Breaking News: Jesus Did Not Exist (Part II)

Christ and the Rich Young Ruler, by Heinrich Hofmann, 1889. Courtesy Wikipedia.

Paragraph 5

Even if Mark did indeed omit the account of Christ’s resurrection, virtually every book of the New Testament claims this fact. Omission is not disagreement, nor is it relevant to Mr. Sosa’s thesis.

Paragraph 6

Again, the article’s author is merely grasping at straws now. Among the people that discovered Jesus’ empty tomb, Mary Magdalene is mentioned in all four Gospels, and Mary the mother of James was mentioned in three of the four. Since these four accounts were written by four different authors, it’s reasonable to expect different attentions to details. But again, omission is not contradiction.

Paragraph 7

Poor debaters like to throw the dogs off their trail by claiming that their arguments are already “established,” irrefutable facts, regardless the number of holes. This paragraph could have easily been omitted, not that it would have saved the rest of the article’s downward spiral.

Paragraph 8

How many days after His resurrection did Jesus ascend into Heaven? Mr. Sosa is right that, on the surface at least, Luke and Mark claim that Jesus ascended the same day that He rose from the dead (their accounts are nearly identical; Matthew makes no mention of the ascension). But what the article fails to mention is that while the Book of Acts claims that Jesus ascended into Heaven after 40 days, it is widely believed that its author is Luke himself. If that is the case, then I would be more likely to believe that the seemingly rushed endings of the two Gospels were not meant to be taken as a literal timeline of events. This might warrant some more research.

Paragraph 9

In this paragraph, the author again states his opinion that the issues he has brought up are “problematic” to the existence of Jesus. I hope I have shown that that is not necessarily the case. The rest is a side-swipe at Jesus’ moral character and teaching, for which he only refers to a list of Jesus’ supposed self-contradictions, written by “a new convert to Islam.” Most of the items in this list are taken out of context and are easily explained, without any hand-waving or fudging of the text. If you have studied the Bible enough to reconcile God’s commandment to not kill, with His commands to destroy various nations in and around the land of Canaan, you would see right through this list. Perhaps that’s a topic for another post.

Paragraph 10

Unnecessary paragraph, strictly expressing the author’s opinion, without any further . Moving on....

Paragraphs 11 and 12

Dr. Erhman is an avowed agnostic, who is against organized religion, particularly the Big Three monotheistic ones, so he is naturally biased (as are Mr. Sosa and myself). Consider this: Ancient Babylon’s Hanging Gardens are considered one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, despite the lack of documentation on when and where they existed. Jesus has far more supporting evidence, from multiple authors, most of whom happen to be found in a collection of work that we call The Bible.

Paragraph 13

As I quoted at the beginning of my rebuttal, most scholars agree that there is more than enough evidence to prove that Jesus did indeed live and was crucified, in the timeframe described in the Bible. I have not researched the reliability of documents by Justin Martyr, but my reading into Tacitus' and Josephus’ accounts of the one called Jesus confirms that most experts agree that at least some measure of their writing concerning Jesus is genuine.

I will not attempt to read Dan Barker’s books, going under the assumption that if he indeed managed to prove that God and Jesus never existed, I would have read about it on Yahoo News.

Paragraph 14

I was taught in school to always end my persuasive essays with an excellent clinching paragraph. This is not it. Instead, we are presented with more opinion and a reference to an article about Jesus-like copy-cats, none of whom (1) fulfilled dozens of verifiable Old Testament prophecies and (2) influenced an entire globe for nearly two millennia... and still counting.

Like Mr. Sosa, there is so much more that I could write, but my rebuttal is already longer than the original article. If you need more of a convincer, please also see Wikipedia’s “Jesus of Nazareth” article. In the meantime, I will humbly allow the Apostle Paul to conclude my rebuttal and will continue to pray that the Lord will move the hearts of Chris Sosa and atheists/agnostics like him, as He did my own heart.

“Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice” (Philippians 1:15-18).

Breaking News: Jesus Did Not Exist (Part I)

Christ and the Rich Young Ruler, by Heinrich Hofmann, 1889. Courtesy Wikipedia.

Apparently, Jesus never existed... ... or at least that’s what Huffington Post blogger Chris Sosa claims. This is interesting to me, because even as an atheist, I took the historical existence of the man called Jesus of Nazareth as a foregone conclusion. In fact, here is an excerpt from the introduction to Wikipedia’s “Historicity of Jesus” article (copied on 9/4/2014):

“The majority viewpoint among scholars is that Jesus existed, but scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the parts of his life that have been recorded in the Gospels. Scholars who believe that Jesus existed differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts, but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4BC and died 30–36 AD, that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, that he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate and that he lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere. The theory that Jesus never existed at all has very little scholarly support.”

What I find even more interesting is that Mr. Sosa chose not to attack Jesus’ divinity, which may be easier fodder for an atheist than Jesus’ mere existence. At any rate, for the sake of some who may actually believe his arguments, and as an exercise in apologetics, I would like to spend a little time analyzing the article.

Paragraph 1

Sosa first tries to dismiss the teaching of Jesus by implying that (1) they originate only from Him (yes, my use of capitalization betrays my bias), and (2) their application in moral discussions is a recent development. However, Jesus and His followers made it very clear that the Gospel is really just an extension of the Mosaic Law, found in the Old Testament. Jesus said:

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment...” (Matthew 5:21-22).

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28).

“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40).

And His moral teachings are the basis for our own laws, as evidenced by the writings of our nation’s founding fathers. See William Federer’s “America’s God and Country” for details. In fact, until the last 50 years, there wasn’t really much of a need to invoke Christian morality, because the vast majority of Americans already subscribed to it, even if they weren’t Christian.

Paragraph 2

I assume this is Sosa’s disclaimer that he could be wrong, and that Jesus actually existed? I’m not really sure what he’s trying to say here. Is the difference between a Jesus and the Jesus rooted in the number of followers He garnered?

Paragraph 3

This is a thesis paragraph of sorts. While subsequent paragraphs will be discussed in greater detail below, I wish to address the generalizations that Sosa makes here. He claims that the four Gospels and Paul’s letter’s (others wrote letters, too, so are they included in this generic statement?) depict contradicting portraits of Jesus. But the only contradictions provided regard relatively minor details surrounding His birth, death, and resurrection. None of the New Testament books disagree about the most basic facts: that Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified and died, that He physically rose from the dead, and that He ascended back into Heaven. His recorded teachings also contain no contradictions worthy of Mr. Sosa’s explicit mention.

Paragraph 4

The Gospels of Luke and Matthew clearly disagree about key events surrounding Jesus’ birth. Timing issues aside, the two don’t directly contradict one another. Luke records the taxing and the manger scene, but omits any references to the famous Wise Men, Herod’s infamous slaying of children, or the young family’s flight to Egypt. Matthew, on the other hand, recounts the latter three, but does not mention the taxing, the manger scene, or even the Star of Bethlehem. Interesting how popular culture mashed all these elements together, into one seemingly cohesive account.

Reading the Wikipedia article on Quirinius (Cyrenius), I concede that the timing of Herod’s reign and Cyrenius’ taxing appear incompatible, but I think this is the only valid point Mr. Sosa manages to make; hardly a smoking gun for the non-existence of history’s arguably most influential person.
While the Gospels of Mark and John begin at the start of Jesus’ ministry, Luke and Matthew both agree on the essentials of Jesus’ birth, many of which were prophesied in the Old Testament: born in Bethlehem, to a virgin named Mary, who was married to Joseph, both of whom were of the tribe of Judah and descendants of King David.

By the way, there are plenty of historical figures whose exact birthdates (or birth-years, even) are unknown. The ancient world wasn’t nearly as into record-keeping as we are today. Unless you were born into a ruling family, your existence typically went undocumented and unnoticed. Jesus was born the son of a Jewish carpenter, shunned political office and fame, and had followers who were zealously persecuted both by the Jews and the occupying Romans. It’s no wonder that there are few records of Him, outside of the Bible, during the first couple centuries AD (in case you were wondering, AD is short for Anno Domini, which is Latin for Year of Our Lord).

To be concluded...

Creation vs. Evolution (Part 3)

This post was written on the occasion of the recent debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, which my wife has just blogged about and which you may view here, for a limited time (forward past the 13-minute countdown at the beginning). The image above was captured during Ken Ham's presentation.

Even though I said that Ken Ham set the bar too high for the debate, I think he was far more prepared than Bill Nye and built the stronger case. Nevertheless, both debaters raised some very good points, which their opponent failed to counter. And likewise, both made statements that they failed to back up with proper reasoning.

No Death Prior to the Fall?
The lynchpin behind the Young Earth model that Answers In Genesis promotes is their Biblically-derived belief that there was no physical death whatsoever before Adam and Eve sinned by eating of the Forbidden Fruit. Ken Ham made the point that since there was no death before mankind’s fall, then the fossil record cannot predate the existence of man, hence it cannot be used to show that the earth is much older than mankind. However, as a man who has studied the Bible for many years, I don’t see Scripture making a strong case for this belief, and Ken Ham did not spend any time explaining the theological reasoning behind it. He also missed a golden opportunity to point out Bill Nye’s lack of preparation, when Mr. Nye incorrectly stated that Ken Ham believes that there was no death prior to Noah’s Flood, which actually occurred long after the Fall.

Belief in Creation Hampers Innovation?
At the core of Bill Nye’s arguments is his often-stated declaration that only an acceptance of evolution leads to innovation, and that belief in Creation greatly hampers it. But he made no effort at explaining how he arrived at these conclusions. Quite to the contrary, Ken Ham gave specific examples of Creation scientists throughout history, who made significant scientific discoveries and technological inventions. He also challenged Bill Nye to give a single example of an innovation founded upon evolution; Mr. Nye ignored the challenge altogether, choosing instead to restate his belief, without any further explanation.

Problems With the Fossil Record
Ken Ham failed to mention any of the problems related to the mainstream analysis of the fossil record. A series of books and videos, called Evolution: The Grand Experiment, expose the remarkable similarities between supposedly ancient fossils and modern animals. In case after case, scientists gave totally different designations to fossilized samples that had no significant difference from modern-day counterparts.

Magnetic Field Changes, Ice Cores, and Tree Rings
Bill Nye mentioned three compelling arguments for an Old Earth model, apart from the typical radiometric techniques. By observing rocks at the ocean floor, it has been noted that the polarity of the earth’s iron core has reversed multiple times. Although the process has never been observed in recorded history, there is compelling evidence that it has happened many times in the past, requiring much longer time than 6000 years. In addition, layers in ice cores extracted from the polar regions and annual rings in trees, also raise serious questions about the Young Earth model. Yet, Ken Ham failed to provide any counter-argument or flaw, in response to these points.

Micro-Biology
One of Intelligent Design’s strongest arguments is that the incredible complexity of DNA and the molecular processes inherent in multi-cellular life forms could not possibly have come about by random, gradual mutations and natural selection, as proposed by the Theory of Evolution. I personally find this field of science to hold the most compelling evidence that we were indeed created by God, and yet Ken Ham barely even mentioned this.

I doubt anyone expected this event to settle the Creation vs. Evolution question, but the debate at least gave people some food for thought and, I'm sure, spurred many discussions and internet searches on science and the Bible.

Calvinism and Arminianism Reloaded

Several years ago, I wrote a trilogy of posts on the rudimentary difference between Calvinism and Arminianism, two significant schools of thought within Christian theology. In its purest sense, the former results in a "once saved, always saved" view of salvation, by grace alone, ignoring works altogether. The latter is often misinterpreted as salvation through works alone, ignoring grace altogether. These are, of course, exaggerations of the teachings of these two men, both of whom must have understood that the Bible, particularly the NT, tells us that salvation is a synergy of both grace and works. If you have not read those posts yet, I strongly recommend that you do that first, because whether you know it or not, if you claim to be a Christian, your worldview has been influenced by these two theologies.

Our church's bulletin this week contained this pithy saying: "Salvation is not a reward for the righteous; it's a gift for the guilty!"

This, of course, immediately brought to mind the grace vs. works debate. I get that they're trying to remind us that we cannot earn our way into Heaven, and that is true, but in the effort to sound clever, the writer ignores God's call to righteousness and holiness, "without which no man shall see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14). Or how does it stand against the claim that God "is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him" (Heb. 11:6b)?

And if salvation is solely a gift, requiring no effort on our part, why, then, did Paul feel pressed to write the following?

Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway (1 Cor. 9:24-27).

Salvation is indeed a gift, offered to us through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ crucified, not by the will of man, but that of God. But let us not rest easy, falsely believing that no heart-change and no "fruits of the Spirit" are necessary, lest we find ourselves before the Lord on that Last Day, counted among the goats, and we hear Jesus say to us, "I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity" (Luke 13:27).

Therefore, since we are indeed called to be holy, we all must stand with Paul and say, "I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:14).

Why Are We Here? (Part II)

And now, without further ado, here is the conclusion to my recent Sunday message.

1 Tim. 3:1-5 (qualifications for a bishop’s office)

A church leader must first be a good family man, successful head of his own home. That doesn’t mean bossing everybody else around, but being the spiritual leader of the family. It’s important for all of us to raise our children well, because they are the next generation. As parents, God has put us in charge of raising our kids to follow Him. There is no greater responsibility, and no greater failure, in our society today.

Gen. 3:17-19 (God’s curse on Adam)

I think of this verse whenever I’m out doing some hard task in our back yard, with the hot sun beating down on me. But the fact is that the man’s primary task is to provide for his family. We need to put food on the table, but the nature of how we work is very different today than it was in the days when Christ was on Earth. Instead of working our own field or applying our trade in our own little shop, most jobs today involve working alongside dozens or hundreds of others. Now, more than ever, we have a daily opportunity to live out our faith at our workplace and witness to our co-workers. Unfortunately, the flip-side is that many employers have strict rules that ban proselytizing, in the name of political correctness, of course. Likewise, the wife’s traditional duty is to be keeper of the home and be the children’s primary instructor. Our society today, led by the feminists of the latter half of the 20 century, has pressurred women to leave the home and enter the workforce, leaving the most important duty on the planet to daycare and television. Combined with the ever-increasing costs of living and the recent recession, today’s man has to work all that much harder, if he wants to be the sole breadwinner in his home.

Matt. 28:18-20 (The Great Commission)

Some say that the Great Commission has already beel fulfilled, because you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who hasn’t heard about Jesus. But did Jesus say, “Make sure everyone heard of Me”? No, He said “teach” and “baptize”. The teaching requires perseverence and commitment. Baptism implies conversion, not by threats and intimidation, but a genuine conversion that comes through patience, love, and a faithful presentation of the Gospel. I think it’s harder to do this here, in a country where an overwhelming majority already claim to be Christians, but have a skewed vision of Jesus and God’s plan of Salvation. It is harder to undo the brainwashing of our own society than it is to present the Gospel to a pagan people, whose minds have not been already corrupted with wrong ideas.

Luke 22:24-27 (Serve!)

This might seem simple, but when you boil it all down, each one of us is here to serve others. What better way to follow Jesus Christ’s own example? We lead our families by serving. We instruct our children by serving. We put bread on the table by serving (literally and figuratively!). We submit to our spouses by serving. We witness to the unsaved by serving. But if we sin, we only serve ourselves. If we willfully neglect our duty as a servant, it is to serve ourselves, which benefits no one.

“So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do” (Luke 17:10).

Why Are We Here? (Part I)

I'm not an ordained minister, neither do I possess any degrees in theology, but I am a child of God, and I like to preach at our church, on occasion.  Recently, the Lord led me to address a question that many ask of God or the universe: "Why am I here?"  I've been having issues with making videos recently, so instead, I will share my notes with you.  Because my notes are usually quite lengthy, I'm splitting this post into two parts.  Enjoy!

This is a classic worldview question, and one of the most important. A worldview is a system of beliefs, assumptions, or doctrines that we use to interpret the world around us. Everyone has a worldview, whether they know it or not. The man-on-street’s answer to this question will quickly reveal what he thinks about God. One might talk about the Creator. Another about karma. Still another about primordial soup and random mutations.

But the man of God should probably rephrase the question to a more personal level: God, what is Your purpose for me? What do You want me to do with this life You have given me? Doing so, we not only acknowledge God, our Creator, as a personal being with Whom we can converse, but also recognize that He has a Grand Plan for His creation, and each one of us fits into it a little differently, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle.

1 Cor. 3:10-15 (wood, hay, and stubble are burned up)

I have a giant to-do list. I was reading these verses last week and started to think about the items on that list. Which are gold, silver, and precious stones? Which are wood, hay, and stubble? As big as that list is (over 70 items!), and as little time as I always seem to have, I can’t afford to work on things that will be burned up at the last day. Ironically, some tasks that seem like gold are actually stubble, and vice-versa. Let’s get some examples and guidelines from God’s Holy Word.

Matt. 25:14-30 (parable of the talents)

God blesses each one of us with abilities and possessions of various kinds, but it is our responsibility to use these blessings responsibly and in a way that will bring glory to God and further His Kingdom. Squandering what He has given us, including the very breath that fills our lungs, makes us like the slothful servant who hid his lord’s money in the ground. Ask God how He wants you to use what He’s given you.

Ex. 3:1-10, 4:10-12 (God calls Moses)

Moses was about 80 years old when God finally called on him to bring the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land. What does that teach us about patiently waiting on the Lord? Moses must have felt that he was special. Out of all the Hebrews, he alone was called the Pharaoh’s grandson. He even tried to be a judge for his people, but the plan backfired, and he had to flee. He spent much of his adult life as a shepherd. Ever wonder what he thought of his life and if he thought God had given up on him? I wonder how many nightmares he had about his Jewish brethren, who were suffering under the yoke of the Pharaoh. And yet, God used this time to prepare Moses for the task that lay ahead.

John 21:1-22 (Peter, the fisher of men)

After Jesus’ resurrection, Peter and six other disciples went back to being fishermen. This might have been fine, except it wasn’t what Jesus wanted for them, particularly Peter. You might’ve noticed, but Peter seemed to have a hard time even finding the fish, without Jesus’ help! Jesus asked Peter not once, but three times if he loved Him more than fishing, and asked him to feed His sheep. Putting God first means not letting our own interests keep us from doing His work.

To be continued...

Calvinism and Arminianism (Part III)

This is the conclusion of my series on Calvinism and Arminianism. If you do not yet know very much about these Christian theologies, each portrait links you to the respective Wikipedia articles.

Now that I've discussed the fundamental issue that I believe the two theologies are trying to address, let me answer three other very critical questions:

Does God hold us accountable for our actions? Calvinism, if taken to an extreme, might be interpreted to teach that what we do doesn't matter. If God decides who is saved and who isn't, then what I do has no bearing on my salvation, and witnessing to others is unnecessary, since their standing at the Judgment was pre-determined before the beginning of time (predestination). However, James' exhortation to bear the fruits of our salvation and Jesus' Great Commission are fully valid and cannot be ignored. No matter what roles election and free will play in salvation, we cannot shirk our responsibilities as children of God.  Jesus said, "It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!" (Luke 17:1).  And of Judas Iscariot, He said, "The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born" (Matthew 26:24).

Can we ever lose our salvation? If I hear "once saved, always saved" one more time, I think I'm going to hurl. Oops! I just typed it again! Excuse me a sec.... Seriously though, I don't like this term because it suggests that we can do whatever we want, and we'll still be OK.  Add to that pastors and ministers of almost every denomination declaring over and over that "we're all sinners", and any hope of victory all but vanishes.  Of course, we've already established that taking it to that extreme is foolhardy, but it puts us on a slippery slope that I prefer to stay off of.  Anyway, this doctrine is probably most directly derived from John 10:28 ("neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand") and Romans 8:35-39 ("[nothing] shall be able to separate us from the love of God").   If there's enough interest among my readership, I could probably spend an entire post (or two, or three) on this question alone, but for the time being, I want to try to guess how our two theologies would answer.

I think the Calvinist would take us back to election and say that it's really a moot point.  Since salvation is something that was decided before God even gave Adam breath, the elect will bear fruits worthy of repentance and the unsaved (even if they once claimed to be saved) were never actually saved in the first place.  On the other hand, the Arminian would point to free will and state that since we are always free to obey or disobey God, salvation is something that can be refused (through the rebellion of sin) or reclaimed (through the obedience of repentance).  This latter view is what I believe, but I also know that (1) God wants us to be assured of our salvation, and (2) He doesn't want us stuck in an endless rut of sinning and repenting.  That's why I also believe that through the Holy Spirit, He gives us the power to resist sin and live free of its grip.  But that's a topic for another post. :)

And finally, how do the Calvinist and Arminian differ in their Christian walks?  Short answer: they don't... or at least they shouldn't!  Regardless what one believes about election and free will, we have a duty to live by Jesus' two "love commandments", spread the gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth, and live each day as if He's returning tomorrow.  The Calvinist and the Arminian both repented of their sins and forsook the things of this Earth for the treasures that no moth or rust can corrupt and which no thief can lay a finger on.  The same Holy Spirit dwells in both of them and gives them reassurance of their salvation.  They both bear the fruits of the Spirit and are a shining light for God wherever they go.  They will both be dressed in robes of white in that Beautiful City, standing shoulder-to-shoulder, singing, "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty!"

Doctrinal discussions (among the saved) are good if they edify, but if things get heated, take a step back and remember that you both serve the same mighty God, Whose Holy Spirit dwells in you, and you are brothers and sisters, through the One Who purchased your salvation with His very blood!  Now, who can argue with that???

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ" (Eph. 4:11-15).

Calvinism and Arminianism (Part II)

Well, since I have written a lot more than I initially planned, and I like shorter posts anyway, I decided to milk this topic for a full trilogy. How else am I going to build my average back to 2 posts a month???  ;)  Each portrait still links you to the respective Wikipedia articles.

"If God is Love, and He created us, why doesn't everyone go to Heaven?" How Calvinists and Arminians answer this question sheds some insightful light into the fundamental differences between the two theologies.

Arminianism holds that God loves everybody, but that not everyone accepts the Gift of Salvation. God knocks at people's doors, but He will not force Himself upon them. They have free will to reject Him, and the cost (if repentance is never made) is an eternity in Hell. If we dig deeper, we extract a second layer of doctrines, which teach that Jesus died for all humanity and that salvation, though not dependent on works, can be lost through unrepented sin.

Some insist that pure Arminianism promotes a works-based salvation, but that is a misinterpretation of its teachings; Jesus (see the Gospels and Revelation) and Paul (see Romans 11) were very clear that sin, if not repented of, results in loss of salvation. Arminianism is also criticized for teaching uncertainty in one's own salvation, but I see it simply as motivation to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12). Romans 8:16 assures us that "the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Therefore, by the Holy Spirit's witness, you can know that you know that you're saved!

Calvinism all but denies the existence of free will, focusing instead on election (a concept well-founded in scripture; again, see Romans and the Gospels).  God loves only the elect, which are those whom He wills to save. Although Jesus' blood on Calvary was certainly enough for all humanity, it covers only the elect. Else, why would the "unsaved" be sent to Hell, if their sins were already paid for? Repentance, then, is not an act of free will, but rather an irresistible response to the moving of the Holy Spirit in one's heart. Instead of a turning point in one's life, that marks the "decision for Christ", it is a fruit of the Spirit in one who is already saved.

In Romans 9, Paul declares that some are created for salvation and others for damnation. He also addresses the question of fairness, stating simply that God is sovereign, and therefore is the one to decide what's fair.  That may sound like a cop-out to some, but I believe it's true. Think of when you were a child, and your parents (probably) made you go to bed while it was still light out, wouldn't buy you the candy you wanted, spanked you when you were bad, made you eat broccoli, sent you to school, and forbade you from getting that skull tatoo. At the time, you probably thought it wasn't fair or that they were being mean, but you hopefully realize now that it was for your own good.  Likewise, I believe when we go to be with Him, all will make sense... either that or being in His presence will be so awesome, I won't even care!  :)

To be continued...

Calvinism and Arminianism (Part I)

John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius. Click on each, to go to their respective Wikipedia articles.

I had already been saved for several years and thought I knew a lot about Christianity and the Bible, when I began fellowshipping with one of my colleagues at work. He was a very sincere Christian and devout Biblical scholar, but some of his views were so contrary to mine, that I was taken aback. The points he was making and the terminology he used were like second-nature to him.  So much so, that neither of us seemed able to understand where the other was coming from!

That was my first exposure to Calvinism and Reformed Theology. I did not grow up in any church, and when I got saved, I was mentored with (I would later discover) an Arminian worldview. But at the time, I did not know that's what it was called, or even that there was another view, some of whose doctrines were diametrically opposed to mine... but yet, well-founded in scripture.  Since my initial discovery of the two views, I have had numerous deep discussions with Calvinists.  I still lean Arminian, but can definitely see both sides of the coin.

Recently, I had a run-in with a young and very zealous Calvinist, who pretty much picked a Theological argument with me.  He didn't say anything I hadn't heard before, but he knew his supporting scriptures much better than I knew mine, so I just backed out of the discussion.  I couldn't help but rehearse the experience over and over in my head, until I came to two revelatory conclusions, which I would like to share with you now.

I will not try to summarize the two beliefs here, but you can click on either portrait above (even though they may not look like links), to read Wikipedia articles on the theologies these men ignited. (If prompted about scripts or active content, please allow them to run.) Instead, I will focus on some core concepts and leave the deeper digging to the curious.

Both belief systems hold that humanity is inherently sinful and, but for the Grace of God, unable to seek reconcilliation with God. This is called total depravity. Closely tied to this concept is the idea that no works of man can atone for his sins and earn him salvation from an eternity in Hell. Jesus' blood is the only atonement, and a calling from God is the only way one's eyes are opened to the unmerited Gift that is free for the taking. These ideas are well-founded in scripture and you will be hard-pressed to find a Calvinist and an Arminian who will disagree on these points.

However, where the two will greatly differ is in answer to the question, "If God is Love, and He created us, why doesn't everyone go to Heaven?" Perhaps they don't consciously think in these terms, but a lot of the doctrinal differences appear (to myself, at least) to stem from their differing answers to this single question.

To be continued...