Christian Apologetic, and Social Commentary in a world gone mad
One of our readers posed a comment that I thought would make for an interesting post. The topic…why is global warming such a polarizing topic for atheists and Christians. After all doesn’t everyone want to take care of earth?
Before we look at this from a biblical perspective, let’s look at (at least at a high level) the science that is driving global warming.
At the basic level the premise for global warming is this…1) man produces harmful emissions (through technology); 2) those emissions are causing the earth to warm; 3) those emissions can/will destroy the earth if it is not stopped. I am sure that if I am wrong….some global warming advocates will appear and correct me. Recent articles have called into question the validity of the data being used to support the findings of global warming science.
The basic argument to combat global warming is good stewardship of the earth. There are extreme elements (perhaps even on the non-extreme side) that argue that more extreme measures must be taken to protect the earth (stop using gas, oil, etc…). It seems that every so often we have some who come out and propose a doomsday scenario where the earth will flood, or burn or will be un-inhabitable. These predictions (extinction of the human race, or all kinds of animals) pose some unique questions. Can man destroy the earth that God built? Better yet, if the Bible mentions nothing about the destruction of the earth by man’s hand… will it happen that way?
From a biblical perspective we should all be good stewards. Probably the most significant mention of this is the parable of the unjust steward. The point of this parable is found in Luke 16:10-12: “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?”
So how does this relate?
This parable is important because it says that we must be able to handle little so that we can be trusted with much. The parable specifically mentions wealth and property. Think about this for a second, if you throw a candy wrapper on the ground, are being trustworthy with God’s property? In essence…we are stewards over every blessing that God has given us. If we can’t be trusted with the more simplistic things (finding a trash can) then how can we be trusted with the bigger things (managing the Garbage Company). This includes the earth. We are obligated to be good stewards of it.
I recently found this list on a web site that talks about ways to involve kids in stewardship…however this is applicable to all of us as stewards:
Top 10 ways to involve kids in stewardship
| 10. | Recycle everything from cans to clothes |
| 9. | Consolidate car trips; read a book while you wait |
| 8. | Shut off lights and appliances not in use |
| 7. | Harvest what you plant, share what you harvest |
| 6. | Share clothes with a sibling or parent |
| 5. | Use e-mail rather than long distance |
| 4. | Treat possessions as valuables |
| 3. | Ride a bike or walk for short errands and exercise |
| 2. | Wipe your feet |
| 1. | Eat leftovers |
Now to the controversy…
The split, at least for me personally, is when someone who believes in global warming says that man is capable of destroying the earth. What really gets me is a Christian who says that man can destroy the earth. Such a statement, not only labels the Bible as being errant, but places man on the same plateau as God. Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating for everyone to do what they want. My family practices many of the things listed above. I cannot emphasize this enough…WE ARE TO BE GOOD STEWARDS WITH THE BLESSINGS GOD HAS GIVEN US!
Where I draw the line is on individuals who worship science over God. God has declared how this earth will meet its end. Anything other than that cuts against the grain of biblical truth and at least starts to place something over God. If science is telling you that man will destroy the earth, you know that cannot be true because God did not say they would in His Word. Case and point…global warming advocates will tell you that the earth will flood from the polar caps melting. This is in direct contradiction to the promise by God that he would never flood the earth again (Genesis 9:11). How can you believe in both? The short answer….you can’t. I have a hard time stomaching Scientists trying to tell me that the earth that God created (the most powerful God, who is capable of anything) can be destroyed by man. I resent that. We have power over nothing, and yet we can melt the world?
This, in my opinion, is why global warming advocates and Christians will tend to split when it comes to global warming. Christians will look at what is happening and say God controls it, global warming advocates will look at what is happening and say that man controls it. If you are a Christian you should avoid the temptation of believing that man can control the temperature and then worship a God that you proclaim controls everything. This is another point of the parable of the unjust steward. Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.
It’s schizophrenic to try and serve both God and the science of global warming – They are diametrically opposed to one another.
Probably one of the more hotly contested topics discussed (when it comes atheist versus Christian) is that of evolution versus creation. So many have discussed this topic, that as I was sitting thinking about a post topic I wondered if there was anything I could add to the conversation. Think about how hot this topic is. School boards deny the teaching of creationism because it is based on faith. School boards allowing evolution because it is based on “science.” Hollywood has even taken up the banner with movies like Expelled and Religulous. One has to wonder…why does the debate continue? I think this is a fair question.
