Predictions of the Second Coming

What Part of "No Man Knows" Don't You Understand?

When I was in high school, a book/pamphlet came out with a title something like, "Eighty-eight Reasons Christ Will Return In 1988." (I never actually saw the book, so I am a little uncertain of the title.) It caused a bit of a stir in my class. I don't remember the date the book claimed Jesus would return, but I do remember how my classmates responded when it didn't happen.

This same man had the audacity to put out another book the next year, claiming the same thing for 1989. Of course, it was a big joke. The net effect was to turn people off to the gospel.

Do you think that this gave glory to God?

There have been others since, I'm sure. Notably, this year, someone had the gall to publish another date for Jesus return. When it didn't happen at that time, he did a quick recalculation, and came up with another date for this year. Of course, the second date passed as the first had.

Do you think that this brought glory to God's name?

So, please, if you come across someone who thinks they have it all figured out, just tell them to stop. When Jesus comes, He will come without warning. The analogy the Bible uses is that He will come "as a thief in the night." The only recourse is to be always ready. People need for us to share the gospel, not to speculate about when Christ will return.

A Lesser Son of the King

Copyright RL

Eternity: Part 4

"Does God Get What God Wants?", Chapter 4 of Love Wins: Part 2

Note: This is a continuation of the previous post.

Bell next quotes from Zephaniah 3, "Then I will purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the LORD and serve him shoulder to shoulder." This is a fair translation of the Hebrew, but has the problem of not being quite clear to English readers. Zeph. 3:9, "Know for sure that I will then enable the nations to give me acceptable praise. All of them will invoke the Lord’s name when they pray, and will worship him in unison" (NET). But when are the nations going to be so enabled? If we look at verse 8, we find that it is after the God has poured out His anger on them: "'Therefore you must wait patiently for me,' says the Lord, 'for the day when I attack and take plunder. I have decided to gather nations together and assemble kingdoms, so I can pour out my fury on them –  all my raging anger. For the whole earth will be consumed by my fiery anger'" (NET).

So, the nations will be judged, before they are enabled to bring acceptable praise to God. However, just because Nations are going to be made acceptable before God in the future, it does not likewise indicate that all the people of those Nations will be Saved. Zeph. 3:11-12, "In that day you will not be ashamed of all your rebelliousness against me, for then I will remove from your midst those who proudly boast, and you will never again be arrogant on my holy hill. I will leave in your midst a humble and meek group of people, and they will find safety in the Lord’s presence" (NET, bold added). Here, God has moved from speaking of the Nations to speaking to Jerusalem. In this future time, there are some that will be removed from Jerusalem. There is no indication that these will later be redeemed. Judgment and redemption of Nations is accompanied by judgment upon Individuals. However, while Nations can be restored after such a judgment, it does not likewise mean that all the individuals of the Nations will also be restored. After all, when Jerusalem was rebuilt after the Babylonian Captivity, it was peopled not with the people who had died, but with living people who returned. And, not all that had been Exiled returned. So, while Jerusalem was restored (or redeemed, as we may consider it) not all of its people were restored (or redeemed). Thus, a punished Nation can be redeemed without all of its people, who may have died in their sins, being redeemed as well. This also leaves open the possibility of a Nation or City not being redeemed, while some of its people may be.

Now, Bell moves to Phil. 2, "Every knee should bow … and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is LORD, to the glory of God the Father." While reading this, you should realize that the ellipsis (the …) is not in the verse from Philippians 2, here, it means that something was left out. When properly used, the ellipsis allows an author to leave out some of a quote, while still retaining the gist. This passage reads, "so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow – in heaven and on earth and under the earth – and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father" (NET Phil. 2:10-11). Now, since every includes those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, the ellipsis is used properly.* However, as was addressed in the last post, not all belief is equal. Just acknowledging that Jesus Christ is Lord is not the same as accepting Him as Savior. Nor does Scripture teach that we will have a chance to accept Him as Savior after death. Thus, the acknowledgment of this truth does not likewise have to indicate Salvation.

Ps. 22 can be dealt with in a similar way to some of the other passages we saw before. Let us move on to some of Bell's own words. "This insistence that God will be united and reconciled with all people is a theme the writers and prophets return to again and again. They are very specific in their beliefs about who God is and what God is doing in the world, constantly affirming the simple fact that God does not fail." (p. 99, Kindle edition.) Here, we do not need to debate the second sentence at all. We would only disagree with Bell as to what this pertains to. The first sentence is another story.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that people who have died in their sins can later be reconciled to God. As we saw before, Nations and Cities and even Peoples can be reconciled to God, without every historic member of the group being so. Also, as we saw, while everyone will in time acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, this does not equate to everyone being united and reconciled to God. Yet, it is this that Bell wants to show.

Bell is about to deal with some of the church father's next, beginning around page 107 of the Kindle version. This will take some additional thought and research, so I will hold off on that for now.

* It is always a good idea to check out what an ellipsis is replacing. Just in case.

A Lesser Son of the King

Copyright RL

Eternity: Part 3

"Does God Get What God Wants?", Chapter 4 of Love Wins: Part 1

"Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants?" (Bell, Ch. 4*) Here, Bell presents two options, claiming in effect that either all will be saved or that God is not Sovereign. We know that God is Sovereign, so … all will be saved?

But are we really caught on the horns of a dilemma here, as Bell would have it? We will deal with the Scriptures Bell quotes to support his point later. Let us first deal with this dilemma. John 3:16-18, "For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God." (NET) Here, Jesus declares that He came to save the world, but that not all would be saved! So, the first part is answered.

Now, is there another option, or are we stuck with God not being Sovereign? After all, it says that "First of all, then, I urge that requests, prayers, intercessions, and thanks be offered on behalf of all people, even for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. Such prayer for all is good and welcomed before God our Savior, since he wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as a ransom for all, revealing God’s purpose at his appointed time. For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle – I am telling the truth; I am not lying – and a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. So I want the men to pray in every place, lifting up holy hands without anger or dispute." (1 Tim. 2:1-8, NET, bold added) If He can't accomplish this, doesn't it mean that He isn't strong enough?

Notice, the John 3:16-18 passage proclaims that those who are condemned are condemned based on their lack of belief.** The very next verses say, "Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God." (John 3:19-21, NET, bold added) Here, we see that those who are condemned are condemned based  on the following basis, they loved darkness rather than light, and they refused to come to the light! So, the invitation is to all, but not all respond. Note, nowhere in this passage does it say that God forces people to be saved. There is an aspect of free-will at work here. This does not violate God's Sovereignty, because people are not resisting God's power. When God gives someone a choice, it is a real choice. It does not violate God's Sovereignty for that person to choose.

So, while God "wants all people to be saved," this does not mean that God is causing all people to be saved. If this were the case, why not prevent Adam and Eve and everyone else from sinning in the first place? And, if God is not causing people to be saved, then it is possible that God won't get what He wants, i.e. all people to be saved. However, this does not mean that God's Sovereignty is limited in any way. This is not an issue of anyone resisting God's Sovereign Power. In this respect, God may not get what He wants, but it is not because of any failing in His Sovereignty.

Now, Bell says, "Does the magnificent, mighty, marvelous God fail in the end?" As was mentioned just above, this is not an issue of God's Sovereignty. So, while God may not get what He wants, this does not by any means mean that He will fail if all are not saved. Because the dilemma that Bell tried to force upon us has fallen apart, there is no problem here.

Now, Bell brings up Psalm 24, a Psalm extolling the Sovereignty of God. Specifically, he quotes Psalm 24:1, "The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it," as he gives it. In the NET, it reads thus: "The Lord owns the earth and all it contains, the world and all who live in it." Now, this Scripture is wonderful support for the Sovereignty of God, but, as was showed above, the issue is not one of Sovereignty. So, this Scripture does not really support Bell's thesis. Next, Bell quotes Isaiah 45:18, or rather, part of it. "God 'did not create [the earth] to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited.'" Again, this is in a section extolling upon God's Sovereignty. Again, this is not an issue.

The third Scripture Bell brings up is from Acts 17. However, I am not sure why he would bring this one up, since Paul is quoting a pagan philosopher. Here is the quote, as Bell gives it, "in God 'we live and move and have our being'" (Acts 17:28).  But given just as this, what we have is Panentheism and not Christianity. In context, Paul is talking to philosophers in Athens (at the Areopagus). Again, God's Sovereignty is presented. More such Scriptures follow, but do not support Bell's point, because again, it was a false dilemma that he presented.

Bell quotes Psalm 65:2, "'all people will come' to God." In the NET it is given thus, "You hear prayers; all people approach you." Notice that this does not indicate that all will be saved. Bell quotes from Ezekiel 36:23, "The nations will know that I am the LORD."But just knowing that He is the LORD is not the same as being saved. As James says, "You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that – and tremble with fear." (James 2:19, NET) Here, the demons are not being saved, so just believing or knowing isn't enough. In fact, the passage in James is talking about the difference between a living faith and a dead faith. Just a few verses further on, James proclaims, "For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (James 2:26, NET). So, not all faith is equal. Likewise, not all knowledge is equal.

Next, from Isaiah 52:10, "All the ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God." In the NET, this reads, "The Lord reveals his royal power in the sight of all the nations; the entire earth sees our God deliver." However, in context, this isn't speaking of the Salvation of the Nations. It is speaking rather of Israel. "In unison give a joyful shout, O ruins of Jerusalem! For the Lord consoles his people; he protects Jerusalem" (Isaiah 52:9). Now, later in the chapter, Isaiah speaks of the Suffering Servant, who is the Messiah. In this, the Nations have a stake.

* I am using the Kindle version of the book, which doesn't have page number.

** I am giving a more Arminian response to this. Calvinists could respond to this by saying that all such Scripture promises are written to and only refer to the Elect, and are not actually promised to anyone else.

A Lesser Son of the King

Copyright RL

Eternity: Part 2

Rob Bell and His Conception of Hell, Chapter 3 of Love Wins: Part 2

Now that we have covered the Good News and the Bad News, let's look at some of Bell's claims.

Sheol: שְׁאוֹל or שְׁאֹל

The Dictionary of Biblical Languages defines this as "The Underworld, Hades, the Grave, i.e., a place under the earth where the dead reside, the realm of death." You will notice that nowhere does this discriminate between the righteous and the unrighteous in death. In this respect, the use of "Hell" to translate the word is mistaken, as Hell is the place for eternal punishment of the wicked dead. Also, this use of "Sheol" has more to do with the abode of the spirit than the physical grave of the body.

Now, Judaism has historically focused more on the present life than on the afterlife. This does not mean that the afterlife was not thought about. Some branches of Judaism may have rejected the idea of an afterlife, i.e. the Sadducees, who did not believe in angels, spirits, or the resurrection of the dead. (Note Matt.22:23-33 and Acts 22:30-23:11) This does not mean that the afterlife has never been taught about. In fact, the passage in Acts indicates that the Pharisees did believe in a coming resurrection. This belief was not limited to the Pharisees. (See John 11:1-57, especially 11:23-24.) But, the primary emphasis of Judaism is not the coming resurrection, but rather, the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom, and the hope for it here and now. The hope was that the Messiah would be born in their time, before they faced death!

So, Sheol was not restricted to only the wicked dead. This does not mean that there was never a conception of a place of eternal punishment for the wicked dead.

Gehenna: γέεννα

The Dictionary of Biblical Languages defines this as "A Hellenized transliteration of the Hebrew, 'Hinnom Valley.' A ravine just SSW of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. A place of trash fires and perpetually burning rubbish, hence the figurative extension of a place of eternal punishment." The Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains agrees, adding, "According to late Jewish popular belief, the last judgment was to take place in this valley, and hence the figurative extension of meaning from 'Valley of Hinnom' to 'hell.'"

Bell, of course, claims the Gehenna was merely "the city dump." What he doesn't take into account is that it had become a metaphor for "eternal punishment," and in this context, the use of the word "Hell" more accurately translates the idea than Bell would acknowledge.

Now, this was not by any means the only way that the idea of eternal punishment is voiced in the New Testament.

Outer Darkness: τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον ("the darkness the outer")

There are three passages in Matthew that use this phrase. Each time, it is Jesus who is using the phrases: Matt. 8:5-13, especially 8:12; Matt. 22:1-14, especially 22:13; and Matt. 25:14-30, especially 25:30.

Eternal Fire: τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον ("the fire the eternal")

This is found in Matthew as well, following the last passage for Outer Darkness: Matt. 25:31-46, especially 25:41. Also in this passage, Eternal Punishment and Eternal Life are contrasted (see Matt. 25:46). So, if the Eternal Punishment isn't really eternal, as Bell claims, then what of the Eternal Life?

There are a few more words that we could cover here, but let us move on to the next topic.

When Bell is discoursing on the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, he claims that it is very important to the story that the rich man wants Lazarus to serve him. (See Luke 16:19-31.) Bell would make this a story about class conflict and the rich oppressing the poor. This is a clear case of eisegesis, that is, reading something into the text. This story has nothing to do with the rich man wanting to be served, and everything to do with choices while alive having eternal consequences. Note that the rich man's torment was not assuaged in any respect, even though he begged. Also note that in the passage, Abraham declares that the rich man's brothers must respond to the witness of Moses and the prophets. The rich man couldn't change his fate, but his brothers still could. On a side note, it is quite interesting that Bell would try to push the idea of class conflict using a passage from Luke. The writing of the books of Luke and of Acts was financed by a rich man, named Theophilus. Money and Power are never deemed Evil. True, they can be used for Evil, but they are not themselves Evil. The oft misquoted passage truly goes, "The love of money is the root of all (or all kinds of) evil" (1 Tim 6:10). The Bible is not about class conflict. In the warning in Luke 16:13, Jesus warns that you cannot serve two masters. This is true. However, the poor can serve money just as readily as the rich. The point was not about having money, the point was that you should not serve your money!

Bell does have a good point when he says that we are not to reject the Lazaruses around us. However, this is not the point of the story. This point is better made with other passages of Scripture, i.e. Matt 25:31-46. Also, the passage in Matthew shows that the Bible is not about class conflict. Who can give water to another, if he or she does not first have water? Or clothing? Or food? The point isn't that you shouldn't have more than your neighbor. The point is that if someone is in need, you should help them.

Bell goes on to say that the rich man was alive in death. This is not the case. Jesus and Paul clearly teach that the spirit (or soul) is not destroyed at death. The rich man could readily have been aware of what was happening even while his body was dead. What kind of torment can a bodiless spirit experience? I don't know for sure. All that we have are word pictures, and I am sure that the truth is more horrible than we can imagine. Next, if this is a parable, which it may not be, it has only one point! In this case, Bell would be taking the analogy too far. If it is not a parable, but a reflection of something that truly happened, then we should take it literally, i.e. the rich man and Lazarus had both died and their spirits were now somewhere else.

A bit further on, Bell talks about "hells on earth right now." While there are truly horrible things that happen here on earth, they are pale shadows of the true horror of Hell. These "hells on earth" are temporal, and will end. Hell is eternal, without remit or recourse. It is true that the Church should work to alleviate these things, and we are. But it is something else entirely to say that this should be our primary focus. It is true that these goals are not at odds. However, those who emphasize dealing with these temporal problems miss the point of the gospel. Matt. 28:18-20 says, "Then Jesus came up and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (NET) Here is what our primary focus is to be. The other things happen as they must, when we see injustice and can do something about it. But it is not to be our primary focus.

Next, Bell deals with Sodom and Gomorrah. Note, these are cities, not individuals. True, the cities were composed of individuals, but they are not identical. A city can be judged, destroyed, and then rebuilt. However, once people die, they are dead. It is true that God can intervene, even bringing someone back from death. i.e. Lazarus (the brother of Mary and Martha), the son of the widow from Nain, Jairus's daughter, etc. But notice, each of these had to face death again.

A destroyed city can be rebuilt, but the people that died when it was destroyed are not brought back to life. It is rebuilt by people other than those who died. So, yes, judgment upon a city can be reversed. A city that was to never be inhabited again can be rebuilt, if God relents.

So, in all of the passages that Bell quotes, when it speaks of wrath or judgment against a city or a nation being removed, it is not speaking of those in or from those cities who have already died. For instance, Bell quotes Joel 3:1, "For look! In those days and at that time I will return the exiles to Judah and Jerusalem." (NET) Ok, this is all well and good. However, if we read the verse just before this, we get more of the context. "It will so happen that  everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered. For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who survive, just as the Lord has promised; the remnant will be those whom the Lord will call" (Joel 2:32, NET). Clearly, this is not speaking of those who have died who will be returned! This is a promise to those who are still alive! i.e. "those who survive" and "the remnant."

Each of the Scriptures that Bell quotes in this part of the chapter are like this. They deal, not with individual people, but with cities and nations. As stated before, destroyed cities can be rebuilt. This does not indicate that all those that died in the destruction are brought back to life or that they somehow get a second chance!

Next, Bell quotes from Paul. (On a side note, don't you just love how he doesn't properly quote anything? You really have to dig to find what he is referencing.) The appropriate passage is from 1 Tim. 1:18-20. While this reference does deal with God's redemptive purposes in this world, as Bell asserts, it really doesn't touch on what is purportedly the subject of this chapter, i.e. Hell. However, this does line up with Bell's purpose. But his purpose is not really derived from the text of Scripture.

Eternal Punishment: κόλασιν αἰώνιον kolasin aioenion ("punishment eternal")

First, please note the form that Bell gives: aion of kolazo. In giving this, he doesn't even give the proper forms of the words. κολάζω or kolazo as Bell gives it is the lexical form of the verb. If he was going to give the lexical form, it should have been the noun form, κόλασις kolasis.

Let's deal with κόλασιν kolasin first. Louw-Nida gives the definition as "to punish, with the implication of resulting severe suffering." Now, Bell claims this is a horticultural term, but he doesn't give a reference. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel does indicate that this can mean "'to cut short,' 'to lop' or 'to trim.'" However, in claiming that this is merely a horticultural term, Bell falls prey to the etymological fallacy. i.e. A word does not have to mean the same thing as its root, neither does the meaning have to remain unchanged. Just because the word may have started as a horticultural term, which Bell hasn't proven, it does not mean that it had to remain a horticultural term. In like manner, neither is all "pruning" a good thing. In point of fact, the word was used to describe maiming as punishment. So, horticulture aside, the word is safely translated as "punishment" or "severe punishment." (The preceding was derived from the articles in TDNT for κολάζω and κόλασις, which contain much, much more information.)

Now, αἰώνιον aioenion. Louw-Nida gives this as "pertaining to an unlimited duration of time—'eternal.'" Notably, this word is used in the phrase "eternal life." Here, Louw-Nida indicates that when in combination with the word for "life" (as in ζωὴν αἰώνιον, zoeaen aioenion) that it indicates "not only a temporal element, but also a qualitative distinction." Thus, Eternal Life has not only an eternal element but also a qualitative element. Now, in this respect, Bell focuses on the qualitative element only. In looking at the article from Kittel, αἰών aioen can mean "a period of time," as in an "age." However, this does not negate the fact that it can and often does mean "eternal." And yes, αἰών aioen can be used to translate the Hebrew עוֹלָם 'olam. And yes, the Hebrew word does not have to mean "forever" or "eternal." However, when dealing with words, you must always take the context into account. And, since, Eternal Life and Eternal Punishment are used in parallel, the use of the word αἰώνιον aioenion to describe both is a good indication that they should both be translated the same way. And, as Louw-Nida indicate above, "unlimited duration" or "eternal" is in view here.

A Lesser Son of the King

Copyright RL

Eternity: Part 1

Rob Bell and His Conception of Hell, Chapter 3 of Love Wins: Part 1

It is intriguing that Bell dealt with Heaven before dealing with Hell. When we are considering the Good News (the gospel) it makes more sense to consider it in context. What is the context? The context is the Bad News. Otherwise, the Good News is good compared to what?

To deal with the Bad News, we of course first have to deal with Beginnings, because the Bad News comes to us from the Beginning and the decisions of our Ultimate Parents, Adam and Eve. Yes, if you are wondering, Adam and Eve were real, not just mythical. Jesus treated them so, as did Paul, as did Luke, as did Moses and the other writers of the Bible. A few examples follow:

"Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jered, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech …." (1 Chron. 1:1-3, NET)

The very first word in the book of 1 Chronicles, in the Hebrew, is the name of Adam, beginning a set of genealogies taking up the first eight chapters of the book. Since the other genealogies are factual, there is no reason to believe that the beginning genealogy is meant to be other than factual as well. (This of course does not eliminate the possibility that the author of Chronicles could not have been wrong. But that is a different question.)

"At Adam they broke the covenant; Oh how they were unfaithful to me!" (Hos. 6:7, NET)

In context, this passage is talking about the faithlessness of the covenant people and judgment that was going to fall upon them because of their lack of repentance. There is some debate about how the first words of this verse should be translated. Some, like the NET, choose "At Adam." Many others choose to translate this, "Like Adam." And of course, others debate whether "Adam" is best translated "man," since it is not only a name. However, in context, translation as a name is best. Thus, Hosea treats Adam as a real, living, breathing, human being. And, note how in this passage, we see a breaking of the covenant at Adam. This is true, no matter which way we translate the verse. Since the verse is either emphasizing the breaking of the Covenant in Adams time, or a (then) current breaking of the covenant like the breaking of the covenant in Adams time.

Romans 5:12-18 is too long to quote here. Adam is named once in the Greek text, but implied throughout the text. Here, Adam is compared and contrasted with Jesus, the Second Adam. Paul is not in any way saying that Jesus is myth, and for Jesus to undo what Adam started, Adam must not be a myth either.

These last two passages all deal point back to the same passages in Genesis.

"The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. Then the Lord God commanded the man, 'You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.' " (Gen 2:15-17, NET)

Here, we see the establishment of several things. One is work. Work is not part of the Curse, rather, hard work is. It was always God's intention for humans to be active and productive. Next, we see only one prohibition laid upon Adam along with a warning of consequences to come if it were not heeded.

This, of course, sets up what is to come next. In Genesis 3, we see Adam and Eve both violate the prohibition that God had established. This set in motion a series of events which are still felt to this day.

This brings up the concept of Sin. What is Sin? The Greek word hamartia, ἁμαρτία, which is used in the New Testament is an archery term implying that a target was missed. This came to be used as a technical term in the New Testament, still meaning "missing the mark," but in a very specific sense. In this case, God sets the mark and there are consequences for missing it.

Now would be a good time to change to a different analogy, since it seems cruel to punish someone for not being able to hit a target with an arrow. In the course of creating the world, God set several physical laws in place; one such is the law of gravity. Now, the moral law established in Genesis 2:17 will be compared thus: "Do not jump off the cliff. If you do jump off the cliff, you will most certainly die." And, if Paul had used this analogy, he would have said, "When Adam jumped, we all jumped with him." Just as this analogy is physical, there was a physical consequence to what Adam and Eve did. Because of them, Sin and Death entered the world. We are subject to sickness, disease, injury, and ultimately death, but, there was another aspect of death as well. We are not merely physical beings, but we also have a soul or spirit. This part of us does not cease when our physical body dies, but it can also experience a kind of death. Physical death is the separation of the spirit from the body. Spiritual death is the separation of the spirit from the source of life, which is God Himself. When Adam and Eve sinned, they broke relationship with God and suffered spiritual death.

Here is another analogy. Adam's actions caused a spiritual cancer in him. Unfortunately, every one of his descendents is prone to this kind of cancer. It isn't a matter of if, but rather of when.

In a very real way, Adam started a rebellion against God, and every one of us has inherited this rebellious nature. (If you don't believe me, spend time around two and three year olds. You will see rebellion in action.) This rebellious nature and the curse upon creation are the responsibility of Adam. Because of his actions, we are all subject to both physical and spiritual death. However, it is because of our own sin that we are subject to spiritual death. But it just takes jumping off the cliff once. Once you have sinned, you are a sinner and spiritually dead. And, if you should die physically while spiritually dead, you are spiritually dead forever. There is no biblical passage, when taken in context, that teaches otherwise. ( I know that Bell throws out a lot of Scripture. I will try to deal with some of them. But he throws them out without context and interprets them as he sees fit.) The Bible uses several word pictures to describe this. But metaphors are not to be taken literally. Whatever this final state of judgment, it will be horrible.

Now, this is the Bad News. In the context of the Bad News, we can now understand how good the Good News is. THERE IS A WAY OUT!

Yes, we have all sinned. But that does not mean that we have to remain spiritually dead!

Going back to the cancer analogy, the Great Physician has the cure! You will definitely die if you don't get the cure. But there is enough for everyone!

"For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God." (John 3:16-18, NET)

This is the Good News! It contains a restatement of the Bad News, of course. The one doesn't make sense without the other. In fact, the passage contrasts the two.

Bad News VERSUS Good News

Perish (Eternal Death) VERSUS Eternal Life

Condemned VERSUS Saved

Unbelief VERSUS Belief

Notice how it says that the one who does not believe is already condemned. Once you have jumped off the cliff, the events are set in motion. Once you have the cancer, it is only a matter of time. If you don't take the way out, the course to eternal death is set.

And, just as the Bad News is horrible beyond anything we can imagine, the Good News is good beyond our comprehension.

A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL

The Resurrection of Jesus: Part 1

Five Strong Points for Defending Christianity and the Bible

Christianity stand or falls with the Resurrection. As Paul said, "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless ...." (1 Cor. 15:17 NET) As it turns out, there is good reason to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus.

In The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Habermas and Licona give what they call "4 + 1" facts that support the Resurrection. Whenever someone approaches you with "proof" or an argument "refuting" Christianity or the Bible, see if it can answer these five points.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion. (pp. 48-49)
This fact is attested, not only in the New Testament, but also by extra-Biblical writers. Josephus was a Jewish general who took part in the rebellion against Rome. Later, in his book Antiquities he wrote of Jesus and His crucifixion (18.63-64). Tacitus, a Roman, wrote in his Annals that Jesus had suffered the "extreme penalty" referring to crucifixion (15.44). In The Death of Peregrine Lucian of Samosata, a Greek satirist, wrote that Christians worshipped a man who had been crucified. Even the Talmud records that Jesus was "hanged" (Sanhedrin 43a).

2. Jesus' disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them. (pp. 49-62)
Josephus, mentioned above, records that Jesus appeared alive to His disciples after his death (Antiquities 18.64). This was also the testimony of Paul concerning the disciples. It was an early oral tradition of the Church. It is also found in the works of the early Church.

Not only did the disciples claim that Jesus was raised, but they were also changed. Immediately after the crucifixion, we find the disciples dispirited and in hiding. Only a few months later, they were boldly proclaiming the gospel. Even in the face of certain death. They truly believed that Jesus was risen!

3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed. (pp. 64-65)
Something happened that convinced Saul of Tarsus that Jesus was the Christ and that He had risen. Saul was by no means inclined to believe this. In point of fact, he was opposed to this teaching. In Acts, we find the account of how this came to be, an encounter with the risen Christ. Whatever happened, it was dramatic enough to make Saul change his mind about Jesus being the Christ. It was convincing enough to him that he was willing to die for his belief.

4. The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed. (pp.67-69)
James was by no means inclined to believe that his own brother, Jesus, was the Christ. Yet, soon thereafter James became an important leader in the Church. What could have changed, that James went from rejecting Jesus as the Christ to proclaiming Jesus as the Christ. He was willing to keep on proclaiming this, even to the point of death. Josephus records that James was killed by stoning (Antiquities 20.200).

5. The tomb was empty. (pp. 69-74)
Jesus was publically executed and buried in the tomb of a well-known member of the Sanhedrin. All that would have been necessary, to refute the Resurrection, would be to produce the body of Jesus. Yet, this was never done.

An early accusation used by those opposing the preaching of the Resurrection was that the disciples had stolen Jesus' body from the tomb. This, however, presupposes that it was known where the tomb was and that it was empty.

The account of the empty tomb is also early in the tradition. If it had come late, it would not have been women who were the ones recorded as finding the tomb empty. In that culture, women were not considered to be good witnesses. This would have been an embarrassing situation, and would not have been reported except if it were true.

Most objections to Christianity and the Bible may provide a basis for refuting one or another of these five points. However, they often do not even address these five points. Those objections that do address one or more of these points generally do not do so in a convincing manner. And those arguments that try to address more than one of these points tend to be poorly constructed.

For more in-depth discussion on each of these points and some common objections to them, see The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.

Habermas, Gary R. and Licona, Michael R. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI, 2004.

The biblical quotation is from the NET bible. It can be found online, free, here: http://bible.org/netbible/

A Lesser Son of the King

Copyright RL

A Story: The Warrior: Part 5

The Warrior: Part 5

There were worse things on the Battlefield, though. The Warrior noticed that there were Soldiers who had taken up some of the Enemies' equipment to replace some of their own Weapons and Armor. Instead of glowing with the brilliance of the Command and the Presence, these appeared gray and sickly. Many of these died quickly in the heat of the Battle. The weapons that they had picked up would not harm the Enemy. The armor that they had picked up did not defend against the Enemies' weapons.

Of those who survived, most continued to drop pieces of their good Armor and Weapons, replacing them with more and more pieces from the Enemy. Some units only retained the Banner of the Commander. The casualties in these units were horrendous. Not only were they completely ineffective in the Battle, but they also inspired many others to abandon the Commander's Equipment for the Enemies', causing much harm.

And yet, as bad as some of these things were, some Soldiers who had taken up some of the Enemies' equipment would drop it and get good Equipment. Some Soldiers who had only accepted or only been given partial sets of Equipment would gain pieces. Some of these gained because they read the Instruction Manual. In other cases, it would be a Quartermaster who would read it and suddenly understand what Equipment needed to handed out. Ironically, in places where there were not many Instruction Manuals available, the Soldiers were more likely to be properly equipped. In those places, the Instruction Manuals were cherished, read, and believed.

A Lesser Son of the King

Copyright RL

A Story: The Warrior: Part 4

The Warrior: Part 4

The Warrior looked around the Battlefield. He saw there were places where the Host was not advancing. He noticed that in those places, many of the Soldiers were ill-equipped. Many had armor that was missing pieces. Some were missing shields. These Soldiers would take terrible wounds and would have to retreat. Some were missing offensive weapons. While these did not lose ground, they never gained any ground either.

Sometimes, the Quartermasters for entire units were at fault. They weren't properly equipping the Soldiers in their care. They had access to all of the equipment, but they would only had out partial sets.

Sometimes, individual Soldiers or groups of Soldiers were at fault. They had been given all that they needed, but had lost pieces. Others had everything with them, but hadn't equipped it properly.

In other places, the units were properly equipped, but poorly led. The squad leaders had received orders from the Commander, but they misunderstood what was to be done. Instead of attacking at the Enemy's weak points, some of these units would charge headlong into a point where the Enemy was particularly strong. While these units didn't take many casualties, they also didn't gain any ground.

A Lesser Son of the King

Copyright RL

A Story: The Warrior: Part 3

The Warrior: Part 3

Armed and armored, he looked a bit like a Roman soldier of old. But his weapons and armor were fashioned for a different Battle than those the ancient Romans fought, since his enemies were not mortal.

His sword, and the weapons of his fellow soldiers, were among the most potent weapons ever formed ... at least when used as guided by the Commander. It was necessary for it to be so. Otherwise, a thoughtless swing could have leveled mountains.

His armor was proof against the strongest attacks of the Enemy, as long as he used it properly. The Twins, at the behest of the Commander, blocked some of the attacks aimed at the Warrior. Others, he was able to block himself. Some of those that were allowed past by the Twins got past his defenses, but with muted force. This was in accordance with the will of the Commander, so that the Warrior's skills in Battle would continue to improve. The only times he was severely injured was when he foolishly removed or neglected some piece of his armor. Yet, even then, the Twins prevented him from being killed.

As strong as were the Warrior's weapons and armor, those of the Twins were even more so. And even stronger still, the Presence was even more powerfully armed and armored. His weapons could shatter the universe. Enemy blows that He intercepted came to nothing, with the very weapon of the attack disappearing, as if it had never been.

A Lesser Son of the King

Copyright RL

A Story: The Warrior: Part 2

The Warrior: Part 2

The Warrior sometimes felt that he fought on alone, despite the presence of the Twins. But, often unseen in the midst of the Battle, he was but part of a mighty Host. And, unseen behind him was a mighty Presence, shining forth the glory of the Commander. The Warrior did not know that the Presence had often deflected attacks that would have obliterated the Warrior. He was completely oblivous to almost all of these attacks.

At times, the Warrior was aware of others fighting alongside him. Sometimes the Warrior would be in charge of a squad, and at other times he was just one of the common soldiers. At such times, the Twins appeared to grow in size. As always, they protected the flanks of his unit. He would begin to glimpse the truth of the true size of the Twins, and that they defended the flanks of the entire Host, towering over it.

The unseen Presence was greater still with the glory of the Commander flowed from Him. This glory, sometimes felt but never truly seen, surrounding the Host. In truth, the glory covered the entire Battlefield, even those places where it wasn't felt.

A Lesser Son of the King

Copyright RL

A Story: The Warrior: Part 1

The Warrior: Part 1
The Warrior looked up from where he had fallen on the Battlefield ... again. The Twins, Chessed (loving-kindness) and Charis (grace), came and helped him back to his feet.

As a child, the Warrior had been hurt when bandits attacked his family. It was because of this that he had become a soldier. His heart's desire was to aid the helpless and to shield those in danger. But his legs were weak from the old injury. They were becoming stonger, but just when he would forget about it, he would fall again.

The Commander was aware of the Warrior's problem. It was He who had assigned the Twins to help the Warrior. He couldn't remember how many times the Twins had helped him back up. More times than he could count, it seemed.

At times, the Warrior was ready to give up. But the Commander wouldn't let him. After spending time recovering in Camp Eiraenae Soetaerou (peace of the Savior), the Warrior would be ready to face the Battle again.

He had helped many ... many more than he ever knew. The Commander knew the numbers, but often didn't reveal them to the Warrior. At times, he felt useless. Ironically, it was at these times that he accomplished the most.

Standing again, he strode back into the midst of the Battle.

A Lesser Son of the King

Copyright RL

A Critique of the Grand Design: Part 2

Covering the bulk of Hawking's book, The Grand Design.

Reality vs. Fantasy

Hawking delves into philosophy again, but without warning. In chapter 3, Hawking propounds that there is no objective reality. All reality, he claims, is dependent upon the model through which you filter the Universe. And, in chapter 1, Hawking tells us that we are free to choose whichever model is most convenient. But, the question remains, how do we determine what is convenient? (The answer is of course, subjective.)

So, where does this philosophical muddle leave us? If there is no objective reality to compare a theory against, then there is no objective way to determine the validity of a theory. Theories can then only be evaluated subjectively. But, does this line up with what the Bible teaches? (Remember, we are dealing with philosophy here, not science.) Firstly, the Bible teaches that God's view is predominant. He created all that is, and He is the ultimate authority. He determines what reality is; He can cause or prevent whatever He desires. Second, we are responsible for our actions and sins. The judgment that we will face will not be subjective, but will be based objectively upon God's decrees.

Already, we have a huge discrepancy between the philosophy that Hawking is propounding and the teaching of the Bible. And we haven't even gotten to the science yet!

Further, the denial of objective reality seems to shake the very philosophical foundations of science. Science, as we know it, came into being based upon the belief that the Universe is rational. The proponents for this emerging science came the Western world, with its underlying beliefs in the God of Creation. It was assumed that the order established by God was consistent and explorable. Ironically, many of these early scientists also believed in the supernatural and miracles. They believed in an objective reality, established by God. It was this objective reality against which their theories were to be tested.

The model dependent reality propounded by Hawking stands in opposition to the roots of science. If there is no objective reality, there is no basis for rational thought; but rational thought is the basis for scientific theories. We have a new philosophy that Hawking and many other scientists are espousing that undermines the basis for rational thought.

Should we believe a philosophy, supposedly based on rational thought, that ultimately denies the existence of rational thought? Such a philosophy is nonsense. Yet, this is what is being proposed as the necessary undergirding for science. Ultimately, this is where all naturalistic/materialistic philosophies and theories must lead, a destruction of their very basis.

For thought to be rational, it must be based in more than materialistic/naturalistic determinism. If physical interactions are all that exist, then thought itself is based upon the random movement of particles. Thus, thought itself becomes irrational. But the theories proposing this are supposedly rational. What a contradiction! Many holding to these theories accuse Christians of being irrational for believing in the supernatural, the very thing that allows for rational thought!

Why, you may ask, would scientists choose to propose such a dangerous philosophy? In part, as mentioned before, it is because of a denial of the existence of God. True, not all of these scientists are atheists or agnostics, but they do science as if they were. Second, Quantum Mechanics treats the world probabilistically. At the subatomic level, the very act of observation changes results and the results of an event cannot be predicted beforehand. Only probabilities for the various outcomes can be given. At this level, the world appears irrational and subjective. If this theory truly reflects reality, then it must hold at all distance scales, from the subatomic to the galactic and beyond. This would make the Universe itself irrational, at its base.

While Quantum Mechanics is a useful too, it does not mean that it is the ultimate reality. Newtonian physics was once thought to reflect ultimate reality, but in the beginning of the 20th century, this was found to not be true. Special and General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were developed to answer questions that could not be answered by Newton's theories. Given this, it should sound a warning that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are not compatible. Despite M theory, which Hawking mentions as early as Chapter 1 in the book, this incompatibility still remains to be resolved. In point of fact, it was in an attempt to resolve this conflict that the superstring theories at the root of M theory were developed. It has still not borne the promised fruit. In fact, there is not one theory, but rather 10^500 theories. (That is, 1 with 500 zeroes behind it, an incredibly huge number.) Instead of resolving the problem, the water has been muddied beyond measure.

Why do they search so hard for a theory to explain everything? In part, it is still an attempt to do away with the need for God. In this muddle, with so many theories to choose from, they try to bring hope by proclaiming that all of the theories are valid. Supposedly, each corresponds to its own Universe! But now, instead of answering how our Universe came into being, they have again propounded the problem, in a way that cannot even be explored by science. How would one go about verifying that this multitude of additional universes even exists? By definition, they should be unreachable.

Many scientists want to redefine what science is and how it is done. But if we remove the requirement of testability, then we are going back to the quasi-science of the ancient Greeks. This would not be progress, but regress.

What Hawking and so many scientists today are suggesting is not a flight to reality, but a flight into fantasy. Many disdainfully reject the teachings of Christianity, only to propose a reality that requires even more faith. For every hurdle that they overcome, a multitude more arise. Why? Because they have rejected objective reality and the ultimate Truth. In the "reality" they propose, Absolute Truth does not exist. All becomes subjective and ultimately irrational.

Now, I am not saying that science has become useless. There is still a vast abundance of good science being done. What I am saying is that the very foundations of science are being destroyed, leaving the entire edifice in danger of toppling over.

A Lesser Son of the King

Copyright RL

A Critique of the Grand Design: Part 1

Covering Chapter 1 of Hawking's book, The Grand Design

I am a young earth creationist, and I don't apologize for that! In spite of much opposition to this view from current "science", I hold this view because it follows the teachings of the Bible most closely. It is true that the same Scriptures that young earth creationists use as a basis have been interpreted differently by others. However, they do so via eisegesis, that is, reading into the text something that is not there. This is a common failing in our time.

This is a critique of Stephen Hawking's most recent book. His understanding of physics is far beyond my own. But ... in this book, he has begun to delve into another realm, that of philosophy. He blithely claims that philosophy has failed and that is should be replaced by ...physics. That is like saying the computer should be replaced by a bicycle! It won't work! Their function is not the same.

In fact, Hawking goes so far as to say that philosophy is dead (p. 5). His reasoning is that philosophy has not kept up with physics and so, now, physics should take the place of philosophy. That is a fine statement, but will it work? No! Just as a computer cannot take the place of a bicycle, and a bicycle cannot take the place of a computer, so physics cannot replace philosophy!

The only way that physics could replace philosophy is for it to stop being physics! Science and philosophy are different things. One does not duplicate the function of the other.

Philosophy is a foundational piece beneath science, and thus, physics. It is philosophy that provided support for the scientific method, that things can be determined through repeated experiment. That is how theories are tested in science! And we have this because of philosophy! Do they want to replace this with untested speculation? This is how the "science" of the Greeks was often done. Their "science" was not science as we know it, as it was not designed to be tested. This is why Greek "science" did not progress as modern science has! Is this what they want us to return to? It doesn't work! And yet, in my study of M-Theory, I have come to understand that this is exactly what some "scientists" want. They want remove the requirement that theories must be designed to be tested. Once that happens, science will fail. Theories will be "tested" via subjective approbation. Hence, it will cease to be science.

Returning to the analogy, a computer can be used to design a bicycle, but it cannot take its place! It is just as absurd to try to replace the computer with a bicycle. Perhaps a hybrid device could be formed. But the more like a computer, the less is can function as a bicycle. The more it becomes like a bicycle, the less it functions as a computer. The hybrid device functions more poorly than the separate devices! In the same way, a hybridization (or complete replacement) of philosophy with physics does not function as well as the two apart!

A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL