wesley once said, “Tell me how it is that in this room there are three candles but one light, and I will explain to you the Trinity.”

I believe in one Triune God, eternally existing in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—co-eternal in being, co-identical in nature, co-equal in power and glory, and having the same attributes and perfections. (Duet.6:4). The Trinity is the doctrine that God is one essence in three co-eternal, co-equal persons (Mt. 3:13-17; Mt.28:19-20; Gen.1:1, 1:26; Jn.1:1, 20:28; Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor.13:14).

The Bible clearly states that God is One (Ex.20:2-3; Duet.6:4; 1 Cor.8:4). I do not believe in Tri-theism (three separate Gods), but only one God. However, it is correct to say that there are three members of the Godhead. First, God the Father is God (Eph.1:3; 1 Cor.8:6). Second, God the Son is God (John 1:1-14; John 8:58; John 20:30-31; Phil.2:6-8). Third, God the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-5; 1 Cor.3:16). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are united together as One as is seen in the Great Commission (Mt.28:19-20) and the baptism of Jesus (Mt.3:13-17).

In conclusion, God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God. Broken down, this amounts to three propositions: God is three persons. Each person is fully God. There is one God. In addition, it’s helpful to elaborate on the fact that when we say, “God is three persons,” we mean that he is not just one person, and that the persons of the Trinity are not to be confused. So we can also say: The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. The Holy Spirit is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son.


Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 226

Justin Taylor, Trinity 101. http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/869_trinity_101/

The diagram is adapted from Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross by Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb

Categories: God · questions · theology
Tagged: , ,

real questions: the Bible?

August 13, 2008 · 1 Comment

Ned Anzers: How do you know the Bible is true? What makes the Bible different than any other book?

Bible simply means book. I believe the Bible is more than a book, but an inspired book.  Inspiration is the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit on the Scripture writers which rendered their writings an accurate record of the revelation or which resulted in what they wrote actually being the Word of God.

According to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “all Scripture is inspired.” I believe that “all scripture is inspired” means that the Bible comes from God. Every word from Genesis to Revelation, in its original autographs, is the very word of God. The Bible is the very Word of God, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says “…you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” When we read the Bible we should realize we are receiving God’s own message, in other words God divinely produced the Bible.

2 Peter 1:20-21, explains that the Holy Spirit moved men to guarantee that no human contribution would corrupt, distort, or in any way diminish the written Word from being the very Word of God. This passage teaches that when one reads Scripture, what they are reading does not only come from a man but also from God. The Bible is the writing of many different men. These men spoke with their own language and style. Peter mentions two dimensions of their speaking: First, they spoke from God. What the men had to say was not merely from their own limited perspective because they were not the origin of the truth they were speaking. The truth is God’s truth. Their meaning is God’s meaning. Second, not only is what they spoke from God, but how they spoke it is controlled by the Holy Spirit. The Bible was not left to human voice boxes alone, but also the Holy Spirit. The words of the Bible are the Word of God (plenary) [“all” in 2 Tim 3:16 – Luke 11:51/Gen 4/2 Chron. 24:20-21], and the reality that the words themselves are God’s words (verbal) [Matt 5:17-18].

      The implications of the inspiration of the Bible are huge since the Holy Spirit is the author of scripture.  Since the Holy Spirit is the author of truth, the Bible is true (Ps. 119:142) and altogether reliable (Heb. 6:18). It is powerful, working its purpose in our hearts (1 Thess. 2:13) and not returning empty to the One who sent it (Is. 55:10-11). It is pure like silver refined in a furnace seven times (Ps. 12:6). It is sanctifying (John 17:17). It gives life (Ps. 119:37, 50, 93, 107; John 6:63; Mt. 4:4). It makes wise (Ps. 19:7; 119: 99-100). It gives joy (Ps. 19:8; 119: 16, 92, 111, 143, 174) and promises great reward (Ps. 19: 11). It gives strength to the weak (Ps. 119 :28 ) and comfort to the distraught (Ps. 119:76), and guidance to the perplexed (Ps. 119:105), and salvation to the lost (Ps. 119:155; 2 Tim. 3:15). The wisdom of God in Scripture is inexhaustible.

I also believe that the entire Bible is the infallible Word of God and without error in the original manuscripts. Infallibility is synonymous with inerrancy. The Bible is without error regarding either assertions or denials even in matters of History and Science. The Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives. The Bible cannot lie and proclaims the truth on each and every matter.

I believe that God’s purposes revealed in the Bible are the supreme and final authority in proving all claims about what is true and what is right. Authority means that the Bible has the right to tell me how to think and how not to think, and how to behave and how not to behave. 

If the Bible is inerrant then it must also be authoritative on whatever it affirms or denies.  The Scriptures explain that it is all that is required for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3), therefore, I can have confidence that the Bible is authoritative for all areas of life. Jesus Himself said, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). There are many other proofs inside the Bible that declare it is true and authoritative. According to Romans 3:4 it is stated that God cannot lie. 2 Tim 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 says that God is the author and protector of the Bible. Jesus Himself affirms the authority of the Old Testament authors (John 5:39-47). Also, there are many prophecies within the Scriptures that have been fulfilled. Second, the history recorded in the Bible is accurate with the history recorded outside the Bible (Ex: 2 Kings 20—Hezekiah and Sennachareb/Daniel 11). Third, the Bible is harmonious with itself from Old Testament to New Testament. The Bible’s theme of Redemption is woven in the fabric of each book so clearly and purposefully.

 


Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, p.225

John Piper, The Holy Spirit: Author of the Scripture, 1984

The Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy, 1978

Norman L. Geisler, Inerrancy, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI. p.268

Categories: Bible · questions · theology · truth
Tagged: , , , ,

taco bell theology

August 8, 2008 · Leave a Comment

Earlier today I was craving a chili cheese burrito. So I decided to head over to Taco Bell for lunch. Why does TB always sound so good, but you hate yourself for days afterwards?

It got me thinking. Taco Bell is a lot like sin. Okay, weird, I know. Just trust me on this.

Sin is fun. In the moment, sin sounds like a good idea. Just like my idea of Taco Bell: I could not resist the hankering for an ooey-gooey chili cheesy burrito (by the way, is that real meat in there?). It tasted so good going down. Mmm, yummy. However, it wasnt but a few minutes later that I already started feeling yucky and questioning why I had made such an idiotic decision. So it is with sin. The after taste of sin is disgusting, unsatisfying and leaving you with an empty gut of guilt. You see, sin is worse than silly Taco Bell. The Bible says, sin separates us from God and that sin is a slap in His face to the satisfying joy He desires us to have (Rom.3:23; 6:23).

I might be thinking outside the bun on this, but God is so more satisfying than Taco Bell. There is no comparison. Psalm 34:8 says, “O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man who trusts in Him.” When we do not satisfy our hungers with God it is like eating 10 bean burritos at one sitting and expecting to run a marathon immediately afterwards. It ain’t happening.

I am incredibly thankful that God forgives us of our sin, cleans us from all unrighteousness and is more satisfying to the soul than anything on this planet. I am also thankful for the guy at the bank who gave me a breath mint!?

Categories: God · faith · joy · sin · theology
Tagged: , , ,

cat and dog theology

February 8, 2007 · Leave a Comment

Growing up I had a cat named Solomon. He was mentally challenged, not from birth, but later in life because a car hit him. He had no teeth, drooled all the time and had to eat soft food the rest of its poor life. Before Solomon’s incident he was like any ordinary cat…all about himself.

 

Also, I had two dogs. Budo (Eskimo for ‘Beauty of the North’) a blue-eyed husky-cocker spaniel mixture that was the fieriest dog you have ever met. I have scares to this day from that beast chopping into me. Needles to say we got rid of Budo because he didnt live up to his name.

 

Shadow, our second dog was the most loveable golden retriever you had ever met. It was all about you….pleasing you, playing with you were her favorite things to do.

 

There is a joke about cats and dogs that conveys their differences perfectly. A dog says, ‘You pet me, you feed me, you shelter me, you love me, you must be God.’ A cat says, ‘You pet me, you feed me, you shelter me, you love me, I must be God.  [Note: cat and dog diaries below]

 

Using this metaphor in the Christian life dog theology says “Lord, You love me, You bless me abundantly, You gave Your life for me, You must be God.”  Whereas cat theology says, “Lord, You love me, You bless me abundantly, You gave Your life for me, I must be God.”

 

Our understanding of how we relate to God may not be wrong, but it may be incomplete. The God-given traits of cats (‘you exist to serve me’) and dogs (‘I exist to serve you’) can be similar to certain theological attitudes held by many Christians. In our personal theologies, some attitudes may draw us closer to God, and others can also pull us away from Him.