The Bible offers a fairly simplistic explanation for how the universe began, “In the beginning God created”. Nothing extraordinary…except for the fact that God created everything. He had his hand in everything that was created. Now, there are many different camps inside of Christianity when it comes to the interpretation of Genesis. Some will look at 7 days as being a flat 7 days. Others will look at the verse in the Bible that a day to us is 1,000 to god, and suggest that each day was 1,000 years…7 days = 7,000 years. I am not going to focus on that difference here.
What I would like to focus on is the response one might receive when having a conversation with someone who believes in evolution as opposed to creation.
Most Evolution supporters will make the following statement “Overwhelming evidence supports this fact”. If that is the case why is it then a theory? Case and point look at this link. Notice anything? The first sentence of the second paragraph describes evolution as a fact. My question then is why describe it as a theory as well (in the first paragraph)?
ALL evolution defenders will tell you about the transitional form. This is commonly known as the missing link. Everyone has seen the picture of the chart showing the transition from monkey to man. The truth is that there has been no evidence found that supports the theory of transitional forms. This is the lynch pin of evolution. Without it evolution can never be proven.
I find the idea of a “transitional form” fascinating. Man evolved from monkey. Did that evolution stop? Think about it. If evolution is the reason that we are here, where are the living transitional forms from monkey to man? Unless evolution just said…”okay I’m done” once man had taken present shape. I mean, evolution has to be ongoing. Meaning that the evolution of the monkey would be ongoing as well. If this was the case (evolution) where is the living missing link? If evolution is ongoing as evolutionists would describe, then surely evolution would be continuing for monkeys (and other species) as well. Where is it?
Another fascinating question is “how”. It is possible to “how” the evolution theory to extinction. How? By simply asking “how did that happen?” If you ask this question enough one must admit at some point the ultimate conclusion that evolution is nothing more than an improbable theory, not a fact as it is portrayed by many.
The fact of the matter, both Evolution and Creationism are a matter of faith! Evolution is NOT science… In fact, Creationism is technically more scientific! In order for something to be “science” one must be able to observe and record the phenomena and reproduce it with a differing variables… (this is the very definition of the scientific method that most of us learned about in middle school). No scientist has observed the macro-evolutionary process happen and they certainly have not been able to recreate the generation of life, nor have they been able to cause the mutatation of any species into another! However, if one accepts the biblical principle that there is a God, then it is plausible (even probable) that He then recorded His “observations” in a record that most Christians would agree is reliable and infallible… So, again, the Christian understanding of creation is technically more scientific than the theory evolution could ever hope to be!
Yeah, I know….when compared to some of the other articles written online this seems pretty simplistic. I don’t have to be convinced that creation is right, because I know that it is. Atheists that tell you that creation can’t be proven because it requires faith are deluding themselves. It requires more faith to believe in evolution than it does creation. Evolution involves too much chance for me.
For years and years skeptics have desperately attempted to disprove the Bible. Their attempts, however, have been just that: desperate… And when a person gets desperate they start throwing out a bunch of garbage hoping that something will stick… Some examples of what they claim: The New Testament was written hundreds of years after the death of Jesus based on corrupted oral traditions and not by any eyewitnesses of the crucifixion/resurrection, there are Discrepancies in the text…from one book to another… On and on they go, but they are far from the truth. They have so many outlandish claims against the Word of God there is no way anyone could cover them all in just one blog… so we won’t even attempt… However, from time to time we will try to give a high level response to some of the more common “claims” against the Bible.
A while back Robert posted our first piece on this topic. In this post he briefly mentioned verses where the biblical authors affirmed the authority of and usefulness of scripture… Granted, that piece necessarily contained a large amount of what could rightly be called circular logic (using what the Bible says to claim that the Bible is accurate) – we did that on purpose – If the Bible claims to be perfect and then is proven to be false, then you can chuck the whole thing out the window and every Christian should disavow their faith.
In fact, I will go so far as to say that if the Bible is definitively proven false, I will be the first in line to bail on Christianity – I am not willing to live or die for a lie!
Before any of you skeptics get all twitterpated thinking I’m fixing to have to eat my words, rest assured that I am 100% confident that I will never have to recant my faith in Jesus or the Bible that has told me about Him.
Let’s take a quick look at a couple of the things that have me so securely certain of the Bible.
One of the miracles Christians point to in the confirmation of the scripture is the consistency/preservation of the message of the original texts… The Bible goes far beyond being just a theological book, it is a historical document (i.e. it is a history book)… And it is absolutely the most reliable historical document in every way that historicity of ancient documents are measured. In other words, there is better support for the accuracy of the Bible than there is for any other ancient historical document upon which modern history books rely to inform us of antiquity.
