e-Book: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

See: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

Authors: Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek

To some, the concept of having faith in a higher power or a set of religious beliefs is nonsensical. Indeed, many view religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as unfounded and unreasonable.

Norman Geisler and Frank Turek argue, however, that Christianity is not only more reasonable than all other belief systems, but is indeed more rational than unbelief itself. With conviction and clear thinking, Geisler and Turek guide readers through some of the traditional, tested arguments for the existence of a creator God. They move into an examination of the source of morality and the reliability of the New Testament accounts concerning Jesus. The final section of the book deals with a detailed investigation of the claims of Christ. This volume will be an interesting read for those skeptical about Christianity, as well as a helpful resource for Christians seeking to articulate a more sophisticated defense of their faith.

e-Book: The Sabbath Under Crossfire: A Biblical Analysis of Recent Sabbath/Sunday Developments

See: The Sabbath Under Crossfire: A Biblical Analysis of Recent Sabbath/Sunday Developments

Author: Samuele Bacchiocchi

THE SABBATH UNDER CROSSFIRE examines the recent attacks against the Sabbath within the larger historical context of the origin and development of the anti-Sabbath theology. An understanding of how the abrogation view of the Sabbath began and developed through the centuries, is essential for comprehending why the Sabbath is still under crossfire today.

The book analyzes in a systematic way the most common arguments used to negate the continuity and validity of the Sabbath for today. With compelling Biblical reasoning, it unmasks the fallacies of the attempts made to reduce the Sabbath to a Mosaic institution, fulfilled by Christ and condemned by Paul.

The final chapter, Rediscovering the Sabbath, offers an informative update on the rediscovery of the Sabbath by numerous religious groups, scholars, and church leaders. Most important of all, this book will enrich your understanding of how the Sabbath can enable you to experience the Saviors presence, peace, and rest in your life.

The first chapter on “John Paul II and the Sabbath” was featured on the Religion section of WASHINGTON POST on January 23, 1999 under the title “When is the Lord’s Day? Adventist Says Pope Unfairly Promotes Sunday Sabbath.”

e-Book: Hal Lindsey’s Prophetic Puzzle

See: Hal Lindsey’s Prophetic Puzzle

Author: Samuele Bacchiocchi

“After reading many of Hal Lindsey’s books including the revised ones – reading this book was an eye-opener. The Associated Church Press is right in awarding the 1987 citation to Dr. Bacchiocchi. This is a very scholarly work which is very much appreciated by Christian leaders even in the Evangelical world. It clearly debunks the many false predictions made by Hal Lindsey that has deceived many Christians. I used to believe in Hal Lindsey’s ideas but no more. Thanks to Dr. Bacchiocchi for a job well done.” — Atty. Tullo

Paraousia: Unconditional or Conditional?

Paraousia: Unconditional or Conditional?

By Jaymark Molo

Second Coming Jesus 15 (Photo credit: Waiting For The Word)

“Is the second coming of the Lord unconditional or conditional?” the Sabbath schoolteacher asked. That question became the focus of today’s lesson, entitled: The Promised Revival: God’s Completed Mission.[1] Interestingly, both sides had been taken on. Those who claimed that paraousia was in nature conditional, argued that it was dependent on human response. Implying, the Second Advent can be delayed or hasten based on human participation of the gospel. While others who asserted that it was unconditional combats the position that it was conditional by stating that God has His own timetable. That is to say, He will come again independent on any human response whether His people are ready to receive Him or not. Both sides were heard. The teacher gave conclusive answer. Sadly, this question still becomes an ongoing puzzle to some.[2] This will be the main concern of this article (see, the main question above).

1.    Classical Prophecy or Apocalyptic Prophecy? The question in nature can be settled if one will ask whether what type of predictive prophecy are we dealing here.[3] If one will assert that the second coming of Christ can be classified as apocalyptic prophecy—then there is a reasonableness of claiming that it is unconditional. However, if it can be showed that it is classical prophecy—then there will be no reasonable doubt to assert that is conditional. A careful comparative study between the said two genres of prophecy is called to resolve the tension. Some of the major differences may be summarized as Richard M. Davidson compares the two in the following chart.[4]

As we can carefully observe, striking contrasts are made[5] and all of the characteristics discussed in the chart under apocalyptic prophecy can be found in the Second Coming of Christ.[6] Interestingly, the conditionality of this prophecy in the Scripture can be found totally lacking.

2.    Sign, Not Cause. Looking at Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, all of them points to a series of signs, instead of conditions.[7] This can be supported by question of the disciples when they privately asked Jesus, saying: “”Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matt. 24:3, NIV) Evidently, the disciples were looking for signs, not conditions. One cannot separate Matthew 24:14 to be treated as a conditional and yet treat others (vv. 4-13) as apocalyptic.

3.    Divine Sovereignty and Divine Foreknowledge. There might be cases where there is a seemingly delay in Second Coming, but that is only to speak in horizontal plane, not in a vertical plane. It is interesting to note that Ellen White confirms this concept by saying: “Like the stars in the vast circuit of their appointed path, God’s purposes know no haste and delay… So in heaven’s council the hour for the coming of Christ had been determined.”[8] Divine foreknowledge sees the seemingly delay in human plane, but divine sovereignty stresses that God is in control, He proved it by sending the Messiah in the “fullness of time” (cf. Gal. 4:4), so He will also do it again in His Second Coming. These two are inseparable elements in apocalyptic prophecy. Although divine sovereignty seemingly negates freedom, it does not. Rather it only foresees choices; it does not fixed them. Therefore, “human freedom must never be isolated from God’s sovereignty; and both must acknowledge His foreknowledge”[9] accurately claims William Johnsson. God still values our response in evangelism, but it will not play a role as a cause of His coming. A respected theologian in Adventist scholarly circle unambiguously concludes:

“The fulfillment of the promises in classical prophecy was dependent on the response of the people (Jer 18:7-10). A Classical prophets tied God’s activities to events in human history. On the other hand, apocalyptic prophecy presents God’s cosmic timetable for the final supernatural appearance of the kingdom of God. Hence it is not conditional. In other words, it is not dependent on the human response, e.g., Christ’s first coming was not dependent on Israel’s or Judah’s obedience. He came, when the fullness of time [outlined in Daniel 9:24-27] had come (Gal 4:4 NKJV), even though the Jews were not ready to receive him. Similarly, the time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation which point towards the time of the end and the Second Coming are independent of any human response.”[10]

So, this is the good news, Second Coming is God centered, not man centered. It does not depend on any human response. We cannot hasten nor delay the second coming of the Lord but we can be rest assured that Jesus is coming again no matter what happen! Maranatha!

---

[1] See, Mark Finley, “The Promise Revival: God’s Completed Mission”, Adult Sabbath School Lesson Study Guide, edited by Clifford Goldstein (MD, Silver Spring, 2013), 149-160.

[2] In fact, after the lesson study, someone approached the Sabbath teacher and asked: “What is really our stand?” “Is it conditional or unconditional”? This question reflects the perplexing issue of the matter.

[3] See, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary 4 (Washington, DC, 1955): 25-38.

[4] Richard Davidson, Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach Vol 1, edited by George W. Reid (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2005), 184, 185.

[5] It can’t be classical (conditional) and yet apocalyptic (unconditional). That would be contradictory in terms. It’s either classical or apocalyptic. We can’t simply have both.

[6] This was discussed elsewhere by Ekkehardt Mueller, in his “Jesus and His Second Coming in the Apocalypse” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11 (2000): 205–215.

[7] William G. Johnsson, A Conditionality in Biblical Prophecy with Particular Reference to Apocalyptic in 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, DARCOM, edited by Frank B. Holbrook, 7 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 278.

[8] Ellen White, Desire of Ages, 32.

[9] William G. Johnsson, A Conditionality in Biblical Prophecy, 285.

[10] Gerhard Pfandl, “The Pre-Advent Judgment: Fact or Fiction, Part I,” Ministry Magazine (December, 2003): 3. Emphasis mine.

Importance of Biblical Backgrounds

Importance of Biblical Backgrounds

Jaymark Molo

As Seventh-day Adventist Christians we believe God speaks to us through the Holy Scripture of the Bible. It is our duty, then, to do our best to understand what the Bible says to us. Since the Bible was written a long time ago, many of the cultural references and literary styles used are unfamiliar to us today. It is the main presupposition of this paper that in order to understand the “proper sense of the text”,[1] we need to understand the background of the written Word. On this brief essay, we will lay down the importance of studying the background of a text, at same time; we will draw some helpful practical implications when it comes to interpreting a text.

Inseparable Union of the Divine and Human[2]

Multiple passages testify that the Scriptures did not come directly from heaven, but rather God utilized human instrumentalities. An inductive look at the biblical writings confirms that the Holy Spirit did not abridge the freedom of the biblical writers, did not suppress their unique personalities, did not destroy their individuality, and did not overpower their culture. And yet, through all of this thought-inspiration, the Holy Spirit is carrying along the biblical writers, guiding their minds in selecting what to speak and write, so that what they present is not merely their own interpretation, but the utterly reliable word of God, the prophetic word made more certain. The Holy Spirit imbued human instruments with divine truth in thoughts and so assisted them in writing that they faithfully committed to apt words the things divinely revealed to them (1 Cor 2:10-13). Since the Bible is not ultimately the product of the mind of God revealed through the Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 2:12-13) but also the of the human writer’s mind, it is not possible to separate “what it meant” to the human writer—to be studied without knowing the background of the text (with an aid from the Holy Spirit) from “what it means”—to be applied by the help of the Spirit. Thought inspiration calls not only an investigation of the text in the vertical plane, but in horizontal dimension too.

Hermeneutical Implications

Now that we have briefly sketched the importance of biblical backgrounds in the context of inseparability of union of divine and human, hermeneutical implications are inevitable. Ellen G. White recognized the importance of the historical and cultural setting of a passage. “An understanding of the customs of those who lived in Bible times, of the location and time of events, is practical knowledge,” she said: “it aids in making clear figures of the Bible and in bringing out the force of Christ’s lessons.”[3] She is in full agreement too that that in order to understand the “proper sense of the text”, that is the deeper meaning of the text, we need to understand the background of the written Word. She beautifully explains: “Understanding what the words of Jesus meant to those who heard them, we may discern in them a new vividness and beauty, and may also gather for ourselves their deeper lessons.”[4] D. A. Carson gives a practical example regarding Revelation 3:15:

A fair bit of nonsense has been written about the exalted Christ’s words to the Laodiceans: “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!” (Rev 3:15). Many have argued that this means God prefers people who are “spiritually cold” above those who are “spiritually lukewarm,” even though his first preference is for those who are “spiritually hot.” Ingenious explanations are then offered to defend the proposition that spiritual coldness is a superior state to spiritual lukewarmness. All of this can comfortably be abandoned once responsible archaeology has made its contribution. Laodicea shared the Lycus valley with two other cities mentioned in the NT. Colosse was the only one that enjoyed fresh, cold, spring water; Hierapolis was known for its hot springs and became a place to which people would resort to enjoy these healing baths. By contrast, Laodicea put up with water that was neither cold and useful, nor hot and useful; it was lukewarm, loaded with chemicals, and with an international reputation for being nauseating. That brings us to Jesus’ assessment of the Christians there: they were not useful in any sense, they were simply disgusting, so nauseating he would vomit them away. The interpretation would be clear enough to anyone living in the Lycus valley in the first century; it takes a bit of background information to make the point clear today.[5]

So historical context may sometimes be necessary to understand the Bible accurately. Grant Osborne concludes the concern of this articles as follows:

Background knowledge will turn a sermon from a two-dimensional study to a three-dimensional cinematic event. The stories and discourses of the Bible were never meant to be merely two-dimensional treatises divorced from real life. Every one was written within a concrete cultural milieu and written to a concrete situation. It is socioscientific background studies that unlock the original situation that otherwise would be lost to the modern reader… On the whole, background analysis is an essential tool in the task of coming to understand Scripture in depth, and without it the exegete is doomed to a two-dimensional approach to the text .[6]

---

[1] Borrowed from Wayne Grudem’s words. He continues to explain: “Historical background information can certainly enrich our understanding of individual passages of scripture, making it more precise and more vivid. But I am unwilling to affirm that background information can ever be properly used to nullify or overturn something the text actually says. In addition, I am reluctant to affirm that additional historical background information is ever necessary for getting a proper sense of a text.” The Perspicuity of Scripture,” Themelios 34 (2009): 297.

[2] I am indebted to Richard Davidson’s illustration here, in his presentation paper to a group of Catholic theologians, see: “Interpreting Scripture According to the Scriptures: Toward an Understanding of Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutics,” Geneva (May 2003): 1-19.

[3] Ellen White, Counsels to Parents, Teachers and Students (Washington, D.C.: Ellen White Publications, 1913), 518.

[4] Ibid., Thoughts From the Mount of Blessings (Washington, D.C.: Ellen White Publications, 1896), 1.

[5] D.A. Carson, “Approaching the Bible,” in his New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition ed. D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and G. J. Wenham; 4th ed.; (Downers Grove: IVP, 1994), 15-16.

[6] Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (IVP, 2006), 179.