Another chance?

This question was brought to my attention a couple of days ago: Is there any other chance for people who did not hear the gospel and died already, do they have a second chance after death?

First, there are a lot of people who are much, much smarter than I am who have attempted to answer this question. The recommended search keywords to use are: "doctrine second chance," "second probation," etc.

One such resource can be found here, it was written by John M. Frame. This is the complete URL: http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1984Second.html

I was taught that the first thing to consider when trying to answer a question is to find out "the question behind the question."

1. Was the question raised out of concern that God may be deemed unfair for sending people to hell without allowing them to hear the gospel?

If so, here are a few points to consider:

a. John 3:18 and similar passages teach that Jesus is the only way to salvation, but people are not condemned to hell for not believing in Jesus. Actually, they are already condemned because of their sin.  (Rom. 3:23; 5:12-17; 6:23)

b. In fact, if ignorance if a better chance to enter heaven, we might as well engage in a gospel cover-up program. Let's stop evangelism, burn all Bibles, and close all churches. After a certain period, no one would have heard of Christ and everyone will be one their way to heaven because it would be much easier to accept the gospel and believe in Jesus in the environment of after death when one has experienced eternity.

c. According to the Scripture, no one can claim innocence because "He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,  that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us" (Acts 17:26-27).

d. Why do we stop at second chance? Third chance, anyone? Fourth? One hundredth? It would get more ridiculous as we went on and on. This go against all the urgency to proclaim the gospel and the call to righteous life as taught by the Bible. If there is a second chance, one would break free of all moral constraints and do whatever one heart desires.

2. Was the question raised because of texts like Matt. 12:32; I Pet. 3:19; 4:6 were interpreted to be teaching a second chance death?

First, let's take a look at Matt. 12:32,

Matthew 12:32   "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. (NASB)

Matt. 12:32 does not say that any sins will be forgiven after death, only that some will not be. Let me explain what I mean, from the context it is clear that the Pharisees are ascribing to Satan what the Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ, is healing the a demon-possessed man. And the Pharisees did it willfully and deliberately.

Instead of supporting the second chance doctrine, this passage actually teaches that for the Pharisees, that was their only chance.

Next, let's take a look at I Pet. 3:19; 4:6,

1 Peter 3:18-20   18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;  19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,  20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. (NASB)

NAU 1 Peter 4:6 For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God. (NASB)

These are two of the most difficult verses in the Scripture, from the time of Clement of Alexandria, about A.D. 200, till now, there have been multiple different interpretations on these verses. But our focus will be on whether these verses teach the doctrine of second chance as claimed by its supporters.

Consider this list of points, which by no means is complete:

a.  3:19: What is mean by the word also? Please see the sequence of action words "put to death," "made alive," (3:18) and "went and made proclamation (or preached)." These are references to Christ's death on the cross, resurrection, and post-resurrection activities (before His ascension).

b. 3:19: There word translated "made proclamation" or "preached" is the Greek word kerysso, which elsewhere in the New Testament is used in relation to preaching of the Gospel and also proclaiming something. It is very interesting that this word is only used once in the book of 1 Peter. The same thing can be said about the Greek word used in 4:6 (and 1:12, 1:25), euangelizo. It can mean just to proclaim a good news but in New Testament it would be almost always be translated as proclaiming the Gospel of Christ. To those who tend to want to interpret this verse as teaching a second chance for salvation, this is not enough to persuade them. Because of that, let me add this point. I find it strange that Peter was not interested in defining the content of the preaching in 3:19.

c. 3:19: Who are the spirits now in prison? They were once disobedient during the days of Noah.  If there is a second chance, why is it only given to those in the days of Noah? This just does not fit into the context.

d. 3:19: There is no forgiveness for the sin of deliberate disobedience (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26).

e.  3:19: The story of the rich man and Lazarus clearly shows that there is no second chance after death, man's destiny is sealed (Luke 16:19-31).

f. 4:6:  As have been mentioned above, this verse was translated correctly in relation to the preaching of the Gospel, but pay attention that the verb "preached" is in past tense. In Greek, it is in the aorist tense which points to a completed event in the past. NIV translates this verse by adding the word now to the phrase those who are now dead to emphasize that the recipients of the Gospel was once alive but now dead.

g. 4:6: The point of 4:4-5 is that people will be judged for their actions while living, whether they are living or dead. For those who rejected Christ will be punished and for those who accepted Christ will be rewarded, regardless whether they are living or dead.

h. 4:6: though they are judged in the flesh as men, the persecutors thought that by punishing believers to the point of death, they (the believers) deserved it and were defeated. Not so, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God, which means in God's eyes, they (the martyred believers and those who died a natural death) are living in the spirit eternally because of what the Gospel has done to their lives. Note the contrast of one-time past-tense of "judged" and "present and on-going tense of "live."

To rightly interpret 3:19, one has to really pay attention to the context, this passage covers v.8 through 22. Peter was addressing believers who were suffering because of their faith. Peter reminded them of Christ and everything He had done to them and the hope for the coming victory of Christ (v.22). Believers were saved because of all Christ has done, is doing, and will do (v.21).

This is what I think is the interpretation of 4:6: The believers who were still alive when Peter wrote this book were concerned about the believers who have died, especially those who died not of persecution, because they thought that death is punishment for sins (Gen 2:17; 3:19; Rom 5:12;6:23). Peter is trying to tell them that in God's eyes these dead believers are alive in the spirit forever because the Gospel has been preached to them and they were saved because of their faith in Christ. God will judge all the living and dead people and this judgment is imminent, urgent and final.

Therefore, I do not think the doctrine of second chance is able to find any support from the Scripture.

 

~oOo~

Genesis and Paganism

I am pretty sure those of us with children have been asked all kinds of question. However, I don't think many of you have been asked this particular question (please let me know if this is not the case): "What is paganism?" It came from the backseat of our car, from our 6-year-old daughter.

My smart wife, as usual, quickly deflected the question to me. "Papa, why don't you answer this?" After a brief thought, I said that different people define it differently but from the perspective of the Scripture it just means that all other worship that is not directed toward God the Father.

It has been a couple of weeks since and after doing a little research on the Net, I found this definition of pagan from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

1: heathen 1 ; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)

2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person

3: neo-pagan (a person who practices a contemporary form of paganism (as Wicca))

According to Bruce Waltke in his book, An Old Testament Theology, the creation narrative in Genesis was written to:

Israel in the Wilderness, who was on their way from Egypt to Canaan, both places saturated with pagan mythology. In their annual rites, the practitioner re-enact their pagan creation myths, hopeful to have the land and womb fertile and fruitful for coming year. The human actually have the tools and means to manipulate the divine sphere. Moses presented a revolutionary message, one that went against the dominating messages of the cultures. One that presented a personal God, uncreated, creating order out of chaos. Human was created under the Sovereign dominion of God.

Israel in Babylonian Exile, the creation narrative, though part of the original Mosaic core of material, likely reached its final form during Israel's exile in Babylon. Deities with names like: Marduk (the creator and chief deity), Adal (the storm god), Ishtar (the fertility god), Tiamat (the ancient goddess Tiamat who was destroyed by Marduk and her carcass was made into heaven and earth).

The Genesis 1 creation narrative is directed toward the harmful (toward biblical faith) ancient and modern pagan ideas. Waltke then quoted H. Conrad Hyer who said that each day of creation dismisses an additional cluster of deities (the gods of light and darkness, gods of sky and sea, gods of earth and vegetation, gods of sun, moon, and star), takes away associations with divinity from the animal kingdom, empties human being of any intrinsic divinity.

Modern paganism has six faces:

1. Materialism, since the Enlightenment, is the common view. It is the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the entire universe; all phenomena, including those of the mind, are regarded as due to material causes.

2. Since everything is material, then this leads to empiricism, insists that all knowledge is based on observation, experimentation, and verification, this has led to belief in a self-sufficient universe that can be understood on its own terms, without any need of the transcendent or God.

3. Materialism and empiricism led to determinism, and understanding of reality as mechanical and valueless. The origin of life and the nature of our humanity are determined by natural causation.

4. Secularism, is a system of political or social philosophy that embraces materialism, empiricism, and natural causation and rejects all forms of religious faith and worship in the public sphere.

5. Secular humanism, any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate. It does not acknowledge God and God's ownership of the created order.

6. Post-modernism or New Ageism is a return to old-fashioned paganism with a modern twist. Eastern religions (Taoism, Buddhism, and to a degree Hinduism) was appropriated and their terms were distorted with Western concepts. Personal "spirituality" replaces the personal God.

Genesis 1 comes with two clear messages: (1) God, the uncreated, almighty sovereign Creator has created the universe and the living beings, creating order out of chaos, over against the Egyptians who thought that anything outside of Egypt was in chaos, (2) the humans are created to worship the Sovereign Creator.

 

~oOo~

Charles Darwin is so yesterday ...

When I was driving home from work today, I saw a run down Ford truck in front of me with a "University of Michigan - The Wolverines" bumper sticker on one side and with the logo of a fish with legs and the word "Darwin" inside (see below). I can only see the young lady who drove the car from the back when she turned away.

 

First, the sign above is a satirical twist to the early Christian symbol, the fish, also known as Ichthys (Greek for fish) that was formed from the initial letters of the phrase: Iesous Christos Theou Huios Sotere (Jesus Christ God's Son Saves). The fact that various fish symbols have been used for pagan gods before Jesus is not important at this point because if Jesus can sanctify me (and He has), He can sanctify anything else.

That Darwinian fish logo also stands for the acknowledgment of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

I have news for you, Darwinism is out of date!

Please consider this:

Darwinists hold the view that all species evolve from one form into the next strictly through natural mechanism-- inheritable variation operated on by natural selection.

He has got to go back further. So far, he has only dealt with life's transformation once it existed.

Darwin addressed the origin of life in 1871, more than a decade after he published The Origin of Life in late 1850s. He advanced the idea that life could have emerged on Earth through chemical processes involving ammonia, phosphates, and other inorganic materials.

A new field of biochemistry emerged at the end of 19th century. The subsequent discovery of the complex chemical system in a cell with all the enzymes and various forms of protein changed our understanding of the cell. The idea of the birth of life from non-life was abandoned. Instead, many scientists began to accept the view that life, life matter, as eternal. Like Darwinian evolution or abiogenesis (life from non-life), this new approach  called panspermia does not need a creator.

In the early 20th century, scientists accepted the idea that the universe has a beginning. Panspermia was abandoned. Case in point, two days ago the largest particle collider (the Large Hadron Collider-LHC) was turned on for the first time in France to discover the "God's particle" that account for the mass of all the atoms in the universe. This is a worldwide collaboration of scientists trying to understand what happened at the "Big Bang." Apparently, those scientists at LHC hold the view that the universe has a beginning.

Furthermore, with all the ultraviolet radiation in the outer space, no bacteria could have survived the journey to seed life on earth. All scientific efforts so far have led to dead ends more often than to further pathway for exploration. Yet, we have come full circle, abiogenesis (in the new name of neo-Darwinism) was tried again, then panspermia (in the new name of neopanspermia).

Russian biochemist Alexander I. Oparin and British geneticist J.B.S. Haldane tried to bring back abiogenesis, culminating with the experiment by Stanley Miller, who performed the famous spark-discharge experiment. His experiments produced amino acids (building blocks of life) and other organics by passing an electrical discharge (simulating lightning) through a gas mixture without oxygen. This model of the atmospheric condition of the early earth was based on the theories of his doctoral advisor.

Science magazine in 1995 said that experts now dismiss Miller's experiment because 'the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation.'" This and other rebuttal (including the Kalam cosmological argument, Cambrian explosion, DNA, irreducible complexity, etc.) are presented in the book The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. Check it out. Highly recommended.

One can be amazed at the people who are trying their best to take God out of the creation business. They are willing to hold on to their naturalistic mechanism to explain the origin of life in spite of the mounting evidences and new knowledge that go against their currently held view.

So far, all scientific evidences and progresses point to:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. "

(Genesis 1:1)

Your next move, Darwin ...

Literary Genre of Genesis 1:1 -2:3

I am still here.  I have been busy and have been "devouring" books on the origin of life.  I have not begin to master everything that is known, yet, mind you.

A book I am currently reading on this topic and would like to recommend to you is titled "Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off" by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (NavPress 2004) from the Reasons To Believe (www.reasons.org).  The book can be found here and probably elsewhere.

In my previous post I paraphrased Bruce Waltke in his commentary of Genesis, here in his actual words:

Questions concerning the relationship of the Genesis creation account and science can only be addressed intelligently by determining the literary genre of Gen. 1:1-2:3.

He then continued to provide the four categories for the creation account in Genesis: myth, science, history, or theology.

Creation and Myth: by the word myth one means a story that explains phenomena and experience, an ideology that explains the cosmos.  Myth addresses metaphysical concerns that cannot be known by scientific discovery.

Creation and Science: Genesis describes life-support systems, heavenly bodies, species of flora and fauna, and other natural elements of earth.  However, the creation account has distinct differences from a scientific document that (1) it focuses on God as the ultimate cause, (2) the account was described using everyday speech, in order to drive home the point that the creation is a result of God's creative acts, (3) Genesis is prescriptive, answering the question of who, why, and what ought to be, science answers the what and how, (4) Genesis addressed the covenant community of God on their way out of Egypt into the promised land.

Creation and history: Genesis allows the tracing of the history of Israel all the way back to Adam and Eve.  However, Genesis will not satisfy the demands of modern historiography.  For one, no humans are present for during the acts of creation.  The are also  differing opinions in interpreting the "days" of creation.  The narrator has a theological agenda: to tell us that God created the earth and that it is all very orderly, an agenda not shared by a majority of modern historians.

Creation and theology: Even though the narrator has a theological agenda, he does not systematically present abstract truths about the divine, instead, he tells us a story about the Creator and his creation.

So, what is the genre of the creation account in Genesis? It is not easy to fit it in any one of the mentioned slot.  Anyone who follows the structure, design, alternating and concentric patterns of Genesis and the choice of words in the original language will readily admits that it is artistic.  The Genesis creation account is clearly a representation of creation intended to strengthen God's covenant with his people.  It presents God as the ultimate cause, the One who does not need any introduction nor explanation of his origin.  He just is there (to borrow Francis Schaeffer's phrase).

Pitting scientific opinion and Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 will take us nowhere closer to a complete and coherent understanding of the origin of life.  The thirst to understand the origin of life scientifically is a noble pursuit.  Without pursuing the Originator himself that has become a matter of life and death.

Genesis 1 and "God particle"

What if I tell you that a 17-mile particle collider near Geneva has the possibility of creating a black hole that would swallow the earth or develop "strangelets" that would vaporize the earth in a chain reaction sometime in July (or August) by the time you read this post? By "swallow" and "vaporize" I means completely gone, sucked into and trapped inside the black hole, crushed by gravitational force so massive that all matters are compacted into something of massive density.

Scientists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) is finishing up the construction of an underground ring that is 17 miles (27 kilometers) in circumference, 300 feet (25 meters) below the surface of the earth somewhere near Geneva. There are sensors at four specific locations around the ring (the largest one is seven stories tall and the heaviest is heavier than the Eiffel Tower). The diameter of the tunnel is about nine adults stacked head to toe on top of one another.

Two beams of atomic particles will be accelerated up to almost the speed of light, guided by all the massive supercooled magnets, and then made to collide at four locations where the sensors are located. The collision will produce enough energy to throw the particles into different directions. It kind of reminded me of how I used to take toys/equipments apart to see what they are made of when I was younger (I still do).

That supercool machinery is called the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). And it is built to find the evidence of the Higgs bosons. And because of the extremely short span of life of the bosons, only their effects can be observed.

When I was in high school not too long ago (alright, a 20-year long ago), I was told that an atom is made up of electrons orbiting a nucleus of protons and neutrons. Nowadays, there are weird names like quarks, leptons, hadrons, baryons, mesons, muons, neutrinos, and positrons. So far, it has been identified that everything in the universe is made up of 12 basic building blocks (fundamental particles) governed by four fundamental forces (see more here). Scientists called this the Standard Model. A good and friendly place to attempt to learn all about this is here. (Have fun!)

There is only a "small" problem with the model, an essential ingredient of it, a particle called the Higgs boson (popularized by the name the "God particle") has yet to be found in an experiment.

Other unsolved mysteries are:

(1) All the visible objects in the observable universe (so far it is about 10 billion light years in radius like a 3-dimensional ball, who knows what is the real size of the universe) only accounts for 4% of its total mass. How do they know that? By observing the gravitational effects in the universe because mass directly affects gravitational force. Where are the other 96% of its mass?

(2) Current science best guess of the origin of the universe is something called the Big Bang Theory, in the beginning there was this single particle of unimaginable density. Something or someone (of course no respectable scientist would dare to use the "someone" or are there?) caused this particle to explode into the universe, theoretically producing equal amounts of matter and antimatter, which would cancel each other out. Instead the universe is clearly, full of stuff. Why was the matter favored and won out over the antimatter?

(3) The discoveries of the Higgs boson might also account for the missing mass in an atom, because the fundamental particles are theoretically almost massless. Even with all the known fundamental particles, we are still missing 99.999999999999% of the mass of the atom.

More unsolved mysteries here. That page is just the beginning, make sure you clicked on the right arrow to see the complete list of unsolved mysteries.

See the conceptual picture of the collision here. And the whole set of resources at the National Geographic here. You got to see the photos of the particle accelerator. It is cool.

Why do I bring all this up? (1) I am fascinated with all these enormously tiny particles and the enormously big universe. Assuming we are at the center of the observable universe, it would take ten billion years if we travel at the speed of light (which is theoretically impossible because as soon as you reach the speed of light you are disintegrated into particles) to get out this big ball space of this observable universe as we know it, (2) how about the universe within our bodies, we have barely scratched the surface of the biochemical processes going on inside our bodies, (3) this coincide with the study of the book of Genesis chapter 1.

With every major breakthrough in scientific discovery, we become more perplexed and realized how much we don't know.

When Genesis chapter 1 is mentioned, we usually are drawn to "evolution" versus "creation." What is the origin of the universe? Instead I would like to focus on the first verse.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

How can all this wonderful universe without and within happens by chance? What makes the leptons tied to the hadrons and not just take off, disintegrating the atoms and the matter?

The beginning of Genesis 1 introduces God as the one without beginning, without opposition, and without limitations of power. His existence does not need any explanation. "In the beginning God ...." He is the one creating and organizing the universe without and within us.

The key to understanding the relationship between the Genesis creation account and science can only be best understood by first determining the literary genre of Gen 1:1 -2:3.

We will continue this discussion in the next posting.

What do you do with Independence?

If you are from the United States, our nation (this is my adopted nation) just celebrated its latest anniversary of Independence Day. As my family and I attended the mandatory (for my two "kids" and those of us who are kids at heart) celebratory picnic and fireworks this year, I pondered what does living in a free country means to us, as Christians.

By the way, here is one of the pictures I took this year:

Nikon D70s, f/16, 23.9 sec, ISO 200, 18-200mm at 40mm, location: Clarkston, Michigan, July 4th, 2008

In WORLD Magazine, issue July 12, 2008, there is an article (subscription may be needed to access the article) with the title of: "Lord, how long will I call and You will not answer?" by a Christian in Zimbabwe. It reminded to give thanks to the LORD for the freedom we enjoyed as residents and citizens of this nation.

Habakkuk 1:2 How long, O LORD, will I call for help, And You will not hear? I cry out to You, "Violence!" Yet You do not save.

The article started with the quotation from Habakkuk 1:2 above and followed with the confidence that if God was gracious then, He is gracious yet.

Habakkuk 3:19 The Lord GOD is my strength, And He has made my feet like hinds' feet, And makes me walk on my high places.

The author realized that the journey from Habakkuk 1:2 and 3:19 was a hard one and pleaded this to us, their brothers and sisters in Christ all over the world:

We need, please, for you to pray for us and for our land.

At the heart of the problem is the desire to cling on to power with whatever means necessary:

Slowly but steadily, well-planned and orchestrated, the violence has grown. In past elections votes could be bought, bought with food, bought with promises, bought with land. Now the food has run out, promises are seen to be hollow, land is taken and misused. Now, votes must be coerced, and coerced through violence.

In the rural areas, people are fleeing homes for fear of beatings, rape, pillaging, and the burning of their homes by gangs of youths armed and mandated by the government. In the cities, travelers are pulled from the public transportation vehicles and forced to recite the ruling party slogans or beaten.

I was in Jakarta, Indonesia, when similar violence happened in May 1998. Fleeing with my wife and 2-year-old daughter from the burning of our homes, rape, beatings and killing by similar gangs.

That particular congregation in Zimbabwe seek to remain faithful, to look to God, and honestly asking the Habakkuk questions. They pleaded that we prayed: (1) that they will understand God's larger purpose and be willing to endure with an eye on that, for the victims as well as the perpetrators, (2) for God's righteous judgment to come, for God to lift His powerful hand, for evil to be crushed, (3) that God will hear, and that God will act. And that suffering will cease.

And to that I will add (4) Lord, please use me in anyway You wish to spread real freedom that can only be found in the substitutionary death of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to the world enslaved by sin and its evil Slave-Master. And (5) in spreading freedom and justice to people under tyrannical governments.

As we celebrated the nation's Independence Day this year, let us pray the same things for this nation. We should never forget Whom to thank for the freedom that we enjoy in this nation.

--oOo--

Who wrote the Book of Genesis?

Moses! Why do you ask? The Book of Genesis (Genesis from this point forward) and the other four books in the beginning of the Old Testament of the Christian Scripture (these collection of books is also called the Pentateuch) have always been attributed to Moses.

Well, the reason why I write this post is, first, to confirm that Moses is the essential or substantial author of the current text of Pentateuch that we posses (from AD 11th century). What do I mean by that? Well I'm getting to that later. Second, I will debunk one theory about the authorship of Genesis that, in my opinion and others, do not have a solid foundation.

(In my previous post, I alluded to the fact that my small group is currently studying Genesis. This post should have been written a long time ago.)

The Authorship of Moses

Now, why do I say that Moses is the essential or substantial author of the current text of Genesis (and the Pentateuch) that we posses? Well, consider these verses:

Genesis 14:14 And when Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he led out his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.

Genesis 36:31 Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel.

In Abram's time that city was not named Dan (14:14) but Laish, and the reference to the kings of Israel (36:31) which comes much later (and the context of the 36:31 is not discussing prophecy) shows that the text of Genesis was later revised, modernized and supplemented as needed for later generations.

From the perspective of the content of text, whether Moses personally wrote all of Genesis or not, is not important. Genesis is an artistic masterpiece, with concentric patterns and unity of contents. The modern references to the city of Dan and kings of Israel did not change the core contents of Genesis at all. Moses is the main driving force for the structure, content, and purpose of the Genesis, and all of the Pentateuch.

You may ask, do I still believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scripture? Yes and yes! Do I believe that the Scripture is the product of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Yes! Those will be topics for another day.

The Documentary Hypothesis

Now, let's move on to something else. The so called, critics, those who emphasizes the higher criticism approach to the biblical text (we refer to them as critical scholars from this point forward), would like to tell you that Genesis, and all the Pentateuch, is put together by 4 groups of people at different times with different agendas (they focus on the author and the motivation for writing the text, for example, instead of on the text itself).

This misguided approach is called documentary hypothesis. The critical scholars look at the different names use for the Divine: Yahweh (LORD), Elohim (God), the repetitions of certain sections, changes in style, differences in theology throughout the Pentateuch. They concluded that a later redactor pieced together four separate documents to compose the final work: J (Yahwist, 905 B.C.), E (Elohist, 850 B.C.), D (Deuteronomist, 620 B.C.), and P (Priestly Code, ca. 500 B.C.).

The variations in divine names are easy to explain, Yahweh is used to emphasize covenantal relationship with Israel, Elohim is used to emphasize His universality with all the nations. Furthermore, the usage of the different divine names, was littered among sections that it is so hard to isolate a certain divine name to a section that is claimed from one source. This difficulty brings us to another point that it is so hard to classify which part belongs to which source that there was never a consensus among the critical scholars on how to classify different parts of the Pentateuch into J, E, D, P. Might it be that a single ultimate author, the Holy Spirit, is behind all that?

There are other critical approaches that are not discussed here: Fragmentary Approach, Supplementary Approach, Form Criticism and Tradition Criticism.

The Return to the Text

According to Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman III, in their book, An Introduction to the Old Testament,

The cutting edge of scholarship is devoting less and less energy (there are exceptions; see Emerton) to the question of sources and more and more to the final composition of the Pentateuch and the individual books within it.

This trend away from documentary analysis is attributable to two causes: (1) problems with the method and (2) newer and more holistic approaches to the text.

Fortunately, the critical scholars have returned to emphasizing on the thematic unity of the Pentateuch in recent years.

When they did that, they discovered that Genesis has a "literary unity that displays artistic brilliance" (Dillard and Longman).

*Emerton, J. A. "An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative, Part II," VT38 (1988)

Literary Approach to the Pentateuch

in the 1980s and 1990s, biblical scholars' attention was capture by literary approach to the Bible. The questions concerning origins and historical references are put aside and the focus is put on the literary quality of biblical narratives.

This is where we should be spending the most of our attention and energy, on the final form of the text, "given to the Church by God as canon for its edification" (Dillard and Longman).

The Problem of Evil

(These is a summary of John Frame's treatment of the Problem of Evil in his book, Apologetics to the Glory of God.)

Various disasters and calamities that had hit us in recent memories have raised a serious question toward those of us who believe in God:

"Where is God? How can he let these kinds of things happen to us?"

Generally, this has been called "the problem of evil." Why "problem"? I think because it is perceived to be problem for Christians who believe in all powerful and all loving God. It is often formulated this way (in one way or another):

Premise I: If God were all-powerful, he would be able to prevent evil.
Premise II: If God were all-good, he would desire to prevent evil.
Conclusion: So, if God were both all-powerful and all-good, there would be no evil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premise III: But there is evil.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is no all-powerful, all-good God.

This is a philosopher's way of formulating this problem, even though it is oft repeated by non-philosophers, with or without the intent to silence Christians. Alvin Platinga has demolished the problem as presented above just by using logic. Please consult his work to find out more. However, the real pain, suffering, and evil exists. One do not just go to a parent who just lost their young child in a senseless drunk driving episode by someone else then started reciting and debunking the logical argument presented above.

This is a serious issue, such that Mr. Frame labels as "perhaps the most serious and cogent objection to Christian theism."

Is There An Answer?

He said that if we are seeking to vindicate God's providence in every instance of evil, he cannot supply that, and doubt if anyone else can. Nor, can we supply a totally satisfying theoretical reconciliation between divine sovereignty, goodness, and evil.

However, Mr. Frame continues, if what we want is help to go on trusting God despite unexplained evil, that he can do. His focus in on what the Bible teaches concerning the problem of evil because "the Bible itself brings us as close to an answer as we are likely to get."

He started by listing the "answers" as presented by people from various philosophers and theologians that are either unbiblical or inadequate (presented briefly below):

1. The Unreality-of-Evil Defense: Evil is a lack of good being where good being ought to be. Remember the good to evil like heat to cold or light to dark illustrations? (Denying premise 3 above)

2. The Divine-Weakness Defense: God does not overcome all evil because he cannot do so--although he does do his best. (Denying premise 1 and 2 above)

3. The Best-Possible-World Defense: This world, for all its evils, is nonetheless the best world which God could have produced. Certain evils are logically necessary to achieve certain good ends.

4. The Free-Will Defense: Evil came about by the free choice of rational creatures. Since free choice was in no sense controlled or foreordained or caused by God, he cannot be held accountable for it.

5. The Character-Building Defense: Man was created in a state of moral immaturity. For man to come to full maturity, it was necessary for him to undergo various forms of pain and suffering.

6. The Stable-Environment Defense: A stable environment is necessary for human life. However, a stable environment opens up the possibility of evil. For example, the law of gravity will not be temporarily repealed to save me from falling down the stairs.

7. The Indirect-Cause Defense: This is commonly found in Reformed theology. The argument seems to be that since God is the indirect rather than the direct cause of evil, the bears no blame for it. For example, God is the ultimate cause of this blog post, but he is not its author, I am.

8. The ex Lex Defense: God is ex lex, "outside of the law." For example, he tells us not to kill, yet he retains for himself the right to take human life.

9. An ad Hominem Defense: Since a non-believer in God has no basis to distinguish good from evil (since God is the ultimate standard of good), he has no right even to raise the question of evil.

A Biblical Response

1. God is the Standard for His Actions

Mr. Frame continue to provide what the Scripture taught and according to him "it brings us as close to an answer as we are likely to get." Scripture never assumes that God owes us an explanation for what he does. See for example in the book of Job, towards the end, God turns the table to be the questioner, of no less than sixty questions in succession. Job never learns why he has had to endure suffering. To pick one example in New Testament is Paul's argument in the book of Romans chapter 3 and 9. He never answer why all the seemingly unjust things happens, he just said that God's sovereignty should never be questioned and that God is holy, just, and good.

This is not the same as saying that God is ex lex, that he is "outside of the law." God's righteousness is the standard for our righteousness. But as sovereign Lord, God may sometimes do things that our finite minds cannot comprehend.

2. Scripture Gives Us a New Historical Perspectives

Why are the biblical writers so sure of God's justice and goodness? They certainly were aware of the evil going around them. It is simply this: "Because God says so."

The Scripture also reveals how God reveals his justice and goodness throughout the history. Our considerations should cover the past, the present, and the future outlook as revealed by God in the Scripture.

a. The Past: The Wait and the Dialectic (of justice and mercy)

There were certainly a lot of waiting for people in the midst of sufferings. The waited for deliverance from God and for God to vindicate himself. When Jesus finally came, the wait is over.

How can we reconcile between the justice and goodness of God? The atonement did just that. In Christ, the just penalty for sin is paid once for all. In Christ, those who place their faith in Him receive lavish mercy beyond our imagination.

It is true that the atonement does not explain genocide or the suffering of little children. If God could reconcile his justice and mercy where it seems impossible, can we not trust in him to vindicate himself again?

God already solved the most difficult form of evil through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Does it not make sense to trust and obey him, even in the midst of suffering?

b. The Present: The Greater-Good Defense

God is even now using evil for his own good purposes. However, this has to be considered from the perspective of God (theocentric) rather and man (anthropocentric). God's ultimate purpose is to glorify himself, and man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. Without this distinction, the greater-good defense cannot be distinguished from paganism hedonism.

Considering greater-good from the perspective of God does not require us to ignore the happiness of human beings. God cares for the greater-good for his whole creation. However, this is not universalism, the doctrine that all human beings will be saved. Scripture teaches that some will endure eternal punishment for their wickedness.

As we see evil being used for good again and again in Scripture (The story of Joseph comes to mind), can we not accept in faith that the evils that are yet unexplained have a purpose in the depths of God's mind?

c. The Future: Some Scripture Songs

We are still waiting for the final vindication of God's purposes, and indeed of God's justice, goodness, and power. He promised that he will vindicate himself and will erase all evils, pains, and sufferings. In the last day there will be no problem of evil. Whatever unanswered questions and or doubts remains at that time, we will completely happy and content to live with.

This, again, is the call to keep trusting and obeying God, despite all the wickedness in the world.

3. Scripture Gives Us a New Heart

Our hearts are warmed as we hear the gospel (Luke 1:16-17). There should not be even an ounce of pride in our own ability. We can only be thankful that God has been wonderfully merciful to us, despite our sin. There are evil in the world, God has taken care of forgiving the evil in out own hearts for the sake of Christ.

The closest we can get to providing the answer to the problem of evil is in the changed values and perspective as we look at the problem of evil because of the changed heart.

-o0o-

Black Liberation Theology

Recent new articles had mentioned a theological movement called "Black Liberation Theology." That made me interested in finding more about it. This is the summary of what I've found with links to the original sources.

It is of no surprise to me that the Black Liberation Theology found its roots in the Liberation Theology that was started in the 1960s in Latin America.

Here are quotes from "Enjoying God Ministries". The article can be found here.

Most forms of liberation theology were born in the social turmoil of the 1960s. It wasn’t the intellectual challenge posed by atheism and secularism that concerned these new thinkers but the social and economic and political oppression experienced by people in the present day.
...

So-called “liberation” theology thus emerged in the context of rampant poverty and political oppression in both Latin America and other third world countries. It was and is primarily a movement within Roman Catholicism. Priests who had worked and lived among the poor came to the conclusion that nothing short of a social and economic revolution would bring freedom to the disenfranchised masses. Thus the point of reference for all liberation theology was the plight of the poor and oppressed.

H. Wayne House has written an article, An Investigation of Black Liberation Theology, the article can be found here. Quoting House:

Black theology, unlike Latin American liberation thought, is concerned with racism and a historical identity.

By focusing on the "action" of God, the aspect of God's essense has so far been neglected. This is evident from the interview done by Christianity Today of Thabiti Anyabwile, author of The Decline of African American Theology, about the appeal of black liberation theology. The article can be found here. Mr. Anyabwile's main concern, as can be deduced from the title of his book, is the decline of sound theological in the black church has left it unable to address both the spiritual needs and the social and political needs of its community. The Lord has taken this to Himself to raise up young black theologians more focused on doing works based on sound biblical theology.

House noted some contributions from the Black Liberation Theology:

First, and perhaps its most positive value, is the reminder of the wholistic nature of salvation. ... Christianity acknowledges man's ultimate physical deliverance (Rom 8; 1 Cor 15).

Second, black theology has helped concerned Christians realize that other members of the body of Christ are hurting, and are in poverty, disease, and physical want. ... (1 Cor 12:25—26).

Third, black theology reminds believers that theology, if it is to be thoroughly biblical and to emulate the Lord, must find practical expression. ... (1 Cor 13:1).

Fourth, the emphasis of black theology on God's activity in history is instructive. ... Sometimes Christians do not sense the need for God to be for them and work through them, since they think they are able to handle conflicts themselves quite nicely.

Fifth, black theologians' presentations of the injustices experienced by blacks (often perpetrated by white Christians) should prick the hearts of white Christians and cause them to act properly toward other humans.

Sixth, and from a negative side, the action of relating all theological discussion to so narrow a focus, as in black theology, is a danger to be avoided. Rather than a single doctrine dominating all of theology, one needs to find a broader theme under which all important doctrines may comfortably fit.

Seventh, the temptation of making experience the norm for truth is clearly seen in black theology. Certainly blacks are hurting, but they must look outside themselves, not within to their own experiences, to find the answer to their problems. At times one's experience tends to dictate his attitudes toward God's Word, whereas he must experience His work through the Word.

In his conclusion, House added these two points:

The terminology of black theology is to be questioned. Is there really any such thing as "black" theology? And is it free from European influence, such as the theology of hope? The answer is no to both questions. At the same time black theology is in its infancy, so one must understand this when criticizing it.

Black theology, having an improper center, is humanistic and pragmatic. God and Christ are not held in proper biblical perspective, and salvation has too much of a "this-world" emphasis. Black theologians need to ask the all-important question, Who is Christ? From their answer to that question they may begin to answer whether they have a truly Christian theology.

Black Liberation Theology is still in its infancy, we have seen God raised up young black theologians who are focused on sound biblical theology. I hope and pray to God that it will go to the direction that God would approve.

-o0o-

Choosing bible commentaries

This is only my second post. It is really hard to start and even harder to finish a post. I have to constantly remind myself that I am not writing a dissertation.

It is only a matter of time before a question comes to the mind of any Christian after this question ("Why do I need a bible commentary?") is resolved: Which bible commentary should I get?

I had to wrestle with that question a couple of weeks ago when my small group decided to study the book of Genesis.

A few years ago, while I was going to purchase one of the commentary of a New Testament book by Kistemaker, I found out that one volume cost about $40. When I found out that the whole 12-volume set of that commentary--Baker NT Commentary Series (Hendriksen/Kistemaker) can be purchased for $150 from ChristianBook.com, I bought the whole set.

Mathematically, that made sense back then. Looking back though, I should not have made that decision to purchase the whole set for the simple fact that the best commentaries for each book are never found in one set of bible commentary. Having said that, I have just found out that the same set can now be owned for $100 plus shipping.

John Piper's ministry website, Desiring God (DG) has put out a helpful article on this very topic. It is worth reading, I would disagree on purchasing only electronic version of the commentary for reasons that are raised here by the producer of BibleWorks here. Unless you know that you will use it to search for keywords or absolutely sure that you will be using it daily before the electronic copy become inaccessible because the computer hardware becomes obsolete or the industry has moved on to new electronic format. Physical books, on the other hand, is going to be accessible longer. If you leads a nomadic life, now the idea of carrying all your library in a laptop computer suddenly becomes very attractive.

Anyway, the article from DG raised a few issues that I would like to summarize here. The most important question to ask yourself is: How am I going to use the commentaries? Pick the option that would fulfill your need now and years in the future.

Price would be a factor too. There are some freely available commentary sets such as: Matthew Henry, John Calvin, etc. If you live near a seminary that has a library, you might be able to access the collection there. Most likely, you have to be there to use it and will not be able to check it out.


These are some of the recommendations I found online:

Tremper Longman III - Top Rated Old Testament Commentaries:
here

Westminster Theological Seminary Bookstore Staff Picks: Commentaries:
here


I recommend buying the commentaries from a bookstore owned by a theological seminary top support the seminary even though its prices are not the cheapest compared to other online booksellers (Amazon--Amazon's prices on academic Christian books had not been the cheapest, Buy.com, ChristianBook.com, and others).

However, I found the bookstore operated by the Westminster Theological Seminary to be very professional and its prices are reasonable (I still do comparison shopping everytime): http://www.wtsbooks.com/

Another site that started out as providing links to Christian resources on the Internet and then started putting serious time into selling books online. It is my understanding that the guy only sells books and other resources he recommends, the online bookstore can be found here: http://www.monergismbooks.com

The City of Berea

Here it is ... the inaugural post. I guess I have to explain the purpose of this blog and the reason behind the name "The Berean Assembly".

Acts 17:10-12 10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. (NASB)

Berea (Beroia, Modern Veria) is a city in Macedonia (Modern Greece), Google maps link here. The picture of a modern day building that was probably build on top of an ancient synagogue at Berea.

Image(s) courtesy of www.HolyLandPhotos.org

The narrative in Acts chapter 17 tells of the Jews in Berea who was eager to hear the Gospel preached and verified what they heard against the Scripture. The word "synagogue" points to an assembly. Hence, the name "The Berean Assembly."