Inerrancy of Scripture - A resolution to the debate

Inerrancy of Scripture has always been a troublesome issue but primarily due to the thinking perspective of classical theology. I would like to refer you to the following link which presents a very reasonable approach to the issue and scope (though limited) of inerrancy.

http://www.naznet.com/inerrant.htm

Although I agree with the Nazarenes on the inerrancy of scripture when it discusses revelation of "the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation", I do not agree that such is the entire scope of inerrancy. If the Bible which we regard as a rule of faith and life is actually only inerrant when it comes to soteriology and heaven-bound ideas, then how reliable are its statements when it comes to other issues that relate to our day to day personal walk with God?

Perhaps this is not what the Nazarenes mean. However, there needs to be a better articulation of the scope of inerrancy. If you have been a reader of this blog, I think you would be bound to agree with the following scope and the reasoning behind it.

Following up on an earlier blog We Will Never Know Everything About God. Really?, I would like to suggest reviewing Jeremiah 9:23,24 as this suggests a wider scope of inerrancy. The Bible is inerrant when it comes to describing how to have a personal covenant-relationship with God. Note that we have always insisted that salvation is only a small part of this, though required and necessary.

The Nazarenes should have stated "in all things necessary and profitable to our personal relationship with God" instead of "in all things necessary to our salvation".

Let me state a case in point and I know there are a multitude of others which the inerrant legalists can cite. Look at 1 Corinthians 15:5 "and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve."

We know that Christ appeared to the ELEVEN who were left as Judas was already gone. Matthew 28:16 explicitly states "eleven", "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. cf: Mark 16:14, Luke 24:9, Luke 24:33.

Regardless, this has nothing to do at all with the sufficiency and inerrancy of information regarding the scope of inerrancy that we discussed above.

Footnote:

Let me add here that the inerrancy debate is a "words-oriented" debate, which is faulty hermeneutics. People fixate on words and loose the context, so their understanding is erroneous or cultic.

The Key to Understanding Paul's Epistles

Hermeneutics is supposed to be a static concept of there being one true way of understanding any document. It becomes dynamic, however, when interpreters advance their own bias or fail to derive the correct context by which the document was written. Liberal theology is an example of advancing one's bias while classical ecclesiastical theology has many examples of failure to derive the correct context.

This principle applies to the writings of the apostle Paul. Classical theologians misunderstand concepts of predestination, foreknowledge, sanctification, gifts of the Spirit, healing, etc mainly because of one particular erroneous assumption about Paul.

Whereas it is true that Paul does a great exposition on the concepts of salvation including justification and sanctification, election and other concepts, one must remember that when Paul wrote his epistles he NEVER in his right mind would nor could assume that his writings would eventually be cannonized and considered part of God's progressive revelation. In his mind, Scripture was none other than the Jewish Scriptures which is the Christian's Old Testament.

Paul was also aware of the contents and teachings of the Jesus even if the gospels were not fully written at that time. Paul had the unique capacity of being educated in a Hellenized world but still retaining the Jewish frame of mind since he was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin as well as being educated under the Rabbi Gamaliel. Hence, in Paul's mind, he was simply advancing perspectives on particular aspects of the Way that could be comprehended by a Hellenistic frame of mind and vocabulary.

In other words, Paul knew and was conscious that he was simply explaining the Jewish Scriptures and Jewish concepts of redemption and deliverance in the light of the birth, death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ.

For example, when we discuss Pauline concepts of justification, we should realize that his explanations are another angle to man possessing the "righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees" that Christ taught on the Sermon on the Mount. We then can connect that the "righteousness of God" imputed to man in the book of Romans is simply another way of restating Christ's statement or another perspective on Christ's teaching.

When Paul discusses Sanctification in the book of Romans, one must realize that he was simply explaining Christ's concept of SHOWING, displaying or demonstrating the "righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees". Recall that Christ did say on the sermon to "let your light shine before men..." or that "You are the salt of the earth..." or "you are the light of the world". These are all similar concepts restated through the perspective of different angles on the same concept. Paul actually echoes Christ's teaching that God is not concerned at what we do or say as much as He is concerned about what we are. That we are supposed to be transformed Kingdom citizens (born-again, remember?) and our new self in terms of behavior, values and character should NATURALLY manifest itself .

There are many other concepts which are Pauline perspectives on the same issues that Christ and the God of Israel have explicitly discussed previously. So to truly understand and interpret Pauline writings is to realize this context, that Paul was conscious that his writings were not inspired Scripture but another way of looking at old Jewish concepts in the light of further revelations and clarifications based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Of course, modern scholarship has determined that Paul's writings were in fact inspired but this was NOT in the consciousness of Paul during his writing periods. Compare this to the Jewish prophets who were very clear that their words were spoken in behalf of God.

We will never know everything about God. Really???

There is always a classical theology paradox which presupposes that man can NEVER know everything about God. While this may be absolutely true, I react to the logical repercussion in biblical interpretations that make that cliche a fallback for a lack of understanding of divine revelation.

Recall at least 2 key verses to expound this point.

Deuteronomy 29:29 (NIV) states, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law".

Classical interpretations put too much emphasis on the first part of the verse, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God" and almost totally disregard the profound implications of the second part of that wonderful verse, "but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law"!

The "things revealed TO US (to Moses, to Israel, the Old Testament, even the New Testament!)" BELONG(!!!) to us! Belong means WE OWN IT! Belong means we SHOULD master it, we should be or have "doctorates" in it. For the things revealed, there should be no gray areas, no mysteries, no excuses!

Hence, man should be able to KNOW EVERYTHING about God in the very aspects of God that He has explicitly revealed in Scripture. The problem with the classical excuse is that it proposes to beg ignorance in all the so-called mysteries like the Trinity, God's Love, God's jealousy, God's change of mind in numerous occasions in Scripture when IN FACT, they have already been explicitly REVEALED or UNRAVELED, if you will. If you have been a reader of this blog, all of this items have been unequivocally addressed without excuses, and without any arrogance for that matter. Of what practical use is revelation if not much is revealed? What kind of logic proposes that revelation from the Divine can never be completed without completely insulting the Source of Revelation as lacking in communicating abilities????

A very important sub-point in the second part of that verse is that our "complete" understanding of God's revelation is the very foundation or basis for correct and true obedience to God's word, as well as the solid foundation for our faith to work. If we fail to interpret God's revelation correctly, then our obedience is not well-founded and may even redound to or be utter disobedience. Our faith will always have lingering doubts. The biggest interpretive failure in classical theological discussions is to deny that there is one correct interpretation of God's explicit revelations. This makes them doubly accountable to God for fundamentally teaching the wrong material and content of Scripture by leaving the right interpretation in limbo and dismissing things as "mysteries", that we will never know God or His will.

The second verse is one of my favorites, Jeremiah 9:23, 24:

²³ This is what the LORD says:
"Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom
or the strong man boast of his strength
or the rich man boast of his riches,
²⁴ but let him who boasts boast about this:
that he understands and knows me,
that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,"
declares the LORD.

If we were to boast of anything or any accomplishment in this life, the Lord does not place much value in either wisdom, strength or power, or riches. What God values is that we UNDERSTAND and KNOW Him. Let us apply some common-sense logic to the assumptions of this verse.

First, God will never expect of us anything that we can NEVER do as humans. Obviously, knowing and understanding Him is NOT nor NEVER something we cannot do! It is, IN FACT, something we can DO and accomplish and even COMPLETE in this life! Think about it.

