The Conservative Christian Reader

10 – The Contrast Between Calvinism & Arminianism – The Providence of God – Predestination (Part Four)

10 – The Contrast Between Calvinism & Arminianism – The Providence of God – Predestination

(Part Four)

The Providence of God – Predestination (Part Four)

8.    Predestination in Lutheranism:  Luther and the Lutheran church at first shared the doctrine of predestination and election, Luther in his treatment of free will reproducing the Augustinian form of the doctrine in a strict manner.  The predestination of Luther and Melanchthon proceeded, not from their conception of God, but rather from the doctrine of sin and grace.  Melanchthon was less disposed than Luther to press the doctrine of absolute predestination, and, in his “synergistic” tendencies, laid increasing stress on human freedom, until he at length rejected the doctrine of absolute predestination.  He was blamed by strict Lutheranism for yielding too much to Pelagianism.  But the Lutheran “Formula of Concord,” prepared in 1577, was not a very logical and consistent presentation of the case, for, opposed at points to Augustinianism, it fell back, in the end, on election in the Augustinian spirit.  Or, to put the matter in another form, the “Formula of Concord” may be said to have held with Augustinianism, but to have differed by maintaining a Universal call along with a particular election, and it rejected the decree of reprobation.  Later Lutheranism adopted a moderate form of doctrine, wherein predestination was often identified with prescience.  But Lutheranism ought not, in strictness, to be identified, as is sometimes done, with the Arminian theory.  The Lutheran doctrine of predestination was further developed by Schleiermacher, who emphasized the efficiency of grace, while adopting its universality in the Lutheran sense.

9.  The Arminian View:  Arminianism, in its earliest assertion, maintained simply universal grace and conditional election.  But in the five articles it formulated its opposition to Calvinism, though Arminius does not appear to have been more than moderately Calvinistic, as we would account it.  Arminius gave grace supreme place, and made it, when welcome, pass into saving grace.  He made election depend on faith, which latter is the condition of universal grace.  Arminiansim rejects the so-called common grace of the predestination theory, and its effectual grace for the elect, for, in the Arminian view, saving grace can in no case be missed save by resistance or neglect.  Arminianism holds the awakened human will to cooperate with divine grace, in such wise that it rests with the human will whether the divine grace is really accepted or rejected.  It is the claim of Arminianism to do more justice than Calvinism to faith and repentance, as conditions of personal salvation, and precedent thereto.  The Arminian standpoint admits the foreknowledge of God, but denies foreordination, though it must seem difficult to reduce the foreknowledge of God to such a bare knowledge of the future.  But it is, of course, freely to be granted that foreknowledge in God, simply as knowledge, does not carry any causal energy or efficiency with it.  But it may still be doubted whether the prescience of God can be nothing more fruitful and creative than such a position implies, and whether its relation to predestination may not be a more necessary one.  Theory seems to fail of giving satisfactory account of the divine activity in its relation to human activity, in the sphere of grace.  The shortcoming of Arminianism lies in its failing also to do justice to the spirit of Scripture with its emphatic assertion of the doctrine of God as the one absolute will, which, in its expression, is the sole originative power of the universe.  (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright © 1996 by Biblesoft)

Next we’ll look at “The Providence of God – Election”

Doug

9 – The Contrast Between Calvinism & Arminianism – The Providence of God – Predestination (Part Three)

9 – The Contrast Between Calvinism & Arminianism – The Providence of God – Predestination

(Part Three)

The Providence of God – Predestination (Part Three)

Predestination in the Reformed Theology:  Theology of the Reformed church adopted the Calvinistic doctrine of the decree of predestination and election.  Calvin, however, simply carried the Augustinian theory to its logical and necessary conclusion, and he was the first to adopt the doctrine as the cardinal point or primordial principle of a theological system.  Zwingli, it must be remembered, was, even before Calvin, of consistent deterministic leanings, as part of his large speculative views, which were not without a tendency to universalism.  Salvation was, to Calvin, the execution of a divine decree, which was supposed to fix the extent and conditions of such salvation.

(1)  Calvin’s definition. – Reprobation was, for Calvin, involved in election, and divine foreknowledge and foreordination were taken to be identical.  Calvin’s mode of defining predestination was as the eternal decree of God, which He has decided with Himself what is to become of each and every individual.  For all, he maintains, are not created in like condition; but eternal life ordained for some, eternal condemnation for others.  Calvin confesses that this is a “horrible decree,” and it is not surprising to find competent theologians in our time denying such a form of predestinariansim any place in the teachings of Paul, who never speaks of reprobation.

(2)  Theology advanced by Calvin. – It is generally overlooked, however, that theological advance registered by Calvin is to be seen by study of the views of the Middle Ages, and on to the Reformation, not by viewing Calvinism in our post-Reformation lights.  It was love – “the fatherly love of God,” as he terms it–the efficiency of saving love-which Calvin insisted upon, above all, in his teaching about God.  But Calvin also heightened men’s ideas as to the certitude of personal salvation.  It is but fair to Calvin to remember-for superficial acquaintance with his teachings is far from rare-that he, in the strongest manner, maintained divine sovereignty to be that of divine wisdom, righteousness, and love, and expressly rejected the notion of absolute power as, in this connection, a heathenish idea.  The Calvinistic doctrine was not absolute, but mediated in Christ, and conditioned upon faith.

