6/24/16

There is one body (Ephesians 4:4) by Roy Davison



http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/onebody.html


There is one body
(Ephesians 4:4)
The church is the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22,23). Jesus said He would build His church (Matthew 16:18). He did not say He would establish several thousand denominations.
Jesus prayed that His followers might be one.
"Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are" (John 17:11).
"I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me" (John 17:20-23).
To accomplish this oneness, the distinction between Jew and Gentile had to be erased.
Jesus said to the Jews: "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd" (John 10:16).
Writing to Jews and Gentiles, Paul said: "For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity" (Ephesians 2:14-16).
Even the high priest who had Christ crucified -- without understanding what he was saying -- was inspired by God to speak of the oneness of all believers in Christ. "And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, 'You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.' Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad" (John 11:49-52).
This oneness in Christ encompasses heaven and earth! God had purposed "to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth" (Ephesians 1:9,10 RSV).
Christ's prayer was answered. His followers are one. There is one body (Ephesians 4:4) consisting of all those who are in Christ.
"For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another" (Romans 12:3-5).
Our oneness is based on one baptism.
"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:26-28).
"For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free -- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:12,13).
This oneness expresses itself in the Lord's supper. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:16,17). On the first day of the week, Christians in countless numbers assemble to partake of the one Bread, the bread of life.
The one body has one Lord and one faith. Paul admonished: "I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephesians 4:1-6).
Our oneness is based on the oneness of the Father and the Son, as Christ said in His prayer.
"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5).
"But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ" (Matthew 23:8-10). "The Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Mark 12:29).
"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him" (1 Corinthians 6:17).
Our oneness is based on the one faith. We must "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). To be one, God's word must dwell in us richly: "And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him" (Colossians 3:15-17).
When we worship God, we not only unite our voices but also our hearts. "Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be like-minded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus, that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore receive one another, just as Christ also received us, to the glory of God" (Romans 15:5-7).
When, on the basis of God's word, we maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, we can be of one heart and soul.
"Finally, brethren, farewell. Become complete. Be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you" (2 Corinthians 13:11).
"Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel, and not in any way terrified by your adversaries, which is to them a proof of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that from God" (Philippians 1:27,28).
"Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, fulfill my joy by being like- minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others" (Philippians 2:1-4).
"But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body" (Colossians 3:14,15).
"Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing" (1 Peter 3:8,9).
There is one body. Jesus prayed that His followers might be one, and this prayer was answered. His followers are one. There is one body which consists of all those who are in Christ. Our oneness is based on one baptism. This oneness expresses itself in the Lord's supper. It is based on the oneness of the Father and the Son. When we worship God, not only our voices, but also our hearts are united. Confessing and practicing the one faith, we maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and we are one in heart and soul.
Roy Davison
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
Permission for reference use has been granted.


Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

“Extra, Extra, Read all about it” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1565&b=Mark

“Extra, Extra, Read all about it”
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

One of the most commonly neglected rules of interpretation that Bible critics overlook when attacking Scripture is that extra information is not necessarily contradictory information. When one Bible writer offers more details than another on a particular subject, it is inappropriate to assume that one of the writers is mistaken. When a journalist in the 21st century writes about a man on the side of the road who has just escaped death following a particular catastrophe, while another journalist writes how this same man and his wife (standing next to him) are suffering survivors of the devastating disaster, it does not mean that the first journalist was dishonest in his representation of truth. Similarly, countless times throughout Scripture, and especially within the gospel accounts, extra information is given that critics cannot justifiably prove to be contradictory.
Consider how Matthew, Mark, and Luke all wrote about how a man named Joseph took the body of Jesus following His crucifixion, “wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock” (Luke 23:53; cf. Matthew 27:59-60; Mark 15:46). The apostle John, however, noted that Joseph actually had help in burying Jesus. He wrote: “Joseph of Arimathea...took the body of Jesus. And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury” (19:38-40, emp. added). Are the accounts of Jesus’ burial contradictory? Such could never be proven by skeptics. This simply is an example of extra information being given by one of the Bible writers. Had Matthew, Mark, and Luke stated that Joseph was the only person involved in Jesus’ burial, then skeptics would have a valid point to argue. But as it stands, John simply added facts to the story.
When Mark and Luke recorded how the Jews petitioned Pilate for the release of Barabbas, they both called him a murderer (Mark 15:7; Luke 23:18-19; Acts 3:14). Yet when John wrote about Barabbas, he omitted all discussion about his homicidal past and simply indicated that “Barabbas was a robber” (John 18:40). Is it possible that Barabbas was both a murderer anda thief? Of course. How many prisons around the world today house individuals who have committed both murder and burglary?
The Bible writers may not have worded things exactly the way some may think they should have, but such personal (or cultural) preferences do not invalidate their writings. Throughout the gospel accounts, statements are supplemented. Extra evidence frequently is given. And, the truth is, such supplementation should be expected from inspired, independent writers who did not have to participate in collusion in order to convey accurately the Good News of Jesus Christ. When one recognizes that supplementation cannot inherently be equated with a contradiction, many of the so-called “Bible contradictions” are easily (and logically!) explained away.

The Wisdom of Accountability Measures by Eric Lyons, M.Min.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1625


The Wisdom of Accountability Measures

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


If a person wants to be wicked, there is no stopping him. There are not enough accountability measures to put in place to stop a free moral agent from willfully choosing to sin. A parent could go so far as to lock up a teenager in an empty room in hopes of keeping him from sinning against God, but even then the teen could think and say wicked things. Even though Adam and Eve lived in a sinless world at one time; even though they were surrounded by good things (Genesis 1:31); even though they were able to walk and talk with God, live in the midst of the tree of life, and freely eat of every tree of the garden with the exception of one (Genesis 3:8; 2:9,16-17), they eventually chose the one thing that God forbade.
Generally speaking, however, Christians do not want to sin. Rather, we desperately desire to livein accordance with God’s will. The reason we call ourselves Christians is because we want to be Christ-like. That said, we are not perfect. More than we like to admit, we give in to “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16). For this reason, (1) we pray that we are not led into temptation, but instead are delivered from it (Matthew 6:13), and (2) lest we fall, we “take heed” (1 Corinthians 10:12) and walk carefully (Ephesians 5:15).
One area in which all Christians in the 21st century need to walk carefully is the World Wide Web. With one or two clicks of a button, a Christian can find himself “walking” in the filthiest places on Earth. More evil can be discovered more quickly on the Internet than anywhere in world history. In 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice argued, “Never before in the history of telecommunications media in the United States has so much indecent (and obscene) material been so easily accessible by so many minors in so many American homes with so few restrictions” (1996, emp. added). Literally, in just a few seconds, with merely a few clicks of a mouse, or by typing in only three or four words in a search engine, men and women, boys and girls, can view almost any wicked thing imaginable.
What proactive steps can Christians take to shield ourselves and our families from the many dangers on the Internet? Some Christians may think that they and their children are strong enough to withstand whatever temptation comes their way over the Internet. Such an attitude is seen to be very unwise in light of the apostle Paul’s admonitions to Christians. Not only did he warn the Corinthians to “let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall,” he also wrote to the churches of Galatia, saying, “For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself” (Galatians 6:3). Admittedly, we will never be able to put so many safety measures in place that the possibility of sinning is removed. But, there is much wisdom in being “careful” to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,” including those “shameful” things “done…in secret” (Ephesians 5:11-15).
Every Christian family that uses the Internet, seriously needs to consider filtering and accountability software. Filtering software, such as that offered by OpenDNS® or Safe Eyes®(among others), can block a myriad of different kinds of sinful sites that we might be tempted to visit. Though filtering software is not effective 100% of the time at blocking immoral sites, it can be a great safety measure most of the time.
Perhaps an even better (or additional) line of defense for Christians is accountability software such as that provided by Covenant Eyes®. This software tracks every site you visit and every search you make, whether on a computer, a phone, or a tablet. It then passes that information on to an accountability partner of your choosing (e.g., husband, wife, parent, close friend, etc.). For example, a parent can install this software on a teen’s laptop, tablet, or smart phone, and once a week get a report of what web sites the teen has visited or attempted to visit. This enables families to have continual informed and meaningful discussions about how Christians can wisely use the Internet in a Christ-like way.
Most all of us put various kinds of physical safety measures in place in our lives. Whether it is a law or not, many of us wear our seat belts faithfully. We may purchase security systems for our house or apartment in case of break-ins. We teach our children how to escape from their rooms in case there is a fire. Sometimes the physical precautions we put in place seem almost endless. Unfortunately, most people either forget or ignore the need for all of the spiritual defense measures that can help Christians continue walking in the light, rather than be continually tempted to stumble in darkness. It seems to me, two of the best tools that Christians can use in the 21st century are filtering and accountability software. I would encourage you to visit such helpful Web sites as www.safeeyes.com and www.covenanteyes.com.

REFERENCE

U.S. Department of Justice (1996), Post Hearing Memorandum of Points of Authorities, at I,ACLU v Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824 in Parenting the Internet Generation (2012), (Owosso, MI: Covenant Eyes).

What’s the Big Deal About Dinosaurs? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1504

What’s the Big Deal About Dinosaurs?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


From time to time, our readers will notice that we at Apologetics Press write articles regarding dinosaurs. We have even published a children’s book titled Dinosaurs Unleashed. Through the years, many have wondered why we occasionally address this topic. What is so important about dinosaurs that warrants them being the focus of various articles and books written by certain Christian apologists?
The reason that some creationists (including those of us at Apologetics Press) feel compelled to write about these extinct reptiles (which, since 1842, have been called dinosaurs) is largely because dinosaurs are the “poster children” for the theory of evolution. Much could be said about how evolutionary-minded moviemakers and advertisers have used dinosaurs to capture the world’s attention (see Butt, 2004, p. 3[2]:5-R), but one example regarding their status as the foremost icon of evolution should suffice. In the widely used 100-page middle school science textbook titled Evolution—Change Over Time (published by Prentice Hall), attempts are made to establish evolution as a fact by using a variety of alleged proofs. One piece of “evidence,” however, that appears on nearly one out of every three pages centers on dinosaurs. Out of the 100 pages in this textbook, at least 32 of them contain information and/or pictures of these extinct reptiles. The first two chapters in this three-chapter textbook begin with pictures and text about dinosaurs. In several sections of the book (in which the main thrust is not about dinosaurs), students are asked to participate in reading or writing activities that focus on dinosaurs. Truly, the authors and editors of this textbook (which has been used throughout the United States since the mid-1990s) have attempted to indoctrinate young minds with the “truths” of evolution using dinosaurs.
Inarguably, dinosaurs are the “sugar stick” that evolutionists use to capture the attention of both young and old alike. As Christian apologists, we believe it is our responsibility to provide well-researched, logical, biblical, and scientifically accurate materials that counteract and refute the extremely weak “dinosaur-glorified” evolutionary arguments. Obviously, if nearly one-third of the pages in a student’s evolutionary science textbook contain information about dinosaurs, young people are going to have questions about these creatures in light of what the Bible teaches. Did these reptiles evolve millions of years ago, or did God create them? Are humans separated from the time of the dinosaurs by 60 million years, or did God create both humans and dinosaurs on day six of Creation? How could humans have lived with such terrifying creatures? If evolutionists are the only ones answering these kinds of questions, what do you think your children and others throughout the world are going to believe about God, the Bible, and Creation?
Evolutionists have had their way with dinosaurs long enough. It is essential for creationists to dispel the “evolutionary aura” surrounding these creatures, and see them for what they really are—testimonies of an Almighty God Who made them alongside His image-bearers (humans—Genesis 1:26-27) during the Creation week (just like the Bible says!).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2004), “Dinosaurs: They’re Everywhere! They’re Everywhere!,” Reason & Revelation, 3[2]:5-R, February, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2476.

The Da Vinci Code and the Uniqueness of Christ by Eric Lyons, M.Min.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=1890

The Da Vinci Code and the Uniqueness of Christ

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


Among the many unsubstantiated accusations that author Dan Brown made in his bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code is one regarding the “unoriginality” of Christianity. Allegedly, “Nothing in Christianity is original” (Brown, 2003, p. 232). As “proof” of this statement, Brown’s fictional character, Sir Leigh Teabing, asserts:
“The pre-Christian God Mithras—called the Son of God and the Light of the World—was born on December 25, died, and was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the birthday of Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Even Christianity’s weekly holy day was stolen from the pagans” (p. 232, italics in orig.).
Supposedly, the Gospel was nothing new 2,000 years ago when Jesus was born into the world. Stories that resemble “the Good News of Jesus” circulated centuries earlier. Pagans had previously worshipped and idolized god-like heroes who in some ways resembled Christ.
How can Christianity be “original” if stories that predate the time of Christ speak of gods who were born on December 25, presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh, called the Son of God and Light of the World, and buried and raised only a few days after their deaths? As with so many things in The Da Vinci Code, this accusation is erroneous and terribly misleading.
First of all, the Bible nowhere indicates that Jesus was born on December 25. There are no Old Testament prophecies about Him being born on this date, nor does any New Testament writer suggest it. On the contrary, Luke hints that Jesus was most likely born in a month other than December. In chapter two of his gospel account, Luke wrote that Jesus was born when shepherds were “living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night” (2:8). It is highly unlikely that shepherds would have been “living out in the fields” with their sheep during the winter months. “Jews sent out their flocks into the mountainous and desert regions during the summer months, and took them up in the latter part of October or the first of November, when the cold weather commenced” (Barnes, 1997). Late December simply was not a time when flocks were in the fields at night. Thus, as Adam Clarke concluded, “On this very ground the nativity in December should be given up” (1996).
The early church did not celebrate “Christmas” on December 25, since the inspired apostles and prophets never commanded its observance as a religious holy day. “Christmas” was not observed until the fourth century A.D. (see “Christmas,” 1997, 3:283), and even then it was most likely adopted “to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the ‘birthday of the unconquered sun’” (“Christmas,” 3:283). In short, a December 25 “holy day” originated as a pagan feast, and true Christianity is not connected to this date in any way. Thus, the fact that history records stories of mythical gods being born on December 25 in no way diminishes the deity, superiority, or virgin birth of Christ.
Second, similarities between Christ and the stories of mythical hero “savior-gods” from the past are to be expected. Centuries before the time of Christ prophets foretold of the coming Savior of mankind Who would be “from everlasting” (Micah 5:2), yet enter the world miraculously by being born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14). He would be of royal blood (Isaiah 9:6-7), reign over a kingdom (Psalm 110:1-2) that will never be destroyed (Daniel 2:44), and wear names such as “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). Finally, at His death He would be pierced (Zechariah 12:10), and yet His body would not see corruption (Psalm 16:10), i.e., He would be raised from the dead. Considering prophecies about the coming Messiah were being foretold since “the foundation of the world (i.e., since the fall of man—Genesis 3:15; cf. Luke 11:49-51) to both Jews and Gentiles (see Lyons, 2004), stories of various “savior-gods” who might sound similar to the true Messiah are to be expected. [NOTE: For further information, see Butt and Lyons, 2006, pp. 35-74.]
Third, although there are some parallels between the Gospel of Jesus and the “hero-god” stories that circulated centuries before Christ came to Earth, many of these professed similarities are untrue. For example, in hopes of casting doubt on the story of Jesus, Dan Brown asserted that, like Jesus, Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Yet, according to Amy Welborn, “There is not a single story in actual Hindu mythology of Krishna being presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh at his birth” (2004, p. 87). Brown may well have obtained this information regarding Krishna from Kersey Graves’ 1875 book The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors. Not surprising, neither Brown nor Graves provided any documentation for their comparisons. Furthermore, as Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel observed: “The stories of Krishna’s childhood recorded in the Harivamsa Purana (c. A.D. 300) and the Bhagavata Purana (c. A.D. 800-900) don’t mention gifts at all. Even if they did, these latter works were written after the first century, making Graves’ claim absurd” (2004).
Finally, Christianity’s weekly “holy day” was not “stolen” from pagans. Since there are only seven days in a week, there was a one in seven chance that Christians would assemble on someone’s “holy day.” If Jesus had been raised on Saturday, and Christians assembled for worship on the seventh day rather than the first day, the Jews would have cried foul play. Were early Christians to meet on Monday, they may have been accused of worshiping the moon. In truth, Christians have been meeting on the first day of the week to worship God for 2,000 years because God set aside this day for us to worship Him, including eating the memorial feast (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:17-26). Christians know nothing of Sun-worship, but much of Son-worship. As Tertullian wrote 1,800 years ago in his “Apology,” Christians “devote Sun-day to rejoicing” for a “far different reason than Sun-worship” (XVI). To say that Christians “stole” their “holy day” from the pagans is an outright lie.
Sadly, Satan has used The Da Vinci Code and other popular writings and movies to deceive millions of people about the uniqueness of Christ and the originality of Christianity. Thankfully, however, even Satan cannot stop the power of the Gospel (Romans 1:16) from pricking the hearts of those who are open to the Truth (Matthew 13:1-23; cf. Acts 2:36-37; 16:14). May God help us all to distinguish between Truth and error, and obey that which God’s Truth teaches.

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Brown, Dan (2003), The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday).
Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2006), Behold! The Lamb of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
“Christmas” (1997), The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Brittannica).
Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Lyons, Eric (2004), “Resurrected ‘Savior-Gods’ and the Prophets of Old,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2858.
Olson, Carl E. and Sandra Miesel (2004), “A Da Vinci De-Coder,” [On-line], URL: http://www.carl-olson.com/articles/tca_tdvc_apr04.html.
Tertullian (1973 reprint), “Apology,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Welborn, Amy (2004), De-coding Da Vinci: The Facts Behind the Fiction of The Da Vinci Code(United States: Our Sunday Visitor).

What will Happen when Jesus Comes Again? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1261


What will Happen when Jesus Comes Again?

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


On numerous occasions throughout the last two thousand years, small groups of “faithful followers” have huddled on mountaintops or in secret rooms, waiting for the Second Coming of Christ as predicted to occur on a certain day, and at a certain time, by some religious leader. Yet, although the predictions of Christ’s return have been copious, each group of expectant “believers” has been disappointed to find that they had been misled. When will Christ return, and what will occur on this Earth when He does come back the second (and last) time?
The first question regarding the time of Christ’s Second Coming is rather easy to answer, thanks to material found within the Bible. In Matthew 24:36, after describing the signs that would lead to the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus shifted the topic to His Second Coming. In contrast to the many signs that the early Christians were told to expect prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus made it clear that there would be no signs whereby one could predict His Second Coming. He stated: “But of that day and hour no one knows, no, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only…. Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not expect Him” (Matthew 24:36,44). In another portion of Scripture, the apostle Paul told the Thessalonian brethren that the day of the Lord would come “as a thief in the night” (1 Thessalonians 5:2). When will Jesus return? The simple answer to that question is—nobody on this Earth has any idea.
The next question dealing with the events that will occur at the Second Coming requires a much more extensive answer. When Christ ascended to heaven, forty days after His resurrection, He “was taken up, and a cloud received Him” out of the sight of His apostles (Acts 1:9). Immediately following His ascension, two men clothed in white apparel stood by the awe-stricken apostles and said to them, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). From that moment, the apostles waited for Christ’s Second Coming.
The Second Coming, in fact, provided one of the main themes of the apostles’ preaching. Paul, especially, emphasized this event as one that would be glorious and joyful for the faithful in Christ—both those who were living when Christ returned, and those who had died in Christ. In relating some of the events that would accompany Christ’s Second Coming, Paul wrote: “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). The event, as Paul described it, would be one of splendor and comfort for those faithful to Christ. Christ will not send an angel or some other dignitary to bring Christians to heaven, but He will come “Himself.” His coming will be announced with a loud shout, the voice of an archangel, and the trumpet of God. According to Paul, Christ will not “sneak back” to Earth, but will be announced in a glorious fashion for all to see.
How long will it take for the faithful followers of Christ to be ushered up into heaven with their Lord? Paul answered this question in 1 Corinthians 15 in his discussion of the resurrection of the saints. He wrote: “Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep [meaning that not all Christians will die physically before the Second Coming—KB], but we shall all be changed—in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:51-52). In a single instance, as fast as an eye can blink, the resurrection of the saints will be accomplished at the Second Coming of Christ.
Other events that will accompany the Second Coming deal with the ultimate end of this physical Universe. The apostle Peter, in a discourse dealing with scoffers who attempt to deny the Second Coming of Christ, wrote:
But the day of the lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with a fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:10-13).
Peter’s description of the destruction of this physical Universe leaves little to the imagination: the Earth and the heavens (i.e., the totality of this physical Universe) will utterly melt with a fervent heat, and will be destroyed once and for all. There will be no reign of Christ on this Earth at His Second Coming, since Peter clearly depicts the destruction of the physical Earth. The new heaven and the new Earth for which Peter says faithful Christians yearn, are the spiritual homes promised by Jesus in John 14:1-6, and described so vividly in Revelation 21 and 22. They will not be of physical matter like the present heavens and Earth, but instead will be designed especially for the new spiritual bodies discussed by Paul. When Christ comes again, this physical Universe will be destroyed.
What will happen to those who have not been faithful to Christ during their lives on this Earth? Since there will be no physical Universe on which they can continue to live, where will they go? The Bible paints a grim picture for those who reject Christ. John, quoting the words of Christ, wrote that “the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His [Jesus’—KB] voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28-29). The apostle Paul later confirmed this statement when He wrote about the time “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8).
On that fateful day, all of Earth’s inhabitants—both those that have died in the past and those that are living at the time—will be led into the final Judgment in which Christ will divide the righteous from the unrighteous, as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats. The righteous will be ushered into heaven (prepared for them by Jesus Himself), while the unrighteous will “go away into everlasting punishment” (Matthew 25:46). All those who have rejected God and Christ, whose names are not found written in the Book of Life, will be cast into the lake of fire with the devil, and “they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10-15).
Although many strange and contrived stories have been concocted regarding the Second Coming of Christ, the Bible presents a crystal clear picture of what will happen: Christ will appear to the entire world, the heavens and the Earth will be burned up, and at the final Judgment, every person who ever lived will either live eternally in heaven or hell. There will be no second chances once Christ comes back. “Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of person ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness” (2 Peter 3:11)?

What has Happened to Truth? by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=269


What has Happened to Truth?

by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.


During his interrogation of Jesus, Pilate asked, “Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me. What have You done?” (John 18:35). Understanding the political motivation behind Pilate’s question, Jesus insisted that His kingdom was not a physical, worldly domain that would be advanced by military might. Pilate then asked: “ ‘Are You a king then?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.’ Pilate said to Him, ‘What is the truth?’ ” (John 18:37-38).
Today, many react as skeptically to the concept of “truth” as did Pilate. In Western culture, epistemology (the area of study that deals with the nature of knowledge and how it is established) has undergone some radical changes over the last few decades. There is a growing consensus that objective, universal truth is an archaic concept that no longer is relevant. Scholars who have analyzed this trend suggest that currently we are experiencing an intellectual shift from “modernism” to “postmodernism.” This transition to a postmodern way of thinking, which embraces a radically different way of pursuing knowledge, is “new” only from a historical perspective, since it became a recognized phenomenon in the 1970s (Grenz, 1994, 30[1]:26). In order to appreciate more fully this development, an understanding of the two terms “modernism” and “postmodernism” is necessary.

MODERNISM

The period commonly styled “modern” had its roots deeply embedded in the soils of the Renaissance. This era can be characterized by Francis Bacon’s (A.D. 1561-1626) conviction that humans could exercise “power over nature by means of the discovery of nature’s secrets” (Grenz, 1994, 30[1]:25). The subsequent intellectual movement of the Enlightenment (A.D.1600-1700) built upon the foundation laid by the Renaissance, and placed even greater emphasis on humanity’s role in understanding reality. Prior to this movement, the Bible generally was held aloft as the universal authority in all fields of knowledge. However, by the close of the seventeenth century, science, history, and philosophy became detached from biblical authority and the traditionally recognized experts in these fields (Krentz, 1975, p. 10). Hence, the Enlightenment spawned a new perspective regarding the relationship between humankind’s reasoning ability and God’s revelation—it both elevated human reason above, and freed it from, God’s written revelation (see Marty, 1994). Modernism is an extension of this movement, placing implicit—and inordinate—faith in the rational capabilities of the human being.
Stanley Grenz has cataloged several assumptions that form the foundation of the modern intellectual superstructure. “Specifically,” Grenz has written, “the modern mind assumes that knowledge is certain, objective, and good, and that such knowledge is obtainable, at least theoretically” (30[1]:25). While some aspects of these modern assumptions have merit, it is important here to make this clarification. “Objective” knowledge to the modern mind is that which it alone determines to be true by sense perception and reason. Thus, in modern epistemology, knowledge is not revealed to humankind; it is determined by humankind. The importance of this distinction is that truth no longer is centered in God, but rather is centered in humankind.
Modern thinkers also assumed that the human observer could be completely free from all historical or cultural influences as he or she pursued knowledge. Thus, knowledge gained in such a clinical manner would be both reasonably certain and universally applicable. Modernism’s implicit faith in humanity’s reasoning capabilities, with its presumed ability to gain increased control over nature, impinged upon, and inevitably expunged the need for, a transcendent God.
Modernism further dismissed the need for God’s written revelation, the Bible, since reason alone was sufficient to determine ultimate reality. In light of these assumptions, the person who epitomizes the modern era is the naturalistic scientist, whose research allegedly is totally objective, and uninfluenced by mythical (or religious) beliefs. “Objectivity” in science becomes synonymous with “naturalism,” which assumes that our world is a closed system of natural causes and effects. As a result, the modern world view prohibits anything beyond nature to exist or to exert any influence upon it (see Johnson, 1991, p. 114). There simply is no room for a transcendent God.
A final assumption made by the modern mind is the belief that the quality of life can be improved through technology. This idea influenced the general perception of how knowledge was obtained. Since technology is the result of applied human knowledge of nature, empirical science came to be considered as the exclusive, or at least the most reliable, source of knowledge (Johnson, p. 114). This produced the optimistic illusion that empirical science, coupled with continued education, somehow would “eventually free us from our vulnerability to nature, as well as from all social bondage” (Grenz, 30[1]:25).

POSTMODERNISM

Though voices were raised against the modernistic world view through the centuries, the frontal assault against it began in the 1970s. The optimism undergirding modernism proved to be an illusion. Improved technology did not produce the anticipated advancement in society toward a global utopia. On the contrary, it became increasingly apparent that our world, despite the technological explosion and increased emphasis on education, was degenerating. For the first time in many years, people of the emerging generation were pessimistic that they could solve the planet’s problems or that they would be better off economically than their parents (Grenz, 30[1]:27).
A postmodern approach to reality began to develop from this new perspective. As the term suggests, “postmodernism” is a reaction to “modernism,” and has challenged the central assumptions of modern epistemology (see DeYoung and Hurty, 1995, pp. 241-259). Consider two postmodern developments that strike at the foundation of the modern world view.

Pluralism

While modern thinkers believe in objective knowledge that the human mind can discover, postmodernists have adopted a more relativistic approach to truth. Postmodern thinkers argue that one’s socio-economic, ethnic, gender, and educational statuses exert such a dominating influence on his or her interpretation of the world that there can be no abstract, universal statement of truth that applies in every circumstance, or to everyone (Russell, 1993, p. 32; cf. Dembski, 1994, 31[8]:1). Such a concept of truth reflects the postmodern idea of pluralism (see Brueggemann, 1993, pp. 8-9).
Pluralism is a philosophical ideology that not only recognizes the diversity of our multi-cultural world, but affirms that such plurality is inherently good. This is both an important distinction and a serious development, since such an approach has broad religious implications. For instance, philosophical pluralism rejects the idea that any “particular ideological or religious claim is intrinsically superior to another...” (Carson, 1996, p. 19). As a result, every religious system is viewed as one of many equally valid alternatives.
An unsavory implication of this position is that Christianity no longer can assert legitimately its exclusive claim of salvation, since salvation can be found among non-Christian belief systems as well. Letty Russell, a postmodern feminist theologian, has argued that though “there are plenty of persons and churches still laying claim to God’s preference for their form of Christianity, the discovery of the whole inhabited world and the many faiths of that world has made the claim to salvation for only a few seem less and less credible” (1993, p. 120). To clarify the extent of her ecumenism, Russell quoted favorably Hans Küng’s observation that while “salvation is inside the Church, salvation is open to all, not just to schismatics, heretics and Jews, but to non-Christians too and even to atheists if they are in good faith” (1993, p. 120).

Radical Hermeneutics and Deconstructionism

Closely associated with the pluralistic thrust of postmodernism is the concept of deconstructionism. At the risk of oversimplification, deconstructionism basically has to do with the relationship between language and meaning. For postmodern interpreters, words, phrases, and sentences (the stuff of language) do not reveal meaning, since that would imply an objective, transcendent perspective of truth. Rather, language constructs meaning. To put it another way, language does not describe reality; it creates reality. Since, it is argued further, language is a product of society, all statements about reality are colored, and inevitably warped, by cultural conditioning (see Leffel, 1996a). An implication of this position is that language can “convey only the illusion of truth” though in reality it is “a cover for the power relationships that constitute the culture” (Veith, 1994, p. 54).
Working from this assumption, the deconstructionist is not concerned with discovering the intention of an author’s words, since the idea of “authorial intent” is rejected (see Adam, 1995, p. 20). He or she believes that an author’s expressions, while on the surface saying one thing, implicitly support power structures that benefit the author’s own vested interests. It is the deconstructionist’s purpose, therefore, to expose the power relationships that underlie the text.
To illustrate this process, consider a deconstructionist interpretation of the classical words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (see Veith, 1994, p. 55). The deconstructionist would argue that, while the text appears to promote social equality, the language excludes women (all men are created equal). Further, since Thomas Jefferson, the author, owned slaves, these words ground only the wealthy, white male’s privileged status in God Himself, while they tacitly deny women, the poor, and minorities the “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Hence, for all their apparently noble intent, these words actually buttressed the existing power structures that benefited the author.
Deconstructionists also employ such a “suspicious” interpretive method to biblical texts, with similar results. Feminist theologians, who have been influenced by postmodern deconstructionism, read the Bible with the assumption that it is a “monument of patriarchal oppression” (Chopp, 1992, p. 43). Their purpose is to expose and condemn those expressions where God is used to condone patriarchal power structures, while affirming and proclaiming those discourses in the Bible that speak of liberation for the oppressed. Thus, oftentimes the deconstructionist’s interpretation discloses the social conflicts that allegedly are hidden beneath the text. From this interpretive perspective, the book of Job, for example, only on the surface addresses the theological problem of why the godly suffer. A deconstructionist probe beneath this superficial reading of Job reveals that the book really is about a “class struggle” between the oppressors and those who are oppressed, i.e, the rich and the poor. Accordingly, it turns out that Job is an attempt to “allow the oppressors [i.e., the rich—GKB] to deny their responsibility and to enable the oppressed [i.e., the poor—GKB] to forget their suffering” (Clines, 1994, 11[2]:35).
This postmodern approach to biblical interpretation denies, not merely that human reasoning is capable of fully understanding a text, but that there is any inherent meaning for the reader to discover in a text. As Stanley Grenz has observed, a text’s meaning emerges “only as the interpreter enters into dialogue with the text” (1994, 30[1]:26). The meaning of a biblical text, therefore, is created when the interpreter interfaces his or her contemporary situation with the text. Out of such an interactive process, the relevant message of the text (which is very different from the elusive original intent) emerges. Hence, though some interpretations might be considered more persuasive than others, there can be, and are, as many different—and legitimate—meanings of a text as there are readers of it.

POSTMODERNISM: A CRITIQUE

Although I plan to address the problems associated with postmodernism, I first must acknowledge its positive contributions. Postmodernists have exposed (correctly) the vulnerabilities of modern thought patterns. They have pointed out that the “objective scientist” is subject to the same bias as the oft’-caricatured “naive religionist.” Postmodernists, for example, have argued that scientists, though claiming to be objective, can be susceptible to configuring their experiments in such a way that they discover the data they expected to find (Adam, 1995, p. 13). While their point is not that all scientists are dishonest, and consciously protecting their own vested interests at all costs, postmodernists do suggest that human nature, being what it is, can make total objectivity a very optimistic and elusive goal. Further, postmodernists point out that naturalistic scientists work from certain assumptions that can, and inevitably will, skew their interpretation of the data. In these connections, postmodernists have provided a legitimate (and much-needed) critique of modernity.
Despite its positive critiques of modernism, which was hostile in many ways to Christianity, postmodern thought, as we have seen, is not totally friendly to historical Christianity. At this point, it might be helpful to understand the different challenges that modernism has posed, and that postmodernism poses, to Christianity. On the one hand, modernists, consistent with their belief that empirical knowledge is objective, would argue that Christianity simply is not true. On the other hand, postmodernists reject the claims of Christianity, not because they are false, but “because they purport to be true” (Veith, 1994, p. 19, emp. in orig.). In a postmodern world dominated by philosophical pluralism, there is no tolerance for exclusive truth claims about right and wrong, since no “objective truth” exists by which such determinations can be made. Therefore, traditional Christianity is “false” precisely because it makes such absolute claims to truth.
Since many theologians and sociologists have written the obituary of modernism, and heralded the birth and maturation of postmodernism, Christians need to be prepared to deal with the challenges (and opportunities) of this new world view. Space constrictions, and the inherent conceptual difficulties of this developing paradigm, prohibit an exhaustive critique of postmodern epistemology in this article. However, the following are broad principles that demonstrate its most obvious vulnerabilities.

Biblically Inconsistent

First, the pluralistic stance of postmodern epistemology is inconsistent with the biblical world view. The Bible presents Christianity, not merely as one among many conflicting, equally valid alternatives, but as the only true religion. Among other similar statements that could be referenced, Jesus and Peter made exclusive claims about truth. In His response to Thomas’ confusion regarding His imminent departure, Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). Echoing these sentiments, Peter said to the religious rulers of the Jews, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
On at least two levels, such biblical teaching conflicts with the radical pluralism of postmodernism. (1) These statements imply that the biblical writers, and early Christians, believed in the concept of objective, transcendent truth. This was Jesus’ point to skeptical Pilate. In His incarnate state, Jesus was the embodiment of eternal truth—truth that was not merely the linguistic construction of the dominate culture. (2) Such biblical teaching does not present Jesus as one among many, equally valid means of salvation. Rather, Jesus is the truth, and is the onlyOne Who legitimately can offer salvation. As unpopular as it might be in postmodern thought, Christianity does make exclusive truth claims. Thus, at these foundational levels of thought, the biblical and postmodern world views are incompatible.

Self-Defeating

Second, the postmodern assertion that “there is no absolute, objective truth” is intrinsically contradictory, and self-defeating. It is a statement put forward as being objectively true and universally applicable—something that it argues is impossible. Such a statement also militates against the idea that all statements (linguistic constructions) of reality are incurably warped by cultural conditioning. After all, are not these postmodern propositions also linguistic expressions of reality? To be consistent, postmodernists must admit that their own statements of reality also are mere arbitrary social constructions. As such, they, too, are culturally conditioned, and offer no compelling reason to accept the theory. If, however, postmodernists can demonstrate that their world view is true, they will have defeated its main thesis (i.e., there is no objective truth), for, to do so would be to establish at least one objective truth—namely that postmodernism is true. From these considerations, postmodernism “either denies the plausibility of its own position or it presumes the reliability of reason and the objectivity of truth” (Leffel, 1996b, p. 53). In either case, it is self-defeating.
To extricate themselves from these apparent contradictions, some postmodern thinkers have argued against the legitimacy of logical principles that guide the reasoning process. Yet, such a move only sharpens the horns of their dilemma, for to deny the validity of reason, reason itself must be employed. Such an attempt ends up being an argument that no argument is sound, or proof that no proof exists, which is nonsense.

Practically Inconsistent

Finally, certain aspects of postmodernism not only are fraught with analytical discrepancies, but also prove to be inconsistent from a practical standpoint. In other words, postmodernists often are guilty of practicing that which they deny. For example, consider the concept of deconstruction mentioned earlier. From this hermeneutical perspective, the meaning of a written text (biblical or otherwise) has nothing to do with what the author of the text intended to convey. The interpreter has the liberty to create a meaning that grows out of his or her peculiar life situation. Ultimately, the determining criterion of “correct” interpretation is whether it is meaningful to the interpreter.
However, deconstructionists expect their readers to comprehend, at least to a limited degree, their communicative intentions (whether written or oral). To illustrate this point, D.A. Carson described his encounter with a deconstructionist that exposed her own practical inconsistency (1996, pp. 102-103). This doctoral student protested Carson’s point that “true knowledge actually is possible, even to finite, culture-bound creatures.” She insisted that the ambiguities, and “social nature,” of language, together with our rational limitations, prevent our reaching such an optimistic goal. After further, non-productive conversation, Carson then said, “Ah, now I think I see what your are saying. You are using delicious irony to affirm the objectivity of truth.” The student emphatically responded, “That is exactly what I am not saying.” As Carson continued to place his intentionally skewed interpretation on the student’s words, she became increasingly irritated that he would so misrepresent her speech. After she exploded over his persistent misinterpretation of her position, Carson said, “You are a deconstructionist, but you expect me to interpret your words aright.” His point was well made. Postmodern deconstructionists expect their communicative intentions to be represented fairly. Shouldn’t the same benevolence be given to all communicators—even biblical writers?

CONCLUSION

The extent to which postmodern epistemology generally will become accepted is difficult to determine at this point. However, the shift from modernism to postmodernism is real, presenting both new threats and new opportunities to Christianity. Just as early Christians proclaimed the finality of Jesus Christ in their own pluralistic world (see Acts 17:21), we now have the awesome privilege and responsibility to hold aloft God’s Truth amidst the philosophical turmoil of our society. In so doing, Christians need to guard against fully embracing either modernism or postmodernism, while at the same time learning from both. In addition, we must be careful that our zealous—and legitimate—critique of various features of postmodernism does not unwittingly buttress the destructive elements of modernism. As we go about the task of living out our Christian confession in these dangerous, yet promising, times, we should do so with the humble realization that humankind is incapable of directing its own steps out of the confusion (Jeremiah 10:23), and with the promise that God’s Word has lightened, and will continue to lighten, our darkened paths (Psalm 119:105).

REFERENCES

Adam, A.K.M. (1995), What is Postmodern Biblical Criticism? (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress).
Brueggemann, Walter (1993), Texts Under Negotiation: The Bible and Postmodern Imagination(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress).
Carson, D.A. (1996), The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Chopp, Rebecca S. (1992), The Power to Speak: Feminism, Language, God (New York: Crossroad).
Clines, David J.A. (1995), “Deconstructing the Book of Job,” Bible Review, 11[2]:30-35,43-44, April.
Dembski, William A. (1994), “The Fallacy of Contextualism, Part I,” Bible-Science News, 31[8]:1-3.
DeYoung, James and Sarah Hurty (1995), Beyond the Obvious: Discover the Deeper Meaning of Scripture (Gresham, OR: Vision House).
Grenz, Stanley (1994), “Star Trek and the Next Generation: Postmodernism and the Future of Evangelical Theology,” Crux, 30[1]:24-32.
Johnson, Phillip E. (1991), Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity).
Krentz, Edgar (1975), The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress).
Leffel, Jim (1996a), “Our New Challenge: Postmodernism,” The Death of Truth, ed. Dennis McCallum (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany), pp. 31-44.
Leffel, Jim (1996b), “Postmodernism and the ‘Myth of Progress’: Two Visions,” The Death of Truth, ed. Dennis McCallum (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany), pp. 45-57.
Marty, Martin E. (1994), “Literalism vs. Everything Else,” Bible Review, 10[2]:38-43,50, April.
Russell, Letty M. (1993), Church in the Round: Feminist Interpretation of the Church (Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox).
Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. (1994), Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway).