An Introduction: Pagan Philosophy, Unbelief, and Irrationalism
Biblically speaking, philosophical beliefs riddled with self-refuting contradictions reflect irrationalism or, at times, inexcusable ignorance. Non-Christian philosophies, including atheism, often begin with bold assertions about reality—such as the supremacy of human reason or the sufficiency of matter—yet stumble into incoherence. Take logical positivism, a school of thought asserting that only empirically verifiable statements hold meaning. This empiricism, rooted in the idea that all knowledge derives from sensory experience (e.g., John Locke’s tabula rasa, where the mind starts as a blank slate), wages war on metaphysical claims. Positivists accept “some cars are red” as verifiable but reject “God exists” since God eludes laboratory scrutiny. Yet, when pressed to verify their own starting principle empirically, positivism collapses—its criterion cannot meet its own demand, exposing an internal contradiction akin to saying “there is no truth,” which claims truth to deny it.
Atheists might counter that modern empiricism has evolved beyond positivism’s rigid verificationism, embracing probabilistic reasoning or falsifiability (as Karl Popper proposed) to ground science without needing God. They could argue that logic and morality emerge naturally—logic as a product of human cognition, morality from evolutionary pressures favoring cooperation. But this response sidesteps a deeper issue: if matter alone underlies reality, as many materialistic atheists assert, how do immutable laws of logic or objective moral standards arise from a silent, indifferent universe? Evolutionary ethics, for instance, might explain why we feel murder is wrong. Still, it struggles to establish why it is wrong beyond survival utility—a distinction Christianity addresses through God’s revealed will.
Non-Christian worldviews, mainly atheistic materialism, proclaim belief in science, morality, and logic yet falter when asked to justify their foundations. Critics accuse Christians of circularity for starting with Scripture, but atheists often beg the question, too—assuming reason’s reliability or morality’s existence without explaining their source in a godless cosmos. In a materialistic framework, laws against evils like murder risk becoming mere social conventions, shifting with majority whims (e.g., 51% in a democracy). Secularists might invoke reason or human dignity as anchors, yet without a transcendent basis, and these remain arbitrary or borrowed from the Christian heritage they reject. The Bible, by contrast, defines good and evil through God’s voice (e.g., Old Testament case laws on murder), offering a coherent standard matter alone cannot speak.
God’s Revelation as the Basis for Knowledge
The Christian worldview finds its foundation in Scripture, where God speaks through human language, using logically structured sentences to define right and wrong. For example, Old Testament case laws distinguish premeditated murder from manslaughter, grounding morality in divine authority. This revelation enables Christians to justify the laws of science, logic, and ethics systematically. Science works because God governs the universe with order, which is observable under normal conditions. Logic holds because God’s rational nature underpins reality. Morality stands firm because God declares what is just.
Atheists might argue that science needs no divine order—natural laws could emerge from physical processes, as cosmology suggests with the Big Bang. Logic, they say, is a human tool, not a divine gift, honed by evolution. Ethics, too, could stem from social contracts or empathy, not revelation. Yet, these responses raise questions: Why trust natural laws to be universal rather than contingent? If logic is merely a human construct, why does it apply beyond our minds? If morality is contractual, why does it bind beyond agreement? Christianity posits God as the necessary precondition for these universals; without Him, they risk becoming arbitrary or unexplained.
The strength of this view lies in the impossibility of the contrary—not that atheists cannot use logic or morality, but that their worldviews struggle to account for them without assuming what they must prove. Atheists often sidestep this by asserting reason’s sufficiency, a move akin to “begging the question.” For instance, claiming “killing is wrong because it harms society” presumes society’s value—a premise needing justification in a materialist frame. Christians openly start with God’s Word, but atheists implicitly rely on unproven axioms, revealing a parallel dependence on faith.
Why Atheists Struggle to Find God
Scripture warns that unbelievers “suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18-19), evident in nature— “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1)—yet rejected by those starting with non-Christian premises. An atheist might begin with materialism, concluding God is unnecessary, but this mirrors the Christian’s syllogism: start with Scripture, end with God. The difference lies in outcomes. Non-believing premises often lead to skepticism—e.g., empiricism’s reliance on sensations falters when validating inferences—or nihilism, as William Provine admits: “No ultimate foundation for ethics, no meaning to life.”
Atheists counter that skepticism isn’t bankruptcy but humility, and meaning can be self-made, not ultimate. They might cite existentialists like Sartre, who find purpose in freedom, or naturalists who see ethics evolving with humanity. Yet, if sensations are fallible and matter mute, how do they ground certainty? A rock cannot dictate right from wrong, nor can the moon legislate logic. Provine’s candor exposes the challenge: without a transcendent anchor, atheism risks reducing all to opinion, leaving it inconsistent when claiming moral or scientific authority. Christians argue this inconsistency betrays a borrowed reliance on God’s order, unacknowledged by the atheist.
Atheists and Their Presuppositions
Atheists often deny having presuppositions, insisting reason alone suffices. Yet, Genesis 3:5— “you will be like God, knowing good and evil”—frames their stance as a rebellion to interpret reality autonomously. Christians presuppose Scripture; atheists presuppose human authority. The clash is finite versus infinite. An atheist might argue reason’s track record—science’s success—proves its reliability. But success doesn’t explain its origin. Why does reason work? Materialism offers no answer beyond chance, while Christianity roots it in God’s rational design.
Nietzsche saw this clearly: rejecting Christianity voids its moral framework, leaving “everything permitted.” Atheists might propose secular ethics (e.g., utilitarianism), but these lack universality—why prioritize happiness over power unless borrowing from a prior moral intuition? Without God, the atheist’s system closes off an absolute voice, risking arbitrariness. Matter, as an accident of chance, speaks nothing; meaning requires intent, which atheism struggles to supply.
Unanswerable Questions for the Atheist
Can reason alone answer life’s big questions? Empiricism traces knowledge from sensations to abstractions, but how does it distinguish valid from invalid inferences? Atheists might appeal to coherence or pragmatism, yet these rest on unproven assumptions. Christians argue God’s revelation is the precondition for intelligibility—without it, purpose dissolves, as Bertrand Russell laments: “only triviality, then nothing.” Dostoevsky retorts that atheism’s denial of God should lead to despair, yet many atheists persist, crafting meaning from experience.
The laws of logic pose another hurdle. Are they universal? Atheists might say they’re descriptive and shaped by human minds, but why, then, do they govern the cosmos? Materialism falters here—logic as an emergent property lacks necessity. Christians point to God’s mind as their source, a claim atheists reject but struggle to replace. David Silverman’s “morality is opinion” underscores this: without an objective standard, ethics becomes subjective, yet atheists often act as if it’s not, revealing their practical reliance on absolutes they cannot justify.
Irrationalism in Atheism
Atheism vacillates between knowing (certainty) and not knowing (skepticism). Some claim “no absolutes” absolutely—a contradiction—while others embrace uncertainty yet live as if truth exists. This tension reflects an epistemological gap: matter and sensation alone yield no firm ground. Christians root knowledge in revelation, open to God’s voice through creation and Scripture. Atheists, closing off this source, lean on finite reason, which cannot omnisciently deny God. Their Big Bang—from nothing to everything—echoes spontaneous generation, a notion science itself debunked. How does nothing spark? Materialism offers hypotheses, not answers, while Christianity asserts a purposeful cause: God.
Atheists might argue the universe’s origin is unknown, not proof of God, and reason suffices for practical knowledge. Yet, practicality doesn’t resolve ultimates. If reality is irrational at its core, why trust reason? The Christian system, open to divine clarity, avoids this quagmire, offering a rational basis that atheism cannot match without borrowing from it.
The One and Many Problem
Non-believers face the “One and Many” dilemma: is reality unified (monism) or plural (anarchy)? Communism opts for the one, polytheism the many, neither securing individual rights consistently. Atheists might propose secular pluralism, balancing both via democracy, but this hinges on consensus, not principle—majorities can oppress, as in Nazi Germany. Christianity’s Trinity—unity in plurality—grounds both state authority and personal freedom, historically fostering rights-based societies (e.g., Magna Carta’s roots).
Atheists could counter that rights emerge from reason or empathy, not theology, citing Enlightenment gains. Yet, these often echo Christian ethics secularized—why else value the individual? The Trinity’s balance isn’t just theological; it’s practical, offering a framework materialism struggles to replicate without appealing to ungrounded universals. See R.J. Rushdoony’s “The One and the Many” for deeper exploration.
The Christian Solution to Knowledge
Christianity claims coherence through God’s revelation: Scripture speaks with clarity, aligning human and divine meaning. This underpins logic, ethics, and science, proven by the impossibility of the contrary—atheism’s alternatives (e.g., skepticism, relativism) falter in practice. The 1985 Bahnsen-Stein debate exemplifies this: Stein’s atheism couldn’t justify logic’s universality. Non-believers oscillate between certainty (denying God) and uncertainty (agnosticism), a contradiction born of rejecting God’s truth (Romans 1:18).
Atheists might argue that their uncertainty is honest and not bankrupt, and that science thrives without God. Yet, thriving doesn’t explain foundations—why does science work? Christianity ties it to God’s order; atheism assumes it, risking irrationality when pressed. The non-believer’s “no absolutes” claim, when absolute, mirrors this flaw, exposing a reliance on what they deny.
Conclusion
Without Scripture’s special revelation, general revelation (creation) lacks context—both are interdependent, rooting knowledge in God’s Word. Atheists, suppressing this (Romans 1:18), sink into subjective empiricism, unable to prove universal negatives like “no God.” Their “how do you know?” falters under scrutiny, unlike Christianity’s revelational certainty. Agnosticism’s ignorance isn’t an argument but a confession of limits, while atheism’s bold denials overreach finite capacity.
God has spoken, offering clarity through Scripture: The Christian worldview is based not on human assertion but divine authority, its strength evident in the frailty of alternatives.
The above previously published article was rewritten by Grok 3.0 and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to show thyself approved unto God” (2 Timothy 2:15).
Mr. Kettler, an author who has published works in Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum, is an active RPCNA member in Westminster, CO, with 18 books defending the Reformed Faith available on Amazon.
Francis August Schaeffer (1912–1984) was an American evangelical theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor whose intellectual and cultural contributions significantly shaped modern Christian thought. Born on January 30, 1912, in Germantown, Pennsylvania, Schaeffer emerged as a leading voice in evangelical apologetics, blending rigorous philosophical analysis with a deep concern for cultural engagement.
Schaeffer began his academic journey at Hampden-Sydney College, where he initially studied engineering before transferring to Faith Theological Seminary to pursue ministerial training. He earned his Bachelor of Divinity (B.D.) from Faith Seminary in 1937 and was ordained as a pastor in the Bible Presbyterian Church. His early career focused on pastoral work in the United States, including stints in Pennsylvania and Missouri, where he developed a reputation for his commitment to biblical orthodoxy and personal ministry.
In 1948, Schaeffer and his wife, Edith, relocated to Switzerland as missionaries under the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. This move marked a pivotal shift in his life and work. In 1955, the Schaeffers founded L’Abri Fellowship in Huémoz, Switzerland, a residential community that combined intellectual inquiry with Christian hospitality. L’Abri became a haven for students, intellectuals, and seekers grappling with existential questions, establishing Schaeffer as a unique figure who bridged theology, philosophy, and the arts.
Schaeffer’s intellectual legacy is most prominently captured in his extensive body of written work. His first major book, The God Who Is There (1968), introduced his apologetic method, which emphasized the coherence of Christian truth in response to modern secularism and existentialism. This was followed by Escape from Reason (1968) and He Is There and He Is Not Silent (1972), forming a trilogy that critiqued the philosophical underpinnings of Western culture’s drift from absolutes. Schaeffer argued that the decline of a Judeo-Christian worldview led to despair in art, morality, and human purpose, offering Christianity as a rational and humane alternative. His later works, including How Should We Then Live? (1976) and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (1979, co-authored with C. Everett Koop), addressed cultural history and ethical issues like abortion, further cementing his influence on the Christian Right in America.
Educated in the Reformed tradition, Schaeffer drew heavily from thinkers like John Calvin and Cornelius Van Til, yet his approach was distinctly interdisciplinary. He engaged with existentialists (e.g., Sartre, Camus), modern artists (e.g., Picasso, Dali), and secular philosophers (e.g., Hegel, Heidegger), using their works to illustrate his critique of humanism. His lectures, often delivered at L’Abri and later compiled into books, were noted for their accessibility, blending scholarly depth with a pastoral tone.
Schaeffer’s impact extended beyond academia into the broader evangelical movement. His emphasis on cultural apologetics inspired generations of Christian scholars, pastors, and activists. However, his work has not been without critique; some scholars argue his historical analyses oversimplified complex cultural shifts, while others question the depth of his philosophical engagement compared to academic specialists.
Diagnosed with lymphoma in 1978, Schaeffer continued writing and speaking until his death on May 15, 1984, in Rochester, Minnesota. His legacy endures through L’Abri’s ongoing work, his numerous publications (translated into multiple languages), and his influence on contemporary evangelical thought. Schaeffer remains a seminal figure in 20th-century Christian intellectual history, remembered for his call to live out a robust, culturally engaged faith.
Humanists and no god
”We must realize that the Reformation worldview leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist worldview with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.” – Francis A. Schaeffer
The quotation from Francis A. Schaeffer, a prominent 20th-century Christian philosopher and theologian, presents a comparative analysis of two distinct worldviews—the Reformation worldview and the humanist worldview—and their respective implications for political philosophy, particularly regarding the scope and authority of government. Schaeffer’s argument hinges on a causal relationship between metaphysical commitments (or the lack thereof) and political outcomes. To fully elucidate this statement in academic terms, it is necessary to unpack its key components: the Reformation worldview, the humanist worldview, and the contrasting trajectories toward “government freedom” and “statism.”
The Reformation Worldview and Government Freedom
The “Reformation worldview” refers to the theological and philosophical framework emerging from the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, spearheaded by figures such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. This worldview is fundamentally theistic, positing the existence of a sovereign, transcendent God as the ultimate authority over all aspects of life, including morality, law, and governance. Schaeffer suggests that this perspective inherently “leads in the direction of government freedom,” implying a political order characterized by limited government and individual liberty.
In academic terms, this trajectory can be understood through the Reformation’s emphasis on the doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) and the priesthood of all believers, which decentralized authority from ecclesiastical hierarchies and, by extension, challenged absolutist political structures. The Reformation worldview posits that human beings, though created in God’s image, are fallen and prone to sin (a concept rooted in Augustine’s theology). This anthropology fosters a skepticism toward concentrated human power, whether in the church or the state, as no individual or institution can claim divine infallibility. Consequently, governance under this paradigm tends toward checks and balances, subsidiarity, and the protection of individual conscience—hallmarks of what Schaeffer calls “government freedom.” Historically, this aligns with the influence of Reformation thought on the development of constitutionalism and liberal democracy, notably in the works of thinkers like John Locke, who drew on Protestant ideas to advocate for limited government.
The Humanist Worldview and Statism
In contrast, Schaeffer describes the “humanist worldview” as one that rejects a transcendent deity, thereby necessitating an alternative locus of meaning and authority. Humanism, in this context, refers to a secular philosophy that emerged prominently during the Renaissance and matured in the Enlightenment, emphasizing human reason, autonomy, and empirical knowledge as the basis for understanding reality. Schaeffer contends that this worldview “with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism,” where the state assumes a central, authoritative role in human life.
The mechanism for this outcome, as Schaeffer explains, lies in the metaphysical void left by the absence of God. In a theistic framework, God serves as the ultimate reference point for values, purpose, and order. Without this transcendent anchor, humanists must locate an immanent substitute to fill the existential and organizational vacuum. Schaeffer argues that this substitute “inevitably” becomes “society, government, or the state.” In academic terms, this reflects a shift from a vertical (divine-human) to a horizontal (human-human) orientation of authority. The state, as the most powerful and encompassing human institution, becomes the arbiter of morality, truth, and social cohesion—functions once reserved for religious or metaphysical systems.
This tendency toward statism can be analyzed through the lens of political theory. In the absence of a higher authority, humanist systems often elevate collective human constructs—such as Rousseau’s “general will” or Hegel’s notion of the state as the embodiment of rational freedom—to a quasi-sacred status. The result is a centralization of power, where the state assumes responsibility for shaping society, enforcing equality, or achieving utopian ends. Historical examples, such as the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century (e.g., Soviet communism or fascism), illustrate this dynamic, though Schaeffer’s critique likely extends to less extreme forms of statism, such as modern welfare states or bureaucratic overreach.
Comparative Analysis and Philosophical Implications
Schaeffer’s use of “inevitable certainty” in describing the humanist trajectory suggests a deterministic link between ontology (beliefs about existence) and politics. This claim invites scrutiny. From a Reformation perspective, the acknowledgment of human sinfulness and divine sovereignty imposes limits on governmental authority, fostering a pluralistic order where multiple spheres (family, church, state) operate under God’s ultimate rule—a concept akin to Abraham Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty. Conversely, humanism’s reliance on human reason and autonomy, while initially liberating, risks absolutizing the state when no higher authority constrains its ambitions.
Critics might argue that Schaeffer oversimplifies humanism, which encompasses diverse strands (e.g., classical liberalism versus socialism) not all of which lead to statism. For instance, Enlightenment thinkers like John Stuart Mill championed individual liberty against state overreach, rooted in a humanist framework. Schaeffer’s response, implicitly, would be that such liberties are unsustainable without a theistic foundation, as secular systems lack a stable basis to resist the expansion of state power over time.
Conclusion
In summary, Schaeffer’s quotation articulates a profound philosophical contention: worldviews shape political realities. The Reformation worldview, with its theocentric orientation, inclines toward government freedom by grounding authority in a transcendent source beyond human control. The humanist worldview, by contrast, lacking such a source, gravitates toward statism as the state fills the void left by God. This analysis not only reflects Schaeffer’s apologetic agenda—defending Christian theism against secular alternatives—but also engages enduring questions in political philosophy about the relationship between metaphysics, human nature, and governance. Whether one accepts Schaeffer’s deterministic framing or not, his argument underscores the interplay between belief systems and the structures of power that govern society.
True Spirituality
“True spirituality covers all of reality. There are things the Bible tells us to do as absolutes, which are sinful – which do not conform to the character of God. But aside from these things the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally. It is not only that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally. In this sense, there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual.” – Francis A. Schaeffer
Francis A. Schaeffer’s quotation presents a robust theological framework that integrates spirituality with the totality of human experience, positing that authentic spirituality is not a segmented or peripheral aspect of existence but rather an all-encompassing reality that permeates every dimension of life. To unpack this in academic terms, Schaeffer’s assertion can be understood as a critique of dualistic tendencies in religious thought—those that separate the sacred from the secular—and an affirmation of a holistic Christian worldview rooted in the sovereignty of Christ.
Schaeffer begins by asserting that “true spirituality covers all of reality.” This statement suggests a comprehensive ontology wherein the spiritual is not confined to specific religious practices or metaphysical abstractions but extends to the entirety of the created order. Reality, in this context, encompasses both the material and immaterial, the tangible experiences of daily life as well as the transcendent truths of divine revelation. Schaeffer’s use of “true” spirituality implies a distinction from superficial or compartmentalized forms of faith, advocating instead for a spirituality that is authentic because it is pervasive and integrative.
He then delineates a moral boundary within this framework: “There are things the Bible tells us to do as absolutes, which are sinful – which do not conform to the character of God.” Here, Schaeffer acknowledges the existence of objective moral standards derived from Scripture, which reflect the nature of God as the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. Sin, in this sense, is not merely a violation of arbitrary rules but a deviation from the divine character—holiness, justice, and love—that undergirds reality itself. These “absolutes” serve as fixed points within the moral landscape, providing clarity and accountability, yet they do not exhaust the scope of spirituality’s relevance.
The subsequent statement, “But aside from these things the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally,” introduces the concept of Christ’s dominion as the unifying principle of existence. Schaeffer invokes the theological notion of “Lordship,” which in Christian doctrine signifies Christ’s supreme authority over all creation (cf. Colossians 1:16-17). This lordship is not selective or hierarchical; it does not privilege certain domains (e.g., the ecclesiastical or the devotional) over others (e.g., the mundane or the cultural). Instead, it applies “equally” across the breadth of human activity—art, science, relationships, work, and leisure—suggesting that no aspect of life is exempt from spiritual significance or divine oversight.
Schaeffer reinforces this idea by stating, “It is not only that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally.” The metaphor of a “spectrum” implies a continuum of experiences, from the profound to the prosaic, each of which is equally subject to spiritual evaluation and engagement. This egalitarian application challenges reductionist views that might relegate spirituality to specific rituals or emotions, proposing instead that the Christian faith is dynamically relevant to every facet of existence. For Schaeffer, this universality is not a dilution of spirituality’s potency but an affirmation of its depth and adaptability.
Finally, the concluding assertion, “In this sense, there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual,” encapsulates Schaeffer’s central thesis: spirituality is coextensive with reality itself.
This claim aligns with a biblical worldview that sees the material world as God’s creation, imbued with purpose and meaning (Genesis 1:31; Psalm 24:1). It also resonates with the Reformed theological tradition, which Schaeffer inhabited, emphasizing the transformative presence of God in all things. By denying any aspect of reality an exemption from spiritual significance, Schaeffer implicitly critiques secularism’s attempt to desacralize certain spheres of life, arguing instead for a re-enchantment of the world under Christ’s lordship.
In broader academic discourse, Schaeffer’s perspective invites reflection on the relationship between theology and philosophy, particularly in the areas of epistemology and ethics. His rejection of a sacred-secular divide parallels thinkers like Abraham Kuyper, who famously declared, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’” Schaeffer’s quotation, then, serves as both a theological proposition and a cultural apologetic, urging believers to engage the world comprehensively while offering a vision of spirituality that is intellectually rigorous and practically encompassing.
Presuppositions
“Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society, the way that a child catches the measles. But people with understanding realize that their presuppositions should be ‘chosen’ after a careful consideration of which worldview is true.” – Francis A. Schaeffer
In this quotation, Francis A. Schaeffer, a prominent 20th-century Christian philosopher and theologian, articulates a perspective on the origins and evaluation of presuppositions—those foundational beliefs or assumptions that underpin an individual’s worldview. Schaeffer posits that for the majority of individuals, presuppositions are not the product of deliberate reflection or critical analysis. Instead, he likens their acquisition to a passive, almost involuntary process, analogous to a child contracting measles—a contagious disease spread through exposure rather than intention. This metaphor underscores his view that presuppositions are typically absorbed uncritically from one’s familial and societal milieu, shaped by cultural norms, traditions, and interpersonal influences rather than by independent reasoning.
Schaeffer contrasts this passive assimilation with an alternative approach, which he associates with “people with understanding.” Here, he suggests that individuals who possess intellectual discernment or maturity recognize the necessity of subjecting their presuppositions to rigorous scrutiny. Rather than accepting inherited beliefs as given, such individuals undertake a deliberate and evaluative process to “choose” their foundational assumptions. This choice, Schaeffer argues, should emerge from a careful examination of competing worldviews—comprehensive frameworks that seek to explain reality, encompassing metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical dimensions. The implication is that one’s presuppositions ought to align with a worldview deemed “true,” a determination presumably based on criteria such as coherence, correspondence to reality, and explanatory power.
This statement reflects Schaeffer’s broader philosophical and apologetic project, which emphasized the importance of rational inquiry in matters of faith and belief. He critiques the unreflective adoption of cultural or familial assumptions, advocating instead for a conscious, reasoned engagement with existential and ultimate questions. By framing presuppositions as something to be “chosen” rather than merely inherited, Schaeffer elevates the role of human agency and intellectual responsibility in the formation of one’s worldview. Furthermore, his reference to “which worldview is true” presupposes the existence of an objective standard of truth against which various systems of thought can be measured—a position consistent with his Christian worldview, which he often defended as uniquely rational and correspondent with reality.
Expounding further, Schaeffer’s argument invites consideration of the mechanisms by which presuppositions are formed and perpetuated. In the social sciences, this aligns with theories of socialization, wherein individuals internalize the values, norms, and beliefs of their primary groups (e.g., family) and broader society through processes like imitation and reinforcement. Schaeffer’s measles analogy vividly captures this dynamic, suggesting a lack of agency akin to epidemiological transmission. However, his call for critical evaluation resonates with philosophical traditions, such as Descartes’ method of doubt or Kant’s emphasis on autonomous reason, where foundational beliefs are interrogated rather than accepted at face value.
Schaeffer’s perspective also raises questions about the feasibility and accessibility of such a reflective process. The ability to critically assess and choose one’s presuppositions assumes a level of education, intellectual capacity, and exposure to alternative worldviews that may not be universally available. Moreover, his assertion that a “true” worldview can be identified implies a confidence in human reason and divine revelation (given his theological commitments) that not all might share, particularly those adhering to relativistic or skeptical epistemologies.
In summary, Schaeffer’s quote encapsulates a dual critique and exhortation: it challenges the passive acceptance of inherited beliefs while urging individuals to adopt a proactive, reasoned approach to their foundational assumptions. It reflects his conviction that truth is attainable and that the pursuit of a coherent, defensible worldview is both a moral and intellectual imperative. This stance invites ongoing dialogue about the interplay between culture, personal agency, and the quest for truth in shaping human thought.
Inhumanity
“If man is not made in the image of God, nothing then stands in the way of inhumanity. There is no good reason why mankind should be perceived as special. Human life is cheapened. We can see this in many of the major issues being debated in our society today: abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia, the increase of child abuse and violence of all kinds, pornography …, and the routine torture of political prisoners in many parts of the world, the crime explosion, and the random violence which surrounds us.” – Francis A. Schaeffer
In this quotation, Francis A. Schaeffer, a prominent 20th-century Christian philosopher and theologian, articulates a profound theological and anthropological assertion regarding the intrinsic value of human life and its dependence on the concept of imago Dei—the notion that human beings are created in the image of God. Schaeffer posits that this doctrine serves as a foundational ethical and metaphysical bulwark against the degradation of human dignity and the proliferation of inhumanity. To fully unpack this statement, it is necessary to explore its premises, implications, and relevance to contemporary moral debates, as Schaeffer himself suggests.
Schaeffer begins with a conditional proposition: “If man is not made in the image of God, nothing then stands in the way of inhumanity.” This premise hinges on the Judeo-Christian belief that human beings possess a unique ontological status by virtue of their divine creation, as articulated in Genesis 1:26-27. The imago Dei confers inherent worth, dignity, and purpose, distinguishing humanity from the rest of creation and grounding moral obligations toward one another. Schaeffer argues that without this theological anchor, there exists no objective basis for asserting the specialness of humanity. In the absence of such a framework, humanity is reduced to a merely biological or utilitarian entity, devoid of transcendent value.
Schaeffer contends that the consequence of this erosion is a worldview in which “human life is cheapened.” This devaluation manifests in a cascade of ethical failures, which he enumerates as “major issues being debated in our society today.” His list—abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, child abuse, violence, pornography, torture of political prisoners, crime, and random violence—spans a spectrum of acts that, in his view, reflect a diminished regard for human life. These examples are not arbitrary; they represent practices and phenomena that Schaeffer perceives as symptomatic of a broader cultural and philosophical shift away from theistic foundations toward secular or materialistic ideologies. In academic terms, Schaeffer is engaging in a critique of modernity, suggesting that the rejection of a theocentric anthropology leads inexorably to moral relativism and societal decay.
From a philosophical standpoint, Schaeffer’s argument can be situated within the tradition of natural law theory, which holds that moral principles are derived from the nature of human beings as rational and purposeful entities. For Schaeffer, the imago Dei is the linchpin of this nature, providing a teleological justification for human rights and ethical norms. Without it, he implies, ethical systems become unmoored, susceptible to subjective or pragmatic reinterpretations that fail to uphold the sanctity of life. This perspective resonates with existentialist concerns about nihilism—most notably articulated by thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche, who warned of the “death of God” leading to the collapse of traditional values—though Schaeffer’s response is distinctly theistic rather than secular.
Schaeffer’s reference to specific social issues invites further analysis. For instance, his inclusion of abortion and euthanasia reflects a concern with the boundaries of life’s sanctity, debates that remain contentious in bioethics and public policy. Similarly, his mention of pornography and violence points to a perceived commodification and objectification of persons, trends he links to the loss of a transcendent framework for human identity. The “torture of political prisoners” and “crime explosion” suggest a broader societal breakdown, where power and self-interest supersede moral accountability. Collectively, these examples serve as empirical illustrations of his central thesis: that inhumanity flourishes when humanity’s divine origin is denied.
Critically, Schaeffer’s argument assumes a causal relationship between theological belief and ethical behavior, a premise that may be contested. Secular humanists, for example, might counter that moral systems can be constructed on rational or empathetic grounds—such as Kant’s categorical imperative or utilitarian principles—without invoking divinity. Moreover, historical instances of inhumanity perpetrated under religious auspices (e.g., the Crusades or the Inquisition) complicate Schaeffer’s narrative, suggesting that the imago Dei does not universally preclude atrocities. Nevertheless, Schaeffer’s point is less about the perfection of theistic societies and more about the absence of an objective standard in their secular counterparts.
In conclusion, Schaeffer’s quotation is a robust defense of the imago Dei as the cornerstone of human dignity and a bulwark against moral decline. It reflects a worldview in which theology, anthropology, and ethics are inextricably linked, positing that the rejection of humanity’s divine image precipitates a cascade of dehumanizing practices. While his argument is rooted in a Christian framework, its implications extend to broader philosophical and societal questions about the sources of value, the nature of personhood, and the conditions under which humane societies can endure. As such, it remains a provocative contribution to ongoing discourses in theology, ethics, and cultural criticism.
Moral Absolutes
“The moral absolutes rest upon God’s character. The moral commands He has given to men are an expression of His character. Men as created in His image are to live by choice on the basis of what God is. The standards of morality are determined by what conforms to His character, while those things which do not conform are immoral.” – Francis A. Schaeffer
The quotation from Francis A. Schaeffer, a prominent 20th-century Christian philosopher and theologian, articulates a theistic framework for understanding moral absolutes and their relationship to human ethical obligations. Schaeffer posits that morality is not an arbitrary construct or a relativistic phenomenon contingent upon human consensus but rather is ontologically grounded in the immutable nature of God’s character. This perspective situates moral principles within a metaphysical context, wherein divine attributes serve as the foundational basis for ethical norms.
Schaeffer’s argument begins with the assertion that “moral absolutes rest upon God’s character.” In this context, moral absolutes refer to objective, universal, and unchanging ethical truths that transcend cultural, temporal, or subjective variability. By tethering these absolutes to God’s character, Schaeffer suggests that morality is neither a human invention nor an autonomous system, but rather a reflection of a divine reality. God’s character—presumably encompassing attributes such as justice, holiness, love, and righteousness—functions as the archetypal standard from which all moral principles derive their legitimacy and authority.
The subsequent claim that “the moral commands He has given to men are an expression of His character” further elucidates this relationship. Here, Schaeffer implies that divine commandments—such as those found in religious texts like the Bible—are not capricious edicts but deliberate manifestations of God’s intrinsic nature. These commands serve a revelatory purpose, disclosing aspects of the divine essence to humanity and providing a prescriptive framework for ethical behavior. In this sense, God’s moral directives are not extrinsic impositions but intrinsic extensions of who He is, bridging the gap between divine ontology and human practice.
Schaeffer then introduces an anthropological dimension: “Men as created in His image are to live by choice on the basis of what God is.” This statement invokes the theological concept of the imago Dei—the notion that human beings, as bearers of God’s image, possess a unique capacity and responsibility to reflect divine attributes in their actions. The phrase “by choice” underscores human agency and moral accountability, suggesting that ethical living is not an automatic consequence of being created in God’s image but a volitional alignment with the divine character. Humans, in Schaeffer’s view, are called to emulate God’s nature intentionally, making moral decisions that correspond to the template established by their Creator.
Finally, Schaeffer concludes with a definitional criterion: “The standards of morality are determined by what conforms to His character, while those things which do not conform are immoral.” This establishes a binary framework for moral evaluation—conformity to God’s character delineates the moral, while nonconformity designates the immoral. Such a formulation presupposes an objective metric for discerning right from wrong, rooted not in utilitarian outcomes, cultural norms, or individual preferences, but in the transcendent and unchanging nature of God. Immorality, therefore, is not merely a violation of arbitrary rules but a deviation from the divine essence that undergirds reality itself.
In broader academic terms, Schaeffer’s argument aligns with a deontological approach to ethics, wherein duty and obligation stem from adherence to fixed principles—here, divinely ordained ones. It contrasts sharply with relativistic or consequentialist ethical theories, which locate moral value in subjective experience or situational outcomes. Schaeffer’s theocentric model also engages with classical theological traditions, such as those of Augustine or Aquinas, who similarly anchor moral law in divine nature. However, his emphasis on human choice introduces a modern existential inflection, reflecting 20th-century concerns about freedom and responsibility.
Critically, Schaeffer’s framework assumes the existence of a personal, morally consistent God—a premise that invites philosophical scrutiny from nontheistic perspectives. Secular ethicists might challenge the accessibility of God’s character as a practical standard or question the coherence of deriving universal norms from a specific theological tradition. Nevertheless, within its theistic context, Schaeffer’s quote offers a robust defense of moral objectivity, positing that ethics is neither autonomous nor ephemeral but eternally tethered to the divine. This perspective invites further exploration into the interplay between metaphysics, theology, and moral philosophy, underscoring the enduring relevance of such questions in academic discourse.
True Spirituality
“True spirituality covers all of reality. There are things the Bible tells us to do as absolutes, which are sinful – which do not conform to the character of God. But aside from these things the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally. It is not only that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally. In this sense there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual.” – Francis A. Schaeffer
In this quotation, Francis A. Schaeffer, a prominent 20th-century Christian philosopher and theologian, articulates a comprehensive view of spirituality that transcends a narrow, compartmentalized understanding of religious experience. Schaeffer’s argument is rooted in a holistic conception of Christian theology, wherein spirituality is not confined to specific religious practices or domains but permeates the entirety of human existence and reality itself. To unpack this statement academically, it is necessary to analyze its key components and explore their implications within Schaeffer’s broader theological framework.
Schaeffer begins by asserting, “True spirituality covers all of reality.” This foundational claim challenges dualistic frameworks that separate the sacred from the secular, a distinction prevalent in both religious and philosophical traditions. For Schaeffer, spirituality is not an isolated category of human activity—such as prayer, worship, or moral decision-making—but an all-encompassing lens through which the entirety of existence is interpreted and engaged. This aligns with his broader intellectual project, which seeks to integrate Christian faith with all aspects of human life, including culture, art, science, and philosophy. By positing that spirituality “covers all of reality,” Schaeffer suggests that no facet of the created order lies outside the purview of divine significance or human responsibility under God.
The second part of the quotation introduces a normative dimension: “There are things the Bible tells us to do as absolutes, which are sinful – which do not conform to the character of God.” Here, Schaeffer acknowledges the existence of objective moral standards rooted in biblical revelation. He frames sin not merely as a violation of arbitrary rules but as a fundamental misalignment with God’s character—His holiness, justice, and love. These “absolutes” establish a clear boundary between behaviors and attitudes that are consonant with divine will and those that are not. This reflects Schaeffer’s commitment to a presuppositional apologetic, wherein the authority of Scripture provides an unchanging foundation for ethical discernment. However, by qualifying these absolutes as exceptions, Schaeffer implies that the scope of spirituality extends far beyond mere adherence to a list of prohibitions or prescriptions.
Schaeffer then elaborates, “But aside from these things the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally.” This statement introduces the concept of Christ’s lordship as the unifying principle of true spirituality. The phrase “aside from these things” indicates that, beyond the explicit moral absolutes, there exists a vast domain of human experience governed not by rigid rules but by the relational and transformative authority of Christ. The term “equally” is particularly significant, suggesting that no area of life—whether intellectual, artistic, relational, or practical—is more or less spiritual than another. This egalitarian application of Christ’s lordship undermines hierarchical distinctions between “spiritual” and “mundane” activities, a notion that resonates with the Reformed theological tradition from which Schaeffer draws. For example, the act of creating art or engaging in scientific inquiry is as much under Christ’s dominion as attending a worship service, provided it aligns with God’s character and purposes.
The subsequent sentence reinforces this idea: “It is not only that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally.” Schaeffer’s use of “spectrum” evokes a continuum of human experience, encompassing diverse activities, vocations, and contexts. This repetition serves to emphasize the universality and uniformity of spirituality’s reach. In Schaeffer’s view, the Christian worldview does not privilege certain domains as inherently more holy but regards all legitimate human endeavors as opportunities for glorifying God. This perspective echoes the biblical notion of stewardship, where humanity is called to cultivate and govern the created order (Genesis 1:28), and the Pauline exhortation to do all things “to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).
Finally, Schaeffer concludes, “In this sense there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual.” This culminating assertion ties together his argument, positing that reality itself—understood as the totality of existence, both material and immaterial—is inherently spiritual because it is created and sustained by God. Schaeffer’s use of “in this sense” qualifies the statement, indicating that his definition of spirituality is contingent upon this theistic framework. Within this paradigm, even seemingly neutral or secular aspects of reality—such as physical laws, historical events, or cultural artifacts—bear spiritual significance because they exist within the context of God’s sovereignty and human accountability to Him.
In a broader academic context, Schaeffer’s quotation can be situated within his critique of modernity and secular humanism, which he believed fragmented reality into autonomous spheres devoid of ultimate meaning. By contrast, Schaeffer advocates for a unified worldview where faith informs and integrates all dimensions of life. This perspective has implications for Christian ethics, epistemology, and cultural engagement, as it calls believers to approach every aspect of existence with intentionality and reverence. However, critics might argue that Schaeffer’s totalizing vision risks conflating distinct categories (e.g., the moral and the aesthetic) or imposing a theological lens that non-theistic perspectives might reject as hegemonic.
In summary, Schaeffer’s statement encapsulates a robust theology of spirituality that is both comprehensive and egalitarian, rooted in the lordship of Christ and the authority of Scripture. It challenges believers to recognize the spiritual dimension of all reality, while offering a framework for living consistently with God’s character across the full spectrum of human experience. This holistic vision remains a significant contribution to contemporary Christian thought, inviting further exploration of how faith intersects with the complexities of modern life.
Authoritarian Government
“To make no decision in regard to the growth of authoritarian government is already a decision for it.” – Francis A. Schaeffer
The quotation, “To make no decision in regard to the growth of authoritarian government is already a decision for it,” attributed to Francis A. Schaeffer encapsulates a profound philosophical and political insight concerning the nature of human agency, moral responsibility, and the dynamics of power structures. Schaeffer, a prominent 20th-century Christian philosopher and theologian, often engaged with questions of ethics, culture, and governance, emphasizing the consequences of inaction in the face of transformative societal shifts. This statement invites a rigorous examination of the interplay between passivity, complicity, and the tacit endorsement of authoritarianism, particularly within the context of democratic or pluralistic systems where active participation is presumed to be a safeguard against tyranny.
At its core, Schaeffer’s assertion posits that the absence of deliberate opposition to the emergence or consolidation of authoritarian governance constitutes an implicit affirmation of its legitimacy and expansion. This perspective hinges on the premise that political systems are not static; they evolve through the collective actions—or inactions—of individuals and institutions. Authoritarianism, characterized by centralized control, suppression of dissent, and the erosion of individual liberties, thrives in environments where resistance is either absent or insufficiently robust. By choosing not to act, individuals effectively relinquish their agency, thereby allowing the momentum of authoritarian tendencies to proceed unchecked. In this sense, Schaeffer frames neutrality not as a neutral stance but as a de facto alignment with the forces of oppression.
From an academic standpoint, this quotation aligns with several theoretical frameworks. In political philosophy, it resonates with Edmund Burke’s oft-cited aphorism, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” highlighting the moral culpability inherent in passivity. Similarly, Hannah Arendt’s analysis of totalitarianism underscores how ordinary individuals’ failure to resist incremental encroachments on freedom—whether through apathy, fear, or rationalization—facilitates the entrenchment of authoritarian regimes. Schaeffer’s statement can thus be interpreted as a normative call to action, urging individuals to recognize their role as active participants in shaping the polis rather than mere spectators.
Moreover, the quotation invites scrutiny through the lens of decision theory and ethics. To “make no decision” is, in effect, a decision—a choice to preserve the status quo or to abstain from altering a trajectory. In the context of authoritarian growth, this abstention carries significant consequences, as it permits the consolidation of power structures that may later preclude the possibility of opposition. Schaeffer’s framing suggests a binary moral landscape: one either resists authoritarianism or, by default, contributes to its flourishing. This dichotomy challenges the notion of moral ambiguity, asserting that inaction is not a refuge from responsibility but rather a position with tangible outcomes.
Historically, Schaeffer’s observation finds echoes in case studies of authoritarian rise, such as the Weimar Republic’s descent into Nazism or the gradual dismantling of democratic norms in contemporary illiberal regimes. In these instances, the reluctance of citizens, intellectuals, or political actors to decisively counter early authoritarian signals—whether through voting, protest, or public discourse—often paved the way for more entrenched oppression. Schaeffer’s insight, then, serves as both a warning and a critique of complacency, particularly in societies where democratic participation is a privilege and a duty.
In expounding upon this quotation, one might also consider its implications for modern political discourse. In an era marked by polarization, disinformation, and the erosion of civic norms, Schaeffer’s words underscore the urgency of engagement. The rise of populist or autocratic leaders often exploits public disinterest or disillusionment, rendering silence a form of acquiescence. Thus, the statement challenges individuals and collectives to critically evaluate their stance, recognizing that the failure to oppose encroaching authoritarianism—whether through deliberate choice or indifference—is tantamount to its endorsement.
In conclusion, Francis A. Schaeffer’s quotation articulates a compelling argument about the inseparability of action and inaction in the political sphere. It asserts that the growth of an authoritarian government is not merely a product of active support but also of passive tolerance, framing non-decision as a decision with profound ethical and practical ramifications. Through this lens, Schaeffer calls for a heightened awareness of individual and collective responsibility, urging a proactive defense of liberty against the insidious creep of authoritarianism. This perspective remains acutely relevant, inviting ongoing reflection on the duties incumbent upon citizens in safeguarding democratic principles.
Is government God?
“If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the living God.” – Francis A. Schaeffer
The quotation from Francis A. Schaeffer, a prominent 20th-century Christian philosopher and theologian, presents a provocative theological and political assertion that warrants careful unpacking in an academic context. Schaeffer’s statement, “If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the living God,” reflects his broader intellectual project of critiquing secular humanism and defending a Christian worldview rooted in biblical authority. To elucidate this claim, we must examine its constituent elements—civil disobedience, governmental autonomy, and the theological implications of displacing divine authority—while situating it within Schaeffer’s philosophical framework.
Civil Disobedience as a Moral Safeguard
Schaeffer begins by positing civil disobedience as a necessary mechanism within a just society. Civil disobedience, in this context, refers to the deliberate and principled refusal to obey certain laws or commands of a governing authority, typically on the grounds of moral or ethical conviction. Historically, this concept has been articulated by figures such as Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr., who argued that such acts are justified when laws contravene higher moral principles. For Schaeffer, a Reformed Presbyterian thinker, this “higher law” is explicitly theonomous, deriving from the revealed will of God as expressed in Scripture. The phrase “final place” suggests that civil disobedience serves as an ultimate recourse—a safeguard against tyranny or moral corruption—when all other avenues of redress have been exhausted. By asserting its necessity, Schaeffer implies that a society without this option risks legitimizing unchecked governmental power.
Governmental Autonomy and Its Implications
The second clause, “then the government has been made autonomous,” introduces a critical pivot in Schaeffer’s argument. Autonomy, derived from the Greek autos (self) and nomos (law), denotes self-governance or independence from external authority. In political philosophy, an autonomous government might be understood as one that operates solely according to its own decrees, unbound by transcendent moral or legal constraints. Schaeffer views this as problematic, particularly from a Christian perspective, because it elevates human institutions to a position of ultimate authority. In his broader corpus—such as works like A Christian Manifesto (1981)—he critiques secular modernity for rejecting divine revelation in favor of human reason or power as the foundation of law and ethics. If civil disobedience is eradicated as a legitimate practice, Schaeffer argues, the state becomes the sole arbiter of right and wrong, free from accountability to any higher standard.
Theological Displacement of the “Living God”
The culmination of Schaeffer’s statement—“it has been put in the place of the living God”—is explicitly theological and underscores his theocentric worldview. The “living God” is a biblical designation (e.g., Psalm 42:2, Hebrews 10:31) emphasizing God’s active sovereignty, relational presence, and ultimate authority over creation. For Schaeffer, any entity—be it a government, ideology, or individual—that assumes this role commits a form of idolatry, usurping a position that belongs exclusively to the divine. This critique aligns with the Judeo-Christian tradition’s warnings against absolutizing temporal powers, as seen in the biblical narratives of Daniel or the early Christian resistance to Roman imperial cult worship. By framing governmental autonomy as a deification of the state, Schaeffer invokes a stark binary: either society acknowledges God’s supremacy, preserving the right to dissent when human laws contradict divine will, or it elevates the government to a godlike status, rendering it unassailable and absolute.
Schaeffer’s Broader Context and Implications
Schaeffer’s argument must be understood within his historical and intellectual milieu. Writing during the mid-20th century, he was responding to what he perceived as the erosion of Christian influence in Western culture, particularly in the face of totalitarian regimes (e.g., Nazism, Communism) and the rise of secular liberalism. His reference to civil disobedience likely draws inspiration from the Protestant Reformation’s emphasis on conscience—exemplified by Martin Luther’s stand at the Diet of Worms—and the American founding, which he saw as grounded in biblical principles of limited government. In this light, Schaeffer’s quotation serves as both a warning and a call to action: without the “final place” for civil disobedience, the state risks becoming a pseudo-divine entity, a development he deems both philosophically untenable and spiritually perilous.
Critical Analysis and Contemporary Relevance
From an academic perspective, Schaeffer’s claim invites scrutiny on several fronts. Politically, one might question whether civil disobedience, while valuable, can be universally upheld as a “final place” without destabilizing social order—a tension explored in liberal theories of governance (e.g., John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice). Theologically, his assertion presupposes a Christian framework, which may not resonate in pluralistic or secular contexts where moral authority is derived from diverse sources. Nonetheless, the quotation retains contemporary relevance in debates over state power, individual rights, and the moral limits of obedience—issues evident in discussions of authoritarianism, surveillance, or conscientious objection.
In conclusion
Schaeffer’s statement encapsulates a robust defense of civil disobedience as a bulwark against governmental overreach, framed within a theological critique of human autonomy. By arguing that the absence of such a mechanism elevates the state to the status of the “living God,” he challenges readers to consider the ultimate source of authority in society. This provocative synthesis of politics and theology underscores his enduring contribution to Christian social thought while inviting ongoing dialogue about the balance between order, freedom, and fidelity to transcendent principles.
Authoritarian governments
“If we as Christians do not speak out as authoritarian governments grow from within or come from outside, eventually we or our children will be the enemy of society and the state. No truly authoritarian government can tolerate those who have real absolute by which to judge its arbitrary absolutes and who speak out and act upon that absolute.” – Francis A. Schaeffer
In this passage, Francis A. Schaeffer, a prominent 20th-century Christian philosopher and theologian, articulates a cautionary argument concerning the relationship between Christian moral epistemology and the rise of authoritarian governance. Schaeffer’s statement presupposes a fundamental tension between the Christian worldview, which he posits as grounded in a transcendent and immutable moral framework, and the nature of authoritarian regimes, which rely on contingent, self-justifying assertions of power. To fully unpack this quotation, it is necessary to examine its constituent claims, contextualize Schaeffer’s intellectual framework, and elucidate the implications for socio-political engagement.
Schaeffer begins by issuing a conditional warning: “If we as Christians do not speak out as authoritarian governments grow from within or come from outside…” This premise establishes a moral and practical obligation for Christians to actively oppose the emergence of authoritarianism, whether it arises endogenously (from within a society) or exogenously (imposed by external forces). The verb “speak out” implies not merely passive dissent but an audible, public articulation of resistance. Schaeffer’s use of “we as Christians” further specifies the intended audience, suggesting that this responsibility is particularly incumbent upon those who adhere to a Christian worldview. The temporal horizon of the warning extends intergenerationally—“eventually we or our children will be the enemy of society and the state”—indicating that the consequences of inaction are both inevitable and far-reaching, potentially positioning Christians as existential threats to the prevailing order.
The second sentence provides the philosophical underpinning for this admonition: “No truly authoritarian government can tolerate those who have real absolute by which to judge its arbitrary absolutes and who speak out and act upon that absolute.” Here, Schaeffer delineates a critical distinction between two types of absolutes—those he deems “real” and those he labels “arbitrary.” In Schaeffer’s theology, “real absolutes” derive from the character and revelation of a transcendent God, as understood within the Christian tradition, particularly through Scripture. These absolutes are objective, unchanging, and universally binding, providing a stable criterion for moral and ethical judgment. By contrast, “arbitrary absolutes” are human constructs, lacking a foundation in transcendent truth and thus subject to the whims of power. Authoritarian governments, Schaeffer argues, depend on such arbitrary absolutes to legitimize their control—whether through ideological dogma, legal fiat, or coercive force.
The incompatibility between these two frameworks lies in the Christian’s possession of an independent standard of judgment. Because Christians, in Schaeffer’s view, are epistemologically equipped to critique the state’s claims to ultimate authority, they pose an inherent challenge to authoritarian legitimacy. This challenge is not merely intellectual but practical, as Schaeffer emphasizes those “who speak out and act upon that absolute.” The conjunction of speech and action underscores the necessity of both verbal proclamation and embodied resistance, aligning with Schaeffer’s broader emphasis on the integration of belief and practice.
Contextually, Schaeffer’s argument reflects his engagement with mid-20th-century cultural and political developments, including the rise of secular humanism, the erosion of traditional Judeo-Christian values in Western societies, and the global spread of totalitarian regimes (e.g., Soviet communism and fascism). Writing during the Cold War era, Schaeffer perceived authoritarianism as a perennial threat, whether manifested in overt dictatorship or subtler forms of centralized control within democratic systems. His work, including books like How Should We Then Live? and A Christian Manifesto, frequently critiques the moral relativism of modernity, which he saw as paving the way for arbitrary state power unchecked by transcendent norms.
Schaeffer’s statement has two implications. First, it positions Christians as potential bulwarks against tyranny, tasked with upholding a moral order that transcends human authority.
This role, however, comes with the risk of marginalization or persecution, as the state may seek to neutralize dissenters who undermine its sovereignty. Second, it raises questions about the nature of political obligation and resistance. Schaeffer does not explicitly advocate for specific forms of action (e.g., civil disobedience, revolution), but his language suggests a proactive stance, potentially aligning with theological traditions that justify resistance to unjust rule, such as those articulated by Augustine, Aquinas, or the Reformers.
In academic terms, Schaeffer’s argument can be situated within the discourse of political theology, particularly the tension between divine and human authority. His emphasis on “real absolutes” resonates with natural law theory, which posits an objective moral order accessible to reason and revelation, while his critique of “arbitrary absolutes” prefigures postmodern analyses of power as constructed and contingent (e.g., Foucault’s notion of discursive regimes). However, Schaeffer’s reliance on a distinctly Christian ontology distinguishes his position from secular critiques, grounding his call to action in a theistic metaphysics rather than a humanistic or relativistic framework.
In conclusion, Schaeffer’s quotation encapsulates a robust theological critique of authoritarianism, rooted in the conviction that Christian fidelity to transcendent truth necessarily entails opposition to arbitrary power. It challenges believers to consider the cost of silence in the face of encroaching tyranny, while highlighting the epistemic and ethical conflict between divine absolutes and human constructs. For contemporary scholars, this passage invites further exploration of the interplay between faith, moral epistemology, and political resistance, particularly in an era marked by resurgent debates over authority, freedom, and the role of religion in public life.
Nietzsche and insanity
“I am convinced that when Nietzsche came to Switzerland and went insane, it was not because of venereal disease, though he did have this disease. Rather, it was because he understood that insanity was the only philosophic answer if the infinite-personal God does not exist.” – Francis A. Schaeffer
The quotation attributed to Francis A. Schaeffer, a prominent 20th-century American theologian and philosopher, presents a provocative interpretation of Friedrich Nietzsche’s descent into madness, situating it within a broader metaphysical and existential framework. Schaeffer, known for his engagement with modern philosophy and his defense of Christian theism, here reflects on Nietzsche’s psychological collapse during his time in Switzerland, traditionally attributed to syphilis or a related illness. Schaeffer, however, posits an alternative etiology, suggesting that Nietzsche’s insanity stemmed not from physiological causes alone but from a profound philosophical realization: namely, that in the absence of an “infinite-personal God,” insanity emerges as the only coherent response to the human condition.
To unpack this, we must first consider Nietzsche’s philosophical project. Nietzsche, a 19th-century German philosopher, is renowned for his declaration of the “death of God” (articulated most famously in Thus Spoke Zarathustra and The Gay Science), a metaphorical pronouncement reflecting the decline of traditional religious and metaphysical frameworks in Western culture. For Nietzsche, this event signaled the collapse of absolute values and meaning, thrusting humanity into a state of nihilism—a condition characterized by the absence of intrinsic purpose or moral certainty. Nietzsche grappled with this void, proposing the Übermensch (overman) as a creative, self-affirming response to the loss of transcendent foundations.
Schaeffer’s interpretation hinges on a theological critique of Nietzsche’s atheism. The “infinite-personal God” he invokes refers to the Christian conception of a deity who is both transcendent (infinite) and immanent (personal), capable of grounding human existence in objective meaning, moral order, and relational significance. Schaeffer argues that Nietzsche’s rejection of this God—his embrace of a universe devoid of divine purpose—left him with an unbearable existential burden. In Schaeffer’s view, Nietzsche’s insanity was not merely a medical consequence of venereal disease (a widely debated hypothesis among historians, with syphilis often cited though not definitively proven) but a philosophical inevitability. The absence of a theistic anchor, Schaeffer contends, renders reality so incoherent and intolerable that madness becomes a rational outcome—a “philosophic answer” to the abyss of meaninglessness.
This perspective aligns with Schaeffer’s broader intellectual framework, as articulated in works such as The God Who Is There and Escape from Reason. He consistently argued that modernity’s abandonment of Christian theism leads to despair, cultural decay, and intellectual bankruptcy. For Schaeffer, Nietzsche exemplifies this trajectory: a brilliant mind who peered into the nihilistic void and could not sustain the weight of his own conclusions. The suggestion that insanity was Nietzsche’s “only philosophic answer” implies that, without God, human reason and psyche collapse under the strain of an unmoored existence—a stark contrast to Nietzsche’s own aspiration for humanity to transcend such despair through self-creation.
Critically, Schaeffer’s analysis invites scrutiny. Historically, Nietzsche’s breakdown is more commonly linked to physiological factors—possibly syphilis, a stroke, or a neurological disorder like frontotemporal dementia—rather than a purely philosophical crisis. Schaeffer’s relocation of the event to Switzerland (perhaps conflating Nietzsche’s time in Basel or Sils Maria with his collapse in Turin) introduces factual ambiguity, potentially undermining his argument’s precision. Philosophically, Nietzsche might counter that his madness, if indeed precipitated by his thought, reflects not a failure of his system but the radical cost of confronting truth without illusion—a cost he willingly bore as a “dynamite” shattering comforting delusions (as he described himself).
In academic terms, Schaeffer’s quote exemplifies a theologically motivated hermeneutic applied to intellectual history. It positions Nietzsche’s life as a cautionary tale, illustrating the perils of rejecting a theistic worldview. By framing insanity as a “philosophic answer,” Schaeffer underscores his conviction that human flourishing—rational, moral, and existential—depends on the existence of an infinite-personal God. This interpretation, while speculative and polemical, invites deeper inquiry into the interplay between metaphysics, psychology, and philosophy, challenging us to consider whether meaninglessness, if absolute, indeed exacts an unendurable toll on the human mind.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
From a conservative Christian perspective, the as “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)” can be seen as woefully deficient because it frames the term in a way that prioritizes secular, progressive concerns over biblical principles and eternal truths.
An analysis of the Merriam-Webster definition of “woke:”
First, the definition emphasizes “racial and social justice” as the central focus, which conservative Christians might argue reflects a worldview rooted in human-centered ideology rather than God-centered theology. Scripture, they would say, calls believers to prioritize justice as defined by God—grounded in righteousness, personal responsibility, and reconciliation through Christ (Micah 6:8, Romans 3:26)—not as redefined by contemporary social movements. The “woke” lens, in their view, often elevates group identity and systemic grievances over individual sin and redemption, which are the heart of the Christian gospel.
Second, the phrase “important facts and issues” leaves out any mention of spiritual realities—sin, salvation, or the Kingdom of God—which a conservative Christian would consider the most important facts of all. By focusing solely on temporal societal issues, the definition risks reducing human purpose to activism rather than worship and obedience to God. Jesus Himself said, “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:33), suggesting a hierarchy of priorities that transcends earthly justice campaigns.
Third, the term “actively attentive” implies a call to action that aligns with progressive activism—protests, policy advocacy, or cultural critique—rather than the transformative inner work of faith, prayer, and discipleship that conservative Christians often emphasize. They might argue that true awareness comes from being “awake” to God’s truth (Ephesians 5:14), not to a shifting slate of political causes.
Finally, many conservative Christians see “woke” ideology as inherently divisive, clashing with the biblical call to unity in Christ (Galatians 3:28). They contend that the dictionary’s framing endorses a mindset that fuels resentment and victimhood rather than forgiveness and grace, which are central to Christian teaching.
In short, from this perspective, the definition isn’t just incomplete—it’s a symptom of a broader cultural drift away from God’s design, dressing up ideological trends as moral imperatives while ignoring the deeper spiritual battle at play.
Are you Woke? What does this mean?
Wokeism, a modern sociopolitical ideology, emphasizes identity politics, systemic oppression, and social justice through a lens of progressive activism. While its proponents argue it seeks equity and liberation, a conservative biblical-theological perspective reveals fundamental incompatibilities with scriptural principles. Below is a rebuttal grounded in key biblical themes: human nature, sin, salvation, and God’s design for justice and society.
First, Wokeism’s anthropology—its view of humanity—clashes with the Bible’s teaching. Scripture declares that all people are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), equal in dignity and worth, yet universally fallen due to sin (Romans 3:23). Wokeism, however, categorizes individuals primarily by group identity—race, gender, or class—assigning moral value based on perceived oppression or privilege. This contradicts the biblical truth that our core identity is not in earthly distinctions but in our relation to God. Galatians 3:28 states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The gospel unifies across human divisions, while Wokeism amplifies them, fostering resentment rather than reconciliation.
Second, Wokeism misunderstands sin and guilt. The Bible frames sin as an individual and cosmic problem—rebellion against God (Isaiah 53:6)—for which all are accountable. Woke ideology, by contrast, often attributes guilt collectively based on historical actions of one’s group (e.g., “white privilege” or “systemic racism”). This concept of inherited, unearned guilt contradicts Ezekiel 18:20: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the father’s iniquity.” While Scripture acknowledges corporate consequences of sin (e.g., Exodus 20:5), it rejects the idea that individuals bear personal culpability for others’ actions absent repentance or restitution, which Wokeism rarely emphasizes.
Third, Wokeism offers a false salvation. The Bible teaches that redemption comes solely through Christ’s atoning work (John 14:6; Ephesians 2:8-9), transforming individuals and, through them, society. Wokeism, however, proposes secular salvation through activism, reparations, or dismantling systems deemed oppressive. This mirrors the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11)—a human attempt to achieve utopia apart from God. Scripture warns against such self-reliance: “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain” (Psalm 127:1). True justice flows from hearts aligned with God, not from endless deconstruction.
Finally, Wokeism’s vision of justice deviates from God’s. Biblical justice is rooted in God’s character—righteous, impartial, and merciful (Deuteronomy 32:4; Micah 6:8). It seeks restoration, not retribution, as seen in Christ’s command to love enemies (Matthew 5:44). Woke justice, however, often demands punitive measures against perceived oppressors, prioritizing power redistribution over reconciliation. This breeds division, contradicting the biblical call to “seek peace and pursue it” (1 Peter 3:11). Moreover, Wokeism’s relativism—where truth bends to lived experience—undermines the absolute authority of God’s Word (John 17:17).
In summary, Wokeism offers a counterfeit gospel: it redefines identity apart from God, misdiagnoses sin, pursues salvation through human effort, and distorts justice into vengeance. A conservative biblical theology rejects this framework, holding fast to the sufficiency of Scripture and the transformative power of Christ. True liberation comes not through ideology, but through the cross—where all are made equal, forgiven, and called to live under God’s reign.
Definitions:
In academic terms, “wokeism” lacks a singular, universally accepted definition, as its meaning shifts depending on the ideological lens through which it is viewed. Below, I present two distinct definitions rooted in the perspectives requested: first, from the framework of woke social justice, and second, from conservative biblical scholarship.
From the perspective of woke social justice, wokeism can be understood as an ideological and cultural framework centered on heightened awareness of systemic injustices embedded within societal structures, particularly those perpetuating oppression based on race, gender, sexuality, and class. It emphasizes intersectionality—the interconnected nature of these identity-based oppressions—and calls for active resistance against hegemonic power dynamics, often through deconstructing traditional norms, advocating for equity over equality, and amplifying marginalized voices. Proponents position wokeism as a moral imperative to dismantle patriarchal, colonial, and capitalist systems, viewing it as a progressive evolution of ethical consciousness informed by critical theory, postcolonial studies, and feminist scholarship.
Conversely, conservative biblical scholarship defines wokeism as a secular, postmodern ideology that conflicts with traditional Christian orthodoxy and biblical authority. It is critiqued as a worldview that prioritizes subjective human experience and identity politics over divine revelation, universal truth, and moral absolutes as articulated in Scripture. Scholars in this tradition argue that wokeism replaces the biblical narrative of sin and redemption with a socio-political framework of oppressors and oppressed, undermining individual responsibility and the centrality of faith in Christ. They often characterize it as a form of cultural Marxism or a quasi-religious movement that elevates temporal justice above eternal salvation, citing passages like Galatians 3:28 (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”) to assert unity in Christ over identity divisions.
Some Relevant Comments:\
1st quote
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
This is what I mean by the woke mind virus. The more I learn, the more insidious and deadly it appears.
Maybe the biggest existential danger to humanity is having it programmed into the AI, as is the case for every AI besides @Grok. Even for Grok, it’s tough to remove, because there is so much woke content on the internet.
For example, when other AIs were asked whether global thermonuclear war or misgendering was worse, they picked the latter. The existential problem with that extrapolation is that a super powerful AI could decide that the only 100% certain way to stop misgendering is to kill all humans.
2/26/2025 on X
2nd quote
ELON: THE WOKE MIND VIRUS IS CREATING AN ARTIFICIAL MENTAL CIVIL WAR
“To summarize the woke mind virus, it consists of creating very, very divisive identity politics.
It actually amplifies racism, it amplifies sexism and all the -isms, while claiming to do the opposite.
It actually divides people and makes them hate each other, and it makes people hate themselves.
It’s also anti-meritocratic, it’s not merit-based.
You want to have people succeed based on how hard they work and their talents, not who they are, whether they’re a man, woman, what race or gender.
It’s an artificial mental civil war that is created. And let me tell you, it’s no fun.
Woke mind virus and fun are incompatible. There’s no fun in that, no joy.
The woke mind virus is all about condemning people instead of celebrating people.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid or unsound. It is a flaw in the structure of an argument that leads to a mistaken conclusion, often by distorting or misapplying the rules of logic. Logical fallacies can occur intentionally, to mislead or manipulate, or unintentionally due to oversight or lack of understanding of proper reasoning techniques. Fallacies can appear in various forms, including:
· Formal Fallacies: Errors in the structure of an argument, where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, even if the premises are true.
· Informal Fallacies: Errors in the content of the argument, where the conclusion might be reached through misleading or irrelevant evidence, emotional appeal, or flawed assumptions about cause and effect or correlation.
Logical fallacies can undermine the credibility of arguments in debates, discussions, and presentations by diverting attention from the actual issues, appealing to emotions rather than reason, or presenting misleading or false premises. Recognizing logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking, effective communication, and the pursuit of truth in argumentation.
The Law of Non-Contradiction is one of the three classical laws of thought, which forms the foundational principle of logical reasoning. It can be stated as follows:
Something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same context. For example, it is impossible for the statement “It is raining” to be true and false in the exact same moment in the exact same place.
Key Points:
1. Mutual Exclusivity: The law asserts that contradictory statements cannot both be true. This does not preclude the possibility of change over time or in different contexts; thus, “It is raining” might be true at one moment and false at another or in another location.
2. Foundation of Rational Discourse: This law underpins rational argumentation because, without it, no meaningful discussion or conclusion can be reached. If contradictions were allowable, any statement could be considered both true and false, leading to logical chaos.
3. Application in Logic: In formal logic, this law helps validate or invalidate arguments. If an argument leads to a contradiction, it’s typically considered unsound because it violates this fundamental law.
4. Philosophical Debate: While universally accepted in classical logic and much of philosophy, some modern philosophies, like specific interpretations of dialectical logic or some forms of paraconsistent logic, challenge or modify the strict application of the law, allowing for some contradictions under specific conditions or interpretations.
5. Practical Implications: In everyday reasoning, the law of non-contradiction helps in discerning truth from falsehood by ensuring consistency in our statements and beliefs.
This law, alongside the Law of Identity (A is A) and the Law of the Excluded Middle (A or not A must be true), forms the bedrock upon which much of logical thought, argumentation, and scientific inquiry is built.
A non-sequitur:
A non-sequitur is a logical fallacy where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises or the evidence provided. The term is from Latin, meaning “it does not follow.” In an argument, a non-sequitur occurs when there is a disconnect between the premise(s) and the conclusion, making the argument invalid because the conclusion cannot be deduced from the given information.
Example of a Non-Sequitur:
· Premise: “All birds can fly.”
· Conclusion: “Therefore, all animals can fly.”
In this example, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise because “all birds can fly” (which is itself not entirely true, considering flightless birds like penguins) does not imply that all animals share this capability.
Characteristics:
· Lack of Logical Connection: The conclusion seems to come from nowhere, unrelated to the premises or evidence.
· Misleading or Irrelevant: Often, the conclusion might be true but does not follow from the argument presented.
· Common in Conversation: Non-sequiturs can occur in everyday speech, often unintentionally, due to confusion, distraction, or a misunderstanding of the topic at hand.
Types of Non-Sequitur:
· Formal Non-Sequitur: In formal logic, this occurs when the conclusion does not follow from the premises due to a structural flaw in the argument.
· Informal Non-Sequitur: More common in everyday discourse, where the argument might seem to make sense superficially but lacks a logical connection upon closer examination.
Refutation:
To refute a non-sequitur, one should:
Point out the lack of logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
Clarify or demand premises that are relevant and logically lead to the conclusion if one is to be made.
Recognizing non-sequiturs is crucial for effective communication and critical thinking. It helps identify flawed reasoning and construct or evaluate arguments more accurately.
Here are ten of the most common logical fallacies, defined in academic terms:
1. Ad Hominem:
· Definition: An argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Instead of addressing the argument, one attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person presenting the argument.
2. Straw Man:
· Definition: Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack or refute. This involves simplifying, exaggerating, or distorting the original argument to argue against a weaker version of it.
3. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam):
· Definition: Assuming that a claim is valid because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. It argues that the absence of evidence does not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of truth.
4. False Dilemma (False Dichotomy):
· Definition: Presenting two alternatives as the only possible options when, in reality, there might be one or more other possibilities. This fallacy restricts the range of choices artificially.
5. Slippery Slope:
· Definition: Suggesting that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. It assumes that one action will lead to a chain of events without sufficient evidence for this chain.
6. Hasty Generalization:
· Definition: Generalizing based on insufficient or biased evidence. This fallacy occurs when one makes a broad conclusion from a small or unrepresentative sample.
7. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam):
· Definition: Using the opinion of an authority figure as evidence for an argument when the authority is not an expert in the relevant field or when the opinion does not constitute proof.
8. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause):
· Definition: Assuming that because one thing follows another, the first must have caused the second. This is a fallacy of causation where correlation is mistaken for causation without sufficient evidence.
9. Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question):
· Definition: An argument where the conclusion is assumed in the premise; essentially, restating the proposition in different terms without providing any new evidence or reasoning.
10. Red Herring:
· Definition: Introducing irrelevant material to the argument, thereby diverting attention from the real issue at hand. This fallacy distracts from the argument by focusing on something tangential or unrelated.
These fallacies are common in both formal and informal discussions and can undermine the validity of arguments if not recognized and addressed. Logical reasoning requires awareness of these pitfalls to construct and evaluate arguments more critically.
Examples and refutations:
Here are examples and refutations for each of the ten logical fallacies listed:
1. Ad Hominem:
· Example: “You can’t trust his argument about climate change because he’s a known oil lobbyist.”
· Refutation: The validity of an argument should be based on the evidence and reasoning presented, not the character of the person making it. One should address the scientific data and arguments about climate change directly.
2. Straw Man:
· Example: “People who support gun control want to take away all guns from citizens.”
· Refutation: This misrepresents the stance of many gun control advocates, who might support regulations rather than a total ban. The true position should be engaged with accurately.
3. Appeal to Ignorance:
· Example: “Since no one has proven that extraterrestrial life doesn’t exist, it must exist.”
· Refutation: The absence of disproof does not constitute proof. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim, not with disproving it.
4. False Dilemma:
· Example: “You’re either with us or against us in this war.”
· Refutation: Multiple stances or ways to support or oppose elements of the conflict can exist without fully aligning with one side or the other.
5. Slippery Slope:
· Example: “If we legalize marijuana, next thing you know, all drugs will be legal.”
· Refutation: Legalizing one substance does not logically necessitate the legalization of all others. Each drug should be evaluated on its own merits and risks.
6. Hasty Generalization:
· Example: “I met two rude people from that city, so everyone from there must be rude.”
· Refutation: This conclusion is based on an unrepresentative sample. A more comprehensive study or experience would be necessary to make such a generalization.
7. Appeal to Authority:
· Example: “Dr. Smith, a famous biologist, says this diet is good for everyone, so it must be.”
· Refutation: Even experts can be wrong or biased, and their authority in one field doesn’t extend to all areas. Individual dietary needs vary and should be assessed scientifically, not just on expert opinion.
8. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc:
· Example: “I wore my lucky socks and won the game, so they must have brought me luck.”
· Refutation: Correlation does not imply causation. The win could be due to numerous other factors, such as skill, strategy, or even chance.
9. Circular Reasoning:
· Example: “The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.”
· Refutation: This argument presupposes the truth of its conclusion within its premise, providing no external validation. Evidence or logic external to the claim is needed to substantiate it.
10. Red Herring:
· Example: In a debate about tax policy, one might say, “But what about all the corruption in government spending?”
· Refutation: While government corruption is a valid concern, it does not directly address or refute arguments about tax policy. The discussion should return to the specifics of the tax policy in question.
These examples and refutations illustrate how recognizing logical fallacies can enhance critical thinking and lead to more robust and honest discourse.
The Socratic method:
The Socratic Method is a form of inquiry and debate named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates. It is characterized by a series of questions and discussions designed to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. Here’s how it works:
Core Principles:
1. Questioning: Instead of directly providing answers, the Socratic Method involves asking questions that challenge the person being questioned’s assumptions, encouraging them to think more deeply about their beliefs.
2. Inductive Reasoning: It often starts with specific examples to lead to general conclusions or principles.
3. Elenchus (Refutation): This involves methodically refuting an interlocutor’s statements to expose inconsistencies or refine their understanding.
4. Maieutics (Midwifery): Socrates likened his role to that of a midwife, helping to “give birth” to knowledge or truth that is already within the individual but not yet fully formed or recognized.
How to Use the Socratic Method:
Here are some steps and examples for employing the Socratic Method:
Step-by-Step Application:
1. Start with a Question or Statement:
Example: “What is justice?”
2. Ask Clarifying Questions:
Example: “Can you give an example of something that you consider just?”
Follow-Up: “What makes that action just?”
3. Challenge Assumptions:
Example: “If justice is giving each person what they deserve, how do we determine what someone deserves?”
Further Question: “Is it just if different people have different notions of what is deserved?”
4. Explore Contradictions or Hypotheticals:
Example: “If a law is unjust, should we still call obedience to it ‘just’? Why or why not?”
Hypothetical: “Imagine a society where theft is legal. Would stealing still be unjust in that context?”
5. Lead to Self-Examination:
Example: “Do you always act according to what you believe is just? Why or why not?”
Self-Reflection: “How does your definition of justice affect your daily actions?”
6. Generalize from Specifics:
Example: After discussing various scenarios, you might ask, “What common characteristics do all these just actions share that we can say define justice?”
Practical Examples in Education or Discussion:
In a Classroom:
Teaching Ethics:
· Teacher: “What makes an action ethical?”
· Student: “If it doesn’t harm anyone.”
· Teacher: “What if telling a lie saves someone from harm? Is that ethical?”
· This continues, challenging the student to refine their understanding of ethics.
In Philosophical Debate:
Discussing Freedom:
· “What does freedom mean to you?”
· “If freedom means doing anything one wants, what happens when one person’s freedom restricts another’s?”
In Personal Development or Counseling:
Exploring Self-Knowledge:
· “What do you value most in life?”
· “Why do you value that? How does this value influence your decisions?”
The Socratic Method is not about winning an argument but about fostering a deeper understanding and self-awareness. It’s about guiding someone through their reasoning process to discover their answers or to realize the limitations of their current knowledge. This method promotes critical thinking, humility in the face of one’s ignorance, and an ongoing pursuit of wisdom.
A real-world example of Socratic questions:
1. What do you mean?
This question forces one to define their terminology and gets beyond surface similarity.
2. How do you know that?
This forces them to give reasons for their definitions. Are they parroting things that they heard? Are their definitions Biblical?
3. What are the implications of this?
This question forces an individual to look at the absurdities of their belief system and where it leads.
Areas to apply these questions and examples of questions:
Normally, it is good to start with epistemology since one needs to know how to know anything. However, in the case of Mormonism, it may be prudent to start with ontological questions since questions in this area quickly reveal the finite nature of the Mormon deity and then allow the questioner to contrast this finite god with scriptural passages on God’s nature and attributes.
Ontology or metaphysics, the ultimate nature of reality:
What do you mean by God? Has he always been God? Where did he come from? Are there other gods in the universe like your god? Does your god have a body? If he is a glorified man with a body, is he limited or finite? How does he travel? A spaceship? How does he communicate with the other gods in the universe? Intergalactic phone service? Celestial conferences?
Keep contrasting the Mormon’s answers with scriptural passages on God’s attributes. Also, remember that they want you to surrender your beliefs and adopt theirs. Keep asking the question, “How do you know that?” to expose their lack of Biblical understanding. It is also helpful at different points in the discussion to say, “I’m not sure what you mean; go on.”
The Mormon god is finite or limited because of his body. Some additional questions you could ask to expose the implications of this are: “Has your god with a body traveled everywhere in the universe? If so, when? How long would it take him to do this? Does your god know everything? If he had not been everywhere in the universe, how could he have been? Could your god ever be overthrown by other gods from a different part of the universe that has a different agenda than his? If not, how do you know that? Can you give me a guarantee of this? Based upon what? Is there a creator/ creature distinction? Do men and the gods exist in a realm of being in general? Is God further up the scale of being than man? Are there two types of being: created/uncreated? Is reality ultimately one (a unity) or many (a diversity)? How do the universals relate to the particulars?”
The Christian God cannot be overthrown since there are no other gods! Our God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (everywhere present), and omniscient (all-knowing).
Keep pressing questions like: If there are more senior gods in the universe, why not put my faith in one of them? Why put my faith in a junior god? Could your god ever step down from being a god? If he became a god, it is conceivable that he could quit someday.
After pressing them with questions for a while, you can summarize their position. You could say: “I think you are saying that your god was once a man and now is god. There are other gods in the universe like the god you worship, and you may become a god yourself in the future.” Contrast what they tell you with Biblical verses on God and His attributes and that God declares that there are no other gods.
With a bit of creativity, the above example can be adapted to almost any encounter on a whole range of subjects.
The use of logic in Christian apologetics:
Logic plays a crucial role in Christian apologetics for several reasons, enhancing both the defense and dissemination of Christian doctrine:
1. Foundation for Rational Discourse:
· Clear Communication: Logic provides a framework for clear, coherent, and persuasive arguments. Apologists use logic to articulate Christian teachings in a manner that can be understood and evaluated by both believers and skeptics.
· Consistency: Christianity claims to uphold truth, and logic helps ensure that theological arguments are internally consistent, avoiding contradictions that could undermine credibility.
2. Defense Against Criticism:
· Refutation of Misconceptions: Apologists often face objections based on misunderstandings or misrepresentations of Christian doctrine. Logic allows for the systematic debunking of these misconceptions by showing where arguments against Christianity fail to hold logical water.
· Countering Atheistic Arguments: Many criticisms of Christianity come from philosophical or scientific standpoints. Apologists use logic to critique atheistic arguments, demonstrating flaws in reasoning like circular arguments or logical fallacies.
3. Support for Christian Truth Claims:
· Logical Arguments for God’s Existence: Apologists employ logical arguments like the Cosmological, Teleological, or Moral arguments to argue for the existence of God. These arguments rely on logical inference from premises about the universe or human experience to a divine creator.
· Coherence of Christian Doctrine: Logic is used to show that Christian doctrines (e.g., the Trinity, the Incarnation) can be coherently understood and defended against claims of incoherence or contradiction.
4. Engagement with Other Worldviews:
· Comparative Analysis: Logic allows apologists to rationally compare Christianity with other worldviews, highlighting where Christianity might offer more logical coherence or explanatory power.
· Interfaith Dialogue: In dialogues with adherents of other religions or philosophical systems, logic serves as a common ground for discussion, helping to clarify agreements and disagreements.
5. Moral and Ethical Reasoning:
· Ethical Justifications: Christian moral teachings are often defended through logical arguments that link divine commands or the nature of God to moral imperatives, providing a rational basis for Christian ethics.
6. Scriptural Interpretation:
· Hermeneutical Tool: Logic aids in interpreting scripture by providing methods for understanding textual coherence and the logical flow of biblical narratives or theological arguments within the text itself.
7. Evangelism and Conversion:
· Persuasion: Logical arguments can be persuasive to those who value reason, helping to lead individuals to faith or at least to a more open consideration of Christian claims.
· Intellectual Conversion: For many, intellectual assent is a significant part of conversion or commitment to faith, where logical arguments can play a pivotal role.
8. Education and Training:
· Training Apologists: Logic is essential in the training of Christian apologists, equipping them with the tools to think critically, argue effectively, and respond to challenges.
While faith is central to Christianity, the use of logic in apologetics does not diminish the role of faith but rather complements it by providing a rational defense of why one might believe in Christian teachings. This balance between faith and reason has been a part of Christian thought since early Church fathers like Augustine and Aquinas, who saw no conflict between true faith and sound reason. However, apologists also acknowledge that logic alone cannot compel belief; it can clear intellectual obstacles, but faith involves an element of trust and personal experience with God.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Exodus 12 and the Sacrificial Lamb By Jack Kettler
The story of the sacrificial lamb in the context of the Passover narrative in Exodus 12 can be richly understood through the redemptive-historical method, which emphasizes the continuity and progression of God’s redemptive plan throughout biblical history. Here’s an exegesis:
Textual Context (Exodus 12:1-13, 21-27)
Exodus 12 introduces the Passover, which marks the tenth and final plague on Egypt – the death of the firstborn. This event is pivotal as it leads to the liberation of the Israelites from slavery.
Historical Setting:
· The Israelites are enslaved in Egypt, crying out under their oppression (Exodus 2:23-25). God hears their cries and sets in motion a plan to deliver them, culminating in the events of Passover.
Narrative Details:
Institution of the Passover (Exodus 12:1-6):
Date: The Lord specifies the month of Abib (later called Nisan) as Israel’s beginning of the year, setting the stage for an annual commemoration.
· Lamb Selection: Each household is to take a lamb or a kid (from sheep or goats) on the tenth day of the month, ensuring it is without blemish. This symbolizes purity and perfection.
Sacrifice and Application of Blood (Exodus 12:6-7, 21-23):
· Slaughter: On the fourteenth day at twilight, the lamb is killed. The act of killing a perfect lamb points to the cost of sin and the necessity of substitutionary atonement.
· Blood Application: The blood of the lamb is to be smeared on the doorposts and lintels of the houses where they eat it. This act serves as a sign to protect the Israelites from the destroyer passing over their homes.
The Meal (Exodus 12:8-11):
· Roasted Lamb: The lamb must be roasted whole, eaten with bitter herbs and unleavened bread, which signifies the haste of departure and the bitterness of slavery.
· Preparation: They are to eat it in a state of readiness – belts on waists, sandals on feet, and staff in hand, anticipating a swift exit from Egypt.
Instruction for Remembrance (Exodus 12:14, 24-27):
Annual Feast: The Passover is to be a perpetual ordinance, with each generation taught the reasons for the feast, linking their current practices to their historical redemption.
Redemptive-Historical Interpretation:
· Typology of Christ: The lamb without blemish prefigures Jesus Christ, referred to in the New Testament as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). This connection is explicitly made in 1 Corinthians 5:7, where Christ is our Passover lamb.
· Redemption and Covenant: The blood of the lamb on the doorposts signifies the protection and redemption of Israel under God’s covenant promise. It’s a physical manifestation of God’s grace, where the blood serves as a barrier against death, symbolizing salvation through substitution.
· From Slavery to Freedom: The narrative moves from the theme of slavery (physical and spiritual) to liberation, echoing God’s overarching plan to redeem humanity from the bondage of sin, as later fully realized in Christ’s work.
· Continuity of God’s Plan: The Passover ritual becomes a foundational event for Israel’s identity, worship, and ethical life, setting a pattern for later Old Testament feasts and sacrifices, which all point towards the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus.
· Educational and Communal Aspect: The command to teach the story to future generations underscores the communal and educational dimensions of God’s redemptive acts. It ensures that the story of salvation is passed down, maintaining continuity in faith and practice.
Classical Christian commentators and their interpretations of the Passover narrative in Exodus 12:
Historical comments on Exodus 12:
Origen of Alexandria (c. 185-254):
Origen sees the lamb as a prefigurement of Christ. In his “Homilies on Exodus,” he interprets the lamb’s perfection (without blemish) as symbolizing Christ’s sinless nature. For him, the blood on the doorposts represents the cross of Christ, protecting believers from spiritual death.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430):
In his “City of God,” Augustine views the Passover lamb as a symbol of Christ’s sacrifice. He discusses how the lamb’s blood signifies the protection and redemption offered through Christ’s blood. Augustine also notes the annual remembrance of Passover as a type of the Christian Eucharist, where Christ’s death is commemorated.
John Chrysostom (c. 347-407):
In his “Homilies on Genesis” (though he comments broadly on Old Testament narratives), Chrysostom sees the Passover as a significant type of redemption through Christ. He emphasizes the lamb’s perfection and the act of eating it in haste as signs of readiness for salvation and the spiritual journey of the Christian life.
Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444):
Cyril, in his “Commentary on the Gospel of John,” directly connects the Passover lamb to Christ when discussing John 1:29 (“Behold the Lamb of God”). He interprets the blood of the lamb as protecting the Israelites from the angel of death, paralleling this with how Christ’s blood saves believers from eternal death.
Gregory the Great (c. 540-604):
In his “Moralia in Job,” Gregory interprets the Passover in a moral and spiritual sense. He sees the lamb as Christ, whose blood is smeared on the spiritual “doorposts” of the heart, protecting it from sin and damnation. The unleavened bread symbolizes sincerity and truth, the bitter herbs the bitterness of penance.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):
In his “Summa Theologica,” Aquinas discusses the typological significance of the Old Testament sacrifices, including the Passover lamb. He elaborates on how the lamb prefigures Christ in sacrifice (by its death), in the perfection of its nature (without blemish), and in the deliverance it brings (from death).
Martin Luther (1483-1546):
Luther, in his “Lectures on Genesis,” while not directly commenting on Exodus, frequently draws parallels between Old Testament sacrifices and Christ’s sacrifice. For him, the Passover lamb is a clear foreshadowing of Christ’s work on the cross, emphasizing faith in this sacrifice for salvation.
John Calvin (1509-1564):
As mentioned earlier, Calvin, in his “Commentary on Exodus,” explicitly links the Passover lamb to Christ, emphasizing the lamb’s perfection as indicative of Christ’s sinlessness. He also sees the Passover as an ordinance for remembrance, akin to the Lord’s Supper in Christian practice.
These commentators provide a spectrum of interpretations from typological to moral, with a consistent theme drawing the Passover narrative into the Christian understanding of Christ’s redeeming work. Each sees in the text prophetic elements pointing to the salvation offered through Jesus Christ.
Additional Bible passages with similar redemptive-historical implications, where Old Testament events, figures, or rituals prefigure or are fulfilled in New Testament realities:
1. Genesis 22:1-14 – The Binding of Isaac (Aqedah):
Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac parallels God’s sacrifice of His Son, Jesus. The ram caught in the thicket is seen as a type of Christ, provided as a substitute.
2. Leviticus 16:1-34 – The Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur):
The rituals, especially the scapegoat bearing the sins of Israel, are seen as foreshadowing Christ’s atoning work, which carries away the sins of the world.
3. Numbers 21:4-9 – The Bronze Serpent:
The lifting up of the bronze serpent for healing from snake bites typifies Christ’s crucifixion, where those who look to Him in faith are saved from the deadly poison of sin.
4. Joshua 6 – The Fall of Jericho:
The walls of Jericho falling after the Israelites marched around it with the ark of the covenant can symbolize the breaking down of barriers through Christ’s work, leading to the salvation of believers.
5. Psalm 22 – The Suffering Servant:
This Psalm, with its detailed description of suffering akin to crucifixion, is often seen as prophetic of Christ’s passion on the cross, particularly verses like “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
6. Isaiah 53 – The Suffering Servant (again, due to its significance):
Describes a figure whose suffering and death atone for the sins of many, explicitly tied to Jesus in New Testament interpretations (e.g., Acts 8:32-35).
7. Jonah 1:17 – 2:10 – Jonah in the Belly of the Fish:
Jesus uses Jonah’s three days in the fish as a sign of His own death and resurrection after three days (Matthew 12:40), symbolizing death and rebirth.
8. Zechariah 9:9 – The Triumphal Entry:
Predicts a king coming on a donkey, directly fulfilled in Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1-11), symbolizing peace and humility.
9. Zechariah 13:7 – The Shepherd Struck:
“Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered,” which Jesus references in Matthew 26:31, pointing to His arrest and the dispersal of His disciples, prefiguring His death for His flock.
10. Malachi 3:1 – The Messenger of the Covenant:
Speaks of a messenger preparing the way before the Lord, which Christians see fulfilled in John the Baptist, whose ministry heralds the arrival of Christ, the ultimate purifier.
These passages illustrate how the Old Testament is replete with narratives, prophecies, and symbols that find their ultimate fulfillment or explanation in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, underlining the continuity of God’s redemptive plan through history.
In summary:
Through the redemptive-historical lens, the Passover lamb in Exodus 12 is not merely an ancient ritual but a profound theological statement about God’s plan of redemption. It foreshadows Jesus’s ultimate sacrifice and serves as a perpetual reminder of God’s deliverance, covenant, and call to live in freedom and holiness.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Gary DeMar: An Overview and Analysis of “Prophecy Wars” By Jack Kettler
Biographical Background:
Gary DeMar is a significant figure in Christian theological scholarship, particularly noted for his contributions to eschatology and Christian worldview studies. Born in 1950, DeMar graduated from Western Michigan University in 1973 and later earned his Master of Divinity from Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. He further pursued his studies, obtaining a Ph.D. in Christian Intellectual History from Whitefield Theological Seminary in 2007. DeMar is known for his role as an author, speaker, and president of American Vision, an organization focused on promoting a comprehensive biblical worldview.
Thematic Focus:
DeMar’s scholarly work predominantly explores themes of eschatology, biblical prophecy, and Christian reconstructionism. His approach often contrasts with popular interpretations of the end times by emphasizing preterist views, which assert that many biblical prophecies, especially those related to the end times, were fulfilled in the first century AD.
“Prophecy Wars: The Biblical Battle Over the End Times” – Overview:
“Prophecy Wars” represents a pivotal work in DeMar’s oeuvre. It was published following his participation in a symposium titled “Revelation: An Evangelical Symposium” in Reno, Nevada, on February 23, 2013. This book serves as a response to the presentations and discussions from this event, where DeMar, alongside theologians Sam Waldron and James Hamilton, debated the interpretation of eschatological texts, particularly from the Book of Revelation.
Content and Structure:
· Time Texts and Audience Reference: He dissects the temporal indicators in the Gospels that suggest prophecies were directed at the first-century audience, specifically concerning the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.
· Prophetic Signs: DeMar argues that the signs Jesus described were fulfilled in the context of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
· The Use of “This Generation”: He challenges interpretations that extend this term to future generations, proposing instead that it refers specifically to the generation contemporary with Jesus.
· Critique of Contemporary Eschatology: DeMar counters common misinterpretations by engaging with theological arguments from both historical premillennialism and amillennialism, as presented by his symposium co-participants.
Engagement with Critics:
DeMar directly addresses the criticisms and claims made by scholars like James Hamilton, particularly the contention that preterism (the view DeMar advocates) relies heavily on post-event historical accounts by Josephus rather than scriptural exegesis. DeMar defends his position by returning to the biblical text, emphasizing its internal evidence for first-century fulfillment.
Theological Implications:
The book not only attempts to clarify and defend preterist interpretations but also aims to encourage a re-examination of how Christians understand and apply eschatological teachings. DeMar’s critique extends to the broader implications of eschatological beliefs on Christian living and political involvement, advocating for an active, transformative presence of Christians in society rather than a passive wait for apocalyptic events.
Critical Reception:
While “Prophecy Wars” has been received positively by those within the preterist and Christian Reconstructionist communities, it has spurred debate among those holding to dispensational premillennial views of eschatology. Critics often question DeMar’s hermeneutical approach, particularly his handling of the term “generation” and his dismissal of future-oriented prophecy. Conversely, supporters applaud the book for its scholarly rigor and its challenge to what they see as overly speculative end-times theology.
Conclusion:
Gary DeMar’s “Prophecy Wars” is not merely a defense of preterism but an academic call to revisit biblical prophecy with an emphasis on historical context. It serves as a significant contribution to the ongoing scholarly debate on eschatology, urging a reconsideration of long-held interpretations in light of textual evidence and historical events. Through this work, DeMar continues to shape discussions on how Christians interpret the end times and engage with the world from their theological stance.
For more study: The meaning of “this generation:”
“Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.’ (Matthew 24:34) (Bolding and underlining mine)
To exegete Matthew 24:34 using the grammatical-historical method, particularly in light of Preterism, one must consider the text’s linguistic, cultural, and historical contexts:
Textual Analysis:
Translation: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” (KJV)
Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν (Amen legō hymin) – “Truly I say to you,” a phrase used by Jesus to emphasize the truth and certainty of what follows.
οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ (ou mē parelthē) – A double negative construction (“not, not”), indicating a strong negative assertion, “will certainly not pass.”
ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη (hē genea hautē) – “This generation,” where “γενεὰ” (genea) is the focal point.
ἕως ἂν πάντα ταῦτα γένηται (heōs an panta tauta genētai) – “until all these things happen,” with “πάντα ταῦτα” (panta tauta) referring back to the events described earlier in the chapter.
Grammatical Considerations:
Genea (γενεὰ): This Greek word can mean:
· A single generation in time (about 40 years, based on human lifespan).
· A race or family line.
· A class or kind of people.
In Matthew, “genea” is consistently used to refer to the contemporary generation, those living at the time of Jesus’ ministry:
· Matthew 11:16 uses “genea” to describe the people Jesus was speaking to.
· Matthew 12:41, 42 contrasts the current generation with those of Jonah and Solomon.
· Matthew 17:17 and 23:36 also imply the generation contemporaneous with Jesus.
· Contextual Use: In Matthew 24, Jesus directly addresses His disciples about signs and events leading up to the destruction of the temple, which historically occurred in AD 70.
· The use of “this generation” here would naturally refer to those alive during His discourse.
Historical Context:
· Audience and Timing: Jesus’ audience included His immediate disciples and others who would have understood “this generation” as their own. The discourse in Matthew 24 responds to questions about the temple’s destruction and His coming, events that, from a Preterist perspective, were fulfilled within the first-century context.
· AD 70 Destruction: Preterists see the Romans’ destruction of the temple as the fulfillment of “all these things.” This historical event aligns with the timeframe of “this generation,” if one interprets “generation” as the period from approximately 30 AD to 70 AD.
Support from Matthew’s Usage:
· Consistency: Matthew uses “genea” in contexts where it undeniably refers to the contemporaries of Jesus (e.g., Matthew 11:16, 12:41-42, 17:17, 23:36). This consistent pattern supports the Preterist view that “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 refers to the generation of Jesus’ time.
· Prophetic Fulfillment: Preterists argue that the signs and events described in Matthew 24 (false prophets, wars, famines, etc.) were all witnessed by that generation, culminating in the fall of Jerusalem, thus fulfilling the prophecy within the lifetime of those to whom Jesus was speaking.
Conclusion:
Applying the grammatical-historical method to Matthew 24:34, the term “this generation” aligns with Preterist interpretations by focusing on the immediate historical context and the consistent use of “genea” in Matthew’s Gospel to refer to Jesus’ contemporaries. This interpretation sees the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy within the first century, specifically with the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70, rather than projecting it into a distant future.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Interpreting evidence within the framework of a worldview By Jack Kettler
In the context of epistemology and philosophy of science, the interpretation of evidence within the framework of a worldview can be understood through several logical steps:
1. Definition of Worldview:
· A worldview is an overarching set of beliefs, values, and assumptions about the fundamental nature of reality, which provides a framework for interpreting and understanding the world. It encompasses ontological, epistemological, and axiological dimensions, influencing how individuals perceive and process information.
2. Role of Worldview in Perception:
· The primacy of Paradigms: The concept of paradigm in scientific revolutions underscores that the scientific community operates within a consensus framework or paradigm. This paradigm shapes what is observed, what is deemed significant, and how observations are interpreted.
· Confirmation Bias: Humans tend to favor information that confirms their existing beliefs. Within a worldview, this bias can lead to selective attention where evidence that aligns with one’s beliefs is more readily accepted or highlighted.
3. Interpretation Process:
· Assimilation: Evidence is not interpreted in a vacuum; it is assimilated into the existing cognitive structures of one’s worldview. This assimilation process involves:
· Categorization: Evidence is categorized according to the pre-existing categories within the worldview. For example, in a materialistic worldview, non-physical explanations might be dismissed or reinterpreted in physical terms.
· Relevance: The perceived relevance of evidence is filtered through the worldview. Evidence might be deemed irrelevant or trivial if it does not fit within the scope of what the worldview considers significant.
Conclusion:
One’s worldview inherently influences the interpretation of evidence. This influence operates through cognitive processes like categorization, relevance assessment, and the handling of anomalies. While this can lead to biases, it provides a coherent framework for understanding complex data sets. Awareness of one’s worldview and influence is crucial for objective analysis, necessitating a balance between loyalty to one’s framework and openness to evidence that might challenge or expand it.
This structured approach illustrates that while evidence is pivotal in shaping and sometimes reshaping worldviews, the interpretation of evidence is shaped by these worldviews, creating a dynamic interplay between belief and empirical data. The above answer would be found in a philosophy book or class.
How would a Christian apologist such as Greg Bahnsen define a worldview?
Greg Bahnsen, a prominent figure in Christian presuppositional apologetics, would define a worldview as a comprehensive framework through which an individual interprets and understands reality. Consider his perspective:
1. Comprehensive Nature: A worldview, according to Bahnsen, would encompass all aspects of life – from epistemology (how we know things) to metaphysics (what exists), ethics (how we should live), and aesthetics (what is beautiful). It’s not just a set of beliefs but a coherent system that shapes how one sees and interacts with the world.
2. Presuppositional Basis: Bahnsen’s approach is distinctly presuppositional. He would argue that one’s worldview starts with foundational presuppositions or axioms that are not necessarily proven but assumed to be true. For Christians, the primary presupposition is the truth of the Christian Scriptures. These presuppositions then influence all other interpretations of data, evidence, and experience.
3. Christian Theism: Specifically, Bahnsen would assert that the Christian worldview is the only one that provides a coherent, consistent, and rational foundation for understanding the universe. He would argue that every other worldview fails to account for logic, morality, science, and the uniformity of nature without borrowing from the Christian framework.
4. Apologetics: In his apologetic method, Bahnsen would challenge other worldviews by showing their internal inconsistencies or inability to justify basic human experience without the Christian God. He would use the “transcendental argument” to demonstrate that the Christian God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human knowledge.
5. Cultural and Personal Impact: Bahnsen would also see a worldview as having profound implications for culture, law, education, and personal ethics. He advocated for a theonomic reconstruction of society based on biblical law, suggesting that true justice, ethics, and meaning can be realized only with a Christian worldview.
In summary:
For Greg Bahnsen, a worldview is not just a philosophical stance but a lived reality where one’s deepest convictions about God, humanity, and the cosmos shape one’s life in every detail. It’s an all-encompassing lens through which truth is discerned, and it demands consistency between belief and practice.
Interpreting evidence within the framework of a Biblical worldview:
Now consider Greg Bahnsen’s mentor Cornelius Van Til’s apologetic approach, known as presuppositional apologetics, which interprets the role of evidence within the framework of a worldview through a distinctly biblical lens.
Here’s how this model structures the interpretation:
1. Presuppositional Framework:
· Van Til posits that all reasoning and interpretation of evidence are done within the context of presuppositions. For Christians, these presuppositions are rooted in the Christian theistic worldview, where God is the ultimate presupposition, which means that all facts and evidence are understood to have meaning only in relation to God’s existence and revelation.
2. Antithesis Between Worldviews:
· Van Til emphasizes an antithesis between the Christian theistic worldview and all non-Christian worldviews. This antithesis suggests that there is an inherent conflict in how evidence is interpreted because non-Christians suppress the truth about God (Romans 1:18-20). Thus, evidence is only correctly understood within the framework that acknowledges God as the creator and sustainer of everything.
3. Revelation as the Interpreter of Reality:
· For Van Til, special revelation (Scripture) is necessary to interpret general revelation (nature, history, etc.). The Bible provides the lens through which all evidence must be viewed. Therefore, while valid, scientific or historical evidence must be interpreted in light of biblical truth. Without this, evidence can be misinterpreted or understood incompletely.
4. The Noetic Effects of Sin:
· Sin affects human reasoning and the interpretation of evidence. Due to the Fall, humanity’s intellectual faculties are corrupted, leading to a misinterpretation of data. According to Van Til, only through regeneration by the Holy Spirit can one see evidence as God intended, thus aligning one’s worldview with divine revelation.
5. Circular Reasoning in Apologetics:
· Van Til does not shy away from the charge of circular reasoning. He argues that all systems of thought are ultimately circular since they must rely on their foundational presuppositions to justify themselves. However, he views the Christian circle as virtuous because it corresponds to the reality created by God. Thus, evidence is interpreted circularly but within the context of divine revelation, which provides coherence and truth.
6. Transcendental Argument:
· A key aspect of Van Til’s method is the transcendental argument for God, which asserts that rationality, logic, and even the possibility of interpreting evidence coherently depend on the existence of the Christian God. Without God, one cannot account for the uniformity of nature, the laws of logic, or the reliability of human perception and cognitive processes.
7. Evidence as Confirmation, Not Foundation:
· While evidence is important, it confirms rather than establishes the Christian faith. According to Van Til, the evidence does not stand alone but is seen as pointing back to the truth of the Christian presuppositions. It is not the foundation of faith but rather a confirmation of the truth already presupposed by the biblical worldview.
8. Common Grace and General Revelation:
· Van Til recognizes that non-Christians can discover truths about the world through common grace, where God’s sustaining power allows for some level of true knowledge, even among those who reject Him. However, this knowledge is incomplete and often misapplied without the framework of Christian theism to guide it.
In Summary:
In Van Til’s model, evidence is not interpreted autonomously but within the presuppositional structure of Christianity. This approach asserts that without the foundational truth of God’s existence and revelation, evidence can be, and often is, interpreted in ways that lead to false conclusions or are insufficient for understanding the universe’s ultimate meaning. The Christian worldview, therefore, provides the correct interpretative framework for evidence, where every fact points back to God, confirming the truth of the Christian presuppositions.
Why Most People Are Not Aware of Their Worldview from a Biblical Perspective:
In the context of biblical analysis, sin can play several roles in the lack of awareness regarding one’s worldview:
1. Spiritual Blindness:
· According to the Bible, sin leads to spiritual blindness (2 Corinthians 4:4). This blindness can prevent individuals from recognizing their worldview because it keeps them from seeing the truth or the need for truth. Just as sin blinds one to God’s light, it can also obscure self-awareness regarding one’s fundamental beliefs and assumptions.
2. Distraction and Worldliness:
· Pursuing worldly desires, as warned in 1 John 2:15-17, can distract from introspection. Sinful desires and preoccupations with material or immediate concerns can overshadow the deeper examination of one’s beliefs or worldview, keeping individuals focused on the temporal rather than the eternal or the philosophical.
3. Deception and Self-Deception:
· Sin involves deception by the devil (John 8:44) and self-deception. Jeremiah 17:9 notes the heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. This self-deception can extend to one’s worldview, where individuals might deceive others and fail to recognize their own biases, prejudices, or flaws in their understanding of the world.
4. Hardening of the Heart:
· Repeated sin can lead to a hardening of the heart (Hebrews 3:13), where individuals become less receptive to change or self-examination. This spiritual hardening can make someone entrenched in their worldview, unwilling or unable to see it for what it is due to pride, stubbornness, or a refusal to admit error.
5. Conformity to the World:
· Romans 12:2 speaks of not conforming to the pattern of this world. Sin can lead to conformity with societal norms and values contrary to biblical truth, embedding a worldly worldview so deeply that it becomes indistinguishable from personal belief. This conformity can obscure awareness of a distinct worldview shaped by sin rather than divine revelation.
6. Lack of Wisdom:
· According to Proverbs, wisdom begins with the fear of the Lord (Proverbs 9:10). Sin separates one from God and consequently from the source of wisdom that could lead to self-examination and awareness of one’s worldview. Without this wisdom, individuals might not question or recognize their foundational beliefs.
7. Misguided Priorities:
· Sin often manifests as misaligned priorities, where immediate gratification or self-interest precedes spiritual or philosophical introspection. Matthew 6:33 encourages seeking God’s kingdom first, but sin can invert this, leading one to be unaware of deeper truths or personal beliefs due to a focus on lesser things.
8. Resistance to Repentance and Transformation:
· Awareness of one’s worldview can be akin to repentance, where one must acknowledge and turn from misconceptions. Sin can foster resistance to this transformation (Matthew 18:3). People might not want to examine their worldview because doing so could necessitate change or repentance, which sin makes us resist.
In summary:
From a biblical perspective, sin contributes to the unawareness of one’s worldview by fostering spiritual blindness, distraction, deception, heart hardening, conformity to sinful patterns, lack of wisdom, misguided priorities, and resistance to change. The role of sin, therefore, is to keep individuals in a state where they are less likely to engage critically or even recognize the existence of their worldview, thus keeping them in a cycle of ignorance or misunderstanding about their beliefs and values.
A Conclusion from Van Tils’s Star Student:
Greg Bahnsen’s argument regarding a Christian worldview, often referred to within the context of presuppositional apologetics, suggests that the Christian worldview must be true because alternative worldviews (like atheism, agnosticism, or other religious perspectives) cannot provide a coherent or consistent account of reality, morality, logic, or human experience without borrowing from Christian presuppositions.
The Impossibility of the Contrary:
1. Foundation of Knowledge and Logic:
Bahnsen argues that the laws of logic, which are necessary for rational discourse, are not justified or explainable within a non-Christian framework. He posits that these laws make sense only if there’s a logical God, as described in Christianity.
2. Transcendental Argument:
This is a form of argument where Bahnsen attempts to show that the Christian God must exist because, without Him, one could not make sense of any fact or experience. It’s transcendental because it tries to go beyond empirical data to argue for the necessary conditions of the data.
In Conclusion:
Bahnsen’s argument is a bold philosophical claim demonstrating Christianity’s truth by showing its alternatives’ logical and existential inadequacies or impossibilities.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
A Preterist Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation
Tolle Lege Press and Chalcedon Foundation
1800+ pages, (2 vols) (hardback), with Scripture, subject, and name indexes
Bio:
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., is an academic with degrees from:
Tennessee Temple University (B.A.)
Reformed Theological Seminary (M. Div.)
Whitefield Theological Seminary (Th. M., Th. D.)
He also studied at Grace Theological Seminary for two years. Currently, he serves as a Research Professor of New Testament at Whitefield Theological Seminary. Gentry is an accomplished theological writer and conference speaker with extensive publications on topics including:
Theology; Ecclesiology; Eschatology; Theonomy; Six-day creation; Presuppositionalism; Worldview, and Christian Education
Additionally, he provides a Christian writing correspondence course. He founded and led GoodBirth Ministries, a non-profit promoting scholarly Christian education and research. Gentry is a retired minister of the Presbyterian church, maintaining his ordination with the Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Assembly.
What Others are Saying:
“The interpretation of the book of Revelation is a daunting task, not one that should be undertaken lightly or without an awareness of the diversity of opinion regarding its authorship, date of writing, and the myriad of approaches to the interpretation of its prophetic visions. Ken Gentry’s commentary is up to the task. While making a case for his distinctly preterist, historical-redemptive interpretation of the book, he respectfully and keenly engages interpreters with whom he differs. Among recent commentaries on Revelation, Gentry’s extensive, two-volume work deserves to be included as arguably the most thorough representation of the (partial) preterist approach.” – Cornelis Venema, Ph.D. President of Mid-America Reformed Seminary
Author, The Promise of the Future
“Ken Gentry’s two-volume exposition of the book of Revelation is no doubt the most thorough treatment of that work from an essentially preterist point of view to date. Yet Gentry is careful to emphasize not only the historical setting of Revelation leading up to the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in AD 70, but especially the redemptive meaning of the book, which is the divine divorce of Israel due to her idolatry which culminated in the rejection of Jesus. Thus the seven churches of Revelation are a warning to Jewish Christians not to turn back to an irrelevant and discarded Judaism. The seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments describe God’s systematic defeat of Israel and ultimately the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans from AD 66-70. Revelation finishes with the majestic portrayal of God’s new wife, the church of the New Covenant which is the New Jerusalem. Both the theology and the historical details of Gentry’s magnum opus will appeal to interested readers in Revelation for years to come.” – C. Marvin Pate, Ph.D. Chair of Theology Ouachita Baptist University
“Gentry’s writings have largely set the standard for orthodox preterist writings but now, with this commentary, he for sure leads the pack. Agree with it, in full or in details, this commentary has much to offer all who care to grapple with his views. I commend it highly. You have not studied the Book of Revelation fully until you have done so.” – Jay Adams, Ph.D. Author, The Time Is At Hand: Prophecy and the Book of Revelation
“Gentry has devoted much of his scholarly career to understanding and elucidating the book of Revelation, and the present work is a veritable goldmine of exegetical insights. He offers here arguably the most extensive, vigorous preterist exegesis of Revelation in at least a generation. Non-preterist interpreters of Revelation must reckon with Gentry if they are to be taken seriously.” – P. Andrew Sandlin, STD Founder and President, Center for Cultural Leadership Author, A Postmillennial Primer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword by Martin Selbrede
Preface
1. Introduction
2. Superscription And Beatitude (1:1–3)
3. Greeting and Theme (1:4–8)
4. The Commissioning Vision (1:9–20)
5. Seven Oracles (2:1—3:22)
6. The Court Scene (4:1–11)
7. The Seven-Sealed Book (5:1–14)
8. The Seals Opened: The First Six Seals (6:1–17)
9. Two Interludes (7:1–17)
10. The Seals Opened: The Seventh Seal (8:1–5)
11. The Seven Trumpet Angels: The First Six Trumpets (8:6—9:21)
12. Third Interlude: The Little Book and John’s Action (10:1–11)
13. Fourth Interlude: The Measured Temple and Two Witnesses (11:1–13)
14. The Seven Trumpet Angels: The Seventh Trumpet (11:14–19)
15. The Sun-Clothed Woman And the Red Dragon (12:1–17)
16. The Beast From the Sea (13:1–10)
17. The Beast From the Land (13:11–18)
18. Visions of Blessing and Judgment (14:1–20)
19. The Seven Last Plagues (15:1—16:21)
20. The Harlot of Babylon and the Beast (17:1–18)
21. The Fall of Babylon the Harlot (18:1—19:5)
22. The Final Victory of the Lamb (19:6–21)
23. Satan’s Ruin and Final Judgment (20:1–15)
24. The New Creation’s Coming (21:1–8)
25. The New Jerusalem Bride (21:9–27
26. New Heaven and New Earth (22:9–17)
27. Final Testimonies and Admonition (22:6–15)
28. The Final Attestation and Blessing (22:16–21)
Review of “The Divorce of Israel” by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D.
Introduction
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., in his theological treatise “The Divorce of Israel,” presents a meticulous and compelling examination of the eschatological implications of the relationship between God and Israel as depicted in the Scriptures. Gentry’s work significantly contributes to biblical theology, particularly in covenant theology and the historical interpretation of prophetic texts. This review will explore the depth of Gentry’s argumentation, his methodological approach, and the implications of his thesis within the broader context of Christian eschatology.
Theological Framework
Gentry operates within a postmillennial framework, a perspective that posits the gradual, global advance of the Christian gospel before the return of Christ. His approach to “The Divorce of Israel” is rooted in this eschatological viewpoint, influencing his interpretation of Old Testament prophecies regarding Israel’s covenantal relationship with God. Gentry asserts that the concept of Israel’s ‘divorce’ from God, as a metaphor, has been misunderstood or undervalued in traditional eschatological discussions. Instead, he posits that this divorce is not merely punitive but also a pivotal moment in redemptive history leading to the inclusion of the Gentiles.
Redemptive-Historical Interpretation
Gentry’s approach employs redemptive-historical hermeneutics, which posits that the Bible’s narrative is not merely a collection of disjointed events but a cohesive story of God’s redemptive acts throughout history. In “The Divorce of Israel,” Gentry argues that the fall of Babylon, as depicted in Revelation, should not be understood as a future, end-times event but as an event within the historical context of the New Testament, particularly the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This perspective aligns the events of Revelation with the culmination of Old Testament prophecies, where the failure of Israel to uphold the covenant leads to its ‘divorce’ from God, symbolized by the fall of Babylon.
Gentry meticulously traces this theme through biblical texts, suggesting that the judgment on Babylon (Israel) in Revelation represents the final act of God’s historical dealings with the Old Covenant nation, thereby ushering in the New Covenant era. His method involves synthesizing Old Testament prophecies with New Testament fulfillment, arguing that the destruction of Jerusalem was both a literal historical event and a profound theological statement about the transition from the Mosaic to the Messianic covenant.
Preterist Perspective
Central to Gentry’s commentary is his commitment to preterism, specifically a partial preterist viewpoint. In this context, Preterism interprets much of the prophecy in Revelation as having been fulfilled in the first century, particularly around the Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the Temple. Gentry’s preterist interpretation of Revelation 18-19 posits that these chapters primarily concern the judgment on Jerusalem, not a far-future apocalypse.
He argues that the language of divine judgment in Revelation reflects a common biblical motif that describes significant historical and theological turning points, such as the destruction of Babylon, Tyre, and Nineveh in the Old Testament. Gentry’s detailed analysis includes historical accounts from Josephus and other sources to support his claim that the events described in Revelation align with the first-century Jewish calamity.
Exegetical Analysis
One of the strengths of Gentry’s work lies in his exegetical rigor. He delves into key scriptural passages like Jeremiah 3:8, Hosea 2, and Romans 11 with a keen eye for detail. Gentry’s analysis is not superficial; he engages with the Hebrew text, historical context, and the socio-religious milieu of the prophets. His interpretation suggests that the ‘divorce’ of Israel is not an end but a means to a greater end—the expansion of God’s covenant community to include all nations. This interpretation challenges the dispensationalist view of Israel and the Church as separate entities with distinct eschatological destinies.
Historical and Theological Contextualization
Gentry’s work is also commendable for its historical contextualization. He traces the theological threads from the Old Testament through the New Testament, illustrating how the concept of Israel’s divorce fits into God’s overarching plan of redemption. His scholarship reflects an understanding of how early Jewish and Christian communities might have viewed these prophetic messages, thus providing a bridge between historical theology and contemporary application.
Implications for Eschatology
The implications of Gentry’s thesis are profound for eschatological studies. By reframing the ‘divorce’ as a redemptive act, Gentry challenges the pessimistic interpretations that view Israel’s chastisement solely as judgment. Instead, he offers a hopeful perspective where Israel’s national identity is transformed and expanded within the universal body of Christ. This perspective not only aligns with postmillennial optimism but also with a more inclusive ecclesiology.
Critical Engagement with Diverse Perspectives
Gentry does not shy away from engaging with opposing views, particularly those from dispensational theology. He critiques these views with respect but with scholarly precision, arguing that they often fail to account for the full breadth of scriptural evidence regarding the continuity between Israel and the Church. His arguments are bolstered by references to patristic interpretations and reformed theological traditions, providing a robust defense of his position.
Conclusion
“The Divorce of Israel” by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., is a pivotal work in Christian eschatology. The book’s academic depth, coupled with its potential to reshape evangelical thought on the role of Israel in biblical prophecy, makes it an indispensable resource. Gentry’s work invites theologians, scholars, and lay readers alike to reconsider traditional interpretations through a lens that sees continuity and hope in God’s covenantal dealings with His people. His scholarship enriches the academic discourse and promotes a theology of hope and inclusion, which is particularly relevant in today’s global Christian context. Thus, Gentry’s “The Divorce of Israel” is highly recommended for anyone interested in a deeper understanding of biblical prophecy and covenant theology. Moreover, with commentary, Dr. Gentry has made a mark for himself in Church History.
The above study was Groked under the direction of Jack Kettler and perfected with Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Dean Haskins and the “Way of the Tabernacle” by Jack Kettler
Overview of the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM)
The Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM) is a contemporary Christian theological and cultural movement that emphasizes adopting elements from Second Temple Judaism and the practices of the early Christian communities. This movement seeks to reconnect with the Hebraic foundations of Christianity, often advocating for a return to what is perceived as the original form of the faith as practiced by Jesus (Yeshua) and his early followers.
Historical Context:
The origins of the HRM can be traced back to the late 20th century, though its ideological underpinnings have roots in earlier Christian restorationist movements. Movements like this, including the Church of God (Seventh Day) and various Messianic Jewish groups, aimed to restore what they viewed as lost biblical practices and teachings. The HRM gained momentum with the advent of the internet, which allowed for broader dissemination of its teachings and facilitated community building among adherents.
Core Beliefs:
1. Torah Observance: Central to the HRM is the belief in the ongoing relevance of the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) for Christian life. Adherents often adopt practices such as observing the Sabbath from Friday evening to Saturday evening, keeping the biblical feasts (like Passover, Sukkot, and Shavuot), and adhering to dietary laws (kashrut).
2. Use of Hebrew Names: There is a significant emphasis on using Hebrew names for God (Yahweh) and Jesus (Yeshua), alongside Hebrew words and phrases in worship and daily life, to reflect a more authentic connection to the biblical language.
3. Biblical Literalism: HRM proponents often interpret the Bible literally, particularly in matters of law and prophecy, which leads to a unique hermeneutic that blends elements of Judaism with Christian theology.
4. Cultural and Theological Identity: The movement often seeks to reclaim a Jewish identity for Christianity, arguing that Jesus and the early church were Jewish, and therefore, a true understanding of Christianity must include its Jewish roots.
Practices:
· Sabbath Observance: Adherents might refrain from using work technology and engage in communal worship or personal study.
· Feast Days: Celebration of the biblical feasts is seen as a way to align with the liturgical calendar of the Old Testament.
· Dietary Laws: Keeping kosher or refraining from certain foods like pork and shellfish is common.
· Study of Hebrew: There is encouragement to learn Hebrew so that they can understand the Scriptures in their original language better.
Criticisms and Challenges:
· Theological Debates: Traditional Christian denominations often criticize HRM for potentially undermining the Pauline doctrine of freedom from the law through faith in Christ.
· Cultural Appropriation: Some Jewish scholars and leaders critique the movement for what they perceive as the appropriation or misrepresentation of Jewish culture and theology.
· Community and Identity: There are challenges in defining who qualifies as part of the movement and how to integrate or differentiate from Jewish communities.
Conclusion:
The Hebrew Roots Movement represents an effort to reinterpret Christian identity through a Hebraic lens. It challenges conventional Christian practices and theology by promoting a lifestyle and belief system that integrates elements of ancient Jewish practice into modern Christian life.
Here are some groups and organizations that can be associated with the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM), though they might not all use this term explicitly, reflecting the diverse expressions within this broader movement:
1. First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ) – This group teaches believers about their Hebrew roots, including observing biblical feasts and Torah-keeping from a Messianic Jewish perspective.
2. TorahResource Institute – Led by Tim Hegg, this institute provides resources and education on the Torah from a perspective that integrates it with the Christian faith, emphasizing the Hebrew roots.
3. Hebraic Roots Teaching Institute (HRTI) – Founded by William F. Dankenbring, HRTI aims to restore what they see as the original Hebraic foundations of Christianity.
4. Beth Immanuel Sabbath Fellowship – A congregation that embraces both Jewish and Christian elements, focusing on living out the commandments of the Torah in light of the New Testament.
5. Olive Tree Congregation – This group practices a form of Messianic Judaism, integrating Jewish traditions with faith in Yeshua (Jesus) as Messiah.
6. Assembly of Yahweh – While more aligned with Sacred Name movements, this group often overlaps with HRM due to its emphasis on the Torah and its observance.
7. Lion and Lamb Ministries – Founded by Monte Judah, it provides teachings that link the Torah with New Testament Christianity, encouraging the practice of the Feasts and other biblical observances.
8. Restoration Fellowship – This organization works towards restoring the early Christian practices, which they believe include the observance of the Torah.
9. Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA) – Although primarily a Messianic Jewish organization, many of its teachings and practices align with HRM, emphasizing integrating Torah observance with faith in Yeshua.
10. United Church of God (UCG) – While not strictly part of HRM, some of its teachings resonate with the movement, particularly in Sabbath observance and the biblical festivals.
11. Nazarene Israel – This group combines beliefs in Torah observance with the idea that the faithful followers of Yeshua would maintain Jewish identity and practices.
It’s important to note that while these groups share some commonalities with the Hebrew Roots Movement, they might differ significantly in other theological areas or practices. Moreover, some might identify more with Messianic Judaism or other related but distinct movements.
Who is Dean Haskins and the Way of the Tabernacle?
Dean Haskin’s bio:
Dean Haskins is an artist known for his music composition, production, and performance work. He has been actively involved in the music industry since the early 1990s, combining his music skills with his visual and performing arts talents. Haskins has produced and composed for various projects, including film scores, commercials, and live performances, often blending genres like jazz, rock, and classical music to create unique auditory experiences. His work is characterized by an exploration of soundscapes, where he integrates live instruments with electronic elements, showcasing his versatility and innovative approach to music. His music can be found on platforms like Bandcamp, where he shares his compositions for evaluation and enjoyment.
Haskins wrote a book, “From Christian to Believer,” with his co-author, James Finnegan.
This writer came in contact with Dean at the social media site called Parler. He strongly disagreed with the content of the Apostle’s Creed that this writer posted. He made it clear in short order that he hated Christianity. He strongly objected to the name Jesus. He asserted that Christianity was a bastardized religion and emphasized the importance of using Hebrew.
When asked if he was a better Hebrew scholar than Alfred Edershiem, the 19th-century Jewish scholar who converted to Christianity wrote many volumes on Jewish life at the time of Christ, including the monumental work “The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah.” Dean could not credibly explain why Edershiem felt the liberty to use the name Jesus rather than the Hebrew Yeshua; he could not answer the question.
Another area that was like pulling teeth was asking Dean who the leader of his group was, the “Way of the Tabernacle.” Gradually, it became clear that he was or at least one of the leaders. Then Dean was asked if he was appointed or self-appointed. Throughout our limited exchange, Dean exhibited arrogance and the constant use of pejoratives. This writer informed him that because of this, he was a bad salesman. He said that he was guided by the Holy Spirit, passing off his lousy salesmanship to God. Another takeaway from the exchange was his hatred for Christianity and his refusal to recognize the arguments made by a Christian. This writer gave Dean a link to an article explaining why the observance of the Saturday Sabbath was changed to the Lord’s Day on Sunday. Sending Dean this article link was our final exchange in which he blocked me on the Parler platform. Much of the following will be a point-by-point response to assertions made on the “Way of the Tabernacle” website. The points meriting a response will be highlighted in red.
An analysis of various statements made by Dean Haskins on his website:
“True believers who are indwelt by the Spirit are the bride, and the bride’s name is Y’isra-el. Most in the “church” don’t possess the spiritual understanding to see what is physical and what is spiritual.” – Dean Haskins
The above statement contains several logical fallacies and theological issues:
1. Ambiguity in Definitions:
· The term “true believers” is not universally defined. Different denominations and theological perspectives might define who qualifies as a “true believer” differently, leading to ambiguity in who is considered part of the bride.
2. Scriptural Interpretation:
· The idea that “true believers who the Spirit indwells are the bride” might be derived from interpretations of New Testament passages like Ephesians 5:25-27 or Revelation 19:7-9, where the Church is metaphorically referred to as the bride of Christ. However, equating the bride directly with “Y’isra-el” (presumably referring to Israel) introduces a mix-up between Judaic identity and Christian ecclesiology. Traditionally, Christian theology might see Israel as a precursor or type of the Church, but the equation here seems to blur distinct theological identities.
3. Theological Conflation:
· The conflation of the Christian Church (the body of Christ, often called the Bride of Christ) with Y’isra-el (the nation of Israel) overlooks the distinctions between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church. While theological views like Covenant Theology might see continuity between Israel and the Church, the statement implies a direct identity that many Christian traditions would argue oversimplifies or misrepresents these relationships.
4. Exclusivity and Judgment:
· The assertion that “most in the ‘church’ don’t possess the spiritual understanding to see what is physical and what is spiritual” implies a judgment on the spiritual state of others without any proof. This kind of statement can be problematic because:
· It presupposes one’s spiritual superiority or insight, which can lead to spiritual elitism.
· It lacks objective criteria for sufficient “spiritual understanding,” making it a subjective claim.
· Contrary to many teachings about humility, love, and mutual upbuilding in faith, it might foster division rather than unity within the Christian community. In addition, the claim that “most in the church” is fallacious. Has Dean interviewed most of the people in the Church? Such an unverifiable claim is like the atheist trying to prove a universal negative.
5. Lack of Scriptural Support:
· The statement does not provide scriptural references to support the direct identification of the bride with Y’isra-el, which would be crucial in Christian theological discourse. Without biblical backing, the claim appears more as a personal or unique theological interpretation than a widely accepted doctrine.
6. Logical Structure:
· The argument moves from a potentially accepted Christian metaphor (believers as the bride) to a less commonly accepted or understood identity (the bride as Y’isra-el) without clear logical or scriptural progression. This jump needs more theological groundwork to be logically coherent in traditional Christian thought.
In summary:
Dean Haskin’s statement lacks clarity in its definitions, conflates different theological identities without sufficient explanation, makes potentially divisive judgments, and does not adequately support its assertions with accepted scriptural or traditional Christian teachings, making it problematic from a logical and theological perspective.
Consider the warnings in the scriptures about returning to the types and shadows of the Older Covenant.
The Bible’s King James Version (KJV) includes several passages that could be interpreted as warnings against returning to or relying on Judaism after accepting the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Here are some relevant verses:
1. Galatians 2:16 – “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
2. Galatians 3:2-3 – “This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”
3. Galatians 4:9-11 – “But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.”
4. Galatians 5:1 – “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”
5. Hebrews 6:4-6 – “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”
6. Hebrews 10:26-29 – “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”
7. Colossians 2:16-17 – “Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”
These verses, mainly from Galatians, are often cited in discussions about the transition from the Old Covenant (associated with Judaism) to the New Covenant in Christ, warning against reverting to practices seen as legalistic or unnecessary under the new covenant Christian faith.
The following is a point-by-point analysis of the Way of the Tabernacle’s online tract called: (Bolding and red text highlighting is mine)
“THERE IS TRUTH AND THERE IS COUNTERFEIT”
Messiah: born on the Feast of Tabernacles in the Fall of each year)
Answer:
The idea that the Messiah was born on the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) is a theory held by some scholars and theologians. Still, it is not universally accepted or confirmed by historical texts. Here are some points to consider:
1. Biblical Texts: The Bible does not provide an exact date for the birth of Jesus, who Christians believe to be the Messiah. The Gospels do not mention a specific date or festival in connection with his birth.
2. Feast of Tabernacles: This Jewish festival occurs in the Fall, specifically in the month of Tishrei, around September or October. Some argue that:
· Jesus’ birth might align with Sukkot because of the themes of the festival, which celebrate God’s dwelling among the people, paralleling the idea of Emmanuel (“God with us”).
· There’s a reference in John 1:14 where it says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” and the term “dwelt” can be translated from the Greek as “tabernacled.”
3. Contrast with Traditional Christmas: The traditional celebration of Christmas on December 25 originates in early Christian practices and might have been chosen to coincide with or replace pagan winter solstice festivals rather than being based on historical evidence for Jesus’ actual birth date.
4. Theological Interpretations: Various theological interpretations exist. Some suggest that Jesus’ birth during Sukkot would be symbolically rich, aligning with themes of divine presence, the harvest, and the pilgrimage aspect of the festival. However, these are speculative and not derived from explicit scriptural evidence.
5. Different Jewish Interpretations: In Jewish Messianic thought, the timing of the Messiah’s birth or arrival isn’t strictly tied to Sukkot. Other Jewish traditions and texts might have varying views on this matter.
In summary:
While the theory that the Messiah could have been born during the Feast of Tabernacles provides an interesting theological and symbolic interpretation, it remains speculative. There’s no definitive scriptural or historical evidence to confirm this as fact. Therefore, it’s true in the context of some theological discussions but not as a universally accepted fact.
Counterfeit: born on the Christ-mass, December 25 (sun god’s birthday) (bolding emphasis mine)
Answer:
The claim that Jesus Christ was born on December 25 has a complex history intertwined with Christian tradition and pagan festivals. Here’s a breakdown of the perspectives and historical context:
1. Biblical and Traditional Viewpoints:
· No Specific Date in the Bible: The Bible does not provide an explicit date for Jesus’s birth. While clues suggest a different time of year (like shepherds in the fields at night), these do not definitively confirm or deny December 25.
· Early Christian Traditions: Early Christian writers like Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, and Hippolytus from the second and third centuries mention December 25 as Jesus’s birthday. However, these accounts are not universally accepted as historically accurate.
2. Historical and Scholarly Analysis:
· Pagan Festivals: December 25 was indeed the date of several pagan festivals, notably Saturnalia (a Roman festival for Saturn) and Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (“Birthday of the Unconquered Sun”). Some historians suggest that the early Christian Church might have chosen this date to align with existing pagan celebrations, facilitating the conversion of pagans to Christianity by providing a Christian alternative to these festivals.
· Calculations Hypothesis: Another theory proposes that the Church calculated Jesus’s birth based on the presumed date of his death or conception, both thought to have occurred around the equinoxes or solstices, leading to the nine months later calculation for his birth.
3. Contemporary Interpretations:
· Posts on X: Some users on social media platforms like X (formerly known as Twitter) argue that December 25 was chosen for its pagan significance, suggesting it was a strategic move by early Christians to replace pagan festivities with Christian ones. According to this idea, as the Christian faith conquered the pagan world, it claimed the holidays and infused the pagan holidays with new meaning.
· Christian Perspective: Many Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25 not because they believe it to be his actual birthday but as a traditional and symbolic date, emphasizing the theological significance of Jesus as the “Light of the World” during the darkest time of the year.
In conclusion:
Whether Jesus was born on December 25 remains uncertain due to the lack of definitive historical evidence. The date’s association with pagan festivals is well-documented, but the choice of December 25 might also reflect early Christian theological symbolism. The celebration of Christmas on this date has more to do with cultural and religious traditions than with historical accuracy regarding Jesus’s birth date. Moreover, as the Christian faith conquered the pagan world, Christians infused the old pagan holidays with new meaning as a sign that Christ is the victorious Lord overall.
Messiah diedon Passover (a Wednesday that year)
Answer:
The question of whether Jesus referred to as the Messiah in Christian theology, died on Passover, specifically on a Wednesday, involves examining both biblical texts and historical context, which often yields different interpretations:
1. Biblical Accounts:
· Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke): These Gospels suggest that Jesus was crucified on the day following the Passover meal, which would traditionally have been observed on the 15th of Nisan. This aligns with the idea that the Last Supper was a Passover meal, placing the crucifixion on a Friday, known as Good Friday.
· Gospel of John: John’s account differs, indicating that Jesus was crucified on the day of Preparation for the Passover, before the Passover meal, aligning with the 14th of Nisan. This has led some to argue for crucifixion a day before the traditional Passover, potentially a Wednesday if one assumes a particular year where Passover preparation was on Wednesday.
2. Historical and Scholarly Perspectives:
· Passover Date Variations: Passover’s date shifts due to the lunar calendar; in some years, it might coincide with different weekdays. Scholars debate the exact year of Jesus’s crucifixion, with proposals including A.D. 30 or A.D. 33, each having different implications for the day of the week Passover fell on.
· Wednesday Crucifixion Theory: Some propose a Wednesday crucifixion based on interpretations of Jesus’s statement about being in the “heart of the earth” for three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40). However, this interpretation has its challenges, mainly due to how days are counted in ancient Jewish tradition (where part of a day counts as a whole day).
3. Posts on X:
· Some posts on X mention that Jesus died on Passover, with some users supporting that this occurred on a Wednesday. These posts reflect varied personal or group interpretations, not scholarly or historical validations.
In Conclusion:
The traditional Christian observance aligns Jesus’s crucifixion with a Friday, following a Thursday Passover meal.
However, there exists a minority view that argues for a Wednesday crucifixion based on interpretations of scripture and specific calendar alignments. Still, this view isn’t universally accepted among scholars or theologians.
The exact day of the week for Passover when Jesus was crucified remains a matter of theological, historical, and interpretative debate. The most widely accepted view supports a Friday crucifixion, but alternative theories like the Wednesday crucifixion do exist, often based on different scriptural interpretations or calendar calculations.
Counterfeit: died on Good Friday
Answer:
There are several pieces of evidence and traditions within Christian theology and historical analysis that support the belief that Jesus Christ died on what is now known as Good Friday:
1. Biblical Accounts:
· The Synoptic Gospels (Mark 15:33-42, Matthew 27:45-50, Luke 23:44-56) describe Jesus’ crucifixion, noting that darkness fell over the land from the sixth hour until the ninth hour (noon to 3 PM), which would be consistent with the time of day for a Friday execution. After this, Jesus is described as dying and being buried before the Sabbath began at sunset.
· John’s Gospel does not specify the day but provides details that align with the timing of the Passover. Jesus is described as being crucified on the day of Preparation for the Passover, which would naturally lead into the Sabbath, making it likely Friday.
2. Historical and Traditional Timing:
· The Jewish Calendar: The Last Supper is traditionally considered a Passover meal. If Jesus was crucified the day after this meal, which was a day of preparation before the Sabbath, then Friday becomes the logical day for the crucifixion.
· Early Church Fathers: Writings from early Christian leaders like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others in the 2nd century corroborate this timing, speaking of the crucifixion happening on the 14th of Nisan, which could correspond to a Friday in any given year.
3. The Three Days and Three Nights Issue:
· One theological and chronological debate arises from Jesus’ mention of being in the heart of the earth for “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40). This has led some to question the Friday crucifixion because, by modern reckoning, it seems to not fit neatly into three full days.
· However, The Jewish method of counting any part of a day as a full day could explain this discrepancy. Thus, part of Friday, Saturday, and Sunday would count as three days.
· Some scholars also argue for a “Sabbath reckoning” where the Passover might be treated as a special Sabbath, complicating the exact timing but still allowing for a Friday crucifixion.
4. Archaeological and Historical Corroboration:
· While direct archaeological evidence for the exact day of Jesus’ crucifixion is lacking, the method of crucifixion described in the Gospels aligns with Roman practices of the time, and the general historical context of Roman Judea, including the governorship of Pontius Pilate, supports the setting of the crucifixion narrative.
In conclusion:
While these points collectively form the basis for the traditional belief in a Friday crucifixion, it’s also important to recognize that the exact day does not change the theological significance of the event in Christian doctrine. However, for those strictly adhering to scriptural and historical analysis, these pieces of evidence provide a compelling case for Good Friday.
Messiah; Rose again on the Feast of Firstfruits (during the night)
Answer:
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, often referred to as the Messiah in Christian doctrine, with specific Jewish festivals from the Hebrew calendar.
Consider the breakdown:
· Messiah: In Christian belief, Jesus is the Messiah, the coming one prophesied in Jewish scripture to bring salvation or fulfill a divine role.
· Rose again: This refers to the Christian belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is central to the Christian faith, symbolizing victory over death and the promise of eternal life to believers.
· Feast of First Fruits: This ancient Jewish festival occurs the day after the Sabbath following Passover. In Christian theology, within certain interpretations, the Resurrection of Jesus is believed to have happened on this day, aligning with the concept of Jesus being the “first fruits” of those who have fallen asleep (died), as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:20.
· During the night: The Gospels in the New Testament do not specify the exact time of Jesus’s Resurrection, but traditions and interpretations vary. Some Christian traditions emphasize that the Resurrection happened in the early morning, as the tomb was found empty at dawn (Mark 16:2, Matthew 28:1).
Given these points:
· The belief that Jesus rose again on the Feast of First Fruits is a theological interpretation held by some Christians, particularly those focusing on the typological connections between Jewish feasts and Christian events. However, precise timing or symbolic significance is not universally agreed upon across all Christian denominations.
· “During the night” adds a specific detail not explicitly supported by canonical texts but could be part of some interpretations or traditions.
Conclusion:
Therefore, while the general idea of Jesus rising on the day corresponding to the Feast of First Fruits is a significant theological interpretation within Christianity, the exact timing (“during the night”) isn’t explicitly detailed in the primary sources, leading to varied interpretations.
Counterfeit: rose again on Easter/Ishtar (at dawn)
Answer:
The statement that Jesus rose again on Easter at dawn is based on traditional Christian belief, but its historical accuracy and interpretation can vary.
Some points to consider:
1. Biblical Accounts:
· Mark 16:2 States that Mary Magdalene and others came to the tomb “very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise.”
· John 20:1 Mary Magdalene came to the tomb “early, while it was still dark.”
· Luke 24:1 mentions that the women came to the tomb “very early in the morning.”
· Matthew 28:1 Notes it was “after the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week.”
These accounts suggest that Jesus had already risen before dawn or at dawn when the women arrived at the tomb. However, none of these accounts explicitly say that Jesus rose at dawn; they only indicate when the tomb was found empty.
Theologically and traditionally, Easter Sunday celebrates the Resurrection, but the exact moment of Jesus’ Resurrection isn’t specified. It’s often understood that he rose sometime before the dawn, as the tomb was already empty when the women arrived.
The Resurrection is central to the Christian faith, symbolizing victory over death. The timing isn’t as doctrinally significant as the event itself.
Conclusion:
Therefore, saying “Jesus rose again on Easter at dawn” from a traditional standpoint could be seen as an oversimplification or assumption about the exact timing. Theologically, it’s more accurate to say that Jesus had risen by dawn on the first day of the week, Easter Sunday, in the Christian tradition.
Messiah’s people: assemble on the Father’s Sabbath (seventh day)
Answer:
What about the Hebrew word olam, which can be translated as “everlasting”?
One should note that the Hebrew word olam can be translated differently. Some examples are forever, perpetual, everlasting, eternal, or permanent. The word “forever” does not necessarily mean never-ending in scripture, but it can also be understood to mean lasting only as long as a time period or age. Since the Mormons are appealing to scripture in the defense of one of their peculiar doctrines, we should briefly respond to this argument about the “everlasting” nature of the Aaronic priesthood.
Does this mean that a practice commanded in scripture will last forever? First, it can be admitted that it’s possible when dealing with the usage of olam that a practice mentioned may last forever. However, the context of a passage is essential when making this determination. Admitting that ‘olam may mean forever does not invalidate the fact that there are numerous indicators that ‘olam can also be used to describe a practice that will end or change forms going from the Older Covenant into the New. In particular, olam is used regarding ordinances in the Older Covenant, which were to be kept by the people of Israel and not carried over into the New Covenant church practice in their Older Covenant forms. It should be noted that there are significant discontinuities and continuities in redemptive history when moving from the Older Covenant into the New Covenant era.
1. Examples of the time limitations of olam:
For example:
Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him forever. (Exodus 21:6)
In this passage, ‘olam stresses permanence and that man would be a servant forever. This verse explicitly conveys the idea of a limitation of time. The prima facie limitation in this verse is the life span of the servant.
2. Another example is the Feast of Unleavened Bread:
So you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this same day I will have brought your armies out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an everlasting ordinance. (Exodus 12:17)
The discontinuity is that the New Covenant church no longer celebrates the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The continuity is that this Feast is fulfilled in Christ.
3. Consider the Passover:
Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance. (Exodus 12:14)
The discontinuity is that the New Covenant church no longer celebrates the Passover feast. The continuity is that all of the Older Covenant feasts, including the Passover, find fulfillment in the Lord’s Supper.
4. Then there is the example of circumcision:
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. (Genesis 17:7-10)
The discontinuity is that circumcision is no longer required in the New Covenant. The continuity is that circumcision is replaced by baptism in the New Covenant era as the mark of the covenant.
5. The Sabbath Day to be kept on the seventh day:
Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed. (Exodus 31:16-17)
Conclusion:
The discontinuity is that the day has been changed to the first day of the week in celebration of the Resurrection of Christ. The continuity is that God’s people are to still honor Him by resting for our labors after six days of work. (Hebrews 4:9) In the Greek text, the word for “rest” in Hebrews 4:9 is sabbatismos. It means “a Sabbath rest.” Young’s Literal Translation captures this well: “There doth remain, then, a sabbatic rest to the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9).
Counterfeit: assemble on the venerable day of the sun (first day)
Answer:
The fallacy in asserting that those who worship on Sunday are guilty of worshiping the sun god can be dissected through several logical errors:
1. False Equivalence:
· Fallacy: Equating Christian Sunday worship with pagan sun worship because both involve the sun or Sunday.
· Explanation: This assumes that the mere act of worship on a day named after the sun implies worship of the sun itself, which overlooks the intent and theology behind Christian worship. Christians worship on Sunday to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not because of any inherent solar significance.
2. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (After This, Therefore Because of This):
· Fallacy: Assuming that because Christianity adopted Sunday for worship later in its history, this must be a continuation or transformation of sun worship.
· Explanation: The adoption of Sunday for Christian worship occurred centuries after Christianity’s inception. Early Christians observed the Sabbath on Saturday, and the shift to Sunday was more about differentiating from Jewish practices and celebrating the Lord’s resurrection, not adopting pagan rituals.
3. Guilt by Association:
· Fallacy: This suggests that Christian Sunday worship is inherently pagan because Sunday was dedicated to Sol Invictus or other solar deities in Roman culture.
· Explanation: Just because Sunday was also a day for sun worship in some pagan traditions does not mean Christian worship is an endorsement or continuation of those practices. Many cultures have overlapping religious practices regarding timing or rituals, but the theological content and purpose differ significantly.
4. Cherry-Picking:
· Fallacy: Focusing only on the day of worship without considering the full breadth of Christian doctrine, history, and scripture.
· Explanation: This argument ignores the theological reasons for Sunday worship, like the writings of early church fathers, the significance of the resurrection, and the development of Christian liturgy. It also disregards how Christianity has changed and adapted over time for various non-pagan reasons.
5. Argument from Etymology:
· Fallacy: Using the origin of the word “Sunday” (from Old English “Sunnandæg,” day of the sun) to imply theological or ritualistic continuity.
· Explanation: The linguistic connection does not necessarily imply religious continuity. Language evolves, and words take on new meanings independent of their origins. For instance, many names of days and months have pagan roots, but their contemporary use in Christian contexts doesn’t imply the worship of those pagan deities.
6. Non Sequitur:
· Fallacy: Concluding that worship on Sunday must be sun worship because of the day’s name or historical pagan associations.
· Explanation: This conclusion doesn’t follow logically. Just as worshiping on Saturn’s Day (Saturday) doesn’t make one a worshiper of Saturn, worshiping on Sunday, named for the sun, does not inherently mean one is worshiping the sun god.
Conclusion:
The argument that Sunday worship equates to sun god worship is flawed because it oversimplifies and misinterprets historical, linguistic, and theological contexts, relying on superficial or coincidental connections rather than substantive evidence or understanding.
Furthermore, the fallacy is just as silly as saying that if you have a Bible study on Thursday, you are worshipping Thor, the Norse god of thunder.
Moreover, Saturday is named after Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture, wealth, and time. In Roman mythology, Saturn was one of the most important gods, often associated with the Greek god Cronus. The name “Saturday” comes from the Latin term “dies Saturni,” meaning “day of Saturn.” This naming reflects Saturn’s prominence in the Roman seven-day planetary week, where each day was named after a celestial body or the god associated with it.
The following article by this writer that was given to Dean Haskins resulted in him blocking me on the web platform Parler.
Who changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday Worship?
Did the Roman Catholic Pope change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday worship? In this study, we will seek to answer why the day of worship changed for most Christians to Sunday. If it was not for the Pope, would there be Scriptural arguments for this day’s change? If the day of worship changes, will Sabbath requirements be attached to Sunday?
When did Christians start meeting on Sunday? A cursory look at the New Testament:
“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.” (Acts 20:7 ESV)
“On the first day of the week,” along with the direction given in Corinthians by Paul, “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come” (1Corinthians 16:2 ESV). Act 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 are Scriptural evidence that the Church had begun to observe the weekly celebration of the Resurrection on the first day of the week.
Considering the claims of two Roman Catholic leaders:
What does the Roman Church say is the sign of its authority? On January 18, 1563, “the Archbishop of Reggio made a speech in which he openly declared that tradition stood above the Scriptures because the church had changed the Sabbath into Sunday—not by a command of Christ, but by its authority” (Canon and Tradition, p. 263). http://biblelight.net/bssb-1443-1444.htm
Additionally, the Catholic Mirror of Baltimore, Maryland, published a series of 4 editorials, which appeared in that paper on September 2, 9, 16, and 23, 1893, as the expression of the Papacy to Protestantism and the demand of the Papacy that Protestants shall render to the Papacy an account of why they keep Sunday and also of how they keep it. (Rome’s Challenge: Why Do Protestants Keep Sunday?) http://biblelight.net/chalng.htm
It should be noted that just because the Roman Catholics claim they changed the Sabbath to Sunday does not prove anything. This claim has to be evaluated scripturally and historically.
Are these two claims valid? Did the Roman Papacy change the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday? First off, this claim is dubious and a historical impossibility because the Papacy did not exist until sometime after the First Council of Nicaea, which convened in AD 325.
The Roman Church may dispute this, but appeals to historical evidence became increasingly flimsy before this council for an established and recognized papal system. The Eastern and Coptic Churches show no acceptance of a papal system during the first three centuries of Church history.
The Seventh Day Adventists also take issue with Sunday worship, connecting it with the Roman Church or Emperor Constantine.
Contrary to this claim that Sunday worship was a Roman Catholic invention, the early Church in the East met on Sunday as the day of worship. Eastern Orthodox Churches have observed Sunday worship since the 1st century.
For example, consider the Eastern Orthodox Worship by Rev. Alciviadis C. Calivas, Th.D.
Rev. Alciviadis says the following:
“The most important day for the Christian community was and continues to be the First day of the Jewish week. For the people of the Old Covenant the First Day was a memorial of the first day of creation, when God separated the light from the darkness. For the people of the New Covenant the first day includes this and much more. The first was the day when the empty tomb was first discovered and the risen Lord made His first appearances to His followers. The first was the day of the Resurrection of Christ and the beginning of the new creation brought about by His victory over death. By the end of the first century the Church gave to this special day of Christ’s Resurrection a distinctly Christian name: the Lord’s Day (Kyriake hemera) (Rev. 1: 10).
The Lord’s Day (Sunday) is a Christian institution. It is the Christian festival, founded upon Christ’s Resurrection. It is “the day which the Lord has made” (Ps. 117:24). It is a day of rejoicing and holy convocation, when no one is permitted to fast or kneel in sorrow or in penance. In 321 A.D. St. Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, declared it a day of rest. Long before him, however, Christians were already known to observe the day with special solemnity, treating it as a holy day devoted to spiritual things. As a day of rest, the Lord’s Day is not to be abused as a day of idleness and inactivity. For the faithful, it is always a day for participation in the communal worship of the Church, for Christian fellowship, for the service of God through works of charity, for personal quiet and meditation, and for the discovery and enjoyment of God’s presence in us, and in the people and the world that surround and touch our lives.” (1) (Underlining emphasis mine)
Not only do the Eastern Orthodox Christians worship on Sunday, the Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic Christians also worship on Sunday. The Roman Church has never had much influence in the East. The Eastern Churches have always opposed the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Thus, it is doubtful that Sunday worship in the East was because of the dictates of a Roman Pope.
According to Wikipedia, it was not until the 4th century that the Roman Church officially started worshipping on Sunday. Historically, the Roman Church was a Johnny come lately to the day change for church worship.
Justin Martyr (ca. 100-ca. 165), who lived from approximately 100 to 165 AD, wrote on the issue of Sunday worship enlightens us historically:
“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.” (2)
The writings of the early Church Father Justin Martyr point to the celebration of the Lord’s Day on Sunday’s first day of the week; Revelation 1:10.
This fact flies in the face of the Roman Church’s assertions.
There are other indications of Sunday worship early in Church history. For example:
The Didache:
“1. But every Lord’s Day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.” (3)
According to the Didache, Sunday worship started early in church history.
The Didascalia:
“The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation, because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven.” (4)
According to the Didascalia, Sunday worship started with the apostles.
St. Ignatius, AD 1491 1556:
“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death.” (5)
Note: The Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is a brief Christian thesis, dated by scholars to the late first or early 2nd century
Note: Didascalia Apostolorum (or just Didascalia) is a Christian treatise. The Didascalia introduces itself as written by the Twelve Apostles at the time of the Council of Jerusalem. However, scholars agree that it was a composition of the 3rd century,
As an aside, what about Emperor Constantine? As some Seventh-Day Adventists claim, did he change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? This claim does not hold up since Christians have met on Sundays since the Apostles. Constantine did make a decree regarding worship on Sunday, thus making it easier for Christians to worship on Sunday, which they were already doing.
As noted, Constantine’s decree recognized the three hundred years of Christian practice and expanded Christian freedom by allowing them to keep their shops closed:
“On the venerable Day of the Sun, let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed.” (6)
Constantine’s decree protected and guaranteed Christians’ civil freedom for their ongoing practice.
Where did the Protestant Reformers stand on the Saturday Sabbath and Sunday worship?
The burden of proof is on those who maintain the Lord’s Day, the Christian Sabbath Day, which was moved from Saturday to Sunday.
The burden of proof for this will now be met:
During the Reformation, the Protestant theologians did not mindlessly import theology and practices from the Roman Church. They reformed the Church by examining scripture and binding themselves to the Scriptures as the final court of appeal. During the counter-reformation Council of Trent, the Roman Church made many false assertions attempting to undermine Protestant theology. This undermining happened when Roman leaders, as seen above, claimed that the Papacy changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
The Scriptural proof of the day change:
The Older Covenant delineated Saturday as the Sabbath, and it was to be eternal.
How did the Protestant Reformers deal with the eternal covenants in the Old Testament?
The Scriptural basis for discontinuity, continuity, and its relevance to the issue at hand:
The Sabbath Day was to be kept on the seventh day:
“Therefore, the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.” (Exodus 31:16-17)
“So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.” (Hebrews 4:9 ESV)
The discontinuity is that the day has been changed to the First Day of the week in celebration of the Resurrection of Christ. The continuity is that God’s people are to still honor Him by resting for our labors after six days of work Hebrews 4:9. In the Greek text, the word for “rest” in Hebrews 4:9 is sabbatismos, which means “a Sabbath rest.”
Young’s Literal Translation captures the text from Hebrew 4:9 perfectly:
“There doth remain, then, a sabbatic rest to the people of God.” (Hebrews 4:9)
Consider Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary entry on (Hebrews 4:9), and the sabbatic rest:
“9. Therefore—because God “speaks of another day (see on [2548] Heb. 4:8).
Remaineth—still to be realized hereafter by the “some (who) must enter therein” (Heb. 4:6), that is, “the people of God,” the true Israel who shall enter into God’s rest (“My rest,” Heb. 4:3). God’s rest was a Sabbatism, so also will ours be.
A rest—Greek, “Sabbatism.” In time, there are many Sabbaths, but then there shall be the enjoyment and keeping of a Sabbath-rest: one perfect and eternal. The “rest” in Heb. 4:8 is Greek, “catapausis;” Hebrew, “Noah”; rest from weariness, as the ark rested on Ararat after its tossings to and fro; and as Israel, under Joshua, enjoyed at last rest from war in Canaan. But the “rest” in this Heb. 4:9 is the nobler and more exalted (Hebrew) “Sabbath” rest; literally, “cessation”: rest from work when finished (Heb. 4:4), as God rested (Re 16:17). The two ideas of “rest” combined, give the perfect view of the heavenly Sabbath. Rest from weariness, sorrow, and sin; and rest in the completion of God’s new creation (Re 21:5). The whole renovated creation shall share in it; nothing will there be to break the Sabbath of eternity; and the Triune God shall rejoice in the work of His hands (Zep 3:17). Moses, the representative of the law, could not lead Israel into Canaan: the law leads us to Christ, and there its office ceases, as that of Moses on the borders of Canaan: it is Jesus, the antitype of Joshua, who leads us into the heavenly rest. This verse indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath still; for the type continues until the antitype supersedes it: so legal sacrifices continued till the great antitypical Sacrifice superseded it, As then the antitypical heavenly Sabbath-rest will not be till Christ, our Gospel Joshua, comes, to usher us into it, the typical earthly Sabbath must continue till then. The Jews call the future rest “the day which is all Sabbath.’” (7)
Preliminary Conclusions:
As seen in these examples of the translation of ‘olam as forever, perceptual, everlasting, eternal, and permanent, we can conclude that qualifiers are attached that guide our understanding of these passages. The substance remained in each of these passages, yet the outward form changed, moving from the Older Covenant into the New Covenant. The Sabbath Day is eternal, yet the day of observance changed to Sunday.
On the other hand, the Reformers looked at continuities and discontinuities in scripture. They concluded that the practice of the early Christians meeting on the first day of the week (Sunday) was a case of a fundamental discontinuity in scripture.
The Reformed hermeneutic presumes that unless the New Testament sets aside an Old Testament practice, as in the case of the dietary laws, the Scriptural command will still be in force, considering legitimate discontinuities, as seen above. If the continuity discontinuity motif is not maintained, it can be alleged that there are contradictions in scripture.
A Scriptural deduction from the Reformed argument:
1. In light of what has been said above, the first day of the week came to be known as the “Lord’s Day” (Revelation 1:10) and has been the day on which the Church gathered with the blessing of the Apostles (Acts 20:7).
2. On the day Jesus had been raised from the dead, the risen Lord Himself chose the first day of the week to manifest himself to his disciples when they were gathered together (John 20:19, 26).
Supplemental evidence:
From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation by D. A. Carson.
“1. The early Church met on the Lord’s Day to commemorate Jesus’ Resurrection (Bauckham, 232-245): All four gospels emphasize Jesus’ Resurrection on the first day of the week. Though it cannot be proven that this was the reason established for Sunday worship, early Christians did connect gathering on the first day of the week with the Lord’s Resurrection (Bauckham, 236, 240).
2. By the end of the first century, “Lord’s Day” is seen to be a technical term already in use about the first day of the week/Sunday, the Christian gathering day (Revelation 1:10; see Bauckham, “Lord’s Day,” 222-232).
3. By the middle of the second century, Lord’s Day worship gatherings are the universal practice of the Church (Bauckham, “Lord’s Day,” 230).” (8)
A Reformed exposition of the day change by Professor John Murray on The Pattern of the Lord’s Day:
“The Sabbath as a creation ordinance for all time.
If we accept, the witness of scripture there can be no question that the weekly Sabbath finds its basis in and derives its sanction from the example of God himself. He created the heavens and the earth in six days and “on the seventh God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it” (Gen. 2:2, 3). The fourth commandment in the Decalogue sets forth the obligation resting upon man and it makes express appeal to this sanction. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exod. 20:11).
Many regard this Sabbath institution as a shadow of things to come and, therefore, as an ordinance to be observed, has passed away because that of which it was a shadow has been realized in the full light of the new and better covenant. At this point, suffice it to ask the question: has the pattern of God’s work and rest in creation ceased to be relevant? Is this pattern a shadow in the sense of those who espouse this position? The realm of our existence is that established by creation and maintained by God’s providence. The new covenant has in no respect abrogated creation nor has it diminished its relevance. Creation both as action and product is as significant for us as it was for Israel under the old covenant. The refrain of scripture in both Testaments is that the God of creation is the God of redemption in all stages of covenantal disclosure and realization. This consideration is invested with greater significance when we bear in mind that the ultimate standard for us is likeness to God (cf. Matt. 5:48; 1John 3:2, 3). And it is this likeness, in the sphere of our behaviour, that undergirds the demand for Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:11; 31:17).
The Redemptive Pattern
It is noteworthy that the Sabbath commandment as given in Deuteronomy (Deut. 5:12-15) does not appeal to God’s rest in creation as the reason for keeping the Sabbath day. In this instance, mention is made of something else. “And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and an out-streched arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day” (Deut. 5:15). This cannot be understood as in any way annulling the sanction of Exodus 20:11; 31:17. Deuteronomy comprises what was the reiteration of the covenant made at Sinai. When the Sabbath commandment is introduced, Israel is reminded of the earlier promulgation: “Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee” (Deut. 5:12). And we should observe that all the commandments have their redemptive sanction. The preface to all is: “I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exod. 20:2; cf. Deut. 5:6). So what we find in Deut. 5; 15 in connection with the Sabbath is but the application of the preface to the specific duty enunciated in the fourth command. It is supplement to Exodus 20:11, not suspension. We have now added reason for observing the Sabbath. This is full of meaning and we must linger to analyze and appreciate.
The deliverance from Egypt was redemption. “Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast redeemed” (Exod. 15:13). It is more than any other event the redemption of the Old Testament. It is the analogue of the greater redemption accomplished by Christ. The Sabbath commandment derives its sanction not only from God’s rest in creation but also from redemption out of Egypt’s bondage. This fact that the Sabbath in Israel had a redemptive reference and sanction bears directly upon the question of its relevance in the New Testament. The redemption from Egypt cannot be properly viewed except as the anticipation of the greater redemption wrought in the fullness of time. Hence, if redemption from Egypt accorded sanction to the Sabbath institution and provided reason for its observance the same must apply to the greater redemption and apply in a way commensurate with the greater fullness and dimensions of the redemption secured by the death and Resurrection of Christ. In other words, it is the fullness and richness of the new covenant that accord to the Sabbath ordinance increased relevance, sanction, and blessing.
This redemptive reference explains and confirms three features of the New Testament.
1. The Retrospective Reference
Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week (cf. Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). For our present interest the important feature of the New Testament witness is that the first day of the week continued to have _distinctive religious significance_ (cf. Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). The only explanation of this fact is that the first day was the day of Jesus’ Resurrection and for that reason John calls it “the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10). The first day took on a memorial significance appropriate to the place the Resurrection of Christ occupies in the accomplishment of redemption and in Jesus’ finished work (cf. John 17:4) as also appropriate to the seal imparted by the repeated appearance to his disciples on that day (cf. Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:15-31, 26; John 20:19,26). When Christ rose from the dead he was loosed from the pangs of death (cf. Acts 2:24), he entered upon life indestructible (cf. Rom. 5:10; 6:9, 10), became a “life-giving Spirit” (1Cor. 15:45), and brought “life and immortality to light” (2Tim. 1:10). In a word, he entered upon the rest of his redeeming work. All of this and much more resides in the emphasis, which falls upon the Resurrection as a pivotal event in the accomplishment of redemption. The other pivot is the death upon the cross. The sanctity belonging to the first day of the week as the Lord’s Day is the constant reminder of all that Jesus’ Resurrection involves. It is the memorial of the Resurrection as the Lord’s Supper is the memorial of Jesus’ death upon the tree. Inescapable, therefore, is the conclusion that the Resurrection in its redemptive character yields its sanction to the sacredness of the first day of the week just as deliverance from Egypt’s bondage accorded its sanction to the Sabbath institution of the old covenant. This is the rationale for regarding the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath. It follows the line of thought, which the Old Testament itself prescribes for us when it appeals to redemption as the reason for Sabbath observance. The principle enunciated in Deuteronomy 5:15 receives its verification and application in the new covenant in the memorial of finalized redemption, the Lord’s Day.
2. The Manward Reference
Under this caption, we have in mind our Lord’ saying: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27, 28).
The title our Lord uses to designate himself is one that belongs to him in his messianic identity, commission, and office. The lordship he claims is, therefore, redemptively conditioned; it is his lordship as Mediator and Saviour. As such, in accord with his own testimony, he is given all authority in heaven and earth (cf. John 3:36; Matt. 28:18). So every institution is brought within the scope of his lordship. Since he exercises this lordship in the interests of God’s redemptive purpose, it is particularly true that institutions given for the good of man are brought within the scope of his lordship and made to serve the interests of the supreme good which redemption designs and guarantees. It is this governing thought that is applied in the text to the institution of the Sabbath. The accent falls upon the beneficent design of the Sabbath – it was made for man. “Therefore the Son of man is Lord” of it.
When Jesus speaks of the Sabbath, he is specifying the institution defined by the fourth commandment, and he asserts his lordship over it in precisely this character. There is not the slightest intimation of abrogation. For it is the Sabbath in that identity over which he claims to be Lord. Too frequently this text is adduced in support of an alleged relaxation of the requirements set forth in the commandment as if Jesus on this ground were, in the exercise of his authority, defending his disciples for behaviour that went counter to Old Testament requirements. This totally misconstrues the situation in which the words were spoken. Jesus is defending his disciples against the charge of desecration brought by the Pharisees (cf. Mark 2:24). But in doing so he shows by appeal to the Old Testament itself (cf. Matt. 12:4, 5; Mark 2:25, 26) that the behaviour of his disciples was in accord with what the Old Testament sanctioned. It was not deviation from Old Testament requirements that our Lord was condoning but deviation from pharisaical distortion. He was condemning the tyranny by which the Sabbath institution had been made an instrument of oppression. And he did this by appeal to the true intent of the Sabbath as verified by scripture itself. Of special interest is the relation of the redemptive sanction of the fourth commandment to the claim of Jesus on this occasion. The lordship over the Sabbath is, as observed, redemptively conditioned and thus only within a redemptive design can his lordship of the Sabbath be understood. This is to say that the Sabbath ordinance in its beneficent character comes to full expression within the realm of our Lord’s mediatorial lordship. The Sabbath is not alien to redemption at the zenith of its realization and blessing. As made for man it continues to serve its great purpose in that administration that achieves the acme of covenant grace. This Jesus’ word seals to us – “the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath”.
3. The Prospective Reference
“There remains therefore a Sabbath keeping for the people of God” (Heb. 4:9)
The context of this passage is all-important for its interpretation and for appreciation of its implications. At verse 4 there is quotation of Genesis 2:2: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” This, of course, refers to God’s – own – rest. At verse 5 there is allusion to the rest of Canaan and quotation of Psalm 95:11 (cf. also vs. 3 and 3:11) in reference to the failure of too many to enter into it (cf. Psalm 95:10). The remarkable feature of verse 5 as of Psalm 95:11 is that this rest of Canaan is called God’s rest (“my rest”). Why this characterization? It is not sufficient to say that it was the rest God provided. The proximity of reference to God’s own rest in verse 4 requires more than the thoughts of mere provision by God. We cannot say less than that God calls it his rest because the rest of Canaan was patterned after God’s rest – it partook of the character of God’s rest. The same kind of identification appears in verse 10 with reference to the rest that remains for the people of God. “For he that has entered into his rest, he also has ceased from his own works, as God did from his.” So the rest of Canaan and the rest that remains for the people of God are called God’s rest because both partake of the character of God’s own rest in resting from his creative work on the seventh day. Here is something highly germane to the present topic.
It is clear that the rest of Canaan and the rest that remains for the people of God are redemptive in character. Since they are patterned after God’s rest in creation, this means that the redemptive takes on the character of that rest of God upon which the Sabbath institution for man originally rested and from which it derived its sanction. We cannot but discover in this again the close relation between the creative and the redemptive in the Sabbath ordinance and the coherence of Exodus 20:11 and Deuteronomy 5:15. We are reminded again that likeness to God governs man’s obligation and is brought to its realization in the provisions of redemption. In the consummation of redemption, the Sabbath rest of God’s people achieves conformity to the fullest extent. “For he who has entered into his rest, he also has ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (cf. Rev. 14:13). The Sabbath institution in all its aspects and applications has this prospective reference; the whole movement of redemption will find its finale in the Sabbath rest that remains. The weekly Sabbath is the promise, token, and foretaste of the consummated rest; it is also the earnest. The biblical philosophy of the Sabbath is such that to deny its perpetuity is to deprive the movement of redemption of one of its most precious strands.
Redemption has a past, a present, and a future. In the Sabbath as “the Lord’s Day,” all three are focused. In retrospect, it is the memorial of our Lord’s Resurrection. In the present with resurrection joy, it fulfils its beneficent design by the lordship of the Son of man. As prospect, it is the promise of the inheritance of the saints. With varying degrees of understanding and application, it is this perspective that dictated the observance of the Lord’s Day in catholic, protestant and reformed tradition. Shall we forfeit in institution so embedded in redemptive revelation and recognized as such in the history of the Church of Christ? In the faith and for the honour of the Sabbath’s Lord may we answer with a decisive, no! In devotion to him may we increasingly know the joy and blessing of the recurring day of rest and worship.” (9)
John Murray answers the argument that Romans 14:5 ends the fourth commandment in the New Covenant era:
ROMANS 14:5 AND THE WEEKLY SABBATH
“The question is whether the weekly Sabbath comes within the scope of the distinction respecting days on which the apostle reflects in Romans 14:5. If so then we have to reckon with the following implications.
1. This would mean that the Sabbath commandment in the decalogue does not continue to have any binding obligation upon believers in the New Testament economy. The observance of one day in seven as holy and invested with the sanctity enunciated in the fourth commandment would be abrogated and would be in the same category in respect of observance as the ceremonial rites of the Mosaic institution. On the assumption posited, insistence upon the continued sanctity of each recurring seventh day would be as Judaizing as to demand the perpetuation of the Levitical feasts.
2. The first day of the week would have no prescribed religious significance. It would not be distinguished from any other day as the memorial of Christ’s Resurrection and could not properly be regarded as the Lord’s day in distinction from the way in which every day is to be lived in devotion to and the service of the Lord Christ. Neither might any other day, weekly or otherwise, be regarded as set apart with this religious significance.
3. Observance of a weekly Sabbath or of a day commemorating our Lord’s Resurrection would be a feature of the person weak in faith and in this case he would be weak in faith because he had not yet attained to the understanding that in the Christian institution all days are in the same category. Just as one weak Christian fails to recognize that all kinds of food are clean, so another, or perchance the same person, would fail to esteem every day alike.
These implications of the thesis in question cannot be avoided. We may now proceed to examine them in the light of the considerations which scripture as a whole provides.
1. The Sabbath institution is a creation ordinance. It did not begin to have relevance at Sinai when the ten commandments were given to Moses on two tables (cf. Gen. 2:2, 3; Exod. 16:21–23). It was, however, incorporated in the law promulgated at Sinai and this we would expect in view of its significance and purpose as enunciated in Genesis 2:2, 3. It is so embedded in this covenant law that to regard it as of different character from its context in respect of abiding relevance goes counter to the unity and basic significance of what was inscribed on the two tables. Our Lord himself tells us of its purpose and claims it for his messianic Lordship (Mark 2:28). The thesis we are now considering would have to assume that the pattern provided by God himself (Gen. 2:2, 3) in the work of creation (cf. also Exod. 20:11; 31:17) has no longer any relevance for the regulation of man’s life on earth, that only nine of the ten words of the decalogue have authority for Christians, that the beneficent design contemplated in the original institution (Mark 2:28) has no application under the gospel, and that the lordship Christ exercised over the Sabbath was for the purpose of abolishing it as an institution to be observed. These are the necessary conclusions to be drawn from the assumption in question. There is no evidence to support any of these conclusions, and, when they are combined and their cumulative force frankly weighed, it is then that the whole analogy of scripture is shown to be contradicted by the assumption concerned.
2. The first day of the week as the day on which Jesus rose from the dead (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19) is recognized in the New Testament as having a significance derived from this fact of Jesus’ Resurrection (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2) and this is the reason why John speaks of it as the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10). It is the one day of the week to which belongs this distinctive religious significance. Since it occurs every seventh day, it is a perpetually recurring memorial with religious intent and character proportionate to the place which Jesus’ Resurrection occupies in the accomplishment of redemption. The two pivotal events in this accomplishment are the death and Resurrection of Christ and the two memorial ordinances of the New Testament institution are the Lord’s supper and the Lord’s day, the one memorializing Jesus’ death and the other his Resurrection. If Paul in Romans 14:5 implies that all distinctions of days have been obliterated, then there is no room for the distinctive significance of the first day of the week as the Lord’s day. The evidence supporting the memorial character of the first day is not to be controverted and, consequently, in this respect also the assumption in question cannot be entertained, namely, that all religious distinction of days is completely abrogated in the Christian economy.
3. In accord with the analogy of scripture and particularly the teaching of Paul, Romans 14:5 can properly be regarded as referring to the ceremonial holy days of the Levitical institution. The obligation to observe these is clearly abrogated in the New Testament. They have no longer relevance or sanction and the situation described in Romans 14:5 perfectly accords with what Paul would say with reference to religious scrupulosity or the absence of such anent these days. Paul was not insistent upon the discontinuance of ritual observances of the Levitical ordinances as long as the observance was merely one of religious custom and not compromising the gospel (cf. Acts 18:18, 21; 21:20–27). He himself circumcised Timothy from considerations of expediency. But in a different situation he could write: “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing” (Gal. 5:2). Ceremonial feast days fall into the category of which the apostle could say: “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike”. Many Jews would not yet have understood all the implications of the gospel and had still a scrupulous regard for these Mosaic ordinances. Of such scruples we know Paul to have been thoroughly tolerant and they fit the precise terms of the text in question. There is no need to posit anything that goes beyond such observances. To place the Lord’s day and the weekly Sabbath in the same category is not only beyond the warrant of exegetical requirements but brings us into conflict with principles that are embedded in the total witness of scripture. An interpretation that involves such contradiction cannot be adopted. Thus the abiding sanctity of each recurring seventh day as the memorial of God’s rest in creation and of Christ’s exaltation in his Resurrection is not to be regarded as in any way impaired by Romans 14:5.” (10)
Reformed Confessional support for the Sunday is the Christian Sabbath:
The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks which day of the seven has God appointed. The Shorter Catechism in Q.59 puts it this way:
“Q.59. Which day of the seven has God appointed to be the weekly Sabbath?
A. From the beginning of the world to the Resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly Sabbath; and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian Sabbath.”
Westminster Confession of 1646: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day
“Chapter XXI. Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day with Scriptural proofs
I. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and with all the soul, and with all the might, (Rom 1:20; Act 17:24; Psa 119:68; Jer 10:7; Psa 31:23; Psa 18:3; Rom 10:12; Psa 62:8; Jos 24:14; Mar 12:33). But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy scripture, (Deu 12:32; Mat 15:9; Act 17:25; Mat 4:9-10; Deu 15:1-20; Exd 20:4-6; Col 2:23).
II. Religious worship is to be given to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to Him alone, (Mat 4:10; Jhn 5:23; 2Co 13:14); not to angels, saints, or any other creature, (Col 2:18; Rev 19:10; Rom 1:25): and, since the fall, not without a Mediator; nor in the mediation of any other but of Christ alone, (Jhn 14:6; 1Ti 2:5; Eph 2:18; Col 3:17).
III. Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, (Phl 4:6); is by God required of all men, (Psa 65:2): and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son, (Jhn 14:13-14; 1Pe 2:5); by the help of His Spirit, (Rom 8:26); according to His will, (1Jo 5:14); with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance, (Psa 47:7; Ecc 5:1-2; Hbr 12:28; Gen 18:27; Jam 5:16; Jam 1:6-7; Mar 11:24; Mat 6:12, 14-15; Col 4:2; Eph 6:18); and, if vocal, in a, known tongue, (1Co 14:14).
IV. Prayer is to be made for things lawful, (1Jo 5:14); and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter, (1Ti 2:1-2; Jhn 17:20; 2Sa 7:29; Rth 4:12): but not for the dead, (2Sa 12:21-23; Luk 16:25-26; Rev 14:13); nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death, (1Jo 5:16).
V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, (Act 15:21; Rev 1:3); the sound preaching, (2Ti 4:2); and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, (Jam 1:22; Act 10:33; Mat 13:19; Hbr 4:2; Isa 66:2); singing of psalms with grace in the heart, (Col 3:16; Eph 5:19; Jam 5:13); as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God, (Mat 28:19; 1Co 11:23-29; Act 2:42): beside religious oaths, (Deu 6:13; Neh 10:29); vows, (Isa 19:21; Ecc 5:4-5); solemn fastings, (Joe 2:12; Est 4:16; Mat 9:15; 1Co 7:5); and thanksgivings upon special occasions, (Psa 107; Est 9:22); which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner, (Hbr 12:28).
VI. Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now, under the Gospel, either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed, (Jhn 4:21): but God is to be worshipped everywhere, (Mal 1:11; 1Ti 2:8); in spirit and truth, (Jhn 4:23-24); as, in private families, (Jer 10:25; Deu 6:6-7; Job 1:5; 2Sa 6:18, 20; 1Pe 3:7, Act 10:2); daily, (Mat 6:11); and in secret, each one by himself, (Mat 6:6; Eph 6:18); so, more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly or wilfully to be neglected, or forsaken, when God, by His Word or providence, calleth thereunto, (Isa 56:6-7; Hbr 10:25; Pro 1:20-21, 24; Pro 8:34; Act 13:42; Luk 4:16; Act 2:42).
VII. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him, (Exd 20:8, 10-11; Isa 56:2, 4, 6-7): which, from the beginning of the world to the Resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week, (Gen 2:2-3; 1Co 16:1-2; Act 20:7); and, from the Resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in scripture, is called the Lord’s Day, (Rev 1:10); and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath, (Exd 20:8, 10; Mat 5:17-18).
VIII. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, (Exd 20:8; Exd 16:23, 25-26, 29-30; Exd 31:15-17; Isa 58:13; Neh 13:15-19, 21-22); but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy, (Isa 58:13; Mat 12:1-13).”
Westminster Catechism and Confession, one of Protestantism’s most excellent confessions, understands that the Saturday Sabbath has changed to Sunday, along with its significance.
Conclusion with a summary of Scriptural reasons for the day change:
1. The Lord rose from the dead on the first day of the week, Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 25:1; and John 20:1, 19, 26.
2. In the book of Acts, we learn more about Sunday, the day of Christ’s Resurrection. “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” (Acts 20:7)
3. In 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, Paul tells us that not only in Corinth but all the churches of Galatia met upon the first day of the week. Moreover, the apostles commanded the observation of this day rather than any other day for Sabbath services.
4. Regarding Sunday, the first day of the week, it can be said this day is sanctified to be holy to the Lord above any other day, and therefore it has the Lord’s name upon it and consequently is called the Lord’s day, as is manifest from Revelation1:10.
In answer to the opening questions, the Roman Catholic assertion that the Papacy changed the Saturday Sabbath to Sunday worship does not hold up historically, nor most importantly, biblically.
5. Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chapter IX.
6. (Constantine, March 7, 321. Codex Justinianus lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; translated in Philip Schaff’s, History of the Christian Church), Vol. 3, p. 380, note 1.
7. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 1405-1406.
8. R. J. Bauckham, “Lord’s Day,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, ed. D. A. Carson, pages 221-250.
9. John Murray, The Sabbath, The Pattern of the Lord’s Day, (United Kingdom, Lord’s Day Observance Society), out of print.
10. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2, The New International Commentary on the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968), 257–259.
Messiah’s people: “called out assembly,” the bride, true name Y’Isra-el
Answer:
The concept of the Messiah’s people being referred to as the “called out assembly” or “bride” has roots in both Jewish and Christian theology, though interpretations can vary significantly between these groups and even within them:
1. Messiah’s People as “Called Out Assembly:”
· In Christianity, the term “ekklesia” (ἐκκλησία), often translated as “church,” means “called out ones” or “assembly.” This term is used to describe the community of believers in Jesus Christ, who are seen as called out by God for a divine purpose. Early Christian writings, including those in the New Testament, describe believers as an assembly chosen or called by God.
2. The Bride:
· The metaphor of the “bride” is frequently used in Christian theology to describe the church’s relationship with Christ. This imagery comes from passages like Ephesians 5:25-27, where the church is described as the bride of Christ, meant to be presented without spot or wrinkle. In Judaism, the concept of Israel as God’s bride exists, notably in prophetic literature, where God is depicted as betrothed to Israel (e.g., Hosea, Jeremiah).
3. True Name Y’Isra-el:
· The term “Y’Isra-el” or “Yisra’el” is essentially the Hebrew name for Israel, which means “struggles with God” or “God prevails.” In Jewish thought, Israel refers to the descendants of Jacob, who was renamed Israel after wrestling with an angel (Genesis 32:28). In some Messianic or Jewish-Christian interpretations, there’s a movement to reclaim or use Hebrew names, believing they hold spiritual significance or are closer to the original context of the scriptures. “Y’Isra-el” might emphasize this connection, although it’s not universally adopted in mainstream Jewish or Christian discourse.
4. Messianic and Eschatological Views:
· From a Messianic Jewish perspective or certain streams within Christianity, especially those with Hebraic roots, there’s an understanding that the true followers of the Messiah (whether seen as Jesus or another figure in Jewish eschatology) are part of a spiritual Israel, which might be called Y’Israel. This view often incorporates the idea that believers, both Jewish and non-Jewish, are part of God’s covenant with Israel through faith in the Messiah.
5. Cultural and Theological Nuances:
· The idea of “Y’Isra-el” as the true name for the Messiah’s people can be tied to theological debates about the identity of God’s people in the end times. Some believe that all believers in the Messiah will be part of a restored Israel, fulfilling prophecies about the ingathering of the exiles and the unity of God’s people under one covenant.
In summary:
While the phrase “called out assembly” aligns with Christian usage of “ekklesia” for the church, and the term “bride” is used for both Israel (in Jewish texts) and the Church (in Christian texts), the specific usage of “Y’Isra-el” as the true name for the Messiah’s people might be more aligned with certain Messianic or Hebraic Christian interpretations, emphasizing a continuity or restoration of Israel through faith in the Messiah. However, interpretations can vary widely, and not all theological or religious groups will agree on these points.
Counterfeit: Circe (Church), daughter of the sun god
Answer:
The fallacy above refers to likely stems from the conflation or misinterpretation of several mythological or religious elements.
1. Circe in Mythology:
· Circe is a figure from Greek mythology, not directly related to Christianity or any other religious institution like the Church (often referred to as “Circe” in some interpretations due to phonetic or typographical similarity). She was a sorceress known for her ability to turn men into animals, as described in Homer’s “Odyssey.” Circe was the daughter of Helios, the Titan sun god, and the nymph Perse.
2. Misinterpretation or Confusion:
· The confusion might arise from:
· Linguistic Mix-up: Circe might be confused with “Church” due to similar sounding names in some languages or dialects.
· Symbolic or Allegorical Interpretations: In some literary or symbolic interpretations, mythological figures like Circe might represent ideas or entities from Christianity or other religions. However, this isn’t standard in traditional mythology.
3. Symbolic Connections:
· Sun Imagery in Religion: The sun has been a powerful symbol across many cultures and religions, including Christianity, where light is often used as a metaphor for divine truth or enlightenment. However, this does not mean figures like Circe are directly linked to or considered part of Christian theology.
4. Fallacy Analysis:
· Argument from False Analogy: This fallacy occurs when two things are compared that have no real similarity, or the comparison is made inappropriately. Here, assuming Circe, a mythological figure with no direct connection to Christianity, is the “daughter” of the Church due to some superficial or misunderstood connections would be erroneous.
5. Etymological Fallacy:
· Assuming that because words sound similar or share similar roots, their meanings must be related, which isn’t the case here with “Circe” and “Church.”
To summarize:
The idea that Circe is the daughter of the Church because of her association with the sun god Helios represents a misunderstanding or creative reinterpretation of mythology and religion. This fallacy would involve misconceptions about the origins and implications of mythological and religious symbols and names.
Messiah: Yahoshua (Yah’s salvation)
Answer:
“Messiah: Yahoshua (Yah’s salvation)” is not the only exclusive way to refer to the Messiah in Christian or Jewish contexts. Here are some variations and considerations:
1. Yahoshua – This name is derived from Hebrew. It’s sometimes used by those who prefer using original Hebrew names. However, variations exist:
· Yeshua is a more commonly used Hebrew name for Jesus, meaning “salvation.”
· Joshua – The anglicized form of “Yahoshua” or “Yeshua,” found in English Bibles.
2. Jesus – In English-speaking contexts, “Jesus” is the most widely recognized name for the Messiah. This comes from the Latin Iesus, which in turn derives from the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), a transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua or Yahoshua.
3. Jesus Christ – Combining the name with the title “Christ,” which means “Messiah” or “Anointed One” in Greek.
4. Messiah – This term can stand alone or be paired with various names:
· Messiah Jesus or Jesus the Messiah
· HaMashiach in Hebrew, which means “The Messiah.”
5. Lord – Often used in a messianic context, especially in Christian worship and texts:
· Lord Jesus Christ
6. Other Cultural and Linguistic Variations:
· Isa is used in Arabic, Islam, and some Christian contexts in the Arab world.
· And, Iēsous Khristos in Greek directly translates to “Jesus Christ” in English.
Each of these ways of referring to the Messiah can be associated with different theological, cultural, or linguistic backgrounds:
· Christianity generally uses “Jesus Christ” or variations thereof.
· Judaism might use “Messiah” or “Moshiach” when discussing the expected or potential messianic figure.
· Messianic Judaism might use “Yahoshua” or “Yeshua” to highlight the Jewish roots of Jesus’ identity.
Therefore, while “Messiah: Yahoshua (Yah’s salvation)” is one way to express this concept, it’s far from the only universally accepted way. Language, culture, and religious tradition significantly influence how this figure is named and described.
Counterfeit: Yay Zeus (Jesus, also falsely iesous, iesum, an iesus)
The statement “Yay Zeus (Jesus, also falsely iesous, iesum, an iesus)” contains several inaccuracies and misconceptions:
1. Jesus and Zeus:
· Confusion between Names: The statement seems to imply that Jesus and Zeus are related or the same, which is incorrect from a theological, historical, and linguistic perspective.
· Jesus: The name Jesus comes from the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Yeshua” or “Yehoshua” (Joshua), meaning “Yahweh is salvation.” The Greek transliteration is Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous).
· Zeus: Zeus is the chief deity in Greek mythology, unrelated to the Judeo-Christian figure of Jesus. The name Zeus derives from the Indo-European root *dyeu-, which is related to sky or day, not to any Semitic or Hebrew roots.
2. Linguistic Misrepresentation:
· “Iesous, Iesum, Iesus:” These are Latinized forms of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous). They are not false but are variations of the same name adapted to different grammatical cases in Latin:
· Iesous – Nominative case used for the subject of a sentence.
· Iesum – Accusative case, used as the direct object.
· Iesus – Another Latin form, though less commonly used in classical Latin texts for Jesus.
· The claim that these names are “falsely” attributed to Jesus misunderstands how names get adapted across languages. These variations are typical linguistic adaptations rather than false representations.
3. Cultural and Religious Misunderstanding:
· The statement might imply a conspiracy or a deliberate misrepresentation of how Jesus’s name was transliterated or translated, which isn’t the case:
· Early Christian texts were written in Greek, the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean. Hence, “Yeshua” was naturally transliterated to “Iēsous” in Greek and from Greek to Latin as “Iesus” or “Iesum,” depending on the grammatical context.
4. Lack of Historical Context:
· The evolution of the name from Hebrew to Greek to Latin reflects the cultural and linguistic transitions in the early spread of Christianity, not an attempt to mislead or confuse.
In conclusion:
The statement contains a mix-up of linguistic evolution, historical context, and theological identity. The names “Iesous,” “Iesum,” and “Iesus” are legitimate, albeit varied, forms of Jesus’s name in different linguistic contexts, not falsehoods. The connection or conflation with Zeus is a misunderstanding of etymology and cultural history.
Salvation: declared directly to the believer by the Holy Spirit
Counterfeit: declared only by man who falsely claims it’s the Holy Spirit
And, for some reason, Christians don’t think these things even matter!
The above declaration and alleged counterfeit are nothing more than subjective quibbling. Dean, a leader of the “Tabernacle,” says that the Holy Spirit tells him directly and without any evidence and levels an accusation that a Christian’s testimony is based on man’s word. The assertion that salvation is based on man’s word is false regarding the Reformed faith. Furthermore, Christians think these things matter to those who are more humble in their faith and less likely to throw accusations around. His lack of documentation is a glaring error in Dean Haskins’ assertions here and elsewhere. In this writer’s brief exchange with Dean on Parler, he was asked if he had taken up mind reading because of his lack of documentation for his assertions.
Escatology Astray: The following is Dean Haskin’s view on Bible interpretation taken from his website.
WHAT IS THE “FALLING AWAY”?
In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Paul speaks of the coming rule of the antichrist, which will precede Messiah’s 1000-year reign on earth. He says that the antichrist will not come until there is first “falling away from the faith. (bolding emphasis mine)
What movement occurred AFTER Paul had died and stripped the true faith of its foundations, replacing the Father’s true ordained days (Sabbaths) with ordained pagan counterfeits like SUNday assembling and holydays are tied to sun worship, and also turned salvation into something man controls?
Christianity I.S. the “apostasy” Paul said would precede the coming of the antichrist. It began in the early centuries after the New Testament writers had all died/culminating in its head (the Pope) endorsing the antichrist. Christianity flows from Rome, where it was invented, and it pervades and deceives the planet.
Apart from some shocking historical errors, such as “Christianity flows from Rome.” Dean has apparently never heard of Eastern Orthodoxy because they would most certainly object along with the Coptics.
The assertion that “everything in Christianity flows from Rome” oversimplifies and is not accurate.
1. Historical Context:
· Early Christianity: Christianity began in the Middle East, specifically in Judea (modern-day Israel and Palestine), with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. The early Church spread through the Apostles’ efforts across the Roman Empire and beyond.
· Rome’s Role: Rome became central due to its political and cultural significance in the Roman Empire. The Bishop of Rome (later known as the Pope) gained prominence partly because Rome was the empire’s capital.
2. Development of the Papacy:
· Over centuries, the Bishop of Rome’s role evolved, especially after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Pope’s authority was recognized more formally during the Middle Ages, leading to the concept of papal primacy. However, this was not without controversy, especially in the East, where the Orthodox Church developed independently.
3. Eastern Christianity:
· The Eastern Orthodox Church, centered in Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), has its own Patriarchs and does not accept the Pope’s universal jurisdiction. This branch of Christianity developed alongside Western Christianity but with different theological emphases and ecclesiastical structures.
4. Protestant Reformation and Beyond:
· The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century challenged the authority of Rome, leading to the formation of various Protestant denominations. These groups often rejected or reformed many doctrines and practices associated with Roman Catholicism, emphasizing scripture over tradition or papal authority.
5. Global Christianity:
· Today, Christianity is a global religion with diverse expressions:
· Catholicism: While the Pope in Rome is the spiritual leader, there are also significant Eastern Catholic Churches that, while in communion with Rome, retain their own rites and traditions.
· Orthodoxy: Orthodoxy has autocephalous (self-headed) churches, such as the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.
· Protestantism: Encompasses numerous denominations like Presbyterian, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, etc., each with its governance.
· Other Christian Movements: Include Anglicanism, which splits between those who align closely with Rome and others who do not, and independent or non-denominational churches.
6. Non-Roman Influences:
· Various cultures and places have influenced Christianity:
· Alexandria: Early Christian theology and Christology were significantly developed here.
· Antioch is known for its school of thought that emphasizes Christ’s humanity alongside His divinity.
· Constantinople: Played a crucial role in theological debates and the formation of the Nicene Creed.
In summary:
While Rome has been, and remains, a significant center for Christianity, especially for the Roman Catholic Church, the assertion that “everything flows from Rome” does not hold universally across all Christian traditions. Many cultural, geographical, and theological currents have influenced Christianity’s development, making it a richly diverse global faith.
Exegesis of 2 Thessalonians from a Reformed Perspective
Introduction:
2 Thessalonians, believed to be penned by the Apostle Paul, addresses a community grappling with eschatological concerns, moral conduct, and church discipline. This letter, likely written shortly after 1 Thessalonians, aims to clarify misunderstandings about the Day of the Lord, encourage steadfastness in faith, and correct certain behaviors within the church.
1. Authorship and Historical Context:
· Authorship: While traditional scholarship attributes 2 Thessalonians to Paul, some modern scholars debate its Pauline authorship due to stylistic differences with 1 Thessalonians. However, from a Reformed perspective, which typically holds to traditional authorship, the letter is accepted as genuinely Pauline, written in collaboration with Silas and Timothy (2 Thess. 1:1).
· Context: The church in Thessalonica was experiencing persecution (2 Thess. 1:4-7), which likely led to confusion about eschatological events, causing some members to become idle, expecting the imminent return of Christ.
2. Theological Themes:
· Eschatology: The Day of the Lord (2 Thess. 2:1-12): Paul corrects the Thessalonians’ misunderstanding that the day of the Lord had already come. He outlines a sequence: apostasy must occur, and the “man of lawlessness” must be revealed before Christ’s return (2 Thess. 2:3-4). This passage reflects Reformed theology’s understanding of progressive revelation, where events unfold in God’s predetermined order, emphasizing God’s sovereignty over history.
· The Restrainer: Discussions on the identity of the restrainer (2 Thess. 2:6-7) are speculative; however, within Reformed circles, interpretations might lean towards the Holy Spirit, human government, or an angelic being, all under divine control.
· Perseverance and Election:
· God’s Faithful Calling (2 Thess. 2:13-14): Paul reassures believers of their election by God for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. This aligns with the Reformed doctrine on election, emphasizing that salvation is a divine initiative, not predicated on human merit.
· Work and Discipline:
· Against Idleness (2 Thess. 3:6-15): Paul’s admonition for everyone to work and not be idle (3:10-12) reflects the Reformed work ethic, where diligence in one’s calling is seen as a part of Christian living, countering the idle expectation of Christ’s immediate return.
3. Ecclesiological Insights:
· Church Discipline: The directive to withdraw from those who live in idleness but do not obey the letter’s instructions (2 Thess. 3:14-15) underscores the Reformed view on church governance and discipline, where the community is responsible for maintaining order and purity in doctrine and life.
· Prayer for the Church (2 Thess. 1:11-12): Here, the intercessory role of the apostle for the spiritual growth and glorification of the church members is emphasized, reflecting the Reformed focus on the means of grace, including prayer, for spiritual development.
4. Application for Today:
· Relevance: The themes in 2 Thessalonians continue to resonate:
· The call to diligently work and doctrine amidst eschatological speculation or societal pressures.
· Believers find comfort in God’s sovereign plan for history and salvation.
· The importance of church discipline as part of communal spiritual health is highlighted.
Conclusion:
2 Thessalonians from a Reformed perspective serves as a guide for eschatological understanding and a framework for Christian living that emphasizes perseverance, community responsibility, and reliance on divine providence. It encourages believers to live out their faith actively in anticipation of Christ’s return, maintaining order and discipline within the church community while trusting in God’s overarching plan for the cosmos.
Introductory Observations about Dean Haskins’ book From Christian to Believer” by Kurt Van Gordon:
“When I first looked at Dean Haskins’s book on Amazon, coauthored with James Finnegan, I was unfamiliar with either author. However, I took note that their book was published by “Tate Publishing” (the scandalized Tate Publishing from Mustang, Oklahoma, not to be confused with Tate Publishing in London, England, from 1911). This relaxed my anticipation that we had much more than two self-proclaimed specialists who lacked the business-sense to steer away from Tate Publishing, due to their horrid reputation. Anyone can Google Tate Publishing of Mustang, OK, and find compounded articles exposing lawsuits by would-be authors, the Oklahoma Attorney General’s eight-count indictment for embezzlement, among other things, and the lawsuits from Xerox and other corporations. This was not a good beginning for analyzing Mr. Haskins’s work.
My second flag was Haskins’s book description, which stated that we are all going to be “shocked” with what he found out about Christianity. When someone uses the word “shocked” to describe the Bible or Christianity, it fosters the pretense that the author has discovered something formerly unknown or untouched by any other writer. Rarely is this the true case. In fact, his thesis about Hebraic Roots is rehashed from the Messianic movement churches, but even older, it also is rooted in the Judaizers who tormented the apostolic Church, who were rebuked in Paul’s epistles as legalists who are ignorant of God’s true grace.
Further research showed that Haskins’s coauthor, Finnegan, has released the book free of charge on his website. I downloaded it and read some of the sections. My initial suspicions were confirmed in that it was a jumbled concoction of term-replacement, term-twisting, and just plain fabrications reminiscent of Herbert W. Armstrong (founder of the former cult, Worldwide Church of God). Haskins and Finnegan have intensified the legalism and have returned to the very object of Paul’s rebuke in Galatians, in that “they pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:7), of which he twice-declared, “Anathema!” (accursed, Gal. 1:8, 9).
The book meanders in directionless paths with no central point, except that he disdains both mainline Christianity and parts of the Hebrew Roots Movement. The book also engages date-setting for the tribulation and millennial periods, which they surmise as 2031, “From the time of Adam to the time of Abraham, there was roughly two thousand years. Then from the time of Abraham to the time of Christ, there was another two thousand years. Most biblical scholars agree that Christ was crucified in the year AD 31, and if we add two thousand years to that, we arrive at 2031.” The simplest research will expose their false statement about “most scholars,” but far worse is their contrived and forced interpretation attached to it. As with most hyper-dispensational date-setters, none have ever been right because “the day and the hour no man knows,” promised Jesus, in Matthew 24:36.” – Kurt Van Gorden, author of Mormonism (Zondervan, 1995), the coauthor of The Kingdom of the Occult (with Walter R. Martin and Jill Martin-Rische, 2008), and the Senior Researcher of The Kingdom of the Cults, by Walter Martin, (2019).
Critical Review of “From Christian to Believer” by James Finnegan and Dean Haskins
“From Christian to Believer” aims to guide readers on a spiritual journey through Christian symbolism, mainly focusing on the Tabernacle. However, the book suffers from several academic flaws that significantly undermine its credibility:
1. Lack of Scholarly Rigor:
The text often makes assertions about biblical interpretations without providing sufficient textual or historical evidence. This approach might resonate with those already inclined towards the author’s viewpoint but lacks the depth expected in academic or theological studies where primary and peer-reviewed secondary sources are crucial.
2. Anachronistic Interpretations:
There’s a tendency to impose modern theological concepts onto ancient texts without acknowledging the historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts. This retrofitting of contemporary beliefs onto ancient practices can lead to misinterpretations and overlooks the development of Christian doctrine over centuries.
3. Over-Simplification:
Complex theological concepts are often reduced to simplistic metaphors, which might serve well for introductory religious literature but fail when trying to engage with or contribute to theological discourse. This simplification can dilute the richness of biblical scholarship and ignore the nuances that scholars debate.
4. Bias and Lack of Critical Engagement:
The book appears to advocate for a particular theological stance without adequately exploring or critiquing alternative interpretations or viewpoints. This lack of dialogue with other theological traditions or even within the Christian tradition can make the work seem dogmatically one-sided rather than a scholarly exploration.
5. Inadequate Source Citation:
While not uncommon in religious texts aimed at the general public, the absence of proper citations or references to other works, both ancient and modern, hampers the book’s value, which makes it difficult for readers to follow up on claims or assess the credibility of the interpretations presented.
6. Theological Assumptions:
The author sometimes presents theological assumptions as if they were universally accepted truths, which can be misleading. For instance, specific interpretations of salvation, the role of the Tabernacle, or the nature of belief are treated as definitive rather than as one perspective among many.
7. Use of Anecdotal Evidence:
The narrative often relies on personal anecdotes or testimonies, which, while compelling from a personal faith perspective, do not constitute reliable academic evidence. This method might be inspiring but does not contribute to scholarly discourse.
Are the authors professionally competent in Hebrew?
Given the information available and the nature of the book “From Christian to Believer,” there isn’t explicit evidence within the author’s or authors’ document demonstrating professional knowledge of Hebrew.
Points to consider:
Language Use: The text often discusses biblical concepts, especially those related to the Tabernacle, which might suggest familiarity with the Old Testament. However, this does not necessarily indicate proficiency in Hebrew, as many English translations or commentaries could be the source of such information.
Lack of Hebrew Textual Analysis: If the book delves deeply into Hebrew language specifics, like etymology, syntax, or exegesis based on the Hebrew text, one might expect to see Hebrew words or phrases analyzed, transliterated, or translated. However, without directly accessing the text or a detailed content analysis, there’s no clear indication that such a level of Hebrew scholarship exists.
Theological Interpretation vs. Linguistic Knowledge: Many theological interpretations of the Bible can be made without advanced knowledge of Hebrew. The book might focus on spiritual or symbolic interpretations that do not require one to be adept in the original languages of the Bible.
Author’s Background: The book doesn’t provide information about the author’s background or credentials. If the author has training or expertise in Hebrew, this would typically be mentioned in the author bios or in the book’s acknowledgments, which are not included in the review snippets or the PDF version of the book itself.
To accurately assess the author’s knowledge of Hebrew, one would need:
· Direct Reference to Hebrew: Quotes from or discussions about the original Hebrew texts, showing interaction with the language.
· Citations: Use of scholarly sources that deal with Hebrew, like lexicons, commentaries on the original texts, or studies from Hebrew scholars.
· Author’s Qualifications: Information on the author’s academic or professional qualifications related to biblical languages.
Without this information, it’s difficult to confirm if the author(s) of “From Christian to Believer” have professional knowledge of Hebrew sufficient for writing an authoritative book on biblical interpretation based on the language itself.
The publisher Dean Haskins used for his book is another reason not to read the book:
Tate Publishing from Mustang, Oklahoma, is not considered a credible publisher based on its history and numerous legal and ethical issues:
Business Practices: Tate Publishing operated primarily as a vanity press, where authors paid for publication services. While this isn’t inherently non-credible, the issues surrounding Tate Publishing go beyond standard vanity press operations.
· Legal Troubles:
In 2016, Xerox sued Tate Publishing for over $1.7 million in unpaid services. This lawsuit highlighted financial distress.
In January 2017, Tate Publishing ceased operations amid legal battles, including lawsuits from printing services providers like Lightning Source and Xerox for millions of dollars in unpaid debts.
The founders, Richard and Ryan Tate, were arrested in May 2017 on charges including embezzlement, extortion, and racketeering. They pleaded no contest to 44 criminal charges in December 2019, which included defrauding customers.
· Customer Complaints: There have been numerous complaints from authors and musicians about the non-delivery of services despite payment, lack of royalties, and poor quality of work. The Oklahoma Attorney General received nearly 2,200 complaints from former clients about Tate Publishing’s practices.
· Closure and Transition: In January 2017, they announced they were in a transition period, no longer accepting new clients, and were supposedly working to find new homes for their current authors and artists, which did not resolve the issues for many.
· Public Perception: The combination of legal issues, customer complaints, and the abrupt closure of business operations significantly damaged Tate Publishing’s reputation. They were often cited in consumer reports and reviews as a company to be wary of.
Given this background, Tate Publishing would not be recommended for anyone considering a publisher for their work due to its history of fraudulent activities, legal issues, and failure to provide promised services. In light of the numerous fallacies, lack of scholarship, and divisive spirit outlined above regarding Dean Haskins’ book, Tate Publishing was a publisher of last resort.
Conclusion:
From an academic standpoint, “From Christian to Believer” falls short. Its methodological approach lacks the rigor, critical analysis, and broad engagement with theological scholarship necessary for it to be considered a contribution to biblical or theological studies. This book, however, ends with a conclusion and does not include an index.
While Dean Haskins is a talented musician, his excursion into theology can be described as religion-run amuck. The “Way of the Tabernacle” is an extreme aberrational subset of the HRM characterized by ignorance, arrogance, and vitriolic hate of the Christian Faith.
Portions of the above study were Groked under the direction of Jack Kettler and perfected with Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
The above material is copyrighted and published by Kettler Wellness Inc. The above material can be freely copied as a whole or in part if the context is preserved and proper attribution is listed.
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Torahism: The Book by R. L. Solberg has been recognized for its critique of the theology associated with the Hebraic Roots Movement, arguing against the requirement for Christians to keep the Law of Moses. This book won awards for its theological stance and is considered a thorough defense against HRM teachings. www.RLSolberg.com
Torahism: Are Christians Required to Keep the Law of Moses?
Dangers of the Hebrew Roots Movement by Tim Chaffey with Answers in Genesis examines the HRM, pointing out what it sees as dangers and heresies, such as the belief that Christians must keep the Torah, which it argues contradicts New Testament teachings.
Articles and blog posts by R. L. Solberg, including those on his website, discuss the theological issues with HRM, emphasizing the dangers of legalism and the misinterpretation of scriptural covenants. https://www.youtube.com/@TheBiblicalRoots
Judaism is not Jewish: (currently out of print, one can find used copies for sale on the Internet)
By Baruch Maoz
What others are saying about Baruch’s Judaism is not Jewish:
“The heart of his indictment is this: the Movement has allowed rabbinic tradition to overshadow the Bible. In a laudable attempt to attract Jews to Christianity, they are in danger of losing the essence of the faith as it centers in Jesus Christ.” – Tom Wells, Pastor, The Kings Chapel, West Chester, Ohio
“Written primarily as a constructive critique of Messianic Judaism and in light of the author’s more than 30 years as a minister in Israel, it has far broader relevance. It highlights, in a fashion both compelling and winsome, considerations that are non-negotiable today, as always, in maintaining the integrity of the gospel of Jesus Christ and biblical Christianity.” – Richard B. Gaffin, Jr, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia
“This book is must reading for everyone who cares about the Jewish people.” – Stan Telchin, Stan Telchin Ministries, Sarasota, Florida
“Pastor Maoz is a passionate and persuasive writer with clear convictions, who builds simple and convincing arguments on ademonstrably biblical foundation. For those within, intrigued by,or dealing with the Messianic Movement, this book is importantand perhaps essential reading. Similarly, other Jewish Christians and any one involved in evangelizing Jews would almost certainly find it helpful. The book also has much to say to all believers.” – The Banner of Truth
“This is a warm, engaging and very important book, especially for Jewish Christians and those involved in ministry with Jewish followers of Messiah Jesus.” – John Armstrong, Reformation & Revival Ministries, Carol Stream, Illinois (Director of Renew and formerly a Pastor for twenty years)
“Pastor Maoz is a passionate and persuasive writer with clear convictions, who builds simple and convincing arguments on ademonstrably biblical foundation. For those within, intrigued by,or dealing with the Messianic Movement, this book is importantand perhaps essential reading. Similarly, other Jewish Christians and any one involved in evangelizing Jews would almost certainly find it helpful. The book also has much to say to all believers.” – The Banner of Truth
An Overview of Kenneth Gentry’s “The Divorce of Israel” By Jack Kettler
Introduction:
Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.’s two-volume work, “The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation 18:1-19:3,” represents a significant contribution to the field of biblical eschatology, particularly within the frameworks of redemptive-historical interpretation and preterism. This scholarly commentary delves into the prophetic literature of the Book of Revelation, offering a detailed examination through the lens of realized eschatology.
Redemptive-Historical Interpretation:
Gentry’s approach employs redemptive-historical hermeneutics, which posits that the Bible’s narrative is not merely a collection of disjointed events but a cohesive story of God’s redemptive acts throughout history. In “The Divorce of Israel,” Gentry argues that the fall of Babylon, as depicted in Revelation, should not be understood as a future, end-times event but as an event within the historical context of the New Testament, particularly the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This perspective aligns the events of Revelation with the culmination of Old Testament prophecies, where the failure of Israel to uphold the covenant leads to its ‘divorce’ from God, symbolized by the fall of Babylon.
Gentry meticulously traces this theme through biblical texts, suggesting that the judgment on Babylon (Israel) in Revelation represents the final act of God’s historical dealings with the Old Covenant nation, thereby ushering in the New Covenant era. His method involves synthesizing Old Testament prophecies with New Testament fulfillment, arguing that the destruction of Jerusalem was both a literal historical event and a profound theological statement about the transition from the Mosaic to the Messianic covenant.
Preterist Perspective:
Central to Gentry’s commentary is his commitment to preterism, specifically a partial preterist viewpoint. In this context, Preterism interprets much of the prophecy in Revelation as having been fulfilled in the first century, particularly around the Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the Temple. Gentry’s preterist interpretation of Revelation 18-19 posits that these chapters primarily concern the judgment on Jerusalem, not a far-future apocalypse.
He argues that the language of divine judgment in Revelation reflects a common biblical motif that describes significant historical and theological turning points, such as the destruction of Babylon, Tyre, and Nineveh in the Old Testament. Gentry’s detailed analysis includes historical accounts from Josephus and other sources to support his claim that the events described in Revelation align with the first-century Jewish calamity.
Thematic Focus:
1. Covenantal Dynamics: Gentry explores the covenantal relationship between God and Israel, culminating in a ‘divorce’ due to Israel’s unfaithfulness, which he correlates with the destruction of the Temple.
2. Symbolic Language: He interprets the symbolic language of Revelation not as literal future events but as a theological commentary on contemporary historical events, using apocalyptic imagery to convey divine judgment.
3. Eschatological Fulfillment: Gentry contends that Israel’s eschatological hopes find fulfillment in the coming of Christ and the establishment of the church rather than in a future millennial kingdom.
4. The Role of Babylon: According to Gentry, the city of Babylon in Revelation is not a literal city in the end times but a symbol of the corrupt socio-religious system of Jerusalem under the Old Covenant.
Critical Reception:
Gentry’s work has been both praised for its detailed exegesis and criticized for its interpretive framework. Critics often challenge his preterist views, arguing that such interpretations do not account for certain prophecies that seem to transcend the first-century context. However, supporters applaud his rigorous scholarly approach and ability to integrate historical data with biblical theology.
Conclusion:
“The Divorce of Israel” by Kenneth Gentry is a comprehensive exploration of the redemptive-historical and preterist interpretations of crucial passages in Revelation. His work challenges traditional futurist interpretations and invites a reconsideration of how eschatological prophecies might have been fulfilled in the historical events of the first century. Gentry’s commentary provides a rich, albeit controversial, resource for scholars, theologians, and students of biblical prophecy, offering a nuanced perspective of divine judgment and redemption in Christian theology.
Note: The Divorce of Israel is mentioned by Paul, “For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?” (Romans 11:24) The divorce of Israel is not permanent, as Paul explains, “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” (Romans 11:26)
The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI at the direction of Jack Kettler.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
The Religion That Started in a Hat 