(International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright © 1996 by Biblesoft)

Next we’ll look at “The Providence of God – Predestination (Part Four)”

Doug

8 – The Contrast Between Calvinism & Arminianism – The Providence of God – Predestination (Part Two)

8 – The Contrast Between Calvinism & Arminianism – The Providence of God – Predestination (Part Two)

The Providence of God – Predestination (Part Two)

It is the view of Arminians that God makes pre-decisions on one’s salvation and that pre-decision is conditioned on that specific person’s act or work of repentance and belief.

Arminianism teaches predestination that the ‘pre-decision on God’s part is to save the ones who repent and believe.’  Thus this view is called conditional predestination, since the predetermination of the destiny of individuals is based on God’s foreknowledge of the way in which they will either freely reject Christ or freely accept him.  Walter A. Elwell, Ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Second Edition, p. 97

 

Arminius also believed that the sublapsarian unconditional predestination view of Augustine and Luther was unscriptural.  This is the view that Adam’s sin was freely chosen but that, after Adam’s fall, the eternal destiny of each person was determined by the absolutely sovereign God.  Ibid.

 

As a part of the Arminian view of conditional predestination, is the emphasis on human freedom.  Here Arminius believed ‘in original sin, understanding that the will of the natural fallen humans is not only maimed and wounded, but that it is entirely unable, apart from prevenient grace, to do any good thing.  Ibid. 

Next we’ll look at “The Providence of God – Election”

Doug

136 BIBLE “CONTRADICTIONS” … ANSWERED (Contradictions 16-20)

136 BIBLE “CONTRADICTIONS” … ANSWERED (Contradictions 16-20)

A Booklet by Brad McCoy, Th.M.

© Copyright 1985 Reprinted with author’s permission. May be distributed freely but not sold.

*****************************************************************************

Note:  I thought it would be interesting for a few posts, to consider some alleged Biblical contradictions.  I hear this all the time, but no one who makes the complaints will sit down with me and study them.  Brad McCoy was my Theology Professor in Seminary.  He is an outstanding theological scholar and teacher.  At my request, he provided me with a booklet he self-published in 1985.  The booklet can be reproduced, but not sold. - dh

** UPDATE ** Recently, I conversed with Dr. McCoy and he confirmed directly with me that I can post from his booklet.  In addition, he informed me that the book was recently updated to – “150 Bible Contradictions Answered!”  He sent me this self-published manuscript which, by the way, is excellent.  If you would like the new manuscript, let me know and I will pass it on to Dr. McCoy.  I see it cost him about $5.00 to send it to me, so you should be willing to make a contribution to Dr. McCoy's church to help defray the mailing cost and perhaps a bit more, maybe $20.00 or so.

*****************************************************************************  

(This booklet is a response to the pamphlet “136 Bible Contradictions” printed by Crusade Publications of Redmond, Washington.)

 

******************************************************************************

“Contradictions” 16-20

 

#16 Exodus 32:14 which states that God “repented” of His threat to destroy the children of Israel in the aftermath of the golden calf incident is contrasted with Numbers 23:19 which states that God “...is not a man...that He should repent”.

 

God’s repenting (Hebrew “changing His mind”) in Exodus 32:14 and elsewhere is an example of a recognized figure of speech (anthromorphism) which communicates the relationship of God’s unchanging character to Israel’s changing character as manifested in the intercession of her leader, Moses.  To illustrate, one could say that for the first part of a bicycle ride a man was moving “with the wind”, but for the second part of his ride he was moving “against it”.  Such a description might sound as though the direction of the wind had changed, and yet that is not necessarily the case.  The man could have begun his bike ride moving south with the wind and then several miles later he might have turned around returning to his starting point riding north against the win.  In such a scenario, it would be the man and not the wind that had changed!  In a similar way in Exodus 32:14, God did not change in any absolute moral or ontological sense, but only in a relative sense, as communicated by the anthromorphism.  It is not God who changes in Exodus 32, but Israel!  In a gracious response to the intercession of Moses, God extended a superlative mercy instead of His previously threatened wrath.  In contrast, Numbers 23:19 is an absolute ontological statement affirming that God does not change in regard to His essential being or essence.  He is eternally consistent and everlastingly immutable.  God never stops being loving, or holy, or righteous, or eternal.

 

#17 Contrasts Exodus 33:20 and John 1:18 which indicate that no one has seen God, with Exodus 24:9 and 33:11 which indicates that certain men have seen God.

 

One can “see” something or someone in different ways. No human can actually see an atom being split and its subatomic particles actually dividing. Yet observers of atomic explosions have “seen” the atom being split. No mortal human can or has seen the essence of God, His unveiled glory. Yet Moses and a select number of others have “seen” God in unique ways when God chose to manifest Himself to them in various visible forms.

 

#18 Contrast Exodus 34:6, an affirmation of God’s faithfulness, with numbers 14:30 where God tells the Exodus generation that none of them will come to the promised land, and with 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 which states that God will send a delusion making some believe what is false so that they will be condemned and not believe the truth.

 

God is faithful to His promises and to His own character. The promise that the Exodus generation would occupy the land was a conditional promise contingent on their obedience to God. Their insubordination at Kadesh-barnea resulted in God’s discipline. However the next generation under Joshua did take the land as they walked under God’s obedience.

 

To understand 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 one must first read and understand 2 Thessalonians 2:10. This passage discusses “them that perish (during the Tribulation), because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved”. God honors the freedom that He has given man and allows a strong delusion to come and to confirm them in their freely-made decision, only after they have totally rejected and repudiated God and His truth.

 

#19 Contrasts Exodus 34:6-7, God not clearing “the guilty” and “visiting the iniquity of the fathers out onto the 3rd and 4th generations”, with Hebrews 9:27 which states that man dies once and then faces judgment, and Jeremiah 31:34 where God promises to forgive iniquity.

 

Exodus 34:6-7 describes God’s righteous wrath against those who reject Him and transgress His commands, those who refuse His grace and a relationship with Him for rebellion against Him. The phrase “by no means” (clear the guilty) does not mean that a guilty party can never by any mechanism be reconciled to God, but that God will certainly not leave the guilty (who stay in that condition only because they refuse God’s salvation. See John 3:17) unpunished. This is an expression of the certainty of God’s judgment on those who stand guilty before Him. No one will “get off” on a legal technicality or will be able to plea bargain before God. The concept of God visiting out the iniquity of the Fathers upon their children, grandchildren and so on (Exodus 34:7 and 20:5) does not mean that God punishes a grandchild because of his grandparent’s sin.  This expression is a warning of the cumulative effect and influence of one generation’s sins upon the immediately succeeding generations. The reader is referred to Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:1-32 for the Biblical position on individual responsibility and individual guilt. An illustration from today’s headlines: Future generations of Americans will be affected by the great debt our nation is presently incurring, even though they are not responsible or guilty of that overspending. In the same way God warns Israel of the moral effects of one generation’s sin upon succeeding generations.

 

Hebrews 9:27 clearly teaches the Biblical truth of individual responsibility before God. Each human being (including you!) has but one human life followed by a personal reckoning with the Holy God.

 

Jeremiah 31:34 in context states a general principle central to all Biblical theology; God desires to forgive all sinners and has provided to save all who will freely receive His gracious salvation (see John 3:16-18).

 

#20 Contrasts Leviticus 1:1 and following in which God gives many details concerning ritual and sacrifice, with Jeremiah 7:21-22 which states that the Lord did not speak to Moses’ generation about burnt offerings and sacrifices.

 

Context! Context! Context! No self-respecting Jew, and certainly not the prophet Jeremiah would argue that God did in fact give instructions in Leviticus about offerings and sacrifices. In Jeremiah 7 the Jews were at an all time low morally, militarily and religiously but were continuing to “go through the motions” of offering the formally required rituals and sacrifices, with no heart-faith or love for God. In context then, God is stating that He was not describing such a mindless and meaningless mechanical observance of the rituals in Leviticus.  Instead, He was teaching how those whose hearts loved His were to respond in outward worship. An obedient/loving heart is a prerequisite to offering up the sacrifices He had described in Leviticus. Proverbs 15:8 states that “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord”.

 

Next we’ll go back to Calvinism-Arminianism.

 

Doug

136 BIBLE “CONTRADICTIONS” … ANSWERED (Contradictions 11-15)

136 BIBLE “CONTRADICTIONS” … ANSWERED (Contradictions 11-15)

A Booklet by Brad McCoy, Th.M.

© Copyright 1985 Reprinted with author’s permission. May be distributed freely but not sold.

*****************************************************************************

Note:  I thought it would be interesting for a few posts, to consider some alleged Biblical contradictions.  I hear this all the time, but no one who makes the complaints will sit down with me and study them.  Brad McCoy was my Theology Professor in Seminary.  He is an outstanding theological scholar and teacher.  At my request, he provided me with a booklet he self-published in 1985.  The booklet can be reproduced, but not sold. I will return to the Calvinism/Arminianism series after awhile.  Maybe a couple of weeks. - dh

** UPDATE **  Recently, I have conversed with Dr. McCoy and he confirmed directly with me that I can post from his booklet.  In addition, he informed me that the book was recently updated to -- 150 Bible "Contradictions” Answered! -- He sent me this self-published manuscript which, by the way, is excellent.  If you would like the new manuscript, let me know and I will pass it on to Dr. McCoy.  I see it cost him about $5.00 to send it to me, so you should be willing to make a contribution to Dr. McCoy's church to help defray the mailing cost and perhaps a bit more.   Maybe $20.00 or so.

*****************************************************************************

 (This booklet is a response to the pamphlet “136 Bible Contradictions” printed by Crusade publications of Redmond, Washington.)

