"Reason" As an Excuse for Unbelief Is Not Rational

There are some atheists who claim that their unbelief is based on reason, because they will only believe what is based on logic. And that sounds so reasonable (no pun intended). Logic is a good thing, isn't it? And, of course, it is.

The problem with that claim is two-fold. First, how did they prove rationally that only reason produces truth? And second, logic cannot be a source of truth, because that is not its purpose. Rather, logic is the system of rules for combining facts that are attained in another way. For example, prove blue. You can't. Rather, blue is learned from perception.

Logic is also limited, in that it is not a guarantor of truth. We often think of it that way, but mistakenly. Logic can be valid, but produce false results, if the premises are false. For example, consider this syllogism: "All cows are purple; Bessie is a cow; therefore, Bessie is purple." This is a perfectly valid argument. However, we know the conclusion is false. How did a valid argument arrive at a false conclusion? Because one of the premises is false.

In the same way, the rationalist starts with a false premise, and, therefore, can only end with a false conclusion. What is that premise? The absence of God. Therefore, this is his argument: "There is no God; therefore, there is no God." And this, actually, is a valid argument, though circular. If the premise is true, then the conclusion must also be true. However, the converse is also correct: if the premise is false, then the conclusion must also be false. Does the rationalist mean to say that he depends on a logical argument that can result in either answer validly? I am sure he would not say so.

That's why the Bible says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7). When we plug that into the atheists syllogism, we get a valid result, a conclusion that God is, and is the source of all else, including knowledge. Now, it is true that the atheist will object that the argument is circular. However, it is his argument. Therefore, his criticism applies equally to his own use of the argument.

The question becomes, Whose starting presupposition has a rational basis? The atheist is starting with his own presupposition, a certainty that God is not. On what basis does he make that conclusion? He is making a definitive statement of certainty about something that he claims no one saw, i. e., the origin of the universe we know. In contrast, the Christian points to his own lack of such knowledge, or even of the possibility that any human could have such knowledge. Therefore, he looks to the one source who was there, i. e., God. Is that circular reasoning? Perhaps. But, then, is not the rationalist's presupposition circular? I have demonstrated that above.

But then the question changes: Is it more rational to express certainty about something which one claims no one witnessed? Or to express certainty based on the one Being who was there? I suggest that it is the Christian's view which is rational, not the atheist's.

The One Baptism is Not Oneness Baptism

The ruins of Ephesus

In Ephesians 4:4-5, Paul tells us, "There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Oneness Pentecostals appeal to these two verses to support several of their manmade doctrines, but they do so only by begging the question. It is only if one presupposes their doctrines that one can see them in this passage.

Their error in particular that I want address here is "one baptism," which, the Oneness claim, means that all valid baptisms must be done in the way they claim is seen in Acts, that is, in Jesus's name only. I have dealt with the phrase from Acts here. In this post, however, I want to address their claim that the phrase "one baptism" is intended to refer to the words said at baptisms.

In I Corinthians 1:10-17, Paul describes divisions in the church at Corinth. Apparently, members were claiming privilege based on the status of the person who baptized them. Paul rebukes such nonsense in verses 13-17: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." Regardless of whose hands splashed the water, it is only by the baptism authorized by Jesus.

That is the point that Paul continues to stress in Ephesians. There is no baptism of Paul or of Apollos, but only of Jesus. There is only one kind of baptism. And, while it is the baptism authorized by Jesus, as is seen in Acts, it is into the triune God of Matthew 28:19-20. It cannot be a source of pride, because it is the same and only baptism that all Christians receive.

True Truth Versus Tolerance: It Has Eternal Consequences!

 It has become popular in our society not to have any firm beliefs about anything. All beliefs are equally valid. What is true for you may not be true for me, and vice versa. The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth (of course, blanking out the contradiction in that). Toleration is the name of the game. That is, tolerance of everything except the intolerant (again, turning a blind eye to the inherent contradiction).

In the spiritual realm, it is a sign of culture to affirm that all religions are basically the same, because they all teach men to be good. We should come together through what we have in common, not what separates us.

I have a simple illustration that will demonstrate that the idea of universal non-absolute truth is actually a fatal error. And I mean fatal literally!

Arsenic and aspirin both begin with the latter "A." We mustn't be dogmatic by focusing on what distinguishes the two. We must be tolerant and focus on what they have in common. If you have a headache, don't be a fanatic and insist on absolute truth about which one you take. Be tolerant. Your doctor's truth may not be your truth. Go ahead and take the arsenic.

Of course, there is a sense in which the arsenic would, indeed, cure a headache. You will be dead, but your headache will be gone.

In the same way, treating all spiritual assertions as equally valid, true in some universal sense, will kill you. Eternally. Tolerance won't save you. Complaining about absolutes won't save you. Rather, rigid, uncompromising true truth is the only thing that will save you from the consequences of spiritual deception.

Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). He didn't equivocate by offering Himself as one possibility. He intolerantly announced Himself as the only true truth. He also said, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matthew 7:13-14).

More Patristics versus the Apocrypha

In the Fourth Century, Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, continued the tradition of counting the books of the Old Testament canon in accordance with the Hebrew alphabet, i. e., twenty-two. He enumerated them in his Prologo in Psalmos: "Five of Moses; Joshua the son of Nun, the sixth; Judges and Ruth, the seventh; first and second Kings [what we call "Samuel"], the eighth; third and fourth Kings, the ninth; two books of Chronicles, the tenth; Ezra, the eleventh; Psalms, the twelfth; Ecclesiastes and Canticles, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth [sic, Proverbs dropped by a copyist]; the Twelve Prophets, the sixteenth; then Isaiah and Jeremiah, together with his Lamentations and his epistle; Daniel and Ezekiel; and Job and Esther make up the full number of twenty-two books."

In the same time period, Cyril of Jerusalem was even more forceful: "Learn diligently from the Church what are the books of the Old Testament and what of the New, but read me none of the Apocryphal; for, if you do not know the books acknowledged by all, why do you vainly trouble yourself about the disputed books? Read, then, the divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, which have been translated by the seventy-two interpreters [i. e., of the Septuagint]. Of the Law first are the five books of Moses, then Jesus the son of Nave [Greek for Joshua the son of Nun], and the book of Judges with Ruth, which is numbered the seventh; then follow other historical books, the first and second of the Kingdoms [i. e., Samuel]; the third and fourth are also one book [i. e., the books of Kings]; the first and second of Chronicles are, in like manner, reckoned as one book; the twelfth is Esther. These are the historical books. The books written in verse are five - Job and the book of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs - making the seventeenth book. After these are the five prophetical books - one of the Twelve Prophets, one of Isaiah, one of Jeremiah, with Baruch, Lamentations, and an Epistle; then Ezekiel and the book of Daniel, the twenty-second book of the Old Testament" (emphasis added).

And in that same century, Epiphanius of Salamis wrote, "Twenty-seven books, acknowledged and received into the Old Testament, which, according to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, are counted as twenty-two, have been interpreted... [The Jews] enumerate their books as twenty-two, though in reality twenty-seven; for the book of Ruth is joined to the book of Judges, and the two are counted as one by the Hebrews. The first and second Kings [i. e., Samuel] are also counted as one book, and in like manner the third and fourth of Kings are reckoned as one. And in this way all the books of the Old Testament are comprehended in five pentateuchs, with two other books not included in these divisions. Five pertain to the law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy... Five are poetical: Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles. Then another pentateuch embraces the Hagiographa: Joshua, Judges and Ruth, first and second Chronicles, first and second Kings [Samuel], and third and fourth of Kings. This is the third pentateuch. Another pentateuch contains the Twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. Besides these there remain the two books of Ezra [i. e., Ezra with Nehemiah], which are counted as one, and the book of Esther. In this way, the twenty-two books are made out according to the number of the Hebrew letters."

And finally, let me quote Gregory of Nazianzus: "There are twelve historical books of the most ancient Hebrew wisdom: the first Genesis; then Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; the next Joshua, the Judges, Ruth, the eighth; ninth and tenth the acts of the Kings [i. e., I and II Samuel and I and II Kings], and then the Remains [i. e., Chronicles], and Esdras the last [i. e., Ezra and Nehemiah]. Then the five books of verse, the first Job, next David [i. e., Psalms], then the three books of Solomon: Ecclesiastes, the Song, and Proverbs. The prophetic books are five: the Twelve Prophets are one book, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Jonah, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, all these make one book; the second is Isaiah, then Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; which make twenty-two books, according to the number of the Hebrew letters." That he refers to the Twelve prophets, and then lists only eleven probably indicates a copyist error in dropping Zephaniah, likely because of its similarity to the name Zechariah.

Patristic Views of the Old Testament Canon

The Church of Rome makes bold claims about the Apocrypha, the books in her Old Testament Canon, though rejected by both Jews and Protestants. Catholic apologists will often challenge, "By what authority did Protestants remove them from the canon?" Of course, that question ignores their exclusion from the Jewish canon.

However, what that catholic challenge ignores is the testimony of the Church fathers against the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon.

Consider first Melito, the Bishop of Sardis (died 180AD). His friend Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, had asked his opinion of the Apocrypha, so Melito investigated their standing. In his Letter to Onesimus, he wrote, "Having come to the East and arrived at a place where these things were preached and done, and having accurately learned the books of the Old Testament, I have subjoined a list of them and sent it to thee. The names are as follows: of Moses, five books, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; Joshua, son of Nun, judges, Ruth; four books of Kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, which is also called Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Job; of Prophets, the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, writings of the Twelve Prophets in one book. Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra, from which I have made selections." Nehemiah and the Hebrew text of Esther appear to be included under the title of Ezra. No Apocrypha.

Origen testified, "Let it not be unknown that the canonical books, as the Hebrews transmit them, are twenty-two, for such is the number of letters among them... These are the twenty-two books of the Hebrews: the book called Genesis..., Exodus..., Leviticus..., Numbers..., Deuteronomy... These are the Words: ...Joshua ben Nun, Judges, Ruth...; Kings, first and second... in one called Samuel; the third and fourth of Kings in one book...; the first and second of Chronicles, in one book...; the first and second of Esdras, in one book called Ezra...; the Book of Psalms...; the Proverbs of Solomon; Ecclesiastes; the Song of Songs...; Isaiah; Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and his epistle, in one volume, Jeremiah; Daniel; Ezekiel; Job; Esther. Beside these there are also the Maccabees." The Epistle of Jeremiah refers to chapter 29 of that book. The Twelve Prophets were left out by a transcriber. Some manuscripts of Origen's work return them. Notice that the books of Maccabees are described as beside the canon of twenty-two books of the Hebrew Bible. the other apocryphal works don't even rate a mention.

Athanasius, in his Festal Epistle, wrote, "All the books of the Old Testament are two and twenty in number, for, as I have heard, this is the order and number of the Hebrew letters. To name them, they are as follows: the first, Genesis, the next, Exodus, then Leviticus, after that the Numbers, and then Deuteronomy; next to them is Jesus the son of Nave [sic, Greek for Joshua son of Nun], and Judges; after that, Ruth; and again the next in order are the four books of the Kingdoms [I and II Samuel, I and II Kings]...; after them the first and second of the Remains, or Chronicles...; then the first and second of Esdras...; after them the Book of Psalms; then the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; besides these there is Job, and, at length, the Prophets; the twelve are reckoned one book; then Isaiah and Jeremiah, and with him Baruch, the Lamentations, the Epistle; and after them Ezekiel and Daniel. Thus far the books of the Old Testament." Like Melito, Athanasius seems to include the Hebrew version of Esther with Ezra. He also refers to Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, not as the names of the apocryphal books, but as portions of Jeremiah. What he adds after this is also important: "For the sake of greater accuracy I will add - and the addition is necessary - that there are also other books beside these, not, indeed, admitted into the canon, but ordained by the Fathers to be read by such as have recently come over to us, and who wish to receive instruction in the doctrine of piety - the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, the Doctrine of the Apostles, as it is called, and the Shepherd." Thus this father cannot be accused of overlooking or being ignorant of the Apocrypha. rather, he mentions them as being read, but then excludes them from the canon.

