Josiah Concept Ministries

Defending the Faith Against Its Detractors

Archive for the ‘Father’ 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 »

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 »

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 »

How God Identifies Himself

Posted by Cory Tucholski on February 11, 2008

It’s interesting how God defines himself. He told Moses that he is the God of your fathers; the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. He did not define himself by his omnipotence or his omniscience but by his personal relationships with these common men. (source)

So reflects Albert Cardinal Vanhoye, leader of the Roman Curia’s Lenten retreat.  I think that is absolutely fascinating because for many skeptics, God’s omnipotence and omniscience are not only God’s defining characteristics, but the logical basis by which many of them reject Him.  The presence of an omnipotent and omniscient being can only lead to fatalism in their minds, regardless of the number of times that I’ve seen Christians refute this notion.

This is the ontological argument in reverse.  Because the skeptic cannot conceive of how an omnipotent and omniscient being could exist within the framework of this universe, no such being can exist.  Since God would be such a being, God does not exist.

But God doesn’t identify Himself on the basis of these characteristics.  He identifies Himself on the basis of His relationship to His creation.  How much more should we, then, identify ourselves on the basis of our relationship to Him.  I think that the real problem is that the skeptic is ruled by his sin–and his sin is how he defines “fun.”  Drinking, gambling, drugs, premarital sex–all of these things are “fun,” but all of these things have consequences.

Defining oneself on the basis of one’s relationship to God will have consequences, too.  One must focus his thoughts on what is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, and commendable  (Phil 4:8)–and it is easy to conclude even without a Bible (cf. Gal 5:16-24) that those things I just defined as “fun” from a secular point of view do not fit with that mode of thinking.

Defining oneself on the basis of a relationship with God brings with it freedom from sin (cf. Rom 6:14).  Paul exhorts us not to use that freedom for sin, “but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another” (Gal 5:13-14).

So, brothers and sisters in Christ, if God identifies Himself on the basis of a relationship to His creatures, why do the creatures not identify themselves on basis of a relationship to Him?

Posted in Bible Thoughts, Father, God, Roman Catholicism | Leave a Comment »

FSM used by God?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on November 20, 2007

Sometimes, I do work that doesn’t require a lot of mental engagement.  While I’m doing that, I come up with some weird thoughts and those can occasionally turn into blog entries.  This is one of those times.

Let me back up to when I was a manager at Wendy’s.  I had purchased a lot of books that showed how to build a team by tactics mined from Scripture.  These included The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership by John C. Maxwell and Teach Your Team to Fish by Laurie Beth Jones.  I used a lot of the tactics I learned, but one thing I never did was give Christ the credit.  Neither in prayer nor to the people I managed.

I think that that was a very bad move.  Scripture says that “whoever denies me [Jesus] before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:33).  I was a coward; I thought it was more important to not offend people by bringing religion into the issue than to give any credit to where the techniques I was using came from.

And so I met with little success.

Now, I’m using the same techniques at Burger King, but I’m acknowledging their source–God–proud and loud.  Not surprisingly, I’m meeting with much more success.

My point is the Scripture I quoted above: “whoever denies me [Jesus] before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:33).

As I understand Intelligent Design, it is merely a scientific expression of the creation account of Genesis without naming the entity that created.  It acknowledges a supernatural creator without defining that creator.  Sounds an awful lot like what I did with the leadership techniques.  I acknowledged that I got them from the Bible, but did not acknowledge God.

Intelligent design does the same thing: acknowledges a creator without acknowledging God.  “[W]hoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:33).

The problem is that God is inextricably tied to His creation.  To know His creation is to know Him: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Rom 1:20, emphasis added).

The Flying Spaghetti Monster has been used by atheists to shoot down intelligent design.  Or has it?  Perhaps the Noodly Master has been used by God to shoot down intelligent design because God doesn’t appreciate being taken out of the equation by otherwise well-meaning scientists.

Let’s be honest: Is intelligent design really how we want to preach God?  Do we really want to leave the possibility of other creator deities open for discussion?  It doesn’t seem as though that is how God would want it.  Did He not say to Moses:

You shall have no other gods before me. . . .  You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Ex 20:3, 5-6)

Why on earth would we think that intelligent design is God-honoring?  Leaving open the possibility of other deities invites people to worship and serve them.  But what is the Great Commission?  Is it to get people to think that the universe has a creator, and it might be the Christian God, and you can serve Him if you think that He is the creator?

No!  It is to “Go . . . and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20, emphasis added).  Note that Jesus doesn’t talk about possibilities; He gives concrete commands.  He tells us in no uncertain terms that we are baptizing these people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the triune Christian God, the creator of the universe.  There are no maybe’s with Jesus.

There should be no maybe’s with us either.  We should be able to stand up and say what Paul said to the Ephesian elders: “Therefore(A) I testify to you this day that(B) I am innocent of the blood of all of you, 27for(C) I did not shrink from declaring to you(D) the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:26-27).  We, too, should not shy away from preaching the whole counsel of God.  Like Paul, we should not be ashamed of the gospel (cf. Rom 1:16; 2 Tim 1:8-12).

Look at Ken Hamm compared to ID proponents.  I’m not saying that I agree with a 6,000 year old earth and dinosaurs living side-by-side with humans.  I’m starting to lean back toward a more scientific view, which includes evolution.  But, I admire people like Dr. Hamm much more than I admire ID proponents because Ken Hamm is preaching the whole counsel of God!  He isn’t afraid of the gospel.

ID proponents should spend more effort to put God’s name into their work.  Maybe it would become more recognized.  Maybe even accepted in scientific circles.  It doesn’t sound likely, but neither is Christianity.  Putting God’s name back into the tips and tricks I learned certainly worked for me, and I believe that it can work for ID.

Posted in Apologetics, Creationism, Father, Jesus, Science | 2 Comments »

The Atheist Continues Reading

Posted by Cory Tucholski on November 15, 2007

I may have misjudged VJack from Atheist Revolution. I thought that his true motive behind reading the Bible from cover to cover was to poke fun at it. But it seems that the convicting power of the Holy Spirit may be at work in his heart, as he now seems to actually want to understand what he is reading with more clarity:

When confronted with scriptural evidence that there are many laws, clearly stated as such, for which the penalties are often banishment or death, which virtually no modern Christian even attempts to follow, one should expect a predictable Christian response. The wording will vary, but the response will be along the lines of how the Old Testament no longer applies because god’s covenant with Moses and his predecessors was replaced by Jesus and the New Testament.

Fair enough. I’ll ask two things of the Christian making this claim, and I’ll ask them not in a challenging manner but as a plea for assistance. (source)

I’ll answer his questions in a moment. But first, let’s understand why there are no more animal sacrifices.

First off, we have to understand that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23a). Calling death a “wage” implies that we earn it through our sins. All have sinned (Rom 3:23), so all have earned death by their sin. This means that every human being on this planet deserves to die because we all sin. Everyone.

With that in mind, is it so terrible that God demands the death penalty for some sins that we consider relatively minor? Of course not–it is all sin, which is paid for by death. “[W]ithout the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb 9:22)–either our own blood or someone else’s. Up to this point, the blood of animals had been used to cleanse and purify us from our sins (Heb 9:13). Now, the precious blood of Christ purifies us (Heb 9:14).

Christ offered Himself to the Father, perfect and without blemish (Heb 9:14), as propitiation for our sins once for all (Heb 9:26b). Throughout the book of Hebrews, the author argues that the tabernacle and Tent of Meeting described in the Book of the Law is an imperfect copy of heaven (Heb 9:1-12). Jesus has entered into the real thing–heaven–and is seated at the right hand of the Father, making intersession for us in a way that no high priest ever could (Heb 1:3b, Heb 7:11-28).

The prophets predict an end to animal sacrifices. Malachi predicts that a new type of sacrifice will be offered:

For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. (1:11)

This is fulfilled by Christians living by the word of God, everyday and in every place:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Rom 12:1-2)

Christ’s sacrifice perfects us. We no longer need animal blood to do so.

I will address VJack’s specific questions in my next post. Stay tuned.

Posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Bible Thoughts, Father, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Theology | Leave a Comment »

God’s Wrath

Posted by Cory Tucholski on November 13, 2007

TurretinFan has a great post on God’s wrath being understood side-by-side with His love rather than in opposition to it. This post fits well into my series on pain and atheists’ darkened understanding.  It lends some Reformed theology to my otherwise philosophical view.  I urge everyone to check it out if they have time. It’s short but profound.

While you’re over at TF’s site, you should read his rebuttals to objections on the limited atonement (the L in TULIP), as well as his definition here.  Nice theological reflections.  Real solid food (Heb 5:14).

Posted in Calvinism, Father | 1 Comment »

The Problem of Pain

Posted by Cory Tucholski on November 4, 2007

The problem of pain–existence of suffering in a world allegedly controlled by a benevolent and all-powerful God–is the number one issue that seems to drive atheists away from Christianity.  I don’t think that this is as big a problem as many make it out to be.  I think that this is as big a problem as you want it to be.

God’s love is only properly understood side-by-side with His wrath, not in opposition to it.  Like any father, He only wants what is best for His children.  This means that, unfortunately, discipline is often necessary.

God has disciplined us specifically in the Bible (Gen 3:14-19, for example).  But more often than not, I think that, like any good father, He simply allows us to stumble and fall on our own.  This means that we create many of the problems in this world ourselves.

God, benevolent though He is, should not be obligated to clean up our messes.  We create most of the problems on this little blue dot, and we should accept that responsibility and clean them up–without expecting God to snap His fingers and make it all better.

However, there must be a reason why God allows us to suffer at times.  I propose that He lets us suffer for two main reasons.  First, He does it to teach us something.  Second, He does it because that is what is best for us.

I can speak as a father now, and use my daughter Ashleigh to illustrate my point.

Ashleigh still has trouble controlling her muscles.  I’ve obviously been controlling my muscles for many, many years now; so I find it amazing that this little girl actually has to learn how to do that from scratch.  She’s not skillful in the least, yet.  Sometimes, she scratches her eyes.  She’s never put a fingernail directly into her eye, but I imagine that someday she will.

My point is that I can try to take her hand away from her eye as much as I want to.  I can warn her to be careful, but at one month old that isn’t going to make a whole lot of impact.  Nope, painful as it may be, the best way is to actually let her scratch her eye.  She will learn the lesson much faster than if I try to save her from it once too often.

Ashleigh is very squirmy.  She flails about a lot.  She hates being tied down for any length of time, and was been like this even in utero.  She was known to kick monitors away when the doctors would try to perform tests on her.

Given this, you can imagine that she hates to be swaddled.  Sometimes, however, swaddling is the only way to calm her down or even to keep her warm with this cold November weather.  As much as she struggles against it, I know what is best for her–and sometimes swaddling is just what she needs.

The second example makes a great explanation for the problem of pain.  Sometimes, we confuse our needs with our wants.  God knows exactly what we need, and I think that an honest person who looks back at a trial in his life will decide that he needed that to happen at that moment.  I know that the first year of marriage for me was rough, but I believe that it was just what Jody and I needed to become stronger as a couple.

Maybe someone who is reading this went through a trial for which there is no explanation.  He didn’t seem to need it to happen.  He didn’t learn anything.  Does this invalidate my theory?  I don’t think so.  Perhaps the reason has yet to be revealed.  I’m not taking the Christian stance that atheists hate so much here; these trials are to teach us something here.  That something may be a long way down the road.

Whatever your trial, remember the words of James, brother of our Lord: “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness” (Jms 1:2-3).

Posted in Atheism, Father, Theology | 9 Comments »

It is Finally Here: My Long Awaited Answer to DA’s Vicar of Christ

Posted by Cory Tucholski on October 27, 2007

I know that I have promised this and promised this. I’m sorry it has taken so long. New parents and anyone who has suffered depression in their lives will totally understand. I’m sure that many of you have doubted that it would ever arrive. But here it is, in PDF format. I hope that it was worth the wait. Enjoy!

Posted in Apologetics, Father, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Papacy, Roman Catholicism, Theology, Trinity | Leave a Comment »

Gaping Holes Everywhere!

Posted by Cory Tucholski on October 15, 2007

The Penitent Atheist has an interesting post about the watchmaker argument.  For those unfamiliar with the argument, I’ll briefly summarize it.

Imagine finding a wristwatch.  Your first thought upon picking up this wondrous timepiece is not, “Gosh, I’m so glad that all of these pieces randomly came together to form a watch!”  You know, upon finding something complex like a watch, that it must have had a designer.  So the same goes with ecology: seeing nature and how it works together so well, one should infer a designer.  Blind forces couldn’t have constructed a watch anymore than random chance could have constructed our planet and built its ecology.

The Penitent Atheist claims that he destroys the argument in his post.  But he doesn’t.

Complexity evolves, he says.  Everything starts out simple, then gradually evolves complexity.  Nature orders herself, building gradual layers of complexity.  The good changes are kept through natural selection, while bad changes eventually die off.

Our penitent friend is very correct in his assertions.  There is an intelligence behind nature, how she orders herself by selecting appropriate changes to survive and eliminating the rest.  With this line of thinking, the watchmaker argument is rather absurd.  Design is not necessary–evolution can take care of this, giving the appearance of design.

It is a gaping hole in the watchmaker argument.

However, there is a gaping hole in the Penitent Atheist’s argument, too.  Evolution cannot be disputed.  It is as much a fact of life as rain.  The problem lies with origins–a subject that evolution never purports to explain.  Evolution is a fact of life, but it requires life in the first place.

Last I knew, something cannot come from nothing.  Sorry, Penitent Atheist–try again.

Posted in Atheism, Father, Science | 2 Comments »

« Previous Entries