Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Dealing with Christian Doubts


Reading C. Michael Patton's article The Miserable Christian Doubt has reminded me how common it is for Christians to have periods of doubt. So, I decided to dedicate this blog post to providing resources for Christians who are dealing with doubt and spiritual depression (which are related). Start with reading Patton's article.

I'll continue adding links and information as I come across useful resources. 

Dealing with doubt is something Christians often feel uncomfortable discussing or admitting to because it can have a stigma attached to it. Doubting Christians can be looked down upon by fellow Christians as being spiritually inferior or being "in [some particular] sin(s)". Ironically, sometimes those very Christians looking down on doubters do so precisely because they themselves have doubts and are fearful of doubting even more (whether they are consciously aware of it or not). Doubting Christians can often be treated as if they had the plague. Fellow Christians sometimes avoid them and try to keep their distance lest they be infected too. Even though, the very things doubting Christians need are the love, compassion, support, counsel and prayers of currently doubt free Christians. Doubting Christians can feel not only condemned by others but by themselves. The overt or subtle accusation (demonically reinforced) is, "If you were just spiritually mature and faithful enough you wouldn't be going through this period of doubt." For example, if they had read the Bible enough or prayed enough.

Moreover, spiritual pride can lead people to want to hide and deny their doubts because they don't want others looking down on them, or because they want to maintain their reputation for being a "spiritual giant" (cf. 1 Cor 10:13ff). All the while justifying their hiding it because if they let it be known that they were doubting, it would lead others to doubt as well (and they don't want to "stumble their brother"). However, hiding it and suppressing it can eventually lead to a person feeling like a hypocrite and as intellectually dishonest; and thus sometimes leading to apostasy (as if apostasy were "the only honest or rational thing to do"). As Patton has said, (paraphrasing) "Everyone (i.e. Christians) has doubted their faith. If they haven't, they are either lying OR THEY DON'T TAKE THEIR FAITH SERIOUSLY."

Doubters who HAVE been serious about their faith can look to others who claim to not doubt and conclude that those others aren't intellectually honest and earnest enough to be willing to get the bottom of the issues (i.e. of getting to the truth). That those who never have doubts are neither honest about the facts or honest with themselves. While there might be some truth to this, it's also true that these doubters can enter a period of intellectual pride. That in turn can lead to the conclusion that only anti-intellectuals can believe such things and so eventually can lead to apostasy. This kind of intellectual pride can develop because they look at themselves and recognize that they are willing to do the research that simpler Christians aren't willing or able to do (for lack of time, financial resources, or intellectual ability/aptitude etc.). Such prideful doubters begin to look on simple Christians as "sheeple" ((a portmanteau of "sheep" and "people") and so naturally want to avoid the stigma of being an ignorant religious simpleton. The research and study now becomes a matter of pride rather than a search for and faithfulness to the truth [and to HIM who is the Truth]. Stephen Charnock wrote, "Unbelief was the first sin, and pride was the first-born of it". Unbelief and pride can re-enforce each other in a vicious circle leading to apostasy.

However, not all doubters are or become prideful. Some are sincerely and humbly seeking the truth. But they often do so thinking they need to have an answer to every apologetical question, objection and challenge if they are going to have intellectual, moral, and epistemological integrity/honesty.

As a Vantillian presuppositionalist, I believe that all of creation testifies to the existence of God such that everyone is without excuse for believing in God and knowing they are accountable to Him. However, I don't believe God set up creation so that belief in Him is rationally coercive (even if it's existentially so). See this blog. Therefore, doubters need to realize a few things which may not have previously entered their minds. Here are just some helpful suggestions.

- Realize that "Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence". (taken from William Lane Craig)

- "Realize that the presence of other possibilities does not necessarily equate to the presence of other probabilities." (taken from Patton's article). Just because there are logical alternative possibilities doesn't mean that they are equally probable or plausible [or even desirable].

-"Focus only on the issues that make or break Christianity." (taken from Patton's article). Not everything one believes is essential to Christianity. For example, don't lose your faith in Christ because you may have recently discovered that a certain eschatological position is not as Biblically supported as you once thought.

-Don’t think you can ever be an expert in everything. (taken from Patton's article). The truth is that both you and the people you read, listen to or speak with (whether Christian OR NON-CHRISTIAN) are limited finite creatures who themselves don't know all there is to know about any topic even if they supposedly are an "expert" on the topic.

- Patton recommends taking a break from apologetics. This is something I heartily agree with if your doubts were brought on by "doing" apologetics. Sometimes we're so busy "doing Christian" things, that we forget to be busy "BEING Christian". There's a quote from C.S. Lewis that's relevant. I  have two version I got online and I'm not sure which one is more accurate. But here they are.

“A man can’t always be defending the truth; there must be time to feed on it” - C.S. Lewis

“A man can’t always be defending the truth; there must be a time to feed on it” - C.S. Lewis (this one with the word "a" might be more accurate. Accordingly it's from Lewis' Reflections on the Psalms)

Sometimes as Christians, out of love for the Lord, our zeal leads us to become more works oriented than fellowship oriented. Fellowship with God and others. That's the mistake Martha fell into and to which we're all prone.

Luke 10:38    Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house.39 And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus' feet and heard His word.40 But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, "Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me."
41    And Jesus answered and said to her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things.42 But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her."

While some people begin to have doubts because they have been overwhelmed by apologetical issues, some people persist in doubt partly because they refuse to engage their minds on apologetical issues (the opposite problem). Here are two links to two videos by William Lane Craig where he shows that while Christian apologetics isn't absolutely necessary, it is VERY USEFUL  in bringing people to faith and helping preserve their faith. It's especially useful in inoculating children and teens against the onslaught of unbelief and objections to their faith they will inevitably encounter in school and academia. I've re-posted these links a second time later in the blog where the rest of the links are gathered.



-Even if the evidence for and against Christianity were completely equal [which I deny], it doesn't mean that they are equally desirable. For example, if you compared Christianity with atheism, you should stick with Christianity since atheism by necessity (and by the admission of many prominent atheists) is a losing bet. Atheism, if rightly understood is futile and futility is futile. See also Craig on Pascal's Wager

-Be honest with God in prayer about your doubts. God can handle your doubts. Yes, doubting as a Christian is sin, but God can handle it. God is not surprised by doubt. Or even by YOUR doubts. In fact, God often uses seasons of doubt in the lives of Christians to eventually strengthen their faith. Often people who start doubting think they need to stop praying in order to maintain objectivity while they search for the truth about Christianity themselves. But that assumes that you can come to know or be confirmed in the knowledge of the truth of Christianity apart from God's Holy Spirit (which the Bible denies cf. 1 Cor. 2:14; John 3:27; Matt. 16:17; Heb. 12:2).

-Realize that your reasons for personally believing don't have to be the reasons why others should believe. In fact, in their totality, they can't because your Christian experience can't be reproduced. It's as individual as God's providence intended. Realize the truth of Christianity doesn't depend on your ability to either successfully defend the truth of Christianity OR your ability to successfully persuade others to believe it. Make the following distinctions.

1. the reasons for your personally believing your Christian beliefs (i.e. reasons for believing they are true or why you accept them). These can include rational, existential, emotional, prudential, supernatural, and miraculous reasons. They can also include examples of answered prayer, healing, providential coincidences (et cetera). Often these can include pre-reflective reasons as well. People are deep pools and just because people might, through introspection, come to the fresh realization that they believed something for more than rational reasons doesn't necessitate that what they have believed or embraced in the past is actually false; or that it's incumbent on them to have a rational basis for all their beliefs [such evidentialism is impossible to satisfy because it leads to an infinite regress].
2. the causes for your beliefs. This can include your culture, upbringing, education (etc.). You may not be a Calvinist, but from a Calvinistic perspective, God is the ultimate cause of your saving faith. Remember that just because you may have been influenced (even "indoctrinated") to believe in Christianity doesn't necessitate it's false. EVERYONE has been indoctrinated to some belief system to some degree or another; and if Christianity is true, then spiritual neutrality is impossible [see the literature on the "myth of neutrality" by writers on presuppositional apologetics].
3. your existential defense of and justification for your beliefs (which, like #1, can include supernatural and miraculous reasons, answered prayer, healing, providential coincidences etc.). Realize that Christians who experience God cannot convey in words or existentially share with non-Christians that kind of self-authenticating God given experience. Nevertheless, such a defense can lead people to consider the truth of Christianity and can (and should) prop up Christians whenever they begin to have doubts. See for example J.P. Moreland's testimony of supernatural experiences HERE (starting at 13 minutes).By God's grace, the kind of experiences Moreland has had,  and the kind you may have had, if perceived correctly can inoculate you from naturalism and materialism. Here's another link to J.P. Moreland on the subject of God's Silence. HERE.
4. your rational defense and justification for the truthfulness of your beliefs (which may or may not satisfy others, but does your own epistemological senses). That is, your case for why you're justified and warranted in believing as you do. This ought to be post-reflective. This is not the same as the above since the former includes reasons for belief that go beyond truth and falsity. Remember that just because you may not be able to answer every objection or win every argument doesn't mean that Christianity is false. Since non-persuasive (even "bad") arguments can be made for true propositions, just as persuasive arguments can be made for false propositions.

5. your case TO OTHERS for the truthfulness of your beliefs and why THEY should believe it as being true as well (i.e. apologetics proper, which is person relative). This is not exactly the same as the above since not everyone will accept the premises you might use in the arguments you formulate according to #4. For example, you'll have difficulty using empirical evidence and data to convince an empirical skeptic.
6. your case for why others should embrace/welcome/accept your beliefs (i.e. part of evangelism proper, which is person relative). This is different from the above because just because you can convince someone that something is true, doesn't necessarily mean that they will want to embrace it for themselves.


-Realize that if Christianity is true, then one doesn't need to have answers for every conceivable objection since it would be contrary to what Scripture teaches for some Christians at one time and place to have necessary (key word) reasons for belief which other Christians didn't have or didn't have access to. As William Lane Craig has pointed out, apologetics while extremely useful, isn't absolutely necessary since people ought to (and only do) accept the truth of Christianity (ultimately) on account of the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. See, the following videos by William Lane Craig on doubt.

-Realize that if Christianity is true, then your doubting is a spiritual issue and that there are demons who are seeking your eternal spiritual destruction. If demons exist, they don't "fight fair". They will kick you while you're down. You might need to clear the spiritual air by doing spiritual warfare. You will need fellow Christians praying for you. It WOULDN'T HURT if Christianity is false. But it WOULD HELP if Christianity is true. Additionally, the evidence for malevolent spirits from your own personal experience and the testimony of others (both Christian and non-Christian) suggests the reality not only of the spiritual realm, but also of the possibility of the existence of benevolent spirits (e.g. angels). By extension, the evidence for both malevolent and benevolent immaterial personal entities suggest the possibility of a supremely good spirit, namely God. See THIS LINK to testimonies of demonic and angelic experiences.

-Read Christian biographies like that of George Muller/Mueller. Christian biographies take you out of your current world and its unique advantages, disadvantages and problems and immerses you in another one. Sometimes in order to see things as they really are we need a different perspective. Biographies acquaint us with God's providential faithfulness throughout Church history and gives us a broader view of the stakes involved in you acceptance or rejection of the Christian worldview.

I recommend starting with George Muller: Man of Faith and Miracles (Men of Faith series) by Basil Miller
amazon.com link HERE

Here's a link to public domain copies of George Müller of Bristol by Arthur T. Pierson
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26522

Love the Lord With Heart and Mind by Steve Hays and James Anderson is a collection of answers by contemporary Christian intellectuals to a questionnaire Steve Hays sent them on the topics of their conversion and continued belief. http://calvindude.com/ebooks/Love-the-Lord-with-Heart-and-Mind.pdf

 ********************************************

 Dealing with Doubts

William Lane Craig on Dealing with Doubt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYq-xNpokEs&feature=share&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9Ed60n4NhBv8q1iTvB1LW_dC

John Piper on how to deal with doubting God's existence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBPoF5nxdRA

John Piper on how to deal with doubting your own devotion to Christ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD2O13CIb6U

John Piper - Battling Unbelief: Bank On His Faithfulness, Not Your Fickleness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nDows1nMqk


Dealing with Doubts? With Mike Licona https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVZnRx5lBcc 

Christian Apologetics: Who Needs It? - William Lane Craig
http://youtu.be/KDH-_4vkKUk

When God is Silent by J.P. Moreland
http://youtu.be/Hx6fOnMKkJk   I also HIGHLY recommend the following message

 Discerning God's Voice by J.P. Moreland
http://youtu.be/Da-WMdu3qd4

Eight Points Of Encouragement For Those Who Are Doubting Their Faith by C. Michael Patton
www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/11/eight-points-of-encouragement-for-those-who-are-doubting-their-faith/

Dealing With Doubt by C. Michael Patton Part ONE, Part TWO, Part THREE

John the Baptist, Doubt, and My Three Days As An Atheist by C. Michael Patton 
www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/08/john-the-baptist-doubt-and-my-three-days-as-an-atheist/

C. Michael Patton asked some Evangelicals to write on the topic of doubt. Here are some of them.

Michael Licona on Doubt
Paul Copan on Doubt
Darrell Bock on Doubt
Gary Habermas on Doubt

Here are more links to resources on doubt by Gary Habermas:

Dealing with Doubt with Gary Habermas (29 min. video) http://youtu.be/jVwq6pdZL-M

Emotional Doubt Innoculation with Gary Habermas (1 hour and 20 minute video) http://youtu.be/waLKa0BLvBQ

Dealing With Doubt by Gary Habermas
http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/dealing_with_doubt/dealing_with_doubt.htm
[ENTIRE BOOK FREELY ONLINE]

The Thomas Factor: Using Your Doubts to Draw Closer to God by Gary Habermas
http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/thomas_factor/thomas_factor.htm
[ENTIRE BOOK FREELY ONLINE]


What are some common myths about doubt? with Gary Habermas (3 min. video) http://youtu.be/XbXLwqZ4R2c 

