Josiah Concept Ministries

Defending the Faith Against Its Detractors

Archive for the ‘God’ Category

« Previous Entries

On Omniscience

Posted by Cory Tucholski on June 15, 2009

Rey wonders out loud: “Where in the Bible does God declare that he is omniscient?” He then answers his own question: Nowhere. God never declares himself to be omniscient, or all-knowing. So we have to ask ourselves, must God declare something about himself for it to be true about himself? And, must something directly appear in the Bible for it to be true about God, or is it acceptable to deduce it from related Scriptures and/or natural theology?

Before we dive into these questions, it must be stated that I believe in the plenary inspiration of Scripture: that the Bible we possess is inspired and inerrant, and sufficient for all of the activities listed in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The problem in this entry is that Rey, the target of the criticism that I will present, doesn’t believe in inerrancy, nor does he believe in the plenary inspiration of Scripture. Rey cherry-picks verses as inspired and uninspired to fit with what he believes about God. This is idolatry of the highest order.

That means that this criticism will likely fall under heavy fire from Rey in the form of rejecting the verses that I use as inspired.

It is not, mind you, that Rey rejects inspiration. He rejects plenary inspiration. He doesn’t believe that all of what we possess of the Bible is inspired, but he has yet to explain his system for accepting or rejecting verses.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Apologetics, Father, God, Theology, Trinity | 5 Comments »

Inanna: Prototype of Easter?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on April 13, 2009

Several atheist websites carried the story today: an interview with Dr. Tony Nugent of Seattle University conducted by Valerie Tarico of Huffington Post reveals that Easter has its origins in ancient Sumeria. In a myth constructed circa 2100 b.c., the goddess Inanna dies and rises after three days. Although on the surface, the myth sounds similar to the story of Christ, there are a number of significant differences that you will fail to hear about if you just take the word of Ms. Tarico.

First, this epic takes place thousands of years before human beings, and has nothing to do with human beings. The myth is to explain the cyclical seasons, and as is common in many myths of this type, the goddess dies and rises in a cyclical fashion. The myth takes place wholly in the realm of the gods, and has no proof of its historicity as such.

The story of Jesus, on the other hand, takes place within human history and is verifiable historically.

Second, Inanna is raised if she can find someone to take her place. In this case, she chose her husband who failed to moun her. Her sister-in-law pleaded to take his place, and so it was settled that Inanna’s husband would take half the year in the underworld and his sister the other half. This myth explains not a victory over death, as Jesus’ story does, instead it depicts the cyclical seasons.

In Jesus’ case, he rose only once (not cyclically) and no one had to take his place. In fact, no one could take his place, for Jesus lived a sinless life. It is well-established by a look at the Bible and human history that no one else has lived a sinless life. The fact of the empty tomb is also verifiable historically. Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, and William Lane Craig all have articles and books on that subject.

Third, Inanna is killed attempting to conquer the underworld. This is a significant departure from the Jesus story. This is goddess turf war, and has nothing to do with salvation.

Jesus, on the other hand, died on the cross to save mankind from his sins. This story has everything to do with salvation and nothing to do with the cyclical nature of seasons.

Fourth, there is no betrayal by someone close to the goddess in the Inanna myth as Dr. Nugent claims. He is simply wrong about that detail. Inanna was betrayed by her sister, the ruler of the underworld, but the two were not close. Their enmity is well-documented by other Sumerian myths.

Dying and rising gods usually signify something about the seasons, not anything to do with salvation and victory over death. Jesus died to secure salvation for the elect, to end the reign of death. He doesn’t continually rise again and again so that the seasons work in a cycle. Sorry, guys, but there are far more differences than similarities in the story.

Read the Wikipedia entry for Inanna; as of April 12, 2009 the details of the details of the story line up with my presentation above and not Dr. Nugent’s presentation.

Also read the brief entry at pantheon.org; it confirms some of the details above.

