Apologetics According to Paul

In argumentation, the speaker uses the higher standard to prove the lower. But what happens when one reaches the highest standard? Even God had to face that question: "When God made a promise to Abraham, since He had no one greater by whom to swear, He swore by Himself" (Hebrews 6:13). A man takes an oath by saying, "So Help me God." But God had no such higher authority by whom to bind Himself.

In a potent description of apologetics, the Apostle Paul said, "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" (II Corinthians 10:5). But how did he do that? Did he appeal to some "common ground" with the unbeliever, in order to use it to prove the existence of God? No, never. Rather, he tells us that unbeliever knows that there is a God (Romans 1:18), but suppresses the knowledge. In his discourse on the Areopagus (Acts 17:16-34), this is the common ground he sets out with the pagan Athenians. He cites examples in their own literature to show that they already had an awareness of the biblical God. That is, he cites pagan poets not to prove God, but to prove the suppressed knowledge of God. To put it philosophically, God is the source of logic, not its conclusion.

"The whole discourse [of Paul on the Areopagus] seems to have been conducted on the principle that the Gospel is its own witness - that the facts of redemption authenticate themselves; that we can reason from its phenomena as effects to their origin in the mind of God, as we ascend from nature up to nature's cause. Paul has evidently taken it for granted - for there is no allusion to any external proofs of the divine mission of Jesus, and no intimation that he himself wrought any miracles in Athens - that, as the heavens proclaim the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork, so the death and resurrection of Jesus, when properly apprehended, are their own proofs that He is the power of God to salvation to everyone that believeth. The work itself proves its divinity" (James Henley Thornwell, The Necessity and Nature of Christianity).

The Glorious Death of Christ Is Far More Than Any Mere Crucifix

Besides its Second Commandment issues, the Catholic crucifix bothers me because it shows a dead Jesus, crumpled on the cross, reminding us of His sufferings. Those things are true, as far as they go. However, the fault of the crucifix is that it takes us no further.

First, I think it is necessary to understand that those experiences were not imposed upon the Son by men: "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who through the mouth of our father David, Your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, 'Why did the Gentiles rage,and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against His Anointed’— for truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place" (Acts 4:24-28). Here we see that everything which Jesus underwent, though at the hands of men, was according to the plan of God in prehistory. Notice that Peter and John are quoting from the second Psalm, a prophecy of the overcoming power of the Messiah.

Second, His sufferings weren't imposed on the Son against even His own will: "No one takes it [i. e., life] from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from My Father" (John 10:18). Jesus experienced what he did because He chose to do so. 

Why did He choose to suffer and die, though He was God, at the hands of men? "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to Me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:35-40). Jesus, God the Son, chose to face the suffering and death of the cross because He had His people, the Church (Ephesians 5:25), in His mind's eye. 

And that is the problem with the crucifix. It shows the cross work of Jesus as suffering, which it certainly was, but no more. Yet it was so much more, because it was the evidence of the love of God for His people, including me, that Jesus chose that experience out of His divine love. The empty cross in a Protestant church denies nothing of the horror of the crucifixion, but testifies to the risen Christ, who suffered for me, and rose from the grave in victory over sin, Satan, the grave, and the purposes of wicked men! That is why the Apostle Thomas was compelled to greet Him with those words, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28)!

"The death of Jesus was glorious, not because it was His death, but because it could be the death of no other. A creature might as well have undertaken to create as to save a world. The work itself demands the interposition of God; and any theory which fails to represent the death of Christ as an event which, in its own nature, as clearly proclaims His divinity as His superintending care and preservation of all things, cannot be the Gospel which Paul preached at Rome, at Corinth, at Athens, and which extorted from Thomas, upon beholding the risen Savior, the memorable confession, 'My Lord and My God!'" (James Henley Thornwell, the Necessity and Nature of Christianity).

The Biblical God Has Teeth!

American evangelicalism has become a weak and insipid religion because it teaches a weak and insipid God. He is like an indulgent grandfather who loves everyone, and exists only to make us feel good. We have stripped away His wrath, His sovereignty, even His independence. Evangelicalism has become the religion of happiness, with a God who has been redesigned to provide it.

Things That God Never Said

As part of that process, large parts of Scripture have been discarded, because they are offensive. Some people, such as Andy Stanley, make it explicit, telling us that we should "jettison" the Old Testament, because it will hurt someone's feelings. At least he is consistent: "I don't like what the Bible says, so I'll get rid of it." However, I wonder if he understands that he has demonstrated that he is not a Christian.

The biblical view of God is very different from the candyman of the evangelical: "The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD is avenging and wrathful; the LORD takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies" (Nahum 1:2).

What the modern evangelical has really jettisoned is the sinfulness of sin. Where sin has now become offending some other human being, the reality of it is that sin is whatever offends God! And where offending a human being is merely saying or doing something which exposes him to anything outside his comfort zone, offending God is an act of treason, to rebel against our creator, lawgiver, and proper Monarch. 

And He responds accordingly, as He says through Nahum.

A Priori Sovereign Grace

When discussing the doctrines of grace, also called the Five Points of Calvinism, I am often told that the Calvinist soteriology depends on a few isolated prooftexts taken out of context. I am always flabbergasted by that assertion, because each of the doctrines is seen all over Scripture. Rather, I see it as a problem of the Arminian's deliberate overlooking these doctrines, because they are inconsistent with his theological presuppositions.

Let's look at one of the verses that never comes up in those discussions, II Thessalonians 2:13: "We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth."

Here we see Paul's addressing the brothers explicitly, not mankind in general. We would have known that anyway, because the entire epistle is written to Christians (II Thess. 1:1). However, Paul reinforces that introduction with a second address to believers here. He tells these believers that God chose them, not that they chose God. For what were they chosen? Three things: to be the firstfruits of those who would be saved, to be sanctified, and to believe in the truth. Contrary to the commonly stated assertion of the Arminians, these believers were not chosen because of those things, but unto them. This precludes the possibility of the reactive predestination that Arminians often claim, that God predestines those whom He knows would believe.

That there are such plain statements of the sovereignty of God's grace is clear proof that free-will theology is imposed on Scripture, not derived from it.

The Continuing Obligation of the Sabbath Defended: Colossians 2:16

"Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath" (Colossians 2:16). 

I often get caught between two opposite in discussions regarding the continuing obligation of the Sabbath. On one side are the Seventh-Day Adventists, who claim that the Jewish Sabbath has continued in the Christian dispensation. I oppose their claims, and have addressed them here. On the other side are those who claim that there is no Sabbath of any kind for the Christian. Those folks are generally of two kinds. the first is those who claim that "Jesus is our Sabbath," so that there is no longer a Sabbath day. I have addressed that here. Others are of a dispensationalist type, who claim that the Sabbath was a Mosaic ceremony, and, therefore, abrogated by its fulfillment in the cross work of Christ. I have addressed that here.

Now, there is a third type that I want to address. That is those who hold that Sabbath-observance is now voluntary, no longer a commandment. These folks like to cite the verse quoted above, Colossians 2:16. 

Such folks claim that the Sabbath was a ceremony of the Jews, and, therefore, no more binding on Christians than are circumcision or the Passover. If a Christian profits from observing them, then he is free to do so. However, no one is required to observe that Sabbath any more than he is the other Jewish ceremonies. 

There are three main objections to that claim. First, the Sabbath was a creation ordinance, initially announced shortly after the creation of the first humans: "God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all His work that He had done in creation" (Genesis 2:3). While it is certainly true that the Law recognized the Sabbath, the claim is false that the Sabbath was created under the Law. That's why the writer of Hebrews could tell us, "There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God" (Hebrews 4:9). Especially considering the effort of that author to show the superiority of Christ over the Mosaic ceremonies, his insistence that the Sabbath remains is especially telling!

Second, look at the rest of the verse in Colossians. "Questions of food and drink." Where do we find rules about food? In the Mosaic ceremonial law. "With regard to a festival or new moon." Where do we find the creation of ceremonies and the celebration of the new moon? Again, in the Mosaic ceremonies. Therefore, when Paul here mentions Sabbaths, does the grammar not compel us logically to infer that he means Jewish Sabbaths? That would be seventh-day Sabbaths, not the first-day Christian Sabbath. Also, if we fail to make that distinction, then we put Paul in contradiction with Hebrews. 

And, finally, I have one question of logic, rather than Scripture. Considering that the Sabbath was a commandment, not just some Pharisaic tradition, can we really imagine that Paul would so blithely dismiss one of the Ten Commandments? I cannot believe that he would.

The Mormon Deity Contrasted with the Eternal God of the Bible

 First thing, a little announcement. This is my 700th blog post. Who could have imagined that I would have that much to say!

When Mormon missionaries ride around on their bicycles, there are certain Mormon doctrines that they don't discuss with new contacts. One of those doctrines is their belief that their god was once a man on another planet, with its own god, which man succeeded in fulfilling that god's plan of salvation, such that he was rewarded with godhood and a planet of his own. Mormons call this "exaltation," and claim that some of them will receive the same reward in their afterlife. (Side note: these doctrines are part of popular Mormonism, not official doctrines of the LDS organization.)

This doctrine is stated in what is known as Snow's Couplet:
"As man now is, God once was;
As God now is, man may be."

It was also stated more prosaically by LDS Founder Joseph Smith in his King Follett Discourse: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!"

I can imagine no clearer proof that can be offered that Mormons are not Christians, and have, not just a different god, but a different kind of god from that of the Bible. Their theism is more comparable to that of the ancient Greeks, ancient Romans, or modern Hindus, than to Christianity.

In contrast, the God of the Bible, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is eternal. That is, He is as He has been for all eternity past and as He will be for all eternity future. This precludes not only the evolutionary deity of Mormonism but also the creaturely Son of Arianism and the multiple-personality deity of the Modalist. The biblical God is utterly unlike any creature, including humans.

In Psalm 9:7, David tells us, "The LORD sits enthroned forever." "LORD" indicates Jehovah, the preincarnate Christ, proving the eternality of the Son.

In Psalm 90:2, Moses is even more explicit: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting You are God." He precludes the possibility that God could ever have been any less than God!

The anonymous writer of Psalm 102:25-28 tells us even more: "Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but You are the same, and Your years have no end. The children of Your servants shall dwell secure; their offspring shall be established before You." He builds a contrast between changeable and perishable matter and the true God who can do neither, and then provides that as the foundation for assurance for the biblical believer. How can anyone have assurance of salvation, the future, or eternity, when he thinks that his god is an evolutionary creature?

When I read the Greek or Roman myths, and they describe a man exalted to godhood, I take no umbrage at that assertion, because a Pagan doesn't claim to be representing Christianity. And if Mormons stopped claiming to be Christians, I would stop being offended by their religion. However, as long as they continue to claim Christian terminology for Pagan content, I will continue to be offended, and to believe that I have a responsibility to expose and refute their doctrines.

The Sinfulness of Sins: Are They All Worthy of Death?

The subject often comes up of whether some sins are worse than others. And the answer must be, "It depends." Depends on what? Are you talking about God's justice or man's? For example, God's law condemns theft in the Eighth Commandment and coveting in the Tenth Commandment. We would say that coveting my neighbor's car is not as bad as stealing his car.

And that is because we are talking about sin here as the actions of one sinful creature against another.

However, when we consider that question from God's perspective, it takes on a very different character. Then we are talking about the sins of a creature against his perfectly holy Creator. From that perspective, every sin becomes not merely an act of theft or coveting, etc., but rather an act of treason.