What is the best way to deal with factual doubt? with Gary Habermas (3 min. video) http://youtu.be/xlkQ_gsCgIs

What are the different kinds of doubts that someone can have? with Gary Habermas (6 min. video) http://youtu.be/Ks1epLdbYtI

Godly people who have struggled with doubt in their life? with Gary Habermas (3 min. video) http://youtu.be/4Ss_jqYGpXw

Will more facts help someone who suffers from emotional doubts? with Gary Habermas (7 min. video) http://youtu.be/ta3ognYXutQ

What can you say to someone who says, "I just can't believe...What's wrong with me?" with Gary Habermas (4 min. video) http://youtu.be/E6QhkJ9YlNE

What can you say to someone whose faith is shaken? with Gary Habermas (3 min. video) http://youtu.be/11I_A44y958

Why is a person's will so important in the area of doubt? with Gary Habermas (4 min. video) http://youtu.be/WXCg7Ut5-us


While some people begin to have doubts because they have been overwhelmed by apologetical issues, some people persist in doubt partly because they refuse to engage their minds on apologetical issues (the opposite problem). Here are two links to two videos by William Lane Craig where he shows that while Christian apologetics isn't absolutely necessary, it is VERY USEFUL in bringing people to faith and helping preserve their faith. It's especially useful in inoculating children and teens against the onslaught of unbelief and objections to their faith they will inevitably encounter in school and academia.






I also HIGHLY recommend the apologetical posts at Triablogue. Do searches on whatever topics you're interested in or are struggling with. Go to www.google.com/advanced_search and type in "triablogue.blogspot.com" in the "site or domain:" field. Don't type "www.triablogue.blogspot.com"

Here are samples of Triablogue posts dealing with doubts.

Doubting Thomas
Doubting and self-doubting
Count your blessings
When In Doubt
They that wait upon the Lord
On a wing and a prayer

It goes without saying that I recommend my other blog posts alongside this one. For example my blog post Resources for Dealing with Alleged Bible Contradictions, Discrepancies and Errors

********************************************

Spiritual Depression

Sermons by Sam Waldron (two of which I believe may be the same sermon preached at different times):
Elijah's Death Wish
Elijah's Struggle with Carnal Fear

When the Brook Dries Up

Elijah Beside the Dry Brook

Spiritual Depression by
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones is extremely helpful (amazon.com link).
 

A Divine Cordial by Thomas Watson
 




********************************************

Spiritual Warfare


Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices by Thomas Brooks


The Adversary: The Christian Versus Demon Activity by Mark Bubeck (amazon.com link)






While I'm still writing this blog, I might as well post it now since it'll never be "finished." That's because I'll continue to add links indefinitely.



Saturday, March 2, 2013

The Heart of God Affected by Prayer by Edward D. Griffin

Sermon XXVI [sermon 26] 

THE HEART OF GOD AFFECTED BY PRAYER

by Edward D. Griffin

Gen. XXXII. 28. [Genesis 32:28]

And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob but Israel; for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and has prevailed.

Jacob, having taken certain extraordinary measures to wrest the birthright and blessing from Esau, was compelled by his brother's hate to flee to Padanaram. In this country, which lay to the east of Euphrates, lived Laban, the brother of Jacob's mother. The wanderer took up his abode with his uncle, married his two daughters, and by them had a numerous offspring. After the lapse of twenty years God commanded him to return to his father, and renewed the promise of his protection. Jacob set out on his return, crossed Euphrates and came to Mahanaim, a place on the east of Jordan, which afterwards belonged to the tribe of Gad. From this place, or about this time, he sent messengers before him to Mount Seir, (a country on the south of Canaan, in which Esau had settled,) to make his peace with his brother. The messengers returned with the account that Esau was on his way with four hundred armed men. Jacob had now crossed the river Jabbok and had proceeded on his way as far as Jordan. At this intelligence he was greatly alarmed. For notwithstanding the general promises of God, he knew not what particular trials might await him. Though his own life was safe, he knew not how many of his children were doomed to bleed on his brother's sword. It was a trying moment. Something more was to be done than to sit still and pray. Notwithstanding all the promises and all his trust in God, he knew that means must be used for the preservation of his family: and the means which he adopted discovered a remarkable sagacity and knowledge of the human heart. He set apart five droves of cattle as a present, which he sent across Jordan to meet his brother. He separated the cattle into different droves, and sent one drove after another, with suitable distances between; wisely foreseeing that, coming in this order, they would make a deeper impression on his brother than though they had all met him at once.

In the mean time he decamps in the night and carries back his family several miles up Jabbok, to the ford of the river. There he crosses it and leaves his family on the north side, in a place of as great safety as he could find. This done, he re-crosses the ford, takes his station between his family and the approaching enemy,—on a spot of ground which from the vision of that night was afterwards called Penuel,—and then casts himself on God.

This was indeed a solemn and most trying hour. It was the dead of night. Universal stillness reigned. His sleeepless family lay trembling on the other side of Jabbok. His brother was hastening forward, with forced marches and implacable resentments, to slay "the mother with the children." To flee, thus encumbered with women and children, was impossible. To attempt resistance against so great a force, would be vain. What can screen him from a brother's fury? He has exhausted all the means in his power. He can do no more.— What hopes then remain but those which rely on heaven? To heaven he turned his eyes. Soon a bright form appeared before him. It was the same that had appeared to him at Bethel; the same Person, and perhaps the same figure, that afterwards hung on Calvary.

By miraculous light he was emboldened to embrace him and to press him importunately for a blessing. The heavenly form put on the appearance of resistance, as though he would tear himself away. How could he be spared? What could the patriarch do alone in that trembling crisis? Methinks I hear the cries of the affrighted children from the other side, and the fierce tread of hostile feet before. He could not let him go. He was emboldened, (surprising confidence!) to hold the vision fast. O did he know what he had in his embrace? It was nothing less than the treasure of the universe. How could he let him go? Who would not give his life for such another embrace?

This surprising struggle, which was designed to bring out God's condescension to be wrestled with in prayer, and the confidence and efficacy of faith, continued "until the breaking of the day." Then said the Angel of the covenant "Let me go for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go except thou bless me. And he said unto him, what is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob but Israel; for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.—And he blessed him there."

Having thus prevailed with God, and obtained power to prevail with men, that is, with Esau and his host, his heart was at rest.

The sun arose as he passed over to his family. He had not been there long before, across the plain, he discovered his brother, approaching. He had just time to dispose his family in the order in which he wished them to approach;—the two handmaids with their children first, Leah with her children next, and the beloved Rachel with her Joseph in the rear; in order that the most beloved might be the least exposed in case of attack, or in case of peace that the most beautiful, by coming last, might complete the agreeable impression. With all his confidence in God he still adhered to means.

Before the whole Jacob himself passed over, to receive the blessing on the very spot where he had wrestled with the Angel. "And," (still using means,) "he—bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother. And Esau ran to meet him; and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him; and they wept." Behold the blessed effects of trusting in God and committing one's self to him in prayer when all other helpers fail. On the same spot that had been sanctified by his prayers, he received this great deliverance. The same clod that had been just wet with praying tears, was now sprinkled with the tears of brother affection.— Who will ever again distrust the faithfulness or resources of that God who could thus extract its venom from the scorpion's sting and soften an Esau into a brother. Penuel is the place where all should seek relief, as they have occasion, from the dangers and trials of life.