Posted in Apologetics, Heresy, Jesus | Leave a Comment »

Statement of Faith II: The One True God

Posted by Cory Tucholski on April 10, 2009

In The Jewish Approach to God, Rabbi Neil Gillman cited that Jews believe that God is echad, which means “one.” He spent an entire chapter discussing that concept at great length, and I will touch on a few brief points in this post.

First, there is the shema. Jewish men recite the shema daily. It is Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” The word for “one” in that passage is the Hebrew word echad, which implies more than just a number. It means more than, “God is a single unit,” although it means that, too. Echad means that God is uniquely God. God is unique because he is God.

So, now my atheist readers are raising an eyebrow and saying, “Ha! You worship three Gods: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! How does that jive with ‘God is one.’ Christianity loses, atheism wins!” Well, dear atheist reader, I’m going to try to explain it to you. Wipe the drool from your lower lip and continue reading.

I have outlined in this post that there is a fundamental difference between the polytheism of Indian religions like Hinduism and the monotheism of Christianity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each echad–uniquely God–while retaining their individual identities. Some atheists assert that we are worshiping three Gods in One. We are not: we are worshiping three Persons in one God.

Nothing about “personhood” suggests that it must be unique to an individual essence or soul. One could easily make the argument that an essence or soul could have multiple persons attached to it. That is not the case with humans, God’s image-bearers. Our essence contains only one person attached to it. Not the case with God; his essence carries three Persons attached to it: Father, Son, and Spirit.

Why, if we are God’s image-bearers, then do we only have one person attached to our souls while God has three? Would it not make sense that we should have three persons attached to our soul? Well, that is actually a very good question, and tough to answer. Scripture is silent in this regard, so we must be careful when attempting to draw inferences from it. The best, and most reasonable, explanation is that God chose to attach only one person to a human soul instead of three. That is our ontology, the way that God made us, and why he didn’t make us another way is simply a mystery.

One last point bears touching on before I close the discussion of the Trinity. As Richard Dawkins put it in The God Delusion, rivers of ink (and blood) have been wasted trying to explain the Trinity and Dawkins complains that much of it remains a mystery. So I ask, “Why the double standard?” Science accepts abiogenesis as a potential theory about the origins of life, despite failing in every way to substantiate it. The origin of life remains a mystery. Yet many hold out that one day, we will substantiate abiogenesis and solve the mystery of life. Why, I ask again, are you allowed to have mysteries of science, but I am not allowed to have mysteries of faith? I am doing the same thing as you are doing with abiogenesis, but for that you label me a “fundie” or “deluded.”

In The God Delusion, Dawkins explains that a certain agnosticism is warranted when the evidence is scant. Just like atheists can remain agnostic about the origin of life and still be called reasonable, we can call the Trinity a mystery and still be reasonable.

God, though three, is really one (echad). This is one of the great mysteries of faith, and instead of filling us with skepticism it should fill us with wonder. The wonder of echad is that God is the only God (see Is 44:6).

Posted in Father, God, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Theology, Trinity | Leave a Comment »

Final Thoughts on Sins of Scripture

Posted by Cory Tucholski on March 11, 2009

It is time to post some final thoughts on The Sins of Scripture by John Shelby Spong. The former bishop of Newark continues with the sin of certainty: that Christianity is the only way to God. He contends that this was never the intention of the early church, that this was a political move by Constantine in the development of later creeds.

If one is to accept that the Bible is the Word of God, which Spong does not, then one is left only with one conclusion: that Jesus is the only path to God. This is summed up beautifully by John 14:6: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.” Spong, however, is free to come to a different conclusion since he does not accept the Bible as God’s Word. And he comes to a vastly different conclusion.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Book Review, God, Heresy, Theology | Leave a Comment »

Mass Genocide in the Bible

Posted by Cory Tucholski on March 4, 2009

Although it is rarely taught in Sunday School, there can be no doubt that mass genocide occurs with alarming regularity in the Old Testament. Just crack open a copy of Michael Earl’s self-published wonder Bible Stories Your Parents Never Taught You and read a few chapters. Over and over again, Israel kills not just the soldiers of the territory they invade, but the women and children, too.

All of this takes place at the behest of God himself, who is the one that orders the killings to take place. God very often indicates that he wants no survivors left.

This, according to our most scathing critics, leaves a huge moral dilemma: how can we continue to call the Bible the “Good Book” if it contains more violence than the average video game? Was the bloodshed and violence necessary?

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Book Review, God, Morality, Sin, Theology | 6 Comments »

What are Doctrinal Divisions Really About?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on December 28, 2008

Doctrinal divisions that permeate the church so profusely, at their core, aren’t about what Scripture says. Only the King James Version Onlyists dispute what Scripture says. We’ve taken them, and the famous NIV Quiz, on before. The divisions are over what Scripture means.

Case in point is the recent informal blog debate between Matthew Bellisario and the pseudonymous “TurretinFan.” The crux of the debate is whose interpretation of Romans 14 is correct–Mr. Bellisario, or TF. Mr. Bellisario insists, and correctly I believe, that Romans 14 is aimed at the Judaizers of Paul’s day who would impose the Law on Christians. Further, such a passage doesn’t remove from the Church the authority to impose new holy days and bind Christians to obeying them.

I agree with Mr. Bellisario’s assessment of the passage. I agree that it is aimed at the Judaizers of Paul’s day and I agree that it doesn’t preclude the Church from imposing holy days upon Christians.

However, the imposition of new holy days goes against the spirit of the passage, and indeed the spirit of the Gospel. Jesus died and rose again to free us from the legalism of the Jewish Law. This is TF’s primary point. However, Mr. Bellisario doesn’t see the Catholic Church as imposing a new legalism on Christians. This is why the two are talking past each other–Mr. Bellisario is unable to empathize with TF’s position. Mr. Bellisario sees the Catholic Church as the sole infallible authority for determining Christian morality and living, rather than giving Scripture that place.

So, what is my opinion of Romans 14? I believe that it applies to all holy days, new or old. As TF points out, Scripture is like a fine gem with many facets. It is important to look at all opinions, past and present, to get a feel for something that you might miss. I also agree with Mr. Bellisario that Romans 14 doesn’t preclude the addition of new holy days, however there is no authority anywhere in Scripture that confers the power to bind Christians under threat of mortal sin to observe these new holy days.

Does that mean that we are free of the Sabbath day? By no means. As TF reminds us, the Sabbath goes back to creation and is therefore binding on all people. The obligation to reserve a day of worship for God alone was not erased by the cross, since it predates the Law. The Cross is the end of the Law.

While I agree that new holy days aren’t out of the realm of the church’s authority, binding them on all Christians under penalty of mortal sin is out of the reach of the church.

I highly reccommend reading the informal debate. The links above are to the start posts of the debate.

Posted in Bible Thoughts, Jesus, King James Onlyism, Roman Catholicism | 3 Comments »

What’s the REAL Message Here?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on December 8, 2008

Vjack from Atheist Revolution reveals  his position as a pro-life atheist. While I commend his pro-life stance, I don’t admire his reasoning. It goes like this:

Personally, I favor reducing the number of abortions performed through reality-based sex education and widespread availability of affordable and effective contraception. By reducing the number of unwanted pregnancy, we can reduce the number of abortions without having to infringe upon anyone’s reproductive rights. (source)

First of all, every “fetus” or “embryo” is a potential human life and should be afforded the same care as any child. You wouldn’t kill a child just because he or she became inconvenient. So it bothers me that Vjack refers to abortion as a “reproductive right.”

That point aside, what is Vjack really saying here? He favors “widespread availability of affordable and effective contraception.” What that means, translated, is that he is all for having sex with whomever whenever desired.

Abstinence is all about self-control. This is yet another example of the atheist community not being big on practicing self-control. But can we expect them to? After all, self-control is a fruit of the Spirit, and the atheist is not indwelled by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we should not expect that an atheist would have any appreciation of the fine art of self-control. Atheism is nothing less than creating an intellectual excuse to disobey God.

