Category Archives: Christianity

Why do Christians Believe God is Triune?

Dan Vander Lugt
Bible, Christianity, God, , ,

Christianity isn’t founded in a philosophical perspective that evolved into a religion. Christian faith resulted from the revelation of God to the human race through Jesus Christ.

The Gospels make it clear that Jesus’ disciples misunderstood Him throughout His life. They thought that, as the promised Messiah, He would use supernatural power to set up an earthly kingdom. Consequently, when He was arrested and crucified, they lost hope (Matthew 26:56, 69-75). But at this point of despair and hopelessness, God revealed His redemptive plan. Jesus rose from death and physically appeared to His disciples in a glorious form (Luke 24:36-49; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8).

In the face of such a stupendous event, the disciples no longer had doubts regarding Jesus’ identity. Thomas, who was absent when Jesus first appeared, believed the testimony of His resurrection was too good to be true (John 20:24-26). But when he found himself face-to-face with Jesus, his response was simply: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).

The apostles believed that Jesus is divine, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit (John 1:33-34; 14:16, 26; 16:13-15; 20:21-22). They believed in the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without ever questioning the foundational biblical truth that God is One (Exodus 20:2-3; Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29; 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; Ephesians 4:3-6; James 2:19).

The starting-point of the Trinity is, naturally, not a speculative one, but the simple testimony of the New Testament. We are not concerned with the God of thought, but with the God who makes His Name known. But He makes His Name known as the Name of the Father; He makes this Name of the Father known through the Son; and He makes the Son known as the Son of the Father, and the Father as Father of the Son through the Holy Spirit. These three names constitute the actual content of the New Testament message. This is a fact which no one can deny (Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God, “Dogmatics,” vol. 1).

Although the biblical writers don’t use the terms Trinity or triune God, the Bible clearly teaches that God exists in three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 2:18; 1 Peter 1:2). Each of these divine persons has His own personal characteristics and is clearly distinguished from the other persons (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). Each divine person is equal in power, being, and glory, and each person is called God (John 6:27; Acts 5:3-4; Hebrews 1:8). Each has divine attributes (Hebrews 9:14; 13:8; James 1:17), and each performs divine works and receives divine honors (John 5:21-23; Romans 8:11; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In regard to His being or essence, God is one; but with respect to His personality, God is three.

This issue is basic to Christian faith. The doctrine of the Trinity (like the doctrine of the incarnation to which it is closely related) expresses some of the most profound and mysterious truths about God and His relationship to His creation. As the great church leader Athanasius pointed out, our salvation depends upon the incarnation. If Jesus were not both truly God and truly man, His death wouldn’t be sufficient to atone for our sin.

The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, gives the following concise definition of the Trinity:

Within the one essence of the Godhead we have to distinguish three “persons” who are neither three Gods on the one side, nor three parts or modes of God on the other, but co-equally and co-eternally God.

Although this theological definition is helpful, it is important to realize that none of us can have direct knowledge of God. His characteristics can only be described by analogy, and no analogy is perfect.

 

Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (7 votes, average: 3.71 out of 5)
Loading...

What are the Apocryphal Books Included in Some Versions of the Bible?

Dan Vander Lugt
Bible, Christianity, , ,

The Apocrypha were a subset of a larger group of popular religious writings that the Jews of the first century called “outside books.” They were written between 200 BC and 100 AD, and while not canonical, they were widely read and considered writings “that do not defile the hands.”

Because the Jews never accepted these “outside books” as canonical, they aren’t in the Hebrew Bible. Many of them were apocalyptic works that encouraged the revolutionary spirit that led up to the disastrous Jewish-Roman War of 70 AD, so Jewish leadership that survived that war repudiated them.

Although not in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, included a number of these “outside books” as an addendum. The Septuagint was the Old Testament used by the early church. First-generation Jewish converts to Christianity would already have been familiar with the apocryphal books, and later generations of Christians often read them and quoted them. This doesn’t mean that they were viewed as highly as the New Testament Scriptures or the older portions of the Old Testament. Many important church leaders, including Melito of Sardis, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and John Chrysostom didn’t include them in their lists of canonical Scripture. Even Jerome, the renowned translator of the Latin Bible, opposed its inclusion in the canon of Scripture, although he yielded to popular pressure to include it in the Vulgate. Augustine of Hippo, who couldn’t read Hebrew and therefore lacked sensitivity to Jerome’s reasons for excluding it, backed the decision by the North African council of Carthage (397 AD) that it be included in the Scripture suitable for reading in the churches. However, Augustine later acknowledged that the Apocrypha shouldn’t be viewed as equal in authority to the books in the Hebrew canon.

With the passing of more than a thousand years and the rise of the Renaissance and the Reformation, the question of which Scriptures are truly inspired became a crucial issue. The Protestant Reformation viewed them as valuable but noncanonical. The Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1548 AD) officially declared that the Apocrypha is as sacred and canonical as the rest of Scripture, and anathematized anyone who disagreed.

Today, scholars especially value the Apocrypha as historical and religious sources of information about the intertestamental period. The names and order of the books of the Apocrypha are as follows:

I Esdras                                          Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremiah

II Esdras                                        The Song of the Three Holy Children

Tobit                                               The History of Susanna

Judith                                             Bel and the Dragon

The Rest of Esther                       The Prayer of Mannasse

The Wisdom of Solomon            I Maccabees

Ecclesiasticus                                II Maccabees

The Apocrypha contain popular narrative, religious history and philosophy, morality stories, poetic and didactic lyrics, wisdom and apocalyptic literature.

Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3 votes, average: 2.67 out of 5)
Loading...

Is Religion Evil?

Dan Vander Lugt
Christianity, Contemporary Issues, World Religions, , , ,

From the time of the Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries), many have viewed religion with indifference or hostility, but there has never been such widespread hatred of religion as can be seen today in popular culture. One manifestation of hatred towards religion is the popularity of so-called “new atheism.” Here are some typical “new atheist” quotations:

That religion may have served some necessary function for us in the past does not preclude the possibility that it is now the greatest impediment to our building a global civilization. —Sam Harris

We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid. —Christopher Hitchens

One of the things that is wrong with religion is that it teaches us to be satisfied with answers which are really not answers at all. —Richard Dawkins

Nothing is wrong with peace and love. It is all the more regrettable that so many of Christ’s followers seem to disagree. —Richard Dawkins

Most conscientious people know why the “new atheists” feel the way they do. Religion is often misused to rationalize violence, misuse of authority, hatred, and war. But many good things can be used for evil purposes, including family and ethnic loyalty, philosophy, patriotism, and political/economic theory. In fact, although “new atheists” look to science as the basis of rationality and human dignity, science is no more immune to misuse. Principled opponents of eugenics programs have been called “antiscientific,” and the Darwinist principle of the “survival of the fittest” has been used to rationalize slavery and ethnic cleansing. Marxist dogma claimed a “scientific” basis for exterminating entire classes of people it labeled “parasites” or “enemies of the working class.”

Although reason and science have proven their power, they are useless as moral guides without the guidance of religious principles. During World War II science made it possible to incinerate Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, but contributed nothing to the discussion of whether doing so was justifiable.

Most people recognize that knowing whether a potential action is “good” or “bad” is more important than merely knowing how to do it. Determining whether an action is moral or immoral is a judgment of value and faith, not of mere reason. Values and faith are intrinsically linked to religion. Even the most basic assumption of science that “knowledge is good” is a judgment of value—a religious act. (See What is religion?)

Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and other “new atheists” aren’t the only people who recognize how destructive misused religion can be. One need not be educated in Oxford or Harvard to recognize religious fanaticism. People from every historical period and every culture know the dangers of religion gone amok. A short list of those who warned against religious dogma and religious excesses would include Confucius, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), Isaiah, Zarathustra, Socrates, and Jesus Messiah. Despising religion instead of seeking its renewal isn’t a step towards enlightenment but a step towards nihilism and despair.

Religion—in the sense of a faith system that establishes parameters for good and evil—is just as necessary as science. Rather than being the enemy of science, true religion humanizes and civilizes it and keeps it from creating monsters.

Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (5 votes, average: 3.80 out of 5)
Loading...

Is it Possible that My Loved Ones are Suffering in Purgatory?

Dan Vander Lugt
Bible, Christianity, , ,

We believe that death brings the redeemed immediately into the presence of God (2 Cor. 5:6-8; Phil. 1:21-23).

The concept of purgatory conflicts with biblical teaching regarding the sufficiency of the work of Christ (Heb. 10:1-18). If Christ has made full atonement for our sins, there is no need for people to suffer in purgatory. The doctrine of purgatory makes our salvation depend to a large degree on our own good works rather than on the merits of Jesus Christ. It implies that we are to remain in a state of suffering until our works or the works of others are sufficient to allow us to pass on to heaven. In our perspective, this belief violates a basic truth of the gospel—the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. Passages like 1 Corinthians 3:12-17 refer to the judgment seat of Christ and rewards, not to a continuing state of punishment and purification.

The word purgatory comes from the Latin purgare meaning “to cleanse.” According to Roman Catholic theology, purgatory is “the state or the abode of temporary punishment for those souls, who having died in the state of grace, are not entirely free from venial sins or have not yet fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions” (Catholic Encyclopedia Dictionary). The article acknowledges that the word itself is not expressly mentioned in Holy Scripture but implies that the Scripture “presupposes it, and refers to it clearly enough, for example, 2 Maccabees 12; Matthew 5 and 12; 1 Corinthians 3; Philippians 2; 1 Peter 3.”

Of the above references, the only one that truly supports the idea of purgatory is 2 Maccabees 12:39-45. But this is an apocryphal book, and the Apocrypha aren’t accepted as part of the biblical canon by either Jews or Protestants. In fact, even Catholics didn’t recognize the Apocrypha as fully canonical until the Council of Trent in 1546.

 

Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (8 votes, average: 4.13 out of 5)
Loading...

Should Forgiveness Be Unconditional?

Dan Vander Lugt
Christianity, Relationships, , , ,

People often have the impression that the Bible requires forgiveness to be unconditional.

1 But the Bible doesn’t say that. It tells us that we should “Forgive as the Lord forgave you” (Colossians 3:13). While God’s forgiveness is undeserved, it certainly isn’t unconditional. The Lord’s forgiveness is offered only to those who confess their sin and repent (2 Chronicles 7:14; Leviticus 26; Luke 13:3; 1 John 1:8-10).

On the surface, it might seem noble to forgive unconditionally. But unconditional forgiveness is usually motivated more by fear than by love. And because of this it’s usually destructive. If a wife continues to forgive a habitually unfaithful and abusive husband unconditionally, her toleration of his behavior will probably result in even more abuse and disrespect. This kind of “unconditional” forgiveness expresses a determination to cling to the status quo. No matter how bad things are, this woman fears that things will probably get worse if she holds her husband accountable. Her passive acceptance of his behavior will probably encourage him to continue in his sin. Instead of her forgiveness being a helpful act of love, it is actually a violation of love that will hinder his growth toward Christlikeness.

Jesus’ specific teaching about forgiveness in Luke 17:3-4 makes it clear that forgiveness should follow repentance:

Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, “I repent,” you shall forgive him.

Undeserved forgiveness and unconditional forgiveness are radically different. It takes courage and character to forgive those who repent and ask our forgiveness. If we forgive them, we expose ourselves to the risk of being hurt again. Their repentance doesn’t earn our forgiveness in any way. They are still responsible for the harm they’ve done. But though their repentance doesn’t make them deserving of our forgiveness, it makes them eligible. We can forgive them because of the example of forgiveness that God has given us in Christ (Matthew 18:21-35).

Unconditional forgiveness is an affront against justice and a denial of the significance of sin and its cruel effects. Undeserved forgiveness is an expression of divine love and the only basis of our hope for salvation.

In a flawed world, forgiveness shouldn’t be given unconditionally. But we should always be willing to share the undeserved forgiveness we have received through Christ. We should be realistic in confronting our enemies, but we should also seek to love them and respond to them in a way that is ultimately in their best interest.

  1. In Matthew 5:38-47, Jesus made three radical statements. First, He said that a person should turn the other cheek when someone strikes him. Second, He declared that His followers should give those who sue them more than they are asking. And third, He said that a person who is conscripted by a Roman officer to carry a load for one mile should offer to go two. Does this mean that we shouldn’t defend ourselves when somebody attacks us? Is it our duty to let others take advantage of us? This couldn’t have been Jesus’ intention. After all, He counseled His disciples to be as “wise as serpents and as gentle as doves” (Matthew 10:16). His well-known “golden rule” (Matthew 7:12) contains the clear implication that we shouldn’t encourage people to do something that would harm their character (like abuse others, steal, etc.). Back To Article
Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (23 votes, average: 3.35 out of 5)
Loading...