The reliability of manuscripts are evaluated by the abundance, dating and accuracy – so let’s look at how the Bible stacks up against other ancient writings and histories!
Number of ancient manuscripts: Compare the NT and the OT manuscripts in terms of their number of surviving ancient manuscripts to other ancient works… Plato has 7, 10 copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, 643 copies of Homer’s works have survived… Comparatively, over 10,000 manuscripts of various OT books have been preserved… over 5,700 full ancient copies of the NT…
Date of the manuscripts: The Dead Sea Scrolls (OT) have been dated from the 3rd century BC to the end of the 1st Century AD… the earliest NT manuscripts are dated at about 117 to 138 AD. These dates (especially for the NT) are VERY close to the events they have recorded – and the original texts from which these manuscripts were copied were first written between 50 A.D. and 90 A.D. at the latest. Specifically, the Gospels (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which recount the historical story of Jesus) were written within 15 to 40 years of the crucifixion. It would be no different than a veteran of WWII writing a letter or book about his experience in the war, or of a personal friend or assistant of Ronald Reagan writing a biography about him today… Simply put, there is reliability because the manuscripts and the actual letters themselves were written and widely circulated within one generation of Christ – had the claims been false they would have been disproven and rejected by eyewitnesses who were still living then.
How do other ancient writings compare? Other notable documents accepted as historically reliable, in comparison to the NT, have a much wider gap between their origin and the earliest surviving manuscript (i.e. there is a 734 year gap for Tacitus; 900-1100 year gap for various copies of Josephus’ histories; 1000+ year gap for Caesar’s Gallic wars; Aristotle’s works have a 1,434 year difference between their originals and the earliest manuscripts). Again, the evidence for the accuracy of the biblical texts far exceeds that of other ancient documents which are widely accepted as accurate and reliable by scholars world-wide.
Reliability of the manuscripts: For the OT manuscripts (whose extremity of ages span over nearly 1000 years) the texts compare exactly (word for word) in 95% of the verbiage… the only changes can be accounted for as spelling errors and/or pen slips. Of all the variants between the manuscripts there were only a few changes in actual words, but absolutely no changes in meaning. For the NT there is 99.9% agreement between the various manuscripts (again, this is between the thousands of various manuscripts). By way of comparison, the Iliad and the Mahbarata each have 90-95% of agreement between their small number surviving ancient transcripts (The question of textual criticism – i.e. the so-called redactions and/or changes over time to the text will be more fully explored in a later post).
In light of the overwhelming evidence in support of the accuracy and unadulterated transmissions of the original Biblical texts, I don’t plan on abandoning or doubting the biblical record any more than I plan on rejecting the majority of information I learned in my High School and Collegiate history courses (and I had A LOT of them since my second degree was a BA in secondary ed. with an emphasis in Social Studies).
Note: For more details on the reliability of the Biblical texts, check out Josh and Sean McDowell’s More Than a Carpenter (specifically chapter 6). For one honestly trying to find answers to their general skepticism about God another good place to look is Timothy Keller’s The Reason for God.
SHARE THIS:
So….I have been out exploring on Google, and decided to Google “die for a lie”. Of course the first two posts are negative responses to the disciples. So I decided to peruse the blog posts, and came to the conclusion that they missed the mark on their analysis. The same analysis is basically being used by any number of atheists and includes the following arguments:
1. That there is no historical evidence that those listed in The Gospels as having seen the resurrected Christ even saw the resurrected Christ.
2. If they were not given the option to recant, then they did not die for a lie.
These two points are what a number of Atheists will use to try to define the argument in a way that is not based in truth.
That there is no historical evidence that those listed in Acts as having seen the resurrected Christ even saw the resurrected Christ.
As always, I will be operating under the fact that every word in the Gospel’s and Acts is 100% reliable, historical, fact (because it is).
I have always looked at Acts as the sequel to the Gospels (metaphorically speaking, not the literal sequal). The Empire Strikes Back to the Star Wars. The Spiderman 2 to Spiderman 1. The….well you get the idea.
Towards the end of the Gospels, Christ has been crucified. The Disciples have fled. Peter has denied Jesus three times and fled. The disciples were on the verge of giving up, they were hopeless. Any number of descriptions can be used here. The key is that the disciples thought that Christ was a King. No matter how Jesus tried to emphasize it wasn’t what they thought, they believed him to be an earthly King. When he died… they did in fact wonder… So what happened? Basically this same group who were despondent upon the death of Christ turn around and begin preaching that he was in fact God and had been resurrected as the book of Acts gets going.
