Reformed Apologist - Rational Answers for Real Questions Podcast

About Reformed Apologist - Rational Answers for Real Questions Podcast

There is an ever increasing need to equip followers of Christ with confidence, and the tools to defend classic Christian belief systems. reformedapologist.substack.com (https://reformedapologist.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast)

Publisher

A rational defence for classic Christian belief

Category

religion & spirituality · society & culture

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

14 Sept 2024

Latest episode

17 Nov 2025

Latest episodes

12 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   17 Nov 2025

   Is the Abrahamic Covenant Unconditional?

   This is perhaps the most crucial question on the question of Israel and the church today. Christians are basically divided into two camps. A. The Dispensationalist who believes God has two distinct plans for the world, one for the nation of Israel -- basically national fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and a second plan for the church -- often referred to as a “parenthesis”. B. The other group are those who believe God has one single plan of redemption for all people, both Jew and Gentile. All the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament find their ultimate consummation and fulfillment in the person and work of Christ, and his body the church, consisting of Jews and in-grafted Gentiles One of the foundational issues where this rift begins is the question on the Abrahamic Covenant and whether it was unconditional or conditional? In this episode I review all the relevant passages starting in the book of Genesis and then all throughout the five books of Moses, otherwise known as the Torah. Regardless of what you believe on this subject, my plea to you is to let your view be formed by the manifold witness of scripture on this important issue. When we finally arrive in the writings of Paul, the answer will be abundantly clear. This episode is also available on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj7TAoZqX_M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj7TAoZqX_M) Enjoy & and God bless. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit reformedapologist.substack.com (https://reformedapologist.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

2. 

   20 Oct 2025

   Why Atheism Cannot Be True

   Why Atheism Cannot Be True (1) Introduction The Argument from Rational Certainty is a transcendental argument for the existence of God. It begins with a basic observation — not about the physical world, but about our rational experience: we possess rational certainty. (Proviso -- I know some people deny that we possess rational certainty... but I would recommend anyone attempt to deny rational certainty next time you review your payslip or go to the bank to pay your bills. Denying rational certainty is like denying reality!) From that single fact, it shows that such certainty requires an all-knowing mind to ground it. How so, I hear you say? If there is no all knowing mind, one that has defined what is objectively true and what is objectively false, then we cannot have certainty that anything at all is true or false. You are not convinced? Stay with the me.. My contention is simply this: Any worldview that denies the existence of such a mind, including atheism, collapses into contradiction. The argument is structured as follows: - In part one I will introduce the argument and provides a brief overview. - In part 2 I will provide a detailed justification for each premise. - In part 3 I will summarise each justification and conclude! This argument is structured deductively. If each premise is true, the conclusion follows necessarily. The argument is as follows: - Premise 1: Rational certainty exists. - Premise 2: Rational certainty requires a necessary precondition: an all-knowing mind. - Premise 3: Any worldview that denies this necessary precondition cannot account for rational certainty without contradiction. - Premise 4: Atheism is a worldview that denies the existence of such a mind. - Premise 5: Therefore, atheism entails a contradiction: it depends on rational certainty while denying the precondition that makes rational certainty possible. - Premise 6: A worldview that entails contradiction cannot be true. - Conclusion: Therefore, atheism cannot be true and is necessarily false. (2) Justifications PREMISE 1: Rational Certainty exists: To begin, we must define what we mean by rational certainty. Rational certainty is not the mere feeling of confidence or strong belief. It is the ontological possession of knowledge that cannot be mistaken. Notice here I am not just talking about any kind of “knowledge.” I am talking about knowledge that must be true and cannot be wrong. Rational certainty is when someone knows something in such a way that the possibility of being wrong is excluded. We might encounter rational certainty in truths like mathematics and logic. For example, that 2 plus 2 equals 4, or that a thing cannot be both itself and not itself at the same time and in the same respect. Another example is the statement “I exist.” To deny your own existence requires your existence in order to make the denial. ==>> These are truths we appear to know with rational certainty. They cannot be false. > They are saying it is true that truth does not exist, which is a contradiction. > But if they are rationally certain of their denial of rational certainty, then they have contradicted themselves. > To deny it is to assume it. PREMISE 2: Rational Certainty requires a necessary precondition: An all-knowing mind to ground universal & necessary truths Before we defend this premise directly, it is important to explain the kind of reasoning being used here. This is transcendental reasoning, which is not the same as circular reasoning. Circular reasoning occurs when someone assumes the very thing they are trying to prove, without providing any external justification. It is reasoning in a circle claiming “X is true because X is true” — which offers no independent grounds for said belief. But transcendental reasoning is different. It asks a deeper question: What must be true in order for something else to be possible or actual? It does not assume the conclusion. Instead, it explores possible worlds and looks at which conditions must exist in order for certain features of reality exist or be true. For example, if electricity cannot exist unless electrons exist, then in any possible world where electrons do not exist, electricity would not be possible. In other words: electrons are a necessary precondition for the possibility of electricity. If you imagine a world without electrons, it logically follows that there could be no electricity in that world. Or take the case of rationality. Rationality is something that minds do. If you imagine a possible world in which no minds exist, then rationality could not exist in that world either. Therefore, minds are a necessary precondition for the possibility of rationality. And from that, it follows that if rationality exists, then minds must necessarily exist. So notice: this is not circular reasoning. It is just recognizing that different kinds of possible worlds produce different kinds of outcomes, depending on what conditions are initially present. ==>> A world without minds cannot give rise to rational thought, just like a world without electrons cannot give rise to electricity. And that brings us to the core justification of this premise… To possess rational certainty is to know something in such a way that it cannot be false. It is to hold a belief that is not just subjectively convincing, but objectively immune to error. However, for any finite mind, that kind of certainty is impossible to guarantee, because a finite mind does not have access to all truth. Because a finite mind is finite, that mind’s knowledge will always, necessarily, be limited, and that limitation creates the constant possibility that something unknown could overturn what it currently believes. For example, imagine a person who is absolutely convinced that 2 plus 2 equals 4. On the surface, this appears to be rational certainty. But suppose they have lived their entire life in a controlled environment where everyone around them is part of an elaborate deception. All their teachers and materials have reinforced this claim as part of a long-running prank. Because they lack full knowledge of their situation, they are unaware that their certainty is based on a falsehood. ... I know this sounds crazy but bear with me for a moment ... Or imagine someone who confidently believes they have constructed a sound logical argument. However, their reasoning contains a subtle but critical flaw that they are unable to detect. Perhaps they misunderstand a key term or overlook an invalid inference. Because they do not have access to the full range of facts or sufficient logical training, they are unaware of the error. Their mind gives them the sense of certainty, but that certainty is misplaced because it rests on faulty reasoning they cannot perceive. Or consider the classic Matrix-style scenario. A person believes they have a family, a job, and a personal history. But in reality, they are a brain in a vat receiving electrical signals that simulate those experiences. Because they do not know what they do not know, their sense of certainty is misplaced. In all of these cases, the common factor is that the individual is not all-knowing. Because they lack complete knowledge, they are unable to eliminate the possibility that their belief is false. This is what we call rational UN-certainty. Rational uncertainty is the condition of not possessing rational certainty. It is the state in which a mind holds a belief that feels justified, but which could still be false, because it cannot rule out the possibility of unknown information that would overturn it. A finite mind, by definition, is not aware of all that is real. There are always facts or realities it does not know. And because it does not know what it does not know, it is always exposed to possible defeaters — that is, unknown truths that could prove its current beliefs wrong. Therefore, if all minds are finite, then all minds are necessarily rationally uncertain. No finite mind can ever rule out the possibility that it is wrong, because no finite mind is all-knowing. There is always the chance that something outside of its awareness could overturn what it believes to be true. In a world where only finite minds exist, rational certainty would be impossible. The only thing that would be possible is rational UNcertainty. This means that the only way rational certainty can exist is, if at least one mind exists that knows all things and cannot be mistaken. Such a mind would not be vulnerable to being overturned by unknown facts, because there would be no unknown facts to this mind. It would have exhaustive access to everything in reality. This means it would be rationally certain by nature. Moreover, such a mind could serve as the foundation for rational certainty in finite minds (like ours). Through revelation or some other form of communication, an all-knowing mind could impart truth in a way that secures rational certainty within finite minds. This means a finite mind does not need to become omniscient to have rational certainty; it only needs to receive truth from a source that cannot be wrong! ==>> Therefore, in order for rational certainty to be possible, the existence of an all-knowing mind is necessary. PREMISE 3: Any worldview that denies this necessary precondition (an all-knowing mind) cannot account for rational certainty without accepting a contradiction! At this point in the argument, we have already established that rational certainty exists, and that in order for it to be possible in any world, that world must contain an all-knowing mind. Rational certainty, by its very nature, requires access to all truth, which only an omniscient mind could possess. Finite minds, no matter how confident they may feel, can only possess rational uncertainty (unless given rational certainty by an all knowing mind). Now consider the kind of worldview that denies the existence of such a mind. Any worldview that does not include an all-knowing mind as part of its metaphysical structure is, by definition, a worldview in which only finite minds exist. But we have shown that finite minds alone cannot produce rational certainty. Therefore, any worldview that rejects the existence of an all-knowing mind eliminates the very condition that makes rational certainty possible. To illustrate this, return to the analogy we’ve already used. In order for electricity to be possible, a world must contain electrons. But it must also contain space. Without space, electrons cannot move, and electricity cannot occur. So if a worldview claimed that electricity exists, but also claimed that space does not exist, that would be a metaphysical contradiction. ==>> It would affirm a consequence while denying a necessary precondition. > It cannot be the case. Rational certainty is only possible in a world where an all-knowing mind exists. PREMISE 4: Atheism is a worldview that denies the existence of such a mind! Having now established that rational certainty requires the existence of an all-knowing mind, we must ask: does atheism allow for such a mind to exist? The answer is no. Atheism, by definition, is the belief that there is no God. It asserts that there is no transcendent, necessary, all-knowing mind who created and sustains the universe. In most cases, atheism is coupled with metaphysical naturalism, which is the view that reality is exhausted by physical processes and material causes. Minds, on this view, are the products of biological evolution—temporary configurations of matter that emerge within complex brains. But if that is the case, then every mind in existence under atheism is finite, contingent, and fallible. No mind in that framework has access to all truth. No mind can know everything or guarantee the truth of its beliefs without the possibility of error. ==>> In short, atheism entails a world in which all minds are finite and limited. > If a being has the essential attributes of God, then that being is God. The label does not change the reality. > It rules out the existence of the only kind of being that could ground rational certainty in the first place. PREMISE 5: Therefore, atheism entails a contradiction: it depends on rational certainty while denying the precondition that makes rational certainty possible! At this stage of the argument, we have established that rational certainty exists, that it requires an all-knowing mind in order to be possible, and that atheism denies the existence of such a mind. What follows from these premises is that atheism is internally contradictory. ==>> It makes use of rational certainty while denying the necessary foundation that makes rational certainty possible. > At least one rational certainty must exist, or else the claim “there is no rational certainty” would collapse under its own weight. PREMISE 6: A worldview that entails contradiction cannot be true This premise is one of the most basic principles in all of logic, reason, and metaphysics. It is known as the law of non-contradiction, and it states that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. If a belief system or worldview leads to a contradiction, if it requires affirming that something both is and is not, then it must be rejected as false. This is not a rule we arbitrarily impose. It is a law that makes reason itself possible. If contradictions could be true, then nothing could be trusted. Logic would collapse. Disagreement would be meaningless. Argument and evidence would have no purpose. ==>> A worldview that affirms contradiction cannot distinguish between truth and falsehood, because it treats them as the same thing. > And because contradictions cannot be true, any worldview that leads to one, such as atheism, cannot be true either. (3) CONCLUSION: Therefore, atheism cannot be true and is necessarily false > Let’s summarise the argument and bring it to its conclusion. - In Premise 1, we demonstrated that rational certainty must necessarily exist. Rational certainty is the state in which a mind knows something in such a way that it cannot possibly be false. To deny rational certainty is self-defeating, because even the claim that “rational certainty does not exist” would itself require rational certainty in order to be meaningful. You would have to be rationally certain in order to justify the claim that no one can be rationally certain. The very act of denying it presupposes it. - In Premise 2, we showed that rational certainty depends on two necessary preconditions. First, there must be at least one mind, because rational certainty is a rational state, and rationality is something only minds can do. A world without minds could not contain rational certainty. But that alone is not enough. The second necessary precondition is the existence of an all-knowing mind. This is because finite minds are always vulnerable to error. They are subject to rational uncertainty by nature, since they cannot know what they do not know. Only an all-knowing mind could possess rational certainty in an ultimate and infallible way, and only such a mind could serve as the source or ground of rational certainty for other minds. - In Premise 3, we showed that any worldview that denies this necessary precondition cannot account for rational certainty without contradiction. If rational certainty requires an all-knowing mind, then any worldview that rejects the existence of such a mind is left affirming an effect while denying its cause. That is a metaphysical contradiction. - In Premise 4, we pointed out that atheism is exactly such a worldview. By definition, atheism denies the existence of God, and therefore denies the existence of any all-knowing mind. The atheist cannot appeal to such a being without abandoning atheism in principle. And attempts to replace that mind with impersonal abstractions like logic or mathematics fail, because those are not minds and cannot reveal truth. - In Premise 5, we showed that this leads directly to radical skepticism, the view that nothing can be known with certainty. Atheism, by denying the precondition for rational certainty, collapses into radical skepticism. But we have already shown that radical skepticism is false, because rational certainty is transcendentally necessary. Therefore, atheism leads to a contradiction—it affirms and denies rational certainty at the same time. - In Premise 6, we restated that any worldview that entails contradiction cannot be true. This is a basic law of reason. - Therefore, the conclusion follows necessarily: Atheism cannot be true and is necessarily false. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit reformedapologist.substack.com (https://reformedapologist.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