Second, God specified which areas of theology or "knowing God" we should be able to COMPLETELY know in this life. They are God's (loving-)kindness [kheced], justice (or judgment) [mishpat], and righteousness [tsadaqah]. According to this verse, if we know these three aspects of God, AND WE SHOULD, then we can claim to KNOW and UNDERSTAND GOD!!! [As a footnote, we should therefore avoid Bible teachers who never talk about sin and judgment or righteousness. Most modern day teachers simply dwell of knowing love and nothing else, that is not the complete revelation of God.]

Third, God declares that it is His particular DELIGHT that we know and understand Him in these specific areas. What better emphasis can anyone put than the very words that God used in this verse!

CrossCulture Mission Points

...This is work in progress...

My local church at CrossCulture in West Covina, CA is formulating its mission statement. We have always thought and taught that the foundation of the church should be a community that exemplifies the tenets of the Sermon on the Mount as delivered by Jesus Christ Himself. The following are some talking points that may find their way to the final form of its Mission Statement:

•Winning the World to Christ by WHO we ARE (NOT what we DO)

The first century church won the world to Christ because of who they were, their way of life and their culture based on both the teaching of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. Modern churches try to win the world to Christ through fancy feeding or evangelism programs, structures, good preachers, training, methods, techniques - ALL without exception were NOT used by the first century church. Most of this methods are designed to hide the fact that most christian have in reality not been transformed by Christ into a new creation. These are programs created, promoted and pushed by "dead" christians.

The world is NOT attracted to Christ because it is not impressed by modern-day Christians whose actions and "normal" behavior speak louder than their words that the world is really saying, "Your actions are speaking so loud, I can't hear what you're saying!"

Modern Christian leaders tend to hide their UNTRANSFORMED lives behind programs, methods, training and structures and hoping that these would be used by God to reach the world. Unfortunately, though a few are reached, the ones reached tend to accept a caricature of true Christianity instead of the real thing. On the other hand, the first century Christians had NONE of those, all they had were lives submitted to and transformed by the Holy Spirit. History records that the non-Christian world looked at the first century Christians and exclaimed, "Behold, how they love!". Christians obviously had something that was different from the world and what the world wanted.

Today, Christians still have a great message but, unfortunately, live lives, have value systems, behaviors and a culture that are no different from the unbelieving world, if not, even short of obnoxious.

We reach the world by demonstrating our transformation, by showing how different our value systems, attitudes and behaviors are. And THEN, according to St. Francis, "...if necessary, use words."

•Through the Culture of the Cross, building an alternative society that is Kingdom-minded (lives and dwells in the Kingdom)

•Building a community that lives beyond the level of mediocrity.

Being a citizen of the Kingdom of God is not the same as casual membership in any organization. Citizenship demands responsibility and active involvement in the affairs of the Kingdom ACCORDING TO THE RULES or LAWS of the Kingdom.

•Faith developed by knowing the King

•Faith/service exercised naturally and from the heart

•Righteousness that exceeds

In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ the King did not and never intends to micro-manage His subjects. This is fundamentally because He wants to establish a culture and value system that lives beyond keeping-your-nose-clean. On the other hand, the Lord intends for His subjects to live a way-of-life this is not passive but initiates righteousness and goodness that not only makes the world take notice (Matthew 5:16, "Let your light shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."), but includes the intention to transform the citizen's immediate environment and sphere of influence , "You are the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:12)... you are the light of the world (Matthew 5:14)".

The unconventional rules of thumb of the Kingdom are supposed to be the visible manifestations of salt and light to the earth that demonstrates the radical difference between Kingdom culture and the world's culture.

Firstly, it is concerned with what occurs in the heart as stated in Christ's analogy of murder vs. anger and adultery vs. lust. Secondly, it emphasizes the value of marriage relationships and highlights the equality of man and woman in Christ's restatement of divorce and remarriage (sadly, something that most American Christians are so amiss at). Thirdly, it puts so much weight on personal integrity such that a citizen's word carries (or destroys) his honor. Fourth, it has a revolutionary approach to dealing with a citizen's reactions to the personal offenses of his fellow men. Fifth, it emphasizes the cost and effect of true love.

Sixth, it demeans self-glorification as a goal in doing good, but seeks only the approval of God. Seventh, it elevates prayer as a personal and private issue with God, that once prayer becomes a mere public display, it is no longer directed to God and has no value.

Eighth, it emphasizes that what should be personal and private with God MUST remain PURELY personal and private, as in the giving of alms and fasting. Ninth, in the Lord's prayer, it demonstrates how a Kingdom citizen addresses and speaks with the King.

Tenth, it highlights where a Kingdom citizen invests his time talent and treasure, not so much in this world but in and for the Kingdom of God. As a result, a citizen's concerns should be directed at pleasing God and seeking His righteousness. In response to this, the King takes care of the things of this world.

Eleventh, it demeans the imposition personal opinion upon others and elevates personal righteousness. Twelfth, it highlights the value of our good works whether material or intangible and the responsibility of dispensing it ONLY to those who can appreciate it.

Thirteenth, it promises that being a true citizen of the Kingdom and tangible benefits. Ask, Seek, Knock and the King will respond POSITIVELY.

Fourteenth,

Why Christians Miss the Main Thrust of God's Word

It is sad that in this day and age, too much emphasis is given to new Christians on the New Testament. Most modern day evangelicals (the average church attender) are New Testament Christians only and not Biblical (whole Bible) Christians. As a result we have produced a race of Christians who are formal, "keep-your-nose-clean", unexcited and unexciting, ultra-right-wing conservatives and very often, quite legalistic Christians.

One must have a big picture view of the Word of God in order to approach it the right way and to get not only maximum value from God's infinite wisdom but to bathe and immerse in loving communion with the God of the universe who is now OUR Father and OUR personal Shepherd.

Assume that there were no New Testament and we lived before Christ and the only source of God's revelation is the Jewish Scripture (which is the Christian's Old Testament). One would find the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who promised a covenant relationship with an elect group of His creation. Reading further one would discover the God of Joseph who can put down and raise up, the God of Moses whom we can communicate personally and directly with and sometimes argue with and yet although He is a God of mercy and will constantly forgive, many times He WILL NOT remove the consequences of our sin (Moses never entered the promised land he worked so hard to bring God's people to).

And so on and so forth, the God of Joshua and Gideon who can fight for His people, the God of David who can reward to the highest degree (David's line will be eternal) and punish to the lowest degree (humiliated David forever for his sin with Uriah and Bathsheba and killed the son that resulted from that sin despite David's efforts to beg for his life!). Read the major and minor prophets and discover a relationship with God that is beyond personal relationship.

So, to put the New Testament in perspective: It was meant to do just a few things

1. Demonstrate the extent of God's unconditional love. God also had to show that He exceeds Abraham's sacrificial gesture of sacrificing Isaac.
2. Clarify that salvation is by grace through faith resulting in inheriting the righteousness of God, or being reckoned righteous before God.
3. John 15 and the Sermon on the Mount clarifies that God is a relational God, that his objective for creating man in His image is to have a loving covenant-relationship with autonomous creatures out of their own free will, for them to surrender back to Him that free will willingly and completely.
4. To clarify that justification or salvation is just a step (albeit definitely necessary) in the big picture of relationship with God.
5. To explain the unique culture that a child of God and citizens of heaven must possess to be DIFFERENT from the world and normal men.
6. 
   

Christians should not approach the New Testament with a "what must I do to keep my nose clean" attitude, in much the same way as not approaching it with a "what should I do to get what I want" attitude (much like the health-and-wealth or name-it-and-claim-it aberrations of theology).

Christians should approach the New Testament as a culmination of the principles and demonstrations of God's relational objectives with those whom He "created in His image". To derive maximum value from the New Testament, one must view it as an addendum to the Old Testament and the completion of God's revelation to man. It must NEVER be viewed as God's NEW dispensation because the old covenant as written in the Jewish Scriptures have been changed.

This last point is quite important. The first century church which started as a mustard seed has grown to be the biggest tree in the garden consistent with the parable of Christ. It is God's Kingdom among us, as Dallas Willard puts it in The Divine Conspiracy. One can only appreciate the Spirit behind transformed lives in the first century when one realizes that their ONLY Scripture was the Jewish Scriptures or what we now know as the Old Testament. The church grew inspired by a risen Savior and a new enlightenment of what the Jewish Scriptures were all about. What we now know as the Gospels, Paul's letters and the other epistles were essentially just incidental letters of instruction that further explained what the Jewish Scriptures were all about. The main point I wish to draw from this important historical background is that it is necessary to read the Bible THROUGH JEWISH EYES in order to fully grasp and appreciate the the Author and the Spirit behind those Words.

Sadly, much of the influence of the later church fathers as well as some early church fathers looked at Scripture from the intelligencia Hellenistic perspective and the clouding of the relational aspects of Scripture gradually faded in favor of the classical Greek concepts of a more impersonal God ( the unmoved mover, lower case to me as it IN NO WAY describes the God of Israel!), an impassive God (pure Bible contradiction of God's personality), Absolute (and unbridled) Sovereignty (another Greek concept so devoid of love and relationship at its heart because it believes that God cannot and will not risk anything [a clearly empirical and experiential contradiction]), and other theological "garbage" (read that in French!).

[This is work in process....more soon]

Relational response to R.C. Sproul's "The Image of God"

I listened to Dr. R. C. Sproul's lecture through Ligonaire Ministries radio dated 4/7/2009 available for free through www.oneplace.com.

I agree with almost everything Sproul said. However, his concept is at best anemic and falls far short of true theomorphism. This is expected because he is a classical calvinist. Recall that theomorphism is a technical word to describe "in the image of God".

After the fall, he says that the image of God in man was shattered, and this I fully agree with. However, his anemic concept is tacitly derived from his unquestioning adherence to the T of the calvinist TULIP which stands for the TOTAL Depravity of man. As a 5-point Calvinist, his concept of theomorphism being shattered after the fall is one of being completely shattered and totally depraved and therefore unable to exercise true faith in God even when enlightened but still unredeemed. I was waiting for him to articulate this.

His main point was that man is a higher being than the rest of the animal kingdom or creation for that matter. He stops short of admitting that theomorphic man has free will ordained by the creator AND NATURALLY POSSESSES the inherent (in bold) ability to express love, hope, and just as important --- FAITH, albeit in imperfect form sometimes IN HIS FALLEN STATE! If these "natural attributes and abilities endowed by God" were also shattered (or shattered completely from the viewpoint of Hyper-Calvinism) then the fall of man made humanity just a tad higher than the animals which mostly function by instinct instead of intelligence and self-will.

Calvinists are somehow tunnel-visioned in imposing upon the text of Ephesians 2:8-9 the theory that even faith is NOT of ourselves, that even faith has to be the gift of God (and I have heard RC Sproul actually say this).

Now, a reading of any English translation (except the Living Bible, which is a paraphrase bias of the verses) or any Greek translation does not even come close to hinting that faith is not of ourselves. Importantly, the passage declares that salvation is NOT of ourselves which we completely subscribe to. Yes, salvation is the gift of God. Faith, however, and the capacity to exercise it is a clear part of theomorphism, i.e., faith and the exercise of faith was a designed and ordained human attribute which was bestowed on man at the creation. It is NOT a gift of God at the point of salvation. It can be called a gift of God, yes, but imparted thousands of years ago on the first man which we today simply inherit being THE SAME theomorphic beings, BUT NEVER at the point of salvation. Nowhere in the Bible is such a theory declared, not even by "chosen from the foundation of the world" which covers another aspect of the redeemed and/or the church.

Of what use is the image of God in man if all it is about is that man has a soul or spirit which the rest of creation does not have, or that he is higher than the animals? If the image of God is limited to that, then we have an anemic God, deficient in very important characteristics of independent, autonomous beings, unless, of course, the calvinist believes that man is just a glorified robot or a robot with a spirit -- a complete degradation of the image of God!

The concept of total depravity of man should be limited only towards his ability to please God and/or gain salvation without the provisions of God. However, it should be clarified that faith (inclusive of so-called SAVING FAITH) is and was NEVER a provision of God at the point of salvation. True theomorphism proposes that faith is part of the attributes of man inherited from God (being created in His image) in the original creation and the ability to exercise faith, hope, love, though volatile was never shattered by the fall.

We reiterate: Salvation is NOT of ourselves. However, the exercise of faith in the provision of God for our salvation is ENTIRELY of ourselves and of our human wills (free will being another attribute given to man at creation) and this is what consumates true redemption and the right to be related to God as His child.

Calvinists will point out one or two isolated verses to try to disprove this but they do so at the expense of the overwhelming preponderance of the rest of Scripture supporting the Relational Theology concept of Theomorphism. They commit this EXACT same hermeutical and exegetical error when they discuss predestination and election - - citing a few isolated verses at the expense of contradicting the overwhelming preponderance of the rest of Scripture which CLEARLY declares otherwise.

Paraphrases like The Living Bible are guilty of this erroneous translation, one reason I shy away from paraphrases which normally express the opinions of the translator but I insist on translations or better yet, parallel translations for real Bible study and exegesis. It is worth restating Ephesians 2:8 again using the ESV,

⁸ For ^zby grace you have been saved ^athrough faith. And this is ^bnot your own doing; ^cit is the gift of God

^z ver. 5

^a 1 Pet. 1:5; [Rom. 4:16]

^b [2 Cor. 3:5]

^c [John 4:10; Heb. 6:4]

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Eph 2:8). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

They Shall Inherit the Earth!

"Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth." (Matt 5:5).

"But those who wait on the Lord, they shall inherit the earth." Psalm 37:9b.

In this blog, I would like to explore why, if heaven, spiritual things and eternity are a Christian's priorities, why does God in the OT with the Jews always promise earthly (not worldly) pursuits like the garden of Eden or Paradise, "a land flowing with milk and honey".

[Work in progress....more soon...]

Election: The Calvinist View vs. The Biblical View

The Calvinist concept of Divine Election which funnels toward Unconditional Election as propagated by their TULIP teaching is a deviant philosophical slant from that of many of the Biblical propositions and/or examples or precedents.

The Jews were certainly elected as God's chosen people, yet many of them are condemned to an eternity without God. King Saul and several of the kings of Judah and Israel were definitely chosen or elected by God. However, they were subsequently rejected based on behavior and obedience to God's prescribed paths.

To emphasize, read 1 Samuel 10:24, ..."Do you see him whom the Lord has chosen, that there is no one like him among all the people?" Samuel declared this statement when the omniscience [see related blog which clarifies that omniscience does not cover the future but only the past and present] of God was supposed to already know David the shepherd who would eventually become king to replace Saul.

In many Biblical cases, God's election is just that... just a choice with no extraneous implications nor guarantees of eternal bliss or unconditional salvation.

Unconditional Election is therefore at best a logical Greek concept. Unfortunately, there is very little Biblical basis for its Calvinistic slant.

Classicists and Calvanists almost always revert to Ephesians chapter 1 to prove specific predestination. However, note that foreknowledge was not even used in this chapter. Foreknowledge implies that God has seen the future and therefore what He has seen CANNOT be changed. "Predestined", however, has been and can be read under the context of God's will, not the will that is etched on stone but the will that means intent or intention.