"Thy name shall be called—Israel; for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men." The very name of Israel signifies one who prevails with God: and the application of this name to the whole Church is a standing memorial of their potency in prayer. Great is Israel's weight and prevalence in heaven. And they will prevail with men; will prevail over all their enemies,—over all the profane Esaus who throw away their own birthright and then follow their "brother with the sword." Yes, great is Israel's weight and prevalence in heaven. And so long as they retain this name, their influence will never cease. It is a mark put upon them to betoken that they are invincible, (I had almost said, almighty,) in prayer. For by prayer they take hold of almighty strength and appropriate it to their benefit.

My object in this sermon is to show that by prayer believers really affect the heart of God.

It seems to be too common an opinion that God acts from the dictates of wisdom without feeling, or at least that he has no feelings for individuals, but only a benevolence for the universe at large. but how can he love the whole and not the parts? It is sometimes said that prayer is designed merely to fit men for blessings, not to influence God. If by fitting men for blessings is meant that it awakens in them those feelings which please and affect the mind of God, and render him unwilling to deny their requests, then prayer truly fits them for the blessings. But what will yous ay when prayer brings down blessing on others who never prayed, and who live in distant quarters of the globe. The good bestowed in such a case is no personal benefit to the prayerful. It is objected that God causes the exercises which are put forth in prayer, and that he cannot be affected by what he himself produces. But he created men and angels, who are none the less the objects of his love on that account. Will the objector say that God has no delight in the holiness of creatures because he himself has caused it? And if he can love the creatures which he has made and the holiness which he has caused, why can he not be affected by the prayers which he has excited? Every man has an individuation of existence as distinct from God as from Gabriel, and has a consciousness of pleasure as distinct from that which is attached to the divine mind as it is from the happiness of Paul. Our persons, our character, our desires, our happiness, are all as interesting to God as though he had not created or sanctified us,—as though we were self existent.

The Scriptures speak of God as though he was really affected by prayer,—as though, from infinite and direct tenderness towards his children individually, he could not deny their requests, except so far as their good and the public interest require it. Are these representations merely after the manner of men, as we speak of his eyes and hands and feet, or do they hold forth literal and exact realities?

One thing is certain: the experience of creatures can never prove that these representations are not literally true. The conduct of God will always correspond with that of a parent who is actually prevailed upon by the entreaties of his children. They go to him, ask, and receive; receive what they would not have had if they had not asked for it. They who bear the name of Israel have the same power to prevail with God that Jacob had at Penuel. The Angel of the covenant acted as though he could not break away from the eager patriarch. The effect was the same as though he could not. So it is with the struggle of other saints. How often is the appearance strongly held out that "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." Zion in prayer appears absolutely invincible. By prayer she slew a hundred and eighty-five thousand of Sennacherib's army at a stroke. By prayer she destroyed the immense army of Moab in the days of Jehoshaphat. By prayer she slew a hundred and twenty thousand of the Midianites, while Gideon and the three hundred men with him only blew their trumpets and broke their pitchers and stood still in their place. By prayer she ovethrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea. By prayer she vanquished the Amalekites at Rephiddim. By prayer she demolished the walls of Jerico. And the time would fail me to tell of the overthrow of the Canaanites, the Philistines, Edom, Ammon, and Syria, and all the conquests which prayer has made. When prayer has put her hand to the sword, "one" has chased "a thousand, and two" have "put then thousand to flight." Thus have Israel power to prevail with men. And the history of the Church proves that they have power to prevail with God.

What power had Abraham to prevail with God, when by successive entreaties he obtained his promise to spare the wicked Sodom if there were in it fifty righteous men,—if forty-five,—if forty,—if thirty,—if twenty,—and even if ten. In repeated instances, when the patience of God seemed exhausted by the rebellions in the wilderness, Moses prevailed with him to reverse the exterminating sentence. Joshua prevailed with God to cause the sun and moon to stand still. Gideon prevailed with him to confirm his faith by the fleece and the dew, and to vary the sign at his solicitation. Hannah prevailed with him to give the long desired son to her maternal arms. Samuel prevailed with him to rock the pole with thunders and to deluge the earth with rain, as a reproving sign to the rebellious Hebrews. Elijah by his prayers stopped the windows of heaven, that "it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months." Again he prayed, "and the heaven gave rain and the earth brought forth her fruit." Hezekiah prevailed on God to reverse the sentence of death which had gone out against him, and for a confirming sign to carry back the shadow of the sun ten degrees. By prayer Daniel obtained secrets from God who no other man could discover, stopped the mouths of lions, and brought down angels to unfold the counsels of heaven. The three children prevailed on God to quench the rage of the seven times heated furnace. Esther and the Jews prevailed on him to blunt all the bolts of Persian thunder, and to raise his people to triumph from the very gates of death. While the disciples were assembled to pray for the imprisoned Peter, the angel of the Lord entered his prison, smote off his chains, and brought him out. Paul and Silas by their prayers raised an earthquake which burst open all the prison doors, and shook off all their bands, and brought the jailer to the foot of the cross. When the apostles and their "company" were praying bout the persecuting priest and elders, "the place was shaken,—and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." "And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell" of the millions who through prayer "subdued kingdoms,—obtained promises,—escaped the edge of the sword,—waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens."

It was because they bore the name of Israel and as a prince had power to prevail with God. And all who bear this name are addressed by God in this wonderful language, "Command ye me." [cf. Isa. 45:11]

We must therefore conclude that God is as really affected by the supplications of his children as any earthly parent is. Indeed he says this in so many words. "If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish will he—give him a serpent? or if he shall ask an egg will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the holy Spirit to them that ask him."— Do you who are parents feel that you cannot deny your children anything which they discreetly ask and which you are able to bestow? The same feelings has God. "I say discreetly ask; for they sometimes make indiscreet requests for things that would injure them; in which case, however disposed to indulgence, you do not yield to their solicitations. So it is with God. He does not grant his people what would injure them or mar the public good; but he will grant them something better. When Paul thrice prayed for the removal of the thorn in his flesh, he was not answered in exact form, but in the bestowment of greater good. "And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me."

The grand objection to the theory that God is really affected by prayer, arises from an apprehension that this would militate against his unchangeableness. I therefore say, that he has none of the fickleness and weakness of earthly parents when they are moved by the entreaties of their children. Their emotions are new and temporary, and often partial and unwise. Under the temporary excitement they are hurried into feelings and actions which are injurious to their children and unjust to others. Not so with God. Why, I ask, would it be more inconsistent with his immutability to be affected by the prayers of his children, than to feel compassion for their sufferings, or complacency in their holiness, or benevolence for their persons and desires for their happiness? All these feelings must be new and imply change unless they have existed in one eternal now. And if without change he can feel this compassion and complacency and benevolence towards his children, why, without change, can he not be affected by their prayers?

