Christian Theism: Only Two Logical Options
Historic, biblical Christianity, by its very nature, is an all-or-nothing proposition. It can only exist if the Scriptures are true. Anything short of that would be something other than biblical Christianity.
What is the best approach to choosing the right option? Perhaps the best way is to approach it just like any other issue in which you have two options, both of which have important implications for your life.
To begin with, in a strictly logical sense, if the methodology for arriving at a given conclusion is defective, it does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is incorrect. It only means that the conclusion is not supported by the methodology, and hence, from a strictly logical point of view, the question remains open. If the methodology for arriving at a given conclusion is sound, however, and the starting premises are correct, we have no reason to doubt the conclusion.
Next, we need to ask, "What makes Christianity unique?" In the Scriptures we have accounts of multiple eyewitnesses to historic events, and the most unique event is surely the resurrection. How pivotal is this event? As the apostle Paul states, ". . . if Christ is not risen . . . we are of all men the most pitiable (I Corinthians 15:16-20). For if Jesus was resurrected, then the only rational option is that He is who He said He is, and by extension we are duty-bound to understand, believe, and submit to the teachings of His apostles. Conversely, in a strictly logical sense, if Jesus was not resurrected, the teachings of the apostles would not simply be non-authoritative, but those who preach them would be guilty of giving people a false hope and perpetuating a lie. (Of course, in a logical sense, if the atheists are correct, no one would have a basis for saying anything is right or wrong, and such a world view easily accommodates a "might makes right" approach to things.)
Finally, if Christian theism is correct, which would necessarily mean that apostolic teaching is absolutely authoritative, since the biblical record of apostolic teaching does not address every issue in explicit detail, it is still possible to arrive at many incorrect conclusions regarding what the apostles taught due to the use of defective methodology. Therefore, the burden of proof would be on those who promote any teaching which is not unambiguously and explicitly stated in the biblical record of apostolic teaching. Even if such teaching could be clearly shown to accurately reflect apostolic teaching, it certainly would not belong in the same category as that of the inspired text of Scripture.
What is the best approach to choosing the right option? Perhaps the best way is to approach it just like any other issue in which you have two options, both of which have important implications for your life.
To begin with, in a strictly logical sense, if the methodology for arriving at a given conclusion is defective, it does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is incorrect. It only means that the conclusion is not supported by the methodology, and hence, from a strictly logical point of view, the question remains open. If the methodology for arriving at a given conclusion is sound, however, and the starting premises are correct, we have no reason to doubt the conclusion.
Next, we need to ask, "What makes Christianity unique?" In the Scriptures we have accounts of multiple eyewitnesses to historic events, and the most unique event is surely the resurrection. How pivotal is this event? As the apostle Paul states, ". . . if Christ is not risen . . . we are of all men the most pitiable (I Corinthians 15:16-20). For if Jesus was resurrected, then the only rational option is that He is who He said He is, and by extension we are duty-bound to understand, believe, and submit to the teachings of His apostles. Conversely, in a strictly logical sense, if Jesus was not resurrected, the teachings of the apostles would not simply be non-authoritative, but those who preach them would be guilty of giving people a false hope and perpetuating a lie. (Of course, in a logical sense, if the atheists are correct, no one would have a basis for saying anything is right or wrong, and such a world view easily accommodates a "might makes right" approach to things.)
Finally, if Christian theism is correct, which would necessarily mean that apostolic teaching is absolutely authoritative, since the biblical record of apostolic teaching does not address every issue in explicit detail, it is still possible to arrive at many incorrect conclusions regarding what the apostles taught due to the use of defective methodology. Therefore, the burden of proof would be on those who promote any teaching which is not unambiguously and explicitly stated in the biblical record of apostolic teaching. Even if such teaching could be clearly shown to accurately reflect apostolic teaching, it certainly would not belong in the same category as that of the inspired text of Scripture.
Labels: apologetics, atheism, Bible, Christian Theism, Christianity, existence of God, faith, religion, resurrection, Scripture
posted by Dave | 7:55 PM
3 Comments:
CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD?
What is the meaning of calling on the name of the Lord? Many assume that believing in Jesus and saying a form of a sinner's prayer constitutes, calling on the name of the Lord. The problem with that theory is none of the conversions under the New Covenant support that assumption. Not one time is anyone ever told to believe and say the sinner's prayer in order to be saved.
The apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost quoted the prophet Joel, Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (NKJV)
The apostle Peter preached the first gospel sermon under the New Covenant. Peter did not tell the 3000 converts to believe and say the sinner's prayer.
Peter preached the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He preached Jesus as both Lord and Christ. When they heard this they asked Peter and the rest of the brethren what they should do?(Acts 2:22-37) Peter told them what to do. Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NKJV)
How did the 3000 on the Day of Pentecost call on the name of the Lord and become saved?
1. They believed that Jesus was both Lord and Christ.
2. They believed that God raised Jesus from the grave.
3. They repented. Repentance is a change of heart. Repentance means to be converted so that God may forgive your sins. Repentance is to make the intellectual commitment to turn from sin and turn toward God. (Acts 3:19, Acts 2:38)
4. They were immersed in water (baptized) so that their sins could be forgiven.
How did the 3000 on the Day of Pentecost not call on the name of the Lord?
1. They did not say a sinner's prayer.
2. Not one person was asked to pray for forgiveness.
3. Not one single man was told to be baptized as a testimony of his faith.
4. No one was told that water baptism was a just an act of obedience.
5. No one was informed they were saved the very minute they believed.
6. Not one person was told that water baptism was not essential for the forgiveness of sins.
7. Not one person was told to be baptized so they could join a denominational church.
Jesus said he that believes and is baptized shall be saved. (Mark 16"16) Jesus did not say he who believes and says a sinner's prayer shall be saved.
You ARE INVITED TO READ MY BLOG POSTINGS--Steve Finnell
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve,
Just for the reader's information, I think its safe to assume both of us believe the Scriptures to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Also, perhaps we are in total agreement about what is explicitly stated in Scripture. Moreover, I agree with many of your statements regarding popular teachings in evangelical circles. We don't seem to be on the same page on some issues, however, and I will endeavor to highlight the most significant ones.
First, regarding the meaning of "calling upon the name of the Lord," I recommend that people read the material under "The Saving Call" and "Saving Faith" in Houck's article at http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/five-points-of-calvinism/gods-sovereignty-in-salvation-by-steven-houck. I would say this article rightly demonstrates that calling upon the name of the Lord and repentance are natural responses to His work of grace in the heart of a sinner. Its not a matter of finding some sort of procedure to secure salvation.
Second, I am unashamedly a part of a confessional denomination (see the free, downloadable PDF portion of Trueman's book at http://www.wtsbooks.com/the-creedal-imperative-carl-trueman-9781433521904
near the top of the page) which upholds the doctrine
of immediate regeneration (see Cheung's article at http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/Cheung/03regenerated.htm) and justification by faith alone (see Cheung's article at http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/Cheung/05justified.htm). Please be advised that I am not suggesting that any denominational structure is biblical in whole or in part--only that it is biblical for a church to be a part of a wider Christian body, the details of which are another discussion for another day.
Third, although the Scriptures closely associate water baptism with the forgiveness of sins and salvation in general, I would argue that they do not demand that we conclude that water baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins or salvation, or that a particular mode of baptism be used. Not only would this be reading too much into the text of Scripture, it would also blur the distinction between law and gospel when water baptism is made a requirement for salvation. I think the view that water baptism is first and foremost a sign of the New Covenant has much greater scriptural support (see Riddlebarger's articles at http://christreformedinfo.org/sacraments).
Soli Deo gloria!
Dave
Post a Comment
<< Home