This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but rather just some explicit examples. While Rome makes much of her so-called sacred tradition, they contradict that tradition here. The Council of Trent made into Scriptures books which Christians had traditionally rejected as such. In contrast, the statement of the Westminster Confession of faith (I:3) is consistent with the true tradition: "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."

The Old Testament Law for the New Testament Believer

Dispensationalists and followers of "New Covenant Theology" (hereafter "NCT") unite in claiming that the Old Testament law is not binding on Christians. However, Paul's use of the Law showed that he had no such opinion. I want to examine three places where he describes the abiding authority of the Law, including for Christians.

First is Romans 3:31: "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." While both dispensationalists and NCT claim that one is either in faith or in the law, implying a dichotomy between the two, that is certainly not Paul's doctrine. That's because of a bait-and-switch in the dispensationalist and NCT arguments. They properly point to a dichotomy of the two in the realm of justification. And I (and every other covenantalist) agree whole-heartedly that no one can be saved by the Law. However, the same people act as if that is the end of the discussion, sweeping the issue of sanctification under the rug. Yet that is Paul's point: the man saved by faith is now freed and enabled to love and obey God's law.

Second is I Corinthians 5:1: "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife." We know the story: The Apostle rebukes the church at Corinth for failing to exercise discipline against this member who is living in a sexual relationship with the wife of his own father (probably the man's step-mother). But how does Paul determine that such a lifestyle is wicked? It is never addressed anywhere else in the New Testament! However, in Leviticus 20:11, we read, "If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them" (see also Deuteronomy 27:20). Paul applies an Old Testament law, and one not repeated in the New Testament, something which both dispensationalists and NCT claim is necessary for a law still to be valid.

And third is I Corinthians 14:34: "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says." Paul again issues a rebuke to the church for acting contrary, not to a principle stated in the New Testament, but rather to one in the Old Testament Law!

So, here we have three New Testament examples that refute the antinomianism of the dispensationalists and New Covenant Theology. Their rejection of the Law is contrary to the apostolic testimony, and, therefore, false. Rather, the Scriptures demonstrate the accuracy of the confessional covenant theology: "The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation" (Westminster Confession of faith XIX:5).

The False Law View of New Covenant Theology

Among those who claim to follow "New Covenant Theology" (hereafter "NCT"), a supposed midway between dispensationalism and covenant theology, it is common to say that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law for the believer. And there is a sense in which that is correct: He perfectly fulfilled the Law so that His obedience could be imputed to believers. He is also the antitype to the ceremonies of the Mosaic law. However, NCT takes it further and claims that there is no further role for the Law for the believer. Rather, it posits a new law, the law of Christ. That is false.

Let me start with the second part first, the "law of Christ." That is a biblical phrase: "Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). In this case, I don't think Paul is referring to the law, per se, but rather to the specific commandment of Christ, that we love one another (John 15:12). He is not talking about a system of laws.

However, the NCT use of that phrase is selective, ignoring another use of it by Paul: "To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law" (I Corinthians 9:21). Here he explicitly denies being outside the law of God. Rather, by acting as one under the ceremonial law, he is able to evangelize those who remain under that law, that is, His fellow Jews, thus demonstrating the law of Christ, love for his neighbor, as he mentions in Galatians 6:2.

In Isaiah 42, one of the Servant passages that pointed forward to the Messianic work of Jesus, God says (Isaiah 42:21), "The Lord is well-pleased for His righteousness' sake to magnify the law and make it honorable" (emphasis mine). In the incarnation of Jehovah in Jesus Christ, He did not intend to do away with the Law, but rather to magnify it. I think that is to make it a joy to His people, rather than a burden, as it is to the unforgiven sinner (Matthew 11:28).

Also, in Isaiah 51:7, He says, "Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is My law; fear not the reproach of man, nor be dismayed at their revilings." This verse is absolutely destructive of the NCT claims regarding the Law. How so? Because of the parallel description of the new covenant in the New Testament: "This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people" (Hebrews 8:10, repeated in 10:16). The promise of the new covenant is not that God will do away with the Law, but rather that He will renew our love for it and obedience to it!

Should a Christian Love Everybody?

It is taken as a truism by Christians of every stripe (something which itself should raise red flags) that we are to love everyone, every single human being in the world, with no exceptions. However, exactly as a truism, it is a principle which is rarely checked against our standard of truth, the Bible.

In I Corinthians 16:22, the Apostle Paul gives a blunt and startling command: "If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed." Unless one is willing to claim that cursing is a form of love, Paul can only be taken to be commanding us to hate him who hates God.

As startling as that statement might be, it doesn't originate with Paul. Rather, the beloved King David, the man whom God Himself calls "a man after My own heart" (I Samuel 13:14, Acts 13:22), says (Psalm 139:19-22), "Oh that You would slay the wicked, O God! O men of blood, depart from me! They speak against You with malicious intent; Your enemies take Your name in vain. Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies."

When I have brought this up in other circumstances, someone always mentions Matthew 5:44: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Does Jesus say something different? Not at all! He tells us to love those who hate us, not who hate Him. And, of course, that makes sense. We are wicked sinners, deserving of wrath. How can we blame anyone if he treats us as our sins deserve? But that is not true of the sinless and sovereign God. Not only do His enemies hate Him wrongly, out of bald-faced malice, but that hatred is an act of treason against their rightful Lord! It is far from the same thing.

Mormon Baptism and Second Chances for Salvation

It is common knowledge that Mormons baptize their members on behalf of the dead. In fact, they keep a gigantic genealogical library so that they can find the names of the dead to use in their proxy baptisms. They base this practice on their tenuous interpretation of one verse, I Corinthians 15:29. By these proxy baptisms, Mormons believe, they give dead non-Mormons a second chance to convert to Mormonism. To Christians, Mormons express their belief that it is unfair of God to judge people who may never have had an opportunity to hear about Jesus (ignoring what the Bible says in Romans 1:18-22).

I deny their assertion that there are second chances after death, because the Bible says, "It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). Also, Jesus tells us that the one who refuses to believe is under judgment now, in this life: "Whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18).

Moreover, Luke tells us this story from Jesus: "He went on his way through towns and villages, teaching and journeying toward Jerusalem. And someone said to him, 'Lord, will those who are saved be few?' And He said to them, 'Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us, then he will answer you, I do not know where you come from. Then you will begin to say, We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets. But he will say, I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil! In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. And people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and recline at table in the kingdom of God. And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last'" (Luke 13:22-30).

In this parable, Jesus describes the master of a house, representing Himself, who has closed and locked his door for the night. But latecoming visitors come knocking at his door, asking to be admitted. No, he answers, and those latecomers, whom he calls "workers of evil," are left in a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, a phrase used for Hell in the Synoptic Gospels.

Could Jesus have been any clearer? He urges His audience to enter the Kingdom now, because later the gate will be locked against them. They will have no second chances. These Mormon baptisms for the dead are a ritual, not only with no biblical warrant, but actually contrary to the teaching of Scripture. It is a deception, both to the Mormons themselves and to all those whom they give a false hope.