 

These thoughts are not entirely original. They came from a book I read called Cat and Dog Theology. Good read, and it’s short.

 

Justin Hutts [2.8.07]

 

 

 

“Excerpts from a Dog’s Diary*

8:00 am – Dog food! My favorite thing!

9:30 am – A car ride! My favorite thing!

9:40 am – A walk in the park! My favorite thing!

10:30 am – Got rubbed and petted! My favorite thing!

12:00 pm – Lunch! My favorite thing!

1:00 pm – Played in the yard! My favorite thing!

3:00 pm – Wagged my tail! My favorite thing!

5:00 pm – Milk bones! My favorite thing!

7:00 pm – Got to play ball! My favorite thing!

8:00 pm – Wow! Watched TV with the people! My favorite thing!

11:00 pm – Sleeping on the bed! My favorite thing!

 

* Excerpts from a Cat’s Diary*

Day 983 of my captivity.

My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects. They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while the other inmates and I are fed hash or some sort of dry nuggets. Although I make my contempt for the rations perfectly clear, I nevertheless must eat something in order to keep up my strength. The only thing that keeps me going is my dream of escape. In an attempt to disgust them, I once again vomit on the carpet.

 

Today I decapitated a mouse and dropped its headless body at their feet. I had hoped this would strike fear into their hearts, since it clearly demonstrates what I am capable of. However, they merely made condescending comments about what a “good little hunter” I am. Jerks!

 

There was some sort of assembly of their accomplices tonight. I was placed in solitary confinement for the duration of the event. However, I could hear the noises and smell the food. I overheard that my confinement was due to the power of “allergies.” I must learn what this means, and how to use it to my advantage.

 

Today I was almost successful in an attempt to assassinate one of my tormentors by weaving around his feet as he was walking. I must try this again tomorrow — but at the top of the stairs.

 

I am convinced that the other prisoners here are flunkies and snitches. The dog receives special privileges. He is regularly released – and seems to be more than willing to return. He is obviously retarded. The bird has got to be an informant. I observe him communicate with the guards regularly. I am certain that he reports my every move. My captors have arranged protective custody for him in an elevated cell, so he is safe. For now…

 

Categories: illustrations · memories · pride · theology
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Did God die for You?

May 18, 2006 · Leave a Comment

A look at Limited Atonement.

Warning: This may be deep

Limited Atonement is perhaps one of the most controversial teachings within John Calvins Institutes:

. . . Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed in Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. (Ch. III, sec. 6)

For starters Limited Atonement needs to be defined, Limited atonement is the theological position, which states that Christ saving work on the cross saved somemen of their sins before the foundations of the world. These men are known as the predestined, chosen or elect.To atone for sin is to clear sin from a person. “Atone” or “Atonement” in the Bible is primarily the Hebrew word “kaphar.” “Kaphar” means “to cover over,” “to pacify,” or “to make propitiation for.” “Propitiation” (“hilasmos”) in the New Testament means “to appease.” In 1 John 2:2, if by, ”He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world,”.

Why is Limited Atonement so controversial?

There are two basic views of Christs work in salvation:

1.        Armenians (freewillers or Universalists) Christ died for ALL men & man has the ability to chose to believe or not.

2.        Calvinist (God wills; He is sovereign) Christ died for SOME men & God knew before hand all who would believe.

It might be a cop-out or not academic to say that I can support both from Scripture. Who says, you have to fall into one camp or the other? Who can say, one theological position out-weighs the other?The sovereignty of God is seen all throughout Scripture. God is in control, all knowing, infinite, and rules over all that He has made. There is no question that God could save all men or some men, or cause all or some men to believe in His sacrifice. He is God; He can do as He pleases. He has elected/predestined some to salvation. But even within Scripture you see a balance within His character. Mans sin unleashes Gods wrath, but Gods grace unleashes His salvation to man. To say that Gods saving and sacrificing work on the cross only saved a selected few is a contrary look at Gods own character. I will not argue salvation is all the work of God. Salvation is 100 complete sovereign work of God. He is through and through within the beginning work of justification (regeneration, reconciliation and redemption), sanctification (progressively making man more like Himself after salvation), and glorification (perfecting man to be completely like Him after death). For example, “You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you” (John 15:16), or “No man can come unto Me, except it were given him of my Father” (John 6:65).It is not belittling to God or the message of the gospel to say that man has a choice in the matter of His eternal destiny. In fact, it is honoring and glorifying Gods grace. God demonstrated His love to man by sending His Son, and man demonstrates His love for God by accepting His Son. Faith is a concept communicated all throughout Scripture (Rom.5, 8; Eph.2). Faith is buying into Gods impossible and unexplainable grace.As I exegete or study the original language in context, it is clear that our Scriptures present far too many passages in that speak clearly of the grace, love and justice of God to justify the view that the Atonement was limited in its intention to a chosen few persons. I cannot honestly present the Gospel to the world at large or to my next-door neighbor unless I am convinced that God really desires the salvation of all men equally.

Such a verse as John 3:16, “God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,” is surely without limitation in its implication. And such passages as those which speak of Christ as the “Savior of the world” (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14), or “the Savior of all men” (1 Timothy 4:10), or as the one who gave Himself to be “a propitiation for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2), or which affirm that He is “the bread of God which comes down from heaven and gives life unto the world” (John 6:33, 51), are so all-encompassing as to defy the concept of a salvation is confined to the elect of God while the vast majority of men are passed by. Statements like these, and there are many others, appear to prohibit placing limitations upon the intrinsic worth of that sacrifice or upon its intention in application.

 

Yet there are reasons to believe that another interpretation is possible, if not indeed more likely, both for these passages and others of a similar nature. That the Lord Jesus Christ should die for all, while only some avail themselves of his sacrifice, is surely to make a provision far greater than is required. It constitutes a kind of divine extravagance, which seems inappropriate in view of the appalling nature of the penalty paid in his own Person by the Lord Jesus. In the nature of the case the Father must have foreseen that the sacrifice of his Son would effectively have only limited application. It would seem only appropriate to make the payment limited accordingly: limited punishment to balance limited crime. The Lord Jesus pronounces this principle Himself when He said that the man whose offenses were few was to receive few stripes, whereas the man whose offenses were great was to receive many (Luke 12:47, 48). It is expected to say that the Lord’s sacrifice was sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who avail themselves of it. But to many people even this appears to be an evasion of the problem, a mere play upon words.

 

However, a careful reading of what Scripture does say about those for whom Christ died reinforces the impression that He did actually bear only the sins of his people, ‘You shall call his name Jesus for He shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21)“The good shepherd gives his life for his sheep” (John 10:11)“Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it” (Ephesians 5:25)Christ died for many(Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 20:28, 26:28), the church (Ephesians 5:25), the sheep (John 10:15), and those who will live for righteousness (1 Peter 2:24)Certainly the implications here are clear enough. It might yet be true that He gave Himself for us, while still dying for other men also.

 

Paul is very specific when he says: “He gave Himself for our sins that He might deliver us” (1:4). And again in Galatians 3:13: “Being made a curse for us,” to the end that we might receive the adoption of sons” (4:5). To the Roman Christians Paul wrote: “He was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification” (Romans 4:25). In writing to Titus, Paul said: “He gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto Himself a special people” (Titus 2:14).

 

Peter wrote: “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24), a picture reflecting Isaiah 53:5: “He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by his stripes we are healed.”     

 

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews said, “By Himself He purged our sins” (Hebrews 1:3)“having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Hebrews 9:12). And in 1 John 4:9: “In this was manifest the love of God towards us because God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through Him.”

 

It might be argued that these passages were written to those who were already saved, yes, but that doesnt prove anything. The majority of these passages are references to what Christ has done and is still doing within the unbelieving world.

 

The Calvinistic and Armenian views of salvation are simply logical ways to explain an unexplainable theological issue. Theology doesnt always follow logic. For example, how does One God equal three Persons? Thats not logical to the finite mind of man. Why did God save all men? Why didnt God punish all men? These are questions we leave to God and do not need to define.

 

In conclusion, not out of ignorance, but out of conviction I walk the middle road. Gods sovereignty in salvation and mans acceptance are two important and parallel and proven truths within Scripture. These two truths are like two rails of a railroad track. The moment you try to deny one you derail the cars/truths. By Gods grace and by faith I believe that Jesus Christ paid my eternal debt and has forgiven me of sins that held me captive. To the praise and glory of His grace. (Eph.1).

 

Categories: God · salvation · theology
Tagged: , ,