So let’s put this into context. These men had witnessed His arrest. Some of them scattered after that. At least one of them witnessed his actual crucifixion. All of them knew about his death. So what would convince these men to go preach the deity and resurrection of Jesus? Not only that, but what would convince them that they needed to preach this in the face of beating’s, flogging’s, imprisonment, and ultimately… death?
The actions of individuals are always motivated by events. That is human nature. So the more appropriate question… what event took place that caused these men to go and spread the word? Acts says it is one event. Not just the resurrection of Jesus, not the empty tomb, but Jesus appearing before them in the flesh.
Now, in some of these posts I saw online there were comparisons to the people who died for Heaven’s Gate. You remember… the cult that committed mass suicide?! David Koresh is another popular tie-in here for Atheists. The Atheist wants you to believe that these people died for a lie. They would be correct in their observation. But their observation is under the auspice that the Gospel accounts and Acts are not 100% truth.
Here is the primary difference between the disciples and Heaven’s Gate. The disciples would have known that the whole thing was a lie. Think about this for just a second. Jesus had said that he would die and be resurrected three days later… If Jesus had NOT revealed himself to them… would they have gone and preached the resurrection? NO! They would have known that the whole thing was a hoax. Would they have perpetuated this hoax to become famous or rich? History (Acts specifically) shows that this most certainly was not the case. As a matter of fact only death, beatings, and imprisonment awaited these men. For the atheists’ analogy to hold true either the cult members would have had to have foreknowledge that allowed them to know definitively whether or not their leaders were who and what they claimed. The facts are that these unfortunate souls were not afforded the opportunity to see the claims of their belief system crumble.
On the other hand, the Disciples’ actions are the definitive proof that something happened to turn them from cowards to the very definition of courage. That event was documented in the Gospels, and in Acts. It could only be one thing, Christ himself in the flesh.
If they were not given the option to recant, then they did not die for a lie.
An Atheist will use this as the foundation to say that the Disciples did not die for a lie. Instead they say that there is no historical proof that ANY of the martyrs were given the opportunity to recant prior to being martyred. I say, that they absolutely were.
The presumption of the Atheist is that a Christian must be brought in, questioned and THEN be afforded an opportunity to back out on their previous claims – recant the story of Christ. I would ask… why were they arrested in the first place?
To illustrate look at the persecution of Christians by Saul.
That persecution was more like a man hunt. How do they avoid the man hunt… simply stop preaching the word! Think about it. These people were dying horrible deaths for being associated and accepting the label of Christ. If it was a lie all they would have had to do would be to stop preaching, stop associating with other Christians, etc… THAT ALONE is an outright recant of Jesus and His resurrection. But that did not happen- Which makes this all the more incredible!!! At any given time these people could have said… I am tired of ALL of this, I don’t want to die… and simply walked away.
So what can we take from this… A very real event occurred that spurred these men into action. That took them from despair to screaming about Jesus in the streets of Jerusalem. That event had to have been real, and not some conjured up story that a group of men made up. Remember most of the original disciples died a horrible death because of this event. In addition… at any time they could have simply avoided it by denying they were Christians. These men did not die for a lie. They were perhaps some of the most courageous men in the history of the world.
Here’s what one of those very men wrote just before he died for his faith: “I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things. We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
Robert – If we were to look at the most basic argument against tongues and prophecy not existing today it would come down to 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. It is here that Paul says they will cease: “8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.” So then the question becomes, when, and has perfection come? Kevin has offered two points here. He states that because tongues is not mentioned in the Epistles after 1 Corinthians that tongues ceased then. Then he suggested that perhaps the perfection that is mentioned is the canonized Bible. If we take both of those statements at face value, then there is a time contradiction. It has to be either or, and cannot be both.
There is another point that I have to make here because Kevin has eluded to it on several occasions. The Bible is clear as to how these gifts are to be used. Tongues/ Prophesy have abusers just as does many aspects of the Bible. That fact cannot support the argument against tongues and prophecy. If you were to base any argument based on that rule, then you would have to eliminate several portions of the Bible.
History has shown that God can move in a number of ways. Historically, we have to remember the shock waves that were sent by Martin Luther and John Calvin during the reformation. They were labeled heretics, not true to doctrine. Similar to today, there are those who would deny any reformation or revival because it does not fit into their world view. A play that would be and possibly is similar to the response of the Catholic Church during the reformation. If it was possible then, why is it so impossible now?