3. 

   1 Aug 2025

   Greed, Money, Tithing and

   In this video I review some of the worst things churches teach about tithing, then I walk through the main tithing passages of both the Old and New Testament to ascertain whether the Christian believer is commanded to tithe, the outcome may shock you. Stay with the video until the end to find out all the important information that each Christian needs to know. The “doctrine of tithing” has become so embedded in the mind of the modern Evangelical, primarily because the church at large has been teaching on this subject every Sunday, much more than the actual gospel message, central to the New Testament. Believers have been deceived and indoctrinated, and fear the wrath of God on them should they even question this doctrine. Please do take the time to watch, and then follow up for yourself with all the Bible passages I quote. Take the time and read all the passages in the Bible on the subject and let the scripture teach you and “liberate” you from the ideas the modern church has quite literally “inserted” into the Bible, especially the New Testament. The church at large, today in America, quite literally takes in a trillion dollars annually and most of this goes towards Pastors big salaries, fancy cars, espense accounts, hotel costs, flights, even private jets are on the list. The poor are left to continue to suffer their poverty. Imagine what the true church could be doing with all these wasted funds, imagine just how many people pay the church rather than even paying their bills and looking after their families needs. Paul warns in the New Testament, you are worse than an infidel if you do not look after your family, yet the worst of the prosperity hucksters would have you tithe before you feed your kids. The deception runs deep, very very deep. We must shake this deception off the church, especially now when the Western world is reeling from economic depression. Please share this video with family and friends. Thanks & God bless This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit reformedapologist.substack.com (https://reformedapologist.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

4. 

   16 Jul 2025

   The Six Days of Creation

   In this episode, I aim to demonstrate that there is no scientific reason why a Christian must surrender the belief in a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. My aim here is not to argue over the scientific details, people far more qualified than me have already done that sufficiently. Interpretation of terms and words in the Bible matters, if we assume that the term “day” in Genesis one does not mean what the plain sense suggests it means, that must therefore also inform the way we interpret many other passages in the Old Testament. Where this all gets really problematic is when it comes to the New Testament. Jesus and the authors of the New Testament clearly believed in the historic validity of the early chapters of Genesis. To this end, I provide several very strong examples of why this is so… Genesis 1-10 are the most quoted chapters of the Old Testament in the New Testament and if we surrender to the cultural pressure of today, accepting the notion of progressive creation (through the means of evolution and death mind you..) then we must also have answers to the many quotations from Genesis 1-10 by the New Testament authors. In my humble opinion, this alone providers an unsurmountable hurdle for the sincere student of scripture and this leaves one with burden of carrying a significant amount of cognitive dissonance when it comes to Christian belief — something I believe to be totally unviable as an option — or to abandon traditional views of Biblical innerancy, again something I believe to be unwarranted and unacceptable. This being one of the prime reasons why Christians abandon their Christian faith altogether, is the reason for my claim that the belief in “Theistic / Progressive Evolution” is corrosive to Christian faith. Stick around until the end of the podcast to get the full picture. You can also watch this as a video on my youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hksAdqArG4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hksAdqArG4) This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit reformedapologist.substack.com (https://reformedapologist.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

5. 

   15 Apr 2025

   Is it Always Gods Will to Heal Everyone?

   In this short video I am going to review the theological view of healing that claims it is always God's will to heal everyone. This view is most prevalent amongst preachers who claim that it is also God's will to make you wealthy. The so-called prosperty preachers must claim it is God's will to heal, else their claim it is God's will to make you wealthy -- which they claim is a part of the redemptive work of Christ on the cross -- completely falls apart! Let's watch a short clip by Prosperty Preacher Andrew Wommack Summary of his claims so that we know what we are dealing with: - It is always God's will to heal all people - Jesus healed all, not some - Most people don't doubt that God has the power to heal {very true I certainly don't} - They doubt that it is God's will to heal everybody - because they are not focused on scripture (remember this is just Wommack's view) - People look at the results and they concude it must not be God's will - He quoted John 3:16 + 1 John 2:2 and drew the comparison in the following way: - If you use the same logic when it comes to salvation, as with healing, since not everyone is healed, it also cannot be God's will to save everyone - 17 times in the gospels - Jesus healed all of the sick This is the main argument Wommack makes: "If Jesus truly represented the father, then he showed us that it is God's will every time" Not every single person who is prayed for is healed, but it is not because God does not want us healed. The bottom line is this: "if you ever doubt God wants you well, then you won't receive it" This is Wommack's get out of jail free card! If you don't have faith you won't be healed, so the "healer or his theology" is never at fault! Ok, now that we are done with summarising his views we will soon look at some of the examples of Jesus's healing. First though let's make some contra assertions: But before that let me repeat Wommack so that it sinks in: "If Jesus truly represented the father, then he showed us it is always God's will to heal" I would make the following assertions about Jesus's ministry: - Jesus indeed always healed everyone he set out to heal - Jesus did not heal every sick person in Judea, he never even went to every town in Judea so how could he have - Just because Jesus's personally healed everyone he prayed for does not mean you can, nor does it mean God will, that's faulty logic Basically, Wommack took something that is true Jesus and extrapolated that into the ministry of every Christian today, that is a bad way to do theology, as we will see. Let's turn this into a logical argument - Premise 1: Jesus healed everyone he prayed for when he was walked the earth - Premise 2: Jesus truly represented the father to us through the ministry to his disciples - Conclusion: Therefore, it is always God's will to heal Sometimes logical is faulty because one of the premises is false and therefore the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Sometimes both the premises are true, but the conclusion is false because it does not follow from the premises Let me give you an example: - Premise 1: The moon is smaller than the sun - Premise 2: The moon is not made of cheese - Conclusion: Therefore, Apollo 11 went to the moon Both premises are true, and the conclusion is true too, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises. This one is easy to see. In the argument we put together earlier based on Wommack's theology, both premises are true as well, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Let’s use plain logic to refute the claims by Wommack, and then we will actually look at scripture in some of Jesus's healing ministry. Example one from the New Testament: - Premise 1: People with enough faith get healed (remember I am using Wommack's theology here) - Premise 2: Paul & Timothy are two of the most faithful examples in the New Testament of people with enough faith & they could not heal all, or remained sick themselves - see (2 Tim 4:20 + 2 Cor 12:7-9 + 1 Tim 5:23) - Conclusion: Therefore, it is always God's will to heal - Premise 1 is false - Premise 2 is true - The conclusion does not follow (premise one is false see premise 2) and is therefore false! Example two from the Old Testament: - Premise 1: People with enough faith get healed (remember I am using Wommack's theology here) - Premise 2: God permits the adversary to strike Job with terrible sickness from which he does not receive healing - Conclusion: It is sometimes God's will to use sickness to test the true faith of believers - Premise 2 is true, just read the book of Job yourself - The conclusion follows from premise 2 - Premise 1 is therefore false It is plainly false to extrapolate from Jesus's ministry to the sick that therefore God's wills to heal all/always Example one from Jesus's healing ministry - "And they brought the boy to him. And when the spirit saw him, immediately it convulsed the boy, and he fell on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth. And Jesus asked his father, 'How long has this been happening to him?' And he said, 'From childhood. And it has often cast him into fire and into water, to destroy him. But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.' And Jesus said to him, 'If you can'! All things are possible for one who believes.' Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, 'I believe; help my unbelief!' And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, 'You mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.' And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that most of them said, 'He is dead.'" (Mark 9:20-26) - The child had no belief - he was convulsing and in a fit - The father had unbelief and begged Jesus to him his unbelief and have mercy on him - Jesus healed as per usual, but against the odds of unbelief! We could turn this this into a logical argument: - Premise 1: the boy had no ability to have faith in healing - Premise 2: the father had unbelief in healing and begged for mercy - Conclusion: It is false to conclude that God desires to heal all, providing they have enough faith Another example from Jesus's ministry: - "And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way. And behold, they cried out, “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?” Now a herd of many pigs was feeding at some distance from them. And the demons begged him, saying, “If you cast us out, send us away into the herd of pigs.” And he said to them, “Go.” So they came out and went into the pigs, and behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the waters. The herdsmen fled, and going into the city they told everything, especially what had happened to the demon-possessed men." (Mt 8:28-34) Let's also turn this this into a logical argument: - Premise 1: the men had no ability to have faith in healing - Premise 2: the men were completely disabled by the devil & uncontrollable in human terms - Conclusion: It is false to conclude that God desires to heal all, providing they have enough faith Another example from Jesus's ministry "And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him. That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.”" (Mt 8:14-16) The quote here is directly from Isaiah 53, the very passage Faith Healers try to use to argue that Jesus paid for your sickness in the same way he paid for your healing. YET the New Testament author Matthew tells us here plainly that the section in Isaiah 53 relating to healing was fulfilled right here in Jesus's ministry! Let's also turn this into a logical argument: - Premise 1: Jesus healed Peter's mother in law who had a fever - Premise 2: Given it is likely this was a real fever {not just a hot temperature} Peter's mother was in no place to "have or display faith" in order to receive her healing. Jesus simply healed her - Premise 3: Matthew under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit declared why Christ healed the sick - Conclusion: Healing in Christ's ministry at least in some sense were there to fulfil biblical prophecy about him I Am saying this, in this way to assert that this was certainly not the only reason why Christ healed the sick but this is certainly a true conclusion that follows from the premises So far by both logic, reason and by the very narratives about Jesus's healing ministry there is no valid reason to conclude that it is always God's will to heal. The Bible never anywhere says so, which is why faith Healers argue in the way they do, as people with little Bible knowledge will fail to see their false arguments. Using the argument from "you don't have enough faith" is their Get out of Jail free card. They are basically spiritual bullies enriching themselves on the back of unsuspecting Christians who give them lots of money! But lets assume for a moment they are right and take the examples from Christ's ministry to their logical Wommackian conclusion - Premise 1: Jesus never had a problem with healing someone who had no ability to have faith in the healing - Premise 2: Jesus healed people with no faith - Premise 3: It is always God's will to heal - Premise 4: Wommack claims he is just doing what Jesus did - Conclusion: - Wommack should be able to heal all those people without faith just like Jesus - Even the most naive person who thinks Wommackians are the good guys, if he or she is honest would have to admit they are not in any way able to heal everyone (and I am being generous here) Can you see how this is a catastrophic own goal? Worst of all Wommack somehow extrapolates the fact that God wills the salvation of all, should therefore mean he wills the healing of all, since healing is an obvious "not good" thing. But couldn't we likewise claim that "death" is a not good thing and since God's wills healing due to it being a good thing, he would likewise will that people not die since death is a bad thing.... You can see where am going with this can't you: Faithhealer: if you have enough faith you won't die! - You died, and thereby proved you didn't have enough faith. This is bad, very faulty logic and theology! In fact it is the very reverse, many people who are promised healing if only they have enough faith, by the healing and prosperity hucksters, and then when they don't get their healing -- which btw is the vast majority of cases -- many walk away from Christianity all together, claiming well if the God, who promised me salvation in the same way he promised me healing, if that God is unable to heal me -- or if I don't have enough faith to receive It, using their toxic terminology -- then why should I have any confidence in God having given me salvation through belief in Jesus? THIS IS THE BITTER HARSH REALITY. God does indeed sometimes heal, but in most of the cases, God promises us to carry us through our trials and tribulations and this is the real good that comes through the work of Christ on the cross, in addition to salvation, Jesus promises us to keep us and preserve us, he promises to get us through the trials! I'd like to finish with reading Rom 8:38+39 "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Hope this helped you. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit reformedapologist.substack.com (https://reformedapologist.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

6. 

   17 Mar 2025

   What happened at the fall?

   In other words we are dealing the question: What was the sin & punishment for Adam's sin? If we misunderstand the beginning, then we are much more likely to misinterpret the rest of the Bible. Let's work through the story of the fall of humanity in the Garden of Eden. So, first up we will read the important parts of the story. Firstly there is this single -- all-important -- command God gave to Adam. (we see that in Gen 2:15-17) - "The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.'" (Gen 2:15-17) We read the Bible with all the baggage of our current Christian worldview. We can't help having all this baggage, but the wise reader will aim to set aside his baggage and try to read Bible passages as if he was reading them for the first time without any prior knowledge of the rest of the Bible. It's hard, but not impossible. One thing stands out really plainly. The punishment for sin is death. Our view of death as the punishment for sin might become a little wobbly when we realise that Adam didn't actually die on the day he and Eve at of the forbidden fruit. This has lead many to interpret that the punishment wasn't physical death but spiritual death. I recently made a vide on the topic of eschatology (= future things) called "full preterism". I was surprised at how many comments I received on that video stating that (a) Adam was mortal before the fall and (b) Therefore the death sentence in the fall narrative can only mean "spiritual death". So is the idea that the death-punishment was not physical but really only spiritual But is this really correct? Our view that the punishment for sin being spiritual death may be bolstered by the fact that Paul in the New Testament exclaims: "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked" (Eph 2:1-2) and also, "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses." (Col 2:13) Does this mean we are done, the matter is settled, the punishment for sin was spiritual death? Not so fast. Maybe the answer lies in a both and and not an either or response. Firstly, the revelation that man in his state of unbelief is dead in his sins, did not come for several thousand years later. The original couple -- Adam and Eve -- did not have this knowledge at least we are not told they did. We should, I believe, read the account in the garden of eden as if we were being told it by Adam and Eve themselves. So far, the plain reading of the account in Genesis 2 is that Adam and Eve will suffer the punishment of death (real physical bodily death) when they eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and this punishment will happen on that very day. Before we go any further let's read the detailed account in chapter three (3:1-7). First the actual account of their sin. "Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, 'Did God actually say, You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?' And the woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.' So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths." (Gen 3:1-7) Setting aside for the moment the deceptive distortion of God's command by the serpent and the wrong understanding by Eve, we can certainly see a change in Adam and in Eve in their knowledge of themselves -- their eyes were opened and now they feel the shame of their sin -- but they didn't die physically on that day. This no doubt is further fuel for those who want to argue that the death they experienced was only of spiritual nature. Again we must then ask, are we done, is the argument settled in favour of spiritual death alone? What happens next should give us pause as this sets the stage for the whole story of the Bible, the story of redemption. What does God do next? Adam and Eve had made the first human attempt at sin covering. They attempted to hide their nakedness by sewing fig leaves to cover themselves. This then becomes the story of all of humanity. We somehow, intuitively know our universal human condition called sin, and what do we do? We create these elaborate schemes to cover up our shame and present ourselves as if nothing had happened. One might say, this is the birth of all of human religion. ALL forms of man-made religion take on the task of presenting man in a state before God that hides his true sinful nature. By doing this our religious forms, hide from us our TRUEST AND MOST ESSENTIAL NEED, namely the forgiveness for our sins, something Christ came to give and ONLY Christ can give. Back to the account in the garden of Eden… God however knows our need, and he provides the first sacrificial lamb to cover the sin of Adam and Eve. - Reading in Gen 3:21 - we see.. "And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them." (Gen 3:21) What is easily missed in this moment is the fact that there was a death on that very day, a real death, but a substitutionary one, namely the death of the animals from whom God took the skin to cover Adam and Eve. As Christians we should notice the precursor to the account of Jesus going to the cross on our behalf. He died the death on the cross to cover our sins, importantly he died instead of, or on behalf of us. Later when Paul exclaims "we have died with Christ", I believe he is not saying the we -- who believe and trust in Jesus -- physically died when Jesus went to the cross, Jesus died a substitutionary death for us. We couldn't have died because we were not even alive yet, but Jesus died the death we should have died, yet hid did so on our behalf, much like the animals from whom God took the skin to cover Adam and Eve. Paul beautifully expresses this very thing in his letter to the Romans in chapter 6 :5-8 "For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him." (Rom 6:5-8) Now, we know from the growing story of redemption through the Old Testament that the animal sacrifice was only a covering, it could not actually take away the sin, in the way Christ's substitutionary death could. We see this most fully expressed in the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament: (Heb 10:10-12) "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God." (Heb 10:10-12) Back to Genesis chapter two. We must then, take a closer look at the following statement in 2:17: "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen 2:17) The last two words of this verse in the Hebrew are simply the same verb in two different forms. The two different forms quite literally mean "die dying". Jonathan Sarfati, writing in his commentary on Genesis 1-11 says the solution lies in the Hebrew form of the term "die". He quotes Hebrew scholar Kulikovsy which sheds light on how an ancient Hebrew would likely have understood this term: "When the infinitive absolute precedes a finite verb of the same stem (as is the case here), it strengthens or intensifies the verbal idea by emphasizing 'either the certainty (especially in the case of threats) or the forcibleness and completeness of an occurrence.'" In simple terms this means that the emphasis here is on certain death, rather than immediate or precise chronology. You might be thinking, here we go, I need to be a Hebrew scholar to understand the Bible. Not so fast, this emphasis is also explained elsewhere in the Old Testament, giving us a strong precedent to affirm our conclusion. As King Solomon was establishing his reign, after his father King David died, he issued a decree to punish Shimei, using almost the identical words as used in Genesis three. - In 1 Kings 2:37-40 we read: "Then the king sent and summoned Shimei and said to him, 'Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and dwell there, and do not go out from there to any place whatever. For on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die... So Shimei lived in Jerusalem many days. But it happened at the end of three years... Shimei arose and saddled a donkey and went to Gath to Achish to seek his servants." (1 Kings 2:37-40) And, some time later.. (in the same chapter 42-46) "The king sent and summoned Shimei and said to him, 'Did I not make you swear by the Lord and solemnly warn you, saying, ‘Know for certain that on the day you go out and go to any place whatever, you shall die’? ...Then the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and he went out and struck him down, and he died. So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon." (1 Kings 2:42-46) Shimei could not possible have been executed on the same day he exited his house, since he was not killed until after he had travelled from Jerusalem to Gath, to locate his missing slaves. In essence we could say that both Adam and Shimei in these two accounts were "as good as dead" the very day the punishment was pronounced. This is quite a common way of expressing judgment punishments in the Old Testament. When King Saul disobeyed God by keeping the spoils of battle rather than doing as God commanded, and devoting it all to destruction, Samuel the prophet pronounces to Saul that the kingdom of Israel was torn from Saul 'this day'. Clearly it didn't happen for several years. - In 1 Sam 15:28 we read.. "The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you." (1 Sam 15:28) It was a pronouncement of judgment that would from that day forward be carried out with certainty, not chronological immediacy. An analogy might help. Consider a farmer who prunes his fruit trees. The day he cuts branches off the tree, those branches are chopped off and fall to the ground. They have effectively been cut off from the life source. Death is certain but not immediate. The branch will slowly wither and eventually die. Likewise with Adam and Eve, they were cut off from preservational life support from God, the very day they sinned. "Dying they died", slowly and finally 900 odd years later when they truly died. Now some people argue that Adam and Eve were mortal before they sinned. Death was a certainty beforehand and they argue from this standpoint to say that the death penalty can therefore only have been spiritual death. Someone who also believes in evolution as the means God used to create the universe teaming with life as we know would feel comfortable with this argument. Once you embrace evolution as the means of creation -- the very mechanism of evolution demands that death existed from the beginning as death is it's engine -- then it becomes only natural to claim that Adam and Eve were mortal before the fall. It might be important to note here that physical immortality can be viewed as inherent -- the idea that Adam and Eve were created with an in-built immortality. They de-facto could not die if they did not sin. The alternative view is that immortality in the original creation of Adam was not inherent but given by God through his divine act of providence, as can be see in the giving of the tree of life in the garden. This view is somewhat strengthened by the idea that once Adam and Eve sinned, God expelled them from the garden and barred them from being able to access the tree of life. Either of these views seem to fit the story of the fall. The all-important issue lies in the pronouncement of the death penalty as punishment for sin, whether it was physical, spiritual or death of the whole person. This place isn't the right place to mount an argument for "Young Earth Creationism," but what we as Christians who believe in the inspiration of scripture must affirm are the following assertions from Genesis one: "God saw that it was good," (Gen 1) is asserted five times in the first 25 verses of Genesis one. This is all before God creates man. I believe it is really dishonest with the plain reading of this chapter to claim that, death, the very means and mechanism of evolutionary creation, is good. That's tantamount to saying English language has no meaning at all. It's a thorough going denial of one the basic laws of logic. The law of non-contradiction. To top this off, the chapter finally says "God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." (Gen 1:31) This was after he had made all animal life and the crown of creation, human life. To claim that man was made mortal -- and by this I mean that man before he sinned was definitely subject to death -- is, I believe, to deny the plainest sense in which the opening chapters of the Bible are written. To fail here is to create a broken foundation for the remainder of your theology. The idea that the body is already dead whilst not actually being dead yet, is also confirmed by the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans: (8:10) "Although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness." (Rom 8:10) Clearly this can't mean spiritual death because Paul uses the language of "the body is dead." Finally, there is one more argument that should give us confidence that we have understood the punishment of sin to be the real and physical death of the whole person called human being. Some time after Adam and Eve rebelled, God calls out to them in the garden and asks: "Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" (Gen 3:11) God then pronounced judgment on both the serpent and the original couple. Given that Adam had been given responsibility for creation, his judgment is also the one that falls retrospectively on all of humanity. If we were in any doubt that the punishment of death was physical, this doubt should be dissolved by the sobering words to Adam in chapter 3:19 "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return." (Gen 3:19) To be told "to dust you shall return," is quite literally pronouncing the total destruction of the human body. We are now still left with the question we asked at the outset, was the punishment only physical, or both physical and spiritual? I think the issue arises here from our modern "dualist thinking," which we have largely inherited from the Greek philosophers, many of whom believed that man has a dual nature. The real person is the soul or the spirit -- they tended to interchange these two terms -- and this real you, is trapped in a physical body. The Greeks had a rather negative view of the body and an exaggerated view of the soul. They believed the soul was inherently immortal, i.e. indestructable, whereas the body was this natural evil, and they viewed death as being saved from this natural evil called the body. I am going to make a further video looking into the question of "inherent immortality of the soul" in a future, I simply want to ask the question here, what was the ancient Hebrew way of looking at man? Was it dualism or did they view man as a single entity with the spiritual and the physical as just different aspects of the one and the same person? Early on in the Reformation period, Martin Luther recognised the significance of denying the idea of purgatory, it was one of his objections to Roman Catholicism raised in the 95 theses, nailed to the church door at Wittenberg. It was the wicked practice of extracting money from the poor so that the pope may release a poor relative from the fires of purgatory: "They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory." This was very early on in the reformation. When one follows the development of Luther's theological ideas on hell, the afterlife and eternal punishment, one thing stands out. Luther strongly rejected the `dualist` notion that man consists of two fixed entities, body and soul. Luther saw these two as different views of the whole. Luther strongly rejected the idea of the soul being a `ghost like` entity that separates from the body on death. As we move into considering the next question on the `immortality` of the soul. This quote from one of Luther's university lectures on the psalms, late in his life is helpful: "God is our Dwelling Place, and not the earth, not heaven, not paradise, but simply God himself. And indeed he is that from generation to generation. This means that from the beginning of the world to the end of the world God has never deserted his own. Adam, Eve, patriarchs, prophets, pious kings are asleep in this Dwelling Place. If, as I believe, they have not yet risen with Christ, their bodies are indeed at rest in the grave, but their life is hidden with Christ in God and will be revealed in glory on the last day. In this way Moses [we must recall Luther was speaking on psalms that were attributed to Moses] calls attention to the resurrection of the dead and the hope of the life over death." Now I recognise that most people believe in what is commonly called `The Intermediate State` today. This entails that the souls of believers leave their bodies at death and go to be with Christ in heaven. On the flip side, the souls of all unbelievers leave the bodies at death and go straight to hell. You might be thinking of the parable called `The Rich Man and Lazarus` right now, and I wouldn't blame you. - I again intend to make yet another video answering the question from the "Rich Man and Lazarus story" - Was it a story to tell us something about reality, i.e. this is exactly how the afterlife is going to be? Or, was it a parable with a simple message, like so many of Jesus's parables? I hope you will return for the answer on this question. Reformer, Martin Luther certainly rejected the notion that this parable is evidence of an intermediate state and an immortal soul. Needless to say, it does come as a surprise to many to realise that Luther rejected this idea as an `invention of Romanism.` I shall leave you with this thought from Martin Luther, in the hope I have whet your appetite for more on this subject: "I permit the pope to make articles of faith for himself and his faithful, such as.. the soul is immortal, with all those monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals." This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit reformedapologist.substack.com (https://reformedapologist.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