The grand truth is, that God's existence is not in succession, but in one eternal now. To suppose otherwise would impute to him imperfection, and deny his immutability, omniscience, and infinity. If he exists in succession he is constantly receiving new ideas; and then there is a change of thought, which must lead to a change of counsel. If he is eternally receiving new ideas, he is not in possession of all ideas at once, and therefore is not omniscient. If hew ideas are constantly coming into his mind, either the old ones are crowded out and forgotten, or he must grow in knowledge. On either supposition he is not infinite.

We cannot avoid the conclusion then that God's existence is not in succession but in one eternal now. Whatever feelings therefore he has, he had from eternity. Whatever objects are now present to his mind, were always present. With him there is nothing new. His children were individually before him from eternity, and his heart was always affected with benevolence towards them, with love for their holiness and compassion for their sufferings; and with equal certainty it was always affected by their prayers. He eternally and unchangeably beheld them before him, eternally and unchangeably heard their prayers, and eternally and unchangeably felt those yearnings of tenderness which could not deny their consistent requests.— Prayer can have the same influence with him as though he had not what creatures call foreknowledge and foredetermination,— as though he never existed till to-day. We may go to him with as much confidence as we would go to an earthly parent, who could be not only impressed but changed by our entreaties.

What a glorious circumstance it is that there is such a God,—enthroned in infinite majesty, yet from the midst of whose radiant glories divine compassion looks out as from a thousand eyes, and melts with pity for a dying world,—with more than a father's tenderness for his children. O such a God! Who can stifle the bursting praise? Who can hold their tongue from running loose in anthems of thanksgiving? Infinite ocean of love! real, unbounded love! let us love and adore and delight in thee as we may, as we ought, as we must.

We see then with what spirit and expectations we ought to pray;—not with a view to change God, but to become such objects as he eternally and unchangeably loved, and to present such petitions as he eternally and unchangeably felt unable to deny.

Still our prayers must be made with entire submission. No condescending language of God as if subjecting himself to our dictation,—no consciousness of power to influence him,—should make us forget that he has a sovereign right to do with us as seemeth good in his sight. Even his best beloved Son must say, "Not my will but thine be done."

We cannot be exclaim what admiration and transport, what a glorious privilege is prayer.—How unspeakable the privilege of approaching that heart which is full of tendernesses like these, and of gaining over that power which "openeth and no man shutteth," which "shutteth and no man openeth."

With all the energy of wrestling Jacob let us embrace and hold fast a prayer-hearing God. Had we the patriarch's strength of faith, our prayers would not be languid and unavailing; nor should we so irresolutely give over the struggle when God for a moment seems to reject our petitions,—an appearance which he sometimes puts on on purpose to try the strength of our faith and desire? Had Jacob been thus irresolute, he would have missed the blessing on the banks of Jabbok and his name would never have been called Israel. What powerful motives rush upon us to "pray without ceasing" What motives to union in prayer. If Jacob alone was so invincible, how great might be the united strength of praying thousands. Ere God "shall appear in his glory" to "build up Zion," there must be many wrestling Jacobs. The inscription is written on the broad side of heaven, "I will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel to do it for them."

Let the subject come down with the weight of a thousand thunders upon the prayerless. Do they know the incalculable loss they sustain by neglecting prayer? Worlds could not countervail the damage. And do they weigh the infinite guilt incurred by refusing the tendered compassions of a God? Heaven itself cries aloud, "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found; call ye upon him while he is near." Have you determined to reject his love and the immortal happiness which is opening upon you, and to defy his resentments, to breast his power, and to lie down in everlasting burnings? If so, then proceed and put your dreadful resolution to the test. But O that it may waver; O that it may change. O that Gabriel and Paul and all the saints above may strike a higher note as they see you on your faces, as they hear you cry with bursting tears, "God be merciful to me a sinner." Amen.



More sermons by Edward D. Griffin at the www.puritansermons.com HERE
Sermons there include "When I Was A Child"; "Heaven"; "Enoch Walked With God"

Google books:
Sermons by the Late Rev. Edward D. Griffin, D.D. volume 1 HERE
Sermons by the Late Rev. Edward D. Griffin D. D. volume 2 HERE

Fifty-Four Plain Practical Sermons by the Late Edward D. Griffin, D.D. HERE

Sermons, Not Before Published, on Various Practical Subjects by the Late Edward D. Griffin HERE
(apparently another version of the previous book)

My Gospel Meals blog

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Could God Command a Christian to Kill?

Steve Hays begins one of his posts this way:

What if God told you to kill someone? Atheists, as well as some theological liberals, like to ask this question to make Christians squirm. It’s intended to create a dilemma. If the Christian says “No,” then the atheist will gleefully exclaim, “So why do you believe those Old Testament commands about killing”? But if the Christian says “Yes,” then the atheist will gleefully exclaim, “That just goes to show how dangerous religion is. It will make you do anything. Suspend your normal moral inhibitions.”

So how should a Christian answer this question?

Steve and the other Triabloggers have answered this question multiple times thoroughly. Because this question repeatedly turns up in discussions with atheists, and because I don't have the patience at the moment to search Triablogue's archives, I'm going to give my own answer which has been greatly influenced by the Triabloggers and other Christian apologists.

The first thing to be clear about is whether such a question is being asked of a religious person in general or a Christian in particular. Since I'm a Christian, I really can only answer as a Christian (and for other Christians to the degree I accurately represent and explain the teaching of the Bible). Secondly, we need to make clear whether the question is being asked as an internal critique of Christianity or an external critique.

If it's an external critique, then the atheist (or non-Christian in general) will need to use his own morality by which to judge Christian morality. But if his morality is itself incoherent, arbitrary and groundless, then such an external critique can't even being. If they cannot make sense of their own morality, then they have no way of externally judging the morality found in the Bible.

However, atheists often pose the question as an internal critique in order to demonstrate that no matter how a Christian answers (whether "yes" or "no"), the morality set fourth in the Bible is inconsistent. Then they will often switch from an internal to an external critique and accuse Biblical morality with evil by going contrary to (supposed) basic human morality. As if such a thing existed. I deny such a thing and think any similarity between the moralities of various non-Christian persons and groups are a result of a God given conscience. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

To answer the question, Christians need to point out that God's revelation is progressive and that to some degree the various revelations and covenants God has given overlap and build upon each other. There is both continuity and discontinuity between the various revelations and covenants God has given. The main point is that down through history God has slowly revealed to humanity more and more of the kind of God He is and what He requires. He has done this in various ways through the giving of covenants and with the ways He has dealt with people from the time of Adam and Eve, to the Patriarchs, through Moses and the Prophets, then eventually and finally in Jesus the Messiah.

I will need to give a brief background of God's moral dealings with humanity to set up my answer to the dilemma posed by atheists.

Subsequent to the Fall of Adam and Eve, yet prior to the giving of the Mosaic Covenant and it's Law, people didn't have a divinely revealed Law by which to conduct themselves. Nevertheless, as the apostle Paul points out in Romans chapter 2, those people who don't have access to divinely revealed commandments nevertheless still have the "work of the law" written on their hearts by which they did things either in keeping with or contrary to their God given conscience (Rom. 2:14-15).

The word "conscience" is made up of the prefix "con", meaning "with", and "science" meaning "knowledge". From a Christian perspective, there is innate moral knowledge within each human being which God has implanted and by which God expects us to be guided by. This innate knowledge includes God's general requirements of His human creatures concerning how they ought to behave toward each other, toward themselves and toward God. However, because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, human nature has been corrupted and this corruption has affected both mind and body. It has lead to human beings having a natural bent toward evil. Because of this sinful bent, human beings resist and sinfully interpret and act on their God given consciences. Even without this sinful bent, human beings would still have interpreted their consciences fallibly. But now with such a sinful and evil bent coupled with inherent fallibility, people now commit even greater sins deserving of God's judgement.

The God given conscience was never meant to operate independently of God's revelation and specific commands. When God first created Adam and Eve, they were given one specific command not to eat the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They were supposed to use their God given conscience to obey God's explicit command not to eat from the Tree. But because they disobeyed (with the resultant corruption of human nature), it eventually lead to their descendants living sinful lives whereby they cut themselves off from God's further revelation and commands. It was only at the time of the Mosaic Covenant that God once again gave explicit commands which human beings were to obey in conjunction with the use of their consciences. Finally, with the coming of Jesus the Messiah, God's final and complete revelation, commands, and requirements have been given.

With that background, I'm ready to answer the question.

If God actually commanded a Christian to kill another person or persons, then that Christian is morally obligated to obey such a command. That's because God, as our Creator, has the right, authority, and power to grant life and also to take away life (cf. 1 Sam. 2:6; Deut. 32:39). However, because of the progressive nature of Revelation, under the New Covenant, God would never command an individual Christian (or the Church) to kill another person or group of people.

In the Old Testament, God sometimes commanded persons or groups to kill other persons and groups. Usually when He did so, it was because the people or group were sinful and deserving of judgment. God could have judged those groups directly Himself. However, on occasion God used one set of people to bring judgment on another set of people (either by direct command or by His providential overruling of the behavior of nations). When He did, He usually didn't judge the wicked nation or people group immediately. He usually gave them time to repent.

This does does not mean that the people group God used to execute His judgment was necessarily morally superior to those people they killed. In fact, God later judged Israel for its sins by using the Assyrians, Babylonians and eventually the Romans.

Here's what Deut. 9:4-6 says regarding God's command for the Israelites to drive out and (if necessary) execute the various Canaanite tribes,
4"Do not think in your heart, after the LORD your God has cast them out before you, saying, 'Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land'; but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out from before you.5 It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you go in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God drives them out from before you, and that He may fulfill the word which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.6 Therefore understand that the LORD your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stiff-necked people.

Also, when God displaced those tribes, they were free to leave and avoid confrontation with Israel because over and above God's intention to judge those people, God's primary purpose was to give the land over to the Israelites. So then, most cases in the Old Testament where God commanded killing was either in defense of His people, or to judge people for their sins.

See William Lane Craig's video concerning the allegation of genocide in the Old Testament HERE

It must also be noted and emphasized that the Mosaic Law forbade murder even though it condoned killing under certain circumstances like self-defense, capital punishment, national defense etc. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. Murder is the illicit termination of a human life (usually for reasons like hatred, anger, jealousy, to successfully commit theft etc.).


An exception to this usual reason for God commanding killing would be (e.g.) God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. In this case, God didn't intend for Abraham to actually fulfill the command. God commanded it to test Abraham's faith in His ability to fulfill His promise. This was before the giving of the Mosaic Covenant which included a prohibition against human/child sacrifice (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). Under the New Covenant, Jesus' sacrifice is the perfect bloody sacrifice to which all other Old Testament sacrifices pointed to such that no other bloody sacrifices are now necessary or accepted. This is what the entire book of Hebrews is all about (cf. Col. 2:17).

A common counter example cited by atheists is the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter. However, it's not clear whether Jephthah actually performed a blood sacrifice using his daughter as the offering, or whether it refers to Jephthah setting his daughter aside to be a perpetual virgin devoted to the LORD. I personally, suspect it was a real blood sacrifice. However, nowhere in the text does it say that God commanded Jephthah to do it. Nor does it indicate that God accepted the sacrifice as pleasing to Him. In fact, this passage is in chapter 11 of the book of Judges which is a book which was written to document how evil the people of Israel had become by not following the covenant God made between them and Himself (i.e. the Mosaic Covenant).

Another important fact that needs to be highlighted is that unlike the Old Covenant, the New Covenant isn't made with a literal nation or country where God is the theocratic King who can issue decrees to wage war with other nations or peoples. Nor can the New Testament Church execute criminals or heretics as was the case under the Mosaic Covenant where the theocracy merged religion and the state because God directly ruled the nation and regularly communicated with the people and performed signs and wonders. That connection has been broken and will not return until Jesus Christ returns to directly rule the world and nations.

Atheists might ask, "On what basis do Christians claim that under the New Covenant God would not command killing?"

1. The New Covenant/Testament reiterates the prohibition of murder.

2. The Biblically based belief that God has stopped giving revelation on par with the authority of the Bible. Christians believe that the canon of the Bible is closed and that no further books can be added to the Bible till Christ returns. When Christ returns, God may decide to add to the Bible, but we won't know that till then. While all charismatics are continuationists, not all continuationists are charismatic. Yet, even most charismatics who believe that God still gives private revelation also believe that those private revelations are NOT universally binding to all people and that they must be tested by the Bible. They must be rejected as coming from God if they contradict the Bible or are not in keeping with it.

Therefore the belief in either the cessationist understanding of Sola Scriptura or the continuationists understanding of Summa Scriptura would prevent anyone from accepting any alleged revelation from God to commit murder because it would contradict the Bible's command against murder.

Atheists then would ask:

1. Where then is the Biblical evidence that in the Old and New Testaments murder is prohibited?

2. Where is the Biblical evidence that special revelation on par with Biblical authority has ceased?

If the atheist has to ask the first question, then that shows how Biblically illiterate the atheist is since both the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant (of the Messiah) repeatedly prohibits murder and enjoins us to love our neighbor.

Here are some places in the Bible that prohibit murder:
Ex. 20:13; 21:12; 23:7; Lev. 24:17; Deut. 5:17; Matt. 5:21; 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 13:9; James 2:11.

Here are some places that command loving one's neighbor:
Lev. 19:18; Matt. 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14; James 2:8

Under the New Covenant, "neighbor" specifically includes people who are not believers in the true God. See Luke 10:27-37 where Jesus relates his parable of the Good Samaritan and compare it with Gal. 6:10.

Gal. 6:10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.


The second question was about what Biblical grounds there is to believe that the canon of Scripture is closed and that supernatural revelation on par with Scripture has ended. I would point to the various articles in defense of cessationism. While I'm a continuationist myself and therefore would disagree with some of the arguments and conclusions cessationists make, they nevertheless clearly show why the Bible teaches the closure of the Canon and for why God no longer gives revelation on par with the Bible. A good place to start is the Monergism website. Do a search looking for articles on cessationism and the closing of the canon of Scripture.

While there are many more atheist objections related to the one asked at the beginning of this blog, my answer deals with the majority of them. The final one I want to address is the objection that the Bible teaches that at the end of the world Christians will join Jesus at His return to judge the wicked by physically killing them. In which case, they (the atheists) would argue that nothing prevents Christians from concluding that Christ has returned and so to begin "judging" people by physically killing them with the sword or by the use of other weapons.

I would say that it's not clear in the Bible that Christians will be doing that at the Second Advent of Christ. But if the Bible does teach that, then there's no inconsistency because it would fall under what I said previously about how God has the right to judge the wicked using other moral agents. Whether it be the Israelites to judge the Canaanites, or the Assyrians/Babylonians/Romans to judge Israel.

However, Christians have no right to do that until Christ actually returns physically since the return of Christ is clearly to be a literal physical return. The Bible makes it clear that the return of Christ will be unmistakeable and that all of creation will be affected by it and will react to His return. His return will be literal, physical, visible, global, universal, momentously historical and triumphant. Moreover, Christ's return involves both dead and living Christians to receive their glorified resurrection bodies before they could ever judge the wicked by killing them (assuming such a thing is actually prophesied in the Bible). Until Christians receive such an incorruptible and immortal body, Christians are not warranted to believe that Jesus has truly returned.

Until Christ returns, the following New Covenant command stands.

Romans 12:18-21
18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."20 To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head."21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

What Do You Think About The Messiah?

Jesus once asked, "...What do you think about the Christ/Messiah?..." - Matthew 22:42

During this Christmas season it is important to remember that Christians believe Jesus is the long awaited Jewish Messiah who fulfilled many of the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament and will fulfill the remaining prophecies when he returns. The following are links and recommendations to useful resources in defense of Jesus' true messiahship.

Michael L. Brown is considered by many to be the leading defender of Jesus' messiahship living today. He himself is of Jewish background. He holds a doctorate in Semitic languages. His five volume book "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus" is an indispensable resource for those who want to defend (or who are doubting) Jesus being Mashiach. His websites include Ask Dr. BrownReal MessiahIn the Line of FireIn the Line of Fire BlogFire School of Ministry.

Here are some of his videos on the web.

Is Jesus the Jewish Messiah? This lecture is TWO AND A HALF HOURS LONG! I recommend starting with part 2 if you want to skip Dr. Brown's conversion testimony which begins part 1.
I believe that these two videos are just a portion of the 10 DVD video series "Countering the Counter-Missionaries" which can be purchased at one of Dr. Brown's websites.

Part 1 of 2
http://youtu.be/scw9iB4cIZc

Part 2 of 2
http://youtu.be/fMtLbEpv48o

The following two videos seem to be shortened versions of the above lecture:

Proving through scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah vimeo.com/2368487

Countering the Counter-Missionaries Messianic Prophecy vimeo.com/2367509

Dr. Brown Lectures on Jesus/Yeshua as the Messiah
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dejZdUCNZsg&feature=youtu.be&t=0m2s

Dr. Brown during what seems to be the Questions and Answers Session of the above lecture
Part 1Part 2Part 3&4Part 5Part 6Part 7Part 8Part 9Part 10,  Part 11 (missing),  Part 12Part 13 (Webpage for ALL Parts HERE)

Was Jesus A False Prophet? vimeo.com/28646155

In Search of Atonement vimeo.com/39428569

A Bloody Religion? vimeo.com/39423935

Hidden Secrets of Kabbalah vimeo.com/28618219

In Search of the Messiah vimeo.com/39428637 

Objection: Jesus Can't Be The Messiah vimeo.com/28625919

Can Anyone See God? vimeo.com/16321308 

Is Christianity Jewish? vimeo.com/16189102

Move Videos Here:  http://vimeo.com/realmessiah/videos  


How to Witness to Jews by Michael Brown 
Part 1
http://youtu.be/x-47kyIFjNI

Part 2
http://youtu.be/_PIyGI7yxZc



Debates:

Debate between Michael L. Brown and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/watch/can-jews-believe-jesus-dr-brown-and-rabbi-boteach-debate

Debate between Michael L. Brown and Rabbi Immanuel Schochet
http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/video/is-jesus-the-jewish-messiah

Debate between Michael L. Brown and Rabbi Tovia Singer
http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/listen/debate-dr-brown-and-rabbi-singer

Debate between Dr. Michael L. Brown and Rabbi David Blumofe
http://vimeo.com/2492529 OR
http://www.realmessiah.com/video/who-jesus-debate-rabbi-blumofe-and-dr-brown OR
http://youtu.be/3Qg9J6_ijFI or http://youtu.be/rGtbdnOkgps

 
Deity of the Messiah Debate between Unitarians Buzzard/Goode vs. Trinitarians White/Brown
PART 1 http://youtu.be/Yn-grOfPDi0
PART 2 http://youtu.be/M38rQXLq29g

A collected list of videos where Dr. Brown gives his testimony can be found HERE


Dr. James White vs. Sir Anthony Buzzard on the topic of the Trinity on Justin Brierley's radio show Unbelievable http://youtu.be/SY7_EtcIeOQ


Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum is another well known leader in the Messianic Movement. (especially in the previous generation). He has written many excellent books on the topic.

Here is a link to his 21 part lecture series on The Life of the Messiah
http://deanbible.org/andromedaCS.php?q=f&f=%2FJewish+Life+of+Christ%2FAudio+Files

Recommended books:

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (5 volumes) by Michael L. Brown
The Real Kosher Jesus by Michael L. Brown
Jewish New Testament Commentary by David H. Stern
Messianic Judaism: A Modern Movement with an Ancient Past by David H. Stern
Jesus the Messiah: Tracing the Promises, Expectations, and Coming of Israel's King by Herbert Bateman IV, Gordon Johnston and Darrell Bock
The Messiah in the Old Testament by Walter C. Kaiser
Messianic Christology by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
Footsteps of the Messiah by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
Are You the One Who Is to Come?: The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question by Michael F. Bird
The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? by Michael Rydelnik
Behold Your King: Prophetic Proofs that Jesus is the Messiah by William Webster
All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible by Herbert Lockyer
The Prophecies of the Old Testament Respecting the Messiah by John Gill (written in the 18th century, this work can be read at the very bottom of this link)
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim (this link is not to the updated version, but to the original written in the 19th century and which is now in the public domain)
Messiah in Both Testaments by Fred John Meldau (introductory material on the subjecct)


They Thought For Themselves by Sid Roth is a collection of modern testimonies of Jews who accepted Jesus as their Jewish Messiah. Technically it's not an apologetical work. Nevertheless, it's an interesting collection of testimonies that's freely available online HERE

More testimonies of Jews believing in Jesus/Yeshua can be found in the following link:
http://www.the-new-way.org/testimonies/index_conv.html




The Most-Referenced List of Messianic Jewish Web Sites
(I would assume not all are Evangelical and/or Trinitarian)
http://users.eastlink.ca/~nertamid/ctomc_100best.htm 


Sunday, December 2, 2012

Blaise Pascal Quotes

I just found a quotation of Pascal that's similar to other quotes I've cited in the past. So, I'm gathering them them all here on this blog post. Here's the new quote:

Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.

I found this quotation from an article by William Lane Craig HERE

It seems to be a quotation from Pascal's Pensées. Here's an alternative translation from www.ccel.org:

"...willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart, He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition."

Here are the other quotations from Pascal's Pensées that I've posted in the past.

563 The prophecies, the very miracles and proofs of our religion, are not of such a nature that they can be said to be absolutely convincing. But they are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them. Thus there is both evidence and obscurity to enlighten some and confuse others. But the evidence is such that it surpasses, or at least equals, the evidence to the contrary; so that it is not reason which can determine men not to follow it, and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart. And by this means there is sufficient evidence to condemn, and insufficient to convince; so that it appears in those who follow it, that it is grace, and not reason, which makes them follow it; and in those who shun it, that it is lust, not reason, which makes them shun it. 

577 There is sufficient clearness to enlighten the elect, and sufficient obscurity to humble them. There is sufficient obscurity to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clearness to condemn them, and make them inexcusable.—Saint Augustine, Montaigne, Sébond.

574 All things work together for good to the elect, even the obscurities of Scripture; for they honour them because of what is divinely clear. And all things work together for evil to the rest of the world, even what is clear; for they revile such, because of the obscurities which they do not understand.


562 It will be one of the confusions of the damned to see that they are condemned by their own reason, by which they claimed to condemn the Christian religion.

576 God has made the blindness of this people subservient to the good of the elect.

Pascal was a Catholic who opposed what was considered by Catholicism as the heresy of Jansenism. This was a Catholic movement that has been considered by some a "Catholic Calvinism" because they took the teachings of St. Augustine so seriously and worked it out to its logical conclusions that it mirrored the Calvinism of Protestantism. Despite his opposition, Pascal seems to have been influenced by it (or by Augustine's teaching) enough that he seems to have had a high view of providence and predestination.

Being a Calvinist myself, I appreciate Pascal's desire to affirm both the Sovereignty of God in the salvation of human beings as well as as the moral responsibility that each person has before God to respond to him. The above quotes are compatible with many versions of Calvinism (though not all).


The following are links to where I've alluded to or posted these quotations in the comments of other blogs.













Friday, November 2, 2012

Links on the Subject of Miracles in the Context of Craig Keener's Recent Book



Links discussing the subject of miracles and the supernatural (both past and present) in the context of Craig Keener's recent book Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts. The links are arranged chronologically by month (not necessarily by date). Before reading the links to the articles and blogs, I recommend listening to at least one of the audio interviews of Craig Keener regarding his new book. I recommend starting with the one done by Licona (then the one by Brown).

Keener interviewed by Michael Licona (audio)
http://www.apologetics315.com/2011/04/question-of-miracles-interview-with.html

Keener interviewed by Michael L. Brown (audio)
http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/01/craig-keener-interview-on-miracles.html

Keener interviewed by Brian Auten (audio)
http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/02/scholar-interview-craig-keener.html


*****************
*****************


Craig Keener's Upcoming Book 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/craig-keeners-upcoming-book.html

Miracles In The Modern World
triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/11/miracles-in-modern-world.html

Michael Licona And Craig Keener On The Historicity Of Miracles 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/04/michael-licona-and-craig-keener-on.html

Unexpected Miracles
triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/04/unexpected-miracles.html

Craig Keener's Work On Miracles Is Out 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/11/craig-keeners-work-on-miracles-is-out.html

"Expect a Miracle" 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/12/expect-miracle.html

An Interview With Craig Keener On Miracles 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/12/interview-with-craig-keener-on-miracles.html

Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/01/miracles-credibility-of-new-testament.html

Infidels on the run
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/01/infidels-on-run.html

Preternatural miracles 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/01/preternatural-miracles.html

Can Christians Today Work True Miracles? 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/01/can-christians-today-work-true-miracles.html

Are Miracles Real?
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/02/are-miracles-real.html

Kruger reviews Keener
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/04/kruger-reviews-keener.html

Another review of Craig Keener's "Miracles" 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/04/another-review-of-craig-keeners.html

A response to those who are skeptical of miracles 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/04/response-to-those-who-are-skeptical-of.html

Does God always grant miracles to those who pray? 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/05/does-god-always-grant-miracles-to-those.html

"Why won't God heal amputees?" 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-wont-god-heal-amputees.html

The Healing Of Amputees
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/healing-of-amputees.html

Judging Competing Miracle Claims 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/judging-competing-miracle-claims.html

A Landmark Study Of Miracles 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/landmark-study-of-miracles.html

How Many People Claim To Have Witnessed A Miracle? 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/how-many-people-claim-to-have-witnessed.html

Miracles That Are Simultaneous Or Clustered In Some Other Way 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/miracles-that-are-simultaneous-or.html

Modern Miracle Reports With Evidence (Part 1) 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/modern-miracle-reports-with-evidence.html

Modern Miracle Reports With Evidence (Part 2) 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/modern-miracle-reports-with-evidence_15.html

People Raised From The Dead In Modern Times 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/people-raised-from-dead-in-modern-times.html

Hostile Corroboration Of Modern Miracles 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/hostile-corroboration-of-modern-miracles.html

Psychosomatic Miracles? 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/psychosomatic-miracles.html

Why Miracles Aren't More Documented 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-miracles-arent-more-documented.html

Misdiagnosis And Healing Miracles
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/08/misdiagnosis-and-healing-miracles.html

Ecclesiastical miracles
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/08/ecclesiastical-miracles.html

Asking For More Evidence For Miracles 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/10/asking-for-more-evidence-for-miracles.html

Why God Would Perform Partial, Gradual, And Other Lesser Miracles 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-god-would-perform-partial-gradual.html

Miracles And My Father's Death
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/10/miracles-and-my-fathers-death.html

Keener interview on Miracles
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/10/keener-interview-on-miracles.html

The Character Of Miracle Witnesses 
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-character-of-miracle-witnesses.html


A Christian Case For Miracles
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-christian-case-for-miracles_2.html

God, man, and miracles
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/11/god-man-and-miracles.html


 ****************************

Apologetics 315's page dedicated to Craig Keener
http://www.apologetics315.com/search/label/Craig%20Keener

Jason Engwer's own list of his blogs on the subject (the link is also above)
triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-christian-case-for-miracles_2.html


The following are additional related links not specifically related to Keener's book:

Disambiguating miracles 

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

The Epic Boston College Debate on the Papacy


Was the Apostle Peter the First Pope?

The following videos are the 2 Boston College Debates between Catholic apologists Scott Butler & Robert Sungenis versus Protestant apologists James White & Robert Zins which occurred in the summer of 1995.

Debate 1 deals with the BIBLICAL evidence for or against the Papacy

http://youtu.be/K7kehrfDMI8

Debate 2 deals with the HISTORICAL evidence for or against the Papacy

http://youtu.be/fmljIcyK1lA

Together, both debates are over 4 hours long. But, in my opinion, definitely worth listening to.

I first listened to these debates about a decade ago. I personally think the Protestants won both debates. However, I say that as a former Catholic, and current Protestant. So, I might be biased in that opinion. But you can now decide for yourself, thanks to YouTube.