Identifying self-defeating statements

Four Self-Refuting Statements Heard on College Campuses Across America

If I began this post by asserting, “I can’t write a word of English,” you’d probably recognize the contradiction. My sentence betrays its own claim, doesn’t it? Such is the nature of self-refuting statements. Wikipedia describes such utterances as “statements whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true.” You might be surprised how often people are prone to saying something that is self-refuting, but there are number of common statements we hear (or use) every day that fall into this category:

“Don’t bother me, I am asleep right now”
“I’m not going to respond to that”
“I can’t talk to you right now”

There are times when our words collapse under their own weight. As I train university aged Christians around the country and listen carefully to their common college experiences, I’ve started to collect some of the more popular self-refuting statements uttered by college professors. Here are the top four:

“There is no objective truth” / “Objective truth does not exist”
Perhaps the most obviously self-refuting, this claim (or something similar to it) is still uttered in many university settings according to the students I train. Like all self-refuting claims, it can be cross-checked by simply turning the statement on itself. By asking, “Is that statement objectively true?” we can quickly see that the person making the claim believes in at least one objective truth: that there is no objective truth. See the problem?

“If objective truth does exist, no one could ever know with confidence what it is” / “It’s arrogant to assume you know the truth with certainty”
Once again, the professor who makes such a claim appears to be confident and certain of one truth: that no one can be confident or certain of the truth! The statement falls on its own sword the moment it is uttered.

“Science is the only way to determine truth” / “I only trust things I can determine through a scientific process”
University students report this statement often, and it may take a little more thought to recognize as self-refuting. When a professor makes this claim, we simply need to ask, “Can science determine if that statement (about science) is true?” or “What scientific experiment provided that conclusion for you?” It turns out that there is no scientific process or procedure can be employed to validate this claim. It is a presumptive philosophical statement that is outside the analysis of science.

“It’s intolerant to presume that your view is better than someone else’s’” / “Tolerance requires us to accept all views equally”
An even more hidden self-refuting statement lurks here in this common errant definition of tolerance. Folks who hold to this corrupted view say they accept all views as equally true. But if you make the claim that some ideas are patently false and have less value than others, they will quickly reject your statement. In other words, they will accept any view as equally valuable except your claim that some views are not equally valuable. See the inconsistency? People who embrace this definition of tolerance cannot consistently implement their own view of tolerance.

This last claim related to tolerance may be the future battleground of self-refutation. Most of us, as Christians, recognize this assertion and have been accused of intolerance at one time or another. The exclusive claims of Christianity related to salvation (through faith in Christ alone) place us in the bulls-eye for such criticism. In my next post, I’ll examine the true nature of tolerance as we help each other navigate the concept and learn to defend the classic definition.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, a Christian Case Maker, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity and God’s Crime Scene.

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

Originally published here

Read more
No Comments

To Drink or Not to Drink

 To Drink or Not to Drink: By Norman Geisler

A Sober Look at the Question

The Main Points

  1. The Bible condemns using strong alcoholic beverages and drunkenness.
  2. In Bible times, they used light alcoholic beverages in moderation.
  3. Today, given the many harmful results of alcohol and the many non-alcoholic alternatives, total abstinence is the best policy.

Many Reasons Not to Drink (or use other addictive drugs)

  1. It is Condemned
  2. The Bible Condemns Strong Drink as a beverage.
  3. Today’s Beer and Wine are Strong Drink.
  4. Hence, Today’s Beer and Wine are Condemned by the Bible as a beverage.
  5. We Should not do What God Condemns.
  6. Therefore, we should not drink today’s beer and wine as a beverage.

Bible Condemns Intoxicating Drinks

 “Wine is a mocker [yayin], intoxicating drink [shekar] arouses brawling, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (Prov. 20:1).

 “Do not look on wine [yayin] when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when is swirls around smoothly. At last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper” (Prov. 23:31-32).

 “Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaints?…Those who linger over wine (Prov. 23:29-30).

 “Give strong drink [shekar] to him who is dying…” (Prov. 31:6).