Now let me add a caveat. I’m not for abstinence-only sex education. I think that it is important to teach the benefits and drawbacks of all of the contraceptives, as well as allowing kids to weigh the pros and cons of abstinence. Let each decide what is right for him or her.

For the Christian, the only correct choice is abstinence. That is the only choice pleasing to God. But this choice is more open to Christians than to atheists because a Christian indwelled by the Holy Spirit and charged with a desire to please God will be able to muster the self-control to remain chaste until marriage.

I should add that the task isn’t impossible for the atheist. My wife knows non-Christians that have remained chaste until marrige. A feat of self-control like this, however, is far more likely to be found in someone with a desire to please God.

Unfortunately, many Christians do not choose abstinence. All that proves is that Christians aren’t perfect, it doesn’t mean that abstinence is not a valid choice.

Posted in Atheism, Holy Spirit, Morality, Pro-Life Issues | 1 Comment »

Jewish Approach to God

Posted by Cory Tucholski on December 5, 2008

I’ve been reading Rabbi Neil Gillman’s interesting book, The Jewish Approach to God. My initial impression was that Jews and Christians approached God in much the same way. Jews believe that God is echad, which is a Hebrew word meaning “one” or “unique.” God is, as his name suggests (YHWH, Hebrew for “I AM”), uniquely one. This is definitely similar to the Christian view of God as eternally self-existent.

Here the similarity ends. First, Jews don’t view God as sovereign over the natural world, nor over human free will. Where the Christian view is that God is always in control, even over our free will decisions, the Jewish view is closer to open theism in God having no control or even knowledge of our free will decisions.

This has stunning implications for understanding early Christian philosophy and theology. Were the early Christians open theists? This throws conditional election out the window, since God can’t know the free will decisions of his creatures ahead of time that means that he can’t know who would choose Christ. That means Arminianism is wrong; but stripping God of his sovereignty over human free will decisions means that Calvinism is out as well. That leaves either open theism or Molinism as the two main alternatives.

Second, the Jews don’t view God as omnipotent. They view him as self-limiting. They believe that he has limited himself by not affecting human free will, that he is limited by his “public image,” and that he is bound to his covenants and promises of the past. This is consistent with open theism.

So, what to make of all of this? If I am to stay true to early Christian philosophy, it means that I must renounce Reformed theology and look more seriously at Molinism or open theism. It also means that I may have to finally admit that Beowulf2k8 is right–original sin simply doesn’t exist.

Am I ready to admit that I am wrong about Reformed theology? Well, I have been slowly swayed toward the dark side of Arminianism for some time now, since all of my friends and family are proud Arminians, and my church actually preaches against Calvinism. Let’s just say that, for now, I’m ready to admit the possibility exists that I’ve been dead wrong this whole time, and that much more serious study is required to find out what God has revealed about himself.

In the coming posts, I will attempt to find out just what it is that I believe in a systematic theology. I will attempt to run out the implications of open theism and Molinism in early Christian philosophy and try to arrive at a systematic theology that is true to the original intent of the New Testament writers.

I want debate and interaction with my Reformed readers as well as my Arminian/open theist readers. E-mail me, challenge me, and debate me. I want to learn what God wants me to learn, and I can’t do that without friendly discourse from the people of God.

Posted in Bible Thoughts, Father, God, Open Theism, Theology | 5 Comments »

Religious Illiteracy

Posted by Cory Tucholski on December 2, 2008

I’ve been reading the book Religious Literacy by Stephen Prothero. It is truly an eye-opener. It has made me realize how much I don’t know about the world religions. I’m ignorant of even our closest neighbor, Judaism.

With a ministry such as mine, I should understand more about other world religions. It will help me deal with questions from people of other faiths.

So I thought I would start with Judaism. To this end, I have obtained two books, The Jewish Approach to God by Rabbi Neil Gillman and An Introduction to Judaism by Nicholas de Lange.

Gillman’s book, as well as other exchanges recently, have started me thinking about Reformed theology. In the introduction to The Jewish Approach to God, Gillman says:

In Christian thinking, that human failure is inherent in human nature, one of the results of human sin, Adam’s rebellion against God in the Garden of Eden as recorded in Genesis 3. That blemish is transmitted from one generation to another to all of humanity through the sexual act. Jesus’ vicarious death on the Cross then represents God’s gracious gift, which erases original sin and grants salvation to the believer who accepts Jesus’ saving act.

But in Jewish sources, the very fact that the prophets urge the people of Israel to unblock their hearts, to open their eyes, to remove the obstacles that get in the way of their relation to God suggests that this is more a matter of will, not at all inherent in human nature. The Jewish claim, then, is that their is no inherent epistemological obstacle to recognizing God’s presence in the world. [p. x]

Since Christianity originated from the Jewish religion, Jewish thought plays a prominent role in early Christian philosophy and theology. The very reason that I started with Judaism was that, as our forerunner, I thought that Jewish theology would help me understand where the New Testament writers were coming from. If Gillman is correct in his assertion here, then that means that the New Testament writers were never teaching original sin, and that my recent opponent was correct in stating original sin is false doctrine.

However, I already know the answer to this dilemma. Scripture contains progressive revelation, which means that the New supersedes the Old. Original sin is taught in the New Testament, especially in Romans 5. That, then, takes the place of the Jewish philosophy of sin in someone’s life being a matter of will rather than a matter of nature.

In any case, I pray that God use this book to bring me to a closer understanding of him. As I learn more, I’ll post some additional thoughts.

Posted in Book Review, God, Prayers, Theology | 1 Comment »

Does the Catholic Church Teach Syncretism?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on November 20, 2008

Matthew Bellisario, the “Catholic Champion,” writes that he is tired of Reformed apologists saying that the Catholic Church teaches that all religions are salvific. I am not aware of any Reformed apologists who make such a claim, nor is such a claim even close to syncretism.

Syncretism, according to dictionary.com, means:

the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.

If these unnamed Reformed apologists are accusing the Catholic Church of syncretism, it means that they are accusing it of trying to reconcile the opposing claims of various religions.

Syncretism, in Mr. Bellisario’s post, is used to mean “Universalism.” This is something that I’m not aware of any of my fellow Reformed apologists charging Rome with. Mr. Bellisario claims that Rome teaches the only way to heaven is itself–”Holy Mother Church,” as Mr. Bellisario puts it. Let’s find out if that is, in fact, what Rome teaches.

In a controversial document released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Rome admits:

It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church (source, emphasis added)

This is, of course, specifically addressing Protestant churches. So what we find is that the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is possible, even probable, in Protestant churches.

But the Catholic Church goes further than that. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it says:

“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (paragraph 841)

Kelly Wilson noted Pope John Paul II’s position on the Muslim faith:

However, though the Pope cannot deny the reality that Islam worships the same God, he highlights that there still remains important distinctions between these two monotheistic approaches to God. . . . What makes us distinct is our understanding of how God is revealed in the person of Jesus, and so when it comes to our relations with the other monotheistic faiths, even if the same God is commonly worshipped by Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the understanding that God is revealed in Jesus, is a message unique to Christianity, and one cannot tire of communicating it. (source, emphasis added)

It’s a mixed bag of teachings, and I don’t think that Mr. Bellisario got it right. He explicitly contradicts Catholic teaching when he states that no one can be saved in Islam or Protestantism. The Church actually teaches the opposite; that one can, in fact, have salvation in a Protestant church as I have demonstrated above. As for salvation through Islam, the Church doesn’t explicitly teach that so I won’t say that Mr. Bellisario has contradicted Catholic teaching there.

Mr. Bellisario rightly concludes his line of thought by asking, “Sounds to me like the Church still teaches that the Church is necessary doesn’t it?” It certainly does teach that, and taht is precisely what is wrong with the Catholic Church. The only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ (see Jn 6:40, 44; Jn 14:6; Acts 4:12; Rom 10:9-11).

Posted in Apologetics, Jesus, Roman Catholicism, Theology | 2 Comments »

« Previous Entries