This divine will is similar to the will of God in the Lord's prayer. "thy will be done on earth..." clearly implies that God's will is NOT done! At least, NOT YET! But clearly, this is a will that can be temporarily thwarted. Hence, substitute the word "intention" to replace "predestination", "intended or designed" to replace "predestined" in Ephesians 1 and one would get a revelation that is far from the Classical Calvinist version but rich in theology and application.

[Added 2017-10-29]
Note that whenever predestination is mentioned in Scripture, the subject is ALWAYS PLURAL. Hence predestined events or actions refer the what God planned for the church or the "elect" and not for any specific individual. Note also that all mention of THE ELECT is always in the plural form with the ONLY EXCEPTION that of the "elect lady" in 2 John, but even then lady is only elect because of the group that she belongs to.

Hence, it is NOT the individual Christian who is elect but it is the church that is elect.  Nor is the individual Christian predestined to anything other than what God had predestined for the elect or the church.

This is the same flavor as the "chosen people" of the Old Testament. God does not refer to individual chosen persons but to the chosen people as a nation or group.

This VERY IMPORTANT distinction is what the Calvinists either have missed or ignored, hopefully, not intentionally.

Will a Loving God Make People Suffer in Hell?

If anyone has ever heard or read of Jonathan Edwards' famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", this particular piece of blog will remind you of it. However, in contrast to Edwards' mostly fictitious descriptions of how God would pour His wrath on unrepentant sinners, we are going to review how history actually sheds CLEAR light on the way sinners fare after God completely abandons them.

See Zedekiah's punishment. See Josephus version.

If God could see this happenning and see to it that it would happen, then He CAN condemn people to SUFFERING in hell. If there are creatures that are "beyond" the Love of God to save like Lucifer and one-third of heaven, then God can allow people to suffer.

The Goal of True Theology is Knowing The True God

It is a common presumption of many theologians and students of theology that such a pursuit as THEOLOGY is one where we analyze logical and natural evidences to derive WHO God is or if there are many gods.

Western religious thought has finally "logically" matured to the point of either concluding or assuming that there is just ONE God. Such a presumption may be attributed mainly to Judeo-Christian teaching and partially through the monotheistic propositions of Platonic theosophy. Prior to these two schools of theological thought, most civilizations were either polytheistic or pantheistic. In fact during Paul's day in the book of Acts chapter 17, while in Athens, there were still strong evidences that Platonic theology was ignored by the majority of the Hellenistic world.

Everyone has their own opinion about God, both Christians and pagans. When does this stop and who is right and which is the correct theology.

If theology is the pursuit of the understanding of God, we must first make sure that we are studying the One True God who is none other than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the I AM.

Of all religious documents that exist, only the Judeo-Christian Bible claims to be words coming out of God's own mind and heart. The theological propositions of these writings claim to be no less than divine revelation. Most other religious writings are were simply penned by individuals simply opining about what they think God is or should be. Many others are traditional beliefs, the content of which defy both reality and history in many of its premises or historical or scientific contexts. a theory and not a law. In fact, much of the Old Testament historical and archeological claims have been verified even when they were initially opposed by the existing sciences of the day, and even when they were initially set out to be disproven.

The Bible on the other hand, has never been conclusively proven to be false either in its historical contexts nor its propositional concepts. Even creation, for example, cannot be contradicted and evolution has been shown to have too many contradictions that it has remained a theory and NOT a law. This is where, for example, Mormon theology is suspect as its historical context are not verifiable and can fall in the realm of fiction.

Theology, therefore, to be completely meaningful and worth any value has to be the study of the ONE True God and not just the study of someone's god.

For the Christian Theologian, theology has to be the pursuit of God according to Jeremiah 9:23,24. God has to be discovered from the viewpoint of inspired scripture and not just any philosophical writing like those of Plato or Aristotle. This means that even if these great Greek philosophers discussed a monotheistic deity, their concept of God is still sans revelation and must be considered faulty or flawed.

This implies that Hellenistic philosophical concepts of God's attributes including timelessness, immanence, transendence, impassive, changelessness, sovereignty, etc have to be discarded or reinterpreted in the light of what Scripture reveals.

To know the one true God, one has to discover Him through the pages of revelation and with the eyes and viewpoint of a Jew. Any other viewpoint will miss too much from the revealed word and, at worst, will lead to misleading concepts of God which would be logically tantamount to idolatry, the sin of creating one's own God apart from revelation.

Now you can see quite clearly why this blog on relational theology rejects or defies classical Christian theology in many ways. Many modern concepts of God and His attributes are legacies of the Christian scholastics like Aquinas, who possibly wanted to have a concept of God that would be acceptable to a predominantly Hellenistic intelligentsia; and that is their greatest downfall, ignoring revelation in favor of pleasing the prevaling and popular bias of those who were the known intellectuals of their world.

It is unfortunate that many in our modern Christian theological world do not see this and accept these classical concepts of God hook, line and sinker. Theology of any form should always be discussed with skepticism knowing that God can defend His own and True theology will prevail amid all the muck.

Relational Theology as presented here seems to survive any skeptical onslaught. I have opened this blog to generate challenges from any quarter. So far, there has been a lot of silence even from the theologies I explicitly criticize.

God's "Trial-and-Error" Attempts to Create a People of Faith for His Kingdom

Why did God create man? Although this blog is entitled "God's Trial-and-Error Attempts to Create a People of Faith for His Kingdom", God forbid that I would claim that God makes mistakes. Most probably, He does NOT. Why most probably? Isn't God perfect? Well, if we believe in revelation and revelation alone and not our personal "dignum Deo" opinions, take a look at this passage from Hebrews 10:7-13:

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

8 For he finds fault with them when he says:[c]

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
    when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
    and with the house of Judah,
9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
    on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
    and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
    after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
    and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
    and they shall be my people.
11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
    and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
    from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
    and I will remember their sins no more.”

13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Now, note the words translated as "faultless", "find fault" (derived from the Greek, memphomai, meaning "censure, blame, reproach"), and "obsolete" (Greek, palaioo, meaning "worn out and old"). Nothing can be more explicit, and if that does not, at least, hint of trial-and-error, then I don't know English nor Greek at all!

It is important to point out that even the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel, ignores the language and states:

" In the NT we find memphómenos in Heb. 8:8, where God finds fault with Israel (Italics mine) for breaking the covenant, and for this reason gives promise of a new covenant."

[NT New Testament

Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1995, c1985). Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. (580). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.]

God DID NOT find fault with Israel as the TDNT states. He finds fault with the COVENANT. This is Scripture twisting at its worst as the intent is obvious!

Regardless, it seems that God makes calculated risks and we already have proven that in another blog on Implications of Biblical Theomorphism.

God is All-Sufficient in Himself and among the Persons of the Holy Trinity, there is intense and fulfilling fellowship and love. However, God seemed desirous of embarking on a divine experiment with the end in view of expanding the coverage or scope of His love and relationships.

The following narrative highlights, among others, the Omni-Competence of God (see OmniCompetence- the Divine Attribute that distinguishes the Judeo-Christian God from the Pagan gods).

God's ultimate goal IS to create a people of faith who would be kingdom-minded and would willingly and deliberately love Him the same way He would love His creatures. Remember this goal (and NOT "To glorify God and enjoy Him forever" as the classicists claim. That "chief end of man" is NOT biblical at all. It has no foundation in Scripture. See my blog).

It seems that His very first experiment was the creation of the angels. He even had a favorite whom He made commander of the heavenly host and his name was Lucifer, the day-star. In this particular experiment, He took one of His first risks to His Divine Sovereignty: He was going to create servants who would be endowed with free will (with the intrinsic ability both to love Him or reject Him). However, it seemed that because He created a race of servants, His main criteria for relationship was loyalty and obedience, qualities that were a bit devoid of emotional elements. This must be why we seldom hear about happy or angry angels in scripture. Even when Satan was doing any of his activities, although intelligence was exercised, emotions seemed to be suppressed or non-existent. Same is true of Michael and Gabriel during their message errands.

With the fall of a third of the angels led by Lucifer, God decided to modify His creation significantly and even take a greater risk: God created MAN.

1. They would be created in God's image, and therefore have free will, the ability to love, hate, accept God, reject God, exercise faith, exercise doubt or skepticism, demonstrate intrinsic intelligence, etc.
2. They would NOT be created as servants but independent and autonomous individuals
3. They would be limited by physical bodies.
4. They would be given a choice for eternal life (The Tree of Life was in the middle of the garden of Eden).
5. They would be given a choice, and it would be the acid test to this experiment, to either remain innocent and live with God forever in the garden of Eden in a wonderful relationship between Creator and creature or become "like God" being able to distinguish between good and evil, becoming guilty due to disobedience and now being accountable for sin and hence be condemned to eternal separation from God.

Nonetheless, His objective of creating a people of faith who would love Him was not diminished. Only His method changed by modifying the type of creature He desired to have relationship with.

Of course, we now know what happened with Satan's intervention, Satan knowing fully well that these were creatures that were autonomous and capable of exercising intelligence and self-will.

But God does not give up and continues to exercise His omni-competence, sometimes actually intervening in His creative work to change the course of events to redirect towards His will but never forcing His will upon the hearts of men but continually courting them as a demonstration of His lovingkindness and tender mercies.

He had a few successes with Abel, Enoch and finally Noah when He realizes that man was generally evil when left to run his life and He even relented in creating man. This is when He finally decides to annihilate the world with a great flood by literally breaking open the windows of heaven for 40 days and nights. He exempts faithful Noah and attempts to re-create the human race through him.

After God promises never to destroy the earth with a flood again with a rainbow to remind Him, He even intervenes at Babel to create multiple languages to prevent man from being too powerful. Because He finds delight in the childlike faithfulness of Abram, He now proceeds to alter His method toward meeting His objective of creating a people of faith, to actually choose a segment of humanity through Abraham promising that this would be His chosen people. He even went through great lengths to isolate Israel especially in Egypt, to enable His chosen people to be a pure race whom He would set apart to be the people He would build a loving relationship with. It is quite important to note here that God said that the "nations" would be blessed through Abraham. Hence, God still had the whole of humanity in mind in His love and redemptive plan. However, He had to start from scratch again.

We now know that this experiment essentially failed, at least temporarily. God called the Hebrew nation, His own people harlots because they always forsook Him for other gods and other priorities. God placed them in exile to show how jealous and full of wrath He was at this demonstration of faithlessness and defiance. Although He would Himself be pained by the punishment He would mete, He also had to show that He stood for justice. Nevertheless, this experiment yielded gems like Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Gideon, Samuel, David, Asaph, the prophets, etc.

Finally, God creates His Church, a project that He prophesied about in Isaiah when He said, "...a people who have not known me..." In this final project, God would create a people of faith whom He no longer forces to be called His people in the same manner he chose the Jews. God's over-arching criterion for this people is that they willingly surrender back their independence and return God's love from their heart. His invitation to His people is no longer forced like the Jews were forced to be THE chosen people, and His invitation is open to all ("whosoever will"). This would be a people who, although He created to be independent and automous beings with free-will and the capacity to rebel or reject His love, would instead surrender back this independence to God and love Him with all their heart, mind, soul and strength.

For such is the essence of the relationship He desires. The realization that the risks He originally took in creating theomorphic man would redound to His expectations of willing submission and love.

Conclusion: I have presented a perspective on why God created man and finally the Church. Whether it seemed like a trial-and-error process or simply stages in God's unfolding revelation of His final plan to build His Church and for us to appreciate its unique attributes compared to the other stages or dispensations (this is NOT dispensationalism please), it is up to the readers to draw their own conclusions. I believe that God NEVER makes mistakes, theoretically. However, practically speaking, it is hard to declare that the millions of people going to hell without Christ is NOT some kind of mistake. However, the trial-and-error view demonstrates overwhelmingly the Omni-Competence of God while the concept of unfolding plan simply highlights His sovereignty.

This is why relational theology proposes a happy logical view where mistakes and risks are based on God's goal of demonstrating His love. From the viewpoint of classicism and Calvinism which emphasizes the sovereignty of God at the expense of His other attributes, it is quite difficult to logically justify that God did not make a mistake since millions of His beloved creatures are hell-bound. If one says that man goes to hell by his own sin, then we can go back and say that the creation of man is either a mistake or has mistakes involved from the viewpoint of absolute sovereignty at the expense of other attributes.

However, since relational theology emphasizes God's Love and that the over-arching motive for God's design and will is to demonstrate and consummate His love, we begin to see that millions going to hell is not a mistake but a risk He had to take, in the same way that He took the risk of sending His Son to not only suffer and die on the cross for our sin but to actually experience separation from God at the cross, so that we who would be redeemed would be exempted from such a tormenting experience. It costs God a LOT to build His Kingdom Project

Natural Law is God's ordinance

Reference: Jeremiah 31:35, 36; 33:25 NKJV

What is Natural Law? What is its role in God's participation in His relationship with His people?

Natural Laws are what the New King James Bible calls "ordinances". These are physical or metaphysical routines or behavior that have been ordained and established by God. Gravity is one example. The orbit of planets in the solar system and the exact distances between celestial bodies so that there is very little, if ever, possibility of collision between the planets are another example.

Other examples are consequences of events. For example, heavy rain clouds mean the high probability of rain. If the temperatures were at freezing point or below, we would have falling snow or hail instead. Two cars driving directly into each others way will collide head-on.

Less obvious examples are consequences of behavior. Too much refined sugar or high-fructose corn syrup in one's regular diet would lead to diabetes or other metabolic syndrome diseases like hypertension or even arthritis. An overdose of aspirin, sleeping pills and alcohol could lead to death.

Now, you may ask, what is the point of discussing the above and others like them?

The answer is a key to understanding the biblical perspective on answered prayers and rejected prayers.

Prayer is a petition to the God who ordains these natural laws or these divine ordinances, to intervene into the natural course of events as he originally ordained and, by such intervention, to change the course of events into something that is favorable to the petitioner. It is obvious that petitional prayers or prayers of supplication seek to change the mind of God either by altering His natural law or by simply changing the natural course of events had He left things alone as He originally ordained them.

This is such an important concept to bear in mind of a Christian who claims to have a real relationship with God. The petitioner needs to know if he is requesting something that would please God and honor Him, or is the petition tantamount to tempting or testing God in a negative sense.

Let me explain. Does God give us privilege to seek healing for a man born blind? or for a leper? or for a demon-possessed person? or for a child bitten by a venomous snake either due to the child's carelessness or adult negligence? In most cases, I would tend to think so, and I believe that the petitioner is in a strong position with the loving God to expect a favorable response.

On the other hand, similar to the Israelites continually tempting God in the wilderness during the Exodus years, does a Christian have the right to ask God for strong lungs if he is a habitual smoker? Can he petition for a healthy liver and kidney if he is a drunkard? Can a Christian who overdoses on alcohol and sleeping pills ask for a long life? More subtly, can a Christian who habitually stuffs herself with refined sugar diets and high fructose corn syrup juices have the right to ask God to heal her from diabetes?

In such cases, I think that these are patterns for prayers that will be rejected by God. In the same way that God wants us to reckon ourselves dead to sin in order to be alive to God, the above scenarios require a drastic lifestyle change before God can even begin to deliberate on the petitioner's case!

It is important for a Christian in relationship with God to realize the strength of his petitions based on what he has been doing with or against the natural laws of God before he even begins to make request for divine intervention. Christians who continually and stubbornly defy these ordinances, e.g., the cult where they play with poisonous snakes in their rituals should not expect any response from God at all. These are all part of "turn from their wicked ways" before God can "hear from heaven and heal their land" (2 Chronicles 7:14). This could be another angle in understanding what it is to pray "according to His will".

On the other hand, we must realize that natural law is something we NEVER have to pray for. Gravity will be gravity without our prayers. A man jumping from the top of the empire state building does not need to pray to God in order to land somewhere down below. We never need to pray that the planets in our solar system will not collide. They just won't until God decides to end everything. We don't need to pray that the ground gets wet when it rains.

Hence, petitional prayer is essentially a request for divine intervention for God to change the natural course of events in our favor.

...to be continued...

Other related topics:

• God's "Trial-and-Error" Attempts to Create a People of Faith for His Kingdom
• Covenant-Relationship Theology in a Nutshell
• Relational Theology Makes Prayer Meaningful
• Relational Prayer that gets Answers vs. the Vending Machine God
• Prayer that God does NOT answer, NORMALLY
• The concept of Faith from a Relational/Biblical Perspective
• Relational Theology Makes Evangelism Meaningful and Critical
• Relational Theology Makes Finding God's Will a Meaningful and Useful Experience

The concept of Faith from a Relational/Biblical Perspective

True Biblical Faith Defined

Faith is one of the most corrupted English word of the 20th/21st centuries. It is ironic that Bible translations are "forced" to do a word-for-word correspondence between the original language(s) into say, English. This is also one of the biggest reasons why it behoves a Christian who truly loves God and His Word to have several translations and sometimes paraphrases of the Bible as well as diligent study and analysis either individually or in a group situation in order to minimized the miscommunication of revelation from God to man.

The Greek word pisteuo for the English belief or faith is no longer what it used to mean. Unfortunately, attempts by classical expositions further confuse listeners and readers and they normally leave a sermon message without anything tangible that they could change in their mindset and/or behavior.

While the Greek word means exercising a believing trust based on reliable logical foundation, the 20th century meaning of faith if translated back 2,000 years to the Hellenistic culture would find that the closes Greek word for it borders on "sheer stupidity". The very phrase "blind faith" which is common to most, if not all, religions comes to mind.

To illustrate to simple extremes, a person who is about to jump off a 30 storey building to the ground exercises faith when he knows that based on the laws of gravity, he is going to fall and most probably die in the process. Note that he has NOT done it yet, but he already KNOWS! That is really what the Biblical pisteuo means.

On the other hand, a person who thinks he can defy the law of gravity without any assistance from technology (or demons), and believes all he can truly exercises STUPIDITY and NOT FAITH at all. This current generation with new age beliefs et all has it the other way around!

To take this a step further, if I book and subsequently ride a plane from Los Angeles to New York for arrival on March the 5th, I am exercising faith that I will be in New York on March the 5th. Note that faith is exercised BEFORE I even reach New York, I ALREADY believe that I will be there on March the 5th.

True faith or pisteuo is based on trusting some reason, logic, scientific or historical foundation. It is never faith on having much faith which is not blind faith but truly stupidity.

That is the reason we know we will be in heaven in the presence of God when we physically leave this life. We exercise faith on the One who promised that we will be there if we follow certain conditions and parameter that He has set.

When we book that plane to New York, there is always the possibility of failure. We may miss the flight, the plane could crash or re-route to somewhere else or just be cancelled. Nothing in this world is perfect, so we did exercise faith but on something that is not 100% reliable.

However, God is 100% reliable because He is God. The Lord Jesus Christ is 100% reliable because He is perfect. So we are actually more certain to be in heaven when we die than to be in New York on March 5th!!! And THAT... is what faith in an infallible God implies.

In the same way that wisdom is the application of knowledge, faith is also the application of knowledge. Note that knowledge has to be true and correct, otherwise both wisdom and faith utterly fail.

How is True Faith Developed or Increased?

Knowing the true Biblical definition of faith, the next question is "How then is faith developed and/or increased?" Why did Christ exclaim to his disciples, "Oh, ye of little faith"?

The Wrong Concept

The simple none-theological but very Biblical answer: The development of faith (or believing trust) has nothing at all to do with nurturing faith. On the contrary, it has almost everything to do with nurturing its OBJECT. What this means is that faith is an "automatic" or "natural" result of really knowing the OBJECT of faith. It could be a scientific fact, a historical fact, a natural law like gravity, or a proven concept. Note that it CANNOT be just a theory like the Theory of Evolution. So many people, including scientists exercise this blind faith, trusting something that is no more than just a guess, perhaps it is an intelligent guess but it is still a guess nonetheless and not a completely proven scientific fact (the missing links in the evolutionary path ARE STILL MISSING TODAY after all the research and technology behind it).

The same is true with the homosexual rights concept. It is already quite scientific that there is either a penis or a vagina for each person. People who do not fall under this category like the hermaphrodites are considered SCIENTIFICALLY ABNORMAL. Since when can it be mandated that a person with a correct sexual organ but the wrong brain orientation be considered "normal"? These last centuries have corrupted definitions with relativistic thought applied to extreme, that is relativism applied where IT SHOULD NOT EVEN BE APPLIED. Clean distilled water is scientifically CLEAN DISTILLED WATER even if I try to believe with all my might that it is VINEGAR or a form of vinegar!!!

Common sense has just gone out the door and the main stupid proponents call themselves scientists, teachers, philosophers or even theologians. The loudness of a lobby does not make it right. They consider themselves intelligent where universally, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth to agree with them.

I have not really digressed because these cases are examples of blind faith - putting your trust and belief system on a belief and not on simple universal and logical FACT. Again, if you gave these example to the Hellenists 2,000 years ago, they would simply call this STUPID, and stupid is as stupid gets.

So either the object of faith is fact or faith is just plain stupidity. I hope we have clearly laid that out. This is the day and age where one can redefine things and I simply refuse to get into that kind of non-sensical relativistic bent.

The Correct Concept

So to increase or develop faith, one has to not only get familiar with its object but study and analyze it to the point that everything about the object that is relevant to the exercise of specific faith (YES, all exercise of faith is specific and not general) becomes established FACT in the person's mind. Note that in order for the exercise of faith to be genuine, the object has to be an established fact in reality and an established fact in the mind of the person exercising specific faith.

After it becomes an established fact in a person's mind, he then has to truly and sincerely believe that fact for true Biblical kind of faith to start being exercised. Let us apply this to a real example. In a normal world, trust is built between people as they get to know each other better. The more they know the other person's character, behavior and responses to given circumstances, the more they can sort of "predict" what they would do under certain situations or stimuli. The TRUST that such and such is what a person would do if a certain action or stimulus is applied to him. This would be entirely based on one's knowledge of a person as well as experience dealing with him in various situations.

The same is true with God and Jesus Christ. The more I know them, the more experience I have with them as to how they respond to events, people's behavior, etc., the more I can sort of "predict" what they would do when certain events occur. The unique and peculiar reinforcement to the exercise of faith is that God's character never changes and the Lord Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. So there is a sense in making them not exactly more predictable but to state it in general, the basis of the exercise of our faith when it is founded on the Lord Jesus Christ or The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is more reliable. Call that predictability if you will but that definitely helps your faith in them.

For example, if I need healing from God for a specific ailment or disease, it has to be an established fact both in reality and in my mind that God can heal and that God will heal and if He gives conditions for me to be healed, I make sure that I abide by those conditions. Knowing that God fulfills ALL HIS promises within the Kingdom context (you must be a Kingdom child with a real and meaningful relationship with the King) and/or if you abide in Him as He abides in you, He promised to "ask anything in my name and it will be done to you" (John 15:7) or "whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you" (John 15:16). The Lord Jesus even encourages ask to ask in John 16:23,24.

For those who still doubt, what kind of God will make so many promises and either not be able to fulfill them nor would not act to fulfill them??? May that never be so. Fortunately, the Bible does declare over and over that if a Kingdom child continues to live within the Kingdom context, the fulfillment of ALL 100% of His promises will be experienced in reality.

The problem is not with the Promise-Giver for He truly is a Promise-Keeper. The problem is with the Kindom child who so often has one foot on the Kingdom and the other in the world. This is one reason why Christ said, "you cannot serve God and mammon". Christ meant that anytime one is a fence-sitter, he is in reality NOT living in the Kingdom context and that is why God's promises do not find fulfillment and that is why most Christians do not have the right faith to believe and make things happen.

Let us look at passages in Scripture

Now that we have established the true meaning of pisteuo and its implications...

...to be discussed...

What did Christ mean "faith as big as a mustard seed"?

How did Christ respond to "help thou mine unbelief"

What did James mean by "prayer of faith"?

The Trinity and the 2nd Failure of Classical Theology

I have heard this before said to a classicist, " For someone who claims to love logic and sound reasoning, you surely don't make sense!" Whoever quoted this is a genius. He stumbled on the defining character of classical thought.

An earlier blog noted that one failure of Classical thought is that of definition. They cannot accept a "definition" like the Trinity without sacrificing their intelligence. So you commonly see them raise their hands in surrender and declare, "It is a mystery". What they really mean is that they do not understand the concept based on their foundational thinking. So Biblical "common sense" does not make sense to them. They have to re-interpret things according to their world ( which is many times out-of-this-world) and they end up being ridiculous to the simple thinker who has a lot of common sense.

The second failure of classical theology is the unrestrained generalization of a theological principle that may have only a limited application in Scripture the way God really intended it.

Predestination for example, is very specific in scripture and only applies to that which was explicitly declared as predestined. Classicists would readily grab that concept (which is good) but use it to apply to everything (which is a hermeneutical failure) almost unconditionally. Furthermore, a context analysis of the words predestined and fore-ordained in Scripture means a current state of being and really very simply means that God has made something (whatever is the subject) a "natural law". This immediately excludes a lot of things including how many spoons of sugar I will put in my coffee three days from now. It becomes ridiculous if you include that in God's natural law OR God's fore-ordination or God's predestination.

Prayer "according to God's will" is mentioned ONLY ONCE in scripture but the classicist tends to interpret its meaning quite incorrectly and then apply it to all his prayers and pretty soon discovers prayers that do not have answers. The hermeneutic meaning has been discussed elsewhere in this blog but suffice it to say that "according to God's will" simply meant by John was prayer that does not violate the character of God. This means that we can pray for our wishes and desires and not just our needs. In fact, Jesus himself says not to pray for our needs in Matthew 6. Hence, we should only pray for our aspirations, wishes and desires. Now these may not be in line with the perfect will of God but if it does not violate the character of God, God COULD definitely answer such prayer positively! A biblical example is when Israel asked Samuel for a king in the book of 1 Samuel. This was NOT in line with God's will at all since God himself said it, BUT HE GRANTED THEIR WISH ANYWAY!!! Classical theologians have a difficult time interpreting these events because this is quite an exception to their theology.

God does not relent, God has no shadow of turning does NOT imply that God does not change His mind about specific events. God's character and attributes never change, but He definitely changes his mind time and again depending on the prayers of his people. There are three great examples in Scripture at least: Moses convincing God to change his mind in destroying his people in Exodus 32 ending in verse 14; Hezekiah convincing God to extend his life which God did 15 more years even after God declared his will to Hezekiah that he should die that night; and, to make things even controversial, the Assyrians in Nineveh convincing God to change his mind on destroying their city in the book of Jonah! Many classical preachers are able to exegete these passages with satisfaction but they are quite helpless in trying to relate their theology to the evidences against it... very paradoxical and ironic, and they claim to be logical and intelligent? I believe they are, but they have the wrong foundation on Scripture.

...above is a draft which we will expand, expound and develop further....

God NEVER changes, BUT...He can change His mind!

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). But so is God the Father since they are co-equal. God's character and attributes NEVER change. Only the exercise of His rights change as in the Baby Jesus not having omnipotence, omnipresence nor omniscience while He was lying in the manger or when Herod was after His life.

But since His character never changes, this means that the Loving God will deal with His people today (the church) in almost exactly the same way as He dealt with His people (the Jews).

[work in progress...I have a very important point to share here....more soon]

The Book of Life and Predestination

A common anchor for those who defend specific predestination especially the so-called "salvation of the elect" is the Book of Life which is mentioned in various ways from the Old Testament to the New (although more specific name-wise in the NT). However, it becomes pretty obvious as one goes through the details with an honest hermeneutical approach that there is a stronger implication about loss of salvation (names blotted out from the Book of Life. Revelations 3:5) than there is about security of being elect.

It is almost the same argument on the word "apostasy" or falling from grace. How can one fall from grace if he was never there in the first place? So, how can one's name be blotted out from the book of life if his name was never written, as some admittedly won't be?

We shall deal with and respond to the following passages on the Book of Life. The literal English translation and at least 2 problematic passages seem to lean toward specific predetermination and we will discuss why it does not.

Philippians 4:3
And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life.

Revelation 3:5
He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

Revelation 13:8
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 17:8
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

Revelation 20:15
And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:27
But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

Revelation 22:19
and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Let's summarize at this point. Although this "book" is almost purely idiomatic (would there be a literal book? how big would this be and how many pages?), let us assume for the sake of argument that this is literal, that there is such a book that one could hold in his "physical" hands to literally open and flip the pages, and write with a giant pen.

It is quite certain in most reference passages except for Revelations 13:8; 17:8 and perhaps Acts 13:48 that one of 2 things are true:

1. Names are added to the book of life, or
2. All names are in the book of life, but some would be blotted out.

There are really ONLY three verses out of all these references that tend towards the second. The preponderance of passages definitely imply the first. It MUST be noted when interpreting these three problematic verses, that the acceptance of these as a norm or rule for the Divine Plan of salvation virtually THROWS AWAY everything else taught about salvation in the Scriptures. Hence, at its very strongest, we have to take these three verses as special cases or exceptions instead of doctrinal and prescriptive.

So let us deal with these three problematic passages and see if we can resolve synthesize them successfully into the backdrop of the rest of the Scriptures.

Here are a few notes from Kittel.

"The familiar thought of later Judaism and the NT that the names of the righteous are written in the book of life has an OT basis in Ex. 32:32 f.; Ps. 69:28; cf. Is. 4:3; Ez. 13:9."

Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (5:253). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

"d. τὸ βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς (Rev. 13:8; 17:8; 20:12; 21:27), also called ἡ βίβλος τῆς ζωῆς—like Phil. 4:3 except that there it has no article—at 3:5; 13:8 א*; 20:15, is based on OT sayings which speak of all the saints and faithful, and of all who fear God or await salvation, being inscribed in God’s book. In the OT this is to be differentiated from the book in which God has laid down in advance all human destinies, sorrows and joys (Ps. 56:8; 139:16).

The same image of the writing of names in heaven is found at Lk. 10:20 (the disciples of Jesus); Phil. 4:3 (those who stand in the service of the Gospel); Hb. 12:23 (the community of the first-born, i.e., of the NT). The idea may have been fostered by the establishment of genealogies, family lists and national registers in Israel (Neh. 7:5 f., 64; 12:22 f.; Ez. 13:9; this is also the reference in Ps. 87:6), but also by the royal “note-book” (cf. → e.). Yet the belief in heavenly tables of destiny on which the fates of the living are inscribed, to which they are added, and from which they are erased, is an ancient oriental heritage. In the NT the image is freed from fatalism and becomes an expression of the assurance of salvation of the Christian community, which knows that it is elected on the impregnable basis of the divine counsel of grace (2 Tm. 2:19). When Rev. 13:8 calls this βιβλίον the book of life of the crucified Lamb, it again makes the act of redemption on the cross the foundation, as in the case of the sealed book. The reference, however, is not now to the consummation; it is to the salvation of individuals. The opposite is eternal perdition (20:14). This ordination to eternal life goes back behind the crucifixion to the καταβολὴ κόσμου (13:8; 17:8), but only the names of those who overcome are not erased (3:5). The divine foreordination is thus linked with the human readiness to carry the conflict to victory. The thought of predestination is not unaccompanied by an emphasis on the cohortative motive for ready obedience; 13:8; 17:8 (not worshipping the beast) and 21:27 (shunning abomination and falsehood) are also to be seen in this light."

Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (1:619-620). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

"We do not find the expression “book of destiny” because the eternal basis of the sovereign and historically determinative counsel of God is fundamentally different from εἱμαρμένη."

Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (1:619). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Having quoted the above, here are the three problematic verses:

Acts 13:48
Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Revelation 13:8
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 17:8
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in theBook of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Let us deal with Acts 13:48 first. Luke the physician and historian wrote the book of Acts. We are almost sure that he was educated on doctrine from the "School of St. Paul" as he spent much time with him during his missionary journeys.

Aside from its most common meaning, Strong's Lexicon has alternative renderings for the word as follows (note those in red):

5021 τάσσω [tasso /tas·so/] v. A prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); TDNT 8:27; TDNTA 1156; GK 5435; Eight occurrences; AV translates as “appoint” three times, “ordain” twice, “set” once, “determine” once, and “addict” once. 1 to put in order, to station. 1a to place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint. 1a1 to assign (appoint) a thing to one. 1b to appoint, ordain, order. 1b1 to appoint on one’s own responsibility or authority. 1b2 to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon. Additional Information: For synonyms see entries 1781, entellomai; 2753, keleuo; and 3853, paragello.See entry 5844 for comparison of synonyms.

Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the text of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G5021). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

An appointment is strictly one of intent but it is RARELY if ever A DONE DEAL. One has to be clear about this. The word is rarely used in the context of an ordained completion (or completed ordination, whatever, but one has to see this point clearly). Hence, in any language, it is fortunate that its most common usage is more like an assignment to a post or an appointment like a date. Appointments can ALWAYS be stood up. Assignments can ALWAYS be rejected. Hence, "to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon" is the most sensible interpretation of this passage without contradiction to the bigger picture of salvation.

Note Acts 2:47, "And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." obviously does NOT mean that this was ENTIRELY the Lord's doing although the Holy Spirit did have a MAJOR ACTIVE role in the start of the building of the Church. Luke's expression here seems to simply glorify God for His role in salvation of the first believers.

Note also that there are different Greek words specifically meant for "foreknow" (proginosko) and "foreordained" or "predestined" (proorizo) (DONE DEAL!).

Note that we are NOT at all denying here that there are those who will never be appointed. But that can be explained by Romans 9 and I have a separate blog on this issue (Relational Theology's response to the exercise of God's sovereignty in Romans 9)

But the best proof of alternative interpretation comes from the Bible itself. Psalm 102:19-20 declares that God "viewed the earth, to hear the groaning of the prisoner, To release those appointed to death..." which means that regardless of the "appointment to death", God CAN reverse it without harm to His integrity and perfection! Classicists should never put more meaning to words than they actually carry, or they miss out on much of God's wisdom and beauty!

This makes Acts 13:48 non-problematic at all.

Let us now deal with the two Revelations verses. The first major thing to note is the phrase "from the foundation of the world" were constructed two different ways. While 17:8 clearly refers to "written", 13:8 follows from "slain" although some translators like the ESV would position the phrase right after "written" as well. Although it is most probable that both refer to "written", it is curious why John changed the construction of his phrasing to describe, let's say, the same thing. What it hints to me is that the phrase is another idiom with implied meanings rather than explicit declarations, and I believe that this is most probably so.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let us assume that traditional classical meaning of the verse that there is indeed predestination declared here. We still refuse to subscribe to the classical implication that this is the general rule instead of the exception. An strict analysis of each passage in the light of the immediate contexts where John uses them can show a limited application only to those whose names were not written and NOT NECESSARILY mean that everyone else's name is written.

It may come as a surprise to many that when Jesus uttered the words in Luke 10:20,..."Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven.”... that Judas Iscariot was among those spoken to! It is possible but inconceivable to think that Jesus would send out the seventy at the exclusion of the twelve "inner circle" disciples, and when they came back to report, it is even more inconceivable that when He spoke to them, that He was not speaking to the twelve as well.

To introduce a dichotomy here is to court a logical inconsistency. In the Word of God, there should mostly, if not purely, be synthesis since God is a God of order and is the Great Communicator. Note how we defined God as the Trinity and the Trinity as God in the article, "The Major Failure of Classical Thought".

Observe how Luke records what Peter said in Acts 2:22-24:

"22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it."

The phrase "being delivered" is actually an ADJECTIVE in the Greek! Also, the word foreknowledge is the same Greek word as the English "prognosis". The strength of this word is much the same as the word "appointment" which we already explained and dealt with above. This puts the phrase in a passive sense if it were ever a verb. In contrast, the words following for "taken by lawless hands", "crucified", and "put to death" are all in the ACTIVE verb mood. This implies a completely independent volitional "active" action by the subject(s) of these verbs. Synthesize that one! It is difficult if you haven't read the foundational tenets of Relational Love Theology. It is even, quite unfortunately, more difficult and close to impossible to conceptualize with logical sufficiency if one has been drowned for years with the teachings and "scholastic" assumptions of classical theology.

Note also the threat in the last chapter of Revelations about adding and subtracting from the declared Word of God. Revelation 22:19 reads, "...God shall take away his part from the Book of Life..." This is the same argument as apostasy or falling from grace. There is nothing to "take away" or blot out from the Book of Life if the name was NEVER there. Furthermore, God the Great Communicator, becomes ridiculous in communicating His point, if He makes an EMPTY threat. An empty threat is one where the one who threatens is really powerless either by ability or by law to carry out his threat.

Before we conclude, let us refer back to Moses in Exodus 32:32-33. This conversation between Moses and God occurred right the Hebrews built and worshipped the golden calf. Note that both Moses in verse 32 suggests to God that his name be blotted out from the book which God has written (what else could it be but the Book of Life?); and God in verse 33, actually confirms that there is such an act as blotting out names from "My book".

To synthesize all these passages and their meanings, the most logical conclusion comes by accepting the declared givens:

• That there could be such an act of writing names from the foundation of the world, and
• In the case of Jesus declaration in Luke 10:20, that names already written, like Judas Iscariot, Revelation 3:5 and 22:19, can also be blotted out.

Incidentally, the fifth point of Calvinism just got another huge dent in their theological armor on these very Biblical and Biblically clear passages.