Delusional?

Reasons to Believe: Newsletter (2019), March/April, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.

In a very brief article, Krista Bontrager explains that a You Tube presenter opined that there is no more evidence (as much evidence) for the existence of Jesus Christ, as there is for the Easter Bunny. (2019).

I am in basic agreement with her article. (2019). The Apostle Paul documents his belief in the existence of Jesus Christ from 1 Corinthians 15; not only the existence of Jesus Christ, but the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This Apostle is documented to have seen a resurrected Jesus Christ in Acts 9.

She wisely confirms the credibility of Scripture as well as extrabiblical literature. (219).

In regard to a comparison of the existence Easter Bunny to Jesus Christ. I have dealt with these basic types of assumptions on my second blog and website Satire Und Theology:

May 19 2008

To rephrase my points for this article...

There is not historical documentation from many sources over many years from different geographical areas for the Easter Bunny, or other fictional characters. There is Biblical historical documentation of approximately 3500 years of actual persons, from various regions who experienced God. There are scribes, prophets, apostles and of course, Jesus Christ who are actual documented persons. The Messiah was predicted and prophesied of in the Hebrew Bible and Jesus Christ, as Messiah was well-documented in the Gospels and throughout the New Testament.

Jesus Christ appeared in typical human form (for this present reality and realm) and resurrected human form.

In my archives, I have written on manuscript evidence for the Scripture, especially the New Testament.

Example

May 16 2018

The You Tube presenter has made a false analogy:

Logically fallacious

Description: When an analogy is used to prove or disprove an argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that is, it is unlike the argument more than it is like the argument.

For example

Easter Bunny = fictional literature (non-historical)
Jesus Christ = non-fictional literature (historical)

The writer is correct that Christ's resurrection is not delusional, but is rooted in historical events. (219). Theoretically, I reason, if Christianity and the New Testament is false, it is historically false in central theology and worldview, but it remains non-fictional.

I have noted previously on this website:

October 7 2013

From Historian Earle E. Cairns:

In regard to extrabiblical evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus Christ.

Roman and related 

Tacitus (55-117) a Roman historian connected the name and origin of Christians with 'Christus' who under Emperor Tiberius was put to death by Procurator Pontius Pilate. Cairns (1981: 45).

Pliny, the propraetor of Bithynia and Pontus in Asia Minor wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan at about 112 for guidance on how he should deal with the Christians. He noted that they 'sing a song to Christ as to a God'. Cairns (1981: 45).

Suetonius in 'Lives of the Twelve Caesars' writes that the Jews were expelled from Rome because of disturbances over 'Chrestos'. Cairns (1981: 45). He is noted to have mentioned the fire in Rome in 64 under Emperor Nero and that Nero inflicted punishment on Christians. McDowell (1999: 121).

Lucian (ca. 125-190) wrote a satirical review of Christians at about 170 and described Christ that was crucified in Palestine after he began 'a new cult'. Cairns (1981: 46). McDowell adds that he 'spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians'. McDowell (1999: 121).

Jewish 

Josephus (37-ca 100) wrote of James the brother of Jesus the so called Christ. There is some debate in regard to the authenticity of Josephus writings. There may have been according to critics 'interpolation by Christians' but Cairns writes that most scholars accept the writing as from Josephus and as original text. What Josephus wrote demonstrates he was not an ally of Christians or Christianity. Cairns (1981: 46).

McDowell mentions that within the Babylonian Talmud it states 'In has been taught: On the of Passover they hanged Yeshu'. McDowell (1999: 123-124). Hanged being a crucifixion reference. McDowell (1999: 123). Jesus and his disciples, five of them are also mentioned. McDowell (1999: 124). In one section Jesus is also called 'Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress'. McDowell (1999: 124).

Christian 

Cairns mentions that there are many Christian 'apocryphal gospels, acts, letters and apocalypses' Cairns (1981: 46). These would depend as in predicate on an historical Christ existing. Cairns (1981: 46). I should add that there are also the writings of the Church Fathers that connect to the previous New Testament era.

CAIRNS, EARLE E. (1981) Christianity Through The Centuries, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

MCDOWELL, JOSH (1999) The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Reasons to Believe: Newsletter (2019), March/April, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Light

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

From the Bible's Glossary by the Reverend John W. Morris, PhD.

Light

According to the text under review, the Bible frequently defines light as a symbol of God and that which is good. (802). This light is contrasted to darkness that overcomes sin and death. (802).

Further, in the New Testament, followers of Jesus Christ are considered lights shining in the world. (802). This demonstrates the brightness of God, the Gospel and the Kingdom of God, in contrast to fallen creation and the present corrupted realm.

Theologian, Boice notes that Christians are to change the world as the light. (687). The Church and the Kingdom of God, is to contrast the darkness of the world system is this present realm. (687).

In Jesus Christ, we are the light of the world. (687).

Via Oxford, Browning explains that light is a powerful (biblical, my add) symbol mentioned at the beginning in Genesis 1. (228). Light is connected to concepts of goodness and truth. (228).

Browning lists Revelation 22: 5.

Revelation 22:5 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 5 And there will no longer be any night; and they [a]will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever. Footnotes: Revelation 22:5 Lit do not have
---

God is by nature Spirit (John 4: 24) according to Jesus Christ within the Gospel of John. I therefore, do not reason that God should be defined as God as light, in scientific terms....

Again from Oxford, but the Dictionary of Science:

Light is 'The form of electromagnetic radiation to which the human eye is sensitive and on which our visual awareness of the universe and it contents relies.' (476).

Electromagnetic radiation is considered a form of energy. Energy is the capacity for doing work. Entropy from page 292.

I can agree with the symbolic definitions provided for light and God as light. In non-material reality, a spiritual reality, God may very reasonably, biblically and theologically, appear as light to persons.

In regard to Revelation 22: 5, as my theology reasons that Revelation 21-22 describes a physical new heaven and new earth in a restored universe; It seems to me that 22: 5 is likely figurative literal, as in there will be a literal sun in our solar system. A literal, physical universe of matter, energy and light.
As well as time and space.

As I have noted Mounce, does for example, opine that Revelation does use figurative literal language.

On page 369, in regard to John's vision of the new heaven and new earth (369).

Quote:

'Interpreters understand these figures with varying degrees of literalness.' (369).

Mounce offers no figurative explanation for 22: 5. (388). But, if one favours a quite plain literal interpretation of 'the everlasting light of the glory of God' (388), I reason the new heaven and new earth, shall operate on radically different scientific rules than does our present realm.

I can grant that the restored universe may be significantly different, although still physical and that God indeed, is light, in the biblical sense described, even while acknowledging varying possible degrees of literalness.

BOICE, JAMES, MONTGOMERY (1981) Foundations of the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IVP Press.

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

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

Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

Brief on two sermons: Apostasy-Pelagianism

Summer in British Columbia: trekerarth

Two more fine sermons from Grace Baptist Church and Pastor Michael Phillips

The Apostasy May 23 2004

Cited

If Apostasy is deserting God at any time, The Apostasy is a worldwide deserting of God just before the Second Coming of Christ. That's the doctrine.

Cited

Revelation 20:7-10....(In regards to, my add).

Continued with Citation...

I agree with much of this: Satan will run amok near the end of time. He will deceive the nations as he once did. He will be arrested and sent to hell by the Returning King. But what does this have to do with the Apostasy of the Church? John explicitly tells us that Satan misleads the nations, not the Church. 

The imagery of a Surrounded City or a Besieged Camp seems to teach persecution from the outside-and not corruption from the inside.
---

Agreed.

Cited

II Thessalonians 2:1-12 Two things precede the Second Coming, vv.3-4. Before the Lord comes again, there will be (1) a falling away, and (2) The Man of Sin will be revealed.

Cited

I think the Man of Sin is a real man, flesh and blood, like you and me, only possessed by the devil.
---

Pastor Phillips does not indicate this is 'Man of Sin' is 'the antichrist' (the Antichrist)..

In other sermons he reasons that there are biblically many, from the New Testament era to now, that opposed and will oppose Christ as 'an antichrist'. However, I must admit here, that if biblically, there is one key antichrist, perhaps the Antichrist; then the lawless one in 2 Thessalonians is certainty a significant and key, candidate.

This event is also as I have noted in other articles, futurist and not preterist in the New Testament text. Nor, as history tells us, did  the events in 2 Thessalonians 2 occur within the New Testament era..

2 Thessalonians 2: 7-8

New American Standard Bible

7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His [f]coming; f 2 Thessalonians 2:8 Or presence

Jesus Christ literally destroys the lawless one at this point, in some context to do with breath from his mouth. It appears quite literal language, as Jesus Christ as the God-man would be quite capable of destroying an opponent that way. It is a future event.
---

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

Pelagianism November 17 2002

Cited

In regard to Pelagius Cited In other words, he believed in man's free will. The term itself is not always understood. 

All Christians (nearly all of us at any rate) believe that man's will is free-in a certain way. God does not force us to do things against our own wishes. On this point, both St. Augustine and John Calvin would agree with Pelagius. 

But Pelagius meant far more than this. He believed that man's will is neutral or equally free to choose God or Satan, good or bad, heaven or hell.

Cited

Salvation by grace doesn't mean God endows us with everything necessary to save ourselves (that's what Pelagius said). It means God saves us! Jesus Christ is not our helper, He is our Savior! We are not saved by our good works, but by the Grace of God.
---

Corrupted human nature (Genesis 1-3, Romans, Ephesians as examples) cancels out any legitimate, biblical theology of a neutral human nature. Presently, human nature is fallen/corrupted/sinful and needs regeneration (John 3, Titus 3) via the Holy Spirit in the Gospel, to begin the work of sanctification in salvation. Competed at the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15).

My MPhil and PhD theses work, and my website work, within a Reformed theological tradition, and within philosophy of religion, is not pelagian, which would be within incompatibilism. An extreme form of incompatibilism.

Instead I hold to compatibilism. Note that my British theses work heavily depended on philosophical terminology, as I have noted my work was as much philosophy of religion as it was Reformed theology.

I remain unapologetic! All truth is God's truth!

Indeterminism is equated with incompatibilism which states that God, or any other being, cannot cause by force or coercion any human action, nor can any action be simultaneously willed by God or any other being, for the human action to remain significantly free. Also known as libertarian free will.

Or at least libertarian free will is within incompatibilism.

Philosophically, compatibilism would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, for which there would be significant moral accountability, but contrary to incompatibilism reasons that God can simultaneously will significantly free human actions for which there is significant human, moral accountability.

J.S. Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force, but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine with the use of persuasion, that an action will or will not take place. Feinberg (1986: 24). Feinberg writes that certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions, in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). With this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating that God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637).
---

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

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

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Theology and Falsification’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

FLEW, ANTONY (1983)(1996) ‘The Falsification Challenge’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

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.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1989) God, Time, and Knowledge, Ithaca, Cornell University Press. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (1993) ‘C. Robert Mesle, John Hick’s Theodicy: A Process Humanist Critique’, in Philosophy of Religion, Volume 34, Number 1, pp. 55-56. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Philosophy of Religion.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1994) ‘Can Philosophy Defend Theology?’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 272-278. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2000) ‘The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism’, in Process Studies, Volume. 29, Number 2, Fall-Winter, pp. 194-208. Claremont, California, Religion Online. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3019

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Counterfactuals and Evil’, in Philosophia Christi, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 235-249. La Mirada, California, Biola University.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Is Free-Will Theism Religiously Inadequate? A Reply to Ciocchi’, in Religious Studies, Volume 39, Number 4, December, pp. 431-440. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2007) ‘Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil’, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Notre Dame, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=9064

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.

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

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

23 Celsius on a winter day/The myth of the given

That temperature is for Maple Ridge, not Vancouver at the time of writing, this afternoon.

That is 74 degrees Fahrenheit for what is technically still the end of winter in this region.

So, I have been spending more time outside on work breaks...
---

The myth of the given 

This is another new philosophical term for me.

Also known as the given (158).

In defining the given, secular philosopher, Blackburn writes that this is connected to foundationalism. (158). This idea is that foundationational epistemology (the study of learning and knowledge) and knowledge is based on certain accepted experienced and learned foundations. (145). Often knowledge is considered to be found from empiricism (senses) and rationalism (reason) as intellectual approaches. (145). One approach might be favoured over the other. (145).

Under The myth of the given entry (re: name adapted by Sellars), it is stated that this is a widely rejected view that sense experience (the senses-based, empiricism approach) gives persons and society points of certainty in knowledge that therefore serve as foundation for the whole of empirical knowledge and science. (253).

In other words, Sellars' critique is generally accepted as correct.

The Oxford Reference

Cited

myth of the given...

Name adopted by Sellars for the now widely-rejected view that sense experience gives us peculiar points of certainty, suitable to serve as foundations for the whole of empirical knowledge and science. The idea that empiricism, particularly in the hands of Locke and Hume, confuses moments of physical or causal impact on the senses with the arrival of individual ‘sense data’ in the mind, was a central criticism of it levelled by the British Idealists, especially Green and Joachim. See foundationalism, protocol statements, sense data. 

Information philosopher

Cited

In his most famous work, Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind, Sellars criticized the notion that perceptions of sense-data give immediate knowledge that can serve as the foundation of all empirical knowledge. He called this the "Myth of the Given." Sellar's criticism is similar to Immanuel Kant's idea that "intuitions/perceptions without concepts are blind" (Anschaungen ohne Begriffe sind blind), or as we might symmetrize the Kantian chiasmos, "concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind."

Quoting, Sellars:

VIII. DOES EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE HAVE A FOUNDATION? 

32. One of the forms taken by the Myth of the Given is the idea that there is, indeed must be, a structure of particular matter of fact such that (a) each fact can not only be noninferentially known to be the case, but presupposes no other knowledge either of particular matter of fact, or of general truths; and (b) such that the noninferential knowledge of facts belonging to this structure constitutes the ultimate court of appeals for all factual claims -- particular and general -- about the world. It is important to note that I characterized the knowledge of fact belonging to this stratum as not only noninferential, but as presupposing no knowledge of other matter of fact, whether particular or general. It might be thought that this is a redundancy, that knowledge (not belief or conviction, but knowledge) which logically presupposes knowledge of other facts must be inferential. This, however, as I hope to show, is itself an episode in the Myth. (page 164). 
---

Non-inferential claims would not use inference and would not claim that an argument is true or provable. In other words, they are loose claims made.

This is quite complex topic for which like Blackburn, I am only dealing with non-exhaustively, however...

To presuppose that no other knowledge can be factual or true, other than non-inferential is problematic. I reason that knowledge can be obtained through the use of both empirical evidence, including science/scientific, and as well through disciplines within rationalism such philosophy (philosophy of religion), theology, psychology, biblical studies and others.

Both empirical knowledge and rational knowledge can be adapted over time with new premises and conclusions that are internally and externally superior to ones previously accepted. I therefore have very carefully accepted views within my worldview and these always need to be supported superior premises and conclusions that remain internally and externally more reasonable that counter premises and conclusions. I would not coin them 'given' (s). Of course I have faith and philosophy. Divinely guided, reasonable faith and philosophy.

I certainty rely on empirical data, and scientific data, but I realize that science does adapt to new data. In regard to empirical data, which Sellar's deals with in his critique, his critique seems reasonable.

Premises arising from the necessary/of necessity (philosophy of religion), the first cause (philosophy of religion), God, the creator (Hebrew Bible), God, the creator and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (New Testament), The Trinity (Theology) and the Bible in context, are viewed as accepted by this writer, but they are maintained by reasonable certainty.

See Kant in this website's archives.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

SELLARS, WILFRID (1995) Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind, Edited in Hypertext by Andrew Chrucky, http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/SellarsEmpPhilMind.pdf

Liberalism (sermon)

Fraser River

June 20 2003

Sermon

Grace Baptist Church: Michael Phillips on Liberalism

Cited

The Enlightenment was a supposed flowering of knowledge in Europe, beginning in 1687. Its big idea was Reason (which is often capitalized). The thinkers of that time thought that Reason was the measure of all things. If it is not reasonable to them, it is not be true!

Cited

By rejecting all authority (but their own) and ignoring tradition, the Thinkers soon found many things wrong with the authority of Scripture, the Divinity of Christ, the Fall of Man, the Atonement, the Resurrection, the Judgment, Heaven and Hell. What Christians always took for God's Word became little more than a collection of primitive religious hopes with a good deal of fairy tale mixed in.
---

Some edited previous work of mine on the Enlightenment...

Colin Brown described the Enlightenment as follows: The Age of Enlightenment (German Die Aufklarung) covers roughly the eighteenth century. It is sometimes identified with the Age of Reason, but the latter term covers both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Although the Enlightenment had some of its roots in seventeenth century rationalism, the ideas which characterize the Enlightenment went far beyond the rationalism of Descartes, Spinoza, and the thinkers of their time. Brown (1996: 355).

From Brown’s idea, the roots of the Enlightenment started with philosophers like Descartes, but went beyond those men.

David A. Pailin, of Manchester University, stated: The Enlightenment’s criticism of the authority of tradition led to increasing secularization in attitudes and ideas. Nature is seen as an ordered whole rather than as a stage for divine interventions and supernatural happenings. So far as religious beliefs are concerned, claims to revelation are acceptable only when they are rationally justified and their contents subject to reason’s judgement. Biblical stories and accepted doctrines are not immune from criticism.

Works like Bayle’s Historical and Critical Dictionary and Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary highlight the faults of revered figures and the questionability of standard doctrines. Historical and literary investigations into the Bible develop. Reports about miracles, especially that of the resurrection, give rise to considerable discussion. There is great hostility to priestcraft and suspicion of ecclesiastical pretensions to guide human understanding. Pailin (1999: 180). David Pailin’s comments demonstrate some of the modern assumptions made by philosophers of religion concerning Christianity.

As Pailin pointed out, revelation and ecclesiastical pretensions would often face great hostility philosophically. I agree with the Enlightenment approach to review Christian claims through reason, but it appears that more faith is put in the Enlightenment critics of Christianity than in the people who wrote the original work. Enlightenment thinking is committed to ". . . reason as the proper tool and final authority for determining issues." Pailin (1999: 179).

Enlightenment thinking has human reason as the final authority, whereas traditional Christianity uses human reason, but it assumes that human nature is fallen and God must reveal himself to that reason. Enlightenment thinking, in my view, rests on the faulty idea that finite man should be able to be the final judge regarding ideas about God. Enlightenment era thinking, which is still prominent in liberal circles today, believes that man has the ability to reason out who God is, whereas traditional Christianity believes that God must reveal himself in order for human beings to come to some understanding of who he is.

The Enlightenment puts greater emphasis on the human mind comprehending God, whereas traditional Christianity puts emphasis on Scripture inspired by God, which must teach human beings about God.

Two problems *non-exhaustively) come to mind concerning the human mind’s ability to know God.

First, the human mind is finite, God is infinite. It could be said that human beings could only understand God in a limited way. This is not to say that the limited human understanding was in error or without logic, but simply limited. For this reason, I think in this relationship God would have to take the initiative in presenting himself to humanity for greater understanding, and this would lead to revelation.

Second, there is significant evidence in Scripture and everyday life, that humanity is imperfect and sinful, and in a spiritual condition where they would have to be transformed in order to have a relationship with God. I am not saying that human beings cannot understand things about God without revelation, but I am stating that revelation is required for a changed spirit which could lead to a relationship with God. I, therefore, do not think that human reason outside of revelation should be our final authority in theology.

Back to the sermon, and a key liberal exemplar mentioned...

SCHLEIRMACHER 

(Schleiermacher, my correction)
 
The best known man of this kind is Friedrich Schleirmacher. He was a German theologian, born in 1768. His father was a Reformed pastor and he studied at a Moravian university. This is a good combination! He learned Calvinism at home and got the disciplines of prayer and devotional reading in school. With his great learning, sincerity, and personality, he might have become a Giant of the Faith. 

But he didn't. He became a Giant of Unbelief. 

He accepted the doctrines of the Enlightenment and looked for a way of integrating them into the Christian Faith. He found one. He said the scholarship of his day was true, but it did not affect Christianity in the least because Christianity is not about objective truth, but about devotional feelings. He tried to rebuild the Faith on the foundation of feelings.

From my PhD: Theodicy and Practical Theology (UWTSD, 2010)

Schleiermacher’s approach redefines Christian religion as a unique element of human experience, not located in the intellectual and moral aspects of persons as these produce indirect knowledge concerning God only. God is instead experienced through feeling. Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213). The infinite God is experienced through human experience with the finite world. Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213). Not primarily from rational and doctrinal concepts. 

Therefore, Schleiermacher, unlike many traditional and Reformed approaches with the omnipotence of God is not primarily concerned with a dogma and doctrine concerning the omnipotence of God, but is instead focused on how God is experienced by persons, and this would include God’s attribute of omnipotence. I personally still favour a doctrinal approach.

Phillips states in the sermon...

But, setting that aside, I want to show you their technique. It was not right, but it was extremely clever and highly effective. What the old Liberals mostly did was to downplay doctrine. They didn't come out and deny it-most of the time-but they said it wasn't important or that unity, service, and love are more important than doctrine.
---

Agreed. This still goes on today within many liberal denominations and churches.

BROWN, C. (1996) The Enlightenment, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

In Three Minutes: If you have nothing good to say...

Lampeter from Facebook and UWTSD. My PhD, Alma mater.

The Pastor Jon Courson quote is from page 42.

Matthew 7: 6

Bible Gateway

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

Infinite class versus finite class

The University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, London. 

Infinite class versus finite class

Preface

March 14 2019 edition, slightly edited for a version posted on academia.edu, September 10, 2023.

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

I earned my PhD at the Lampeter campus.

The review of the Langer text continues, and my learning symbolic logic continues:

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

---

Infinite class versus finite class

Philosopher Langer on page 214 further explains that in symbolic logic the uniqueness of 0 and 1 is guaranteed and therefore a more important equation as the system of the Law of Tautology can be shown. (214).

Tautology is repeating the same idea, not identically.

These propositions are called 'tautology' because they show that no matter how many times a term is mentioned in a sum or in a product (within symbolic logic, my add), a product is not changed by being multiplied or by something in it, nor a sum by having one of its summands added to it. (215).

Cited 

Britannica (online)

Britannica/Tautology

tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to assert with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts noted about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal and is thus purely a matter of definition. 

To simplify, Langer writes:

A class of dogs is simply a class of dogs. (215).

Adding of multiplying dogs in that class, does not change the fact it is only and simply a class of dogs.

Therefore, my examples demonstrate that addition or multiplication does not change a class of dogs.

z= Dogs

z x z = z

z + z = z 
---

Langer explains that the propositions using tautology will use no exponents. (215). In other words, in multiplication, there will not be a smaller exponent number present, to the right of the base number. (215).

This is in the context of multiplication.

Therefore, z x z = z, and z2, z3 and related, etcetera is not used. (My example, based on Langer (1953)(1967: 215).

In a similar way with addition 2z cannot be arrived at with z + z = z.

With addition, 23, 34 etcetera is not arrived at. (My example, based on Langer (1953)(1967: 215).

Cited

...if 1 is added to anything, the sum is 1, and if anything is multiplied by 0 the product is 0. Langer (1953)(1967: 215).

My philosophical example based on reviewing the Langer text:

The infinite class (God) is simply infinite, nothing can be multiplied or added to that class.

The finite class is simply finite, nothing can be multiplied or added to that class.

This logic would counter philosophies and theologies reasoning the finite can become infinite.

i = infinite
f = finite

i ˜ ⊃ f

The infinite is not the same as the finite.

i ˜ ⊨ f

The infinite does not entail the finite.

And I add:

i . ˜ f

The infinite is therefore, not the finite.

i : ˜ f

The infinite equals not, the finite.

(∃!  i) + (∃! f) ˜ : 

There exists the infinite, plus there exists the finite, they are not equal. The class of dogs is simply a class of dogs. (215). Using the same logic, there is an infinite class and an finite class. They are separate.

Theologically and philosophically, this idea could be used to document God/The First Cause as within the infinite class and separate from creation, which would be within the finite class. 

Certainly, there are other, and in my opinion, more clear ways to explain this type of theology and philosophy, but I am attempting to stay true to Langer's symbolic logic. 

For example, there are different types of dogs, but for our case here, only one class of dogs. There are of course, different finite entities and types of finite entities (human being versus angelic, for example), but for our case, only one finite class, in contrast to one infinite class.

Note that in the incarnation, the infinite nature of God the Son, within the Trinity, does not mix with his finite human nature. This remains true as the resurrected Christ, Jesus Christ, has two natures, divine (infinite) and human (finite).

ASHBY, E G. (1986) 'Colossians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

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

HEBBLETHWAITE, BRIAN, 'Incarnation' in A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, London, SCM Press. 

HEWLETT, H.C. (1986) 'Philippians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

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

MARTINS, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP.

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

REYMOND, R.L. (1996) 'Incarnation' in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica/Brian Duignan (2023) Tautology, Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology

THEISSEN, HENRY, CLARENCE (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. 

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

Non-exhaustive on the millennium (sermon)

Facebook

June 27 2004

The Millennium: Grace Baptist Church/Michael Phillips

In regard to the end times and last things.

Cited

Most of the doctrines, however, are not necessary for salvation and should be studied with an open mind and not break the fellowship all believers have in Christ.

James Montgomery Boice states that in I John the Church is commanded to love one another five times. This is also taught in 1 Thessalonians 4: 9. Boice (1986: 645). It is a love of not only profession but also 'deeds and action'. Boice (1986: 645).

Back to the sermon

Cited

PREMILLINNIALISM 

(Premillennialism)

The best-known view is Premillennialism. 

Cited

Premillinialism was the dominant view of the Early Church, before St. Augustine (b. 354). 

Cited

Keep this in mind: Premillinnialism teaches that the coming of Christ is before the Millennium. That's where the prefix, pre, refers to.

Premillennialism (I use a different spelling of millennialism than from the sermon notes) in modern times is often connected to dispensational theology, but is not restricted to that type of theological approach or system.

Its acceptance by the early church should be considered, seriously. But I agree with the sermon that it does not make it certainly biblical.

POSTMILLINNIALISM 

(Postmillennialism)

The second major view is postmillennialism. It teaches that Jesus Christ will return after the Millennium. It foresees a long Golden Age before the Lord comes again. Most Postmils allow for a short tribulation just before the Second Coming, but to their way of thinking, this is a brief interlude, and that the era before the Lord returns will be full of grace and truth. 

Most of the Puritans believed this, and it was championed by their number one genius, Jonathan Edwards. 

Postmillennialism is often confused with the Social Gospel. 

So, what's Postmillennialism? It is the belief that Jesus Christ will return after a long and happy age on earth (excluding the short tribulation at the very end). 
---

Biblically, theologically and philosophically, I have never found this view, that promotes quote 'a long and happy age on earth' and like, prior to the Second Coming of Christ, likely true or significantly convincing.

With all due respect to Jonathan Edwards, that was a significant help to me with my formation of compatibilism with my MPhil and PhD, theses work.

But, I should not dismiss the view completely. I remain prayerfully open-minded.

I do find that Revelation 20-22 does appear to promote a new heaven and new earth, after the Second Coming and the Second Death (judgement of those outside of Jesus Christ). Seems to me that biblically, prior to these events, the fallen realm still prevails.

AMILLENNIALISM 

(Amillennialism)

The third major view is the one I accept. It suffers from the negative and misleading name, amillennialism. The prefix, a, means not. Amils are often accused of not believing in the Millennium, but we very much believe in it! I do, at least! With all my heart, I want to confess my belief in the thousand year reign of Christ on earth! 

Yes, but this is not a plain literal thousand years, via this sermon teaching.

With the amillennial view relying significantly on figurative literal language (not plain literal and not mythological), there would be plenty of room for debate between what is biblically, amillennial and what is the new creation, and the Pastor alluded to this issue, in his own words, in this sermon.

Amillennialism breaks with the other views on two main issues: When the Millennium begins. What the Millennium looks like.

Pre and Post Millennialism teach that the Millennium begins in the future. The Pre's all believe it is still future to us; the Postl's are less sure about it. Some think it is still in our future, while others say we're already in it. 

Amillennialism teaches that the Millennium began with the First Coming of Christ, and in particular, with His Enthronement at God's Right Hand and with the outpouring of the Spirit ten days later. 
---

More on this last paragraph shortly: Amillennialism teaches that the Millennium began with the First Coming of Christ, and in particular, with His Enthronement at God's Right Hand and with the outpouring of the Spirit ten days later. 

Cited

The key passage in understanding the Millennium is Revelation 20:1-10. 

Cited

What does the chapter say about the Millennium? It says three main things: First of all, the Millennium begins with the binding of Satan, vv.1-3, Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years are finished. 

But after these things he must be released for a little while. Satan is put in jail for the Millennium. This has led many fine people to say the Millennium must be future because today the devil is running free! 
---

At the resurrection of Jesus Christ and then his enthronement at the right hand of God and Pentecost, the amillennial theology is that at the same time Satan's power was significantly limited and he is now not 'free'. This would be very much debatable.

Is the world more or less evil, post resurrection and Pentecost etcetera? These types of propositions were dealt with inconclusively in my MPhil/PhD questionnaires and surveys.

This view creates somewhat speculative theology, via the use of, by its definition, figurative literal language in regard to the millennium. I find this difficult to accept dogmatically, although the amillennial approach is reasonable, overall. I do not dismiss it.

Back to sermon

Cited

(Revelation 20)

And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. And the devil who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. 

The devil's release-it seems to me-is still future. For the nations are still being saved and the Church is still safe in most parts of the world. But, at the end, Satan will regain his freedom, turn the whole world against the Gospel, persecute Church with renewed vigor, and be destroyed by God! 
---

Does this defeat of Satan here in Revelation 20: 1-10 connect to the defeat of the lawless one in Second Thessalonians?

Revelation 20: 9 states that And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 

2 Thessalonians 2: 8 states that Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His [a]coming;

2 Thessalonians 2: 7-8

New American Standard Bible

2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His [a]coming; Footnotes: 2 Thessalonians 2:8 Or presence
---

I take it that as Pastor Phillips sees the defeat of Satan as in the future, he does hold to futurist aspects within this eschatology as well as some preterist views which I noted from previous sermons.

Some scholars regard everything after Revelation 4:1 as taking place in the future. But, Mounce sees this as problematic as the book still needs to be relevant for the first-century reader. Mounce (1990: 42). Mounce reasons that no single approach is sufficient.

BOICE, JAMES, MONTGOMERY (1986) Foundations of the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IVP Press.

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

First Corinthians 6: The People's Court? (Briefly)

The New American Standard Bible

First Corinthians 6: 1-8

Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? 4 So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, 6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.
---

My mentor at Columbia Bible College ('Uncle Gerry', that has a theory) quoted this section of First Corinthians 6 to me, during my time as an undergraduate.

The theology being, that when one is wronged by another Christian within the Church, it is the moral and ethical act/action to at least, on one's part, settle the issue within the Church, and not within the civil/secular courts.

Better to suffer loss, than not do so, and defraud the Church and the Gospel, is what the Scripture implies and what my mentor taught.

Courson opines that the Corinthians, and by implication, the Universal Church, was to judge themselves. Courson (2005: 1037). There was also an aspect here of suffering loss for the sake of the gospel. Courson connects it to what Jesus Christ stated in regard to turning the other cheek in Mathew 5.

Fee explains here that for the author, the Apostle Paul, theology was not just an abstraction, but the application of the Gospel in this realm, this world. Fee (1987: 248). In other words, applying the Gospel for disciples, is to apply Gospel morality, ethics and theology to disputes as opposed to seeking, as alternative, civil law and secular law.

This is in the context of disputes. I am not implying here that I theologically, favour a form of Christian theocracy (rule) or theonomy (law) in this realm...

I absolutely do not.

Bible Study Tools

4 βιωτικὰ μὲν οὖν κριτήρια

In this life indeed therefore a law court... 

Overall, I find his work fantastically helpful, but Greek scholar Bauer, is not what I would consider, crystal clear on this section on his conclusion, perhaps this is the correct approach. Bauer (1979: 453). It could be that the Apostle considers those he is writing to as acting incompetent to judge as even with the most insignificant courts (Bauer (1979: 453); or that the these men at Corinth have preferred insignificant non-Church, secular, judges. Bauer (1979: 453).

It seems to me that both senses fit here. The moral/ethical failure of the men in the Church at Corinth, led to the shameful use of civil/secular, judges/courts.

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

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

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

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

The Seventy Weeks (sermon)

Yesterday

July 25 2004 I

July 25 2004 II

Continuing my reviews from the Grace Baptist Church website, within the sermon archives.

The Seventy Weeks is a subject I have not thoroughly investigated, but the modern dispensational and related views have struck me as highly speculative.

Cited from Pastor Michael Phillips, sermon

These things should be studied and discussed, but they should not divide us. We need open minds to hear out other believers and warm hearts to love them-even when they're wrong.

Agreed.

Within Christian theology and dogma, secondary doctrines should not be elevated to primary (Gospel) doctrines. We are all limited by finite, sinful minds (mind-spirit), in this era, even when guided by the Holy Spirit, to varying degrees, so we have limited knowledge and do not always deal with knowledge correctly or very effectively.

In the everlasting future era, those in Jesus Christ shall remain finite, but be sinless (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22 in biblical language). As well as immortal in body and soul.

Cited

All believers agree on the principal teachings of the chapter. We all say,

The Seventy Weeks are an End Time Prophecy. 

The Seventy Weeks concern the fate of Israel. 

The Seventy Weeks end with the destruction of Jerusalem. 

Jesus Christ is the Leading Man in the Seventy Weeks.

Cited

THE SEVENTY WEEKS 

The salvation will come to Israel at the end of seventy weeks. What are these weeks? Most scholars take them for weeks of years. In other words, one week equals seven years, and therefore, seventy weeks amount to seventy times seven or 490 years. This brings up a question. Are the 490 years to be taken precisely or more loosely? If the events took place in 487 years, maybe, or 495, would the prophecy be a lie?

Some say it would be. If it's not accurate to the day (or to the year at least), it is a false prophecy. I don't agree with them. The people of that time were not fussy about their numbers. They often rounded them off, and when it suited them, they chose numbers for symbolic purposes. It is not their job to conform to our patterns of thought, but it is our job to understand the way they used numbers. 

Agreed, biblically numbers are often presented in not absolutely plain literal terms.

Bible Study Tool.com

The above acknowledges the trend in scholarship but adds a caution...

In studying the book of Revelation, one is immediately struck by the prevailing bias of many commentators against understanding numbers in their normative, literal way. For example, the length of half of Daniel’s seventieth week is described in a number of related passages (Dan. Dan. 7:25; Dan. Dan. 9:27; Dan. 12:7; Rev. Rev. 11:2-3+; Rev. 12:6+, Rev. 12:14+; Rev. 13:5+). This obvious strong witness to understanding this period in a literal way is simply set aside for another meaning: 

We cannot insist on a literal meaning for the three and a half years of the tribulation period or the thousand years of the millennium. They could be literal, but the numbers function symbolically in the book and probably signify a lengthy period of time that is under God’s control.1 

We are being asked to trade gold for fool’s gold! Rather than understand three and a half as denoting a specific period of time specified by God,2 we are asked to accept the alternate meaning which our interpreter says is probably correct!

Then cited again

The existence of symbols and categorization of writing as apocalyptic genre are not license for jettisoning the primary literal meaning of numbers.

Accepting the caution here, it is well-established that eschatological, biblical literature often uses degrees of literalness. Numbers could be included.

Mounce reasons that most scholars allow for varying levels of literal interpretation in regard to the new creation. (369). This would be a key eschatological subject, as example. Mounce further demonstrates the rather figurative literal (not mythological) nature of this eschatological language in Revelation, which is the key New Testament, eschatological text.

In other words, eschatological biblical texts, both Hebrew Bible and New Testament, at times use degrees of literalness.

Back to the sermon, cited

The great B.H. Carroll made the numbers fit perfectly. But reading him left me with the feeling that he fudged the facts to fit his theory. We have to be careful of that ourselves. In any event, the seventy weeks are divided into three, unequal parts.

Cited

THE SEVEN WEEKS

First we have seven weeks. They start with The going forth of the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, v.25. Scholars have split on what command this was and who issued it. Some say Cyrus the Great, others say King Artaxerxes, and still others say it is the Lord who issued the decree.

THE SIXTY TWO WEEKS 

Next we have sixty two weeks (or 434 years) 

THE SEVENTIETH WEEK

Then we have the seventieth week, vv.26-27. If the former weeks were on the dull side, this one was the most exciting and eventful week in the history of the world! What happened? Messiah [was] cut off! Who is the Messiah? It the Lord Jesus Christ. When was He cut off? About 30 AD. How was He cut off? By the crucifixion. Why was He cut off? Not for Himself. In other words, He was not crucified because He was a sinner because He was not a sinner. He died in the place of sinners. 

Cited

Note carefully: The Crucifixion occurred in the Seventieth Week. So? This means it is in our past and not in our future. The prophecy, therefore, is not predicting events in the modern world. It has nothing to do with the rebuilding of the Temple in our future or with the coming of a great dictator. The Temple could be rebuilt some day and history is full of Great Dictators, but they have nothing to do with the Seventieth Week of Daniel. 

Again, as with a previous sermon I reviewed in regard to the Antichrist, this view on The Seventy Weeks is more preterist than futurist, at least preterist in the sense that it took place within the New Testament era, or just after it.

Scholarship debates whether or not all of the New Testament was written prior to 70  AD and the Roman destruction of the temple.

Cited

What do the Seventy Weeks of Daniel mean to us? They mean the Temple of God has been rebuilt. But it is not in Jerusalem. The Temple is our Lord Jesus Christ. In coming to Him, we have our sins forgiven. In coming to Him, we have our prayers answered. In coming to Him, we come to God.

This reads as reasonable biblical theology.

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

Different evil entities? (sermon)

Ernest Hepnar via Facebook

April 25 2004

Another excellent sermon from Michael Phillips and Grace Baptist Church. I appreciate the scholarship in preaching. I appreciate his humility.

I am going to limit my comments in regard to this complex subject to just as aspect of the sermon.

This article has new content and edited content from archives (unapologetically!).

Cited

Men possessed by the spirit of Antichrist don't know the truth and wouldn't preach it if they did. But what about God-fearing men? Why have they gotten it so wrong so long? I can tell you why. They confuse words that sound alike with ideas that are alike.

If the Antichrist is the enemy of God and the Man of Sin is the enemy of God and the Beast is the enemy of God and the False Prophet is the enemy of God and the Little Horn is the enemy of God then.the Antichrist, the Man of Sin, the Beast, the False Prophet, and the Little Horn are all the same man!

Wrong! 

Who killed the Lord? Pontius Pilate, King Herod, Caiaphas, Annas, Judas Iscariot, the Roman soldiers, the Centurion, and the mob. Are Judas and Pilate the same man? Is Herod another name for Annas? They were all enemies of the Lord, but they were different persons. 

A concordance is like the law, "Good, if it is used lawfully". But comparing a word in Revelation to a word in Daniel to a word in Matthew to a word in I John is no way to study the Bible or to find the truth! 

Read the Bible in context, get the flow of thought, understand one passage before you go on to another. That's the way to keep your doctrine straight and your heart in the truth.
---

Interesting perspective, perhaps on preterist lines on some points. By the Pastor's take, the Antichrist, is not the Man of Sin, and yet again the Beast, False Prophet and Little Horn are all different persons.

(The Beast and False Prophet have often been distinguished in scholarship).

I am by no means dismissing this theology. It is reasonable theology, however, a trillion dollar question arises for me. If these persons, after separating the Beast from the False Prophet, are not the Antichrist, then who are they?

Robert Mounce notes that the preterist position understands the apocalypse from a first-century setting. Mounce (1990: 42).

Strong lists the Antichrist four times from the New Testament, and the term Antichrists once. The references are from First and Second John. Phillips' sermon too ties these terms to John's within his letters.

Strong's number 473 is noted as ἀντί, and therefore is anti, anglicised. Strong (1986: 13). The number 5547 is χριστός, which is Christ, which Strong's states is from 5548 which means the anointed, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus. Strong (1986: 106). The beast from Revelation 11: 7 onward is figuratively described as θηρίον.

Robert Mounce is a well-known scholar on the Book of Revelation. In contrast to a preterist position, he embraces at least aspects of a futurist position. In Revelation, the Antichrist is the beast and the enemy of the Church in the last days. Mounce states that this may be the beast of Daniel 7: 7. Mounce (1990: 225).

Notice he states, 'may'.

David A. Hubbard writes that the term 'antichrist' is found only in the Johannine letters. Again in support of Phillips' sermon.

The concept is found in both Testaments and in intertestamental writings. Hubbard (1996: 55). Hubbard explains as Christ is not fully revealed in the Old Testament, the Antichrist is not either.

Hubbard notes that in Daniel 7 the little horn symbolizes rebellion, and in eschatological terms seems to depict the defeat of God's final enemy, while Daniel 8 describes Antiochus IV who persecuted the Jews and their religion. Hubbard (1996: 55). The description of the king of the north in Daniel 11 has helped shape the picture of the New Testament Antichrist, as he erected the abomination of desolation, exalted himself to a position of deity, and his helpless death points to Christ's slaying of the Antichrist.

The beast from the sea in Revelation 13 points toward Daniel 7 and ties Daniel to the New Testament. Hubbard (1996: 55). In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark the abomination of desolation recalls Daniel's prophecy and this may be pointing to a single personality according to Hubbard. Hubbard (1996: 55).

Again, note the term 'may'.

In Second Thessalonians, Paul describes the man of lawlessness and the lawless one (Second Thessalonians 2:3, 8-9). This man claims to be deity and according to Hubbard is not a pseudo-Messiah pretending to represent God, but a pseudo-God that viciously opposes all other religions. Hubbard (1996: 56).

(The man of sin)

The Antichrist will do many amazing wonders with satanic power that will be attributed to God (Second Thessalonians 2: 9-10 and Matthew 24). Hubbard reasons that John, like Paul and Daniel, depicts a single Antichrist who demands personal worship. Hubbard (1996: 56).

So, this is in contrast to the sermon, reviewed.

John adds to Paul's version by mentioning the false prophet, the second beast. This person will direct the political and religious workings of the Antichrist. Hubbard (1996: 56). If the Antichrist is a system as opposed to an actual person, the second beast, the false prophet, could also be an aspect of the system.

Mounce writes that the beast has ten horns and seven heads. The ten horns are like Daniel's fourth beast from Daniel 7: 7. Ten kings come from the fourth kingdom. The seven heads can be connected to the seven-headed dragon of Revelation 12: 3. The number seven carries the idea of completeness. Mounce (1990: 250). The beast is given divine permission to rule for forty-two months. Mounce (1990: 254). The beast blasphemes God in a way similar to Antiochus in Daniel's day, and the Roman Empire in John's day. This means the Antichrist is likely a secular authority. Mounce (1990: 254).

The beast will overcome the saints and put them to death, and this too will echo the times of both Antiochus and the later Roman Empire. Mounce (1990: 255). But, as Mounce points out, there is victory in martyrdom for Christians in this era. Mounce explains that the entire world will worship this beast, apart from those written in the Lamb's book of life and the beast will be a type of false Christ described in Matthew 24. Mounce (1990: 255). So, on this last point he appears to differ from Hubbard. To demonstrate how careful one should be in dealing with eschatology and the issue of the Antichrist, consider the following:

Mounce notes that the preterist position understands the apocalypse from a first-century setting. The events and book of Revelation are not relegated to the future, but are understood to have occurred by the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, or the fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476. Mounce (1990: 41).

Mounce explains that a major problem with this preterism is that the decisive victory over evil described in Revelation is not achieved. John views the overthrow of evil occurring with the defeat of Antichrist. Mounce (1990: 42).

The futurist view is more common among scholars and understands that Revelation describes a final victory over evil. Phillips acknowledges this in his sermon. Some scholars regard everything after Revelation 4:1 as taking place in the future. But, Mounce sees this as problematic as the book still needs to be relevant for the first-century reader. Mounce (1990: 42). Mounce reasons that no single approach is sufficient.

The preterist is correct that the book of Revelation must be understood in a first-century context.

The futurist is correct that the book is centrally eschatological describing how this age will come to an end. Mounce (1990: 44). Mounce also explains the value of the historist approach which sees the importance of specific fulfilment in history. A problem which this view is that it is quite subjective in connecting certain historical events to Scripture. Mounce (1990: 42). The benefits of the idealistic approach are that God can be seen as guiding the events. But, Mounce notes that the idealistic approach may lack a distinct consummation of events. Mounce (1990: 43). Its allegorical method tends to lessen the historical nature of future events. Mounce (1990: 43).

W.R.F. Browning writes that the lawless one is expected before the Second Coming of Christ and has been identified with the Roman Empire and Nero. Beyond the historical dimension, Antichrist is a symbol for a final revolt against Christ, although the revolt is embodied in a historical person such as Judas Iscariot. Browning (1997: 17). By the use of Judas, I reason Browning means that the Antichrist will act as a representative of God and Christ, but in reality represents satanic powers. 

Further:

2 Thessalonians 2: 7-12...

New American Standard Bible

7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His [f]coming; 9 that is, the one whose [g]coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and [h]signs and false wonders, 10 and with [i]all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God [j]will send upon them [k]a deluding influence so that they will believe [l]what is false, 12 in order that they all may be [m]judged who did not believe the truth, but [n]took pleasure in wickedness.

f 2 Thessalonians 2:8 Or presence
g 2 Thessalonians 2:9 Or presence
h 2 Thessalonians 2:9 Or attesting miracles
i 2 Thessalonians 2:10 Or every deception
j 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Lit is sending
k 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Lit an activity of error
l 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Or the lie
m 2 Thessalonians 2:12 Or condemned
n 2 Thessalonians 2:12

Or approved I take it this event, the second coming of Jesus Christ, should be interpreted with a significant level of literalness. However, I admit that the Lord slaying the lawless one with the breath of His mouth is quite possibly significantly figurative language. But the second coming of Christ is a literal, biblical and theological event of the future.

In my mind, the potentially figurative nature of Christ's breath and the slaying of the opposition does not cancel out the literalness of the second advent. Actual (non-fiction, non-mythological) historical events can be described with degrees of literal and figurative language. Jesus Christ literally destroys the lawless one at this point, in some context to do with breath from his mouth. Possibly, it may also be quite literal language, as Jesus Christ as the God-man would be quite capable of destroying an opponent that way.

Regardless, it does not appear this event occurred in the New Testament era.

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

HUBBARD, DAVID A.(1996) ‘Antichrist’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.