******************************************************************************

“Contradictions” 11-15

#11. Gen. 7:21 which says all living things on land (including the Nephilim) were destroyed by the flood vs. Numbers 13:33 which mentions the existence of the Nephilim, thousands of years later.

The word Nephilim (literally, “he fell”) means “giant”. The Nephilim of Genesis 6:2 refer to a race of giants that resulted from intermarriage between women and fallen angels. They were destroyed in the flood. Nephilim in Numbers 13:33 were a later group of Giants who arose after the flood years. Nephilim can refer to anyone of above average height, and the Nephilim in Numbers were apparently just tall people with no demonic lineage.

#12. Gen. 6;19 calls for two of every kind of animal to be brought on board the ark vs. Gen. 7:25 which sates seven of some kinds of clean animals to be brought aboard.

The first verse is a broad description of the commandment while the second is a more specific detail of the commandment describing the number of certain animals needed above one pair for sacrifice.

#13. Exodus 6:19 which says God is a “man of war” vs. 2 Cor. 13:11 which says He is the God of “love and peace”.

These verse affirm two aspects of the complex personality of God. Douglas MacArthur was a brilliant organizer and statesman who rebuilt Japan after World War II, and won the hearts of the Japanese so much so they offered him the Presidency. But the same Gen. MacArthur had previously fought fiercely with Japan conquered it. The same might be said of Woodrow Wilson, who always pursued peace, but sent thousands of American soldiers to fight in World War I.

#14. Ex. 15:3 “you will not kill” vs. Ex. 32:37 which orders Jews to execute those who worshiped the Golden calf.

The Hebrew word rendered as “kill” would be better translated as “murder”. The Israelites of Exodus, just as we do today, make a distinction between unjustified killing (murder, manslaughter) with justified killing such as in acts of war or self defense. Ex. 21:23-25 is very specific guidelines for capital punishment for individuals found guilty of capital crimes. The code  actually limited the severity of the punishment to equal the offense.

#15 Exodus 31:15-17 which makes working on the Sabbath a capital offense is contrasted to Mark 2:27-28 which states the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Exodus 31:15-17 is a general statute give to Israel under Moses. In Mark 2:27-28 Jesus is not reacting against Exodus 31 or any of the other legitimate Old Testament Sabbath regulations. Instead He is commenting against the man-made Pharisaic traditions which had been erroneously and oppressively added to the divinely inspired Old Testament regulations. These man-made regulations focused on the letter and missed the spirit of the original God-given instructions. God had designed the Sabbath as a day of rest and worship for the good of man  and his refreshment both physically and spiritually. This is what the Lord Jesus is teaching in Mark 2.

*************************************************************************************************************

Next we’ll look at “Contradictions” 16-20.

Doug

136 BIBLE “CONTRADICTIONS” … ANSWERED (Contradictions 6-10)

136 BIBLE “CONTRADICTIONS” … ANSWERED (Contradictions 6-10)

A Booklet by Brad McCoy, Th.M.

© Copyright 1985 Reprinted with author’s permission. May be distributed freely but not sold.

*************************************************************************************************************

Note:  I thought it would be interesting for a few posts, to consider some alleged Biblical contradictions.  I hear this all the time, but no one who makes the complaints will sit down with me and study them.  Brad McCoy was my Theology Professor in Seminary.  He is an outstanding theological scholar and teacher.  At my request, he provided me with a booklet he self-published in 1985.  The booklet can be reproduced, but not sold. I will return to the Calvinism/Arminianism series after awhile, maybe a couple of weeks. - dh

** UPDATE ** Recently, I conversed with Dr. McCoy and he confirmed directly with me that I can post from his booklet.  In addition, he informed me that the book was recently updated to – “150 Bible Contradictions Answered!”  He sent me this self-published manuscript which, by the way, is excellent.  If you would like the new manuscript, let me know and I will pass it on to Dr. McCoy.  I see it cost him about $5.00 to send it to me, so you should be willing to make a contribution to Dr. McCoy's church to help defray the mailing cost and perhaps a bit more, maybe $20.00 or so.

*****************************************************************************  

(This booklet is a response to the pamphlet “136 Bible Contradictions” printed by Crusade Publications of Redmond, Washington.)

 

 

“Contradictions” 6-10

 

#6.  Genesis 1:31 in which God says everything “very good” is contrasted with Genesis  6:6 where God is said to be sorry that He had made man.

 

This “contradiction” compares two totally different contexts, and thus is comparing apples and oranges!  In Genesis 1:31 God is evaluating the just completed creation, before the fall of Genesis 3:1-7.  In Genesis 6:6 thousands of years later He is reacting to rebellious mankind.

 

#7. Genesis 2:17 which states that Adam would die the day that he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is contrasted to Genesis 5:5 which indicates that Adam did not actually die until age 930. 

 

This “contradiction misses one of the major truths of the Bible, namely that Adam DID DIE spiritually at the instant of his disobedience.  This spiritual death (separation morally and relationally from God) is indicated by his guilt and shame (3:7-8) and is specifically referred to by Paul in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-22.  Adam’s physical death years later was an outworking of the fall.

 

#9. Gen. 4;26 which indicates that men began to call upon the name of the LORD (Hebrew word YHWH or Jehovah) is contrasted to Exodus 6:3 where God tells Moses that up to that point in time He had not been known as the Lord (YHWH).

 

Gen. 4:26 is a general statement indicating the point when men first corporately gathered to worship and to pray to God. The last sentence of verse 26 is an editorial comment by the human author Moses. “To call upon the name of the Lord” is a technical expression used to refer to calling upon God in prayer…see this same expression used exactly in this way in Psalm 116;117.  YHWH is a personal name of God, first revealed to Moses in Exodus. It stresses the fact the transcendent God (Hebrew ELOHIM) that created the universe is also a personal, approachable God (YHWH).  Moses writing circa 1500 B.C. uses the personal name of God describing the early prayer meetings of humankind to indicate the approachability of God. Moses is not trying to say they literally used the name YHWH, but simply showing they were worshiping the same God as Israel. In Exodus 3:14-15 (referred to in Exodus 6:3) Moses does in fact receive a special revelation of God in which He reveals his special covenant name and its significance.

 

#10. Genesis 6:2 which uses the title “sons of God” to refer to angels vs. 1 John 4:9 that says God had only one Son.

 

The phrase “sons of God” is used in a general sense in Genesis 6:2 (and also many other places in the Old Testament where it is usually sued as a technical tera for angelic beings).  Christians are also referred to as God’s children. When used this way, sons of God is meant to be used as a technical term. An American likewise, could be called a “son of George Washington”, without literally being descended from Washington. THE Son of God in the absolute ontological sense is the Jesus Christ. The Greek word used to describe Christ’s Sonship to God is “monogenes” meaning “unique”. No other being has such a relationship to God in this sense.

*************************************************************************************************************

 

Next will look at “Contradictions” 11-15

 

Doug

136 BIBLE “CONTRADICTIONS” … ANSWERED (Contradictions 2-5)

136 BIBLE “CONTRADICTIONS” … ANSWERED (Part Two - Contradictions 2-5)

A Booklet by Brad McCoy, Th.M.

© Copyright 1985 Reprinted with author’s permission. May be distributed freely but not sold.

*****************************************************************************

Note:  I thought it would be interesting for a few posts, to consider some alleged Biblical contradictions.  I hear this all the time, but no one who makes the complaints will sit down with me and study them.  Brad McCoy was my Theology Professor in Seminary.  He is an outstanding theological scholar and teacher.  At my request, he provided me with a booklet he self-published in 1985.  The booklet can be reproduced, but not sold. I will return to the Calvinism/Arminianism series after awhile, maybe a couple of weeks. - dh

** UPDATE ** Recently, I conversed with Dr. McCoy and he confirmed directly with me that I can post from his booklet.  In addition, he informed me that the book was recently updated to – “150 Bible Contradictions Answered!”  He sent me this self-published manuscript which, by the way, is excellent.  If you would like the new manuscript, let me know and I will pass it on to Dr. McCoy.  I see it cost him about $5.00 to send it to me, so you should be willing to make a contribution to Dr. McCoy's church to help defray the mailing cost and perhaps a bit more, maybe $20.00 or so.

*****************************************************************************  

(This booklet is a response to the pamphlet “136 Bible Contradictions” printed by Crusade Publications of Redmond, Washington.)

 

*************************************************************************************************************  

 

“Contradictions” 2-5

 

#2 Genesis 1:20-22, 26-27 which indicates that the man was created after birds is contrasted with Genesis 2:7, 19 which states that man was created before birds.

 

This “contradiction” is based on a faulty translation of the Hebrew. In Genesis 1:20-22, 26-27 birds are created on day five, man on six. In Genesis 2:7, 19 man is created, and then in verse nineteen the pluperfect aspect of the verb is encountered which is correctly translated “had formed”. That is in referring back to the origin of the animals, who are being brought to Adam, the author of Genesis reminds the reader, “...out of the ground the Lord God had formed (on day five) every beast/bird”.

 

#3 The fact that man was created after the animals in Genesis 1:20-22, 26-27 is contrasted with the statement of Genesis 2:7, 19. 

Same issue as #2 above.  The “problem” is solved by the proper translation of the pluperfect “had formed” in 2:19.

 

 

#4  Gen. 1:27 which indicates that man and woman were created at the same time, is contrasted with Genesis 2:7, 18:23 which states man was created before woman.

 

Genesis 1:27 is part of the unit 1:1-2:3 and thus part of a general summary of the events of each day of the Creation Week.  Genesis 1:27 simply states that man and woman were both created on day six.  Genesis 2:7, 18:23 is part of the unit 2:4-2:25 and thus part of a specific account of day six.  Man and woman were both created on day six, but Adam was created before Eve on that day.

 

#5 The command of Genesis 1:28 to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth, is contrasted to the purification rites which were to follow childbirth in Leviticus 12:1-8. 

 

The implication inherent in this “contradiction” as stated, is that childbirth is sinful (thus requiring purification) and yet God had commanded man to produce children in Genesis 1:28.  Such reasoning misses the point of these verses.  In Genesis 1:28 God clearly commissions mankind to fill the earth.  The purification ritual of Leviticus 12:1-8 was an object lesson teaching the lesson of original sin.  That is babies born are at the same time “in sin” with no spiritual lfie/relationship to God.  The ritual is not teaching that it is a sin to bear children, but that children are born in sin.

 

*************************************************************************************************************

 

Next will be “contradictions” 6-10.

 

Doug

136 BIBLE “CONTRADICTIONS” … ANSWERED (Part Two – Contradiction 1)

136 BIBLE “CONTRADICTIONS” … ANSWERED (Part Two – Contradiction 1)

A Booklet by Brad McCoy, Th.M.

© Copyright 1985 Reprinted with author’s permission. May be distributed freely but not sold.

*****************************************************************************

Note:  I thought it would be interesting for a few posts, to consider some alleged Biblical contradictions.  I hear this all the time, but no one who makes the complaints will sit down with me and study them.  Brad McCoy was my Theology Professor in Seminary.  He is an outstanding theological scholar and teacher.  At my request, he provided me with a booklet he self-published in 1985.  The booklet can be reproduced, but not sold. I will return to the Calvinism/Arminianism series after awhile, maybe a couple of weeks. - dh

** UPDATE ** Recently, I conversed with Dr. McCoy and he confirmed directly with me that I can post from his booklet.  In addition, he informed me that the book was recently updated to – “150 Bible Contradictions Answered!”  He sent me this self-published manuscript which, by the way, is excellent.  If you would like the new manuscript, let me know and I will pass it on to Dr. McCoy.  I see it cost him about $5.00 to send it to me, so you should be willing to make a contribution to Dr. McCoy's church to help defray the mailing cost and perhaps a bit more, maybe $20.00 or so.

*****************************************************************************  

(This booklet is a response to the pamphlet “136 Bible Contradictions” printed by Crusade Publications of Redmond, Washington.)

 

******************************************************************************

 

PREFACE: The following format will be used in addressing the questions raised in “136 Bible Contradictions”. First, the force of each “contradiction” will be summarized. Second, a suggested solution will be stated. The responses given are not necessarily the only possible harmonizations, but in this writer’s opinion, the correct ones.  If the reader desires more detailed information on specific issues/questions he or she is referred to the bibliography at the end of this booklet.

 

“Contradiction 1”

 

#1 Genesis 1:11-12, 26-27 which indicate that man was created after trees...is contrasted

with Genesis 2:7-9 which states that man was created before trees.

 

Relative to any questions involving Genesis Chapters 1 or 2, the structure of the Hebrew text must be noted. The two chapters contain supplementary accounts of the creation of the present

time/space universe. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is an overview of the seven days of creation. This is followed in 2:4-2:25 which flashes back to the six day (the climatic day) and gives a detailed narrative of that day.

 

Specifically in Genesis 1:11-12, 26-27 worldwide vegetation was created on day three, man on day six. In 2:7-9 God created the specific vegetation of the Garden of Eden, immediately after the creation of Adam on day six.

******************************************************************************

 

Next will be Contradictions 2-5.

 

Doug

   

136 BIBLE “CONTRADICTIONS” … ANSWERED (Part One – Introduction 3)

136 BIBLE “CONTRADICTIONS” … ANSWERED (Part One – Introduction 3)

A Booklet by Brad McCoy, Th.M.

© Copyright 1985 Reprinted with author’s permission.  May be distributed freely but not sold.

*****************************************************************************

Note:  I thought it would be interesting for a few posts, to consider some alleged Biblical contradictions.  I hear this all the time, but no one who makes the complaints will sit down with me and study them.  Brad McCoy was my Theology Professor in Seminary.  He is an outstanding theological scholar and teacher.  At my request, he provided me with a booklet he self-published in 1985.  The booklet can be reproduced, but not sold. I will return to the Calvinism/Arminianism series after awhile; maybe a couple of weeks. - dh

*****************************************************************************

Introduction – 3

 

(This booklet is a response to the pamphlet “136 Bible Contradictions” printed by Crusade publications of Redmond, Washington.)

*****************************************************************************

 

Biblical “contradictions” exist only in the eyes of certain beholders. Those who come to the Bible preconditioned to believe that it has errors will conclude that any specific difficulty such as a certain partial or divergent account is in fact an error or contradiction. Such an investigator comes to the Bible and automatically assumes that it is “guilty”. This writer approaches the Bible from the opposite perspective. He assumes that the Bible is “innocent” of errors or contradictions when difficulties arise.  After such passages are carefully studied and understood in context, any apparent problem will be fully resolved.  Individuals who find “contradictions” in the Bible do so not because they know too much, but because they know too little and actually don’t fully understand the passages they are attacking.

 

The person who comes to the Bible with a closed mind, unwilling to allow it even the presumption of “innocence” that he or she would probably grant the worst felon, will probably be little influenced by the presentation that follows.  A closed mind is an illogical and an unscientific mind which resists, ignores or ridicules any data that does not line up with its original prejudices. As Paul says in Romans “. . . professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”.  However, to anyone who is willing to openly approach and evaluate the message of the Bible, this booklet and other more detailed works will show how apparently difficulties can be logically answered and explained. It is to such open, honest seekers of truth that this booklet is dedicated in the hope that these answers will encourage those broad minded individuals to go beyond examining the individual “trees” of the “forest” of the Bible. . .and to focus on the One who is The Answer to life’s most crucial problems. The Bible attacked for centuries still stands as God’s infallible witness to the salvation which is the Lord Jesus Christ.

******************************************************************************

 

At this point, I’ll conclude the Introduction.  Next, in Part Two, we’ll start with some of the alleged contradictions.

 

Doug

136 BIBLE “CONTRADICTIONS” … ANSWERED (Part One – Introduction 2)

136 BIBLE “CONTRADICTIONS” … ANSWERED (Part One – Introduction 2)

A Booklet by Brad McCoy, Th.M.

© Copyright 1985 Reprinted with author’s permission.  May be distributed freely but not sold.

*****************************************************************************

Note:  I thought it would be interesting for a few posts, to consider some alleged Biblical contradictions.  I hear this all the time, but no one who makes the complaints will sit down with me and study them.  Brad McCoy was my Theology Professor in Seminary.  He is an outstanding theological scholar and teacher.  At my request, he provided me with a booklet he self-published in 1985.  The booklet can be reproduced, but not sold. I will return to the Calvinism/Arminianism series after awhile; maybe a couple of weeks. - dh

*****************************************************************************

Introduction – 2

(This booklet is a response to the pamphlet “136 Bible Contradictions” printed by Crusade publications of Redmond, Washington.)

******************************************************************************

A special word should be said about the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Each gospel is true in all it affirms, as far as it chooses to go.  Each gospel gives eyewitness events to the life of Christ.  However, this does not mean the Gospels should be expected to be verbatim clones of one another!  If this were a necessary corollary of the divine inspiration/inerrancy of the gospels, we have one not four gospels!  As any attorney will confirm when the testimony of different eyewitnesses to the same event is compared it is never verbatim (unless of course there had been collusion among the eyewitnesses, thus invalidating their testimony!).

Reliable/accurate eyewitness accounts of the same event vary (we will call this phenomena “divergent accounts”) because in retelling the event the different eyewitnesses will vary in what details they summarize/generalize, as opposed to what details they give in specific terms. Based on their own perspective of what they considered important, they will tend to give detailed information, while minimizing or even omitting other facts that they feel trivial or not worth mentioning (even while in the act of observing the event itself they will have ignored certain “unimportant” details which they felt were not worth mentioning/remembering). Such a dynamic is apparent when comparing the gospels because none of the four gospels were intended to be formal, all-inclusive biographies of the life of Jesus Christ. Instead each is a theological document written with a specific purpose focusing on a particular theme, and written to a specific audience.

Matthew wrote to Jewish believers and presented Jesus as their Messiah/King who will rule over His future earthly Kingdom.  Mark wrote to Roman believers and presented Jesus as the perfect servant of God.  Luke wrote to Greek believers and presented Jesus as the ideal man. John, written well after the other three Gospels (90-95 A.D. - for a liberal scholar’s irrefutable confirmation that all the New Testament books were in fact written in the first century by eyewitnesses of the events, read Redating The New Testament by Dr. J.A. T. Robinson) has two primary emphases.  It is addressed to non-Christians so that they might believe on Jesus as their own personal savior (20:31). It is also addressed to believers to encourage them to enter into a life of intimate personal fellowship with the Savior (13:1-17,26 21:1-25). The Gospel of John presents Jesus as God who took on humanity, becoming the God-man.  Understanding the specific audiences the gospels were addressed to and perceiving each Gospel’s major purpose/theme helps to explain why each writer includes certain details (specific events, miracles, discourses, etc.) and omits others. One example will illustrate this fact. Only two Gospels, Matthew and Luke, include genealogies of Christ.  Does this then mean that the other two, Mark and John, denied or did not know that Jesus had genealogies through his human parents? Obviously not! Mark and John chose purposely not to include the genealogies of Christ through either human parent because to do so would not contribute to their overall theme/purpose for writing. Matthew, who stresses the Messiahship and Kingship of Jesus includes His legal genealogy through His human “father” Joseph.  Its inclusion proves the validity of Jesus’ claim to Kingship via his legal relationship to the royal line of King David.

Luke, who presents Jesus as the ideal man, includes his actual physical genealogy through His human mother Mary.  Its inclusion proves Jesus’ unique and ideal “pedigree”.  On the other hand Mark, who presents Jesus as a servant, chose not to detail His background.  A servant is evaluated by the quality of his service, not by his ancestry. John who presents Jesus as God does not focus on His human ancestry but instead begins his Gospel with the preexistence of Christ (“The Word”) who is the Creator of the universe.  Each gospel author was highly selective in what information he chose to include in his particular book, in accord with his overall theme and purpose.

If one does not keep such basic “ground rules” in mind, he or she will be unable to accurately relate the gospels one to another. This is especially true when comparing different gospel accounts of the same event (parallel accounts). Any differences between detail/emphasis between the two parallel accounts will always be supplementary/complimentary, NOT contradictory. Moreover by comparing and putting together the different gospel accounts of specific incidents, one derives a fuller, richer understanding of the event than could be gained by examining any one gospel witness alone (thus the wisdom of having not one but four gospels!). This comparing and harmonizing of different but equally accurate eyewitness accounts is the same process that an attorney goes through in reconstructing a detailed account of a specific event by means of putting together the various inputs of the eyewitnesses.

Along these same lines of reasoning, one must remember when relating the gospel accounts to one another: (1) partial reports are not necessarily false reports and (2) divergent accounts are not necessarily contradictory accounts.  Some amplification might prove helpful at this point.  (1) Partial reports are not necessarily false reports. A newspaper story the day after a national election might be headlined “Smith Elected President”. The article might then go on to give information about Smith’s victory (with no other mention about other races, such as the Senate, House, etc.).  Could someone then charge that the article was erroneous in view of the fact that Smith was not the only public servant elected on the day in question?  No one would make such a claim. The newspaper story was true in all it affirmed. It was not intended and did not attempt to analyze any of the other campaigns of the day. The story would be erroneous only if it had directly stated that only the Presidency and no other offices had been voted on.  A partial report is not only necessarily a false report!  In the New Testament, Matthew mentions that one angel spoke to the women at the empty tomb, while Luke tells us that there were two angels present. Is such a situation a necessary contradiction?  Certainly not!  This is a simple case of a partial account focusing on the angel who actually spoke compared to a more detailed account detailing the exact number of angels present. John Menham, M.A. Cambridge University, has well said whenever you have “two”, you always have “one”. The situation would be a contradiction if and only if Matthew had specifically maintained that there was only one angel present. (2) Divergent accounts are not necessarily contradictory accounts. When two or more equally divergent details to their proper time sequence and the overall context in order to construct an accurate harmonization.  Sometimes divergent accounts are caused because two different witnesses see or describe different portions of a sequential event. Imagine two eyewitnesses who give the following divergent testimony. Eyewitness A tells the police that he saw a woman standing on a street corner who was hit by a bus and injured but not killed. Eyewitness B claims he saw the same woman riding in a car which was hit by a truck such that she was thrown out and killed instantly. These are obviously divergent accounts but both are completely accurate. Putting the pieces of evidence together, the police harmonized the divergent accounts and reconstructed the whole story. The woman was hit by a bus while standing on a street corner and injured. A passerby in a car volunteered to take her to the hospital, but in his haste he ran a red light and collided with a truck. The collision through (sic) the woman out of the car and she died instantly. The divergent eyewitness accounts are both fully accurate! They were complimentary not contradictory. What was needed to harmonize them was a careful reconstruction of the event accepting both witnesses’ accounts at face value and then properly relating them to each other. At other times, divergent accounts occur because of the different perspective of the eyewitnesses. For instance, two men might both watch a woman get into a cab. The first man might later testify that the woman got into a “white cab”. The second, when relating the story, might state that the woman got into a “yellow cab”.  Surely such diverse accounts must be contradictory. Not necessarily! In this case both witnesses are absolutely accurate in what they affirm. The first witness, an artist, noticed the actual color of the cab. The second, a businessman, referred to the cab by its company name (this writer has seen many all-white cabs marked “yellow cab” for its corporate name). Divergent accounts are not necessarily contradictory. In the New Testament, one finds such a situation in the divergent information given about the events surrounding the death of Judas Iscariot.  Matthew reports that Judas hung himself, but Luke in the book of Acts indicates that Judas fell and his body was badly mangled.  These are divergent accounts, but there is no necessary contradiction between them. The obvious harmonization, taught by Christian commentators for two thousand years and consistent with the rugged geography of the Jerusalem area, is that Judas hung himself on a branch or some other protrusion overhanging one of the chasms just outside the city. Later either the branch or the rope broke, or came untied (or perhaps it was cut by a disgusted passerby . . . the Jews despised suicide) such that the body of Judas fell to the rocky surface below. Divergent accounts are not necessarily contradictory! Moreover the presence of divergent accounts in the Bible actually functions to confirm the honesty of the human authors. When studying and comparing the gospels it is obvious that the human authors did not secretly get together in order to smooth out any apparent difficulties between their accounts (i.e. there is no evidence of collusion among the writers of the gospels in order to devise “clever fables” see II Peter 1:16). The gospel writers simply recorded the facts from their own unique perspective and within the overall purpose/thrust of their individual books. This factor speaks volumes for the author’s integrity, especially in view of the fact that these men would later be persecuted and killed for what they wrote in their gospels.

******************************************************************************

I thought I would continue with Part 3 of the introduction next.

Doug