7. 

   26 Nov 2024

   What did the Early Church Believe about Speaking in Tongues?

   - I have made a number of presentations on the subject of "Tongues" and authored a book where I work through every passage in the Bible on this subject and ask all the hard questions. The book is available on Amazon. This presententation like all my other presentations on this subject is not about the Cessation versus Continuation argument. I am not convinced that this argument is well framed. There are those who claim that the modern sign & wonders movement predominantly in the Pentecostal community is a replica of the miracles in Christ's and his apostles ministries, they claim they have the same power to work miracles, heal the sick, prophecy the future and many other signs. An honest onlooker from the outside very quickly realises that these claims are false, people like Benny Hinn who claims to heal the sick, does not, the prophets who claim to foretell the future either make claims that are so vague they cannot be verified, or they make downright false claims and then bork at ministries like this one who challenges their claims. Then there are those who claim God stopped working miracles altogher once the canon of the Bible was completed. Humbly said both of these views are extremes that should be rejected on the evidence. My view is that miracles were never "normative" i.e. every day occurences for all people. An honest student of the Bible will find miracles throughout the Old and New Testament periods, but only when a particular chosen minister was to be authenticated did God work the extraordinary. We see this in the miracles of Christ, and to a lesser degree in the ministry of the apostles, but already in the writings of the epistles of the New Testament we can see a fading of the miraculous, people are sick and pastoral advice is given how to handle this. The general picture given by the early church patristics is one of gradual lessening of the miraculous, over the course of the first 3-5 centuries. Nonetheless we see miracles do continue to occur throughout the history of the church, but to a far lesser degree. Miracles and the supernatural are simply not normative and one has to close ones mind and rational thinking capacity not to recognise this. My view on the topic of tongues is that in the New Testament they are always "natural, real languages" like Latin, Spanish or French. As I said I have a whole series of presentations working through every New Testament passage on this subject. Given that I hold to the protestant axiom called "Sola Scriptura", you might be wondering "why am I concerned with what the Early Church Fathers say on this topic"? 1. Sola Scriptura does not mean the Bible is the ONLY authority, but the FINAL authority. 2. It is therefore really important to see what the Early Church believed, especially those who were literally only one or a few generations away from the actual apostles themselves 3. If they all agree with our own interpretation of scripture then this should give us more confidence that we have not misunderstood or dare I say misinterpreted the texts under review This presentation is basically me giving you readings of quotes by many early church fathers. I will give references for each quote in the presentation description so you can read up and also read all the context, which I would always recommend. I was actually surprised just how many theological giants of the early church period, the men who fought against the many christological heresies the church battled with during that period, actually took the time to comment on Acts and 1 Corinthians and give us a window into what they believed on this important subject. The findings might surprise you. This session is may be a little "dry" because my aim here is just to bring up a line of very early church fathers and simply find out what they believed on the topic of Speaking in Tongues. I have already made a series of presentations on pretty much every single passage of scripture on this topic. I have written a book which is available on Amazon. For those who can't afford the book, or who are unsure whether investing in the price of the book is a good investment, I have actually published most the book chapter by chapter on this substack. You can read it there for free, and I hope that if you are edified by the content that you might support my work by buying a copy. For the sake of brevity I am only giving you the quotes with just enough information to be able to see what their firm beliefs were on this subject. In the presentation notes I will list all the source material where you can do your own due dilligence and read all the context of these quotes, so you know I have not taken them out of context or made them say what they did not intend. First up let's look at the 1st few centuries, AD 100-300 Irenaus. c. 120-200 AD (his writings date to this time) Irenaus was the bishop of the Roman province called Gaul, now Lyons in France. He originally came from a Christian family in Smyrna where at an early age he witnessed the preaching of Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of the apostle John. He is therefore a really important early witness of the teaching of the apostles. It is really clear from his writings that he believed the gift of tongues to be nothing other than the miraculous ability to speak in real natural foreign languages, with it's original purpose of bringing all nations into one accord with the Gospel of Christ. He is most known for his major work "Against Heresies". Here is a quote from: Against Heresies (Book 3, Chapter 17:2) “Who also, as Luke says, descended at the day of Pentecost upon the disciples after the Lord’s ascension, having power to admit all nations to the entrance of life, and to the opening of the new covenant; from whence also, with one accord in all languages, they uttered praise to God, the Spirit bringing distant tribes to unity, and offering to the Father the first-fruits of all nations. Wherefore also the Lord promised to send the Comforter, who should join us to God.” - REF: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103317.htm Here is another quote from: Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 6:1) “Terming those persons 'perfect' who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used Himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit.” - REF: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103506.htm It is clear from his writings here that the gift of tongues was the ability to speak in a foreign tongue. The purpose of the gift was to bring all peoples and nations into one accord. Tertullian c. 155-225 AD Tertullian is an early Church father best known for his writings against the Marcionites, who claimed that the God of the Old Testament was a different God that the God of the New Testamant. They totally rejected the Old Testament and indeed several of the most Jewish books of the New Testament! Here is a quote from Tertullian: Against Marcion. Book V. 8:7-12 “Seeing as the Creator especially promised the gift of the Spirit in the latter days; and moreover Christ appeared in these latter days as the dispenser of spiritual gifts to which the apostle says, ”But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent His Son,” and again, ”Because the time is now in short supply”, and it is evident that this gift of the Spirit leads with praises towards Christ. Now compare the types between the apostles and Isaiah: “To one is given”, he says, “by the Spirit the word of wisdom;” and Isaiah steadfastly prefers the spirit of wisdom. “To another, the word of knowledge;” this will be the spirit of understanding and counsel. “To another, faith by the same Spirit;” this will be the spirit of holiness and fear of the Lord. “To another, the gifts of healing, and to another the working of miracles;” this will be the power of might. “To another prophecy, to another another discerning of spirits, to another various kinds of languages, to another the interpretation of languages;” this will be the spirit of knowledge. See how the apostle is bringing together and developing the concept of one spirit and in the prophet’s precise way that applies about interpreting. I can say this very thing that he has harmonized throughout the many and diverse members of our body the unity of the various gifts into a structured form, and on the same theme he shows the Lord in regards to the human body and Holy Spirit, which he did not want the merits of the gifts to be in the context of a spiritual body, nor did he establish such things in the context of a human body in relation to love, which is naturally put ahead too over all the other gifts. This guided the apostle as the lead principle to be established and because Christ esteemed this: 'You shall love your neighbour as your own self.'" I said it was going to be a bit "dry" some of the quotes of these men are tedious. The main take away here is that Tertullian rejected any mystical ideas about the gifts and there is no room here for inserting any "unintelligible babble" style prayer language into his ideas on the subject. https://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-35.htm#P7138_2070665 Origen Origen was an early patristic theologian and one of the most prolific writers in the early church. Much of what we know about Origen comes from early church father Esebius who writes very positively about Origen. He got himself into some controversy over his ideas about "Universalism", and one does not have to agree with him on this subject to recognise the validity of his comments about other issues. At the very least from his comments on the gift of tongues we can get confirmationwhat the generally held beliefs in his time were on this subject. Here is a quote from his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: MPG. Vol. 14. Book I:13. Col. 859ff "It must be understood that as he who trades many pearls, comes upon a precious one, sold everything, and acquired that one, so that anyone who begins with many fruits, is destined to strive for the one perfect fruit. Now one must ask how the Apostle is under obligation to the Greeks and the non-Greeks, to the wise and the foolish ones — namely what did he learn from them that he was obligated to them? I certainly think that he had become indebted with the diverse nations because he was speaking in the languages of the nations which he received through the gift of the Holy Spirit, even as he himself said, “I speak in tongues more than you all.” Because then he did not acquire the knowledge of languages on his own account alone but for those he was about to preach, the debt is being accomplished to all these of whom he received the knowledge of many languages from God." Origen believed that Paul was endowed of the Holy Spirit to speak in many languages to make the Good News an international one. However, he did not state how Paul arrived at such a blessed condition. It is not clarified whether the Holy Spirit empowered Paul learning a language by natural means through study, that he was being prepped since birth in such a vocation, or immediate revelation. Here is a quote from his writing: Against Celsius 7:8-9 "Moreover, the Holy Spirit gave signs of His presence at the beginning of Christ’s ministry, and after His ascension He gave still more; but since that time these signs have diminished, although there are still traces of His presence in a few who have had their souls purified by the Gospel, and their actions regulated by its influence." This is just one way of Origen telling us that the gifts were slowly abating And another Against Celsus 8:37 “In the next place, Celsus forgets that he is addressing Christians, who pray to God alone through Jesus; and mixing up other notions with theirs, he absurdly attributes them all to Christians. “If,” says he, “they who are addressed are called upon by barbarous names, they will have power, but no longer will they have any if they are addressed in Greek or Latin.” Let him, then, state plainly whom we call upon for help by barbarous names. Any one will be convinced that this is a false charge which Celsus brings against us, when he considers that Christians in prayer do not even use the precise names which divine Scripture applies to God; but the Greeks use Greek names, the Romans Latin names, and every one prays and sings praises to God as he best can, in his mother tongue. For the Lord of all the languages of the earth hears those who pray to Him in each different tongue, hearing, if I may so say, but one voice, expressing itself in different dialects. For the Most High is not as one of those who select one language, Barbarian or Greek, knowing nothing of any other, and caring nothing for those who speak in other tongues.” https://charlesasullivan.com/1215/origen-gift-tongues Origen is yet another of the Early church fathers who can not be used to support the modern version of tongues AD 301-476 Pachomius, a Coptic Christian who lived in Egypt (4th century) > Pachominus was an Egyptian Christian convert, who is known for forming Christian monastic community during a time of persecution - Pachomian Koinonia. Cistercian Studies: Number 46. Volume 2. ( see the testimomy of how he received the gift of tongues himself in the reference) https://charlesasullivan.com/3875/pachomius-receiving-the-gift-of-tongues-in-english-and-greek/ This is yet another solid piece of the evidence puzzle showing us that in the 3rd century tongues still did occur, but the real language version that we see in the book of Acts St. Ephrem (4th century Syrian) Ephrem was a Syriac Christian, a deacon and theologian. He was from Nisibus in Mesopotamia (somewhere in today's Modern Turkey & Syria). He is know for founding the earliest Syriac church training ministry schools. There are two documented encounters of Ephrem actually using the gift of tongues, both of the demonstrate him being suddenly able to speak a language he did not learn. One was with an Egyptian where he could speak his language and the other with a Greek. You can follow up both of these encounters by following the references in the notes. They are quite similar to Pachminus Let's look at his commentary notes on 1 Corinthians 14. Here is his commentary on - I Corinthians 14:13 “Therefore, the one who speaks in a language, let the person pray, that this person of the Greeks may be interpreted through the authority of the Greek language because he is speaking in a foreign language. For the gifts of the Spirit were in accordance with this course, because kinds of languages were given to one, and another interpretation of languages, and the one requires the work of another. Namely, that person who was speaking was on behalf of him who was being interpreted: moreover, the Church is both entities.” I Corinthians 14:22 “If, therefore, languages had been given that person on account of the people, so that they knew the time of the new Gospel through the agency of language. Therefore, languages are now a sign; they are not for believers. What kind do you ask? but for unbelievers. One may see clearly with why the Jewish people had been dispersed, to those of which was written, and they do not take heed in such a way, said the Lord. Prophecy, on the other hand, is not for unbelievers, but believers: if then they do not believe what you are saying, how can they hear what you are speaking?” - REF: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05498a.htm The church was spread all over the Roman/known world and we indeed have witness of a broad variety and indeed in lot's of different localties testifying to the same doctrine on this topic. Epiphanius - Bishop of Salamis - 4th century He is considered one of the strongest apologists for the Christian faith of that period. Here is the central part of the text found in Epiphanius’ Panarion Book I, Section III, Heresy 42 starting at Scholion XIII and XXI: “Therefore languages are from a grace of the Spirit. Of what kind does the Apostle speak? He knew how not only the different Hebrew sounds, and manifold expressions in every single word with skills adorned with eloquence, but also the proud language of the Greeks; some who boast the ability to speak Attic, Aeolic, and being able to utter the language of the Dorics, of whom had caused the disturbances, and factions within the Corinthians, to which the Epistle was dispatched. And he confessed the gift which is having the ability to proclaim [the oracles] with the Hebrew words and also teaching the Law to be a spiritual endowment. And he agreed that it is a spiritual grace to proclaim and to teach the Law in the Hebrew words.” The Epiphanius text states two things about the Corinthian conflict: it was a clash between different Greek ethnic groups and the Hebrew language had some role in the Corinthian assembly. There was no reference to an out-of-this-world mystical experience, or something supernatural. Cyril of Jerusalem - Bishop - 4th century Cyril was the bishop of Jerusalem and a well respected theologian in early Palestine. He was also involved with fighting many of the early heretical attacks on the gospel. He was involved in the Nicene Creed. At this point it bears noting that very few believers today even know about the early church battles and all the wonderful creeds that come from this period. When the reformers coined the famous phrase "ad fontes" in Latin which means "back to the sources", they didn't just meanlet's go back to the scriptures, they also wanted to demonstrate that the church had drifted away from the faithful early church fathers who are very much also the father of Protestantism. “And they began to speak in foreign tongues, even as the Holy Spirit prompted them to speak.” The Galilean Peter and Andrew spoke Persian or Median. John and the other Apostles spoke all the tongues of various nations, for the thronging of multitudes of strangers from all parts is not something new in Jerusalem, but this was true in Apostolic times. What teacher can be found so proficient as to teach men in a moment what they have not learned? So many years are required through grammar and other arts merely to speak Greek well; and all do not speak it equally well. The rhetorician may succeed in speaking it well, the grammarian sometimes less well; and he who is skilled in grammar is ignorant of philosophical studies. But the Holy Spirit taught them at once many languages, which they do not know in a whole lifetime. This is truly lofty wisdom, this is divine power. What a contrast between their long ignorance in the past and this sudden, comprehensive, varied and unaccustomed use of languages.” https://charlesasullivan.com/1021/cyril-of-jerusalem-on-the-miracle-of-pentecost/ Again this is a powerful testimony to the gift of tongues as we see it in the book of Acts. De Trinitate - attributed to Didymus the blind of Alexandria - 4th century Didymus was a theologian in Alexandria, under the tutalage and approval of well known bishop Athanasius. Together with Athanasius he was well engaged in the battle against the Arian heresy. The Arians denied the trinity and in particular thedivinity of Christ. To them Christ was a created being. Modern Jehovah's witnesses are responsible for resurrecting this ancient heresy. Athanasius is known for the "Athanasian creed" with it's high christology. “And they were speaking as well in different languages, “even as”, it says, “the Spirit was giving them to utter.” And the Galileans were understanding19 the instruction of Parthians, Medes, Persians; and the different sorts of foreign speech of mankind, including also Greek, and the Ausonian language. Many voices were indeed produced, and were showing of such things, we are destined to discover about the age to come, when having been liberated from the bonds of this present world, which corresponds to the voice of Paul, “Where there is not among them Greek, Barbarian, Scythian, but Christ is the all and in all.” Gregory of Nyssa Gregory was a Roman bishop of Nyssa from 372-376 - he was the elder brother of Basil of Caesarea. In his homily called "De Spiritu Sancto sive in Pentecosten:" “Consequently, the narrative of the Book of Acts says that while these people are gathered in the upper room, is the dividing up in each one the pure and supernatural fire in the form of languages according to the number of disciples. So then these people are thus discoursing in Parthian, Mede, and Elamite in the other remaining nations, adapting their voices with respect to authority to every state language. Even as the Apostle says, “I wish five words to speak with my mind in the Church in order that I may benefit others than a thousand words in a tongue.” Truly at that time the benefit was the same language begotten into foreign languages so that the preaching to those ignorant of the truth would not be in vain when those preaching thwart them by a single voice. Now indeed while existing according to the same sounding language, it is necessary to seek after the fiery tongue of the Spirit for the illumination of those who dwell in darkness through error.” https://charlesasullivan.com/7212/analysis-gregory-nyssa-speaking-tongues/ The amount of positive testimony to the way tongues were operated in the very early church is quite amazing. What we never find however is any writing testifying the kind of tongues seen in the modern Charismatic & Pentecostal movement. John Chrystosom 4th Century Chrystosom was known for his eloquent preaching. He as the bishop of Constantople at an important time in church history, Christianity was gradually being recognised as a true religion and was protected by the Roman state. Homilies on Corinthians - speaking on the gifts he writes: “This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity has produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?” On I Corinthians 14:3: “And it was thought great because the Apostles received it first, and with so great display; it was not however therefore to be esteemed above all the others. Wherefore then did the Apostles receive it before the rest? Because they were to go abroad every where. And as in the time of building the tower the one tongue was divided into many; so then the many tongues frequently met in one man, and the same person used to discourse both in the Persian, and the Roman, and the Indian, and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him: and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak various languages.” On I Corinthians 14:10: “There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and no kind is without signification:” i.e., so many tongues, so many voices of Scythians, Thracians, Romans, Persians, Moors, Indians, Egyptians, innumerable other nations.” Consistently then he shows that the tongues of Acts and Corinthians are one and the same thing. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2201.htm https://charlesasullivan.com/5347/chrysostom-doctrine-tongues Augustine 350 - 430 Bishop North Africa - later Rome Augustine is perhaps the most well known theologian and writer in the early church. Augustine’s sermon called: Sermo 267 “Brothers, has the holy Spirit not been given now? Whoever thinks this is not deserving to receive. He is given and now. Why then is no one speaking in the tongues of all the nations just as he spoke who at the time was being filled with the holy Spirit? Why? Because this was a sign that has been satisfied.” Can it now be to those receiving the laying of hands when they receive the holy Spirit, is there an expectation with this, that they must speak in languages? Or rather when we laid hands on those infants, does anyone of you pay attention to whether they were speaking in languages or when it was seen of them that they did not speak in languages, was it according to the perverseness of the heart with some of you that you would say, “These did not receive the holy Spirit, for if they had received, would they be speaking in languages even as was done in times past? Then, if it should not now be appointed as the evidence of the presence of the holy Spirit through these miracles, from what point does it take place, from which point does each one know that he himself has received the holy Spirit?” In his writing called "Retractiones" - later in his life “Likewise, this statement of mine is indeed true: “These miracles were not allowed to last until our times lest the soul ever seek visible things and the human race grow cold because of familiarity with those things whose novelty enkindled it.” For not even now, when a hand is laid on the baptized, do they receive the Holy Spirit in such a way that they speak with the tongues of all nations; nor are the sick now healed by the passing shadow of the preachers of Christ. Even though such things happened at that time, manifestly these ceased later. But what I said is not to be so interpreted that no miracles are believed to be performed in the name of Christ at the present time. For, when I wrote that book, I myself had recently learned that a blind man had been restored to sight in Milan near the bodies of the martyrs in that very city, and I knew about some other, so numerous even in these times, that we cannot know about all of them nor enumerate those we know.” He was a nuanced cessationist.. humbly said this is the position I hold Cyril of Alexandria Cyril of Alexandria was the Patriarch of Alexandria from 412 to 444. He was enthroned when the city was at the height of its influence and power within the Roman Empire. Cyril wrote extensively and was a major player in the Christological controversies of the late-4th and 5th centuries Cyril writing in his "Catena on I Corinthians" (basically a commentary) “In fact one observes that to prophesy is to interpret the matters of the prophets in such things through which the word of encouragement is being established, and the mind of those who have been initiated is to be led into the truth about Christ. He also elsewhere shows beyond comparison that the activity of interpreting the prophets is in superiority than the act of speaking in a language.“For he builds himself up,” it says, “the one who is speaking in a tongue.” Of course he understands himself, but someone else, absolutely nothing. This one, who makes use with the voices of those holy prophets and with predictions in regards to the testimony, builds up the Church. Greater then also in the highest ranks, and in the most splendid hopes is the application of prophecy. Indeed, it is better to mutually build up the Church than himself alone speaking out in a language.” He further writes: “Seeing that it was unexpected, and truly a gift of the gods, that men being of Hebrew background were being empowered to speak in languages of others, not that some suppose the Apostle rashly determined the nature of the practice to be purposeless, saying it had been given through the work of the Spirit. For it was given as a sign for believers, he favorably approves the practice and says, “Now I wish all of you to speak in tongues,” for he clearly cuts-off at once the eagerness in this certain thing, and moves to a better one, “even more that you prophesy.” Greater and more palpable the orator is who prophesies than the one who speaks in a language.” The catena by Cyril, recognizes Pentecost as the miraculous ability of the apostles to speak in one or more foreign languages. It also suggests that Paul was also manifesting this same ability in Corinth. https://charlesasullivan.com/3337/cyril-of-alexandria-on-tongues-conclusion/ Ambrosiaster Ambrosiaster or Pseudo-Ambrose is the name given to the unknown author of a commentary on the epistles of Saint Paul, written some time between 366 and 384 AD. The term "Ambrosiaster" literally means "would be Ambrose". Scholars simply don't have sufficient evidence to pinpoint who exactly is the author. Ambrosiaster on the Tongues of Corinth I Corinthians 14:19: “I Corinthians 14:19 is the principle-text in the Ambrosiaster document when it comes to explaining the role of tongues, the Law, and the influence of Aramaic and Hebrew in the early Church. “But in the Church,” it is said, “I wish to speak five words according to the Law that I may also build up others than ten thousand words in a tongue.” He [Paul] says it to be more useful speaking in small words in the making of a speech in order that everyone should understand than to have a lengthy speech in obscurity. These were from the Hebrews who at length in the Syrian language and, for the most part, in Hebrew were indulging in homilies or presentations for approval. For they were boasting calling themselves Jews according to the right of Abraham, that the same apostle held this to no account, teaching, “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Galatians 6:14). Indeed, these ones who are mimicking, they prefer to speak in their unknown language to the people in the Church which belongs to them.” - Ambrosiaster succinctly states in his narrative about I Corinthians 12:28. The glossa (γλῶσσα) is the ability to know two or more languages. “Kinds of languages.” That the gift of God is to know many languages. “Interpretation of words.” When this is granted to some by the grace of God that he has the expertise of languages which require translations. Further on, he compares the phenomenon of Latin men singing in Greek. He points to a liturgical aspect where a portion of the liturgy is in a foreign sacred language. “For if I will have prayed in a language, my spirit prays but my mind is without fruit.” It is clear our soul is ignorant, if he should speak in a language which he does not know, just as Latin men who are singing Greek, by being a delightful sound of words, yet these ones do not know anything they are saying. However the Spirit which was given in baptism, knows anything the soul may pray for, while speaking or whether he concludes in an unknown language from it. But on the other hand, the mind which is the soul, is unfruitful. For who can have fruit who does not know what he is speaking?” What can we say in Conclusion? The modern version of speaking in tongues found predominantly in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches has no antecedent in church history prior to the nineteenth century. The writings of the early church fathers quite unanimously affirm the very obvious picture given to us in the book of Acts of tongues being natural and real languages. It also must be said that the many quotes from commentaries on 1 Corinthians by church fathers affirm that the tongues mentioned by paul in this letter are identical to the tongues in the book of Acts. I hope this helped you in your search for truth and clarity on this subject. It it did, please help get the word out to your friends by sharing the article or the podcast, or indeed the video on my youtube channel: What Did the Early Church Believe about Speaking in Tongues (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTn-O9AY3iQ) This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit reformedapologist.substack.com (https://reformedapologist.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

8. 

   16 Nov 2024

   Who is the Fig Tree Generation?

   Who is the Fig Tree Generation? Will a "Fig Tree" Generation as asserted by Amir Tsarfati, see the return of Christ? Or perhaps the question we should really ask is: Is there a fig tree generation? In this episode, I review an often repeated assertion by those who believe in a futurist interpretation of the Olivet discourse (Mt 24, Mk13, Lk 21), that there is a “fig tree” generation that will see the return of Christ. In this instance, well-known preacher Amir Tsarfati speaks on this topic, and I pull back the veneer and demonstrate that he is being being true to the text. Here are the notes & comments from the podcast for those who prefer to read. After watching the whole video/sermon - this clip represents the central point he made. Please feel free to watch the whole sermon on Youtube for yourself. So what are the assertions he has made? He interprets the "fig tree parable" as some special event 2000 years in the future of Jesus disciples, when the nation of Israel will be restored to it's original nationhood He then says "You" (in the video he points at the audience) are the generation of people who according to Jesus's words "see" this special fig tree based restoration of the nation of Israel and therefore: When Jesus says "this generation" - he means the generation of people who are alive to witness the restoration of the nation of Israel and they will basically be the ones who experience the second coming of Christ. The all important question now is: Is this what Jesus actually said? To assist us in answering this question, let's first read the passage in all three renditions of the Olivet Discourse: Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" - Mt 24:32-34 "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" - Mk 13:28-30 "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. As soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place" - Lk 21:29-32 What are then some of the important questions we must ask to ascertain what is being said? - (1) What is the parable about, i.e. what is it's central message? - (2) What was Jesus trying to say when he referred to the parable by "So also when you see"? - (3) What did Jesus mean by "all these things"? Was he referring to the parable or the events just detailed before launching into this parable? - (4) What was Jesus's audience, i.e. who was in view with the pronoun "You"? - If we can answer these four questions we can I think quite clearly demonstrate who was in view with the term "this generation". (1) What was the parable about ? - Tsarfati asserted that the parable is about the restoration of the nation of Israel. In the full sermon he states that the Fig Tree is used as representation of Israel. I would suggest he is engaging in "eisegesis" here since this parable does not say anything about the restoration of a dead tree in the long distant future, even if Israel was meant with the tree, the rest has to be quite literally imposed onto the parable. Let's break it down and also see what Jesus clearly tells us: - "From the fig tree learn its lesson" - so we are to learn a specific lesson from the tree - "As soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near" - if we read this in plain English it simply means two things: - "When the tree's branch becomes tender, it put's out its leaves" - "When it's leaves are out, we can know that summer is near" - NB: Please note here that the parallel passage in Luke's gospel mentions "and all the trees". - Given that Luke primarily wrote to a Gentile audience who may or may not know about "fig trees"the addition of "all trees" is a pretty sane give away that Jesus's isn't making any specific assertion about a Fig tree per say and therefore something specific to Israel only, but rather a straightforward and simple assertion that is true of all trees! - When trees put out their leaves, you know the summer is near! - This leads us straight into our next question: (2) What was Jesus referring to when he said "So also when you see" - The most straightforward and simple explanation is that the "so" does not refer to some special knowledge Jews may have about the restoration of the nation of Israel, but simply: - In the same way you can conclude that summer is near when you see the leaves on the fig tree - So you can conclude that the coming of Jesus is near when "these things" have happened. - which again leads is squarely into the next question namely: (3) What did Jesus mean by "all these things"? > Was he referring to the parable or the events just detailed before launching into this parable? - Again the most obvious and plain reading is that "all these things" refers to the long list of events Jesus has just detailed from verse 3 all the way to verse 31. - there are several natural reasons why the context demands this is so: - "these things" is plural, whereas the shedding of leaves is one single thing. If Jesus had meant the shedding of the leaves on fig trees as the sign to look for - would he have used "these things" as plural to refer to it? That makes no sense, firstly it is a single event, and secondly wouldn't he have much more naturally referred to the shedding itself? - Secondly and more importantly: - It is much more likely that Jesus was referring to the actual question of the disciples. Remember that they originally asked "when will these things happen" in verse 3? - the term "these things" appears not only in the original question but also at several junctures in the list of detailed events Jesus gives. - "For THOSE THINGS must take place" - verse 6 - "But all THESE [THINGS] are merely the beginning" - verse 8 - Whether "these or those or these things" is used depends on the translation, but the context is very obviously pointing to the fact that when Jesus uses this term in verse 33 - the "these things"refers to the long list of events Jesus predicted. - that now leads us to the final question of audience: (4) Who was Jesus speaking with, was "You" Jesus's disciples or some generation in the very far distant future as Tsarfati intimated? - Imagine for a moment you are at the reading of the testament of your Mother and Father who recently died in a car crash. They have left their will for you, your brother and your sister. - There are no special things that go to individuals, but rather the house has been left to all three of you. The testament reads: "When you read this you will know we have passed and have left the house to you. We don't want you to squable over the house, our wish is that you would share the property and each enjoy the gardens and think of us as you cherish it's wealth. When you enter the garage you will find our old car. If you think it is worth restoring, after you have evaluated it, please do restore it." - Who is the audience of this "testament"? - The three kids - Is the testament directed to their grand children? - no - Will the grand children benefit from the testament - Yes in a secondary nature by the fact that they are grand kids - Audience relevance: Who again is addressed? Just the three kids - Who is to restore the car? The kids - Is the restoration a must? No it's conditional on their evaluation - Does this testament have relevance in terms of actions for a generation two millenia away? - I think you know where I am going with this. If we say that the personal pronoun "You" is not the disciples of Jesus, but some distant generation of people in two millenia away, then words in English have no meaning and you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say! - So why do people fall into the trap of misinterpreting this passage so badly? - I would suggest it is due to the many "difficult" assertions that Jesus makes that sound so very much like "The End of the World" and therefore they feel compelled to find a way out of the very obvious timing passages. The events Jesus is speaking of in Mt 24 include a "coming of Jesus". If you insist on saying this "coming" is about the second coming of Christ, then you will have the problem like Tsarfati of trying to get around the very obvious and plain timing passage we just reviewed. - If however you come to realise that the "coming" referred to in this passage is not the second coming of Jesus, but a "coming in judgment" - that occurred in AD 70 when the Roman armies invaded Judea and destroyed the temple, then these timing passages all of a sudden come into perfect view! - I have recently authored a book called "Did Jesus Predict the End of the World?" It is being published in a few weeks, and I intend to publish it - piece by piece on my podcast so you can listen to it for free. I sure hope that some of my listeners will support my ministry by buying the book once it is published. - Just one final comment. Many today believe that the word "generation" in this verse should be translated "race" i.e. the Jewish Race will not pass until all these things take place. This is yet another of the many questions I answer in my book. The short version is that the Bible gives us no warrant to translate the word "genea" as race in this passage. In my book an entire chapter is devoted to answering the reasons why. I hope you enjoyed this video This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit reformedapologist.substack.com (https://reformedapologist.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

9. 

   12 Oct 2024

   Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

   Does John 3:5 Teach that Baptism is Necessary for Salvation? In the last video, we looked at the question, "Is Salvation By Grace through Faith or by Works?" and we established that whilst the New Testament calls all believers to obey and bring forth fruit meet their repentance, works are not the cause of salvation but the effect. True works of obedience accompany every true believer. * Let’s first read the verse on it’s own: * "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) 1 - If we approached this passage on it’s own: It could be pressed upon to say this: * P1 - In John 3 Jesus speaks of the need to be born of water and Spirit * P2 - If we ascertain from the context that to be born of water is in fact baptism then * C - It is necessary to be baptised in order to be saved 2 - Considering the remainder of the New Testament: Affirming salvation is by grace through faith, we should approach this passage with a syllogism: * P1 - The New Testament teaches Salvation is by Grace through Faith * P2 - In John 3 Jesus speaks of the need to be born of water and Spirit * C - The birth in water and Spirit will be synonymous with the other salvific language used in the New Testament The question now arises whether the context of the passage affirms the first or the second argument we posited and whether the passage indeed speaks of baptism at all. I will deal with the latter question first and then the former. Does John 3 speak of baptism? At this point, it will be good to read the whole passage: * "Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, 'Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.' Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.' Nicodemus said to him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:1-8) Let’s first lay out a summary of the material facts In this passage, to help us get some clarity: * Unless one is born again, one cannot see the kingdom of God * Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God * You must be born again There is a lot more going on in this passage, but for the purposes of answering our question these are what I can see the material facts we must deal with. * 1. No where in the context or words of this sermon to Nicodemus is baptism mentioned. Christian baptism was instituted after the cross, yet the word was not uncommon, as can be see from the ministry of John the baptist. Jews had a tradition to baptise Gentile converts when they adopted Judaism. * 2. It seems obvious that the reason John the baptist was baptising people in the Jordan was because of their apostate state and God in effect saw them as Gentiles coming to repentance * 3. The conclusion just because the term "water" is used in the passage, that it therefore necessarily means baptism is unwarranted, unless off course there is a parallel passage that infers to be "born of water" means to "be baptised" but such a passage is entirely missing from the bible. Isn’t it more likely that Jesus was chiding Nicodemus, who was a senior pharisee and teacher of the law, of his lack of knowledge of the many prophetic foretelling passages of the coming New Covenant. Let’s look at a few to get some much needed context: * "So shall he sprinkle many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand." (Isa 52:15) * "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you." (Eze 36:25) The passage in Isaiah is about Christ, "The Suffering Servant," who is said to "sprinkle many nations"—we m must remember the context of chapter 52 is 53 the famous passage that is all about Christ’s suffering death and redemptive work on the cross. The sprinkling is intimately connected with redemption. The passage in Ezekiel is the most likely passage Christ was referring to as it directly refers to the giving of the New Covenant. The very next verse says: * "And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh." (Eze 36:26) * "And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God." (Eze 11:19,20) * "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Jer 31:31-33) The authors of the New Testament pick up on this New Covenant language in several places: * "And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." (2 Cor 3:3) * This passage affirms that the language of John 3 is of a spiritual nature, that it is speaking of the work of the Spirit. * The author of Hebrews directly quotes from both of the passages we mentioned - in Jeremiah 31:33 and Ezekiel 26:26 * "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds." (Heb 10:16) * "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb 10:22) Hebrews 10 is all about the finished work of Christ on the cross, that effectively brought in the New Covenant. "for by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." (Heb 10:14) Given that the passages of the Old Testament prophets on the New Covenant are quoted and the sprinkling is referred to as having our hearts and bodies washed with pure water. It’s unlikley that baptism is in view, since pure water and sprinkling links the context much more clearly to the work of God in changing the heart by removing the heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh. Swimming pools or baptismal tanks are not "pure water". Baptism cannot "wash the heart". It is much more likely that any connection to baptism is of a signifying nature, much like the "physical circumcision" in the Old Covenant was a sign of the "circumcision of the heart" which was the real work of God in the Old Covenant. There are several other New Testament passages that show that water is often used figuratively of spiritual cleansing or regeneration that is brought forth by the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, at the moment of salvation: Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; John 13:10, 15:3; 1 Cor 6:11 An objector: may claim (as some do) that water refers to the natural birth Of humans. The mother’s "waters break" just before the baby is born. Response: If this single verse is all we had in terms of context to go by, this interpretation would be a possibility, but there is zero other precedence or comparison with this idea anywhere in scripture, hence it is unlikely what Jesus had in mind. Another objector: "this is a perfect description of baptism?" Response 1: We are frequently guilty of reading the Bible backwards. We start with all the Christian assumptions we have to day, i.e. we know that all churches have some form of tradition of baptism - whether adult or infant, and it is not the point of this video to argue for one or the other. That is a video for another day. Now that we know and are well acquainted with baptism, and then with that context in mind we read John 3 it is somewhat likely to find baptism in the passage. However, as a person living in Jesus day, in the moment he spoke to Nicodemus, under the Old Covenant before Christian baptism is instituted, this is not the first go to idea that would pop into the reader's or hearers mind, and we should therefore resist such a conclusion, especially since baptism is not mentioned. Resonse 2: * Why then did Jesus not simply say "unless one is baptised and born of the Spirit one cannot enter the kingdom of God". Jesus was baptised by John, he was familiar with the word and it’s practice. Wouldn't it also be true that if Jesus had indeed said the sentence like this, would he not have clearly contradicted the teaching of the remainder of the New Testament to come? * When Jesus was speaking with Nicodemus, the ordinance of Christian baptism had not been instituted. It was not yet in effect. Jesus likewise did not turn around to the thief on the cross and tell him, if you are baptised you will be with me in paradise, given that the thief was still under the old Covenant and not subject to Christian baptism and yet if this passage commands it, then it was valid before Christ’s death? Conclusion: The "water" mentioned in this passage is much more likely to be the "living water" promised by Christ to the Samaritan woman at the well: "Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.”" (John 4:10) It is the inward purification and renewal produced by the Holy Spirit that brings forth spiritual life to a dead sinner. Christ reinforces this in verse 8: "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8) Some other reasons why this interpretation of the water in this passage is of a spiritual nature: * First of all, we should note that Nicodemus found his literal interpretation of born again to be incomprehensible. He was startled. If he had simply thought this was baptism, this reaction seems out of place. * The greek word for "born again" can also mean "born from above". It seems to me therefore that Christ is saying the same thing from three different angles: * "You must be born again." * "You must be born from above." * "You must be born of water and the Spirit." The spiritual rebirth cleanses and renews you = the whole person! * In response to Nicodemus being startled about the need to be "born again", Jesus then restates this need using two different descriptions. The greek grammar, as scholars tell us, of "being born of water" and "being born of the Spirit" are thought of as one action, and not two, making the baptism interpretation very unlikely. In response to Nicodemus’s confusion repeats the same thing using three different terms: John 3:3, 3:5, 3:7 Jesus restates what He had just told Nicodemus, this time making a distinction between flesh and spirit (verse 6). Interestingly, the Greek word translated “again” or “anew” in John 3:3 and 7 has two possible meanings: the first one is “again,” and the second one is “from above.” “Born again,” “born from above,” and “born of water and Spirit” are three ways of saying the same thing. * Incidentally John already spelled out, what it means to be born again clearly in the opening chapter of his gospel. There we read: "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:10-12) To be born again = to be born of God! Please feel free to comment, and if you liked this post, please share with your family and friends. God bless. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit reformedapologist.substack.com (https://reformedapologist.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

10. 

    5 Oct 2024

    Is Salvation by Faith Alone?

    Is Salvation by Faith Alone, or by Faith + Works? Salvation by faith is not an invention by New Testament authors. Salvation was always by faith. Hebrews 11 has a long list of Old Testament patriarchs that testify to this fact unequivocally. * The Old Testament prophets affirm this as seen in the prophet Habakuk * "The righteous shall live by his faith." (Hab 2:4) * And if there was any doubt what Habakuk actually meant, the apostle Paul quotes this when he explains what the gospel is: * "For in it[the gospel - see v 16] the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith.'" (Rom 1:17) * Paul quotes this same verse again to the Galatians * "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for 'The righteous shall live by faith.'" (Gal 3:11) * And the author of the letter to the Hebrews just before launching into his list of patriarchs who all affirmed the same message * "But my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him." (Heb 10:38) So what have we seen so far? Salvation is and always was by faith, but is this a work of grace or is the faith produced by human effort? Is salvation is by grace through faith? Let’s firstly look at a few very obvious and clear passages in the New Testament that show that true Christian salvation is by grace through faith alone in Christ alone! Time does not permit to work through every one of these verses in their context. I would encourage you to do this for yourself, so that you stand firm in what you believe. * "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Eph 2:8-9) * "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:31) * "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." (Rom 3:28) * "And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." (Rom 4:5) * "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Rom 5:1) * "Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." (Gal 2:16) * "So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith." (Gal 3:24) * "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit." (Eph 1:13) * "And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith." (Phil 3:9) * "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." (Rom 11:6) There are many more, but these alone should suffice for the honest student to realise that the reformation doctrine of "salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone" stands as a towering principle and central doctrine of protestantism. Pretty much the whole tree of all the denominations that grew out of the protestant reformation believes in this central tenet of the Christian faith. If Roman Catholics are unified in their belief in the Pope, Protestants are in principle unified in this belief in salvation by grace through faith! Taken at face value we could turn this passage into a syllogism as an argument Let’s start with an argument that is relevant to some of the churches Paul founded: * P1 - Salvation is the gift of God * P2 - Salvation is not a result of works * P3 - Salvation is not your own doing * P4 - Actions like circumcision & keeping the sabbath are clearly works of some sort * C - Circumcision & keeping the sabbath do not contribute to salvation Now let’s turn this into an example that is more relevant to our day * P1 - Salvation is the gift of God * P2 - Salvation is not a result of works * P3 - Salvation is not your own doing * P4 - Actions like baptism are clearly works of some sort * C - Baptism does not contribute to salvation Another example - since there are some groups who claim: One must receive the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues to be saved * P1 - Salvation is the gift of God * P2 - Salvation is not a result of works * P3 - Salvation is not your own doing * P4 - Actions like baptism are clearly works of some sort * C - Speaking in tongues does not contribute to salvation Another example relating to the ongoing life of a Christian: That is relevant to many the big mega churches today * P1 - Salvation is the gift of God * P2 - Salvation is not a result of works * P3 - Salvation is not your own doing * P4 - Actions like tithing are clearly works of some sort * C - Acts of financial generosity do not contribute to salvation Ahh, but I can already hear the objector who is saying: What about all the many passages that say very explicitly we must obey the commandments given in the New Testament in order to enter heaven. Let’s first list a few of them so that people see that I want to take this objection seriously: * "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." (John 3:36) * "But for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury." (Rom 2:8) * "And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him." (Heb 5:9) * "So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (James 2:17+18) There are many more. The reason I am not quoting more is not to be found in the idea that I believe in doctrine by counting verses! These three suffice to raise a serious objection to what we have asserted so far! These verses, taken on their own and without consideration of the context of the rest of the New Testament, seem to strongly indicate that only those who obey Christ will be saved. Are we therefore done, and must concede the argument to the objector? Let’s formulate these passages into a similar syllogism to see: * P1 - Whoever does not obey the son, the wrath of God remains on him * P2 - Whoever does not obey the truth will receive God’s wrath * P3 - Christ is the source of salvation to all those who obey him * P4 - Whoever has faith but no works has a faith that is dead * C - Salvation is by obeying Christ or doing works Well, the objector seems right. We have to concede the argument to him, but wait, we not only have to concede the argument to him, we also have to say that the apostles contradicted each-other in their letters. Let’s formulate this into a syllogistic argument as well: * P1 - The New Testament epistles affirm salvation is by grace through faith and not through works of obedience * P2 - The New Testament epistles affirm salvation is by obedience * C - The New Testament authors contradict each other and hence the New Testament cannot be true! Oh, this is not how we wanted this conundrum to end up? The atheist objector is now rubbing his hands together getting ready to cheer. Considering that as Christians we believe in things such as the inspiration of scripture and as protestants we believe in what is called "Sola Scriptura" - which simply stated means the scripture is the final arbiter in all matters of faith and practice in relation to God. IF we hold to these two foundational principles, then we cannot accept the conclusion of the last argument, namely that the New Testament contains contradictions. So how can we overcome this conundrum - I would suggest we can lay these two syllogisms side by side to see which one makes sense of both sides of this coin: Argument ONE: * P1 - Salvation is by obeying Christ’s commandments (and we are not even getting to the issue of whether perfectly or not) * P2 - Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ * C - The New Testament authors contradicted each other. We are at an impossible impasse Argument TWO: * P1 - Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ * P2 - All true Christians must obey Christ * P3 - True Christians will naturally through the means of the grace of Christ and their faith in Christ also obey Christ’s commandments - albeit imperfectly * P4 - Salvation is not by works or obedience, works are not the cause by the effect of true salvation * C - The New Testament authors did not contradict each other when they claimed salvation is by grace through faith and also claimed that true Christians must obey Christ since dead faith indeed does not save, true saving faith produces the right works demonstrating the truthiness of their faith The reality here is that this is the only way to properly resolve the many passages in the New Testament that call and command the believer to obey Christ and even go so far that disobedient Christians will not be saved. The "Christian" who does not obey, isn’t a true Christian after all and is showing by his or her disobedience that he or she in fact is a tare and not wheat, a goat and not a sheep. There is what theologians call "antinomianism" [anti nomos = against law] i.e. those who say all you need to do is believe, no works are necessary for salvation. We would agree that works are not necessary to be saved, but we would deny that a truly saved Christian will not produce true works of obedience. The works of obedience play absolutely no part in the act if justification & salvation, they are not the cause, they are the effect. Christ is the vine; we are the branches. We produce fruit by the very nature of being connected to the vine, which occurs when we are first born again and truly justified by his grace through the means of faith. I truly hope you enjoyed this post. Please like, feel free to comment and share with your family and friends. God bless. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit reformedapologist.substack.com (https://reformedapologist.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

11. 

    23 Sept 2024

    Apostolic Succession

    Rome claims that the apostle Peter was the first pope. I looked at all the evidence in support of this claim in a recent podcast. The evidence was found wanting. In this podcast, I look at the Roman Catholic claim that there is such a thing as apostolic succession from Peter being the first pope all the way through to today. By this claim, the Roman Catholic church claims to be the “one true church” and thereby denies the status of a true Christian church to all other branches of Christendom. In this video, I review the evidence from the New Testament about succession in principle, what it means and what it does not. Then I review the context of several of the major statements used by Roman Catholic apologists when they claim the early church fathers also believed in apostolic succession of the supreme authority of the papacy. The early church does speak about succession but never in the way that Rome would need them to. In fact, the early church fathers writings support the protestant view of succession. Some of the writings of the early church fathers are quite convoluted in style, please bear with me as I work through them. I hope this helps you both understand the Roman Catholic view and also why it is un biblical, and hence incorrect. Please let me know what you think in the comments. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit reformedapologist.substack.com (https://reformedapologist.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

12. 

    14 Sept 2024

    Was Peter the First Pope?

    A critical analysis of the Biblical data and the beliefs in the early church. If the Bible nor the early church actually support the idea of the apostle Peter being a pope, let alone the first one, then the very foundation of Roman Catholicism cannot be upheld. In this podcast, I review the main arguments used by the Roman Catholic apologists, the bible passages they cite in favour and the quotes by early Church fathers they refer to, in support. The main Bible passage they quote from does not support their view, nor do early Church fathers agree with the Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage. In the next episode, I will review the issue of “apostolic succession.” These two doctrines form the basis of the notion put forward by Roman Catholics that they are the “One True Church.” If these two arguments fail, the whole tree built on them as a foundation is in danger of collapsing. If you were encouraged by the podcast, please share with your friends. You can find more content like this on my Youtube channel: https://youtube.com/@reformedapologist This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit reformedapologist.substack.com (https://reformedapologist.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

Reach and audience

Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.

Apple Podcasts (US)

5.0 / 5

1 ratings

Podcast Authority Score: 1 / 100

A composite of feed quality, social presence, YouTube performance and engagement. Read the methodology.

Quality

2

Social presence

0

YouTube

0

Engagement

0

Contact Reformed Apologist - Rational Answers for Real Questions Podcast

Guest appearances

Does not typically book guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.