Has the Tenakh Been Corrupted?

A little something that I wrote for a friend's blog:

• Grassfire Apologetics - Has the Tenakh Been Corrupted?

Machmadim in the Old Testament

For future reference:

but about this time tomorrow I will send my servants to you, and they will search your house and the houses of your servants; and whatever is desirable[כָּל־מַחְמַ֣ד] in your eyes, they will take in their hand and carry away...

(1 Kings 20:6)

Then they burned the house of God and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and burned all its fortified buildings with fire and destroyed all its valuable[מַחֲמַדֶּ֖יהָ] articles.

(2 Chronicles 36:19)

His mouth is full of sweetness

And he is wholly desirable[מַחֲמַדִּ֑ים].

This is my beloved and this is my friend,

O daughters of Jerusalem.

(Song of Solomon 5:16)

Our holy and beautiful house,

Where our fathers praised You,

Has been burned by fire;

And all our precious[וְכָל־מַחֲמַדֵּ֖ינוּ] things have become a ruin.

(Isaiah 64:11)

UPDATE (August 8, 2010):

Upon calling out a certain Muslim on YouTube by the name of "BeholderGuard" for his misuse of Song of Solomon 5:16, he apparently didn't get the hint, and completely missed the point. See this example of sheer idiocy to see how flimsy the Muslim argument really is.

Four Objections Against the Deity of Christ

(This is part of a much longer article that I wrote on the deity of Christ. For reference purposes, I have edited this section and am posting it on my blog.)

I know that even having given a solid scriptural and historical case for the deity of Christ in my past articles on Christology, there will still remain many objections laid out against orthodox Christian belief. Thus, I would like to address just four common objections that are often raised by Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other detractors of biblical Christianity. There will undoubtedly be more such objections that will be raised, but I will resist the urge to be exhaustive at this point.

Objection One: "Jesus never explicitly states that He is God."

It would be foolhardy to limit Jesus in this way by forcing Him to say in concise terms what He claims about Himself, especially in light of all the scriptural evidence (Isaiah 9:6-7, 10:21, Mark 14:62-65, John 1:1-18, 5:2-18, 8:58, 20:28, etc.). There are many things He did not explicitly say (such as being the Messiah), yet there is no doubt that He thought of Himself in these terms. Also, the fact that He accepts others who call Him God and worship Him (rather than rebuking them, which would be what He should have done if He is just a prophet or an angel) show that He definitely thought of Himself this way.

Objection Two: "How can a person be man and God at the same time?"

Muslims are particularly fond of raising this question. They claim that if Jesus sleeps, goes to the bathroom, gets hungry, etc., then He cannot be God. This misses a key aspect of Christian doctrine, and that is the hypostatic union: God the eternal Word became flesh. He is not a mere phantom as the early Docetists wrongly believed. He had a true human body, and He would speak and act in that body as a true human being would. But in doing so, He does not sacrifice His Divinity in the least bit. He has all the essential attributes of humanity, but at the same time He has all the essential attributes of divinity.

If God is infinite and omnipotent, it should be no problem at all for Him to enter into His own creation in the form of a human being. Also, in the incarnation, Jesus retains His full Divinity by retaining His omniscience (John 16:3), omnipresence (Matthew 28:20) omnipotence (Matthew 28:18), eternality (John 1:1) and immutability (Hebrews 13:8), among other attributes. It is true that He temporarily sheds His being unbound by time and space, but this is not an essential attribute of deity anyway. God can temporarily set this aside and still be God.

Objection Three: "When Jesus died on the cross, did God die? And if He did, who was running the world while He was dead?"

This one is another Islamic favourite. Unfortunately for those who raise it, this argument forgets two key things:

First of all, as I said before, Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. When He died on the cross, this means that His Divine spirit was temporarily separated from His human body until the Resurrection. This does not mean He ceased to exist, however. This exposes an inconsistency on the part of those who raise this argument, since not even they would believe that death means nonexistence.

Second, this question assumes a form of Modalism, which makes Jesus the entirety of the Godhead. Remember that it was not the Father or the Holy Spirit that became incarnate, only the son. The Father had always been up in Heaven, keeping things in order. In any case, I shouldn't even have to bring this one up in light of the first problem that I pointed out.

Objection four: "There are verses in the bible that contradict the deity of Christ."

Of course, it is to be expected that those who reject the deity of Christ will put forward a number of bible passages in their attempt to undermine this biblical truth. The Jehovah's Witnesses are especially adept at this, and have fooled many an unprepared Christian with their clever arguments. However, their mishandling of scripture becomes all too apparent once one has taken the time to actually examine the texts being quoted in greater detail:

God is not man, that he should lie,or a son of man, that he should change his mind.Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

(Numbers 23:19, ESV)

Of course, the verse in context refers to the fact that Yahweh is immutable in His decrees, and is not fickle as mortal men are. Also, those quoting this passage miss the rather obvious fact that this verse was written long before the incarnation took place. In other words, Jesus did not have a human nature yet at this point in time!

And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

(Mark 10:17-18, ESV)

Jesus is not, at this point, denying the man's description of Him as good. What He is doing, rather, is that He is trying to get the man to realize what he is just saying. In effect, He is telling the man, "Do you understand what you are calling Me? Or are you just calling me good to get closer to Me?" Jesus, of course affirms His goodness elsewhere. For example, when He is accused by the Jews, He asks them rhetorically in John 8:46, "Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?" The fact that those who deny the deity of Christ appeal to this passage is somewhat humorous, given that many of them would contend that Jesus is indeed good!

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

(John 5:19)

First of all, I would like to remind the reader that this passage comes right at the heels of John 5:20-24, which is a clear reference to Jesus having divine prerogatives:

For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

(John 5:20-24)

Notice two things here: First of all, Jesus claims to be able to give life and pronounce judgment upon people (prerogatives that only God has). Second, Jesus says that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father. We are not talking about a lesser kind of honour here. Instead, the kind of honour that Jesus expects to receive is exactly the kind of honour one would give to God the Father. This is another clear statement of their coequality. The fact that those who cite John 5:19 ignore the context of the entire passage (because doing so demolishes their whole argument) should already raise up red flags for more attentive readers.

Now, what about the verse itself? It should be pointed out at the outset that Jesus is not denying the fact that He is all-powerful. That is reading too much into the verse. What Jesus is denying here, however, is that He has any kind of separate agenda apart from the Father. To paraphrase Dr. White, He is not some rogue deity out doing His own thing. There is complete unity of purpose in the Godhead, so that the Godhead is of one will in accomplishing God's sovereign decrees.

You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

(John 14:28)

One must look at the verse in context. Jesus is pointing out how He will soon be ascending back to Heaven, and is rebuking His disciples for not rejoicing at this fact. The Father is positionally greater because He is up in Heaven, but this does not mean that He is ontologically greater, since the Father and the Son are one in essence and being. To give an analogy: In the army, a General is positionally greater than a Private, since a General is of higher rank than a Private. This does not mean, however, that the General is a greater person than the Private, as all men are equally created in the image of God (cf. Genesis 1:26).

What this demonstrates is an important rule in interpreting texts pertaining to the person of Jesus Christ: Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature. This is a common mistake made by those who assume Unitarianism. As Alan Kurschner (a contributor to Alpha and Omega Ministries) explains,

There is a built-in assumption for many that if Jesus has a lesser role than the Father, he must therefore have a lesser nature. This is an illogical inference. Those who oppose the deity of Christ point to Jesus' submissive remarks about doing the will of his Father. For example, Jesus says, "the Father is greater than I am." They infer from this that Jesus does not share the same nature with the Father (this ignores that the context is talking about their relational roles, not their nature, John 14). Jesus also calls the Father, "My God." Yet those who oppose the deity of Christ ignore that this is a humble acknowledgment of the Incarnate Jesus, modeling for us humility and submissiveness (John 20:17). This exalting affirmation is exactly what we would expect from the Son of God.

Similarly, since Jesus is the agent of the Father in many respects such as the Creation, therefore Jesus cannot be fully God. And regarding the Spirit, they will make the similar false assumption: Since the Spirit is sent by the Father, the Spirit cannot have the same divine nature as the Father. Again, they will look at these statements and make the fallacious leap that difference in function indicates inferiority of nature.

By doing so, they also deny the freedom of the Divine persons to choose their roles. Or to put it another way: they assume that to be truly God, the Son and the Spirit must have the exact same roles as the Father. Do not allow them to accept this assumption. Probe them to ensure they see this point.

(Kurschner, Alan. Two Quick Apologetic Tips on the Trinity.)

I will deal with just one more proof text:

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

(John 17:3)

Well of course Jesus would say there is only one true God! We're monotheists! Unfortunately, those who quote this passage once again miss the entire point of the high priestly prayer (In the first place, what does it even mean for eternal life to know two persons? Can you imagine anybody saying that eternal life is to know Abraham, or Moses, or David?). It helps to read the next two verses that come afterward:

I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

(John 17:4-5)

Did you hear that? Before God could share His glory with anybody else (cf. John 17:22), Jesus already shared glory with the Father and was by His side (once again echoing John 1:1). Now how could this be, when the Old Testament states that God gives His glory to no other (cf. Isaiah 42:8, 48:11)? The only way this passage can be interpreted consistently is if we conclude that the Father and the Son are one in Being.

In any case, there are many similar proof texts being offered up by Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses and others who deny the deity of Christ. Needless to say, the same rules apply to those texts as the ones that apply to the ones I just cited. Always make sure to pay close attention to the context of the passages being cited, as you will often find that the context demolishes their entire argument.

Further Reading

• Bowman, Robert and Ed Komoszewski - Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ
• Warfield, Benjamin - The Lord of Glory: A Classic Defense of the Deity of Jesus Christ
• White, James - The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief

A Guide to Godly Disputation

A GUIDE TO GODLY DISPUTATION

JOHN NEWTON (1725-1807)

A minister, about to write an article criticizing a fellow minister for his lack of orthodoxy, wrote to John Newton of his intention. Newton replied as follows.

Dear Sir,

As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of truth is joined with natural warmth of temper, my friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the event of the battle; but I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but also over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a great coat of mail; such armor, that you need not complain, as David did of Saul’s, that it will be more cumbersome than useful; for you will easily perceive it is taken from that great magazine provided for the Christian soldier, the word of God. I take it for granted that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For methods sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads: respecting your opponent, the public, and yourself.

As to your opponent, I wish that before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord’s teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write. If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab concerning Absalom, are very applicable: “Deal gently with him for my sake” (2 Samuel 18:5). The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself. In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts, and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever. But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit), he is a more proper object of your compassion than of your anger. Alas! “He knows not what he does.” But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes, and not his. Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, they who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy: but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose as taught in 2 Timothy 2:25, “If peradventure God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth.” If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling blocks in the way of the blind or of using any expressions that may exasperate their passions, confirm them in their principles, and thereby make their conviction, humanly speaking, more impracticable.

By printing, you will appeal to the public; where your readers may be ranged under three divisions: First, such as differ from you in principle. Concerning these I may refer you to what I have already said. Though you have your eye upon one person chiefly, there are many like-minded with him; and the same reasoning will hold, whether as to one or to a million.

There will be likewise many who pay too little regard to religion, to have any settled system of their own, and yet are pre-engaged in favor of those sentiments which are at least repugnant to the good opinion men naturally have of themselves. These are very incompetent judges of doctrine; but they can form a tolerable judgment of a writer’s spirit. They know that meekness, humility and love are the characteristics of a Christian temper; and though they affect to treat the doctrines of grace as mere notions and speculations, which, supposing they adopted them, would have no salutary influence upon their conduct; yet from us, who profess these principles, they always expect such dispositions as correspond with the precepts of the gospel. They are quick-sighted to discern when we deviate from such a spirit, and avail themselves of it to justify their contempt of our arguments. The Scriptural maxim, that “the wrath of man works not the righteousness of God” (James 1:20), is verified by daily observation. If our zeal is embittered by expressions of anger, invective, or scorn, we may think we are doing service of the cause of truth, when in reality we shall only bring it into discredit. The weapons of our warfare, and which alone are powerful to break down the strongholds of error, are not carnal, but spiritual; (2 Corinthians 10:4) arguments fairly drawn from Scripture and experience, and enforced by such a mild address, as may persuade our readers, that, whether we can convince them or not, we wish well to their souls, and contend only for the truth’s sake; if we can satisfy them that we act upon these motives, our point is half gained; they will be more disposed to consider calmly what we offer; and if they should still dissent from our opinions, they will be constrained to approve our intentions.

You will have a third class of readers, who being of your own sentiments, will readily approve of what you advance, and may be further established and confirmed in their views of the Scripture doctrines, by a clear and masterly elucidation of your subject. You may be instrumental to their edification if the law of kindness as well as of truth regulates your pen, otherwise you may do them harm. There is a principle of self, which disposes us to despise those who differ from us; and we are often under its influence, when we think we are only showing a becoming zeal in the cause of God. I readily believe that the leading points of Arminianism spring from and are nourished by the pride of the human heart; but I should be glad if the reverse were always true; and that to embrace what are called the Calvinistic doctrines was an infallible token of a humble mind. I think I have known some Arminians, that is, persons who for want of a clearer light, have been afraid of receiving the doctrines of free grace, who yet have given evidence that their hearts were in a degree humbled before the Lord. And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility, that they are willing in words to debase the creature and to give all the glory of salvation to the Lord, yet know not what manner of spirit they are of. Whatever it be that makes us trust in ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party, is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit. Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature, and the riches of free grace. Yea, I would add, the best of men are not wholly free from this leaven; and therefore are too apt to be pleased with such representations as hold up our adversaries to ridicule, and by consequence flatter our own superior judgments. Controversies, for the most part, are so managed as to indulge rather than to repress his wrong disposition; and therefore, generally speaking, they are productive of little good. They provoke those whom they should convince, and puff up those whom they should edify. I hope your performance will savor of a spirit of true humility, and be a means of promoting it in others.

This leads me, in the last place, to consider your own concern in your present undertaking. It seems a laudable service to defend the faith once delivered to the saints; we are commanded to contend earnestly for it, and to convince gainsayers. If ever such defenses were seasonable and expedient they appear to be so in our own day, when errors abound on all sides and every truth of the gospel is either directly denied or grossly misrepresented. And yet we find but very few writers of controversy who have not been manifestly hurt by it. Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry, contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things that are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters that are at most but of a secondary value. This shows, that if the service is honorable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made? Your aim, I doubt not, is good; but you have need to watch and pray for you will find Satan at your right hand to resist you; he will try to debase your views; and though you set out in defense of the cause of God, if you are not continually looking to the Lord to keep you, it may become your own cause, and awaken in you those tempers that are inconsistent with true peace of mind, and will surely obstruct communion with God.

Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who “when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not” (1 Peter 2:23) This is our pattern, thus we are to speak and write for God, and “not rendering railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing; knowing that hereunto we are called” (1 Peter 3:9). The wisdom that is from above is not only pure, but also peaceable and gentle; and the want of these qualifications, like the dead fly in the pot of ointment, will spoil the savor and efficacy of our labors. If we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God, do little good to our fellow creatures, and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves. If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side, you have an easy task; but I hope you have a far nobler aim, and that, sensible of the solemn importance of gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands. Go forth, therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord of hosts, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit.

David Wood - Open Message to Chief Haddad

For the Lord will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants, when he sees that their power is gone and there is none remaining, bond or free.

(Deuteronomy 32:36, ESV)

Clarifying Reformed Theology (Part 5)

(Continued from Part 4)

Because I was uber-busy lately, I didn’t finish answering part three of the blog post series critiquing Calvinism. Now that I have a bit of spare time, I will continue my response, but I will have to make it only as long as necessary.

Ok, to end this thing, I want to pose two questions to Calvinists that specifically concern the doctrine of election, and see if they can answer them. No one has answered them so far but please feel free to give it a shot.

Well, I don’t think I’ve ever heard these questions posed before. I’ll try to give the best response I can give, but lack of time will prevent me from going too in-depth, so I hope you take this humble attempt...

1) What is the criteria by which God chooses to save (elect) one human and not save another? Don’t give me the “mysterious ways” or “because of who He is” stuff either. I can’t find how God chooses His people in the Bible yet I’m told this doctrine is “Biblical.” If He’s going to purposefully send millions of those He created to Hell, couldn’t He at least hint as to the mechanism by which He selects those whom He spares?

There can be no denying that election is based on God’s mercy and purposes, since it is clear that He “has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity” (1 Timothy 1:9) and that it is “according to His mercy” (Titus 3:5).

Now, that doesn’t quite tell us what the exact purposes are, now does it? Of course, there are some very specific instances where God does tell us what His purposes are for electing or reprobating a specific person. For example, in the case of the Pharaoh, He states.

As for Me, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen. Then the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD, when I am honored through Pharaoh, through his chariots and his horsemen. (Exodus 3:17-18)

From these and other passages, it can be adduced that the ultimate end of it all is for God to make His glory and honour known. I try to stick to what the bible says, since that is the only safe option to take (doing otherwise would result in just sheer speculation). I am sorry if the bible doesn’t give any answer other than this, but we just have to accept the fact that God does not have to tell us everything. He only tells us as much as we need to know, and He obviously does not think we need to know why He does every single thing that He does. I mean, if you've ever read the book of Job, you can see that clearly in Job's questions and God's response to him. IJob could only say about God’s purposes that “these these things You have concealed in Your heart” (Job 10:13). After all, God is not accountable to man for every single action that He decrees. Otherwise, we would have traded places with God!

2) Why is it that God seems to “elect” Christians based on geography? Take a look at this map (click to enlarge):

I’m not posting the map on this blog (readers can see it in yours), but I would like to caution you against relying on maps such as these. The main reason for this is that there are millions of Christians around the world who are not officially registered or listed in censuses. China is an excellent example: I once heard it said that there may be up to 20,000 Chinese people converting to Christianity every day. Now, this statistic is probably a bit inflated, but it shows that there are millions more Christians in those places that are lightly-shaded than is commonly thought.

There are so few Asians, North Africans, and Middle Eastern Christians. If God is the one who decides who believes, not man’s faith in response to God’s corporate election, why isn’t there a more equitable distribution of the elect worldwide? See the glaring problem? Either God is not distributing His elections randomly (randomness would yield a more even distribution of Christians worldwide) or He is using some sort of election criteria which I asked about in question #1. Has God forgotten about that part of the world? By this map, God sure does like white people and Hispanics. Doesn’t seem very fair to me – possibly even racist.

Two problems with your question:

1) You are applying statistics from one particular point in time and forget that different parts of the world have been predominantly Christian at different time periods. Europe used to be the centre of what we refer to as “Christendom,” but we would know today that thanks to the rapid secularization and islamization (sp?) of Europe, this is no longer the case. Conversely, parts of the world such as Africa, South Asia, China, South Korea and South America that used to be darkened have seen an explosion of evangelism in recent decades. I suspect that in a few decades’ time, these regions shall replace Europe and North America as the centres of Christianity.

This being said, I suspect that by the time we get to heaven, we will end up seeing a pretty fair distribution of people of different ethnic backgrounds. They may not all have lived in the same time period, but He will certainly not fail to ensure that He will be able to ransom “people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9, ESV).

2) I would argue that this question is a double-edged sword, as it can easily be used as an argument against Arminianism as well. After all, if God is in the business of trying to bring every single individual into salvation, and that He needs us to make free-will decisions for Him before we are able to do so, then why hasn’t He made it so that everybody everywhere around the world has an equal opportunity to “make a decision for Jesus” and be saved? Is God not powerful enough to create opportunities for them?

I hope you can appreciate the problem that this question poses for your own view, since it basically implies that God is trying to save people but is not powerful enough to work around these geographical barriers that you are pointing towards. Of course, in the Reformed view, God is totally free, and is therefore not obligated to act as an equal-opportunity employer (otherwise, what would be the complaint of Pharaoh, Judas and the Assyrian King, among other people?).

Wouldn’t it make more sense that He doesn’t elect salvation but that cultural, religious, and political barriers to the Gospel in these geographies are making people unable to respond to His corporate election?

The problem with this view is that it means God is impotent and cannot work past such worldly restraints. Besides, it is never a good idea to interpret scripture according to how things look in the external world (which would lead once again down that slippery slope to liberalism). Rather, we need to resolve this question using scripture as our final authority, and then applying our understanding of scripture to how we interpret the world around us. Once again—and I have stressed this several times already—the biblical question is, “who makes you differ from another” (1 Corinthians 4:7, NKJV)? If it is because of human will or temporal restraints, then we have basically said that God has His hands tied behind His back and that He is not totally free (contra what John 6:37, Romans 9:15-18 and other similar passages state).

Ultimately, that is the question that we both have to answer: Who makes the difference? Is salvation dependent upon man’s ability to respond to God and cooperate with His grace, or is He powerful enough to overcome all worldly obstacles (including, and especially, man’s natural tendency to rebel against his Maker) and free enough to accomplish His work of salvation according to His own purposes and for His own glory. Think about it.

Grace and peace.

Fisher.

I will put one or two more posts in this series, but because of all the things that I have to get done on top of this, it will take a while. Thanks for bearing with me, though.

Oh, and check out this recent sermon by John MacArthur to see if you get anything out of it.

(Continue to Part 6)

Muhammad is NOT in Deuteronomy 18:18

Muslims are fond of quoting Deuteronomy 18:18 in support of their claim that Muhammad is in the bible, yet this claim has been debunked to death millions of times already. For brevity, I am listing some web links debunking this spurious claim:

• http://www.abnsat.com/abnnew/index.php?option=com_hwdvideoshare&task=viewvideo&Itemid=70&video_id=171
• http://www.acts17.net/articles/muhammadinthebible01.htm
• http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Dawud/deut18_18.htm
• http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/not_afraid1.html
• http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/prophet_out_of_israel.html
• http://www.answering-islam.org/Morin/moses.html
• http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/deut1818.htm
• http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/07/adnan-rashid-vs-jay-smith-does-bible.html
• http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/10/did-moses-predict-coming-of-muhammad-in.html