 “Woe to those who rise early in the morning, That they may follow strong drink; Who continue until night till wine inflames them” (Isa. 5:11).

 “Strong drink is bitter to those who drink it” (Isa. 24:9).

 “Woe to men valiant for mixing strong drink” (Isa. 5:22).

 “But they [the priests and prophets] have also erred through wine, And through strong drink are out of the way” (Isa. 28:7 cf. 56:12).

 Only false prophets say: “I will prophesy to you of wine and strong drink” (Micah 2:11).

 “Do not drink wine (yayin) or intoxicating drink (shekar), you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tabernacle of meeting lest, you die” (Lev. 10:9 NKJV).

 “When a man or a women makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to dedicate himself to the Lord, he shall abstain from wine yayin) and strong drink” (shekar) (Num. 6:2-3 NASB).

 To Samson: “Now drink no wine or strong drink…” (Jud. 13:7).

 To Kings: “It is not for kings, O Lemeul, It is not kingd to drink wine, Nor for princes strong drink” (Prov. 31:4)

 To all Israel (in the wilderness): “You have not drunk wine [yayin] or strong drink [shekar]; that you may know that I am the LORD your God” (Deut. 29:6).

 

Note:

1) Total abstinence from strong drink was God’s norm for all believers;

2) Total abstinence from all wine was the ideal for all believers, and

3) was exemplified by spiritual leaders

Drunkenness is Not the Only Reason to Abstain from Alcohol

  1. It slows the thinking process (Prov. 31:4-5).
  2. It makes one dizzy (Job. 12:25).
  3. It is associated with self-centeredness (Hab. 2:5).
  4. It causes sickness (Jer. 25:27).
  5. It causes forgetfulness (Prov. 31:6-7).
  6. It produces delirious dreams (Prov. 23:33).
  7. It results in sleepiness (Gen. 9:20-25).
  8. It produces complacence and laziness (Zeph. 1:12).
  9. It numbs one’s feelings (Prov. 23:31-35).
  10. It leads to poverty (Prov. 21:17).
  11. It leads to brokenness (Jer. 23:9).
  12. It results in sadness and depression (Isa. 16:9-10).
  13. It causes sorrow (Prov. 23:29-30).
  14. It produces blackouts (Gen. 19:33-35).
  15. It leads to immorality (Joel 3:3).
  16. It encourages sexual perversion (Hab. 2:15).
  17. It results in guilt (Isa. 24:20).
  18. It causes injuries (Prov. 23:35).
  19. It can result in insanity (Jer. 51:7).
  20. It makes one vulnerable to his enemies (1 Sam. 13:28).

Beer and Wine are Strong Drink

 Biblical wine was fermented but diluted 3 to 1.

 Jewish Talmud: Passover wine was 3 parts water to 1 part of wine (Pesahim 108a cf. Shabbath 77a)

 Inter-testamental Period: “It is harmful to drink wine alone, or, again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious…” (2 Mac. 15:39).

 

Some Pagan Mixtures:

 Homer: 20 to 1

 Pliny 8 to 1 (See Stein, “Wine Drinking in NT Times” Chirstianity Today, 6/20/75).

 At 3 to 1 ratio it took 22 glasses of NT wine to get drunk

 

It was basically a means to purify and sweeten water.

 Ancient Wine Mixing With Water “In ancient times wine was usually stored in large pointed jugs called amphorae. When wine was to be used it was poured from the amphorae into large bowls called kraters, where it was mixed with water…. From these kraters, cups or kylix were then filled” (Stein, “Wine-Drinking in NT….”

 

Taking Unmixed (Today’s) Wine Was Considered Barbarian by Pagans!

 Mnesitheus of Athens said: “Mix it half and half, and you get madness; unmixed, bodily collapse”!

 Early Church Father Cyprian: “Thus, therefore, in considering the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered” (Epist. 62.2.11)

 Clement of Alexandria added: “It is best for the wine to be mixed with as much water as possible…” (Instructor 2.2).

 

  1. It is Condemned
  2. The Bible Condemns Strong Drink as a beverage.
  3. Today’s Beer and Wine are Strong Drink.
  4. Hence, Today’s Beer and Wine are Condemned by the Bible as a beverage.
  5. We Should not do What God Condemns.
  6. Therefore, we should not drink today’s beer and wine as a beverage.
  7. It is Deadly
  8. We Should not take what is Deadly.
  9. Taking Alcohol is Deadly.
  10. Hence, we should not take Alcohol.

Evidence that taking Alcohol is Deadly

  1. It causes more deaths than any other drug (about 200,000 per year).
  2. It is responsible for 70% of drownings & chokings.
  3. It is involved in 50% of all “freak accidents.”
  4. It causes some 27,000 deaths a year by liver disease.
  5. 30% of all suicides are alcohol related.
  6. 20% of all airplane crashes are alcohol related.
  7. 50% of all murders are drunk when they kill.
  8. 50% of all fire deaths are alcohol related.
  9. It causes about a third of all traffic deaths (It would be higher, if blood test were given to the dead too). (Statistics are based on US government reports)

III. It is Dangerous

  1. We Should Not do What is Dangerous to Society.
  2. Drinking alcohol is Dangerous to Society.
  3. Hence, We Should not Drink Alcohol.

Evidence that drinking Alcohol is Dangerous

  1. It contributes to more deaths than any other drug.
  2. It leads to drug addiction (18 mill in US=8.5% of population).
  3. It is involved in both spouse and child abuse.
  4. It contributes to mental and physical diseases.
  5. 45% of the homeless are alcoholics.
  6. It causes 500,000 injuries per year.

During Prohibition (1920-1933): social ills decreased!

 Cirrhosis dropped 66%

 Insanity decreased 60%

 Arrest for drunk and disorderly conduct decreased 50%.

 Spouse and child abuse dropped to an all-time low.

 Addiction & consumption decreased for 55 years (up to 1975).

 

  1. It is Addictive
  2. We Should Avoid Addictive Drugs.
  3. Alcohol is an Addictive Drug.
  4. There are 16 million addicts in the US.
  5. Alcoholics outnumber all other addicts.
  6. 77% of high schoolers use alcohol.
  7. 29% of high schoolers drink heavily.
  8. 44% of 8th graders drink.
  9. 1 in 10 social drinkers will become addicts

 Question: Would you get on an airplane if there was a 10% chance it would crash?

 

  1. We should avoid alcohol.
  2. It is Unhealthy
  3. We Should Avoid Drinking What is Bad for our Health.
  4. Drinking Alcohol is Bad for our Health.
  5. So, We Should Avoid Drinking Alcohol.

Proof that drinking Alcohol is Bad for One’s Health

  1. It is the number three health problem.
  2. It results in 1/2 million hospital admissions.
  3. It impairs the function of vital organs.
  4. It causes liver diseases.
  5. It contributes to heart attacks.
  6. It increases the chances of cancer 3-6 times.
  7. It is the number three cause of birth defects.
  8. It can cause insanity.
  9. It can injure the nervous system.
  10. It can cause impotence and sterility.

It is Unhealthy

  1. We Should Avoid Addictive Drugs.
  2. Alcohol is an Addictive Drug.
  3. So, We Should Avoid Alcohol.
  4. It is Costly
  5. We Should Not Do What is Unnecessarily Costly to Society.
  6. Drinking Alcohol is Unnecessarily Costly to Society.
  7. Hence, We Should Not Drink Alcohol.

Evidence that alcohol is Unnecessarily Costly

  1. Special services $7 billion a year.
  2. Medical services $19 billion a year.
  3. Loss of future earnings by death is $37billion.
  4. Alcohol related illness is $86 billion.
  5. Fetal alcohol syndrome is $1 billion.
  6. Loss of earnings of crime victims $10 billion.
  7. Crashes, fires, and crime is $24 billion.
  8. Total cost of alcohol abuse is over $184 billion.

VII. It is a Bad Example

  1. We Should not be a Bad Example.
  2. Drinking Alcohol is a Bad Example.
  3. Hence, We Should Not Drink Alcohol.

Note:

1) Children are imitators, and if we take addictive drugs, then they will imitate us.

2) They won’t do what we say but what we do.

3) We won’t convince them to stop their drugs until we stop using our drug (which is worse).

VIII. It is not Edifying

  1. What is not Edifying Should be Avoided.
  2. Drinking Alcohol is not Edifying.
  3. Drinking Alcohol Should be Avoided.

 

 Paul wrote: “All things are lawful, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful, but all things do not edify (build up). All things are lawful, but I will not be brought under the mastery of any”(1Cor. 6:12).

 

  1. It Causes Others to Stumble
  2. What Causes Others to Stumble Should be Shunned.
  3. Drinking Alcohol Causes Others to Stumble.
  4. So, Drinking Alcohol Should be Shunned.

 Paul said: “It is good neither to eat meat nor to drink [diluted] wine, nor anything by which your brother stumbles…”(Rom. 14:21).

 Of course, strong (undiluted) wine is forbidden.

 

  1. It is Unnecessary
  2. We Should Avoid Doing Harmful Things That Are Unnecessary.
  3. Drinking Alcohol is a Harmful Thing That is Unnecessary.
  4. We Should Avoid Drinking Alcohol.

 Note: We have plenty of good drinks that are not as harmful–water, milk, fruit juices, coffee, tea, and others.

 

Conclusion

  1. Even one good reason is a good reason not to drink alcohol.
  2. Two or more reasons are very good reasons not to drink it.
  3. Ten reasons are overwhelmingly good reasons not to drink it.

Hence,

1) We encourage all Christians not to drink it.

2) We require all church leaders not to drink it. (Not because it makes you more spiritual but because it manifests your commitment and maturity

If God Didn’t Want Us to Drink It, Why Did He Make it?

  1. It is a sedative (Prov. 31:6): “Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish.”
  2. It revives the faint (2 Sam. 6:2): “The donkeys are for the king’s household to ride on, the bread and fruit are for the men to eat, and the wine is to refresh those who become exhausted in the desert.”
  3. It is an antiseptic (Lk. 10:34): “He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn….” took care of him.”
  4. It is a laxative (1 Tim. 5:23): “Stop drinking only water, and use a little [diluted] wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.”

Answering Some Objections

Objection 1: The Bible only condemns drunkenness, not taking strong drinks.

Answer: Not so. One of the reasons it condemns strong drink is because it leads to drunkenness, but it is not the only reason. Strong drink itself is condemned.

 It is also addictive and harmful in many other ways (physically, emotionally, psychologically, and socially).

 

Objection 2: Doesn’t the Bible actually commend using strong drink as a beverage in Deut. 14:26: “And you shall spend that money for whatever you heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine [yayin] or strong drink

[shekar], for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice with your household.”

Answer:

1) OT condemns strong drink as a beverage (see X).

2) Unclear texts like these should not be used to contradict clear ones.

3) It was bought in strong (undiluted) form for ease in travel and storage, and for use as a medicine–not to drink as such.

4) Whatever drinking they did was in diluted form (see I).

5) In whatever form, the use here was specifically for a Jewish festival and is not a norm for general consumption.

Objection 3: It is legalistic to make extra-biblical laws like total abstinence which the Bible does not make.

Answer: It is not extra-biblical since the Bible condemns “strong drink,” and today’s alcohol drinks are “strong drink.”

Further, not every extra-biblical rule is legalistic–only those used as a condition for meriting God’s grace, whether for getting justification or sanctification.

Objection 4: The Bible says it is OK to take a “little” wine (1 Tim. 5:23) as long as it is not too “much” (1Tim. 3:8); It does not teach total abstinence.

Answer: It is speaking about a “little” and not “much” diluted wine [Hb.: yayin], not the undiluted intoxicants [Hb.: shekar] such as wine, beer, and whiskey which people drink today. We should totally abstain from these.

Objection 5: What about nicotine and gluttony? Aren’t they addictive and destructive too.

Answer: Yes, but we must eat food to live, but we do not need to drink alcohol to live.

Nonetheless, Christians should avoid all nicotine (since it causes cancer) and all gluttony (since obesity is harmful to one’s health).

Objection 6: What about studies which show that regular use of alcohol helps prevent heart disease (by increasing good cholesterol)?

Answer:

  1. They have shown a statistical connection, not a causal one. It is also known that “statistics lie, and liars use statistics.”
  2. It may be due to antioxidants present, not the alcohol.
  3. Other studies show grape juice has similar results.
  4. Even the statistically favorable studies admit there may be other genetic and environmental factors at play.
  5. The American Heart Association does not recommend it.
  6. There are other non-alcoholic methods, such as diet, exercise, and non-addictive drugs that can be used.
  7. The end doesn’t justify the means–if they are wrong (e.g., stem cells from abortion or alcohol for pregnant women’s hearts).
  8. It is a fact that non-drinkers live longer (52% vs. 40% live to 75+).

Objection 7: It makes me relax and feel better.

Answer: Don’t make your happiness depend on addictive drugs. It is both deceptive and dangerous.

If you want a high without a hangover: “Do not be drunk with wine in which is excess; but be filled with the Holy Spirit” (Eph. 5:18).

Objection 8: I need it for my nerves.

Answer: There are non-addictive diets and drugs that can help your nerves.

Better yet–try God’s plan: “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God, and the peace of God which passes all understanding will keep your heart and mind through Christ Jesus”(Phil. 4:6-7).

Total Abstinence is the Best Policy

 No one ever had the following alcohol related consequences who refused the first drink:

 No one ever got drunk without the first drink,

 Nor got an addiction to it w/o the first drink,

 Nor got a disease from it including: heart attacks, cirhossis, insanity,

 Nor engaged in spouse or child abuse DUI of it,

 Nor killed anyone in an accident DUI of it,

 Nor caused any debt or injury DUI of it,

 Nor caused anyone to stumble in their faith!

 

The Main Points

  1. The Bible condemns using strong alcoholic beverages and drunkenness.
  2. In Bible times, they used light alcoholic beverages in moderation.
  3. Today, given the many harmful results of alcohol and the many non-alcoholic alternatives, total abstinence is the best policy.

No Temptation is Too Strong!

“No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but will with the temptation also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it” (1Cor. 10:13).

Read more
No Comments

Have I committed unpardonable sin or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Have I committed unpardonable sin or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Always take the scriptures in context and keep in mind history.  This is called the historical-grammatical method of interpretation.

Matthew 12:31-32 (NKJV)
31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.
32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Some people can read this and come away with the understanding that they can be damned for any sin against the Spirit of God.  Some would say if you call a miracle by the Holy Spirit as a work of Satan then you have committed the unpardonable sin.

These are not entirely true.  We need a complete view or history and Scripture to come to a right understanding of the Matt. 12 passages.

Remember that the work of the Holy Spirit is to testify that Jesus is the savior (John 15:26) and convict the world of sin (John 16:8).  Blaspheming the Spirit means rejecting His testimony and conviction that Jesus is the savior.  If someone rejects Jesus they are rejecting the only way to be saved and for that reason cannot be forgiven (Acts 4:12).

These are Scribes from Jerusalem whose job is to tell Israel if this is the messiah or not (Mark 3:22).  As the people looked to them they pronounced that Jesus was not the savior but did the miracle by the work of Satan not the Holy Spirit.  Therefore rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit they rejected Jesus as savior.  If someone remains in the sin of rejecting Jesus then there is no hope of salvation for them.

Notice in the Matt 12 passages that Jesus did not say that a person could not repent of this sin just that anyone remaining in the sin could not be forgiven.  Even after denying Jesus someone could repent and be forgiven.  Look at Peter, he confessed Christ (Matt. 16:16) then denied Him three times (Luke 22:56-62).  Jesus allowed Peter to repent and return to Him (Luke 22:32; 62).

You never have to worry if you have committed this sin if you believe that Jesus is Lord and died for your sins.

Pastor Scott Thom

Read more
No Comments

“Hearing God”: A Biblical Case?

Sometimes I am asked to provide a biblical case for my belief that everyday believers can regularly hear God speak to them in various ways.  Here, in précis form, is an overview of my answer (for more on this discussion see my book, Kingdom Triangle, along with my co-authored book with Klaus Issler, In Search of a Confident Faith):

1)  Ancient Near Eastern historical narrative/biography functioned not merely to chronicle events, but to teach theology/ethics.  Much of the Bible is this genre and a central theme of Holy Scripture is how we are/are not to relate to God and each other as members of His covenant people.  Thus, the examples of God speaking to people (including ordinary people—Gen 25:23, Acts 6:5, and 8:6, Acts 19:1-7, esp. v. 6) throughout both Testaments are meant to teach us how we can expect God to speak (without, of course, expecting God to continue to give authoritative scripture to the whole church).

 

2)  God deeply desires intimacy and relationship with his people (cf. Isaiah 58:9-11; Hosea 11:8), and these characteristics obtain among people—human or divine—by regularly speaking to each other.  The Bible is an authoritative revelation to the whole church, but intimacy and relationship require personal communication in addition to this.

 

3) God speaks to people to correct wrong thinking (Phil 3:15; cf. Eph 1:17, I Cor 14:24, 26, 30-31).

 

4) The Holy Spirit speaks to us in applying the Bible’s teaching to our specific situation (I Cor 2:14).

 

5) God speaks to us to give us guidance (Isaiah 30:21, John 10:3,4,16,27, Acts 13:2, 16:6, James 1:5).  In the John texts, Jesus says his sheep hear his voice.  Some have understood the context to imply that this means that the unsaved hear God’s effectual call to come to salvation.  But this has the odd result that we can hear God’s speech/drawing/prompting before we are saved but not afterwards.  In fact, the alleged context in John 10 (of unbelievers being called to salvation) can be taken in one of two ways:  it defines the meaning of the sheep hearing Jesus’ voice (thus, limiting the text’s meaning to unbelievers) or it determines a range of application in this context (to unbelievers) of a broader principle that applies to all God’s sheep whether before or after salvation.  The text does not make clear which is intended, and the latter fits other passages I am citing, the virtually universal experience of Christians, and it avoids the odd result mentioned above.

 

6) Jesus is our model in communicating with God (John 5:19).  Jesus is not speaking about His unique prerogative as God or Messiah, because the context is Jesus doing the works of the Father due to Jesus’ intimate communication with Him (and subsequent empowerment by the Holy Spirit), and Jesus explicitly says that we will do greater works than he did (John 14:12).  If Jesus needed to be lead by the Father in this, how much more do we?  Moreover, it is now widely acknowledged by NT scholars that Jesus did what he did as a human being we are to model ourselves after in dependence on the filling of the Holy Spirit and in communication with the Father (cf. I Cor 11:1, I Thes 1:6).  Finally, Jesus delegated his authority to us and we need the same tools he needed to carry out that delegation.

 

7) God sometimes speaks by placing impressions in our minds (Nehemiah 2:12) and through a still small voice (I Kings 19:12).

 

8) Regarding the claim that when God speaks, it is clear and we don’t have to learn to hear his voice, (A) it seems that Samuel needed to learn to distinguish/hear God’s voice (I Sam 3:1-21); (B) there was a school of prophets in the Old Testament and, among other things, it would seem natural to think that they were learning to discern/hear God’s voice; (C) In the NT, prophesy is a gift that, as will other gifts like teaching or evangelism, grows and develops with time and experience as one learn to enter more fully into the practice of that gift. That is why there were tests of prophesy (I Cor 14:29, I Thes 5:19-22), viz., that as people learned to hear God, they sometimes made mistakes and gave words sincerely though they were mistaken. (D) We have to learn God’s most authoritative speech, the Bible, through hermeneutics, exegetical practice and so forth, and many believers are mistaken about what exactly is God’s biblical speech (in debates in textual criticism and differences between Catholics and Protestants about which books belong in the canon). If God has allowed there to be differences about what belongs in Holy Scripture and we have to work hard to learn to rightly divide it, why can’t there be differences about whether a personal communication was/was not from God and effort needed to learn how to understand such communication?

Posted by: J.P. Moreland

See Original Post HERE

 

Read more
No Comments

What is Generational Sin?

Generational sin

Exodus 20:4-6 (NKJV)
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

 

Bad interpretation

It is typically taught from Exodus 20, which is the Ten Commandments. Someone teaches that “the sins of the fathers are visited on the children to the third and fourth generation.”  What this is commonly said to mean is that you may have ancestral curses because of the activities of your fathers, your ancestors.  Usually, these activities have to do with extreme sin or occult involvement, but it may also be having an abortion.  This then results in something bad happening to an individual because of this other person’s sinful activity.

The application of this is that someone is going through something really hard and has a besetting sin or problem that they can’t get rid of, and it is suggested to them that there is a spiritual dynamic that is tied to the teaching of this verse.  There is a generational sin and curse that then must be broken.  It is qualified that through some spiritual exercise or prayer the person can be free from this curse.  Some have gone to great extent, written whole books, on how to unwind this spiritual oppression coming from past generations.  They step you through all these little exercises.  However they are mistaken.

 

Let’s look at the Scripture again

Who is doing the visiting?

Let’s break down the scripture to get a proper interpretation.  The visiting of the sins of the father on the children, who is the active agent? It is God, right? God is doing the visiting.  So, if you have a technique to undo this activity, who are you fighting against?  You would be fighting against God.

 

Visiting the iniquity is not causing a person to sin

Visiting the iniquity cannot mean a curse or sin that is passed down from generation to generation.  That would make God the cause of that person’s sin.  God does not cause people to sin nor does He tempt them.

James 1:13-14 (NKJV)
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.

This could not be a curse on Christians.  Look at the qualifier.  This punishment is on those who “hate me”.  Do Christians fall into the category of people who hate God?  No, of course not.  Think about it.  Would God cause a Christian or even a non-Christian to sin?  Would He punish a person for what their parent or grand parent did?

 

God does not punish children for the sins of the parents

Deuteronomy 24:16 (NKJV)
16 “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.

God addresses this false notion in Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 18:20 (NKJV)
20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

What then does visiting the iniquity mean in this context and the rest of the Bible?  It means that God is punishing someone.  Who does He punish?  He punishes those who hate Him.  God punishes those who continually break the second commandment that one should not worship any other god especially an idol.

Remember in context these are the commandments that God is giving to Israel.  In context this is a covenant with the Jews.

 

Therefore God is punishing a nation.

He is not perpetuating a sin from one generation to the next.  God even gives them an example in this very book of visiting

Deuteronomy 11:16-17 (NKJV)
16 Take heed to yourselves, lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them,
17 lest the Lord’s anger be aroused against you, and He shut up the heavens so that there be no rain, and the land yield no produce, and you perish quickly from the good land which the Lord is giving you.

When a nation is punished every living generation is affected from the father to the great grandson.

We have other Scripture confirming our interpretation of this verse.  Look at Ex. 32:34.

Exodus 32:34 (NKJV)
34 Now therefore, go, lead the people to the place of which I have spoken to you. Behold, My Angel shall go before you. Nevertheless, in the day when I visit for punishment, I will visit punishment upon them for their sin.”

Look at the preceding verse.  God does visit punishment on people but for their sin not another’s sin.

Deuteronomy 23:1-8 (NKJV)
1 “He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.
2 “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord.
3 “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord forever,
4 because they did not meet you with bread and water on the road when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.
5 Nevertheless the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam, but the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you.
6 You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days forever.
7 “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land.
8 The children of the third generation born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord.

When God visits the sin it means God will punish not perpetuate a sin on innocent Christians.  What does God do to Christians or those who love Him?

He will show lovingkindness to thousands to those who love Him and keep His commandments.  He’s emphasizing His longsuffering and His mercy over and against His justice and wrath.

 

Pastor Scott Thom

Read more
No Comments

Ignoring the Eyewitnesses to the Resurrection

There are several reasons that place the legend theory in doubt. First of all, it is a concept that runs contrary to the Jewish mindset of that day, yet Jews were the first to accept and spread the belief. Why would such a legend develop if it bucks the expected conventions of the very people who are supposedly falling for it? Secondly, the resurrection accounts themselves appear pretty early after the time the resurrection was said to take place.

There’s another point that I don’t hear much about in these discussions, though. Even before the Gospel accounts were relatively early, there is a source of information that connects the events as they happen to the Gospel writers’ pens. That is the testimony of Jesus’s very closest disciples, known in the Gospels as “the Twelve.”

In his article “The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist During Jesus’ Public Ministry?” John P. Meier argues that this circle of twelve people who made up Jesus’s most entrusted followers could not be a later invention or legendary. Meier offers several lines of evidence for his view:

  • Unlike the term apostle (meaning “one who is sent”) that is applied to Paul, Barnabas, and others in the epistles, the use of the term “the Twelve” is very specific and is used by the Gospel writers, especially Mark and John, to very specifically to refer to those disciples who were closest to Jesus.1 This means from a historical standpoint, attestation of the Twelve exists across multiple sources; it has a stronger level of support.
  • The list of names of the Twelve is remarkable consistent across the different gospels, not only are eleven of the twelve names identical, but even the grouping of the names are always displayed in three sets of four. The only name that has some question behind it is Thaddeus who is called Jude of James in Luke’s gospel.2 Meier sees this as evidence for an oral tradition for the Twelve that pre-dates the written accounts of the Gospels.
  • Meier places special emphasis on the Gospel of John’s mention of the Twelve: “The fact that the Twelve are mentioned in John is all the more weighty because John has no special interest in the group called the Twelve. The Johannine tradition names important disciples or supporters of Jesus (e.g., Nathaniel and Lazarus) who are not listed in the Synoptic catalogues of the Twelve; and the anonymous “disciple whom Jesus loved,” the model of all discipleship, does no apparently belong to the Twelve. The few references to the Twelve that occur in John thus have the air of being relics or fossils embedded in primitive Johannine tradition.”3
  • The presence of Judas as Jesus’s betrayer also argues for the existence of the Twelve for how else does one explain his betrayal? Without the existence of the Twelve, Judas’s appearance is out of place, disjointed. But as Meier notes, the fact that Judas was numbered among the Twelve and the fact that he handed Jesus over to the authorities is multiply attested. Further, it’s highly embarrassing for Jesus to be betrayed not simply by a follower, but by one of his own inner circle, the very one with whom he entrusted the ministry finances.4
  • Lastly, emphasis on the Twelve is much more prevalent in the period during Jesus’s earthly ministry than it is in the first generation of Christians after Jesus’s ascension. Meier writes, “In his epistles, Paul alludes to his interaction with or compares himself to other church leaders… What is glaringly absent in Paul’s letters is any mention of the Twelve” with the exception of the 1 Corinthians 15:5, which is a Christian creed formulated within a few years of the resurrection itself.5

It seems that Jesus really did have a circle of Twelve disciples he kept especially close. This inner circle was in a unique position to be the primary source material for the accounts of the Gospels that record their exploits. If the Resurrection accounts are legendary, why would this circle of Twelve develop? How does it fit, especially if the concept of the Twelve is glaringly absent in the other writings of the New Testament authors?

As Richard Bauckham has developed in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, it is the members of the Twelve who provide the link between Jesus, his ministry and resurrection, and the gospel accounts. It is a chain of custody establishing that eyewitness testimony is the thing establishing the resurrection accounts. Because legends cannot explain the existence of the Twelve, they also cannot explain the testimony of the resurrection eyewitnesses.

Original post from

Come Reason Ministries

Read more
No Comments

No Other Doctrine

BLACK-NOD-LOGO F

 

No Other Doctrine podcast is a prerecorded apologetics Bible answer show hosted by Pastor Scott Thom of Cross Christian Fellowship in Albuquerque, N.M.  It is recorded live on air and then formatted for podcast listening.  We seek to train you using this show as well as other resources to answer questions about Christianity and give reasons for your faith.  Topics include General Bible questions, Faith, Religion, Christian philosophy, Jesus, God, Cults, Theology, and so much more.

 

Check out this podcast HERE

Read more
No Comments