The Orthodox Study Bible: Idol

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver. This text review continues...

The Orthodox text's definition of Idol, there is not a definition for Idolatry:

A statue or other image of a false God; also, anything that is worshiped in place of the one true God. Money, possessions, fame, even family members can become idols if we put them ahead of God. (800).
---

Edited from archived entry

(Again, I do not want to reinvent the wheel with unneeded re-writes on this website)

Definitions of Idolatry

Browning writes that it is 'the cult surrounding a statue of a god or goddess'. Browning (1997: 181). 'Paul warns the Corinthian Christians about a kind of idolatry (I Corinthians 10: 14) which might have been a form of civic ceremony'. Browning (1997: 181).

'Idolatry is also used metaphorically for evil desires (Colossians 3:5)'. Browning (1997: 181).

This metaphorical use, I reason is the primary use of terms idol, idols, and idolatry in the Western evangelical church today.

Colossians 3:5 'English Standard Version (ESV)

5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you:[a] sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

Footnotes: Colossians 3:5 Greek therefore your members that are on the earth'

P.C. Craigie defines idolatry as 'The worship of an idol or of a deity represented by an idol, usually as an image. Craigie (1997: 542).

He as did Browning acknowledges that the New Testament deals with idolatry in a more metaphorical context than the Hebrew Bible. Craigie (1996: 542). As in one should not covet for example (Ephesians 5: 5 and Colossians 3: 5).

Ephesians 5:5 English Standard Version (ESV)

'5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.'

Evil desires are the opposite of good desires (although human desires from present human nature, are always tainted, until the resurrection). Another way a stating this would be that the Holy Spirit is not being sought in evil desires, but sinful human desires are being followed. A theological key here is the idol becomes 'the immediate focus of a person's desires and 'worship' displacing the worship of God.' Craigie (1996: 543).
---

I am in agreement with Orthodox Bible that at idol is something placed ahead of God in importance.

In agreement with my edited archived work, an idol is a displacement of God.

For clarification, an idol is not an unmet need or desire that a regenerated Christian believer has that God is not meeting and causes stress and displeasure with God; an idol (idolatry) is biblically a replacement for God.

This distinction, in my humble opinion is too often misunderstood and/or ignored within evangelical church teaching.

Further, as I have written successfully accepted, biblical, Reformed, MPhil/PhD theses on the problem of evil and continued my work on this website, I can reasonably opine that many problems of evil are shuffled off as idols in ill-fated attempts to bring overly-simplistic remedies to problems of evil within the evangelical church.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CRAIGIE, P.C. (1996) 'Idolatry', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

ORR, R.W. (1986) I John, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Briefly on Matthew 7: 21-23

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Preface

Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver. This text review continues...

Note: This 2018 article was revised on October 9, 2023 for an entry on academia.edu. I now have a different employer, but still am an academic writer...

Biblical considerations

Matthew 7:21-23

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

Footnotes: Matthew 7:22 Or works of power

Matthew 7:21-23 New King James Version (NKJV)

This is the version used by the Orthodox Study Bible

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
---

Before reviewing the related commentary from the Orthodox text, I have some curiosity with the New Testament Greek...

Bible Study Tools

ἀνομίαν

Bauer:

Lawlessness (71).

ἀνομία is the root word. (71)

In the context of Matthew 7: 23, it is a lawless deed (72), therefore those who practice lawless deeds (72). I can further connect this within the New Testament in that those who practice lawless deeds (1 Corinthians 6) shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, and these people (Revelation 22) are outside the culminated Kingdom of God.

Sin is lifestyle for the 'Lord, Lord' people and sin is a struggle for those under grace, until culminated perfection in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15).

From the New American Standard Bible:

1 Corinthians 6: 9

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

f. 1 Corinthians 6:9 I.e. effeminate by perversion

(Not simply an effeminate person)

Revelation 22: 15

15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
---

The Orthodox Study Bible

An interesting take from the notes of the Orthodox text as it takes 21-22 as a testimony of the deity of Jesus Christ.(page 22). Therefore, Jesus Christ (as God the Son, my add) speaks the will of the Father (page 22). Only God can execute a final judgement. (22). God's final judgement in Jesus Christ is aware of those that practice lawlessness and yet ironically embrace an extremely corrupted form of Christianity that replies on works righteousness.

Practically, for example, ponder on those that embrace the cultural Christian Church and yet deny biblical orthodoxy when it suits his/her form of works righteousness. A form of redefining God and dogma for his/her own worldview. This opposed to a contextual Scripture approach, where a person would embrace biblical sanctification to produce the works guided by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, being in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ (Romans, Galatians).

Theology Always Matters

Monday, December 07, 2015 Brief On Matthew 7: 21-23: Theology Always Matters 

Matthew 7:21-23

Ellison writes that preaching and even miracles are not necessarily indication of seeking and serving the true God. Ellison (1986: 1129). Works performed need to be considered in light of the character of those that perform them. (1129). France explains that superficial discipleship is ultimately rejected by God and Christ. France (1985: 148). It is not indicated as necessarily insincere discipleship, but it does not meet the divine standards. (148). Good works do not qualify a disciple that does not meet God and Christ's criteria for entrance into the Kingdom of God. 

This passage from Matthew 7 was preached on by the pastor at a church I attended. He opined that the persons under judgement knew God, but God did not know them. They had accepted Christ, but God and Christ did not have Lordship over them. Those under judgement were relying on works righteousness as opposed to trusting in God and Christ as Lord and Saviour. The pastor then stated that the theology of the persons under judgement was not a key issue as in they had proper theology because they knew of the Biblical God and Jesus Christ. 

However, I reason that theology is always in a sense a key issue. Theology always matters. The judged persons had a knowledge of the Biblical God and Jesus Christ; enough that they could in this supernatural realm of judgement described, recognize Jesus Christ as Lord. This however, may not be difficult in the spiritual judgement context described. It may be obvious. But that is speculation. This false disciples appeal to works righteousness. The pastor correctly pointed out that in the judging presence of God any kind of works righteousness approach by humanity to God is error. But, I would add that is it also clearly theologically in error. 

Romans 1-9, describes the universal sinfulness of humankind, by nature and choice and that only the atoning and resurrection work of Christ for sin, applied to believers as justification (righteousness) will save any one for the Kingdom of God. Galatians (2) states that man is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, faith in his atoning and resurrection work applied to persons in Christ. 

Ephesians 1-2 

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Ephesians 1 explains that those in Christ are chosen by God; therefore God knows who he has chosen. 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before [d]Him. In love 5 [e]He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the [f]kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. Ephesians 2: 1-10 Ephesians 2 explains that those in Christ are saved by grace through faith unto good works, and not by works or works righteousness. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [ag]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. 

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CAIRD, GEORGE B. (1977) Paul's Letters from Prison Paperback, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

COAD, F. ROY (1986) ‘Galatians’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan. 

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville. 

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books. 

DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books. 

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Matthew’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

FEE, GORDON D. (1987) The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans. 

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

KLEIN, WILLIAM W., CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing. 

LIGHTFOOT, JOHN B. (1993) The Destination of the Epistle to the Ephesians in Biblical Essays, New York, Macmillan.

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers. 

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Brief ponderings on Christianity, Theism, Deism, Atheism

Helsinki Christmas Market: Evening Standard 

I am working at a Christmas Market today, promoting the Canadian Bible Society...

But not in Europe.

Christianity

Basically, within academia, because of manuscript evidence, historical Scripture, the Church Fathers writings and witness, biblical studies, theology, philosophy of religion, history and as well, premises from other disciplines, I hold to biblical Christianity as a worldview and my faith and philosophy.

Of course, biblically, a legitimate faith is via the triune God, the Father that sends the Son and Holy Spirit, the Son  that completes the atonement and resurrection imputed to humanity and too sends the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit that regenerates (Titus 3) those chosen in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1-2, Romans as examples).

Based on reason, my second preferred worldview would be some type of theism, perhaps with similarities to deism, heavily influenced by philosophy of religion.

If the biblical revelation was denied (not my view), I would still hold to many of the philosophical premises, within philosophy of religion which support the existence of an infinite, eternal, first cause, necessary, God.

Importantly for this particular entry:

My conclusion differs, for example, from many in ex-Christian movements that conclude that once Christianity and the Scripture is debunked in his/her mind, that therefore, atheism is the most reasonable worldview to embrace.

Theism

John S. Feinberg states that theism is literally the belief in the existence of God. The term may be recent and a counter to the seventeenth century terms deism and deistic and is used as the opposite of atheist. Feinberg (1996: 1080). Feinberg writes the term theist is used for religious believers and those who hold to certain philosophical and theological positions without necessarily being religious. Feinberg (1996: 1080).

Richard G. Swinburne explains that theism is the idea that there exists a God that is personal, without a body, omnipotent, omniscient, free, and the creator of the universe. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all theists. Swinburne (1999: 562). Swinburne states that God is personal in theism as he acts intentionally to bring about purposes and has knowledge of all things. Swinburne (1999: 562-563). 

Deism

M.H. Macdonald writes that deism describes an unorthodox religious view expressed among readers in the first half of the seventeenth century, most notably Lord Herbert of Cherbury. Macdonald (1996: 304). Deism is from the Latin for deus in contrast to theos from the Greek. Macdonald (1999: 304). Deism is different than theism and is connected to natural religion that thinks religious knowledge is gained through reason and not revelation or church doctrines. Macdonald (1996: 304). There is a belief in a supreme being, but this being is not directly involved in the affairs of his creation. Macdonald (1996: 304).

Therefore, the revelation of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament would be denied as actually occurring, and the gospel and related doctrines would be denied. In agreement with Christianity, would be an understanding of God as first cause and the creator of universal laws. Macdonald (1996: 305).

David A. Pailin, my brief former academic advisor, writes that deism is often in parallel to theism. Pailin (1999: 148). In modern times deism is used to define a supreme being who is the ultimate source of reality, but does not intervene in the natural and historical processes through revelation or salvific acts. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin writes that the common use of the term ‘theism’ does not carry the same negative implications. Pailin (1999: 148). He explains that historically deism is not so much a set of doctrines, but a movement, largely British, that became popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Pailin (1999: 148). Many within deism will have doubts concerning concepts of supernatural religious doctrines, revelation and the authority of the Bible. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin notes that some within deism desire to replace Christianity with a more ‘reasonable’ faith, and for others it is an attempt to produce a more ‘reasonable’ version of Christianity. Pailin (1999: 149). 

William J. Wainwright explains that deism understands true religion as natural, as opposed to supernatural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). He writes that some self-styled Christian deists accept revelation although they argue that the content is the same as natural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). Most deists reject revelation as fiction, but many reason that God has ordained that human happiness is possible through natural means that are universally available. Wainwright (1996: 188). Salvation therefore does not come via divine revelation. Wainwright (1996: 188).

Atheism

In my British theses work (MPhil/PhD), I dealt with problems of evil that academically arose from mainly atheistic and critical premises which denied the existence of God, because of the existence of the problem of evil. Notable authors, Flew, Mackie and Phillips.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1996) ‘Theism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

MACDONALD, M.H. (1996) ‘Deism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Deism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

SWINBURNE, Richard G. (1999) ‘Theism’. in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

WAINWRIGHT, WILLIAM J. (1996) ‘Deism’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Does Incredible Hulk anger assist with knowing truth?

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver. This text review continues...

A good friend and I have discussed over the last couple of years, the value of rage and anger within the context of intellectual discussions and debates.

This entry is non-exhaustive.

I will reference two key New Testament sections in relation to rage and anger...

Ephesians 4: 26-27

James 1: 19-20

My preferred bible version in usually the New American Standard Version, the Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James Version for which I provide images.

Ephesians 4:26-27

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 26 Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and do not give the devil [a]an opportunity. Footnotes: Ephesians 4:27 Lit a place 

James 1:19-20

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 19 [a]This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. Footnotes: James 1:19 Or Know this
---

I have found that anger, a righteous, rational anger, can in short periods produce a heightened state of focus. In my younger years, in particular, I was able to fix some problems when angry that I was not previously able to fix. I appeared to think better short term.

At my Wales, Viva, the external reviewer from London, intentionally made me angry and I was less defensive (My intent) and more offensive (Which they wanted). I then by God's will, went on further dismantling some bogus objections to my PhD thesis.

But heeding to the Scripture, especially James, below, I agree that a prolonged rage and anger often leads to a wrong focus on premises and conclusions that makes and keeps a person angry, in contrast to seeking the righteousness of God and being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Philosophically, a short bit of controlled anger (rage is more debatable, it would have to be rational rage) can have a person focus on the correctness of certain true premises and conclusions. This must be highly rational.

But if anger, and especially rage is prolonged, it can have a person so focused on certain premises and conclusions, perceived as correct, it negates him/her from seriously considering contrary, to some extent, premises and conclusions.

This can certainly often be seen in the context of political discussion, religion discussion and personal issues!

Page 447

Page 542

Understanding what equates to zero

Vancouver

The book review continues

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy) 

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
. = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
= Conjunction meaning And
0 = Null class
cls = Class
int = Interpretation
---

The last review back on August 18th presented:

Here addition and multiplication are being expressed through commutation, as equal, therefore,

(a x b) + (a x c) is equated as (a x (b + c).

As confusing as this work from Langer can appear for me without prayerful consideration and serious concentration, I actually can make sense of this as I am learning. Using (a x b) + (a x c) and then (a x (b + c) Consider (3 x 3) + (3 x 3) equals 18 (3 x (3 + 3) equals 18

In earlier reviews, a, b, c were all equated.
---

Today further, I document Langer for this November 20 entry...

She writes

Assume that 02 has the properties of 0. (213).

Langer then equates 02 with 01 (213), therefore by implication both equating to 0.

(a ). a + 02 = a (213).

a in brackets is therefore equal to a + 02 equals a.

In other words a+ 0 = a

It is according to philosopher Langer a simplified (from the much more complex she states) equation that presents 0 as unique. (214). She notes this as Theorem Ia. (213).

There is some clarification to why this is even valuable within philosophy and symbolic logic where she writes that...

'Most of our proofs, however, involve the elements 1 and 0, and require that there should be just one element such as 1 and just one such as 0. (212).

Therefore there is at least one class 1 and at least one class 0.

My examples from a previous entry

I mentioned in a previous entry in December 2017:

(∃!) (cr) : 0 < cr

There exists at least one class 0 that for any class cr (Christians), 0 is included in a.

There is a class of no Christians, in this universe of discourse.

There exists a (cr) Christian class, therefore there is a no Christian class.

Logically implied here is that Christians are a type of human being and not every human being.

(∃!) (cr) : 1< cr 

There exists at least one class 1 that for any class cr (Christians), 1 is included in a.

There is a class of Christians, in this universe of discourse.

Again, at least Langer demonstrates that logic and non-contradiction is essential in philosophy.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Unwise arguments

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver. This text review continues...

As example, some key New Testament verses to consider while engaged in a discussion that could become a heated argument.

New American Standard  Bible (My preferred version)

2 Timothy 2:23-26

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce [a]quarrels. 24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive [b]by him to do his will.

Footnotes:
2 Timothy 2:23 Lit fightings
2 Timothy 2:26 Or by him, to do His will

Titus 3:9-11 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

From the Orthodox Study Bible: New King James Version (NKJV)

Interesting with notes...

From 2 Timothy

2: 20-23 that 'Heresy corrupts: bad theology leads to bad behaviour' (498).

2: 24-26 that 'Good theology helps us along the bath to good behaviour'. (498). The text further opines that good theology instills in followers 'reasonable patience and gentleness toward all people.' (298). This approach should even be given to false teachers, although they should be understood as such. (298). The text calls them enemies that should be avoided, and in the New Testament, we are of course in the Christian Church to love our enemies (Matthew 5, Luke 6).

From Titus 3

The Orthodox text describes the divisive person as one who 'picks' or 'chooses from' the whole truth. (506). Incomplete or erroneous beliefs are defended which lead to immorality, states the text. (506).

This concept of being selective with truth fascinates me because often arguments are based on selective premises and conclusions, lacking objectivity to certain extents. If greater objectivity in premises and conclusion was embraced, less arguments would occur.

One of favourite Christmas time photos (Facebook, Google +). I am seeing some local Christmas decorations already.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Brief on John 1

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver. This text review continues...

Page 209

John 1 New American Standard Bible (NASB)(My preferred version)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [a]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [b]comprehend it.
---

This Orthodox Study Bible correctly documents that the Word as God, existed in the beginning, and  existed without a reference to a starting point. (209). This documents the eternal nature of the Word of God, also known in the New Testament as God the Son, incarnated as Jesus Christ.

God the Son, existed eternally with God the Father, without a beginning (209).

Hypothetically, if there was a beginning, as opposed to an entity existing prior to and at the beginning, this would be a finite entity, as opposed to infinite. The Word of God  (God the Son, in this context) existed before the beginning of creation. Therefore within New Testament based theology, God the Son, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit can be reasoned as three distinctions (also named persons) within an eternal, infinite nature.

As this texts notes, there is oneness in essence. (209). Oneness within the triune God.

However, there is a distinction, as God the Son, the Word is with God the Father. (209). There is a communion. (209).

This text correctly negatively critiques any attempts at rendering 'a god' from John 1, as being false, heretical theology. (209).

I will add that a finite god, would be no God at all, as there is only one infinite God within the Hebrew Bible (Isaiah 43-45, as examples) and as noted, in the New Testament via John, as example with this article.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Ephesians 2: 8-10

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver. This text review continues...

Preface:

A former pastor visited me here at work last week and provided me with significant information in regard to local ministry.

He also opined that an Eastern Orthodox priest he knows, denies justification by faith, 'alone' within his teaching. My former pastor agreed with me that Orthodoxy does exhibit fine scholarship. He reasoned that Orthodoxy views that justification equates to one realizing the he/she is a son/daughter of God.

This is not a typical, at least, Protestant or Reformed view, but can be equated with being born again (John 3) and being regenerated (Titus 3), without an emphasis on legal justification.

What does this academic study bible state in regard to a key related section of Scripture I often note on this website?

Ephesians 2:8-10

New American Standard Bible (NASB) (My most preferred version)

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [a]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. Footnotes: Ephesians 2:8 I.e. that salvation

The New Kings James Version (NKJV) (Used by this bible)

Ephesians 2:8-10 New King James Version (NKJV)

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

The Orthodox Study Bible (440)

(Again paraphrased within the British academic system)

Notes: Ephesians 2: 8-10

By the unity of grace, faith, and works persons are brought into the Kingdom of God. (440-442). These are not equal, for grace is uncreated and infinite. (442). Human faith is limited and can grow. (442). Good works flow out of a true, authentic, faith. Works do not earn a person this great treasure (442).

I read this as stating that good works cannot earn a person justification and that good works cannot earn a person salvation. Salvation is a gift and those who receive it shall do good in Jesus Christ and the triune God. (442).

Direct quote:

'We are not saved by good works, but for good works.' (442).
---

Romans 1: 17 is interpreted in notes as presenting the righteousness of God as a right relationship with God. (338).

This bible text then states that Christ's righteousness is given to us and by our own cooperation with God, we continue to be righteous, in it. (338-339). This participation takes place via human faith.

A Protestant view will emphasize that salvation and justification is only a work of God.

In other words, a Protestant and especially a Reformed view would not state that those in Christ, cooperate in justification and righteousness.

I reason I can shed light on the issue via my MPhil/PhD and following work:

An Orthodox concern may be justification and salvation must have human cooperation, otherwise risking a forcing or coercion of salvation.

A Protestant and especially Reformed concern with the concept of cooperation, may be that it might be works righteousness.

My Reformed theology views the human embracing of salvation, including justification and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, in a sense as philosophically and theologically, a human secondary cause; but very importantly, only the primary cause, the triune God, creates the means of salvation through the atonement and resurrection.

In this way, those in Christ, being regenerated by God alone, only accept salvation as a divine gift and this also avoids the problem of divine force or coercion. It is also not a (fallen) human work of salvation. Even Christ's righteousness, as God-man, for salvation, is divine righteousness from God: Romans 1-6, Ephesians 2: 8. It is incarnated divine righteousness in a perfect person. Again, to be clear, human secondary cause, is embracing and not creating salvation.

In a similar way that God can be a primary cause by willing directly or allowing, a human being, can be a secondary cause by embracing what God has caused.

For example, I am regenerated and convinced the gospel is true. I study and earn a PhD. In my view God alone sanctifies me, but I participate in my salvation via works within that salvation as a secondary cause. It is not forced or coerced. I am a secondary cause in becoming better with theology, by study, and therefore strengthen my salvation. But only God's work of salvation in Jesus Christ, actually saves me.

Vladimir Lenin & the use of organized terror

Vancouver today...

I was recently viewing a World War I documentary on the Knowledge Network.

I believe a form of the second quote below was stated from Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the Soviet Union. His views on the use of terror.

Word Future Fund

Cited

'From the 1 September 1918 edition of the Bolshevik newspaper, Krasnaya Gazeta:'

'“We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as much as possible.”'

'Excerpt from an interview with Felix Dzerzhinsky published in Novaia Zhizn on 14 July 1918.'

'We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal's own confession.”'

'Excerpts from V.I. Lenin, “The Lessons of the Moscow Uprising” (1906) Keeping in mind the failure of the 1905 revolution, Lenin argued that it was imperative for an even more ruthless application of force in the pursuit of overthrowing the Tsar’s regime.'

'“We should have taken to arms more resolutely, energetically and aggressively; we should have explained to the masses that it was impossible to confine things to a peaceful strike and that a fearless and relentless armed fight was necessary. And now we must at last openly and publicly admit that political strikes are inadequate; we must carry on the widest agitation among the masses in favour of an armed uprising and make no attempt to obscure this question by talk about "preliminary stages", or to befog it in any way. We would be deceiving both ourselves and the people if we concealed from the masses the necessity of a desperate, bloody war of extermination, as the immediate task of the coming revolutionary action.'
---

Vancouver today...

It is a good thing to see the founding leader of the Soviet Union actually exposed within this documentary, in order to counter views that Soviet thuggery and terror only evolved from original more peaceful intentions.

No, historically, it was thuggery and terror from its beginning.

As a worldview, this and other worldviews as examples, have used (or use if present context is valid) terror to varying degrees.

Medieval State-Church Christianity

Radical Islam

Twentieth Century, Fascism

Other forms of Communism

Biblical Christianity, however, reasonably and accurately interpreted, promotes progressive revelation from the Hebrew Bible theocracy and theonomy, which had it warlike aspects, to New Testament dogma which teaches the Church to love believers and non-believers alike with truth and witness.

God's ultimate and everlasting punishment (some may view it as a form of just terror) for those outside of Jesus Christ in Revelation 20 and the likely largely figurative literal, lake of fire, is sanctioned and issued from an infinite, eternal God that is of infinite love and infinite justice.

The present temporal, or the future everlasting, Christian Church and Christian Community is not sanctioned as a means of terror.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

The Orthodox Study Bible: The Poor

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Purchased from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver. This text review continues...

At our home group/bible study last night, I contrasted, along with the study leader, two similar sections of the Gospels, which reasonably can be viewed as two different events.

Again, using a British academic approach, I paraphrase citations unless documented otherwise.

Matthew 5-7

Jesus Christ on a mountain (5:1 page 12), the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7)

'Blessed are the poor in spirit,' (Matthew 5: 3, clause A). (12).

This Orthodox text opines that Matthew 5 indicates heavenly spiritual blessedness, as opposed to earthly happiness, wealth and success. (12). From the Hebrew, poor means both:

1) Materially poor. (12).

2) The poor in spirit, being God's faithful people. (12). These are the spiritually rich as they trust in the Biblical God.

versus

Luke 6

Jesus Christ at a level place (6: 17 page 151), the Beatitudes

'Blessed are you poor' (Luke 6: 20 clause A). 152.

This Orthodox Bible writes that this teaching is similar to that found in the Sermon on the Mount and has been known as the Sermon on the Plain as Jesus Christ stood on a level place. (152).

This Bible, in its notes, correctly documents that these teachings are from two different events, and indeed Jesus Christ taught such things in various versions.

Interestingly, with the sermon from Church on Sunday, that our home group study was based on, the speaker/preacher reasoned Luke 6 was discussing the physically poor, the materialistically poor. This is a reasonable possibility, but based on the similar teaching from Matthew, it also possible, if not more likely, that Luke also has a dual meaning for poor as does Matthew 5.

This Bible has Matthew 5-7 referencing Luke 6, and vice-versa, and I reason that even if, based on some scholarship, the poor in Luke 6 is not explicitly more than the financially poor; that these are also the poor in spirit, would not be an incorrect theological deduction.

More on Seventh-day Adventism

Monty Python, like, Finney

I watched the video below once again, a couple of times.

First review: November 27, 2017

Edited from first entry with new material:

In contrast to a Sabbatarian view, I would note, the Apostle Paul writes against the Judaizers (In Galatians in particular).

Hebrews 8: forward discusses that there is a new covenant.

Sabbatarians will disagree with the dismal of this core doctrine of theirs, but the Apostle Paul appears to support Christian Liberty on the matter:

Colossians 2:16-17 is devastating to a Sabbatarian theology:

Colossians 2:16-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16 Therefore no one is to [a]act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath [b]day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the [c]substance [d]belongs to Christ.

Footnotes: Colossians 2:16 Lit judge you Colossians 2:16 Or days Colossians 2:17 Lit body Colossians 2:17 Lit of Christ

The Sabbatarian argument that it is not the Hebrew Bible 'Sabbath' being discussed in Colossians seems a desperate one. I do not think that in light of Judaizers, Paul would make such a comment unless it had a clear meaning of Sabbath day. Based on Wright's commentary I would reason that the Hebrew Bible literal Sabbath day was an aspect of the shadow of the things to come in Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 13: 10). Wright (118-119).

In a reasonable New Testament theology, the spirit of the Sabbath is followed on Sunday, the Lord's Day, resurrection day.

Romans 14: 5 is also not helpful for a Sabbatarian position:

5 One person [c]regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, [d]does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Mr. Gore explains that Seventh-day Adventism uses hyper-speculation with eschatological theology although he stated that they were Christian believers. This would be debated within the Church. A major concern I have with this movement is the elevation of what should be a secondary issue, the Sabbath, to the level of a primary issue, in regards to salvation. According to Mr. Gore, orthodox SDA views would exclude non-Sabbatarians from the Kingdom of God. This is serious error and cultic theology.

Stating that one must follow the Hebrew Bible, Sabbath and not the Lord's Day, to be saved through Jesus Christ is biblical and New Testament heresy.

To claim those that worship on Sunday, have the mark of the beast, is also heresy.

It is a heretical replacement for the biblical theology of being justified and saved by grace through faith, alone, for good works and not by good works, by Jesus Christ's applied atoning and resurrection work for believers (Romans, Ephesians, Galatians), with instead a heretical form of works righteousness. I am not denying that some Adventists do hold to some key gospel essentials and doctrines.

PAILIN, D.A. (1999) Enlightenment, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.

WRIGHT, N. T. (1986)(1989) Colossians and Philemon, Grand Rapids, IVP/Eerdmans.

 

Ask a silly question...

Proverbs for the family (196)(1971)(1976), Canadian Bible Society,Toronto. 

This brief review is from a small pamphlet produced and published by my employer, the Canadian Bible Society. I am at the Vancouver location of 1207 Kingsway, Vancouver.

My views are my own, (hopefully within God's perfect will) and yet not officially the views of my employer, the Canadian Bible Society.

Proverbs from the easy reading Good News Bible.

Sections include:

About Home and Family

For Young Women

For Young Men

About Discipline

Examples:

Proverbs 15: 32

If you refuse to learn, you are hurting yourself. If you accept correction, you will become wiser. 

And the version from my often cited New American Standard Bible

Proverbs 15:32

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

32 He who neglects discipline despises himself, But he who listens to reproof acquires [a]understanding.

Footnotes:

Proverbs 15:32 Lit heart

Theologically, this is an acknowledgement of finite human nature, and a lack of infinite human knowledge. God alone has infinite knowledge.

Human beings and all creation are biblically and theologically created and philosophically, I reason, contingent and not necessary. The contingent does not have to logically exist; it may or may not exist, unlike what is necessary, that logically exists.

Proverbs 26:4

If you answer a silly question, you are just as silly as the person who asked it.

Proverbs 26:4

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.

I very much appreciate the NASB version. I reason this statement is generally true in the context of intellectual discussion and debate. It might be more permissible to answer such a question in satirical and humourous contexts.

Proverbs 19: 27

Son, when you stop learning, you will soon neglect what you already know.

A reason, I do not rely upon academic knowledge gained through academic degrees alone and keep researching and writing website articles.

Proverbs 19:27

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

27 Cease listening, my son, to discipline, And you will stray from the words of knowledge.

Fini

Briefly on Religion or not?

Religion or Christ, What's the Difference? (2001), Martin R. De Haan II, RBC Ministries, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Another useful free resource from my employer, the Canadian Bible Society, @ Cafe Logos, Vancouver.

Headings include

The Danger of being religious (2)

Our worst errors are always religious ones. (2)

Danger follows those who trust God on their own terms. (3).

Religion is something to believe and do: (4)

Christ is someone to know and trust: (5)

Importantly for my review within the Defining Our Terms (32) section is

Quote in italics:

Religion-a system of thought and conduct expressing a belief in God. (32)

From this booklet, Biblical Christianity is not a system of thought and conduct expressing a belief in God?

I strongly and respectfully, disagree with this view.

This booklet is helpful, but as does sometimes occur on this website, here with this brief review we see a divide between this type of evangelical and in this case I would deduce, fundamentalist views on theology versus my Reformed, theological and philosophical views.

By this booklet's own definition, for clarity, in my humble opinion, Christianity too would be a religion.

I reason, Christian, faith, theology and philosophy has with its core doctrines, sound, reasonable, true premises and conclusions. It is a system of thoughts, ethics, morals with beliefs in regard to God.

I as well reason that core Christianity contains more truth in its premises and conclusion than any other competing worldview, religious or non-religious.

Although within an admittedly well-meaning, evangelical approach, I reason this still useful booklet, does a disservice to Christian apologetics, theology and pro-Christian philosophy of religion.

In denying Christianity is a religion, this booklet, most notably, deletes Christianity from the legitimate academic disciplines that use the word Religion, such as Religious Studies and Philosophy of Religion and places Christianity in the personalized 'I know Jesus Christ personally' intellectual category.

In contrast, I view Christianity as reasonably supported within the academic disciplines of Religious Studies and Philosophy of Religion, and of course as well, Theology and Biblical Studies and academic disciplines such as History and Archaeology, as examples.

The triune God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit is personally known within a true biblical Christian walk of regeneration (Titus 3) being born again (John 3) via the applied atoning and resurrection work of God the Son, Jesus Christ, for humanity.