And that consideration makes every sin equally one act, the act of treason. And what is the judgment for treason against our rightful King? "Since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (Romans 1:28-32). Look at some of the sins listed here. We see murder, and nod in agreement. Yeah, capital punishment is appropriate for murder. But what about gossips? What about those who disobey their parents? The foolish? Most people would be backing off now.

Yet, what does God say? "Those who practice such things deserve to die" (verse 32). Paul doesn't even say, "God says that they should die," though that would be sufficient reason. Rather, Paul says just that they deserve to die. That is, Paul recognized this fact, and believed that every spiritually-aware person would also believe so.

How far we have fallen from Paul's time that we question the justice of God, which consigns every sin, no matter how small in the sinner's eye, to final death, which is Hell (Revelation 20:14-15).

Humanistic Autonomy and God's Rule over the Wicked

If you ask a random person, at least among professing Christians, "Is God sovereign?" virtually 100% will answer "yes." However, if you dig a little more deeply and ask, "Over what is God sovereign?" you will probably get blank stares.

That's because most people hold to mixed worldviews, with some elements from a Christian tradition mixed with humanistic elements that they have absorbed from the society around us, properly known as "syncretism." They just blank out whatever conflicts occur between the parts of the worldview, like oil and vinegar as they separate in the bottle.

I have discussed God's sovereignty in salvation numerous times, but that isn't my issue this time. My question today is, Is God sovereign over evil, especially over evil people? Most people will answer something like, "Of course not; the wicked have used their free will to oppose God." In other words, men are autonomous from God, and good and evil depend on our choice to be under His government.

That is false. In fact, that answer is an example of an idea from the humanistic worldview. To go further, it is an expression of Satan's worldview, a paraphrase of his temptation to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:5: "God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." "Knowing" here doesn't mean "knowing about," but rather "knowing by choice." Satan was offering, though falsely, autonomy from the interpretive will of God, so that Adam and Eve could decide good and evil for themselves. 

What the humanistic worldview avoids is the knowledge that there is no such autonomy: "The LORD has made everything for His purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" (Proverbs 16:4). What Solomon tells us here is that all things, even the wicked, exist to serve the purposes of God, not their supposedly-autonomous self-will. And that's why the idea is so unpopular with Americans. We, especially, think of ourselves as the rulers of our own destinies. However, the Bible reveals to us that that idea comes from Satan. It is improperly the part of the worldview of any Christian, as we can see in the consequences that it brought on our first parents (Genesis 3:14-19).

The Righteousness of God Rescued from Arminian Cavils

"Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding:
     far be it from God that He should do wickedness,
     and from the Almighty that He should do wrong.
For according to the work of a man He will repay him,
     and according to his ways He will make it befall him.
Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, 
     and the Almighty will not pervert justice."
- Job 34:10-12 

One of the favorite arguments of Arminians against Calvinists is their claim that the Calvinist makes God the author of sin. In fact, they consider the argument extremely clever. However, I know from experience that they never listen to the counter-arguments from Calvinists. An argument will always seem clever if the maker of the argument avoids dealing with answers. 

Here is the Arminian argument: 1) according to the Calvinist, everything happens according to the plans of God; 2) people sin; therefore, 3) God causes sin. However, there is an unstated premise here: when people sin, their attitude is the same as God's attitude in decreeing the act of sin. And that premise is false, making the conclusion false. 

Whatever God does or decrees, He always does or decrees for His own glory: "For My own sake, for My own sake, I do it, for how should My name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another" (Isaiah 48:11). So the question for the Arminian is this: Is it ever sinful to seek the glory of God? And he must answer that it is not. 

Therefore, the argument now goes like this: 1) everything happens according to the purposes of God; 2) everything God does or decrees is for the sake of His own glory; 3) in contrast, the wicked sin, never seeking God's glory; therefore, 4) God is not the author of sin according to Calvinist principles. Hereby, the reputation of the biblical God is preserved from the wicked aspersions of Arminians. The quote from Job above states the singular righteousness of all that God does.