Pentecostal Blogger » Theology

Flaming Sword of Eden

Ryan Gustason — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:47:48 +0000

The flaming sword at the east of the garden of Eden has intrigued men for centuries. What was it? Where is it now? Here is the scripture quotation describing it:

[Gen 3:24 KJV] “So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”

There is very little information regarding this sword on the internet. The Hebrew reads חֶרֶב לַהַט or lahat chereb for flaming sword as translated into English by the KJV. The translation of lahat according to Brown-Driver-Briggs is flame, devour, or magic as in hidden. The flaming sword is not visible to our eyes.

Where did the sword go? It is still in the hands of one of Gabriel’s angels. Gabriel is the leading angel in the rank known as Cherubim according to Rabbi, Torah scholar, and Jewish philosopher Moshe ben Maimon, (also known as Maimonides) who wrote the order of hierarchy in his book “Mishneh Torah”. According to this source, Cherubim were known for helping people deal with the effects of sin in this world. God’s Cherubim or angels guard the path to the tree of life according to the account in Genesis.

Jesus will open the path to the tree of life in the last days, allowing us to pass into the New Jerusalem as long as we remain faithful and true to the Truth found only in following Christ.

[Rev 22:14 KJV] “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”

Some Jewish rabbis correlate the natural birth experience with the ejection from the Garden of Eden. The knowledge of eternal life being guarded by Angelic beings, or Spiritual enlightenment.

What I see is that we have been denied knowledge of the eternality of the soul unless we believe completely in Jesus Christ. As we bind our spirit with His Spirit, we are made alive again in the Spirit world by having God “quicken” our Spirit, or rather breathe life into these dry bones again and raise us spiritually from the dead. This is what we find in Revelation.

The leaves of the Tree of Life give healing again, and according to Rev 22:14 quoted above, that same tree is accessible at the end of this age by following “his commandments” which mean the commandments Jesus (aka God) gives us in His Word.

The tree is still there, the angels are still there, and the spiritual sword still guards that path whom we know as the Word. The Word is the sword of the Spirit that divides asunder.

[Heb 4:12 KJV] “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

An interesting series on monotheism

Ryan Gustason — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 01:36:39 +0000

An interesting series entitled “Monotheism and the Bible: Origins, Issues, and the Status Quaestionis” by David A. Burnett interviews four prominent Bible scholars. The first two in the series are already published, are Dr. Nathan MacDonald, who is the author of “Deuteronomy and the meaning of monotheism”. The second is Dr. Michael S. Heiser, Adjunct Lecturer, History Department, Western Washington University.

The last two will be Dr. James F. McGrath from Butler University and Dr. Larry W. Hurtado from University of Edinburgh. Both have obtained PhDs in New Testament theology. I am a fan of both Dr. Heiser’s and Dr. Hurtado’s blogs: The Naked Bible and Larry Hurtado’s Blog respectively. Both give insightful answers on their individual blogs and I am especially looking forward to what Dr. Hurtado has to say.

Express Image

Ryan Gustason — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:36:42 +0000

Heb. 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Col. 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

2Cor. 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Jesus Christ is the express image of God. God manifested Himself in the flesh, and when He did, the world for the first time could look upon the image of God. God is a Spirit and as such does not have flesh and blood. A spirit is not tangible and cannot be seen by the natural senses that mankind possess. We can sense a Spirit in the room but we cannot see, touch, hear, feel or taste a spirit. God in His infinite wisdom and foresight saw the need of a body that was perfect. This body was perfect to provide a sacrifice for the sin of all of mankind to be washed away and forgiven forever.

We have a portrait of who God is through His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus is the embodiment of the Supreme God!

Sons of God Daughters of Men

Ryan Gustason — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:00:38 +0000

I have frequently had the question of whether the sons of god, daughters of men found in Genesis chapter 6 were speaking of angels having sex with human females. Here is what I infer from Genesis 6:1-5.

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Before we get into the interpretation of Genesis 6, let us look at the various uses of the phrases ’sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men’ in scripture.

Uses of the phrase ‘Sons of God’ in scripture.

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Phi 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Uses of the phrase ‘Daughters of men’ in scripture

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The fruit of that union; “and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

Mighty men- Gibbo’r | gibbo’r pronounced: ghib-bore’, ghib-bore’

Intensive from the same as H1397; powerful; by implication warrior, tyrant: – champion, chief, X excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man.

Renown-

Shem

pronounced: shame

A primitive word (perhaps rather from H7760 through the idea of definite and conspicuous position; compare H8064); an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character: – + base, [in-] fame [-ous], name (-d), renown, report.

The offspring of the union of the Sons of God and the Daughters of men were apparently strong warriors or tyrants as well as men of renown and report. I would say sons of God would reference the original line of Seth starting with Enos. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. So with the starting of Enos we have men calling upon the name of the Lord, ie seeking the will of God.

Then came on down the line Enoch.

Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Enoch had a special relationship with God.

Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Enoch’s great-great-grandson was Noah, a preacher of righteousness.

Gen 5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

So with the arming of all this information we can deduct through further analysis of Genesis chapter 6 that if you mingle righteousness (Lineage of Seth) with unrighteousness (Lineage of Cain) you will have pride and arrogance which is what I believe ‘mighty men’ and ‘men of renown’ mean. I take this from the context of the passage. We see these children, mighty men, fall into sin which makes God abhor them. If not pride and arrogance then something equally sinful in nature; at least nothing righteous because in the following verses after Genesis 6:1-4 we have our righteous judge (the Spirit of God) proclaiming judgement and salvation through the flood.

Sidebar! It is also interesting to note that when Cain was excommunicated from his household, he was kicked out eastward. He was placed in the land of Nod which being rendered literally means wandering. (Brown-Driver-Briggs) Eastward is a type and shadow of Sin (Tabernacle door eastward). The priest would enter from the east, walk west into the Holy of Holies face back eastward where the people awaited and sprinkle the redemption blood eastward. To compare this with today’s doctrines of men (unrighteousness) and doctrine’s of God (righteousness) is not an unfair comparison. Kind of like neither hot nor cold. Laodicea springs to mind.

Other evidence supporting this is the context of the previous chapters. Chapter 6 deals with the judgment of God on the unrighteous and sinful union of ’sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men’. As I’ve previously noted, the union did not produce giants, but rather during the time when giants walked on the earth, men of renoun were born to the aforementioned union. The fifth chapter of Genesis deals with the righteous lineage of Seth. The fourth chapter is all about the unrighteous line of Cain.

So, in context we have Cain+Seth=men of renoun which turned into pride and sin which God repented of and would have completely obliterated if not for Enoch’s righteous great grand son, Noah… a preacher of righteousness.

Most who propose the angels coming down to have sex with men will use extra biblical passages, such as the following pericope from the book of Enoch:

1. And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. 2. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.’ 3. And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: ‘I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.’ 4. And they all answered

Book of Enoch Chapter 6

I believe we should use scripture to interpret scripture. because of this belief, I do not hold much stock in psuedopigraphical works such as the Book of Enoch. Hopefully I have answered most of your questions if you have ever wondered about this.

Death, Burial and Resurrection

Ryan Gustason — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:18:54 +0000

The word gospel means ‘good news’ and is a translation of the Greek word evangelion. This is the same word we take our English word evangelist from. Thus proclaiming the good news of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection is the true job of an evangelist.

1Cor. 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 1Cor. 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: The good news as preached by the disciples of Christ was the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We must identify with Jesus’ death. Are ‘old man’ must be crucified. The ‘old man’ is our old life before Christ and before we had faith n Christ. What this means is we must forgo the sin that we had in our life before Christ, repentance is a key part in the death. To repent means one must turn completely from our sinful ways and follow Christ completely. As was told in the parable of the rich man, the one thing he lacked was to sell all his possessions and follow Christ. He could not do this for he did not have full commitment to Christ. Whatever things we are holding onto must be let go in order to grab a hold of Jesus and follow Him completely.

Rom. 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. This is the teaching of Paul to the church in Rome concerning baptism. When a man/woman is baptized in Jesus’ name by completely immersing him or herself in water they are symbolically being buried just as Jesus was. This represents the death of sin in our life. Sin is buried and should no longer have an affect on our lives after our conversion experience described in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

The resurrection happens when the Spirit of God enters a body to quicken or bring to life that body. Rom. 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Again Paul describes the resurrection in Rom. 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

God was manifest in the flesh

Ryan Gustason — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 13:43:20 +0000

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Theos- God, Deity, supreme divinity. God here refers to the Supreme Divinity what Paul and other devout Jews would refer to as YHWH. Paul was not refering to anything other than the Supreme God of the Old Testament. Not a person. Not a branch or emmination of God, but God fully and completely.

Phaneroo- To render apparent. To appear, render, manifest or declare. God is a Spirit declares John4:24. Phaneroo means to make something visible to the senses that was previously hidden. So God was made visible.

Sarx- The body or the meat. Sarx means the flesh as in the blood and tissues and opposes the idea of a person as in his spirit. This verse is quite clear that God revealed Himself to mankind in bodily form.

Jesus Christ is the body of God. Jesus’ specific purpose was to redeem mankind from the sin that started in the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden. God needed a perfect man without spot or blemish to offer as the blood sacrifice for the sin of a ll mankind. God made that man by overshadowing Mary and birthing through the virgin Mary the man Jesus of Nazareth.

Answering the Godhead question

Ryan Gustason — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:24:05 +0000

Various Answers for the Godhead question

Dynamic Monarchianism

Attempted to preserve monotheism by denying the absolute deity of Jesus Christ. Was a mere man to start. Endued with the Holy Ghost. Eventually Holy Ghost permeated Jesus such that he was deified

Modalistic Monarchianism

Embraced strict monotheism Opposed subordination doctrine (Jesus was lower in the chain of command than the Father). The terms, “Father,” “Son,” and “Spirit” are three titles for the one God as He reveals Himself to mankind relationally and functionally. The Son is the Father manifest in flesh for the purpose of redemption. The Son was only for a period of time. Taught by Noetus, Praxeas, and Sabellius. It was sometimes called Patripassianism (The Father suffered). Close to modern oneness doctrine.

Arianism

This doctrine teaches since God is immutable, His essence cannot be communicated to any other Therefore Jesus and the Holy Ghost are not God. Jesus was divine but not a deity. Sort of a demi-god point of view.

Trinitarianism

Teaches that there are three persons within one God. God has one essence but has three persons of that one essence and is coequal, coeternal and consubstantial. Note: true trinitarianism does not teach the subordination doctrine. Most people professing a belief in trinitarianism believe in the doctrine of subordination. The father is unbegotten. The son is begotten.

Additional information on the possible pagan roots of the trinity

The Hindu faith believes this concept of God. The conception most closely linked with Vedism and Brahmanism is that of the Hindu Trinity, the Trimurti. The Absolute manifests himself in three persons: Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer.

The Egyptian triad of the sun god was “one god expressed in three persons”. He was known as the “noonday sun” (Ra), “the evening sun” (Tum), and “the dawning sun” (Khepera). The sun god reportedly said, “Lo! I am Khepera at dawn, Ra at high noon, and Tum at eventide”. He was one god in three distinct persons.

Tritheism

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods There is not one essence but three essences Each is similar to each other but separate and distinct (like three men are similar but yet distinct).

Modern doctrine of Oneness

The bible teaches strict monotheism.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

One comes from the Hebrew word אחד (echad) which can mean one (singular) or unity. It appears 885 times in the KJV. Echad means one as in singular 99 percent of the time. Echad is used as unity in such verses as Genesis 2:24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Other Scripture talking of strict monotheism

Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Zec 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

The Father is God

Gal 1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Jesus is God

Col 2:8-9 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Mat 1:21-23 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Jesus is the image of the invisible God

Col 1:4 Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Jesus is God manifest in the flesh

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

God declares Jesus is God

Heb 1:1,8 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

The Holy Ghost is God

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

This is a small sampling of the many scriptures declaring God to be one and manifesting or revealing himself in the man Jesus the Christ.

Mesha Stele

Ryan Gustason — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:11:45 +0000

A lot of people are doubtful in this day and age. There are many who are buying propaganda put forth by those with a materialistic world view. Among some of the founders of those proposing a doubtful view of the reliability of the bible was a man named Julius Wellhausen. He was a Doctor in Old Testement theology, later went to study Islam and eventually moved into New Testament theology. He openly claimed that the Old Testament was not historically accurate and doubted the miracles in the Old Testament ever took place.

Since Wellhausen’s day, many more proofs have become available. One of them is the Mesha Stele also known as the Moabite stone. This is one of the earliest inscriptions refering to YHWH and ancient Israel. On the inscription it discusses the “House of Omri”. 1 Kings chapter 16 discusses Omri and his ascent to power in the nation of Israel.

The Mesha Stele is just one of many examples validating the bible as a historically accurate record of the past. The next time someone doubts the validity of the bible, just tell ‘em “Meshe Stele”!

Is Jesus God?

Ryan Gustason — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 19:33:09 +0000

Well the simple answer is yes. The fullness of the godhead dwells in Jesus according to Col 2:9. But what does this verse actually mean? I will be teaching on the oneness of God at Heritage UPC in Bristol Connecticut this coming Wednesday. As a part of the class I use this verse to support the oneness theological position so I figured I’d take a deeper look into what this verse means. The pericope of scripture this verse is taken from teaches against thinking of Christ as yet another man made philosophy. The nature of God is not merely a philosophical point to debate but necessary to live an abundant life in God.

For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; Col 2:9 NKJV

οτι εν αυτω κατοικει παν το πληρωμα της θεοτητος σωματικως; Col 2:9 SNT

So we have the Greek of the 1550 Stephanus New Testament and the New King James Version above for comparison. Let’s take a look at each of the key words in this verse.

Dwells: According to Thayer’s definition there are two definitions of κατοικει.

to dwell, settle; metaphorically divine powers, influences, etc., are said to dwell in his soul, to pervade, prompt, govern it.
to dwell in, inhabit; God is said to dwell in the temple, i.e. to be always present for worshippers.

Fullness: Thayer’s definitions for πληρωμα are now listed.

that which is (has been) filled; a ship inasmuch as it is filled (i.e. manned) with sailors, rowers, and soldiers also in the NT, the body of believers, as that which is filled with the presence, power, agency, riches of God and of Christ.
that which fills or with which a thing is filled; of those things which a ship is filled, freight and merchandise, sailors, oarsmen, soldiers also completeness or fulness of time.
fulness, abundance.
a fulfilling, keeping.

Godhead: Next we’ll define θεοτητος.

deity; the state of being God, Godhead.

Bodily: Finally, the last word to flesh out is σωματικως.

bodily, corporeally; of the exalted spiritual body, visible only to the inhabitants of heaven.

The state of being God completely filled the corporeal body of the man Jesus Christ of Nazareth. God tabernacled or dwells in the body of Jesus Christ so completely as to fill every cell and every fiber of the body of Christ. This is explained further in the gospel of John.

¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was in the beginning with God. ³ All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. ⁴ In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. ⁵ And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. ¹⁴ And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

In this pericope of scripture we have John describing the godhead (state of being God) as the mind (thought, idea, expression both verbal and non-verbal) of God in which He created the universe and everything we humans can see and that logos became flesh and tabernacled (dwelt, inhabited) in the corporeal body of Christ.

So we see that Jesus refers to simultaneously the body of Christ (including flesh, soul and spirit) as well as the Spirit of God (whom Moses, Abraham, and Adam communed with also known as the Father and whom we modern Apostolics commune with known as the Holy Ghost).

Jesus Christ is both completely man and completely deity.

World view: What’s yours?

Ryan Gustason — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:08:30 +0000

There are many competing world views out there. It only makes sense to understand the variety of world views out there, and what they are, so you may properly prepare and defend your faith. In brief, I’ll explain the five world views most people in some way, shape or form identify with. Understanding their perspective will better assist you in preparing to explain the Word of God to them.

5 major world views:

Naturalism
Pantheism
Theism
Spiritism/Polytheism
Postmodernism

Naturalism

Oxford English Dictionary defines naturalism as the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world. Also: the idea that moral concepts can be analysed in terms of concepts applicable to natural phenomena. Most atheists and agnostics fall into this category.

Pantheism

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines pantheism as a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the view that

“God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature” (Owen 1971: 74). Similarly, it is the view that
everything that exists constitutes a “unity” and this all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine (MacIntyre 1967: 34). A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says
“‘Pantheism’ … signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it.” Even with these definitions there is dispute as to just how pantheism is to be understood and who is and is not a pantheist. Aside from Spinoza, other possible pantheists include some of the Presocratics; Plato; Lao Tzu; Plotinus; Schelling; Hegel; Bruno, Eriugena and Tillich. Possible pantheists among literary figures include Emerson, Walt Whitman, D.H. Lawrence, and Robinson Jeffers. Beethoven (Crabbe 1982) and Martha Graham (Kisselgoff 1987) have also been thought to be pantheistic in some of their work — if not pantheists.

So basically, pantheists are those who believe mother earth is God.

Theism

Merriam-Webster defines theism as a belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world. The typical religions that fall into this world view are Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Spiritism/Polytheism

Polytheism is a conjunction of two Greek words:

Poly meaning many
theos meaning God

Taken together, polytheism is the belief of many gods in the world. Many spiritualists see this as a belief in many spirits controlling or at the least, influencing the material world. Roman and Greek mythology is an example of polytheism.

Postmodernism

Merriam-Webster’s definition is of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language. It is a belief brought to light in the end of the 19th century and 20th century that objective truth and reality is based upon the culture and external influences of the individual. They believe everyone’s truth is there own, and no truth is truly true except as it relates to that person at that time, place and setting.

I would wager that most college professors would fall into this latter category of postmodernism.

So, what view is yours?

Tertullian: A sketch

Ryan Gustason — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 22:17:01 +0000

For today’s post, I’d like to highlight some things about the man who is known as one of the founding fathers of western Christianity, and many say one of the fathers of the doctrine of the trinity.

Tertullian:

Born around 160AD and died around 220AD although these dates are not firm.
Full name was Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus.
He was born in Carthage, a city in North Africa.
He was the son of a Roman Centurian and later converted to Christianity.
He was a Montanist.

Here is a small excerpt about what Montanists believed:

Believed is seeking out persecution as well as corporal punishment.
One who has fallen from grace could not be redeemed.
In 177AD the movement was banned as heretical.
The movement almost completely vanished by the sixth century.

One of Tertullian’s most famous works discussing the trinity is found in ‘Against Praxeas’. In chapter three he states some enlightening things on his views of Christendom at his time. According to Tertullian the majority of believers in Christ are ‘simple minded’. He stated the majority of believers were startled at the doctrine of three-in-one. Why were they startled? Because most Christians at this time were under the belief (rightly so) that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, and not a personhood of one god with three persons. This went against the Judaic beliefs that the Apostles taught as well as the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself!

He stated ‘The very rule of faith withdraws them from polytheism . . .’ which is true based on the teachings of only one God as found in the Sh’ema as well as the teachings of Christ. Those Gentiles who had just been drawn out of worshipping a pantheon of gods were now rightfully confused. Is God really three-in-one? What’s the difference then between the Christian God and the Egyptian god Ra who was also described as three-in-one, or the Hindu god Vishnu who was three-in-one?

Tertullian believed in his own oikonomia, or how he interprets and practices the canon. This is in line with his strict and rigid code that he practiced as a member of the heretical Montanist movement.

Tertullian writes ‘the numerical order and distribution of the trinity they assume to be a division of the unity . . .’ in chapter three. Tertullian’s theology implies an order or ranking of the persons of the trinity. Again he writes ‘in the Son and in the Holy Ghost, who have the second and the third places assigned to them,’. As you can see, Tertullian without a doubt believes that there is a pecking order in the trinity with God the Father assuming the highest role. Obviously, the other two hold to a lower position and stature. If you ask most trinity professing Christians today, they will say almost the same thing Tertullian proposes in his writings. His teachings have pervaded throughout Christendom to become the de facto standard in the way most Christians believe and perceive of God.

Lastly, in this post I’d like to leave you with Tertullian’s defense against modalists (which he admits is the majority of ‘simple minded’ believers) during his day. He said because modalists believe in angels who are with God and help perform heavenly tasks and are themselves spirit beings from God why should they be offended and reject a plurality of persons in the Godhead? So, basically, Tertullian would have them believe in the trinity because there are a multitude of angels so why not a multitude of persons in God.

Well, I believe I’ll stand upon what scripture tells me of the ontological and metaphysical nature of Christ. Christ was both fully man and fully God. In fact, I’ll even affirm the highlights from the council of Chalcedon in 451AD which were the following:

Christ is truly God
Christ is truly man
Christ has two natures
Christ is one person

Say What? Reviewing Jargon

Ryan Gustason — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 04:59:00 +0000

John took the results, showing gram-positive diplococci, and proceeded to instruct Mary on what she should do to make herself whole again. While the results appeared definitive, John was a consummate perfectionist and proceeded to immerse the slide in a solution of KOH as well.

Say what? Most communities have developed their own specialized language to describe things, events and actions specific to their fields. The common term for this specialized language is jargon.

What jargon do we toss around on unsuspecting people we witness to? In the case above, I’ve reverted back to my laboratory technician days and am describing a scene at a doctor’s office in which John, the doctor, tells Mary, the patient, that her throat swab has come back positive for strep throat. The story also describes how John placed her swabbed specimen onto a slide and washed it in a solution of potassium hydroxide that is a common test to find fungal infections under a microscope.

What sorts of things do we as Christians say to non-believers that might confuse them?

What do we mean by the following:

“Are you saved?”
“We are justified by His Spirit.”
“Have you received the Holy Ghost?”
“You’ve got to be baptized!”
“Pray through to the Holy Ghost.”
“Without holiness no one will be saved!”

Do you see what I mean? What are we talking about when we mean saved? Saved from what? What is justification and whose Spirit are we talking about. How do we receive a ghost? Don’t they haunt old mansions? Why would I want a ghost inside me anyway? What does baptism mean? Why should I be immersed in water anyway? What is ‘pray through’ anyhow? What does holiness mean?

To regular churchgoers, the answers to the questions posed are self-evident. To the un-saved, they only contribute to a feeling of confusion, and most people hate to feel confused.

When we witness to people we must ensure we are communicating on a level playing field. Test your audience. Seek recognition in their eyes. If you’ve just told someone they ‘must be saved’ and you get a look like they are seeing right through you, or you see gears turning in their mind trying to figure out what you just said, be quick to add and expand to your statement with clarifying adjectives and adverbs until you see they understand what you are talking about.

Your testimony (another jargon word) is immensely helpful in this area. Most of the time when people describe their salvation experience it is in language that nearly everyone can understand. Use that testimony as a tool to transition from what you’ve experienced in your walk with God with what they can expect when they to start on that journey of the soul and spirit into communion with the Almighty.

Remember to:

Use your testimony.
Communicate verbally as well as non-verbally.
Look for recognition in their eyes and other signs of feedback that they understand what you are saying.
Try to rid your vocabulary of jargon when speaking to soon-to-be believers in Jesus Christ.
Actions speak louder than words a lot of times.

Oneness in Isaiah

Ryan Gustason — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:14:32 +0000

Isaiah is a wealth of prophetic prose describing the coming Messiah who is the God of the Old Testament, YHWH. Isaiah 9:6 is the classic example of this. “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the goverment shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. It is clear that Jesus Christ fulfilled all of these roles and is the mighty God spoken of by Isaiah.

Wonderful, A miraculous thing. Surely the world has not seen anything as miraculous as God the Father being born of a virgin as a tiny babe who would be the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

goverment upon his shoulder, shkem is translated into the English as “a place of burdens”. Goverment can also mean Empire in the Hebrew, or in other words the kingdom would be His burden. Jesus came to save the Jew first, and then the Gentile also. Jesus was always about His Father’s business. For Jesus is God manifest or made visible in the flesh, blood, and bone.

Our counselor comes from the Hebrew word ya’ats. It meand guide, to advise, to deliberate, etc . . . Jesus is the exsemplary example of what we are to be as Christians. To other role model is needed. He is our all and all.

Jesus is the subject of Isaiah 9:6 with no doubts for none other in history has fulfilled all these roles and made himself the ultimate sacrifice for mankind’s sin. That sin which continues to be inherited year after year from our father, Adam. Isaiah makes a plethora of allusions to the monotheism held dear by all blieving Jews of his day.

I will be continuing to explore the book of Isaiah over this weekend and demonstrate the oneness message it cries to all believers.

Oneness in Exodus

Ryan Gustason — Sun, 29 May 2011 05:12:59 +0000

Exod 20.1 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. The first and foremost of God’s commandments is stated here in Exodus verse 20:1-2. God is a jealous God and will not share His glory with another. There can be no doubt that a monotheistic teaching was infused into the thinking of Moses. From the time of his forefathers, Moses was taught that there is only one God, the God revealed as the I AM in Moses’ encounter with God in the burning bush.

Korban Pesach
The korban pesach or קרבן פסח “sacrifice of Passover” also known as the “Paschal Lamb” is the sacrifice that the Torah mandates to be brought on the eve of Passover, and eaten on the first night of the holiday with bitter herbs and matzo.¹ This feast and holiday is described in Exodus chapter 12.

God restructured the Jewish calendar after this holiday. God made this the first month. An unblemished lamb of one year old was to be sacrificed for a single household. The Jewish household was considered a single entity lead by the patriarch or oldest male of the house. This was done in the home privately. The sacrifice was to be consumed in a single day, and the whole entity eaten. It was not to be soaked in water where it would disolve, but rather eaten whole as a single piece.

Consider some of its laws: a one-year old animal eaten in one group within one house; consumed as a whole entity without breaking any bone, and roasted that kept the meat as one entity rather than cooked where the meat disintegrates. Performed by Israel just prior to the Exodus, the unity within korban pesach unequivocally attests to G-d’s Oneness (Maharal, Gevuos Hashem Ch.36 & Ch.60).²

As can be seen, the ancient Israelites believed in their one true God. They believed so much in their monotheistic faith that they were willing to venture out into the unknown, face certain death, in order to place complete trust in the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob despite being surrounded by the polytheistic spread of Gods from Egypt. They knew the power of God and united behind Moses and stated “ALL THAT THE LORD hath spoken we will do.” This monotheistic nature of God continues to be one of the greatest attributes we know and understand about God. The incarnation of God made manifest in Jesus Christ does nothing to change the fact that there is only One God in heaven^{Due 6:4}, and only One God who is saviour of all peoples^{Isa 43:11}.

Footnotes
1. Taken from Wikipedia article on Korban Pesach accessed on 29 May 2011.
2. Taken from The Living Law- Parshas Vayikra, a blog provided by Torah.org and accessed on 29 May 2011.

Kalam, A Cosmological Argument

Ryan Gustason — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 06:26:41 +0000

Here is an interesting article I found a while back on the WWW. The original site has been taken down, but I believe this was the article in it’s entirety.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Summary by Bill Ramey

The cosmological argument for God’s existence began with Plato and ever since has been defended–and attacked–by many of the greatest philosophers in history. Most people know the argument only its Thomistic or Leibnizian form, but a lesser-known Arabic version of it has received recent attention from scholars since the 1979 publication of The Kalam Cosmological Argument by philosopher William Lane Craig. Most of what follows comes from Craig’s defense of the argument, though I will use my own words and sometimes my own examples and comments.
The kalam argument has its roots in medieval Arabic philosophy and theology. The Arabic word kalam means “speech,” but more broadly it means “natural theology” or “philosophical theism” (Craig, Kalam, 4). The distinctive feature of kalam-style cosmology is its stress on the impossibility of the actual infinite. Put simply, kalam arguments try to demonstrate (1) that the existence of an actual infinite (a concept from modern set theory to be discussed shortly) is impossible and (2) that even if it were possible, the universe itself is not actually infinite and hence must have had a beginning.
Here is an outline of the argument:

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

The KCA works by supporting the (a) option of each premise and then using it in the following premise. Hence the KCA is actually a series of connected arguments. To be successful each of these arguments must be logically valid and have true premises. Since the KCA is a series of arguments that take the form of a valid argument known as a disjunctive syllogism, the KCA’s formal validity is beyond dispute. To be a sound argument, however, the KCA must have true premises, and thus the bulk of this presentation will attempt to support the premises.

Let’s begin with (1): the universe either had a beginning or did not have a beginning. Craig offers three arguments in support of a universe with a beginning. Two are philosophical; one is scientific. Here is the first philosophical argument:

1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. A beginning-less series of events in time is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, a beginning-less series of events in time cannot exist.

Premise One

In contemporary set theory, an actual infinite is a collection of things with an infinite number of members, for example, a library with an actually infinite set of books or a museum with an actually infinite set of paintings. One of the unique traits of an actual infinite is that part of an actually infinite set is equal to whole set. For example, in an actually infinite set of numbers, the number of even numbers in the set is equal to all of the numbers in the set. This follows because an infinite set of numbers contains an infinite number of even numbers as well as an infinite number of all numbers; hence a part of the set is equal to the whole of the set. Another trait of the actual infinite is that nothing can be added to it. Not one book can be added to an actually infinite library or one painting to an actually infinite museum.
By contrast, a potential infinite is a set of things that can be added to. The collection of paintings in a real museum is a potentially infinite set; one can always add another painting to the collection (given enough space), but there will always be a finite number of paintings in the museum. Another way of stating the difference between an actually infinite set and a potentially infinite set is that the latter has identical ordinal and cardinal numbers, but the former has a cardinal number known as the aleph zero or aleph null and an ordinal number which designates the entire series of natural numbers.
A common objection at this point is that if an actual infinite cannot exist, and God is infinite, then God cannot exist. This objection is based on a confusion of the terms “infinite” and “actual infinite.” An actual infinite is a technical concept found in set theory that refers to sets and collections, not to single beings. To deny that an actual infinite can exist is to deny that a library with an actually infinite set of books or a museum with an actually infinite number of paintings can exist. God, on the other hand, is a being, not a set or collection of things, and hence God is not an actual infinite. It should be noted that kalam defenders do not dispute the legitimacy of the actual infinite as a mathematical concept. Craig writes that what kalam defenders argue “is that an actual infinite cannot exist in the real world of stars and planets and rocks and men” (Craig, The Existence of God, 42). In fact, until Gregor Cantor’s work in set theory, mathematicians rejected the existence of an actual infinite as a mathematical concept. But Cantor himself denied the existential possibility of the actual infinite. In correspondence with the Pope, he even suggested that the existential impossibility of the actual infinite could be used in a mathematical-metaphysical proof for the existence of God.
Another famous mathematician and expert in set theory, David Hilbert, writes:

… the [actual] infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought–a remarkable harmony between being and thought….
The role that remains for the [actual] infinite to play is solely that of an idea … (Craig, Kalam, 87)
But why can’t an actual infinite exist in the real world of rocks and trees? Hilbert explains why by using an argument known as “Hilbert’s Hotel”:
Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms, and let us assume that all the rooms are occupied. When a new guest arrives and requests a room, the proprietor apologies, ‘Sorry–all the rooms are full.’ Now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, and let us assume that again all the rooms are occupied. But this time, when a new guest arrives and asks for a room, the proprietor exclaims, ‘But of course!’ and shifts the person in room 1 to room 2, the person in room 2 to room 3, the person in room 3 to room 4, and so on… The new guest then moves into room 1, which has now become vacant as a result of these transpositions. But now let us suppose an infinite number of new guests arrive, asking for rooms. ‘Certainly, certainly!’ says the proprietor, and he proceeds to move the person in room 1 into room 2, the person in room 2 into room 4, the person in room 3 into room 6, the person in room 4 into 8, and so on… . In this way, all the odd-numbered rooms become free, and the infinity of new guests can easily be accommodated in them.
In this story the proprietor thinks that he can get away with his clever business move because he has forgotten that his hotel has an actually infinite number of rooms, and that all the rooms are occupied. The proprietor’s action can only work if the hotel is a potential infinite, such that new rooms are created to absorb the influx of guests. For if the hotel has an actually infinite collection of determinate rooms and all the rooms are full, then there is no more room. (Craig, Kalam, 84-85)
Craig uses the example of a library to illustrate this same point. Imagine an actually infinite library of books that come in two colors: black and red. The books are placed on a shelf in an alternating pattern of black and red. It is obvious that there are an equal number of black books and red books. But if this library is actually infinite, the number of black books is equal to the number of all the books, i.e., the number of black books is equal to the number of red books plus the number of black books. While these counter-intuitive paradoxes might make sense at the level of mathematical theory, they do not make much sense in the real world of books and libraries.

Premise Two

A beginning-less series of events in time is an actual infinite. In other words, if the series of past events had no beginning, it is actually infinite. If premise one is correct, however, it follows that a beginning-less series of events in time cannot exist. Consider the following example. The Battle of Hastings took place in 1066. The Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1776, 710 years after the Battle of Hastings. If the series of past events in the universe is actually infinite, we can say that the Battle of Hastings was preceded by an infinite number of events. We can say the same about the Declaration of Independence. In fact we can say that the set of past events before the Battle of Hastings is equal to the set of past events before the Declaration of Independence, because part of an actually infinite set is equal to the whole set, as noted above. But how can that be? 710 years separate these two events, i.e., 710 years were added to the set of past events before the Battle of Hastings to get to the Declaration of Independence. By definition, however, nothing can be added to an actual infinite. Hence the series of past events before the Battle of Hastings cannot be actually infinite. Craig thus draws the conclusion to the first philosophical argument as follows: “[s]o the series of all past events must be finite and have a beginning. But the universe is the series of all events, so the universe must have had a beginning” (Craig, The Existence of God, 47).

The second philosophical argument for the beginning of the universe does not dispute the existence of the actual infinite, but instead points out that an actual infinite is not attained by adding new members to a potential infinite:

1. The series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one member after another.
2. A collection formed by adding one member after another cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.

Premise One

Returning to the example of the Battle of Hastings and the Declaration of Independence, it is obvious that the 710 years between them came about by adding one year after the other. History is the continual addition of new events, one event being added after another.

Premise Two

Remember that nothing can be added to an infinite set. Any set to which can be added another member is not infinite, simply because another member could always be added. Infinity could never be reached by addition. This is called the impossibility of traversing an infinite. Craig asks us to “Imagine a man running up a flight of stairs and every time his foot strikes the top step, another step appears above it. It is clear that the man could run forever, but he would never cross all the steps because you could always add one more step” (Craig, The Existence of God, 50).
It follows from this that the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite. 1993 would never have arrived had it been preceded by a infinite number of years, because one cannot cross an infinite number of years to reach 1993 anymore than the man running up the stairs can cross an infinity of steps. Thus the number of years before 1993 must be finite and potentially infinite, but not actually infinite.
The scientific argument for a finite universe is by far the most controversial. Cosmologists constantly gather new evidence and refine theories accordingly. Skeptics often object that cosmology is too tentative of a discipline from which to draw absolute conclusions and thus does not provide good evidence for theistic arguments, and they further object that supporting theistic beliefs with tentative scientific arguments means that such beliefs run the risk of being falsified. These objections fail to grasp three important points. First, scientific arguments for theism do not intend to draw absolute conclusions, but to establish the likely probability that God exists. Second, the same risk that theism runs in using tentative scientific arguments is exactly the same risk that atheism runs. Third, a universe with an absolute beginning is well supported by scientific findings, and classical big bang theory is currently the best cosmological theory.
These findings include the following (consult the works cited for a more comprehensive explanation of these findings). First, earlier this century, Edwin Hubble discovered that light from distant galaxies is red-shifted, implying that the universe is expanding from an initial explosion which took place a finite time ago. Although a few scientists have challenged this interpretation of the red-shift, it has been supported by observation and successful prediction and has an explanatory power unmatched by other theories (Craig, Kalam, 160). Second, the big bang theory predicted the discovery of three-degree blackbody radiation, a discovery which surprised other cosmological theories. Third, astrophysicist Robert C. Newman writes “If there is any process which causes our universe to lose energy at a non zero rate, then an oscillating universe would have run out of energy (and so ceased to oscillate) long ago” (Newman, “The Evidence of Cosmology,” 85). This means that it is all but improbable that the universe as we know it is one universe in an infinite series of expanding and contracting universes. Fourth, there is no explanation for why a contracting universe would “bounce” and begin expanding again. Recent evidence confirms that galaxies are moving too quickly away from one another for gravity to pull them back into a compressed point. Fifth, in April 1992, American scientists discovered ripples of matter at the edge of the universe. These ripples are evidence that the universe was given its structure very early in its history and further confirm that the universe had a definite beginning.
Having given three arguments to show that the universe had a beginning, we can move on to the second dilemma posed by the KCA: if the universe had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused. Before discussing the (a) option, we should consider what is becoming a common response to this dilemma from those critical of the cosmological argument. Some theorists speculate that before Plank’s time (10 to the negative 43 seconds after the universe began) the universe came into existence out of a quantum mechanical fluctuation. Hence some argue that the universe came out of nothing. Moreland, however, rightly points out that identifying nothingness with something, in this case a mechanical fluctuation, is a mistake; nothingness does not cause anything, let alone fluctuate or bring a universe into existence. Astronomer Hugh Ross notes that one of these theorists, Alan Guth, remarked that “such ideas are speculation squared.” Put more concretely, there are three main problems with the quantum fluctuation speculation: it is based upon (1) a non existent theory of quantum gravity, (2) the use of imaginary numbers, and (3) the assumption that the universe was in a quantum state in its early beginning and thus had an indeterminate beginning.
Problem (1) could be solved by the discovery of a quantum theory of gravity, but such a discovery has not been forthcoming and should not be taken for granted. (2) puts the argument that the universe came from quantum fluctuation on non-realist grounds. Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking writes:
If the universe really is in such a quantum state, there would be no singularities in the history of the universe in imaginary time…. The universe could be finite in imaginary time but without boundaries or singularities. When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities…. In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down” (Ross, 114).
Note especially the phrase “when one goes back to the real time in which we live.” This is a remarkable scientific confirmation of what kalam philosophers have been saying for a long time and what mathematicians such as Cantor and Hilbert confirm: the actual infinite cannot exist. When the imaginary transfinite mathematics of the actual infinite is translated into real finite terms, the results are nonsensical.
This leads to problem (3). If the universe was in a quantum state at its beginning, then one could speculatively circumvent the problem of switching between imaginary and real time, but this brings up a further problem. Under the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, there needs to be someone to observe the quantum fluctuation that produced the universe. Since, of course, no human beings were present at the inception of the universe, it is obvious who the best candidate is for being the observer of the alleged quantum fluctuation that brought forth the universe. To avoid the theistic implications of this interpretation, some theorists have argued that our universe fluctuated out of superspace in which an infinite number of universes were physically possible. However, this is another example of “speculation squared.” Craig writes of this: “It hardly needs to be said that this is a piece of speculative metaphysics no less objectionable than theism; indeed, I should argue, more objectionable because the reality of time is ultimately denied as all dimensions, temporal as well as spatial, are subsumed into superspace” (Craig, “In Defense of Rational Theism,” 148). Moreover, it posits the existence of an actually infinite number of universes–and since an actual infinite cannot exist, this speculation is at odds with reality.
Finally, the concept of quantum indeterminacy only tells us that measurements at the atomic level cannot be taken with precision; it is not a metaphysical or ontological principle. Applied to the beginning of the universe, if the universe was in a quantum state, quantum indeterminacy simply means that we cannot know with Newtonian precision what happened before Plank’s time. It does not mean that the universe popped into existence uncaused or that the ultimate cause of the universe is indeterminate. On the contrary, it was the work of Hawking et. al. that established the singularity theorem, i.e., a theorem which affirms that space and time had a definite beginning–regardless of whether scientists can measure with certainty what happened before Plank’s time.
Since the appeal to quantum indeterminacy does not support the (b) option, what can be said in favor of the (a) disjunct? Consider the principle of sufficient reason as formulated by the German philosopher Leibniz: “no fact can be real or existing and no statement true unless it has a sufficient reason why it should be thus and not otherwise” (Leibniz, 198). This principle is often stated as “everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence” or “every event has a cause.” It is hard to overestimate how essential this principle is to rational enquiry. Biologists who seek to explain the origin of life depend upon it. So do detectives solving a crime, meteorologists forecasting the weather, and doctors diagnosing a patient. In commenting on Leibniz’s cosmological argument, one philosopher writes “… if one were to reject it [i.e. the principle of sufficient reason], the argument would fail. But this is a principle Leibniz contends it would be absurd to reject. And it is also one of the most fundamental principles of rational thought” (Schacht, 54-55).
Moreover, the principle of sufficient reason has never been falsified in the history of rational thought. Hence the principle can amply be defended upon empirical grounds as well as philosophical grounds. Why, then, should one balk at the principle of sufficient reason in regards to the beginning of the universe? Why arbitrarily set aside a fundamental principle of rational thought to avoid the implications of a universe with a beginning? Thus unless someone can give a good reason for waiving the principle at this point, we can conclude that a universe that began to exist had a cause of its existence.
This leads us to the final dilemma: if the universe had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal. Even if one should accept the (a) option of the first two dilemmas, why should one believe that the cause of the universe is a personal being? Some argue, for example, that even if the universe had a cause, its cause could have been a natural one. Presumably this means that the universe could be the product of an impersonal physical cause. The problem with this is twofold. First, what does it mean to say that the cause of the universe is a natural one? Natural causes exist within the universe, not outside of it. If something preceded the universe, then by definition it is not a natural cause, because the laws of nature came into existence after whatever preceded the universe.
Second, if the cause of the universe is a sufficient cause, meaning that the existence of the cause alone guarantees the existence of the universe, the universe would always have existed. To make this clear consider the sufficient cause of lighting a match. When a match is struck against the proper surface, it ignites, and thus striking the match is the sufficient cause of an ignited match. Note that as soon as a sufficient cause exists, the effect follows immediately; there is no gap between the cause and the effect. This raises a question: if the sufficient cause of the universe has always existed, then why has the universe not always existed?
The answer to this question is that the cause of the universe is a personal agent who willed the creation of a finite universe. To use the match example, once the match is struck the effect immediately follows, but if a personal agent does not strike the match, the effect does not have to follow. Likewise, if the cause of the universe is personal, the universe does not have to be eternal like its sufficient cause. Instead, the universe could have been willed into existence much like a person wills to light a match. Once the cause is set into motion the effect follows, but only after the cause is set into motion; and a personal agent has the power not to set the cause in motion. Thus we can conclude that the cause of the universe is personal.

Conclusion

Now that we have supported the (a) option of each dilemma, we can draw this conclusion: the universe was brought into existence by a personal agent. Now this conclusion might startle some people. Many of us believe that the existence of God cannot be proven or cannot be proven with any strong certainty. But if the three main premises of the KCA are sound and adequately supported, then the conclusion is true regardless of the remarkable and startling implications of such a conclusion.

Works Cited

Craig, William Lane. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1979.
—–. The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe. San Bernardino, CA.: Here’s Life Publishing, 1979.
—–. “In Defense of Rational Theism.” Does God Exist?: The Great Debate. J. P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. The Monadology. 18th Century Philosophy. Ed. Lewis White Beck. New York: The Free Press, 1966. 194-207.
Newman, Robert C. “The Evidence of Cosmology.” Evidence for Faith. Ed. John Warwick Montgomery. Dallas: Probe, 1991. 71-91.
Ross, Hugh. The Fingerprint of God. Orange, CA: Promise Publishing, 1991.
Schacht, Richard. Classical Modern Philosophers. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984.

Selected Bibliography

Craig, William Lane. “God, Creation and Mr Davies.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (1986): 163-175.
—–. “Julian Wolfe and Infinite Time.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 11 (1980): 133-135.
—–. “Professor Mackie and the Kalam Cosmological Argument.” Religious Studies 20 (1985): 367-75.
—–. “Philosophical and Scientific Pointers to Creatio ex Nihilo.” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 32 (March 1980): 5-13.
—–. “The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Hypothesis of a Quiescent Universe.” Faith and Philosophy 8 (January 1991): 104.
—–. “The Origin and Creation of the Universe: A Reply to Adolf Grunbaum.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43 (June 1992): 217.
—–. “Time and Infinity.” International Philosophical Quarterly 31 (December 1991): 387-401.
—–. “Wallace Matson and the Crude Cosmological Argument.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 57 (June 1979): 163-70.
—–. “`What place, then, for a creator?’: Hawking on God and Creation.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 41 (1990): 473-491.
Jaki, Stanley. The Road of Science and the Ways of God. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Jastrow, Robert. God and the Astronomers. New York: W. W. Norton, 1978.
Moreland, J. P. Scaling the Secular City. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987.
Peacock, Roy E. A Brief History of Eternity. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Publishers, 1990.
Wainwright, William. Rev. of The Kalam Cosmological Argument. By William Lane Craig. Nous 16 (May 1982): 328-34.
Whitrow, G. J. “On the Impossibility of an Infinite Past.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 29 (1978): 39-45.
Wolfe, Julian. “Infinite Regress and the Cosmological Argument.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2 (1971): 246-249.

Related Links

“The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe” by William Lane Craig. Craig’s own summary of the kalam argument.
The Virtual Office of William Lane Craig. Craig’s home page. Click on the “Articles” link and then the “Existence of God” link for more material on the cosmological argument. Craig is one of the most scholarly defenders of Christianity; even Jeff Lowder of the Internet Infidels refers to Craig as “the best Christian apologist today” and “a top-notch scholar.” The editors of Wisdom’s Children agree.
* “On Dissecting the Cosmological Argument”. This is a direct critique of the above article, which is replicated in toto on the page. To say that the critique is biased would be an understatement–snide and prejudicial are more apt descriptions. One wonders what the words “genocide,” “fantasy,” and “sludge” are doing in an ostensibly rational analysis of a philosophical argument. However, we do like the background wallpaper, a tiled, pastel lavender picture of the Cheshire cat.
* The Cheshire Cat Sneers: A Response to “On Dissecting the Cosmological Argument”. This is a rebuttal of the above.

* A note by Ryan: The two links “*” above are no longer valid links on the WWW and as such I did not hyperlink the dead links.

What is an Apostolic Pentecostal?

Ryan Gustason — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 06:23:17 +0000

When I think of the myriad of ways that people use those two adjectives, it makes me wonder what other people consider to be Apostolic Pentecostal.I know my definition, which I’ll share here in a few minutes, but what is your definition? What do you think an Apostolic Pentecostal should be? I would wager most oneness churches do not have a strict code of thou shalt bes in order to be a member in the congregation, but I expect most would want their saints to eventually mature in to stable God-fearing saints who produce a lot of fruit.

So here is what I define as an Apostolic Pentecostal. Some may lok at this list and think that I have cut and pasted most everything out of the United Pentecostal Church International’s (UPCI) statements of what they believe. That is not true however; I had these beliefs even before I knew that the church I attended in Okinawa Japan (The church I was baptized and received the Holy Ghost in) was a member church in the UPCI. Well, without further ado, here is what I mean when I talk about Apostolic Pentecostal, and what I base most of the articles on this blog about.

A belief in one God and a denial of the Trinity as a false doctrine that has spread through the church like a viral infection
Baptism by complete immersion invoking the name of Jesus during the baptism
Baptism by the Holy Ghost (Spirit) with the evidence of speaking in an unknown tongue
Living a holy lifestyle which includes:
bridling the tongue (cussing excluded from vocabulary… learn new adjectives!)
Dressing modestly to include skirts and dresses on women and full length pants on men
Praying included in daily routine
Devotional Bible reading
Showing evidence of the Fruit of the Spirit in your life

Well, as you can see, that is some of what I consider important in being defined as an Apostolic Pentecostal person. A devotion to God and His Word is paramount in being a Christian, and with the help of the Holy Ghost in your life, none of these things are impossible. In fact they are down right easy when you walk and talk them every day! This post is dedicated to Apostolics everywhere who believe and teach the same.

The Law of Sin or Death

Ryan Gustason — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 06:04:44 +0000

Romans 8 gives us an exposition on the law. While the law was passed down from generation to generation, the Spirit of the law was not. It eventually reached a point where no one knew what the original intent of the law was. The priests did not even know what the purpose of the law was.
Paul states “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” Galatians 3 expounds more upon what the original intent of the law was. Jesus Christ did not come to eradicate the law, but rather He came to fulfil the law. By this I mean that the law was completed because it has fulfilled it’s intended purpose. The law was our schoolmaster; it taught us many things concerning faith and believing in God.
Unfortunately by the time Jesus Christ came to walk on this world, the law was of very little effect. People may have outwardly espoused the law of Moses, and outwardly obeyed the 613 mitzvot that was taught in the schoolhouse, but it was not applied to the heart and people obeyed out of custom rather than out of a fear of God. By fear of God I mean a deep love and respect of our creator. This condition of society has been coined Phariseeism today.
The same condition that exsisted back then is flourishing today. People call themselves Christian because it is the politically correct thing to say today. A majority of Americans today will claim to be a Christian in name, yet they do not know what the first 5 books of the bible are, they cannot name 4 of the 12 Apostles, they do not know the order of the gospels, and they attend church rarely (usually on special services such as Easter).
God is coming back for a bride without spot or wrinkle. Most today will ignore this warning, however that does not change the fact of His soon return for His bride (the church). Do not lay your lot with the five foolish virgins who were not prepared for the master’s return. There is a hell, and people will be sent there whom Jesus does not know. Make yourselves ready!

Oneness in Genesis

Ryan Gustason — Sun, 18 May 2008 05:05:28 +0000

The oneness of God is written throughout the Bible. Starting in the book of Genesis, we see that the God of Genesis was quite different than the deities of the day that surrounded Abram. Abram grew up in a polytheistic culture. The predominate gods of the day was Ashur, Tiamot, Marduk, et.al.
According to Scripture, Abram traveled out of Ur of Chaldees and settled with his father in Haran. There Terah died. Abram was called out of his familiar surroundings and sent to follow his God to a land God had prepared for him. It was because of the faithfulness of Abram that he obeyed the Word of the Lord and followed the one and only true God. Out of the chaotic mess created by the philosophy of man, a single man hears the voice of God and we usher in an era of monotheism that takes us back to the monotheistic beliefs of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
Let us look into the text of Genesis and examine the Scriptures for the monotheism known by Abram and by extension all of Israel. In Genesis 1:1 we read of God being there in the beginning. God existed before the earth and the stars. In verse three God said let there be light. In order to have created light, light must have not existed. For light to not have existed, there must have been no energy, for light is but a visual form of energy in a wave length visible to our eyes. But that is straying a little from the purpose of this post.
The word God in both of the Scriptures referenced above is the Hebrew word Elohim. This is the plural form of the root word, Eloah which is defined as God. Ah, I see, because it is in the plural it must mean that God is a plurality of persons or beings right?
Not so fast. Elohim has plural morphological form in Hebrew, but it is used with singular verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew text when the particular meaning of the God of Israel (a singular deity) is traditionally understood. Thus the very first words of the Bible are breshit bara elohim, where bara is a verb inflected as third person singular masculine perfect. If Elohim were an ordinary plural word, then the plural verb form bar’u would have been used in this sentence instead. Such plural grammatical forms are in fact found in cases where Elohim has semantically plural reference (not referring to the God of Israel). There are a few other words in Hebrew that have a plural ending, but refer to a single entity and take singular verbs and adjectives, for example (be’alim, owner) in Exodus 21:29 and elsewhere.
Let us consider for a moment Genesis 1:26-27.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Again, Elohim is used with the word asah, which is ‘to do’ or ‘to make’. Tselem is also used, a plural masculine noun. Could this be considered evidence of a pre-incarnation trinity? No. The evidence is in the context of the next verse. The plural Elohim is again connected to a singular verb. What we see here is an example of a literary plural. In formal writing, a plural form is often used when referring to something that is above all else. In this form, God is speaking thus the use of the literary plural. In verse 27 we see the author reaffirming in his words, thus the use of the singular.

More posts will come, as I intend to do a series walking through the bible to explore the monotheism of God.

Oneness in Genesis… again

Ryan Gustason — Mon, 12 May 2008 05:10:26 +0000

This is my second post in this series. I will be making a page with a table of contents shortly. Perhaps tonight or tomorrow time permitting. As discussed in the previous post, Hebrew words may have a plural morphology, yet mean a singular connotation based on the context in which it is used. For example, in English we have the word sheep. This can mean either a single animal, or a group of sheep and the only way to infer the author’s meaning is by the context of the words around it.
If I said there are many sheep in the pasture, how many am I referring to? Obviously with the usage of are and many, I am speaking of more than one sheep. If I said this sheep is sick, I am referring to a single sheep, rather than a flock.
Here are some other examples of Hebrew words which have a plural morphology and singular connotation:

biuthim- terror, anguish
chaim- life, refreshment
megurim- dwelling place
Mitsrayim- Egypt
teunim- toil, labor
tzaharyim- noon
tsammin- snare, perdition
shekulim- childlessness
urim- enlightenment
Yerushalayim- Jerusalem

A quote from Michael Heiser illustrates the point lucidly:
In the Hebrew Bible, there are roughly 2500 cases where elohim is used as a singular noun denoting the God of Israel (that figure is arrived at on the basis of grammar and logical context). It isn’t a guess.
Genesis 1:1 KJV In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
In this case elohim is singular because the verb (in red) is 3rd masculine singular in its grammar.
Genesis 1:26-27 TNK And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.”
Elohim (God) is singular because the verb is 3rd masculine singular. So why the plural pronouns “us” and “our”? You know I hold that those speak of the presence of the divine council here. How do I know elohim isn’t the referent? Keep going with the next verse:
TNK And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Three times we have a singular verb (create; Hebrew bara’). In verse 26 when we read “let US make mankind in OUR image,” if GOD were speaking [as though referring to himself as a plurality or to a group of the elohim, as though that’s what the word meant], we’d see PLURAL verbs here in v. 27, but we don’t.
Other examples in Genesis all point to a single God with none else beside Him. Please subscribe to my rss feed to stay updated with future articles.