Kevin – In total, my impression of Robert’s argumentation reminds me of the old adage “where there’s smoke there’s fire”. We all know that’s not true. It’s like Robert’s saying: Smoke doesn’t necessarily mean a current fire… Maybe the fire was put out… nor does a fire truck roaring by – there could be an accident. But when you see a fire truck roaring by, then you look to the horizon and see smoke and then as you get closer to the smoke you feel heat most reasonable people would say that there is most likely a fire… What’s most reasonable?
1 Corinthians 13 doesn’t say when tongues will cease… so, I guess, they could maybe still be current. Silence in scripture about sign gifts for the most part doesn’t necessarily mean that 1 Corinthians 13 has been fulfilled… Sign gifts disappearing almost completely off the scene historically from after the apostolic era until about 100 years ago (except in rare and dubious circumstances) isn’t an air-tight case against the biblical validity of their current manifestation – maybe God had no use for them then (why does He need them now?)… But, when you take all these into account… Where there’s fire trucks, and smoke and intense heat… What’s more reasonable… Fire or maybe no fire?
Look… If Robert’s point is to argue that God CAN assign the sign gifts to Christians in the modern era, I will concede the debate – God CAN do anything He wants. However, if he is trying to talk about what happens currently then the history of how this doctrine came to be debated in modern times needs to be examined. Now, to be fair, Robert has divorced himself from groups who have propagated sign gifts in a way that is inconsistent with 1 Corinthians 14. The problem is that the modern practice of tongues and “prophetic words” had resurgence and kept momentum due in large part to groups and theologians who, by and large, do not conform to biblical mandates regarding how they should be used (see 1 Corinthians 14) and/or make them an additional requirement for salvation (a notation that is clearly unbiblical). Again, this IS NOT Robert’s position, however the modern manifestation of sign gifts are, to use a law term, fruit from the poison tree. This wouldn’t even be an issue had the current manifestations not happened.
In looking at the whole picture to determine our present circumstances, one must examine Scripture (1 Corinthians 13:8-10, among others); look at the silence in the scriptures about this issue after Paul said that they would stop; look at the historical use of spiritual gifts in total; look at the history of the use of these gifts in light of 1 Corinthians 14 and then ask themselves: What’s more reasonable and logical? That the sign gifts took an 1800+ year hiatus and are now completely valid. Has God left 1800+ years of Christians without some key revelations that He is just now revealing to these generations? Should we assume that God is erratic or inconsistent or schizophrenic since the end of the apostolic era? Or should we take 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 at face value; cling to the fact that the Bible is perfect and sufficient for instruction and prophecy; and trust that God has been consistent in the post-apostolic era? Which position is more logical and reasonable?
Overall, however, I think a focus on the “powers” of the Holy Spirit is a bit misguided. I think a better focus (especially in light of how the spiritual gifts lists interplay with the theme of love in 1 Corinthians 13) is for us to focus on the FRUIT of the Spirit (see Galatians 5:22-26). We should use whatever gift(s) God has given us to love one another and to strengthen the church and to point others to Jesus. Let’s do a better job of that and leave the secondary/tertiary issues alone until we get the primary stuff down cold. Let’s focus on how the Holy Spirit empowers us to live a godly life and then submit to His leadings. Robert and I have done our best to do that in our own lives and in our friendship with one another in spite of our differences on this topic.
I have a hard time limiting the ability of God to allow someone to speak in tongues or prophesize. The whole Bible demonstrates various ways that the Holy Spirit moves. None of them are identical.
Robert – God is capable of doing anything that is not contradictory to Himself. Allowing these powers to continue on today is not a contradiction to any Bible verse. If God wants people to speak in tongues, He can and will make that happen.
Kevin – Rest assured. No one is trying to limit what God can or cannot do – You or I certainly could not even if we tried. Beyond that, I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Of course the Holy Spirit does things differently with different people, just look at 1 Corinthians 12:4-6: Gifts are used in different ways to serve the Church and those different means of service are worked out differently by each individual. I have a hard time getting my brain and heart around the concept of Hell… Does that make it any less real… any less biblical? Of course not. God said that tongues and prophecy would cease – Why because He couldn’t sustain them… Again, of course not!
No one is questioning God’s ability to give the gift of tongues or prophecy to people, rather the question is whether He does give people the gift of prophecy and tongues. God could give people any number of abilities… the question is not can He, but why would He? The same has to be asked of tongues and prophecy, especially in light of the fact that (in spite of your dismissing 1 Corinthians 13:8-10) He said He would stop giving those gifts at some point.
One more thing that needs to be pointed out… we need to clarify what we are talking about when we mention prophecy… I am NOT talking about the simple bold proclamation/preaching of the Word of God, but rather the supernatural ability to accurately predict the future – i.e. reveal an, before unforeseen portion of God’s plan. Claiming that gift is still needed is, in essence, claiming that the Bible is incomplete and inadequate – it is saying that God has not sufficiently revealed His plan and intentions for mankind and the earth. I have a hard time limiting the completeness and perfection of the Scriptures that way.
Omission of the prophecy/tongues gifts from the Epistles is NOT admission they have stopped.
Robert – My understanding of the Epistles is that they are not a complete look at God. They were written to answer very specific issues for the growth of specific churches that allow us to learn. There is theology involved but it is specifically aimed at specific circumstances. Paul wrote ad nauseam about tongues in 1 Corinthians (Chapters 12, 13 and 14). Then it seemingly disappears. That to me is not an indication that tongues ceased… rather, to me it could indicate Paul instructed his students so well that it was no longer an issue.
This issue ties in with the previous issue in my mind. How about this… Perhaps there was no need for tongues or prophecy during those previous revivals. I mean let’s be honest here… what would have happened during the medieval age if someone was speaking in tongues? They would have been drawn and quartered or tried as a witch. Would it make more sense for the Holy Spirit move in a way that was conducive to the environment? My answer would be yes.
Kevin – Robert brings up an interesting point… Why did Paul quit talking about how the sign gifts should be regulated? Why do the other NT writers not address the topic? The burden of proof is upon Robert to demonstrate why this topic drops off the face of the earth after Paul says that tongues will cease, if it’s not because they HAVE ceased.
Robert – To answer your other question… Why do the other NT writers not address the topic? Speaking of hermeneutics you of all people should know that the Epistles are not a complete theology. These books are Paul and Peter addressing specific theological issues as they arose. To say that because there is an absence of issue there is an absence of power is insane. I may not talk to my wife about a communication for months…it doesn’t mean that we aren’t communicating. Seriously, Kevin! Your Pastor may not talk about regeneration for a year…it doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit has stopped! Burden of proof is on you Kevin because neither of us contest that tongues were there. You say they simply stopped because they were no longer talked about…Prove it.
Kevin – I never said that they “simply stopped because they weren’t talked about”. I said that Paul said they would stop, THEN shortly after, he stopped talking about it. This is a classic attempt at twisting my words. I’m not going to hang the entire debate on an argument from silence. There’s any number of possible reasons as to why God didn’t speak about these gifts elsewhere, but the silence coupled with 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 and history make it pretty clear as to why. You have to take the argument in context and in light of the rest of the debate. Also, shame on any pastor who would not talk about salvation for a whole year… they’d be completely ignoring the Great Commission – I’d not be a part of a church like that – that’s ludicrous.
1 Corinthians 13 does not mean that tongues/prophecy stopped in the apostolic era.
Robert – There is no date or time stamp assigned to 1 Corinthians 13:8. There is only the vague reference offered in verse 9 that states when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. There is only one perfection: God. Since perfection has not come… then one could argue that these gifts have not ceased.
Kevin – If “tongues and prophecies will (have) ceased” is not what 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 says, then, what does it say? One cannot say that something with seemingly plain meaning doesn’t mean what it plainly seems to mean without offering a plausible suggestion as to what it DOES mean. The text clearly states tongues (one of the “sign gifts”) will cease – the questions are when and why?
You say that the only thing that is perfect is God. What about God’s word (i.e. the Bible)? I would suggest that in light of Hebrews 2, the “perfect” thing spoken of in 1 Cor. 13 is the canon (i.e. the 66 books we call the Holy Bible). Once all the books of the Bible were written and in circulation there was no need for miraculous validation of what was being taught, because by and large early church leaders exclusively taught from the writings that soon after became the “Holy Bible.” These teachings (and the letters from which they came) had already been validated and accepted as truth. Given your high view on the Bible (see your previous post on biblical inerrancy) I am surprised you do not consider the Bible perfect!
Robert – Kevin you want to talk about putting words in someone’s mouth! I said God was perfect. I figured that you would know this… that if God is perfection, his word is also. Lets not be ridiculous.
Kevin you can’t have it both ways. Did tongues and prophecy end with the apostolic era (approx 33 A.D – 100 A.D) or did they end with the canonization of the New Testament (approx 374 AD)? If you believe that it ended when perfection came (canonized bible) then that is well beyond the apostolic era. If you believe they ended with the apostolic era then what is perfection and when did it come?
Kevin – Actually, I’m not trying to have it both ways. The epistles and books that became the Bible were in wide circulation well before the formal settling of the cannon. The cannon was settled upon (through God’s direction) the miraculous and wondrous signs that helped confirm the validity and authority of the apostles and other church leaders, was no longer required, because they were already accepted as scripture (check out 2 Peter 3:15-16). The acceptance of the cannon supports the idea that prophecy had ceased because the church fathers in 374 AD determined that there was no further revelation that was required past Revelation (widely considered the last of the biblical books to be written), and they therefore closed the canon. Further “revelation” and “prophecy” had not occurred from the end of the apostolic era (approximately 85-86 AD) through 374 AD when the canon was finalized – this is STRONG evidence for the cessation of the type prophecy you are advocating.
Why again would it cease? Because we have the only source needed to know with certainty what God wants and requires. There is no need for further “prophesies” (foretelling of the future of the Church), or revelations, etc. Because God has already given us enough material to chew on and apply in our lives – the Bible is complete, and perfect and sufficient for one to study without supplement – all other theological instruction should be commentary upon God’s Word, not addition to it – this is where many cults get in trouble (i.e. Mormons, Muslims…) by saying that the Bible is insufficient and needs to be added to and/or correction – that is what both Joseph Smith and Mohamed claimed. But hey, if you think the Bible is inadequate for instruction and that God needs to reveal more prophecies, knock yourself out – I just can’t go there.
The lack of historical evidence of prophecy/tongues/healing in historical revivals does not mean that they have ceased, it only means that perhaps God had no use for it then.
Robert – I look at it this way… If historically a group of people thought that the earth was flat, would they live their lives according to that idea? If, historically, men are closed off to the idea that there is healing/prophecy/tongues would they exist? The fact that tongues/prophecy was not used previously for revivals does not mean that they no longer exist. As I have already established…There is no repetitive nature to the Holy Spirit. What is good for one age/revival may not have been good for another. God knows what will work and when it will work. Not you.
Kevin – This argument of Robert’s doesn’t hold water. God predicted that at some point sign gifts would cease. Then they disappear off the scene for like 1800+ years only to be resurrected and we are supposed to just accept that God has suddenly, without reason or precedent decided to start granting the gifts of tongues and prophecy? In Acts, tongues were used to validate certain movements of the Spirit and yet there are no records of tongues during the Reformation or prophecies of that movement beforehand. One would think that these would be immeasurably useful to legitimize the massive changes taking place in Christianity… And yet, nothing. Strange.
Another thing Robert fails to answer is: Why tongues now? Why additional prophecy now? Robert’s only defense is “Why Not?” I don’t know why God chose to inspire Paul to write 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. I don’t know why God has done or refrained from doing a lot of the things He has, and I don’t worry myself with much of it – His ways are higher than mine. However, in light of Christian History, Scripture, and the history of the manifestation of spiritual gifts and the circumstances surrounding the relatively recent resurgence of tongues and prophecies these current manifestations are dubious at best.
SHARE THIS:
 | Edmond on Dino Dan the atheist |
 | Carmen on I’ll Ask for Forgiveness… |
 | B. Amyx on The Museum of the Bible |
 | SOLOMON POWELL on More reliable…Aristotle… |
| 40 coisas que voc… on U2’s Bono interview abou… | |
| 40 Things You Never… on U2’s Bono interview abou… | |
 | denise on Dino Dan the atheist |
 | jason on Dino Dan the atheist |
 | Justin on Dino Dan the atheist |
 | Tony on Laminin: Chance or Design… |
No Apologizing 
HOLY WAR (but NOT Jihad)!!!
God’s Word makes it very clear that all Christians are in a very dangerous and deadly battle – we are called to MAKE WAR! That is why we are given instructions on how and who and with which weapons we are expected to fight. Check out what Eph 6:10-18 has to say about it:
10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
Not only are we expected to fight, but we are expected to WIN – BIG TIME (cf. Romans 8:37).
Over the coming days we are going to look at the various aspects of the Armor of God… and see how each to be used to increase our effectiveness for our Supreme Commander-in-Chief. But before we strap on the Armor and go out Rambo-style to kick tail and take names I think it’s important for us to examine just exactly who who or what is/are the enemy.
Far too often I see Christians assuming that we need to fight against people and their messed up thinking… their ideologies (aka their politics), but it seems to me that verse 12 above makes it pretty clear that this is not the case. Let’s take a peek at what God says about it elsewhere (Ephesians 2:1-3):
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.
One can derive from this passage, and the one from chapter 6 above, that Christians have three basic enemies: the World (culture), Satan/the Devil, and our own wicked Flesh… NOT other people!!! Nowhere does it talk about political entities… Hmmm…
Now for those of you who know me you know that I personally have a massive disdain for certain political views and that most of these views are held dear by a certain political party here in our country. This, of course, leads me to have VERY strong negative feelings about that party. But I have to stop and ask myself are rage… frustration… outrage… disgust… against a political party (and thus many of the people in it) a good use of my time and energy?
If our enemies are the World, our own flesh and Satan, aren’t we already fighting on 3 fronts? No military expert would tell you that is a winning battle plan… So why on earth would we want to add a 4th? It is a losing strategy, it is harmful to other people, the reputation of Christ and when you get down to the bottom of it, in almost every instance, fighting against other people it is downright sinful…
When I studied this out to teach it on our recent youth retreat I think I found that, we can reduce this fight to a two front battle. I deeply believe that if we will rightly focus our efforts it will make us more effective for the cause of Christ – I welcome your comments on whether or not the following makes sense.
In spiritual warfare we often (rightly?) begin by focusing on Satan as the primary enemy. Let’s look at some of his names (characteristics) to understand him better and fight him better. As I studied out his names I saw a pattern or progression unfold that made a lot of sense to me and helped me focus my battle efforts – hope it does the same for you.
In simplest terms the Devil is God’s enemy… Satan HATES God and would love nothing more than to replace Him. We see this in these names: Satan (which means Adversary) 1 Peter 5:8; 1 Timothy 5:15; Enemy/Opponent – Matthew 13:28; Evil One – John 17:15…
He is not powerful enough to oppose/fight God directly so he employs a round-about attack by going after God’s people and doing everything in his power to keep others from becoming God’s people… To do this Satan has masterfully influenced the culture toward greater and greater depravity and evil. God recognizes this ploy and has warned us in other names that have been given to Satan: Prince of the Power of the Air (which means he controls unbelievers) – Ephesians 2:2; Ruler of Demons – Mark 3:22; Ruler of this World (which means he rules the world system/culture) – John 12:31; God of this Age (which means he influences the thinking of this world) – 2 Cor. 4:4; Beelzebub (Lord of the Flies) – Matthew 12:24; Belial (which means that he is worthless – just like the corruption he has brought to the world) – 2 Cor. 6:15
Satan then uses the Culture/World to provide temptation for our flesh (the second enemy listed above). We see this in his names: Tempter – 1 Thes. 3:5; Serpent of Old – Deceiver in Garden – Rev. 12:9, 20:2
God warns us from falling to these schemes in 1 John 2:15-17 when He says:
15Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.
However, Satan is stubborn and will not give up… through the World/Culture will try to tell you that certain sins are OKAY… he’ll try to convince you that they are not that bad… He’ll provide you with every kind of justification from “I’m just wired/born this way” to “God wants me to be happy and this will do it” to “I/they deserve this”… But I’m here to tell you IT’s NOT OKAY…
Satan is a masterful liar (cf. John 8:34) – Though he tries to make it look good, pleasing and harmless, sin is an affront to God and His Holiness and it is harmful to our soul and damaging to our lives and relationships! Sinning is telling your heavenly father that you know best – it’s basically giving God the finger… and though God is loving and forgiving that is a dangerous game to play…
Once Satan has trapped you in one of his schemes and he has hooked you with some type of addictive sin, he then capitalizes upon our temptations and failures. God calls him the Accuser (Rev 12:10) because Satan bad-mouths you to God, in your mind and to other people. He is called the Dragon/Destroyer (Rev. 9:11; 12:3, 7, 9) because he uses your sinful mistakes to ruin your life. He is called a Roaring Lion (1 Peter 5:8) because he wants to swallow you up in the consequences of sin and keep you from experiencing fellowship with God. He is a Murderer (John 8:34) because he leads people to eternal death (aka Hell). The term “Devil” actually means “slanderer” ( Matt. 4:1) because If he can’t get to you any other way, he’ll try to destroy your/God’s reputation.
So, what I see from all this is that if Satan is the deceiving force that is corrupting the culture we only truly have to fight the battle on two fronts… We need to Submit to God and resist the devil (James 4:7-8). And we need to MAKE WAR against our sinful nature (cf. 1 Cor. 9:27, Galatians 5:16-26). John Piper would say that the war against our own flesh is the most important aspect of this… but I’d have to respectfully disagree… I think both prongs of our counter-attack are equally important… If we fight directly against Satan (and we’ll see how to do that in coming posts) then the culture will be effected which will minimize temptations as much as possible, making it easier to fight against our sinful desires…
I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen sin’s painful effects on a lot of people’s lives and I’m hopping mad about it… I’m ready to strap the armor on and get it on with Satan in God’s mighty power… Will you join me?
Share this:
Like this: