Music

• The Summit Church, Jesus in My Place (featuring Matt Papa) from the album, Jesus in My Place, 2012

Promoted Resources

• Unbelievable?, with Justin Brierley.
• Steve Jeffery discusses the atonement on Unbelievable?

Music

• The Summit Church, Jesus in My Place (featuring Matt Papa) from the album, Jesus in My Place, 2012

Promoted Resources

• Rethinking Hell, “Exploring Evangelical Conditionalism”
• Subscribe to the Rethinking Hell podcast in iTunes or directly via RSS
• Unbelievable?, with Justin Brierley.
• Steve Jeffery discusses the atonement on Unbelievable?

Music

• Nick Aquilino, Forgive Me Lord from the single, 2012

Promoted Resources

• Unbelievable?, with Justin Brierley.
• Available on Premier Christian Radio in the United Kingdom, Saturdays 2:30-4:00pm.
• Also available in the Unbelievable? podcast (new episodes posted shortly after they air).
• The Preterist Podcast, with Dee Dee Warren.
  • I am also a guest author Dee Dee’s The Preterist Blog, and she has a ton of eschatological study material available at The Preterist Site.

Music

• Mic Boogie, Another Cold Case from the album, Mr. Boogie [Explicit], 2012

Promoted Resources

• Stand to Reason with Greg Koukl
  • The Stand to Reason radio program is live on the air every Sunday 2-5 pm PST on AM 740 KBRT.
  • Listen online using Flycast here.
  • Also available in podcast form; each episode is published to the podcast the day after it airs.
• Please Convince Me with Jim Wallace
  • The Please Convince Me podcast, available in iTunes and the Zune Marketplace
  • Also check out Answers For Atheists for a growing list of answers to common objections to Christianity from atheists
• http://coldcasechristianity.com/ where you can learn more about J. Warner Wallace and his book
  • Available at Amazon

Music

• The Replacements, We’ll Inherit the Earth, from the Don’t Tell a Soul [Expanded Edition] album, 2008

Promoted Resources

• Say Hello to my Little Friend, aka the Beretta Cast, with Glenn Peoples.
  • Glenn also created my podcast’s theme music, so visit his Theme Music New Zealand for all your theme music needs.

Music

• Ruth Wallis, Queer Things Are Happening from the album, Sings the Spice is Right, 2012

Promoted Resources

• The Preterist Podcast, with Dee Dee Warren.
  • Check out the episode I guest-hosted, “Kicking Some Left Behind Pt. 6–A Kick in the Teeth.”
  • I am also a guest author Dee Dee’s The Preterist Blog, and she has a ton of eschatological study material available at The Preterist Site.
• www.askdrbrown.org, Dr. Brown’s home on the web where you can access his radio show, “The Line of Fire,” or his “Fire School of Ministry” and a variety of other resources, including the book we discussed, A Queer Thing Happened to America.

Music

• Christian Parker, She Leads the Way, from the album, Reflections of Tomorrow, 2009

Promoted Resources

• Please Convince Me, with Jim Wallace
  • The Please Convince Me podcast, available in iTunes, the Zune Marketplace, or RSS feed.
  • Also the sister site, Answers for Atheists, geared specifically toward atheists seeking answers to their objections to Christianity.
• Split Frame of Reference, my friend’s blog
  • The introduction to the written debate in which I participated, with links to all three essays
• Dr. Payne’s website, including blog, publications and contact information
  • Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters
  • Linguist’s Software, Fonts for the Whole World, the world’s leading source of foreign language fonts since 1984
• Dr. Payne recommends:
  • Christians for Biblical Equality (http://www.cbeinternational.org/)
  • Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Heirarchy, by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothius
  • Junia: The First Woman Apostle, by Eldon J. Epp
  • Abusing Scripture: The Consequences of Misreading the Bible, by Manfred T. Brauch
  • The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God & the Contemporary Gender Debate, by Kevin Giles.

A Response to the Egalitarianism of Dr. Payne? Pt.2

The next portion of Dr. Hamilton’s critique of Dr. Payne focused more on content than the previous one. Still, often it seemed as though most of the key content of Payne’s argument was left untouched. Since Payne himself will be responding to Dr. Hamilton (and will be far more informative), this portion of my critique will be more limited and will only cover some of Hamilton’s comments that stood out to me.

Man as the “Head”

Many English speakers assume Paul is referring to leadership when he uses the metaphor of “head” (kephale) in his letters (ex: Eph 5 and 1 Cor 11). However, the majority of recent scholarship understands the meaning to be “source.” Some of these scholars are those who still believe men have authority over women (see extensive footnotes in Payne’s Man and Woman, One in Christ 117-118). Payne provides 15 reasons in his book for why we should accept source as Paul’s meaning and also tells us that authority is not a well-established meaning of the word. Dr. Hamilton does not engage with the majority of Payne’s reasons, but does somewhat respond to the first reason.

The translators of the Greek Old Testament (LXX) did not think kephale was a good word to use to convey the Hebrew metaphor of head as leadership to Greek speakers. Why think this? There are only 6/171 clear instances of them using it this way. Not good odds. What is Hamilton’s response to this? He appeals to Grudem’s statement that there is not one example from 8BC- 4th century AD where a person is kephale and is not in authority over another person or group. I wonder why Hamilton thinks the person has to not have any authority in order for Payne’s claim to be true? Surely kephale can be used of a leader even if the word itself does not mean leadership. In addition, Hamilton does not mention that Payne talks about what Grudem said in his book starting on p122 and gives examples of head being used of persons without the connotation of authority. Dr. Hamilton does not address one of these examples or go into detail about Payne’s understanding of other Biblical instances where kephale appears, such as Col 1:18 (128). Instead, Hamilton just labels Payne’s understanding as “asinine.”

Dr. Hamilton accused Payne of just picking out details Payne thinks will help his case while ignoring the rest. This was an odd statement to make without exploring the majority of what Payne actually had to say on the matter—the evidence. It was also strange because Hamilton did this very thing in the interview. He decided to pick out Psalm 110:6 because it was thought to be a clear instance of head meaning authority in the LXX, but ignored that Payne was claiming that only in 6/171 instances is this the case, not that this is never the case (it is a Hebrew metaphor after all). When Chris points this out to him, Hamilton accuses Payne of not utilizing context. However, Payne does this in great detail in his book.

Man as Head in Ephesians 5

Many zero in on the verse that tells wives to submit themselves to their husbands, but miss the verse above it telling husbands and wives (the whole church) to submit to one another. It is also often not known that the verb “submit” is not actually there when wives are addressed, but is instead inferred from the verse saying to submit to one another. The whole church is to place themselves under each other—wives included.

Dr. Hamilton responds by claiming that Payne picks out what he likes and ignores the context. Again, this statement is made without actually going through Payne’s case in Ch. 15. Instead he tells us that while mutual submission is present, authority is also implied. How is it implied? Dr. Hamilton says that husbands are not to submit in the same way wives are. They are to lay down their lives and then there is the analogy of Christ and the church (Christ is the leader and the church is submissive?).

I agree that Paul tells men to submit by laying down their lives, but it is not as though this is only told to the husbands in Ephesians 5. After all, the whole church (wives included) are told to be “imitators of God” and to “walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us…”(5:1-2). This means that women will also take on the role of Christ in giving up their lives for others. Paul does not say this is only something husbands should do.

In addition, it is not wise to go beyond the way Paul is using his analogy. Dr. Payne points out that “Christ head of the church” is the “savior of the body” (283). This grammatical construction (called apposition) means that the second explains the first. The role as savior is what is in view for headship. This is also clear from what follows: the way Paul describes Jesus’ relationship with the church does not focus on leadership, but his role as savior. Yes, Jesus is the leader of the church, but is his leadership part of this analogy? No, he is talking about laying down one’s life and being a source of nourishment for the body. None of these necessarily include or exclude leadership. One cannot read into Paul’s analogy what he does not use. Leadership may not be read into the text.

Something else I should note is that Dr. Hamilton makes an example of functional hierarchy with ontological equality out of the command for children to submit to parents. However, Payne in his book raises the question of whether adult children are still under functional subordination. Overall, Hamilton’s way of viewing the analogy does not get at the heart of what egalitarians and complementarians disagree on. A child is not subordinate forever and the reason behind the subordination is purely functional (ex: children are much more vulnerable). Is being the only one subordinate on account of gender something purely functional with no bearing on your personhood?

1 Timothy 2:12-15 “Exercise Authority” or “Usurp Authority?”

The next issue that was brought up concerned a word that only occurs once in the New Testament. “Authenteo” is translated differently in Bibles. Some say it means “exercise authority” others translate it as “domineer” or “assume/usurp authority.” The first one has a positive connotation and the last two are negative and not something Christians should do. Payne rejects the first two translations and opts for the third. The reason why he accepts the last option (and why the TNIV which has prominent Complementarians on its committee accepted this option) is because the word often occurs with this negative connotation of unlawful authority or an authority taken upon oneself (ample examples in pp.385-391). There are also only two unambiguously documented cases of the word up to Paul’s day and one of those fits our context. Payne also explains that in the context of 1Timothy’s appeal to Genesis the situation fits. Eve assumed authority (God’s authority) when she ate the forbidden fruit and gave it to her husband who was there with her. What does this translation mean for our understanding of 1Timothy? It means that women are not forbidden from having authority, but from usurping it. If this is the case, then this passage does not forbid women from taking leadership positions.

First Dr. Hamilton responds by letting us know that he does not think false teaching is the reason for Paul giving this command, as I believe Payne would. He points out that the Bible does not say something like “I do not permit heresy…” but “for Adam was not deceived…” Hamilton takes this as an appeal to the created order (created order meaning leadership in his view). However, Dr. Hamilton should not overlook the fact that the expressed purpose of Paul writing his letter was to address false teaching.

“…Remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine…certain persons…have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions” (see 1 Tim 1:3-7).

It is not just the beginning of the book where Paul talks about false teachers, but all throughout and at the end. Much of this is also directed towards women with similar language used of the false teachers (Payne has a nifty chart on p300). For example, some of the younger widows “turned aside after Satan.” Some women spoke “nonsense, saying things they ought not.” The women were “going about from house to house” doing this and were “thoroughly deceived.” The false teachers taught rubbish (see examples of what would fall in that category on p302) and the women taught rubbish—the word itself does not ever mean “gossip” as some translations render it.

In addition, “for” in Greek does not always mean a reason is being given. Often it is used for an example (“for, you see”) and at times our English Bibles don’t even translate it. So, a reason is not necessarily being give. However, Greek uses something called the imperative when a command is given and in this passage the imperative is not given except in regards to letting women learn. If “for” is meant to be a reason, it could be giving a reason behind women needing to learn in quietness and submission and not taking authority.

“Teach” is a positive word, does this mean that authenteo has to be positive too?

Since this is too large of a discussion I will just say, no. The word joining the two can join a positive and negative concept like is the case in Gal 3:28 “slave and free.” In addition, our passage might be joining two negative things because the activity that used to be positive (teaching) has now become a bad thing since it is false teaching that is in view throughout the letter. The false teachers were teaching with authority they took for themselves. They usurped authority. For a broader discussion and discussion of Kostenberger’s work see chapter 19. Ultimately, context decides and Payne gives ample evidence from context.

For Payne’s discussion on Genesis and Paul’s use of Genesis here when it comes to who is born first and its significance, I will let you all read his book. There is so much that could be said. For now, I should just mention that the Bible has a whole pattern of choosing the younger over the elder. Just a very few are: Jacob, Moses and King David. In addition, the word “helper” describing Eve is not denoting a subordinate position as it does in English, but one who is equal or greater helping another. It is most often used of God who is the helper of Israel. It is a term of strength.

Gender Neutral Language in 1 Tim 3?

Hamilton (and everyone who reads the Greek) agrees there are no masculine pronouns in the passage on the requirements for overseers. Our English Bibles say “he” probably because the closest neuter pronoun we have is “it” and people are not things. Greek does have a neuter pronoun and this is what is used in the passage instead. So, everywhere it says “he” just imagine “one” or “they” (even though it is not plural).

Here is what I did find strange about this discussion:

The first was that Hamilton seemed to be claiming (maybe I have misunderstood him) that the gender of the other words meant that a man was in view (apart from an appeal to the set phrase “one woman man” see link below). However, it is the pronouns themselves that usually change depending on whether a masculine, feminine or neuter object is in view. Our pronouns are neuter. In addition, nouns do not follow what Mounce calls “natural gender.” Example: “sin” is a feminine word, but has no actual gender connotations.

The last thing that was odd was what Dr. Hamilton said about “tis.” It’s meaning is “anyone.” “If anyone aspires to the office of overseer…”What was strange was that it seemed as though Hamilton was saying (and I hope I am wrong on this) that “tis” was a masculine word. Chris went out of his way to ask if there was a feminine form of the word and Hamilton just replied something like “well, there is a neuter form.” Problem: “tis” is Feminine and Masculine, not just masculine. It means “anyone.” If you want to double check you can go to the beginning of “Basics of Biblical Greek” by Dr. Mounce on p80 and you will see the chart.

Misc

There were other minor topics covered at the end that would take too much time to go through in this post alone (you are welcome to migrate to my blog and discuss the specific issues with me when I am not busy with school), but the following have been taken from Payne’s website and might be helpful if you do not already own his book.
http://www.pbpayne.com/?p=501- No female leaders named in NT? Phoebe
http://www.pbpayne.com/?p=490- Jesus being male = Elders must be male?
http://www.pbpayne.com/?p=426- “One woman man” = must be male?
http://www.pbpayne.com/?p=456- General

Overall, I did not find Dr. Hamilton’s response to Payne persuasive. The main reason was because he often did not interact with Payne’s evidence or appeals to context. There were many times when I wondered if Hamilton was aware that Payne had addressed specific points that he brought up—but Hamilton did not provide this information or engage with it. I got the impression that instead he just offered his own broad thoughts on different topics instead of aiming to counter the egalitarianism of Dr. Payne. Don’t take my word for it (or Dr. Hamilton’s word), read Payne’s work (either his book or blog) and decide for yourself whether Payne’s arguments and evidence are compelling.

I would also like to add that while Payne’s work offers many unique contributions, it is not unique in being an Egalitarian work that takes Scripture seriously and gives compelling arguments. There are many great publications that have been around for a long time. Some other great Egalitarian scholars you should get acquainted with if your are interested in knowing the best Egalitarians arguments (after Payne in my opinion) are Craig Keener, Linda Belleville, Gordon Fee and Ben Witherington. There are also some free articles available at the website of Christians for Biblical Equality.

Music

• Certified Slim, She’s Her Own Boss, from the album, Move Somethin’, 2012

Promoted Resources

• The Dividing Line, with Dr. James White, Director of Alpha & Omega Ministries
  • Listen online most Tuesday mornings at 11:00am PDT, and most Thursday afternoons at 4:00pm PDT.
  • Subscribe to the podcast via direct RSS feed.
• Dr. Payne’s website, including blog, publications and contact information
• Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters
• Linguist’s Software, Fonts for the Whole World, the world’s leading source of foreign language fonts since 1984
• Dr. Payne recommends:
• Christians for Biblical Equality (http://www.cbeinternational.org/)
• Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Heirarchy, by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothius
• Junia: The First Woman Apostle, by Eldon J. Epp
• Abusing Scripture: The Consequences of Misreading the Bible, by Manfred T. Brauch
• The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God & the Contemporary Gender Debate, by Kevin Giles.

Music

• Big Daddy Weave, In Christ from the album, 6 Picks: Essential Radio Hits EP, 2009

Promoted Resources

• Evidence 4 Faith, with Keith Kendrex and Dr. Mike Lurakis
  • On the air Sundays 4-5pm (EST), WIBG 1020AM in Southern New Jersey, and streaming live at WIBG.com
  • Past shows available via podcast, also available in the iTunes Store
• The Convert: From Adam to Christ website, where you can learn more and order a copy.

Music

• Cheryl Jackson, Raised with Christ from the album, Be Still, 2007

Promoted Resources

• Real Apologetics, with Jamin Hübner.
• Check out the podcast, “The Provocative Microphone of the Christian Religion,” via the RSS feed or the iTunes Store
• Reign of Christ Ministries, Sam’s ministry
• American Vision, where you will be able to purchase Sam’s book

Music

• The Strokes, The End Has No End from the album, Room on Fire, 2003

Promoted Resources

• Real Apologetics, with Jamin Hübner.
• Check out the podcast, “The Provocative Microphone of the Christian Religion,” via the RSS feed or the iTunes Store
• Reign of Christ Ministries, Sam’s ministry
• American Vision, where you will be able to purchase Sam’s book

Music

• The Courteeners, Take Over the World from the album, Falcon [import], 2010

Promoted Resources

• Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry(CARM)
  • Listen to CARM Radio live with Matt Slick, Monday through Friday, 4-5pm PST on KSPD, Boise Idaho, AM 790
  • Or subscribe to the podcast
• Unbelievable?, with Justin Brierley.
  • Available on Premier Christian Radio in the United Kingdom, Saturdays 2:30-4:00pm.
  • Also available in the Unbelievable? podcast (new episodes posted shortly after they air).
  • Steve’s and my recent appearance on Unbelievable? via online streaming, or download the episode
• Emmanuel Evangelical Church in Southgate, London
  • Steve’s blog

Music

• All the Nations from the album, Forever Worship, 2006

Promoted Resources

• Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry(CARM)
  • Listen to CARM Radio live with Matt Slick, Monday through Friday, 4-5pm PST on KSPD, Boise Idaho, AM 790
  • Or subscribe to the podcast
• Unbelievable?, with Justin Brierley.
  • Available on Premier Christian Radio in the United Kingdom, Saturdays 2:30-4:00pm.
  • Also available in the Unbelievable? podcast (new episodes posted shortly after they air).
  • Steve’s and my recent appearance on Unbelievable? via online streaming, or download the episode
• Emmanuel Evangelical Church in Southgate, London
  • Steve’s blog

I am reaching out to notable egalitarians asking if I may interview them for their response to Hamilton, or if they’re interested in a debate. In the meantime, listener Allison has written a review of part 1 of the Hamilton interview, which you can find here. With her permission, I’m reproducing it in its entirety below. Discuss!

A Response to the Egalitarianism of Dr. Payne?

Recently, I have been asked to share my thoughts on Dr. Hamilton’s response to the egalitarianism of Dr. Philip Payne. Initially, I had thought this would mean his Egalitarianism was being critiqued, but have recently discovered from listening to the interview that a good portion of it is more subjectively oriented than anticipated. The first thirty minutes of the first interview contained personal stories and outlooks and so I will move towards the next portion, which was a thirteen-minute critique, not of Payne’s argument, but his delivery.

Poor Delivery of Arguments: Footnotes and Charged Rhetoric?

Much time—perhaps too much—was allotted for discussing part of one or two footnotes concerning the censorship of Cervin’s response to Grudem, some of Payne’s complaints about being misrepresented with Kostenberger, and charged rhetoric mainly in the conclusion of his book. The impression given by the discussion was that Payne was reporting something untrue, since “fair-minded and godly men” would never use their power to silence their opponents and that Payne was using unfair tactics in order to gain an advantage for his argument.

It must be noted that the claims made by Payne were not essential to his case, nor were they offered up as evidence (except in one instance where a scholar himself clears up a circulated misquote). They rightly belonged in the footnotes, one of which was buried under other material and only the diligent observer would notice.

It is curious that so much time and attention was devoted to these by the host and guest speaker.

If one wishes to avoid my response to Hamilton’s rhetoric or anything about his critique of Payne’s character, I recommend going to the end of this page where I discuss the part of Hamilton’s response that did cover one of Payne’s main arguments.

Still, is the implication (not Payne’s words) that godly men were using their power to silence opposition unique? Is Payne the only one noticing these distasteful occurrences?  Unfortunately, he is not. These kinds of occurrences are all too common. For example, Hamilton spoke of the great unity of thought that prevailed on his campus. Well, this unity of thought came at a price. President Mohler made one’s position on gender the requirement for hiring, and often for keeping one’s job, instead of merely an affirmation of inerrancy (Evangelical Christian Women by Julie Ingersoll). Wayne Grudem reports discrimination against a Complementarian teacher who lectured at Fuller and was met with a barrage of protests from students for teaching his view on gender, some claiming he should not be allowed to teach. The Dean acknowledged his right to teach his position, but required the professor to apologize and did not offer any apology himself for the slander that was going around campus (Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth by Wayne Grudem pp503-504). It is also frequently the case that Egalitarian articles are not accepted in certain publications when Complementarian ones are as was the case when Kostenberger was the editor. Is it because these articles are not scholarly enough? It is strange that many of the rejected Egalitarian articles were picked up by more prestigious journals later.

Payne was accused of having emotionally charged rhetoric, actual and inferred. What words are these? Words such as “exclude” and “discriminate.” I fail to see how any of these words are that emotionally charged or used to such an extent as to hinder people from fairly analyzing the arguments he makes in his book or interview. Is this a rhetorical crime? It turns out that Hamilton himself believes the terms do apply, it’s just that if the Bible teaches this then Complementarians would not be discriminating or excluding “in the negative kind of way Payne is implying.” What is the problem then? If it is merely that Hamilton’s opponents do not see this positively, then there is not much anyone can do to appease him short of becoming a Complementarian.

A term that was emotionally charged was actually offered by Hamilton himself by inference. Hamilton says that the implication of what Payne says is that Complementarians are “bigots.” It may be that Hamilton does not like the implications of the Egalitarian system, but frankly Egalitarians don’t like the implications of the Complementarian system. Egalitarians don’t like being called rebels against the created order or sometimes being labeled as liberals. Egalitarians also often believe they have true “complementarity” when the Complementarian claims they don’t.  Such is life. In any case, this is all Hamilton’s rhetoric, not Payne’s.

Overall, this whole part of the interview served as a poor critique of Payne’s character rather than his arguments, which should have gotten more attention, especially from the beginning.

How did Payne Misrepresent Complementarianism?

The actual content of Payne’s book covers the exegesis of key Complementarian passages and specifically targets Complementarian exegesis, and given the page limit set by the publisher, does not try to counter other views some Complementarians find important (more than 1/2 of Payne’s book had to be cut already). Hamilton’s argument using the relationship within the Trinity does not address what Payne’s book sets out to address. If one wishes to know more about the Trinity then Millard Erickson’s Who’s Tampering with the Trinity is a great book to read.  Payne focuses on the exegesis of passages such as 1 Timothy 2 or 1 Corinthians 14. He specifically selects works that are more directly related to male and female relationships and does not deal with words such as “ontology” which are not part of the Biblical vocabulary and other authors have already written on the topic.

Both Chris and Hamilton took issue with how Payne defined equality since it seemed to rule out the way Complementarians define it. This is actually a common difference and misunderstanding between Egalitarians and Complementarians. Although both believe in equality in personhood, the Complementarian believes a difference in roles (which includes who gets to be the servant leader and who has an essentially submissive role) is compatible with the equality of personhood. Egalitarians have long argued (not assumed) that this hierarchy is antithetical to the equality taught in Scripture. One should not expect an opponent to grant what is in contention in the first place.

The examples Hamilton and Chris provided concerning the “difference in role” exposed a lack of understanding of the debate. Where Egalitarians differ from Complementarians is not the difference in leadership between a dean and teacher or just different car models. Ironically, such analogies could easily be applied (and similar ones have) towards arguing for the subservience of certain races on the basis of a difference in roles or the idea that certain races were simply designed for certain tasks. This is most certainly not what Chris intends, but this is what the analogies allow for and similar ones have historically been used for. This is probably why many Complementarians would not offer up differ car models as a key analogy, but admit that women may also have gifts that are compatible with pastoral roles–they must simply apply these gifts in ways God ordains.

The provided analogies also do not get to the heart of what Egalitarian’s are against since most would agree that there is nothing inherently unequal in the relationships (or car models) described. A more proper analogy that Egalitarians would accept would be a king who is king by birth as opposed to a servant who is a servant by birth since it is not mere difference in position that the Egalitarian takes issue with, but the nature of these differences and what they necessarily entail.

All of this is not to say the Egalitarian is correct but merely that believing one has a true definition of equality does not guarantee that anyone saying otherwise is misrepresenting one’s view if it does not grant that definition.

Hamilton was also incorrect to represent Complementarianism as the view that holds that the differences in role are merely functional. This is true of some, but many key Complementarians believe the hierarchical difference in gender is based in ontology of gender (rather than personhood). This is what prominent Complementarian George Knight III believes and, is candidly expressed by Steven Cowen, “…I will grant (and I think most other complementarians will grant) that woman’s subordination is ontological, being grounded in women’s femaleness” (“The Metaphysics of Subordination: A Response to Rebecca Merrill Groothuis,” Journal for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood 14, no. 1 (Spring 2009), 45).

Content

The last part of the first interview finally addressed part of Payne’s argument that 1 Cor 14: 34-35 was a later addition. Payne is not alone in claiming this since most who have published a text critical analysis of this passage agree with him (Payne offers an extensive list of scholars on footnote 39 of pages 226-227 of Man and Woman One in Christ). Despite Hamilton’s claim that Payne has argued nothing that has not been argued before, Payne’s book has indeed made many original and significant contributions that further the ongoing debate among Evangelicals.

Payne is a text-critical scholar. This is a highly specialized and less common vocation. These guys don’t only just know the original language, they can identify different styles of this writing from different time periods and tell you what kind of ink was used. They analyze the old copies themselves and compare them with other copies. The work of these text-critical scholars has made us confident that the New Testament has been reliably copied and passed on. They do the hard work of confirming our New Testament and making sure we do not accept as Scripture what is not Scripture (like handling snakes as a test of faith which is bracketed in Mark 16).

One of Payne’s Unique Contributions

How has Payne contributed uniquely through his area of study? Here is just one of these major contributions as I understand it: Most text-critical scholars publishing on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 have already said it was added later (the reasons are similar to other passages we know are added later). Payne found even more evidence. He found a special marker (“distigme-obelos” which is two dots and a long bar) marking the point where everyone else knows there are additions in the oldest surviving Greek Bible (Codex Vaticanus B). Every time this mark has appeared it has told us there is a multi-word block of text that was added later and is not original. The added text marked by these symbols has already been put in brackets by our English Bibles, but we now have 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to consider as well.

Payne’s original research also provides evidence that these markers date to the original production of Codex Vaticanus. As was mentioned previously, color ink is very important. In this situation apricot colored ink is the earlier one and dark chocolate is later (the dark chocolate was the later period Hamilton was talking about). It was common for scribes in the Middle Ages to trace over fading manuscripts and this is what happened with this document. Chocolate colored ink was used to trace over the original apricot colored ink. Payne and Paul Canart, the senior paleographer at the Vatican, found the special markers (in the case of 1 Cor 14:34-35 a distigme-obelos) that match the apricot color from the original ink used for Vaticanus. Their findings are widely recognized and they are published in the most important collection of essays about Codex Vaticanus B ever published (Le manuscrit B de la Bible Lausanne: Zèbre, 2009, 199-226).

Critiques…and More on Payne’s Character

What does Hamilton say about the contextual and manuscript evidence all pointing to a later addition? Hamilton, who acknowledges he is not a text-critical scholar, goes against what is widely accepted by critical scholars. He even claims, “There is universal attestation to these verses being in Paul’s original Letter to the Corinthians.” He claims that Payne is “desperate” and is “inventing imaginary manuscripts that lack these verses.” If that were true, why were his discoveries published after careful peer review in the most highly respected academic journals, including New Testament Studies and Novum Testamentum, and publications like Le manuscrit B de la Bible?

Since it is beyond the scope of this paper to go into too much textual critical detail. I will merely say, there is a reason the majority of text-critical scholars think the evidence is against seeing this passage as original. It is not as simple as Hamilton makes it out to be. Just some of those reasons are (2 mentioned by Hamilton himself): This part of text floats and appears in different locations in the text just like other later additions, the apostolic fathers seem to know nothing about vv34-35, and Clement of Alexandria in the context of citing 1 Corinthians 11 about women praying veiled refers to “woman and man…embracing silence,” the presence of lots of variant readings just like other texts added later, and Codex Fuldensis’s Text that was corrected by Bishop Victor omits the passage. Victor has had a history of getting these types of corrections right (example: 1 John 5:7-8 is also left out!) and had special access to ancient manuscripts he used to make his corrections.

Hamilton attempts to reduce Payne’s arguments to be relying on “gender bigot scribes” who want to exclude and discriminate against women. But nowhere in Payne’s book will you find exciting rhetoric such as “bigoted scribes.” The bulk of his work has to do with presenting evidence for thinking 1 Cor. 14 is later, not trying to figure out the motives of individual scribes. Anyone who has read this part of Payne’s book will immediately notice not charged rhetoric, but a methodical and highly technical discussion of the evidence for his view. Frankly, many will find it extremely dry and be lost in the details. Here is what Payne does say about the scribes:

The gloss could have even been written into the very first codex collecting Paul’s letters some time in the late first century.  Since it was common for scribes to write text in the margin that they had omitted by mistake, subsequent scribes would insert 1 Cor 14:34-35 from the margin into the body of text (Payne, 266 and he says something similar on p230).

This hardly sounds like a charge of “bigoted scribes.” In addition, it was common for scribes to put their own thoughts in the margins as well. One could have easily mistaken it as a piece of text that was accidentally left out.

Hamilton also seems to get confused with what types of markings signal what. He tells Chris that the marking Payne appeals to can just be pointing out a general issue and not that the whole text was added later. This is simply false. If it were true then this would be the only exception to the rule. It is possible that Hamilton has two similar sounding technical terms confused: the “distigme” symbol vs the “distigme-obelos” symbol. The latter is the one that indicates a multi-word addition whereas the former is the general symbol identifying the location of a textual variant. This last one is what Hamilton is confusing with the first.

Hamilton charges Payne with using words like “exclude” to describe the Complementarian position, yet he repeatedly asserts that the Bible prohibits women from teaching or having authority over men without addressing the exegetical evidence Payne gives against his interpretation (at least not in interview 1). Payne is not some rogue scholar no one listens to. For instance, beyond the wide acceptance of his text-critical argument concerning 1 Corinthians 14, the NIV 2011 revision, chaired by Complementarian Doug Moo, took his evidence concerning 1 Timothy 2:12 and changed it from “have authority” to “assume authority.” If the complementarian position does, indeed, exclude women from teaching or having authority over men in the church, why is it wrong for Payne to say this?

If complementarian editors have indeed censored articles that give exegetical defense of an egalitarian position, why is it wrong for Payne to expose the truth? Paul argues the logical association “slave and free” with “male and female.” In defense of equal treatment of Jews and Greeks in the church, Galatians 3:28 affirms, “There is no Jew/Greek division, there is no slave/free division, there is no male and female division. You are all one in Christ Jesus.” Why it is wrong for Payne to draw the same parallel he thinks Paul does? If Payne believes the Scriptures speak against something, he should say so.

Hamilton mentions “anthropos” and “aner” but does not mention how Payne has misunderstood the words. As a Greek student I have learned that the first is a general term for humanity and “aner” can be husband or man. I don’t see how Payne has made any mistake with these words or committed any fallacies. Readers will have to check out his word for themselves, but here are a few things other people had to say about Payne’s work who have approached his work as Egalitarians and Complementarians:

A massive amount of research and careful argumentation! This important contribution to the church should shape the discussion for some time to come. A really significant piece of work. –Harold Netland, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Extraordinarily invaluable, comprehensive, fair, freeing research! Finally, it all fits together! –M. L., Dallas Theological Seminary

A long time adherent to CBMW’s Danver’s Statement, I had assumed the exegetical and theological issues were settled by Grudem, Schreiner, and Köstenberger. However, exegetically, this book is the best. Its arguments for interpolation (1 Cor 14:34-35) are persuasive. It has won me over with regards to ministry roles. A fruitful and stimulating paradigm-changing challenge.–David R. Booth, Balcatta, Western Australia

Wow, I’m thoroughly enjoying the book. It’s amazing! You’ve done a wonderful service to the body of Christ. It makes the most sense to translate kephale throughout 1 Cor 11:3 ‘source.’ I love your approach to everything – start and stay with orthodoxy. –Kevin Meserschmidt, East Hampton, CT

Ironically, although Hamilton concentrates so much on Payne’s alleged charged rhetoric, he is full of all sorts of colorful words to described Payne and what he perceives to be Payne’s actions. He has described Payne’s suggestion concerning the scribes as “uncalled for,” “inappropriate” and something Payne needs to “repent of.” He has characterized this scholar as “desperate” and “inventing imaginary manuscripts” in order to make his case. None of these accusations are founded and it is very strange that it is Hamilton who is so confident in his own text-critical abilities despite admitting this is not his area of expertise. He is confident enough to explicitly strike out against Payne’s character even though Payne’s work is well received. Is Bruce Metzger (one of the leading conservative textual critical scholars) also desperate enough to be supporting  “imaginary manuscripts that lack those verses?”

I hope part two of Hamilton’s critique will spend less time going after Payne’s character and will instead give quality critiques of the bulk of Payne’s work. If one is seeking a more fair and cordial look at Payne’s book by a Complemenarian, I strongly recommend one of my favorite scholars Dr. Blomberg. Find it here: http://www.denverseminary.edu/news/man-and-woman-one-in-christ-an-exegetical-and-theological-study-of-pauls-letters/

Music

• Ryan Bizarri, He Rules the Roost from the album, If I Was a Song, 2010

Promoted Resources

• Jim Hamilton’s website
• The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, where Jim teaches
• Kenwood Baptist Church, where Jim preaches
• Jim recommends:
• Recovering BIblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, edited by John Piper
• Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions, by Wayne Grudem
• Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, edited by Andreas Köstenberger
• The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website

Music

• O.V. Wright, He Made Woman For Man from the album, A Nickel & A Nail & The Ace Of Spades, 2010

Promoted Resources

• Ligonier Ministries, with Dr. R.C. Sproul
• Subscribe to the Renewing Your Mind podcast for free
• Jim Hamilton’s website
• The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, where Jim teaches
• Kenwood Baptist Church, where Jim preaches
• Jim recommends:
• Recovering BIblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, edited by John Piper
• Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions, by Wayne Grudem
• Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, edited by Andreas Köstenberger
• The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website

Music

• Justin James, Deeper Waters from the album, Perfect Sometimes, 2010

Promoted Resources

• Rethinking Hell, “Exploring Evangelical Conditionalism”
  • Subscribe to the Rethinking Hell podcast in iTunes or directly via RSS
• Deeper Waters, Nick Peters’ blog.
• TheologyWeb.com, where Nick participates in theological debate
• The Deeper Waters TWeb forum
• Movies Nick recommends for better understanding people with Asperger Syndrome:
• Mozart and the Whale
• Adam

Music

• Paul Wilbur, Shalom Jerusalem from the album, Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem, 2002

Promoted Resources

• Unbelievable?, with Justin Brierley.
  • Available on Premier Christian Radio in the United Kingdom, Saturdays 2:30-4:00pm.
  • Also available in the Unbelievable? podcast (new episodes posted shortly after they air).
  • My recent appearance on Unbelievable? via online streaming, or download
• The Narrow Path, Steve Gregg’s radio and internet ministry where you can find hours of audio resources, including archives of past radio broadcasts and rcorded lectures of topical biblical lectures and of verse-by-verse teaching through the entire Bible
• Ask Dr. Brown, Dr. Brown’s home on the web where you can access his radio show, “The Line of Fire,” or his “Fire School of Ministry” and a variety of other resources, including his recent book, The Real Kosher Jesus.

Music

• Zerbin, New Earth, from the New Earth Single, 2011

Promoted Resources

• Stand to Reason with Greg Koukl
  • The Stand to Reason radio program is live on the air every Sunday 2-5 pm PST on AM 740 KBRT.
  • Listen online using Flycast here.
  • Also available in podcast form; each episode is published to the podcast the day after it airs.

Music

• Leann Albrecht, No Other God from the album, Pour Your Spirit Out, 2008

Promoted Resources

• Say Hello to my Little Friend, aka the Beretta Cast, with Glenn Peoples.
  • Glenn also created my podcast’s theme music, so visit his Theme Music New Zealand for all your theme music needs.
• The Works of John Frame and Vern Poythress
  • Dr. Frame’s book on Open Theism, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism
  • The Doctrine of God, by Dr. Frame
  • Bound Only Once: The Failure of Open Theism, edited by Douglas Wilson
  • God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism, by Bruce Ware
  • Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, edited by Paul Helseth

Music

• Tim Jones, Heaven Lasts Forever from the album, Heaven Lasts Forever, 2009

Promoted Resources

• The Preterist Podcast, with Dee Dee Warren.
  • Check out the episode I guest-hosted, “Kicking Some Left Behind Pt. 6–A Kick in the Teeth.”
  • I am also a guest author Dee Dee’s The Preterist Blog, and she has a ton of eschatological study material available at The Preterist Site.

Music

• Zander and Janine Jones, Christ Died For Us (Romans 5:6-8) from the album, Truth Songs EP, 2010

Promoted Resources

• Please Convince Me, with Jim Wallace
• The Please Convince Me podcast, available in iTunes, the Zune Marketplace, or RSS feed.
• Also the sister site, Answers for Atheists, geared specifically toward atheists seeking answers to their objections to Christianity.
• RethinkingHell.com, soon to be launched with blog and podcast contributions by Chris Date and others

Music

• Emmaus, God of Wrath from the album, Church Songs, 2011

Promoted Resources

• Please Convince Me, with Jim Wallace
• The Please Convince Me podcast, available in iTunes, the Zune Marketplace, or RSS feed.
• Also the sister site, Answers for Atheists, geared specifically toward atheists seeking answers to their objections to Christianity.
• RethinkingHell.com, soon to be launched with blog and podcast contributions by Chris Date and others

Music

• Calabrese, Death Eternal from the album, The Traveling Vampire Show, 2011

Promoted Resources

• Please Convince Me, with Jim Wallace
• The Please Convince Me podcast, available in iTunes, the Zune Marketplace, or RSS feed.
• Also the sister site, Answers for Atheists, geared specifically toward atheists seeking answers to their objections to Christianity.
• RethinkingHell.com, soon to be launched with blog and podcast contributions by Chris Date and others

Music

• Europe, The Final Countdown, from the album, The Final Countdown, 2001
• Avantasia, The Seven Angels, from the album, Metal Opera Part II, 2001

Promoted Resources

• The Dividing Line, with Dr. James White, Director of Alpha & Omega Ministries
  • Listen online most Tuesday mornings at 11:00am PDT, and most Thursday afternoons at 4:00pm PDT.
  • Subscribe to the podcast via direct RSS feed.
• Biblical Horizons, James Jordan’s ministry committed to historical Biblical Christianity.
  • The Vindication of Jesus Christ, James Jordan’s reader’s guide to the book of Revelation.
  • The Handwriting on the Wall, James Jordan’s commentary on the book of Daniel
  • Through New Eyes, James Jordan’s book on biblical symbolism
  • WordMp3.com, containing many of Jordan’s audio resources.

We do need your help, though. Our debate moderator, my friend Dee Dee Warren, will have some time to pose your questions to Joshua and me after our closing arguments. I’ve found that the Q&A portion of debates can be very useful, so long as the questions are relevant and of high quality. Dee Dee has received a number of questions for me, but as of a few days ago she had not yet received any questions for Joshua. If you have a question you’d like one of us to answer, please email her at preteristpodcast@gmail.com, letting her know to which of us she should pose the question (we will both have an opportunity to respond, but the one asked the question will have longer).

Also, in addition to your questions, please pray for us and for the debate. Pray that Joshua and I would be humble and gracious toward one another, while nevertheless treating our opponent’s position as the serious error—perhaps even heresy—we believe it to be. Pray that the truth God has revealed to us in the Bible—whether that’s what I’ll be arguing or what Joshua will be arguing—would be made evident to both of us and to everyone who listens. The Lord can and does soften hearts and open minds, and if any of us is stubbornly refusing to see the truth, may the Lord be merciful.

Dr. Michael L. Brown is the host of the daily, nationally, syndicated talk radio show, “The Line of Fire,” as well as the host of the Jewish-outreach, documentary TV series, “Think It Thru,” which airs internationally on the INSP network. He’s the author of twenty books, including, Our Hands Are Stained with Blood: The Tragic Story of the “Church” and the Jewish People, which has been translated into more than twelve languages, the highly-acclaimed five-volume series, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, a commentary on Jeremiah (part of the revised edition of the Expositor’s Bible Commentary), and several books on revival and Jesus revolution. His newest book is A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.

The Narrow Path is the radio and internet ministry of Steve Gregg, a servant and teacher to the body of Christ. In addition to his syndicated daily radio broadcast, Steve has hundreds of recorded lectures on verse-by-verse teachings of the Scriptures and on a variety of topics. Steve also runs the new Great Commission School, a non-accredited Bible-and-discipleship school, stressing an honest and intelligent approach to the Word of God, along with the development of an authentic relationship with God and increased spiritual maturity. He is also the editor of the book, Revelation: Four Views: A Paralllel Commentary.

Dr. Brown and Steve will be debating the status of the people and nation of Israel in a largely informal hour-long debate. I will have a little bit of time to pose questions to each of them, so please send your questions to theopologetics@hotmail.com, including the participant to whom you want your question directed. I will pose what I think are the best and most important questions to Steve and Dr. Brown in the time allotted. Here are the details:

Resolution: Israel—whether the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or as a body politic—is no longer uniquely chosen by God, and no longer holds a special status in God’s economy.

Participants: Steve Gregg affirms, Dr. Brown denies. Moderated by Chris Date.

Format:

• 7.5-minute opening affirmative
• 7.5-minute opening negative
• 20-minute informal, conversational debate with moderation where necessary
• 10-minute Q&A
• 5-minute closing negative
• 5-minute closing affirmative

Music

• Lisa Oliver-Gray, Adam’s Rib from the album, Dedicated to Love, 2011

Promoted Resources

• Dr. Payne’s website, including blog, publications and contact information
  • Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters
  • Linguist’s Software, Fonts for the Whole World, the world’s leading source of foreign language fonts since 1984

Music

• Fgs (for God’s Sake), One in Christ from the album, In This Moment, 2004

Promoted Resources

• Evidence 4 Faith, with Keith Kendrex and Dr. Mike Lurakis
  • On the air Sundays 4-5pm (EST), WIBG 1020AM in Southern New Jersey, and streaming live at WIBG.com
  • Past shows available via podcast, also available in the iTunes Store
• Dr. Payne’s website, including blog, publications and contact information
  • Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters
  • Linguist’s Software, Fonts for the Whole World, the world’s leading source of foreign language fonts since 1984

Last weekend, one of the site owners [Dee Dee Warren] called me to ask if I was up for another conference. She has an opportunity to do a formal 3-hour debate on eschatology (end-time philosophy) with another popular online theologian who will be promoting a book in early 2013 and she thought it would be a good event to build a conference around…By the time we were ready to hang up, we had decided to contact some public figures and invite them to participate, planned a benefit banquet with a keynote speaker, discussed local worship musicians who have music projects coming to market right around that time, and considered creating an expo-style venue for local ministries to raise awareness and for speakers to do book/media signings…

…The first step in this process is to test the market. If we’re the only ones excited about such an event, then it wouldn’t make much sense to go forward. So, we’re praying for clear direction and we’re asking you to tell us what you think of this concept. Your input at this crucial phase of our planning can make all the difference…

…It is our sincere hope that we can draw about 500 people to this event and that process begins right here. If we don’t get 250 responses in the next 2 weeks, the project may never see the light of day…

If you’re interested in meeting Dee Dee and me, seeing us debate (and moderate one another’s debates), or if you just want to be a part of what promises to be a very fruitful, edifying conference, YOUR HELP IS NEEDED! Please go here and express your interest in the event!

As it turns out, it is very possible that I will be participating in a second debate as well, in which Dee Dee and I will switch roles, she serving as moderator, me defending the annihilationist understanding of final punishment. I’m turning to you readers and listeners for help finding a traditionalist opponent for that debate.

Nothing is set in stone yet, but it’s looking like both our debates would take place in Jacksonville, Florida, on a weekend in late February or early March, 2013. They will likely be part of a weekend-long convention focused on biblical theology in general, being presently organized. The organizers of the event are hoping to get one or more renowned speakers to speak on a variety of topics. (I know I’m being somewhat vague; I’ll post more details if and when they become available.)

If you know anybody who might be interested in appearing at such a conference, to represent the traditional view of final punishment in a live, in-person debate opposite an annihilationist, please contact whomever you have in mind, including a link to this post and my contact information.

Dr. Michael L. Brown

Coming soon, Dr. Brown joins me to debate the status of Israel with listener to my show and fellow podcaster Travis Finley, host of “The Glory of God & Kings” podcast. Dr. Brown has graciously agreed to an hour of informal, conversational debate with Travis, some time in early July. Travis will be affirming the following proposition: “Israel—whether the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or as a body politic—is no longer uniquely chosen by God, and no longer holds a special status in God’s economy.” Dr. Brown will be denying (as I do).

Stay tuned for what is sure to be a very interesting discussion!

Coming soon, Dr. Payne joins me to challenge me and my listeners with his position in the debate between complementarianism and egalitarianism, as put forward in his book, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters. I must admit, his treatment of the topic is the first I’ve come across from his perspective which seems to try and take the original text of the New Testament seriously. You and I may disagree with him when the interview is over, but it probably won’t be for the typical reasons we disagree with egalitarians. Stay tuned!

Music

• Celtic Woman, When You Believe from the album, Songs From the Heart, 2010

Promoted Resources

• Real Apologetics, with Jamin Hübner.
  • Check out the podcast, “The Provocative Microphone of the Christian Religion,” via the RSS feed or the iTunes Store
• The Eastern / Greek Orthodox New Testament, by Rev. Pr. Laurent Cleenewerck
  • EUCLID and Humboldt State University, where Rev. Cleenewerck is amongst the faculty

Now in religious matters, the way-marks or way-posts to guide and direct: men in the way, are the scriptures, the oracles of God, and they only…Not education-principles…Nor are the customs of men a rule of judgment, or a direction which way men should take in matters of religion…

Nor are the traditions of men to be regarded…it is right to observe the exhortation which the apostle gives, when a Christian (Col. 2:8); beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ…

It pleased the Lord, in the first times of the gospel, to hide the things of it from the wise and prudent, and reveal them unto babes; and to call by his grace, not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but the foolish, weak, and base things of the world, and things that are not, to confound the wise and mighty, and bring to nought things that are; that no flesh should glory in his presence (Matthew 11:25, 26; 1 Cor. 1:26-29): nor should it concern us that the greatest number is on the opposite side; we are not to follow a multitude to do evil; the whole world once wondered after the beast; Christ’s flock is but a little flock…

The scriptures are the only external guide in matters of religion; they are the way-posts we should look up unto, and take our direction from, and should steer our course accordingly: To the law and to the testimony: if men speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them (Isa. 8:20); we should not believe every spirit, but try them, whether they are of God (1 John 4:1); and the trial should be made according to the word of God; the scriptures should be searched, as they were by the noble Bereans, to see whether the things delivered to consideration are so or no; the inscriptions on these way-posts should be read, which are written so plain, that he that runs may read them; and they direct to a way, in which men, though fools, shall not err…

If the question is about any point of Doctrine; if there is any hesitation concerning any truth of the gospel, look up to the way-posts, look into the scriptures, search them, see and read what they say; for they are profitable for doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16); for finding it out, explaining, confirming, and defending it: there will tell you whether the thing in debate is so or no, and will direct you which side of the question to take; if you seek for knowledge and understanding in gospel-truths diligently and constantly, as you would for silver, and search after them as for hid treasures, then will you understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God (Prov. 2:4, 5)…

To conclude; let us bless God for the scriptures, that we have such a way-mark to ditch us, and point out unto us the way in which we should go; let us make use of them; let us search the scriptures daily and diligently, and the rather, since they testify of Christ, of his person, offices, of his doctrines and ordinances. There are the more sure word of prophecy, to which we do well to take heed, as to a light shining in a dark place; these are a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our paths, both with respect to the way of salvation, and to the way of our duty. These guide us to the old paths, and shew us where is the good way in which we should walk; and when we are tempted to turn to the right hand, or the left, it is best to hearken to the voice of the word behind us, saying, This is the way, walk in it (John 5:39; 2 Pet. 1:19; Ps. 119:105; Isa. 30:21). The Bible has the best claim to antiquity of any book in the world; and the gospel, and the truths of it, have the greatest marks and evidences of it upon them. Error is old, but truth is more ancient than that; the gospel is the everlasting gospel; it was even ordained before the world unto our glory (Rev. 14:6; 1 Cor. 2:7); and the ordinances of it, as administered in the times of Christ and his apostles, should be received and submitted to, as there delivered; and we should walk in them as we have Christ and his apostles for an example: but above all things, our concern should be to walk in Him, the way; there is no way better, nor any so good as he; seek rest for your souls in him, and no where else; not in the law, and the works of it, there is none there; not in the world, and the things of it, this is not your rest, it is polluted (Micah 2:10); but seek it in Christ, where you will find it here, and more fully enjoy it with him hereafter.

Hey Chris,

I am pleased to thank and praise God for your upcoming debate on Annihilationism with Joshua Whipps. I will pray for your preparation and debate.

Here’s my two cents on preparing for the debate (nothing new, but definitely worth hearing again):

1. Pray for our brother Joshua Whipps. Passionately.

2. Ask yourself this question: what if I am wrong? And mean it. As Luther put it: (loosely paraphrased) unless we are shown by scripture and plain reason that we are wrong, we cannot go against conscience as it is neither right nor safe. Here, Luther is showing himself open to correction on all points. We must continue to have the humility to concede possible error. If God is glorified by this debate showing that you and I are wrong on this topic. So be it. Let Him be true, and us be liars that His truth be magnified.

3. Do not try to defend your “Reformed-ness” in this debate. It is not essential to honouring God. Nor is it essential to this debate. Stick to your guns, and try to show (especially to the Audience) that Annihilationism is not anti-Biblical. I believe this to be the strongest card that Satan will seek to play. It will do Satan wonders for his cause to convince listeners that you are a Heretic and therefore divide the Body of Christ unnecessarily. Therefore, I believe that the most important outcome of the debate will be to show your devotion to the Bible as authoritative, and your devotion to God’s glory in order to avoid the possibility of dividing the body unnecessarily. This is more important than proving conclusively your position is the best one to hold. Remember that we battle the supernatural, not simply the intellectual.

4. Pray. Pray. Pray. When you think of a point for the debate, pray about it. When you sit down to learn Joshua’s points pray for humility. When you awake on the morning of the debate, do not spend two hours going over your notes, but spend at least two hours in communion with God. Pray for humility. Pray for humility again, and again. Pray for wisdom. Pray everyday for your preparation. Pray everyday for Joshua. Pray everyday for God’s glory to shine through the debate. Praise God for his marvellous answer to prayer. It is only by his gracious answer to prayer that you have the opportunity to debate Joshua: so be thankful.

That’s it. I’m sure you have plenty of theological and exegetical advisors and are quite capable yourself of preparing intellectually for the debate. So I’ll leave that side of it to you and others. I will be praying for your humility, graciousness, thankfulness, and wisdom in the coming months. I will be praying that Christians will not be divided over this issue. I will be praying for Joshua Whipps. I will be praying for you to have the grace and wisdom to see any truth in Joshua’s arguments and any error in your own.

I was very touched and motivated by this email, and I sincerely and greatly appreciate the advice. Thank you so much!

Music

• Blood, Sweat & Tears, God Bless the Child from the album, What Goes Up: Best of Blood, Sweat & Tears, 1995

Promoted Resources

• Real Apologetics, with Jamin Hübner.
  • Check out the podcast, “The Provocative Microphone of the Christian Religion,” via the RSS feed or the iTunes Store
• The Eastern / Greek Orthodox New Testament, by Rev. Pr. Laurent Cleenewerck
  • EUCLID and Humboldt State University, where Rev. Cleenewerck is amongst the faculty

Be sure to email Dee Dee at preteristpodcast@gmail.com if you want to pose a question to either participant. The debate will be pre-recorded, so Dee Dee will be asking questions on behalf of those who send them to her in advance. Make sure to specify which participant you would like asked your question; he will have 2.5 minutes to answer, and his opponent will have 60 seconds to follow up.

Resolution: The final punishment of the risen wicked will be annihilation, the permanent end to the conscious existence of the entire person.

Participants: Chris Date affirms, Joshua Whipps denies. Moderated by Dee Dee Warren.

Format:

• 20-minute opening affirmative
• 20-minute opening negative
• 10-minute rebuttal affirmative
• 10-minute rebuttal negative
• 15-minute cross-examination of affirmative by negative
• 15-minute cross-examination of negative by affirmative
• 10-minute rebuttal 2 negative
• 10-minute rebuttal 2 affirmative
• 15-minute cross-examination of negative by affirmative
• 15-minute cross-examination of affirmative by negative
• 8-minute closing negative
• 8-minute closing affirmative
• 30 minutes Q&A

Recently, however, I encountered an argument I hadn’t seen before, but which is somewhat related to the idea of Christ’s sacrifice. I wrote about it here, clearly refuting the argument that the Levitical animal sacrifices, repeated ad infinitum until Christ’s sacrifice ended them, means the death of an annihilated sinner can’t satisfy the punitive demands of the Law. The author of that argument and I discussed it in the comments thread of that post, and while at one point it seemed to me that he believes annihilation would, in fact, mean there’s another sacrifice for sin, having gone over that conversation multiple times I’m no longer certain.

Just in case, and because I’m not sure I’ve clearly addressed the occasional traditionalist claim that annihilation is another sacrifice for sins besides that of Christ, I think it’s worth my time to explain why it most definitely is not. Following that, I’ll again explain why the repeated Levitical sacrifices do not prove that a sinner’s annihilation cannot satisfy the punitive demands of the Law. And it all begins with understanding the concept of propitiation.

Let’s begin with a study of the family of words having to do with propitiation as used in the New Testament.

ἱλαστήριον hilastērion

24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. (Rom. 3:24-25)

1 Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary… 4 having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant… 5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail. (Heb. 9:1,4-5)

In Romans 3, Paul says that by Jesus as propitiation we are justified as a gift through faith. Other translations render the word “sacrifice” or “sacrifice of atonement.” The Amplified Bible renders it “a mercy seat and propitiation” and the Common English Bible translates it a “sacrifice where mercy is found.” Note the word’s use by the author of Hebrews to refer to the mercy seat, the covering of the ark upon which the high priest would sprinkle the blood of a sacrifice once a year on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), so that the sins of Israel would be covered, and so that God’s righteous wrath toward sin would be diverted.

By means of a propitiation, then, God shows mercy toward, and diverts His wrath away from, the one for whom the propitiatory sacrifice is made.

ἱλασμός hilasmos

1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 Jo. 2:1-2)

9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 Jo. 4:9-10)

According to John, Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of believers, Whom God sent because He loves us, that we would live to God. Again, God shows mercy toward, and diverts His wrath away from, the one for whom the propitiatory sacrifice is made. Thus Thayer translates the word, “an appeasing…or the means of appeasing.” Because God’s wrath is diverted, the propitiation appeases God.

ἱλάσκομαι hilaskomai

13 But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went to his house justified (Luke 18:13-14)

17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. (Heb. 2:17)

The penitent sinner in Luke 18 uses this related word to pray for God’s mercy, and the author of Hebrews says that the Son of God had to become a man so that He could, like the Levitical high priest, make propitiation for the sins of Israel. That is, just as the high priest would by the blood of a sacrifice divert God’s wrath from the people—however temporarily, however incompletely—so, too, did Jesus become a man to divert God’s wrath from His people—permanently, completely.

Again, God shows mercy toward, and diverts His wrath away from, the one for whom the propitiatory sacrifice is made. Thayer’s definition of the word includes the language of appeasement which he used to define the previous word we looked at, adding “conciliate,” “placated,” “gracious” and “merciful.”

ἵλεως hileōs

21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. 22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” (Matt. 16:21-22)

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says, “BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH…12 FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.” (Heb. 8:7-8,12)

Peter’s use of the word in Matthew is a curious one, particularly in the translations which render it along the lines of “God forbid” of “far be it from You,” the idea of a refusal to do something coming from the word’s use in the Septuagint translation of 2 Sam. 20:20 and 23:17. Its use, however, in Hebrew 8:12 cannot be clearer: Under the New Covenant, one’s sins are forgiven and God shows mercy. And we know, of course, that Jesus is the mediator of this New Covenant (Heb. 8:6) and was sacrificed as the propitiation by which sins are forgiven under the New Covenant (Rom. 3:25).

Again, God shows mercy toward, and diverts His wrath away from, those for whom the propitiatory sacrifice is made, reconciling them to Himself.

Is Annihilation a Propitiation?

So, what is a propitiation? From merely the way the related words are used, we can see that a propitiation is God diverting His wrath from those who deserves punishment, reconciling them to Himself, by means of the sacrifice of another. Theopedia cites Charles Ryrie as writing, “Propitiation means the turning away of wrath by an offering. In relation to soteriology, propitiation means placating or satisfying the wrath of God by the atoning sacrifice of Christ.” GotQuestions.org defines it as “a two-part act that involves appeasing the wrath of an offended person and being reconciled to them.” Easton’s Bible Dictionary defines it as “That by which God is rendered propitious, i.e., by which it becomes consistent with his character and government to pardon and bless the sinner. The propitiation does not procure his love or make him loving; it only renders it consistent for him to execise his love towards sinners.”

Consider, then, the question, “Is annihilation a propitiation?” Annihilationism proposes that, rather than suffering consciously for eternity, the unsaved sinner will rise from the first death to be judged and sentenced to execution, bearing his own punishment by death of both body and soul, from which he or she will never rise to life again. If a propitiation diverts God’s wrath, is annihilation a propitiation? No. If a propitiation results in reconciliation, is annihilation a propitiation? No. If a propitiation is by means of the sacrifice of another, is annihilation a propitiation? No. It’s patently obvious that annihilation is not a propitiation, because God’s wrath is not diverted to another, does not result in reconciliation, is not by means of the sacrifice of another. The one for whom Christ is not a propitiatory sacrifice has no sacrifice, and so bears the fullness of the punishment he deserves.

Therefore, any claim that annihilation is an alternative atonement or propitiation to that of Christ is utterly devoid of merit.

Can a Sinner’s Death Satisfy the Punitive Demands of the Law?

But what about those Levitical animal sacrifices, repeated ad infinitum until Christ’s sacrifice (Heb. 7)? If only Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice could bring an end to the unending death and bloodshed of Levitical propitiatory sacrifices, and if any one of those sacrifices, or the unending series itself, was unable to fully perfect the sinner’s conscience (Heb. 7:19, 9:9), does that prove that any death besides Christ’s—including the second death of an unsaved sinner—is insufficient to satisfy the punitive demands of the Law? And thus, since one’s own second death could not satisfy the punitive demands of the Law, must one remain in a constant, ongoing process of dying, his or her blood being shed for eternity? That’s what it appears is the essence of the argument I refuted here.

The answer to that question is, quite simply, no. To argue that the unending death and bloodshed of repeated Levitical propitiatory sacrifices proves that a sinful human being’s own death can’t satisfy the punitive demands of the Law, one must demonstrate the truthfulness of at least three premises:

1. The punitive value of the death of an animal in a Levitical sacrifice is equal to the punitive value of the death of a human being.
2. The death of an animal in a Levitical sacrifice does not satisfy the punitive demands of the Law for sins committed prior to the sacrifice being made.
3. The punitive value of a human being’s first death is equal to the punitive value of the second death of annihilation.

If the first premise is false, and if the punitive value of a Levitical animal sacrifice is not equal to that of the death of a human being, then the insufficiency of one such sacrifice, and the series of sacrifices taken as a whole, to fully satisfy the punitive demands of the Law, say nothing about the sufficiency of a sinful human being’s own death to satifsy the punitive demands of the Law. After all, perhaps the repeated Levitical propitiatiatory sacrifices, being of lesser punitive value than the death of a sinful human being, could only pay some measure of the punitive demands of the Law, whereas the death of a sinful human could fully satisfy those demands.

If the second premise is false, and if the punitive value of any given Levitical animal sacrifice in the series does satisfy the punitive demands of the Law for sins committed for past sins but not future sins, then the insufficiency of one such sacrifice, and the series of sacrifices taken as a whole, to satisfy the punitive demands of the Law for future sins, say nothing about the sufficiency of a sinful human being’s own death to satisfy the punitive demands of the Law for past sins. Following a sinner’s own death, on the other hand, there would, by definition, be no future sins requiring additional penalty.

Finally, even if the other two premises are true, if the third premise is false, and if the punitive value of a human being’s first death is not equal to the punitive value of the second death of annihilation, then the insufficiency of a Levitical animal sacrifice, and the series of such sacrifices taken as a whole—and, by extension, a sinful human being’s first death—to satisfy the punitive demands of the Law, say nothing about the sufficiency of a sinful human being’s own second death to satisfy the punitive demands of the Law. After all, the second death is permanent (Matt. 25:46) and is one in which both body and soul are destroyed (Matt. 10:28), unlike the first death.

While the second of these premises may be demonstrable, the first and third are certainly not; in fact, the author of the original argument disavowed the first premise. Therefore, it does not follow from repeated Levitical propitiatory sacrifices that a sinner’s annihilation could not satisfy the demands of the Law.

Conclusion

Since the annihilation of an unsaved sinner in the second death would not be another atonement or propitiation for sins besides the sacrifice of Christ, and since the repeated Levitical propitiatory sacrifices in no way suggest that the annihilation of an unsaved sinner in the second death could not satisfy the punitive demands of the Law, we know what really should have been obvious to begin with: tenuous extrapolations from texts which say nothing about what awaits the unsaved should be tested in light of those texts which do say something about what awaits the unsaved. In both debates in which I’ve participated on this topic, I’ve argued strictly from those texts which say something about the fate of the unsaved. My hope is that in future discussions with traditionalists, they will do likewise.

Here is the question Hiram originally asked:

Question: How many sacrificial lambs would be required by the Levitical law in order to make atonement for our sins, and why?

After others commented back and forth, Hiram posted this comment:

I was primarily referring to Hebrews 7:27. There would be no end to the death and bloodshed. No shed blood save that of the Lord Jesus Christ could end the death and bloodshed due to sinners. Therefore, it is impossible for any other death to fully a satisfy the punitive demands of the law. Yet apart from the sacrifice of Christ, there is NO sacrifice that remains for sins. Therefore, those who reject the Gospel will be ther recipients of God’s judgment, and cannot ever cease to exist, for it is only the blood of Christ that brings an end to the unending bloodshed and death due to all sinners. Therefore, annihilationism is false.

Personally, I think tenuous extrapolations from texts which don’t say anything about what awaits the unsaved should be interpreted through the lens of texts which do say something about what awaits the unsaved, which is my biggest problem with universalism. Since the passages which do say what awaits the unsaved say they will be reduced to lifeless remains forever, we already know Hiram’s argument fails. What’s more, the answer to Hiram’s argument is quite simple: Christ’s sacrifice was not merely about satisfying the punitive demands of the Law; it was about turning away God’s wrath, and since the unsaved will be reduced to lifeless remains forever, God’s wrath is not turned away from them, and their death does not accomplish that which Christ’s does.

But since I happen to know that Hiram appreciates logical syllogisms, and because I still hope to be able to reason with him on this topic, let’s examine his argument in the form of the syllogism to which I think it reduces (I’ll attempt to, anyway; I’m not an expert in formal logic):

• P1: The punitive value of the death of an animal in a Levitical sacrifice is equal to the punitive value of the death of a human being.
• P2: The death of an animal in a Levitical sacrifice does not satisfy the punitive demands of the Law for sins committed prior to the sacrifice being made.
• P3: The punitive value of a human being’s first death is equal to the punitive value of the second death of annihilation.
• C: The second death of an annihilated sinner does not satisfy the punitive demands of the Law for sins committed prior to being annihilated.

Consider what it means if the first premise is not true. Well then no matter how insufficient a long series of repeated Levitical animal sacrifices, the death of a human being might, in fact, be capable of satisfying the punitive demands of the Law when an animal’s death could not.

Consider, also, what it means if the first premise is true, but the second is not. Well then it may have been necessary to repeat Levitical animal sacrifices ad infinitum because any given sacrifice satisfied the punitive demands of past sins but not future sins, in which case the death of a human being, rendering him incapable of future sins, might be capable of satisfying the punitive demands of the Law.

Consider, still, what it means if the first and second premises are true, but the third is not. Well then whatever equality in punitive value there may be between an animal’s death and a human’s first death, and even if such a death cannot satisfy the punitive demands of the Law for even past sins, perhaps a human’s second death could.

Thus, if any of these three premises is not true, then Hiram’s conclusion is unjustified, and the repeated Levitical sacrifices serve as no challenge to annihilationism.

I’m doubtful that the truth of the second premise can be demonstrated, but that’s not the one I’d challenge most strongly. I would argue that the Bible says only man was created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-27) and was given dominion over animals (Gen. 1:28), and whereas God called His creation “good” prior to the creation of man (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25), after creating man and giving him rule over the rest of creation He called it “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Thus the first premise seems obviously false. And since the second death is both one from which the annihilated sinner will never rise (unlike the first), and is one of both body and soul according to Matthew 10:28 (unlike the first), the second premise seems obviously false as well.

Hiram, it seems to me, thus has quite a challenge before him if he wants to maintain his argument against annihilationism from the repeated Levitical sacrifices, which only Christ was able to bring to an end. Even if it is fairly easy to demonstrate that those sacrifices did not sufficiently satisfy the punitive demands of the Law for sins committed prior to the sacrifice being made, Hiram must scale the seemingly unscalable mountain of demonstrating that the punitive value of an animal’s death is equal to the punitive value of a human’s death, and that the punitive value of a human’s first death is equal to the punitive value of a human’s second death. In the meantime, his argument fails to challenge annihilationism.

When my friend asked me why I felt Open Theism is more consistent than Arminianism, I explained that my understanding is that proponents of both systems have a desire to maintain man’s libertarian free will, whereas we Calvinists hold to compatibilistic free will (we can argue another time over whether or not compatibilistic free will is free at all; that’s not the point of this post). But only Open Theism denies what must be denied in order to truly hold to libertarian free will: God’s infallible foreknowledge of the future.

I told him that libertarianists insist that when one has chosen to do x, one could have chosen to do y. As this article puts it, “Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.” Yet, if God infallibly knew from eternity past that one would choose x, then one most certainly could not have chosen y, for had that been possible, God would not have infallibly known what choice would be made.

My friend loves playing the proverbial devil’s advocate, and so he tried to play the role of the Arminian. He asked how God’s foreknowledge of the future challenges libertarian free will, and he offered the following analogy. Imagine you have a video recording of a person making a choice in the past. Having that recording doesn’t change the fact that at the time the choice was made, that person could have chosen differently. Now, imagine that the video recording was sent back in time, prior to the choice being made. Why, he asked, would the mere existence of the recording, at a time prior to the choice being made, mean it was (will be) impossible to choose contrarily? Especially if that recoring’s existence after the choice was made did not do so?

It immediately struck me that this is, in fact, a great analogy for demonstrating the inconsistency of Arminianism. The answer, of course, is quite simple, particularly for us science fiction fans (ridiculous theories of multiple universes and timelines notwithstanding): Were the person in the recording to choose differently, the video recording would already have recorded it. So the mere fact that it records a choice being made in the future renders it impossible to choose otherwise.

Now, when I’ve heard Arminians challenged with this dilemma, the dilemma of God infallibly knowing the future, they’ve typically said something like, God sees the end from the beginning, or looks down the corridors of time, or sees the whole book in front of him at once. Or whatever. And we Calvinists could object to these kinds of explanations on other grounds. In each of them, however, God’s infallible knowledge of future events is not unlike a video recording of a choice being made, but which exists in the past, prior to the choice being made. At any given point in time when a choice is made, the video recording of its being made–God’s infallible foreknowledge–already exists; existed, in fact, long beforehand. And were a different choice made, the video–God’s infallible foreknowledge–would have already recorded it. So the mere fact that it records a choice being made in the future renders it impossible to choose otherwise.

Thus, as absurd as I find Open Theism, at least its proponents can be consistent and hold to libertarian free will. It doesn’t seem to me that Arminians can do the same.

Pentecostals and some proponents of baptismal regeneration believe baptism in the Holy Spirit is something different from, above and beyond, the saving, indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In an attempt to demonstrate this, they’ll often argue that the Apostles received the Holy Spirit well before Pentecost. Thus, they insist, the baptism in the Holy Spirit which they experienced at Pentecost must be something different from, something more than, the receiving of the Holy Spirit which they already experienced. This is, in fact, not the case, as the Word of God demonstrates.

HE BREATHED ON THEM

There really is only one verse which even remotely seems to support their case, and even then only on the surface:

And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” (John 20:22)

Jesus breathed on the disciples and spoke these words to them well before Pentecost, before Jesus ever ascended to the Father. Clearly they received the Holy Spirit, right?

Quite simply, no, that’s not right. First, notice that the text nowhere says they received the Holy Spirit. At most, Jesus tells them to, and even then the text only appears to depict Jesus doing so. But a comparison between this passage and the same events recorded by another gospel author sheds light on the debate. Here is the passage in its wider context:

1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb…12 and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying… 18 Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and that He had said these things to her. 19 So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” (John 20:1,12,18-22)

Note carefully what events John is recording. Mary finds the tomb empty; two angels are seen in the tomb; and Mary comes telling the disciples that she saw the risen Lord. That same day, while gathered together behind closed doors, Jesus appears to them, lets them touch His wounds, and then tells them He’s sending them. It’s at that point that John records Jesus as telling them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

I AM SENDING FORTH THE PROMISE

Keep all the above in mind as we look at the words of Luke:

1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared…4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing…10 Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles…36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet…46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 ”You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:1,4,10,36-40,46-49)

It is evident that John and Luke are recording the same events. (I’ve left some details out, in part because I don’t want to turn this into a discussion of gospel harmonization; those of us debating this agree on the inerrancy of Scripture, so let’s keep this on point.) Mary finds the tomb empty, is spoken to by two angels, tells the disciples what she saw, Jesus appears to them behind close doors and lets them touch His hands and feet. But it’s at this point that Luke records Jesus’ words differently. Whereas John records Jesus as saying to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” Luke records Him as saying, “I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

You see, when we put aside our doctrinal biases and simply let Scripture interpret Scripture, we discover that no, the Apostles did not receive the Holy Spirit at this point in time. They were told they would receive Him later.

WHEN THE HELPER COMES

Indeed, what is “the promise of My Father?”

“But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” (John 7:39)

“16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever…26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” (John 14:16,26)

“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me.”(John 15:26)

“But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.”(John 16:7)

What was the promise from the Father? “The Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive.” When would the Holy Spirit be received? It could not be prior to Jesus’ death, for He “was not yet glorified.” Jesus had, in fact, been glorified by the time John records His words behind closed doors to the disciples. However, His glorification wasn’t all that was required for them to receive the promised Holy Spirit.

Jesus said, “if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you.” No, the promised Holy Spirit would not be received until Jesus left the disciples. As He said, “if I go, I will send Him to you,” and “I will send [the Helper] to you from the Father.” It wasn’t until Jesus ascended to the Father that the Holy Spirit would be received.

BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT

We’ve seen that John and Luke record the same events in their gospels, but each records Jesus’ words somewhat differently. But it’s not just in his gospel that Luke records Jesus’ promise:

4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now…8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” (Acts 1:4-5,8)

You see, those who insist that baptism in the Holy Spirit is something different from the saving, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, point to John’s record of Jesus’ words–which don’t tell us the disciples received the Holy Spirit anyway–but must ignore Luke’s record thereof, both in his gospel and in the book of Acts. In both those places, Luke makes it clear that what Jesus had done was promise the disciples the Holy Spirit; He did not give Him to them. Indeed, He could not have, for as we’ve seen, He had not yet ascended to the Father.

In case there is still any doubt, note that in each of these three passages the context of Jesus’ words is the same: His sending the Apostles. John records Jesus saying, “as the Father has sent Me, I also send you,” immediately before breathing upon them. In his gospel, Luke records Jesus saying, “Thus it is written…that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things…but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” And in Acts he records Jesus as saying, “you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

In every record of Jesus’ words to the disciples that day, the context is His sending them out to proclaim the gospel, beginning of Jerusalem. He did not tell them to receive the Holy Spirit at that moment; He told them they would receive the Holy Spirit when it was time to begin their mission. Indeed, neither the gospels nor the book of Acts records the Apostles proclaiming the gospel after Jesus’ words to them and before Pentecost. They knew they hadn’t yet received the Holy Spirit, but that they would, and when they did, their mission would begin.

BREATH AND AUTHORITY

I said toward the beginning of this article that “There really is only one verse which even remotely seems to support their case,” and what I meant was actually only one part of one verse, namely Jesus’ words, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” However, there are two additional weak points often made to defend a misunderstanding of Jesus’ words. Despite being evidence of nothing, these points are worth addressing so that it cannot be argued that anything was left out.

First, it is often pointed out that Jesus didn’t merely say to the disciples, “Receive the Holy Spirit”–which, as we’ve seen, was actually a promise of the future-coming Spirit, not a command that they receive the Holy Spirit right then and there. No, He did more than that: He breathed on them. Here’s one way this has been used as evidence that the disciples received the Holy Spirit when Jesus breathed on them:

The Hebrew word behind spirit is ruach, and it means “air in motion.” It is the same word for “breath.” It also means “life.” By resemblance to breath and air in motion, it means “spirit.”…When you get into the Greek behind that, the Greek word is pneuma, which again means “a current of air,” “breath,” or a “breeze, ” and again by analogy, “a spirit.” So both the Hebrew and the Greek word are talking about breath. It’s talking about wind…The same thing happens when we are born of the Spirit. When we are re-born, it is from the breath of God. In the Gospel of John, where He is giving to His disciples the Holy Spirit, just as God breathed on Adam and gave him the breath of life, Jesus breathed on His disciples in John chapter 20.

It is true that the word for “spirit” in both the Hebrew and the Greek carry the meaning of “breath” or “wind.” However, must the fact that Jesus “breathed” on the disciples mean that He gave them the Holy Spirit? Of course not, for Jesus no doubt breathed upon countless people in the course of His life and ministry. Indeed, just speaking at someone in close proximity would according to this reasoning bestow the Holy Spirit, since speaking is done by breathing out. So the fact that Jesus breathed upon them cannot be argued as evidence He gave them the Holy Spirit.

It is noteworthy that the gospel author recorded this peculiar, intentional action on the part of Jesus. And I doubt anybody argues that receiving the Holy Spirit is not at least what was signified by Jesus’ action. However, nothing in the text demands that it be more than a sign of what they were promised they would later receive at Pentecost. Remember, Luke’s gospel and his record of the acts of the Apostles show us that Jesus did not command that they receive the Holy Spirit, but that He promised they would receive Him at Pentecost. The act of breathing upon them may have been nothing more than a sign of that promise. As John Gill writes, “but this breathing on them, and the words that attended it, were a symbol, pledge, and confirmation, of what they were to receive on the day of Pentecost.”

Second, I believe I have heard it argued that what Jesus continues to say to the disciples in John 20 after breathing on them is evidence that they had, in fact, received the Holy Spirit. In verse 23 He says to them, “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” It would seem Jesus here gives the disciples the authority to forgive sins, which some might argue proves they received the Holy Spirit.

This claim could not even be characterized as weak; it is beyond weak, it is nothing. It’s a non-argument. First, I am certain that one cannot find a connection between the authority to forgive sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Authority simply doesn’t imply power. Second, and more importantly, the text doesn’t demand that they were given this authority at that moment. I challenge my readers to find any example of the disciples preaching the gospel and forgiveness of sins after this event but before the day of Pentecost. It just isn’t there.

The point is, just as Jesus’ words were not a command that the disciples receive the Holy Spirit but a promise that they would receive the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and just as His breathing on them was not a giving of the Holy Spirit but a symbol of that promise, so, too, is the authority Jesus gives them not given until Pentecost, if that authority requires the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The context simply is not what was happening at that moment, but what would happen at Pentecost, when the Apostles would be given that which was required to powerfully proclaim the gospel to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem.

RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT JUST AS WE DID

When Peter witnessed the Holy Spirit fall upon Cornelius’ household before being baptized in water, he said (in Acts 10:47), “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” Peter identified what happened to Cornelius’ household as that which had happened to him and the other Apostles at Pentecost. The Apostles did not receive the Holy Spirit before Pentecost when Jesus breathed upon them; they were merely promised Him, and at Pentecost, they received Him.

The New Testament knows nothing of multiple senses in which one receives the Holy Spirit.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Check out this article for more exegetical and scholarly support.

Be sure to email me at chris@theopologetics.com if you want to pose a question to either participant! Make sure to tell me to whom you wish the question directed.

Resolution: Infants are not the proper subjects of the ordinance of baptism.

Participants: Jamin Hübner affirms. Reverend Laurent Cleenewerck denies. Moderated by Chris Date.

Debate format:

• 15-minute opening affirmative
• 15-minute opening negative
• 10-minute rebuttal affirmative
• 10-minute rebuttal negative
• 10-minute cross-examination of affirmative
• 10-minute cross-examination of negative
• 10-minute cross-examination of affirmative
• 10-minute cross-examination of negative
• 5-minute closing negative
• 5-minute closing affirmative
• 30-minutes of listener Q&A

In this recent blog post, Paul writes,

It is important to notice that the Lord actually, consciously suffered for our sins – it is another proof that annihilation is a wrong doctrine. The Lord went to the cross to take the place of the guilty, and He suffered. He was not annihilated on the cross – He experienced the agony of being abandoned by God, and being put to grief as He was made a guilt offering (see Psalm 22 v 1 & Isaiah 53 v 10).

How is Jesus’ conscious suffering on the cross “proof that annihilation is a wrong doctrine?” It’s obviously not, since what we propose will happen to the unsaved is a violent and painful death, just as the Lord experienced! Paul goes on,

Furthermore, the Lord wasn’t annihilated after His death. Scripture is perfectly clear that the thief was with Him in Paradise that day (Luke 23 v 39-43)…The Lord told us on other occasions He would be conscious between His death and resurrection, because He was actually personally and actively involved in His own resurrection! (See John 2 v 19-22; 10 v 17-18).

Again, how is this a challenge to annihilationism? Even if Paul is right about these verses, the Lord didn’t remain bodily alive after His suffering, either; nor did He continue to suffer after dying. Following Paul’s logic, his own view of hell, then, cannot be true, either.

What’s amazing about this is that I had pointed this out in the very episode of Unbelievable? on which Paul originally commented! That is, neither traditionalists, nor dualist annihilationists who think Jesus’ immaterial soul lived consciously after death, think that the punishment Jesus bore on behalf of the elect is identical to the punishment awaiting the unsaved. Paul and other traditionalists can’t object to annihilationism on the grounds that Jesus wasn’t annihilated, and then turn around and say Jesus’ body died and that He ceased to suffer, while maintaining that the bodies of the unsaved will be alive and suffering forever.

Clutching at straws, indeed! Anyway, back to work on my response to his most recent email to me.

Music

• Various artists, Tradition, from the 1971 motion picture soundtrack to Fiddler on the Roof, 1971

Promoted Resources

• Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry(CARM)
  • Listen to CARM radio’s Faith and Reason Radio live with Matt Slick, Monday through Friday, 4-5pm PST on KSPD, Boise Idaho, AM 790
  • Or subscribe to the podcast
• The Institute for Religious Research, of which Rob Bowman is Director of Research
  • Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ, by Rob Bowman
• The Eastern / Greek Orthodox New Testament, by Rev. Pr. Laurent Cleenewerck
  • EUCLID and Humboldt State University, where Rev. Cleenewerck is amongst the faculty

Matthew 10:28

One final note: this is not a text that teaches annihilation or extinction of the soul after the resurrection. Some may be tempted to think this because Jesus said that God could ―destroy‖ the soul. However, the word destroy does not mean annihilate or extinguish. The word for destroy in Greek is apollumi. According to Thayer‘s lexicon, it means to deliver up to eternal misery or ruin. 43 In case some might think Thayer is biased, Dr. Robert A. Morey makes this insightful argument, ―Since Thayer himself was a Unitarian who did not believe in eternal punishment, his definition could only be the result of his knowledge of the meaning of this Greek word.‖ 44 In the New Testament, the word apollumi never means annihilate. Dr. Morey further argues:

In every instance where the word appllumi is found in the New Testament, something other than the annihilation is being described. Indeed, their isn‘t a single instance in the New Testament where apollumi means annihilation in the strict meaning of the word. (Theron, Dr. Ean (2012-03-20). According to Jesus: The Theology of Christ (Kindle Locations 1199-1208). Kindle Edition.)

It is true that Thayer defines apollymi in the way Dr. Theron indicates as used in Matthew 10:28. However, the citation of Thayer gives the impression that this is his only definition of apollymi, which is not at all true. Another, earlier definition Thayer gives is “to destroy i.e. to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to,” a definition with which annihilationists would be quite happy. Also earlier in his definitions than the words Dr. Theron cited, Thayer defines the word as meaning “to kill,” which is exactly what annihilationism holds God will do to both body and soul in Gehenna. And, of course, Thayer’s definition of “to declare that one must be put to death” is quite compatible with annihilationism as well.

It’s strange, then, that Dr. Morey says apollymi is never used in the New Testament to refer to annihilation. Of course, as should hopefully be obvious by now to anybody who has been listening to my podcast, this is because traditionalists often argue against a straw man, that paper tiger being that God will snap His fingers and the unsaved will instantaneously dematerialize, every atom which formerly comprised their bodies ceasing to exist forever. But this is not at all what we’re proposing will happen. No, we’re proposing that the death men can inflict only upon the body, leaving behind lifeless remains, God can and will inflict upon both body and soul. He will slay the unsaved, in other words, altogether.

It is interesting, then, Dr. Morey’s claim to the contrary notwithstanding, that as Dr. Glenn Peoples put it, “every time this word is used in the Synoptic Gospels as a verb describing the actions of one person against another it carries the very meaning that annihilationists draw from Matthew 10:28.” Don’t believe Dr. Peoples? See Matthew 2:13, 12:14, 21:41, 22:7, 27:20, Mark 3:6, 9:22, 11:18, 12:9, Luke 17:27, 17:29, 19:47, and 20:16. You see, even if some other uses of apollymi in the New Testament mean something different, its consistent use as “kill” or “slay” in the synoptics as a transitive verb, whose object is or belongs to someone other than the subject, lends Matthew 10:28 to annihilationism, no matter how much traditionalists may wish to engage in the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer.

Matthew 26:38

The death of the soul does not mean to pass into non-existence any more than the body passes into non-existence when it dies. It simply means that it was on the verge of separating from the body. (Theron, Dr. Ean (2012-03-20). According to Jesus: The Theology of Christ (Kindle Locations 1215-1216). Kindle Edition.)

In context, Dr. Thoren is (I think) arguing against monism or physicalism (you’ll have to take my word for it; I can’t give all the context), but this follows so immediately after the previous argument that I can’t help but suspect that we are being led to believe that the destruction of the soul Jesus mentioned in Matthew 10:28 “does not mean to pass into non-existence.” But what does Dr. Thoren suggest that Jesus does mean in Matthew 26:38 when He says, “My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death?” Well, he tells us: “that it was on the verge of separating from the body.”

Despite my suspicions, I’ll give Dr. Thoren the benefit of the doubt. Surely he can’t be arguing that the soul’s destruction means its separation from the body, since all but the most fringe of traditionalists deny that the soul will be separated from the body in the second death. No, the traditional view of hell is that the bodies of the unsaved will never die, will never be separated from the soul after being reunited with it in resurrection. Both body and soul, it is argued, will be united in misery forever.

Mark 9:48

And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire— where “Their worm does not die And thefire is not quenched” (Mark 9: 43-48). The idea is that of burning alive with no recourse of action. There will be no water to put out the fire. And there will be no consumption of material to cause the fire to cease. This fire is eternal. In addition, worms eat at Hell‘s inhabitants continually. Just as worms eat into a carcass, so will the worms eat at the flesh of those who suffer in Hell. However, these worms will never stop gnawing. Again, it is important to note that these metaphors can only picture the actual suffering that will happen to those in Hell. In other words, Hell will be much worse than the typology. (Theron, Dr. Ean (2012-03-20). According to Jesus: The Theology of Christ (Kindle Locations 1329-1334). Kindle Edition.)

My fellow annihilationists who are seasoned (rather than being quite green, as I am) will no doubt say I’m being naive when I say that it still amazes me when traditionalists try and make an argument like this from Mark 9:48. “Burning alive,” “no consumption,” “never stop gnawing…” And the end of the quote indicates that Dr. Thoren thinks this is what’s happening in the type, not the antitype! But what is the type?

As annihilationists have pointed out for quite some time, Jesus is here quoting the words of Isaiah 66:24 verbatim. Yet strangely, despite Dr. Thoren’s claim that “the idea is that of burning alive,” the very verse being quoted says that what fire and worms are doing, they are doing to “corpses” or “carcasses.” The idea most certainly is not “burning alive;” rather, the idea is of a lifeless corpse being consumed by fire and maggots.

With all due respect to Dr. Thoren and other traditionalists, what it means for a fire to be unquenchable is not debatable. In the Old Testament it consistently refers to a fire which cannot be prematurely put out. That is, after all, what “quench” means. What it means that “their worm will not die” is, arguably, debatable; I won’t make my case here. But even if we should accept that it means the worms will “never stop gnawing,” the picture, once again, is of carcasses, not living bodies. Therefore, Mark 9:48 simply serves as no support for the traditional view of hell.

Weeping and Gnashing in Outer Darkness

Jesus offers other terrifying examples of Hell in the following verses: But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8: 12).

Then the king said to the servants, ―Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth‖ (Matthew 22: 13).

There is nothing appealing about Hell. There is no light, no hope, and no end; eternal misery. According to Jesus, this is the ultimate state of those resurrected humans who did not receive the grace of God. (Theron, Dr. Ean (2012-03-20). According to Jesus: The Theology of Christ (Kindle Locations 1343-1347). Kindle Edition.)

It’s worth noting that there is a legitimate grammatical question as to whether the weeping and gnashing occurs in the place from which the unsaved are thrown or the place into which they are thrown, but even if it’s the latter, I’m not quite sure what traditionalists intend to demonstrate by pointing to passages like these. The only conclusion I can come to is that they do, in fact, think that we annihilationists are saying God will snap His fingers and the unsaved will instantaneously and painlessly dematerialize. But no, we’re saying they will be given a violent death sentence, which, no doubt, would be cause for weeping and gnashing. Nor does “outer darkness” challenge annihilationism, since it could refer to the darkness of the place in which the unsaved are destroyed, or to the darkness and blackness that was all we who were once atheists could conceive of when we imagined what it would be like to be dead and thus no longer be–which seems to be exactly how Job chapter 3 uses darkness.

Much more could be said. I think, for example, that the parable of the wedding feast more strongly favors annihilationism than it does the traditional view, since in the parable’s earthy scene if someone were bound hand and foot and thrown out of the wedding hall into the darkness of the first century Israeli wilderness, unless rescued he would die of thirst or exposure to the elements, or would be killed by beasts or robbers. Certainly we can’t, as Dr. Thoren appears to do here, read “no end” into these parables. But very obviously weeping and gnashing in outer darkness serves as no challenge to annihilationism which proposes that the unsaved will suffer a violent capital punishment.

 Nothing New Under the Sun

Having been compelled by exegesis of the Scripture to annihilationism, kicking and screaming, I’ll continue to hope, perhaps naively, that one day I’ll encounter a challenging case for the traditional view of hell. Rob Bowman, for example, who recently defended Sola Scriptura on my podcast, was kind enough to send me a copy of his book in which he argues against annihilationism. He told me that a PhD who was leaning toward annihilationism read it and returned to traditionalism. So I’m hopeful, and I’ll be sure to try and get Rob on the show again after I’ve read it. But thus far, it seems that Solomon was right: there really is nothing new under the sun.

Music

• FLAME, Sola Scriptura, from the album Rewind, 2005

Promoted Resources

• Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry(CARM)
  • Listen to CARM radio’s Faith and Reason Radio live with Matt Slick, Monday through Friday, 4-5pm PST on KSPD, Boise Idaho, AM 790
  • Or subscribe to the podcast
• The Institute for Religious Research, of which Rob Bowman is Director of Research
  • Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ, by Rob Bowman
• The Eastern / Greek Orthodox New Testament, by Rev. Pr. Laurent Cleenewerck
  • EUCLID and Humboldt State University, where Rev. Cleenewerck is amongst the faculty

Music

• Treading Lemmings, The Unbelievable Truth from the album, Cliff Notes, 2010

Promoted Resources

• Ligonier Ministries, with Dr. R.C. Sproul
  • Subscribe to the Renewing Your Mind podcast for free
• Unbelievable?, with Justin Brierley.
  • Available on Premier Christian Radio in the United Kingdom, Saturdays 2:30-4:00pm.
  • Also available in the Unbelievable? podcast (new episodes posted shortly after they air).
  • My recent appearance on Unbelievable? via online streaming, or download the episode

Music

• Karate High School, Under The Microscope from the album, Invaders, 2009

Promoted Resources

• Unbelievable?, with Justin Brierley.
  • Available on Premier Christian Radio in the United Kingdom, Saturdays 2:30-4:00pm.
  • Also available in the Unbelievable? podcast (new episodes posted shortly after they air).
  • My recent appearance on Unbelievable? via online streaming, or download
• Answers in Genesis, “reclaiming the foundations of our faith…from the very first verse”
  • Dr. Georgia Purdom’s bio, with links to her blog, products and articles
  • The Code of Life, Dr. Purdom’s DVD on genetics and evolution
  • The NEW Answers Book (Bundle), giving substantive answers to big questions for the Christian life

Music

• Valkyrie, Apocalypse Unsealed, from the Man Of Two Visions album, 2010

Promoted Resources

• Stand to Reasonwith Greg Koukl
  • The Stand to Reason radio program is live on the air every Sunday 2-5 pm PST AM on 740 KBRT.
  • Listen online using Flycast here.
  • Also available in podcast form; each episode is published to the podcast the day after it airs.
• www.KennethGentry.com, Dr. Gentry’s home on the web.
  • Book of Revelation Made Easy, the first book Dr. Gentry recommends for those curious of preterism and Revelation
  • Navigation the Book of Revelation, the first book produced from Dr. Gentry’s Revelation Commentary Project’s research.
  • Four Views on the Book of Revelation, in which Dr. Gentry represents preterism’s view of Revelation alongside proponents of the other views
  • Before Jerusalem Fell, Dr. Genry’s book defending an early date for the writing of the book of Revelation.
• GoodBirth Ministries, the ministry Dr. Gentry “established in order to expound, apply, advance, and defend conservative, evangelical Reformed theology in the modern world.”

Music

• Fen, The World Is Young from the album, Trails Out of Gloom, 2010

Promoted Resources

• Cowboy Bob Sorensen’s blogs
  • Stormbringer’s Thunder
  • Piltdown Superman
  • A Soldier For Jesus
• Books
  • The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth – Past, Present, and Future, by John Morris
  • Thousands not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth, by Donald DeYoung
  • Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, by Dr. Russell Humphreys
• Organizations
  • Answers in Genesis
  • Institute for Creation Research

Music

• Eric Clapton (in Derek and the Dominos), Mean Old World from the album, Blues, 1999

Promoted Resources

• Cowboy Bob Sorensen’s blogs
  • Stormbringer’s Thunder
  • Piltdown Superman
  • A Soldier For Jesus
• Books
  • The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth – Past, Present, and Future, by John Morris
  • Thousands not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth, by Donald DeYoung
  • Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, by Dr. Russell Humphreys
• Organizations
  • Answers in Genesis
  • Institute for Creation Research

Music

• Terrance Bell, Days Of Creation from the album, Relative to Life, 2011

Promoted Resources

• Say Hello to my Little Friend, aka the Beretta Cast, with Glenn Peoples.
  • Glenn also created my podcast’s theme music, so visit his Theme Music New Zealand for all your theme music needs.
• Cowboy Bob Sorensen’s blogs
  • Stormbringer’s Thunder
  • Piltdown Superman
  • A Soldier For Jesus
• Books
  • The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth – Past, Present, and Future, by John Morris
  • Thousands not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth, by Donald DeYoung
  • Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, by Dr. Russell Humphreys
• Organizations
  • Answers in Genesis
  • Institute for Creation Research

Music

• Robert Plant, House of Cards from the album, Band of Joy, 2010

Promoted Resources

• Ronnie’s Consuming Fire blog
• Joey Dear’s online presence
  • Joey’s “tome” defending annihilationism, The Bible Teaches Annihilationism.
• Ronnie’s debate with TurretinFan (part 1 and part 2)
• My debate with Hiram Diaz (part 1 and part 2)
• My friend Michael Burgos’ ministry, Grassroots Apologetics
  • Michael Burgos’ article, “Three Arguments Against Annihilationism“
  • Hiram Diaz’ article, “Do Matthew 3:11-12 and Malachi 4:1-6 Support Annihilationism?“
  • Hiram Diaz’ article, “Is Matthew 5:21-26 Merely Earthly Legal Advice?“
  • Hiram Diaz’ article, “Utter Destruction and Consumption: Allowing Context to Define the Key Terms (Pt. 1)“
• TurretinFan’s exegesis of Jude’s “twice dead” trees

Music

• Rotersand, Exterminate Annihilate Destroy from the album, Welcome to Goodbye, 2005

Promoted Resources

• Ronnie’s Consuming Fire blog
• Joey Dear’s online presence
  • Joey’s “tome” defending annihilationism, The Bible Teaches Annihilationism.
• Ronnie’s debate with TurretinFan (part 1 and part 2)
• My debate with Hiram Diaz (part 1 and part 2)
• My friend Michael Burgos’ ministry, Grassroots Apologetics
  • Michael Burgos’ article, “Three Arguments Against Annihilationism“
  • Hiram Diaz’ article, “Do Matthew 3:11-12 and Malachi 4:1-6 Support Annihilationism?“
  • Hiram Diaz’ article, “Is Matthew 5:21-26 Merely Earthly Legal Advice?“
  • Hiram Diaz’ article, “Utter Destruction and Consumption: Allowing Context to Define the Key Terms (Pt. 1)“
• TurretinFan’s exegesis of Jude’s “twice dead” trees

Music

• Theory of a Deadman, Drag Me to Hell from the album, The Truth Is…, 2011

Promoted Resources

• What Color is the Sky in Their World? Podcast, with Phil Naessens.
  • Also check out the blog of the same name.
• Ronnie’s Consuming Fire blog
• Joey Dear’s online presence
  • Joey’s “tome” defending annihilationism, The Bible Teaches Annihilationism.
• Ronnie’s debate with TurretinFan (part 1 and part 2)
• My debate with Hiram Diaz (part 1 and part 2)
• My friend Michael Burgos’ ministry, Grassroots Apologetics
  • Michael Burgos’ article, “Three Arguments Against Annihilationism“
  • Hiram Diaz’ article, “Do Matthew 3:11-12 and Malachi 4:1-6 Support Annihilationism?“
  • Hiram Diaz’ article, “Is Matthew 5:21-26 Merely Earthly Legal Advice?“
  • Hiram Diaz’ article, “Utter Destruction and Consumption: Allowing Context to Define the Key Terms (Pt. 1)“
• TurretinFan’s exegesis of Jude’s “twice dead” trees

Music

• Axenstar, Forever the Pain from the album, Aftermath, 2011

Promoted Resources

• The Preterist Podcast, with Dee Dee Warren.
  • Check out the episode I guest-hosted, “Kicking Some Left Behind Pt. 5–Jesus, the Not-So Master Communicator.”
  • I am also a guest author Dee Dee’s The Preterist Blog, and she has a ton of eschatological study material available at The Preterist Site.
• Hiram Diaz’s blog, Involuted Speculations
  • Also contributes to Grassroots Apologetics, created by Michael Burgos
• The Apologetic Front, with Mike Felker
  • Contact Mike at mike@theapologeticfront.com
  • Call Mike at 678-208-9153 and leave a voicemail
  • YouTube channels: http://www.youtube.com/entrsnm3 and Context Ministries
  • Also check out Mike’s band, The Status (MySpace)

Music

• Monster Magnet, Perish In Fire from the album, Mastermind, 2010

Promoted Resources

• The Preterist Podcast, with Dee Dee Warren.
  • Check out the episode I guest-hosted, “Kicking Some Left Behind Pt. 5–Jesus, the Not-So Master Communicator.”
  • I am also a guest author Dee Dee’s The Preterist Blog, and she has a ton of eschatological study material available at The Preterist Site.
• Hiram Diaz’s blog, Involuted Speculations
  • Also contributes to Grassroots Apologetics, created by Michael Burgos
• The Apologetic Front, with Mike Felker
  • Contact Mike at mike@theapologeticfront.com
  • Call Mike at 678-208-9153 and leave a voicemail
  • YouTube channels: http://www.youtube.com/entrsnm3 and Context Ministries
  • Also check out Mike’s band, The Status (MySpace)

Music

• Jerry Lee Lewis, When The Saints Go Marching In, from the album, Great Balls of Fire & Other Favorites, 2009

Promoted Resources

• Please Convince Me, with Jim Wallace
  • The Please Convince Me podcast, available in iTunes, the Zune Marketplace, or RSS feed.
  • Also the sister site, Answers for Atheists, geared specifically toward atheists seeking answers to their objections to Christianity.
• Risen Jesus, the ministry of Dr. Mike Licona
  • Endorsements Video containing endorsements by Frank Turek, William Dembski, Gary Habermas, Josh McDowell and William Lane Craig
  • The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, by Dr. Mike Licona
• Deeper Waters, the blog of Michael Licona’s son-in-law, Nick Peters
  • “Literal Is Best,” the post Michael Licona mentioned in the interview

Music

• Donnie McClurkin, The Great I Am, from the album, We All Are One (Live In Detroit), 2009

Promoted Resources

• The Dividing Line, with Dr. James White, Director of Alpha & Omega Ministries
  • Listen online most Tuesday mornings at 11:00am PDT, and most Thursday afternoons at 4:00pm PDT.
  • Subscribe to the podcast in via direct RSS feed.

Music

• Chris Allen Band, Firstborn of Creation, from the album, You Are, 2008

Promoted Resources

• The Dividing Line, with Dr. James White, Director of Alpha & Omega Ministries
  • Listen online most Tuesday mornings at 11:00am PDT, and most Thursday afternoons at 4:00pm PDT.
  • Subscribe to the podcast via direct RSS feed.

Music

• Claire Taubenhaus, Real Knowledge from the album, No Compass & No Commands, 2009

Promoted Resources

• Evidence 4 Faith, with Keith Kendrex and Dr. Mike Lurakis
  • On the air Sundays 4-5pm (EST), WIBG 1020AM in Southern New Jersey, and streaming live at WIBG.com
  • Past shows available via podcast, also available in the iTunes Store
• Scott Smith’s article, “Emergents and the Rejection of Body-Soul Dualism,” at equip.org

Music

• Clutch, Immortal from the album, Live at the Googolplex, 2003

Promoted Resources

• Real Apologetics, with Jamin Hübner.
  • Check out the podcast, “The Provocative Microphone of the Christian Religion,” via the RSS feed or the iTunes Store
• Thoughts of Francis Turretin & Reformed Apologetics, TurretinFan’s blog
  • Also see TurretinFan’s Facebook page
  • TurretinFan also contributes to the Alpha & Omega Ministries blog.
• Consuming Fire, Ronnie’s blog
  • Ronnie’s notes can be found here

Music

• Third Day, Consuming Fire from the album, Third Day, 1996

Promoted Resources

• Real Apologetics, with Jamin Hübner.
  • Check out the podcast, “The Provocative Microphone of the Christian Religion,” via the RSS feed or the iTunes Store
• Thoughts of Francis Turretin & Reformed Apologetics, TurretinFan’s blog
  • Also see TurretinFan’s Facebook page
  • TurretinFan also contributes to the Alpha & Omega Ministries blog.
• Consuming Fire, Ronnie’s blog
  • Ronnie’s notes can be found here

Music

• Nirvana, Lake of Fire from the album, MTV Unplugged in New York, 1994

Promoted Resources

• Dr. Larry Dixon’s blog
  • Larry’s book, The Other Side of the Good News

Music

• Evanescence, The Other Side from the album, Evanescence (Deluxe Edition), 2011

Promoted Resources

• Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry(CARM)
  • Listen to CARM radio’s Faith and Reason Radio live with Matt Slick, Monday through Friday, 4-5pm PST on KSPD, Boise Idaho, AM 790
  • Or subscribe to the podcast
• Dr. Larry Dixon’s blog
  • Larry’s book, The Other Side of the Good News

Music

• Van Canto, Lost Forever, from the album, Tribe of Force, 2010

Promoted Resources

• Thoughts of Francis Turretin & Reformed Apologetics, TurretinFan’s blog
  • Also see TurretinFan’s Facebook page
  • TurretinFan also contributes to the Alpha & Omega Ministries blog.
• The Evangelical Universalist Forum, where Jason Pratt contributes
  • Also see CADRE Comments, “Comments from the Christian Cadre,” where Jason also contributes

Music

• Pete & J, No More One More Chance, from the album, Dressed For Conversation, 2005

Promoted Resources

• Thoughts of Francis Turretin & Reformed Apologetics, TurretinFan’s blog
  • Also see TurretinFan’s Facebook page
  • TurretinFan also contributes to the Alpha & Omega Ministries blog.
• The Evangelical Universalist Forum, where Jason Pratt contributes
  • Also see CADRE Comments, “Comments from the Christian Cadre,” where Jason also contributes

Music

• Lenny Kravitz, God Save Us All from the album, Lenny, 2001

Promoted Resources

• Ligonier Ministries, with Dr. R.C. Sproul
  • Subscribe to the Renewing Your Mind podcast for free
• Thoughts of Francis Turretin & Reformed Apologetics, TurretinFan’s blog
  • Also see TurretinFan’s Facebook page
  • TurretinFan also contributes to the Alpha & Omega Ministries blog.
• The Evangelical Universalist Forum, where Jason Pratt contributes
  • Also see CADRE Comments, “Comments from the Christian Cadre,” where Jason also contributes

Music

• Rebecca Lynn Howard, God Is in the House from the album, Songs 4 Worship: Country, 2007

Promoted Resources

• New Testament Reformation Fellowship (www.ntrf.org)
  • House Church, a book contributed to by several NTRF authors, available for free for a limited time!

Music

• Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Our House from the album, Deja Vu, 1994

Promoted Resources

• Unbelievable?, with Justin Brierley.
  • Available on Premier Christian Radio in the United Kingdom, Saturdays 2:30-4:00pm.
  • Also available in the Unbelievable? podcast (new episodes posted shortly after they air).
• New Testament Reformation Fellowship (www.ntrf.org)
  • House Church, a book contributed to by several NTRF authors, available for free for a limited time!

Music

• Lincoln Brewster, Everlasting God, from the Let the Praises Ring: The Best of album, 2006
• Jason Roy, And Can It Be (Love Divine Album Version), from the Love Divine: The Hymns of Charles Wesley album, 2011

Promoted Resources

• Stand to Reasonwith Greg Koukl
  • The Stand to Reason radio program is live on the air every Sunday 2-5 pm PST AM on 740 KBRT.
  • Listen online using Flycast here.
  • Also available in podcast form; each episode is published to the podcast the day after it airs.
• Say Hello to my Little Friend, aka the Beretta Cast, with Glenn Peoples.
  • Glenn also created my podcast’s theme music, so visit his Theme Music New Zealand for all your theme music needs.
  • Glenn’s podcast series, “In Search of the Soul”
    • Part 1
    • Part 2
    • Part 3
    • Part 4
    • Part 5

Music

• N.W.J., Eternal Fire from the album, Takin’ it Back, 2009

Promoted Resources

• Edward Fudge Ministries
  • The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition, now available.
• Other Books
  • Two View of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue, with Edward Fudge and Robert A. Peterson

Music

• Saliva, Burn It Up from the album, Under Your Skin, 2011

Promoted Resources

• Say Hello to my Little Friend, aka the Beretta Cast, with Glenn Peoples.
  • Glenn also created my podcast’s theme music, so visit his Theme Music New Zealand for all your theme music needs.
• Edward Fudge Ministries
  • The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition, now available.
• Other Books
  • Two View of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue, with Edward Fudge and Robert A. Peterson

Music

• Nathan Good Family, Church of Christ, Sleep No More from the album, Sons and Daughters, 2010

Promoted Resources

• Edward Fudge Ministries
  • The Restoration Movement Fulfilled in Jesus Christ, Dr. Fudge’s free online book
• Other Books
  • Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America, by Dr. Richard Hughes
  • The Stone-Campbell Movement: The Story of the American Restoration Movement, by Leroy Garrett
  • The Churches of Christ in the 20th Century: Homer Hailey’s Personal Journey of Faith, by David Harrell

Music

• Jeremy Camp, Restored from the album, Live Unplugged, 2005

Promoted Resources

• What Color is the Sky in Their World? Podcast, with Phil Naessens.
  • Also check out the blog of the same name.
• Edward Fudge Ministries
  • The Restoration Movement Fulfilled in Jesus Christ, Dr. Fudge’s free online book
• Other Books
  • Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America, by Dr. Richard Hughes
  • The Stone-Campbell Movement: The Story of the American Restoration Movement, by Leroy Garrett
  • The Churches of Christ in the 20th Century: Homer Hailey’s Personal Journey of Faith, by David Harrell

Music

• Tribal Seeds, 144,000 from the album, The Harvest, 2009

Promoted Resources

• The Preterist Podcast, with Dee Dee Warren.
  • Check out the episode I guest-hosted, “Kicking Some Left Behind Pt. 5–Jesus, the Not-So Master Communicator.”
  • I am also a guest author Dee Dee’s The Preterist Blog, and she has a ton of eschatological study material available at The Preterist Site.
• The Apologetic Front, with Mike Felker
  • Contact Mike at mike@theapologeticfront.com
  • Call Mike at 678-208-9153 and leave a voicemail
  • YouTube channels: http://www.youtube.com/entrsnm3 and Context Ministries
  • Also check out Mike’s band, The Status (MySpace)

Music

• Area-7, Second Class Citizen from the album, Bitter & Twisted, 2000

Promoted Resources

• The Preterist Podcast, with Dee Dee Warren.
  • Check out the episode I guest-hosted, “Kicking Some Left Behind Pt. 5–Jesus, the Not-So Master Communicator.”
  • I am also a guest author Dee Dee’s The Preterist Blog, and she has a ton of eschatological study material available at The Preterist Site.
• The Apologetic Front, with Mike Felker
  • Contact Mike at mike@theapologeticfront.com
  • Call Mike at 678-208-9153 and leave a voicemail
  • YouTube channels: http://www.youtube.com/entrsnm3 and Context Ministries
  • Also check out Mike’s band, The Status (MySpace)

Music

• U2, A Man and a Woman from the album, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, 2004

Promoted Resources

• The recent New York Times article discussing Michael’s story
• World Net Daily’sarticles about, or written by, Michael:
  • How a ‘gay rights’ leader became straight
  • ‘Gay’-rights leader quits homosexuality
  • Confessions of a former ‘gay rights’ leader
  • The ‘straight’ scoop-2 years later
  • Houston, we have a ‘gay’ problem
  • To Ricky with love: You can resist
• Interview with Joseph Nicolosi at the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality
• Contact Michael at michaeleglatze@gmail.com
• Other resources:
  • Exodus International and Love Won Out
  • Gay Christian Movement Watch: “A Blog Upholding Biblical Standards on Sexuality”

Music

• Deitrick Haddon, Changed Man from the album, Lost and Found, 2001

Promoted Resources

• The recent New York Times article discussing Michael’s story
• World Net Daily’sarticles about, or written by, Michael:
  • How a ‘gay rights’ leader became straight
  • ‘Gay’-rights leader quits homosexuality
  • Confessions of a former ‘gay rights’ leader
  • The ‘straight’ scoop-2 years later
  • Houston, we have a ‘gay’ problem
  • To Ricky with love: You can resist
• Interview with Joseph Nicolosi at the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality
• Contact Michael at michaeleglatze@gmail.com
• Other resources:
  • Exodus International and Love Won Out
  • Gay Christian Movement Watch: “A Blog Upholding Biblical Standards on Sexuality”

Music

• Richland Hills Church of Christ, The Day God Died from the album, This is Love, 2010

Promoted Resources

• Evidence 4 Faith, with Keith Kendrex and Dr. Mike Lurakis
  • On the air Sundays 4-5pm (EST), WIBG 1020AM in Southern New Jersey, and streaming live at WIBG.com
  • Past shows available via podcast, also available in the iTunes Store
• Theology Web, where “We debate theology… seriously!”
  • Michael Burgos’ article attempting to refute the physicalist’s understanding of Luke 23:43
• Physicalism resources:
  • Fuller Seminary Campus Guide on the Human Person, including links to a variety of resources
  • Body, Soul and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible, by Dr. Joel B. Green
  • What About the Soul?, edited by Dr. Joel B. Green
  • In Search of the Soul: Four View of the Mind-Body Problem, edited by Dr. Joel B. Green

Music

• Mel and Tim, Mail Call Time, from the album, Good Guys Only Win in the Movies, 1996

Promoted Resources

• Please Convince Me, with Jim Wallace
  • The Please Convince Me podcast, available in iTunes, the Zune Marketplace, or RSS feed.
  • Also the sister site, Answers for Atheists, geared specifically toward atheists seeking answers to their objections to Christianity.

Music

• Karen Davis, Israel, My Beloved, from the album, Israel My Beloved, 2006

Promoted Resources

• Confident Christianity, with Mary Jo Sharp
  • The Confident Christianity podcast, available in iTunes

Additional Topic Resources

On Hebrew thought: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/12_thought.html and http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Hebrew_thought.

Diagram of the relationship between the Church and Israel, most particularly the top two diagrams, where Israel and the Church overlap (note I do not share this author’s eschatology which is distinctively dispensational and premillennial):

David H. Stern, Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel, 1st ed. (Jerusalem, Israel; Gaithersburg, MD, USA: Jewish New Testament Publications; Distributed by Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, 1988), 21.

Music

• Cameo, Post Mortem, from the Anthology album, 2002

Promoted Resources

• Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry(CARM)
  • Listen to CARM radio’s Faith and Reason Radio live with Matt Slick, Monday through Friday, 4-5pm PST on KSPD, Boise Idaho, AM 790
  • Or subscribe to the podcast
• Michael’s Grassroots Apologeticsblog
  • Michael’s article, “An Examination and Refutation of Modal Communication“

Music

• The Benjy Davis Project, The Aftermath, from the Lost Souls Like Us album (Amazon exclusive), 2010

Promoted Resources

• Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry(CARM)
  • Listen to CARM radio’s Faith and Reason Radio live with Matt Slick, Monday through Friday, 4-5pm PST on KSPD, Boise Idaho, AM 790
  • Or subscribe to the podcast
• Michael’s Grassroots Apologeticsblog
  • Michael’s article, “An Examination and Refutation of Modal Communication“

Music

• The Royal Dumonts, She’s the Boss, from the Before the Stone album, 2011

Promoted Resources

• Ligonier Ministries, with Dr. R.C. Sproul
  • Subscribe to the Renewing Your Mind podcast for free
• Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry(CARM)
  • Listen to CARM radio’s Faith and Reason Radio live with Matt Slick, Monday through Friday, 4-5pm PST on KSPD, Boise Idaho, AM 790
  • Or subscribe to the podcast

Music

• Marion Williams, This Generation Shall Not Pass, from the Standing Here Wondering Which Way To Go album, 2007

Promoted Resources

• Unbelievable?, with Justin Brierley.
  • Available on Premier Christian Radio in the United Kingdom, Saturdays 2:30-4:00pm.
  • Also available in the Unbelievable? podcast (new episodes posted shortly after they air).

Music

• Yellowcard, Only One, from the Ocean Avenue album, 2003

Promoted Resources

• Stand to Reasonwith Greg Koukl
  • The Stand to Reason radio program is live on the air every Sunday 2-5 pm PST AM on 740 KBRT.
  • Listen online using Flycast here.
  • Also available in podcast form; each episode is published to the podcast the day after it airs.
• Michael’s Grassroots Apologeticsblog
  • Michael’s article, “An Examination and Refutation of Modal Communication“

Music

• Joe Cocker, My Father’s Son, from the No Ordinary World album, 2008

Promoted Resources

• Stand to Reasonwith Greg Koukl
  • The Stand to Reason radio program is live on the air every Sunday 2-5 pm PST AM on 740 KBRT.
  • Listen online using Flycast here.
  • Also available in podcast form; each episode is published to the podcast the day after it airs.
• Michael’s Grassroots Apologeticsblog
  • Michael’s article, “An Examination and Refutation of Modal Communication“

Music

• Loretta Lynn, God Makes No Mistakes, from the Van Lear Rose album, 2004

Promoted Resources

• Say Hello to my Little Friend, aka the Beretta Cast, with Glenn Peoples.
  • Glenn also created my podcast’s theme music, so visit his Theme Music New Zealand for all your theme music needs.
• RealApologetics.org, with Jamin Hübner
  • Subscribe to Jamin’s podcast, “The Provocative Microphone of the Christian Religion,” via RSS feed, also available in iTunes
  • Jamin also periodically posts at the Alpha & Omega Ministries Blog

Recommended Reading

• “Calvin, Bavinck, and 21st Century Views of Inerrancy,” by Jamin Hübner
• Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, by Benjamin B. Warfield
• How We Got the Bible, by Neil R. Lightfoot
• The Origin of the Bible, by Philip W. Comfort
• The Infallible Word: A Symposium by the Members of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, edited by N. B. Stonehouse
• Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, edited by D. A. Carson
• A Biblical Case For Total Inerrancy: How Jesus Viewed the Old Testament, by Robert P. Lightner
• Inerrancy, by Norman L. Geisler
• Scripture and Truth, edited by D. A. Carson
• Inerrancy and the Church, edited by John D. Hannah
• The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority, G. K. Beale

Music

• Jessie Baylin, Contradicting Words, from the Firesight album, 2008

Promoted Resources

• What Color is the Sky in Their World? Podcast, with Phil Naessens.
  • Also check out the blog of the same name.
• Episode 8: Walking Contradiction, in which I addressed several other alleged contradictions.

Alleged Contradictions

Source: Bible Contradictions from Project Reason

• #1: How many men did the chief of David’s captains kill? 2sam 23:8 ≠ 1chron 11:11
• #2: Was Abraham justified by faith or by works? rom 4:2 ≠ jam 2:21
• #3: How many sons did Abraham have? heb 11:17, gen 22:2 ≠ gen 16:15, 21:2-3, 25:1-2, 4:22
• #4: Was Abiathar the father or the son of Ahimelech? 1sam 22:20, 23:6 ≠ 2sam 8:17, 1chron 18:16, 24:6
• #5: Who was Abijam’s mother? 1ki 15:1-2 ≠ 2chron 13:1-2
• #6: How were Abijam and Asa related? 1 ki 15:8 ≠ 1ki 15:1-2, 15:9-10
• #7: How long was the ark of the covenant at Abinadab’s house? 1sam 7:1-2, 10:24 ≠ 2sam 6:2-3, acts 13:21
• #8: How old was Abram when Ishmael was born? gen 16:16 ≠ acts 7:2-4, gen 11:26, 11:32
• #9: (Repeat #7)
• #10: When did Absalom rebel against David? 2sam 15:7 ≠ 2sam 5:4
• #11: The two contradictory creation accounts. gen 1:25-27 ≠ gen 2:18-22
• #12: Who Was Achan’s father? jos 7:1 ≠ jos 7:24, 22:20
• #13: How many of Adin’s offspring returned from Babylon? ezra 2:15 ≠ neh 7:20

Music

• Nickel Creek, When in Rome, from the Why Should the Fire Die album, 2005

Promoted Resources

• The Preterist Podcast, with Dee Dee Warren.
  • Check out the episode I guest-hosted, “Kicking Some Left Behind Pt. 5–Jesus, the Not-So Master Communicator.”
  • I am also a guest author Dee Dee’s The Preterist Blog, and she has a ton of eschatological study material available at The Preterist Site.
• Alpha & Omega Ministrieswith Dr. James White
  • Listen to Dr. White’s webcast, The Dividing Line, live most Tuesday mornings at 11:00am PDT and most Thursday afternoons at 4:00 PDT
    • Subscribe to the podcast, available in the iTunes Store.
  • Dr. White’s book, Scripture Alone, which he referred to in the interview
  • David King and William Webster’s Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith 3-volume set, which Dr. White recommended in the podcast

Music

• Coffey Anderson, Call On The Name from the album, The Inspiration Vol. 1, 2007

Promoted Resources

• Evidence 4 Faith, with Keith Kendrex and Dr. Mike Lurakis
  • On the air Sundays 4-5pm (EST), WIBG 1020AM in Southern New Jersey, and streaming live at WIBG.com
  • Past shows available via podcast, also available in the iTunes Store

Music

• Beastie Boys, Hey Ladies from the album, Paul’s Boutique, 1989

Promoted Resources

• Real Apologetics, with Jamin Hübner.
  • Check out the podcast, “The Provocative Microphone of the Christian Religion,” via the RSS feed or the iTunes Store
• Confident Christianitywith Mary Jo Sharp
  • Listen to the podcast via the RSS feed or the iTunes Store
  • Check out the Confident Christianity blog
  • Find Confident Christianity on Facebook

Music

• Kenny Rogers and The First Edition, Just Dropped In (To See What Condition My Condition Was In), from the soundtrack, The Big Lebowski, 1998
• Susan Boyle, Amazing Grace, from the album, I Dreamed a Dream, 2009

Promoted Resources

• Confident Christianity, with Mary Jo Sharp
  • The Confident Christianity podcast, available in iTunes

Music

• 2Pac, Letter 2 My Unborn, from the Until the End of Time album (explicit lyrics), 2001

Promoted Resources

• Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry(CARM)
  • Listen to CARM radio’s Faith and Reason Radio live with Matt Slick, Monday through Friday, 4-5pm PST on KSPD, Boise Idaho, AM 790
  • Or subscribe to the podcast
• Life Training Institute, “Persuasively Communicating the Pro-Life Message”
  • Scott Klusendorf’s book, “The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture” at Amazon
  • Watch this video of Scott addressing the Students for Life of America National Conference at the LTI blog

Music

• Lady Sovereign, Blah Blah, from the Public Warning album (explicit lyrics), 2006

Promoted Resources

• Ligonier Ministries, with Dr. R.C. Sproul
  • Subscribe to the Renewing Your Mind podcast for free
• No Compromise Radio, hosted by Mike Abendroth.
  • Available via podcast in iTunes, the Zune Marketplace or RSS feed
  • Mike is Senior Pastor of Bethlehem Bible Church in West Boylston, MA, and sermons are available via podcast

Music

• Rage Against the Machine, Testify from the album, The Battle of Los Angeles, 1999

Promoted Resources

• Unbelievable?, with Justin Brierley.
  • Available on Premier Christian Radio in the United Kingdom, Saturdays 2:30-4:00pm.
  • Also available in the Unbelievable? podcast (new episodes posted shortly after they air).
• Please Convince Mewith Jim Wallace
  • The Please Convince Me podcast, available in iTunes and the Zune Marketplace
  • Also check out Answers For Atheists for a growing list of answers to common objections to Christianity from atheists

Music

• The Stills, In the Beginning from the album, Without Feathers, 2006

Promoted Resources

• Stand to Reasonwith Greg Koukl
  • The Stand to Reason radio program is live on the air every Sunday 2-5 pm PST AM on 740 KBRT.
  • Listen online using Flycast here.
  • Also available in podcast form; each episode is published to the podcast the day after it airs.
• Answers in Genesis, “reclaiming the foundations of our faith…from the very first verse”
  • Steve Ham’s book, In God We Trust: Why biblical authority matters for every believer

Music

• Boston, More Than a Feeling from the album, Boston, 1976

Promoted Resources

• Say Hello to my Little Friend, aka the Beretta Cast, with Glenn Peoples.
  • Glenn also created my podcast’s theme music, so visit his Theme Music New Zealand for all your theme music needs.
• Stand to Reasonwith Greg Koukl
  • The Stand to Reason radio program is live on the air every Sunday 2-5 pm PST AM on 740 KBRT.
  • Listen online using Flycast here.
  • Also available in podcast form; each episode is published to the podcast the day after it airs.
• He Is There and He Is Not Silent by Francis Schaeffer

Music

• Alien Ant Farm, Flesh and Bone, from the Anthology album, 2001
• Matt Maher, Christ is Risen, from the Alive Again album, 2009

Promoted Resources

• What Color is the Sky in Their World? Podcast, with Phil Naessens.
  • Also check out the blog of the same name.
• TheologyWeb, where “We debate theology… seriously!”
  • Follow a debate on physicalism and 1 Corinthians 15 here.
• Michael’s Grassroots Apologeticsblog
  • Michael’s article, “The Immortality of the Human Soul.”
  • Also, “Physicalism, Dualism and 1 Corinthians 15.”
• Unbelievable?, with Justin Brierley.
  • Available on Premier Christian Radio in the United Kingdom, Saturdays 2:30-4:00pm.
  • Also available in the Unbelievable? podcast (new episodes posted shortly after they air).
  • Listen to August 7th, 2010′s episode on the resurrection here.
• Episode 1 of the Theopologetics Podcast, discussing the resurrection, citing support from the Church Fathers.

Historical References

Creeds

• Apostle’s Creed
• “Rule of Faith” cited by Irenaeus
• Athanasian Creed

Church Fathers on the Resurrection

• Polycarp: Epistle to the Philippians
• Church of Smyrna: Martyrdom of Polycarp
• Tertullian: On the Resurrection of the Flesh
• Athenagoras: On the Resurrection of the Dead
• Augustine: Exposition on Psalm 63, Exposition on Psalm 30, quoted in General Resurrection (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Commentaries

• John Gill:
  • On 1 Corinthians 15:38
  • On 1 Corinthians 15:44
  • On 1 Corinthians 15:45
  • On 1 Corinthians 15:50
• John Calvin
  • On 1 Corinthians 15:35-50
• John Wesley
  • On 1 Corinthians 15:44
  • On 1 Corinthians 15:50
• Robert Jamieson
  • On 1 Corinthians 15:44
  • On 1 Corinthians 15:50
• Matthew Henry
  • On 1 Corinthians 15:45
• Norman Geislerand Thomas Howe
  • On 1 Corinthians 15:45 in When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties, 1992, pp. 467-468

Music

• Tyson, Mecca and Medina, from the Ghetto Messiah album, 2004
• Europe, The Final Countdown, from the The Final Countdown album, 1986

Promoted Resources

• The Preterist Podcast, with Dee Dee Warren.
  • Check out the episode I guest-hosted, “Kicking Some Left Behind Pt. 5–Jesus, the Not-So Master Communicator.”
  • I am also a guest author Dee Dee’s The Preterist Blog, and she has a ton of eschatological study material available at The Preterist Site.
• Date Power!, my powerlifting blog.
• Stand to Reason, with Greg Koukl.

Music

• P.O.D., Youth of the Nation, from the Sattelite album, 2001
• The Rocky Orchestra, Gonna Fly Now, from the The Rocky Story album, 1991

Promoted Resources

• Confident Christianity, with Mary Jo Sharp
  • The Confident Christianity podcast, available in iTunes
• Stand to Reason, with Greg Koukl
  • STR Place, Brett Kunkle’s STR website geared toward youth
  • Bulletproof, Brett’s podcast, also available in iTunes

Music

• Stan Ridgway, Mr. Smith, from the The Drywall Incident album, 1997

Promoted Resources

• Institute for Religious Research
  • Mormons in Transition, IRR’s Mormonism resources

Music

• U2 featuring Green Day, The Saints Are Coming, from the The Saints Are Coming single, 2006

Promoted Resources

• Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry(CARM)
  • Listen to CARM radio’s Faith and Reason Radio live with Matt Slick, Monday through Friday, 4-5pm PST on KSPD, Boise Idaho, AM 790
  • Or subscribe to the podcast
• Institute for Religious Research
  • Mormons in Transition, IRR’s Mormonism resources

Music

• The Cult, Faith Healer, from the Best of Rare Cult album, 2000

Promoted Resources

• The Whole Truthblog and podcast
  • Subscribe to the podcast
  • Available in the Zune Marketplace here
• Justin Peters Ministries
  • Overview of Justin’s A Call for Discernment seminar
  • Resources page where you can purchase his seminar on DVD, as well as a copy of his Master’s thesis

Word of Faith

• Notable Teachers/Ministries
  • Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN)
  • Kenneth Hagin, Sr.
  • Benny Hinn
  • Kenneth Copeland
  • Gloria Copeland
  • Jesse Duplantis
  • Joyce Meyer
  • Joel Osteen
  • Creflo Dollar
  • Paula White
• “Dangerous Doctrines”
  • “Positive Confession” and “Substance of Faith”
    • Words are containers of the force of faith
    • We can speak our desired reality into existence using faith-filled words
  • “Little gods Doctrine” and the Fall
    • Adam was an exact duplicate of God and we are “little gods”
    • In the fall, God lost power of the world and Adam’s reign was transferred to Satan
    • Prayer is giving God permission to act in the world
• “Mangled Manifestations”
  • Abuse of tongues
  • Spectacular claims of heavenly encounters and divine revelation
  • Bizarre behavior and slaying in the spirit
  • False prophecies
  • Occultic/demonic connection in communicating with the dead
• “The Hurt of Healing”
  • If one is not healed, not enough faith
  • If one gives enough money, one will be healed
  • 2 Peter 2:1-3 says these false teachers “make merchandise” out of their followers, and they are all filthy rich

Music

• Fates Warning, Leave the Past Behind, from the Parallels album, 1998

Promoted Resources

• Stand to Reasonwith Greg Koukl
  • The Stand to Reason radio program is live on the air every Sunday 2-5 pm PST AM on 740 KBRT.
  • Listen online using Flycast here.
  • Also available in podcast form; each episode is published to the podcast the day after it airs.
  • Calls played:
    • Call #1 (me): “Reflections on UK Vacation,” 7/19/2010, @ 00:59:43
    • Call #2: “Nancy Pearcey – Saving Leonardo,” 10/25/2010 @ 00:22:52
    • Call #3 (me): “Our Task, God’s Problem,” 11/1/2010 @ 00:25:09
• What Color is the Sky in Their World? podcast with Phil Naessens
  • My interview on apologetics, hyperpreterism, powerlifting and more

Terminology

• Eschatology: a category within theology and philosophy concerned with what are believed to be the final events in history.
• Preterism: the view which holds that most of the biblical prophecies concerning the so-called “end times” were fulfilled in our past.
• Hyperpreterism: the heretical view that all biblical prophecies were fulfilled in our past including the Second Coming and resurrection.

Music

• Three Days Grace, It’s All Over, from the One X album, 2006

Promoted Resources

• The Preterist Podcast, with Dee Dee Warren.
  • Check out the episode I guest-hosted, “Kicking Some Left Behind Pt. 5–Jesus, the Not-So Master Communicator.”
  • I am also a guest author Dee Dee’s The Preterist Blog, and she has a ton of eschatological study material available at The Preterist Site.

Terminology

• Eschatology: a part of theology and philosophy concerned with what are believed to be the final events in history.
• Millennium: a “thousand years” seen by John in his vision, recorded in Revelation 20.
• Premillennialism: the view which holds that the Second Coming of Christ will usher in the millennium, a period of exactly 1,000 years, during which Christ and His saints will reign physically on earth.
• Postmillennialism: the view which holds that the Second Coming of Christ will follow a very long period of time, not necessarily exactly 1,000 years, a “Golden Age” or era of Christian prosperity dominance.
• Amillennialism: the view which holds that the millennium is symbolic, either of a very long period of time after which Christ returns, or of no period of time at all.
• Tribulation: the “great tribulation” Jesus speaks of in Matthew 24 after which He is to “come” in some sense, which He appears to have promised his contemporaries would experience.
• Rapture: a belief held by dispensational premillennialists that before, during or after the tribulation, Christ will come to remove Christians from the world, and will bring them back after the tribulation to reign with Him during the millennium.
• Pretribulationalism: the view which holds that the rapture will take place at the beginning of the tribulation.
• Mid-tribulationalism: the view which holds that the rapture will take place halfway into the tribulation.
• Futurism: the view which holds that most eschatological Bible prophecy remains to be fulfilled in our future.
• Preterism: the view which holds that most of the biblical prophecies concerning the so-called “end times” were fulfilled in our past.
• Historicism: the view which holds that Revelation does not foretell events which occur primarily in the first century or at the Second Coming, but symbolically foretells the Church’s experiences throughout history.
• Idealism: the view which holds that Revelation does not foretell a chronological series of events at all.
• Hyperpreterism: the heretical view that all biblical prophecies were fulfilled in our past including the Second Coming and resurrection.

More Show Notes Coming Soon…

Music

• R.E.M., It’s the End of the World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine), from the Document album, 1987

Promoted Resources

• Ligonier Ministries, with Dr. R.C. Sproul
  • Subscribe to the Renewing Your Mind podcast for free
• The Preterist Podcast, with Dee Dee Warren.
  • Check out the episode I guest-hosted, “Kicking Some Left Behind Pt. 5–Jesus, the Not-So Master Communicator.”
  • I am also a guest author Dee Dee’s The Preterist Blog, and she has a ton of eschatological study material available at The Preterist Site.
• Books
  • The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? by Thomas Ice and Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.
  • The Last Days According to Jesus by R.C. Sproul
  • The Apocalypse Code by Hank Hannegraaff

Terminology

• Eschatology: a part of theology and philosophy concerned with what are believed to be the final events in history.
• Millennium: a “thousand years” seen by John in his vision, recorded in Revelation 20.
• Premillennialism: the view which holds that the Second Coming of Christ will usher in the millennium, a period of exactly 1,000 years, during which Christ and His saints will reign physically on earth.
• Postmillennialism: the view which holds that the Second Coming of Christ will follow a very long period of time, not necessarily exactly 1,000 years, a “Golden Age” or era of Christian prosperity dominance.
• Amillennialism: the view which holds that the millennium is symbolic, either of a very long period of time after which Christ returns, or of no period of time at all.
• Tribulation: the “great tribulation” Jesus speaks of in Matthew 24 after which He is to “come” in some sense, which He appears to have promised his contemporaries would experience.
• Rapture: a belief held by dispensational premillennialists that before, during or after the tribulation, Christ will come to remove Christians from the world, and will bring them back after the tribulation to reign with Him during the millennium.
• Pretribulationalism: the view which holds that the rapture will take place at the beginning of the tribulation.
• Mid-tribulationalism: the view which holds that the rapture will take place halfway into the tribulation.
• Futurism: the view which holds that most eschatological Bible prophecy remains to be fulfilled in our future.
• Preterism: the view which holds that most of the biblical prophecies concerning the so-called “end times” were fulfilled in our past.
• Historicism: the view which holds that Revelation does not foretell events which occur primarily in the first century or at the Second Coming, but symbolically foretells the Church’s experiences throughout history.
• Idealism: the view which holds that Revelation does not foretell a chronological series of events at all.
• Hyperpreterism: the heretical view that all biblical prophecies were fulfilled in our past including the Second Coming and resurrection.

More Show Notes Coming Soon…

Music

• Deathcab for Cutie, Soul Meets Body, from the Plans album, 2005

Promoted Resources

• Say Hello to my Little Friend, aka the Beretta Cast, with Glenn Peoples.
  • Glenn also created my podcast’s theme music, so visit his Theme Music New Zealand for all your theme music needs.

Biblical References

• “Souls” in Revelation
  • Revelation 20:1-4
  • Revelation 6:9-11
• “Today you will be with me in Paradise”
  • Luke 23:43
• “Caught up into Paradise”
  • 2 Corinthians 12:1-4
• “Absent from the body and at home with the Lord”
  • 2 Corinthians 5:1-8
• “The time of my departure”
  • Philippians 1:21-24
  • 2 Peter 1:14-15
  • 2 Timothy 4:6
• “Destroy both body and soul in hell”
  • Matthew 10:28
• “Lazarus and the rich man”
  • Luke 16

Music

• Sam & Dave, Soul Man, from the This is Sam & Dave album, 2009 (orig. 1967)
• Survivor, Eye of the Tiger, from the Survivor: Greatest Hits album, 1993 (orig. 1982)

Promoted Resources

• Unbelievable?, with Justin Brierley.
  • Available on Premier Christian Radio in the United Kingdom, Saturdays 2:30-4:00pm.
  • Also available in the Unbelievable? podcast (new episodes posted shortly after they air).
• Say Hello to my Little Friend, aka the Beretta Cast, with Glenn Peoples.
  • Glenn also created my podcast’s theme music, so visit his Theme Music New Zealand for all your theme music needs.
  • Glenn’s podcast series, “In Search of the Soul”
    • Part 1
    • Part 2
    • Part 3
    • Part 4 (in which Glenn addresses the metaphysical argument I bring up in this episode)
    • Part 5
• Date Power!, my competitive powerlifting blog
• Physicalism resources
  • Christian physicalists
    • Peter van Inwagen, Nancey Murphy, Joel Green, Warren Brown
  • Books: the Book Depository offers free postage worldwide, and buy purchasing books via these links you will help Glenn Peoples out at no extra cost via his affiliate account with the Book Depository
    • Whatever Happened to the Soul? Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature
    • What About the Soul?: Neuroscience and Christian Anthropology
    • In Search Of The Soul: Perspectives Of The Mind-body Problem
    • Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will
    • Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible
    • “The Resurrection of the Body and the Life Everlasting,” in Reason for the Hope Within

Terminology

• Occasionalism: a philosophical theory about causation which says that created substances cannot be efficient causes of events. Instead, all events are taken to be caused directly by God himself.

Biblical References

• Resurrection the only way to survive death
  • 1 Corinthians 15:30-32
  • 1 Corinthians 15:18 – Physicalists do not believe the dead have “perished”
  • 1 Corinthians 15:19 – “Hope in this life” refers not to when hope is felt, but that in which hope is placed
• “With all your soul”
  • Deuteronomy 4:29; 6:5; 10:12
  • Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27
• “Soul and spirit”
  • Hebrews 4:12
  • 1 Thessalonians 5:23
• Mediums and “familiar spirits”
  • Leviticus 19:31; 20:6,27; Deuteronomy 18:11
  • 1 Samuel 28:7-19
• Appearances of the dead
  • 1 Samuel 28:7-19
  • Matthew 17:1-8; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36
• “Body and spirit”
  • Romans 8:10; 1 Corinthians 14:14; Matthew 26:41; 1 Corinthians 7:34; 2 Corinthians 7:1
  • James 2:26; 1 Corinthians 5:5
• “Receive my spirit”
  • Psalm 31:5; Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59; Ecclesiastes 12:7
  • Hebrews 12:22-23
• “My soul is troubled”
  • John 12:27; Luke 1:46-47
  • Genesis 35:18; 1 Kings 17:21
• “Restores my soul”
  • Psalm 23:3; Psalm 19:7
• “God of the living”
  • Matthew 22:31-32
• “Has eternal life”
  • John 5:24
• “Souls” in Revelation
  • Revelation 20:1-4
  • Revelation 6:9-11

Music

• Mariah Carey, Make It Happen, from the Emotions album, 1991

Promoted Resources

• Say Hello to my Little Friend, aka the Beretta Cast, with Glenn Peoples.
  • Glenn also created my podcast’s theme music, so visit his Theme Music New Zealand for all your theme music needs.
• The Potter’s Freedom by Dr. James White
• Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem

Terminology

• Soteriology: the study of religious doctrines of salvation
• Regeneration: the transformation of an unbelieving, dead heart of stone in opposition to God into a believing, living heart of flesh inclined toward God
• Total Depravity: the first “point” of Reformed soteriology which teaches that human nature is by nature opposed to God and that nobody left to their own devices chooses to turn to God
• Unconditional Election: the second “point” which teaches that God chooses to save some people based solely and exclusively on His will, mercy and grace, and not conditioned upon any action of the one chosen
• Limited Atonement: the third “point” which teaches that Jesus’ work on the cross was effective and brought about the salvation of specifically the elect
• Irresistible Grace: the fourth “point” which teaches that God is irresistibly powerful to save the elect, that just as Lazarus had no choice but to rise from the dead when Jesus called him, so, too, are the spiritually dead unable to refuse to be brought to life
• Perseverance of the Saints: the fifth “point” which teaches that those God regenerates and saves remain saved their whole lives, and can never lose their salvation

Historical References

• Clement of Rome: Letter to the Corinthians
• Theophilus of Antioch: To Autolycus (Book 1)
• Irenaeus: Against Heresies 3:25
• Eusebius of Caesarea: Oration in Praise of Constantine
• Augustine: On the Predestination of the Saints (Book 1)

Biblical References

• Psalm 148:8
• Job 37:6-13
• Job 38:22-30
• Psalm 135:6-7
• Psalm 104:4
• Psalm 104:14
• Job 38:32
• Matthew 5:45
• Psalm 104:27
• Job 38:39-41
• Matthew 6:26
• Matthew 10:29
• Proverbs 16:33
• Job 12:23
• Psalm 22:28
• Acts 17:26
• Acts 14:16
• Daniel 4:34-35
• Matthew 6:11
• Philippians 4:19
• Psalm 139:16
• Job 14:5
• Galatians 1:15
• Jeremiah 1:5
• Jeremiah 10:23
• Proverbs 20:24
• Proverbs 16:9
• Proverbs 16:1
• Psalm 75:6-7
• Luke 1:52
• Psalm 127:3
• 1 Corinthians 4:7
• Psalm 18:34
• Proverbs 21:1
• Ezra 6:22
• Ezra 1:1
• Psalm 33:14-15
• Philippians 2:13
• Isaiah 14:27
• Isaiah 46:9-10
• Psalm 33:8-11
• Jeremiah 18:4-6
• Isaiah 29:16
• Isaiah 45:9
• Isaiah 10:5-7
• Isaiah 10:12-17
• Genesis 50:19-21
• Acts 4:27-30

Music

• EMF, Unbelievable, from the Schubert Dip album, 1991

Promoted Resources

• Stand to Reasonwith Greg Koukl
  • The Stand to Reason radio program is live on the air every Sunday 2-5 pm PST AM on 740 KBRT.
  • Listen online using Flycast here.
  • Also available in podcast form; each episode is published to the podcast the day after it airs.
• Unbelievable?, with Justin Brierley.
  • Available on Premier Christian Radio in the United Kingdom, Saturdays 2:30-4:00pm.
  • Also available in the Unbelievable? podcast (new episodes posted shortly after they air).

In this first of two interviews on the subject, we talk about physicalism in history, the modern evangelical response to physicalism, the biblical basis for physicalism and the metaphysical objection to it. In a future episode I’ll interview Glenn a second time, devoting the entire episode to biblical objections to his position, so email me at theopologetics@hotmail.com if you would like me to include your challenge to physicalism in the second interview.

Music

• Olivia Newton-John, Physical, from the Physical album, 1987

Promoted Resources

• What Color is the Sky in Their World? Podcast, with Phil Naessens.
  • Also check out the blog of the same name.
• Say Hello to my Little Friend, aka the Beretta Cast, with Glenn Peoples.
  • Glenn also created my podcast’s theme music, so visit his Theme Music New Zealand for all your theme music needs.
• The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers, by Leroy Froom, available for free in the DjVu format

More Show Notes Coming Soon…

Music

• Phillips, Craig and Dean, In Christ Alone, from the Let the Worshipers Arise album, 2004

Promoted Resources

• The Preterist Podcast, with Dee Dee Warren.
  • Check out the episode I guest-hosted, “Kicking Some Left Behind Pt. 5–Jesus, the Not-So Master Communicator.”
  • I am also a guest author Dee Dee’s The Preterist Blog, and she has a ton of eschatological study material available at The Preterist Site.
• Michael’s Grassroots Apologeticsblog
  • Michael’s article, “An Examination and Refutation of Modal Communication“
• TheologyWebfor online Christian debate
  • Michael’s TheologyWeb nickname: MichaelB
  • My TheologyWeb nickname: Chris D
• Dr. James White’s Alpha and Omega Ministries
  • “The Trinity, the Definition of Chalcedon, and Oneness Theology” by Dr. White
• Let Us Reason Ministries
  • List of Oneness Pentecostal articles
• A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology, by Edward Dalcour

Terminology

• Oneness Pentecostalism: a grouping of denominations and believers within Pentecostal Christianity, deriving its name from the teaching that there is one God, a singular spirit who manifests himself in many different ways, including as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, rather than one God existing as three separate, eternal and coequal persons or identities.
• Sabellianism: also known as modalism, an ancient heresy similar to Oneness theology which taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.
• Chalcedonian Christology: the orthodox view pronounced at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 which holds that Jesus Christ is one person with two natures, an entirely human nature and an entirely divine nature.
• Nestorian Christology: the heretical view advanced by Nestorius but condemned at Chalcedon, holding that within Jesus are two distinct persons, one divine, one human, rather than a single human with both a divine nature and a human nature.
• Unitarianism: the belief that God is one and only one, both in being and in person; in contrast with Trinitarianism which teaches that God is one being in three eternal, co-equal persons.
• Tritheism: a belief in three gods, which is a mischaracterization of Triniarianism

Strategy

• Red Flags to Watch For
  • One who claims to be an “Apostolic” Christian, or who claims his church is an “Apostolic” church
  • One who explains that the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are “manifestations” or “modes” of God
• Questions to Ask
  • “What kind of Christian are you?” or “What denomination of church do you attend?”
  • “Who is God?”
  • “What must I do to be saved?”
  • “Are you living up to the standards of holiness and the Law of God?” (tug at their conscience)

Biblical References

• John 1:1-2
• John 17:5
• Philippians 2:5-11
• Colossians 1:16-17

Music

• The Exies, Baptize Me, from the Head for the Door album, 2004

Promoted Resources

• The Whole Truthblog and podcast
  • Subscribe to the podcast
  • Available in the Zune Marketplace here
• The Narrow Mindwith Gene Cook, Jr.
  • Subscribe to the podcast
  • Gene’s book, The Baptism Cult: Exposing the International Church of Christ
  • Download Gene’s debate with Bruce Reeves on baptismal regeneration here
  • Download Gene’s debate with David Brown on baptismal regeneration here
• Redemption, Accomplished and Applied by John Murray
  • Check out other resources recommended by Gene here

Terminology

• Pelagianism: the belief that original sin did not taint Human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid.
• Total Depravity: the doctrine that mankind, by virtue of being tainted by original sin, is unable to do anything that pleases God without His divine enabling.

Biblical References

• Salvation through faith alone after regeneration from God
  • Romans 8:2-10
  • Ephesians 2:8-10
  • John 6:44
  • Titus 3:5
• Indwelling of the Holy Spirit saves
  • Acts 10:44-48
  • 1 Corinthians 12:4-14
  • John 7:37-39
  • Romans 8:9-11,15-17
  • 2 Corinthians 5:4-5, cf. Matthew 7:7-8
  • 2 Corinthians 1:21-22
  • Ephesians 1:13-14
• Baptismal regeneration proof-texts
  • Acts 2:37-38
  • Acts 22:16
  • Hebrews 10:22
  • John 3:5
  • Titus 3:5
  • Romans 6:3-4
  • Galatians 3:27
  • 1 Corinthians 12:13
  • 1 Peter 3:21

Music

• Marvin Gaye, Can I Get A Witness, from the The Very Best of Marvin Gaye album, 2004

Promoted Resources

• Unbelievable?, with Justin Brierley.
  • Available on Premier Christian Radio in the United Kingdom, Saturdays 2:30-4:00pm.
  • Also available in the Unbelievable? podcast (new episodes posted shortly after they air).
• The Apologetic Front, with Mike Felker
  • YouTube channels: http://www.youtube.com/entrsnm3 and Context Ministries
  • Also check out Mike’s band, The Status (MySpace)
• Jehovah’s Witnesses official resources
  • http://www.watchtower.org/
  • What Does the Bible Really Teach (online)
• David Reed’s books on the Jehovah’s Witnesses
  • Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse
  • Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses Subject by Subject
  • How to Rescue Your Loved Ones from the Watchtower

Biblical References

• 1 Peter 3:15 – “always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you”
• John 17:3 – “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christwhom You have sent.”
  • cf. Matthew 7:23 – “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you…’” (to “know” is more than just gain knowledge)
• John 3:3 – “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’”

Music

• Green Day, Walking Contradiction, from the Insomniac album, 1995

Promoted Resources

• Ligonier Ministries, with Dr. R.C. Sproul
  • Subscribe to the Renewing Your Mind podcast for free

Terminology

• Contradiction: In classical logic, a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. As Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction states, “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.”

Biblical References

• Contradictory Accounts of Creation
  • Genesis 1:25-27 vs. Genesis 2:18-19 (humans after animals, or animals after humans?)
  • Genesis 1:27 vs. Genesis 2:18-22 (man and woman after animals, or man then animals then woman?)
  • Genesis 1:11,26 vs. Genesis 2:5-9 (plants before humans or after?)
  • Blog post refuting the alleged contradictions
• Contradictory Accounts of the Triumphal Entry
  • Matthew 21:1-7 (cf. Zechariah 9:9)vs. Mark 11:1-7, Luke 19:29-36 and John 12:14-15
  • Blog post refuting the alleged contradiction
• Contradictory Accounts of Paul’s Conversion
  • Acts 9:7 vs. Acts 22:9 (companions heard or didn’t they?)
  • Acts 9:7 vs. Acts 26:14 (they stood or they fell?)
  • Acts 9:8 vs. 1 Corinthians 9:1 and 1 Corinthians 15:8 (Paul saw Jesus or didn’t see Jesus?)
  • Blog post refuting the alleged contradictions

Music

• Megadeth, Truth Be Told, from the The System Has Failed album, 2004
• FLAME, Sola Scriptura, from the Rewind album, 2005

Promoted Resources

• Unbelievable?, with Justin Brierley.
  • Available on Premier Christian Radio in the United Kingdom, Saturdays 2:30-4:00pm.
  • Also available in the Unbelievable? podcast (new episodes posted shortly after they air).

Terminology

• Bibliology: the study of the nature of the Bible, the Word of God.
• Roman Catholicism: Christians and churches belonging to the Roman Catholic Church in full communion with the Holy See.
• Mormonism: the most populous branch of the Latter Day Saint movement (LDS), founded by Joseph Smith.
• Jehovah’s Witnesses: a pseudo-Christian nontrinitarian movement distinct from mainstream Christianity, directed by the Governing Body of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
• Inspired: from the Greek theopneustos, meaning “God-breathed.”
• Inerrancy: the view that as the recorded words breathed out by God, the Bible is without error as originally written, and that it has been transmitted reliably throughout the millennia.

Doctrinal Explanations

• Catholicism
  • Catholic Encyclopedia: “Tradition and Living Magisterium“
• Mormonism
  • www.mormon.org: “God’s Commandments“, “Follow the Prophet”
  • www.lds.org: “Prophets“; “Prophets of God“
• Jehovah’s Witnesses
  • The Watchtower, Nov. 1, 1990; Feb. 15, 1983; Feb. 15, 1967
  • Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1939
  • Qualified to be Ministers, 1967

Biblical References

• Testing false prophets
  • Deuteronomy 18:20-22
  • Deuteronomy 13:1-3
  • Galatians 1:6-7
  • 2 Corinthians 11:2-4,13-14
  • Acts 17:1-12
• Scripture is God-breathed
  • 2 Timothy 3:16-17
  • 2 Samuel 23:1-2
  • Luke 1:68-70
  • Acts 3:17-18
  • Romans 1:1-2
  • 2 Peter 1:20-21
  • Acts 1:15-16
  • Titus 1:1-2
  • Hebrews 6:13-18
  • John 17:17
  • Romans 3:4
  • Revelation 21:5
  • 2 Peter 3:15-17
  • Ephesians 3:3-5
  • 1 Corinthians 14:37
  • 1 Thessalonians 4:15
  • 1 Timothy 4:1
  • John 3:32-34
  • Matthew 5:17-18
  • Matthew 24:35
• False prophets in the latter days
  • 1 Timothy 4:1
  • 2 Peter 3:1-2
  • Jude 17-19
  • 1 John 4:1,6
• Capacity to interpret through indwelling of the Holy Spirit
  • John 16:12-14
  • John 14:23
• Teachers gifted by God to the Church
  • Proverbs 27:17
  • Ephesians 4:11-13
  • Romans 12:6-7
  • James 3:1

Music

• Paul Wilbur, Roni Roni Bat Zion, from the Jerusalem Arise! album, 2002

Promoted Resources

• Stand to Reasonwith Greg Koukl
  • The Stand to Reason radio program is live on the air every Sunday 2-5 pm PST AM on 740 KBRT.
  • Also available in podcast form; each episode is published to the podcast the day after it airs.

Terminology

• Israelology: the subdivision of systematic theology incorporating all theological doctrines concerning the people of Israel (Fruchtenbaum).
• Systematic Theology: the attempt to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs.
• Replacement Theology: also known as supersessionism, a view which holds that the Church has “replaced” Israel as God’s people and as the recipients of the promises originally made to them.
• Jew: any physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
• Gentile: any non-Jew.
• Samaritans: Jews by descent whose ancestors syncretized with pagans whom they married, and thus no longer worshipped God in truth, and were thus outside the Israelite community.
• Proselyte: a Gentile who completely converted to Judaism, and was thus treated as a Jew, but never called one.

Biblical References

• Jews
  • The “people of the sons of Israel,” the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
    • Exodus 1:1-14
    • Acts 7:8
    • Exodus 3:6, Matthew 22:32, Acts 3:13
  • Distinguished by foreigners from themselves using the word “Hebrews”
    • Genesis 14:13 (Abram the first “Hebrew”)
    • Genesis 40:15
    • Exodus 1:15-19
  • “Jew” originally a member of the tribe of Judah or kingdom of Judah, distinct from Israelites
    • 2 Kings 16:5-6
    • Jeremiah 32:1-3,12; 40:11
  • Later extended to descendants of all the twelve tribes, distinguishing them from Gentiles
    • John 2:13
    • Acts 2:5; 14:1-2
    • Romans 3:29
• Samaritans
  • 2 Kings 17
  • Ezra 4
  • John 4:7-9
  • Acts 8:14-17, contrasted with Acts 10:44-47
• Proselytes
  • Exodus 12:48
  • Matthew 23:15
  • Acts 2:10
  • Acts 6:3-5
  • Acts 13:43
• Suggesting Gentile believers are “spiritual Jews”
  • Luke 3:8
  • Romans 2:28-29; 4:11; 10:12
  • Galatians 3:7,28-29
  • Colossians 3:11
• Distinction between believing Jews and believing Gentiles
  • Acts 15:5-6,23-24,28-29