Something truly Holy

Words are weighty things.  Honestly, you can do so much good or so much destruction with one simple word.  A words power however is not a simple thing; you see, the power is grounded in its meaning.  The history, background, and story behind the word is what truly defines its weight and power.  Perhaps this is why, despite the lack of time I devote to it, I love to read and write.  With the right words, so much can be expressed and a depth reached that the soul is overwhelmed.

Sadly today I find the weightiness of one word in particular has lost a great deal of power.  The story, and history behind it has been buried under the commercialism and festivities of our current day.  Easter for many, even within the Church, has become just another day on the calendar.  It's another Sunday with some special events thrown into the service to jog our memory of that one event that happened over two thousand years ago in a far away place.

But you see, Easter is so much more than just another holiday.  Easter is the pivotal point in history.  It far surpasses the greatness of Christmas.  Even more, it distinguishes the Christian faith from every single other belief system, ever.  There is power, a great deal of weight in the word Easter.  It is grounded in a deeply rich historical story.  It embodies the very definition of Holy; it is set apart, distinct from anything else.  No other religion can claim what Easter signifies.

Easter is rooted in the factual, historical story of not the death of Jesus Christ, but the resurrection of the believer's Lord and Savior.  What we truly celebrate at Easter is the triumphant, miraculous conquer and defeat of sin and death through the resurrection of Jesus that Sunday morning.  This is what gives Easter its weight.  The power behind Easter is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And it is this resurrection that the faith of the believer rests.  Without the resurrection, Jesus is nothing more than a cheat and a liar.  It was this fact that Jesus highlighted when He comforted the Disciples in John 14:1-4.  Jesus knew the plan before Him, and that it would be fulfilled.  Everything He had done, and would do, rested in the fact that He would rise from the dead three days after being buried.  And what a miraculous event that was!

The Sunday morning after Jesus' death was sorrowful for the two Mary's who arrived at the tomb early only to find the stone moved away from the tomb entrance, the Roman seal broken and the Guards gone (Matthew 28).  Let's pause here for just a moment.  Many powerful things took place here that deserve our attention to fully grasp their importance.  Regarding the stone blocking the entrance, it is believed that this stone weighed nearly 4,000 pounds.  This was not easily moved to begin with, but was made more significant by the placement of a Seal of the Roman government and the placement of a Roman Guard as ordered by Pilate (Matthew 27:65-66).  Breaking the Seal was punishable by crucifixion upside down, as it was considered treason to do such a thing.  The Seal represented the power and authority of the Roman Empire itself.  With respect to the Guard, it is shocking that he would have deserted his post.  This would have been a battle hardened man, and he would have known the punishment for failure would have most likely been to be stripped of his clothes and burned alive with the clothing at his feet.  Yet their encounter with the angel at the tomb was enough for even these battle hardened Roman Guards to be "...like dead men"  (Matthew 28:4).

The Mary's arrived to find this scene, missing guards, a broken Roman Seal, an empty tomb, and an angel sitting on the stone that had been rolled away.  The angel declared to the frightened women the good news of Jesus' resurrection (Luke 24:5-7), which they then took to the Disciples.

What has been declared one of the greatest scandals by liberals and skeptics alike, is the bedrock upon which all of the Christian faith rests.  History demonstrates the truth and accuracy of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and this event continues to distinguish the Christian faith from any other.  It is Holy in every way, distinct and set apart.  This is the significance of Easter.  This is why today is of such great importance.  Nothing in history has ever occurred like this, and it never will.

This is the hope I have.  Jesus came to earth and fulfilled numerous prophecies without flaw, died upon a cross in our place, and three days later He arose as a conqueror of sin and death to arise to the right hand of the Father, and prepare a place for His disciples (John 14:2).  One day, He will return as is also prophesied, and take His disciples with Him (John 14:3).

I don't know where you are spiritually.  Maybe this truth, the reality of the sovereignty of Jesus Christ, has been eating away at you.  Maybe you celebrate Easter but have lost sight of the significance of this day.  Maybe you are searching for a love that brings you to your knees upon realizing the grace and redemption that is found in His crucifixion, which was ours to take.  Grace and mercy, forgiveness and redemption are waiting.  They are found not so much in His death, but the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  It is through our faith in Christ that we too are raised to new life.  His death satisfies the penalty we owed, His shed blood covers us.  Before God we are no longer seen as filthy sinners, but redeemed, spotless lambs.  Jesus said He is the only way to the Father, there is no other way to gain forgiveness for sins and access to the Father (John 14:6).

My prayer this Easter, as the day comes to a close, is that you will understand the significance of this day.  That if you don't know Jesus as Lord and Savior, that you will stop playing games and bow your knee.  That by faith, you will confess Him as Lord and Savior, deny your life and pick up the cross laid before you.  I pray that this Easter would be one of renewal for you.  Please, don't waste it.

Needs and Provision

A new year has once again come upon us. For many it was an excuse to celebrate, drink in excess and party in unfavorable ways. Others celebrated still, but with more control and appropriateness. Personally, the dog and I went to bed early so we could make a delivery the next day.

Like many events, many of us celebrate differently. But there is one thing that almost all of us have in common with the coming of a new year. We may not be vocal about it; we may even deny we participate in it. It is something that in one way or another, in some fashion, we all do: new years resolutions. And we all know the gamete of choices made, from eating less and loosing weight to exercising more at the gym. Or maybe its to save more money, or spend more time with the family. What ever it is, this time of year seems to be the one time where almost if not everyone makes "life changing" decisions. Sadly though, few (including myself) are successful at keeping them as the new year wears on.

This has lead me to really think about the important things in life and where my priorities have landed. 2015 brought many big changes for me and my family. From the job change that really took off in January, to a cross-country move, the birth of our first child just to name a few, somewhere along the line I have dropped in priority the things that are most important. Leading my family, controlling my temper, committing myself to study of the Word on a consistent basis. To some these may not seem like big things, but for me they are vitally important simply because they signify a loss of understanding something everyone needs.

You see, every life needs four things. It doesn't matter who you are, what your gender is, where you live or come from, or what you do. Your age isn't a factor, and neither are your experiences. Everyone, regardless of every specific you can think of requires these four things to live: direction, reality, sustenance and a destination. Without a provision to these four needs a person remains stagnant and unproductive. Additionally, the wrong provisions to these four needs can result in a wrecked life and potential injury to those around you.

And this is my struggle, one that in all honesty I convinced myself was just a "phase" that would correct itself (talk about denial): the provision I was relying on for those four needs was not right. I had lost focus on what was of primary importance, and more importantly who. My focus had shifted to material things, and thinking that I could solve my own problems. Frankly, this is the mindset of much of the world today, and even many of the religions when you break them down. I knew my faith didn't support this thinking. It struck me as funny when a verse I have known my entire life came to mind and so simply answered the needs I listed. It isn't complicated, but it is profound.

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me.'" - John 14:6

Jesus in answering another man's question, answered mine. He provides direction, reality, sustenance and a destination. No other person can do this. Jesus also makes it clear that what He offers is exclusive; any other path does not result in heaven being your destination, contrary to what pop-culture and other religions say. Jesus is it. That is exactly what I needed reminded of.

I don't know, but maybe you are in a similar boat I found myself in. Maybe you have never met Jesus, despite going to church or growing up in a "Christian" family. Don't be fooled, those things don't make you a believer, much like sitting in a garage doesn't make you a car. Maybe you are like me, and have realized the direction you have been heading isn't getting you where you want to be. The answer isn't complicated.

It's a new year, and a perfect time to set things straight. I invite you to accept the provision to our needs through Jesus Christ. This doesn't "fix" every problem or stop every suffering, let's not get a warped idea of following Christ. He does though provide the grace and mercy to walk through the fire. And He promises a destination greater than anything you can imagine. All He requires is belief in His atoning sacrifice upon the cross in our place. It's been done for everyone, but only those who accept it as their own and surrender their life to Him in obedience to follow Him are granted the destination of heaven.

So I end with this: looking for a new direction with the turn of 2016? You don't have to look any more. All you have to do is decide.

Authority: there is only One

I wrote the other night on a "hot topic" that has taken center stage in our society, homosexuality and the acceptance of it as a lifestyle. And while I am not going to dive into it again tonight, there was a point I made in light of it that is the focus of tonight's post. Many years ago there began this movement in thought that has been titled existentialism. Many people know what it is, yet don't know it by that title. Today it is often disguised, though in a historically incorrect way, as tolerance. It's the idea that what works for you works for you and what works for me works for me. Your truth is your truth, and my truth is my truth. It is in essence the abolition of absolutes in exchange for the defining of our own truth. The issue with it today being under the guise of tolerance is that if you do not agree with the tolerant person's truth, then you are wrong and intolerant; yet it is acceptable for them to slander you for disagreeing with their tolerant views. It's a complete double standard aside from the logical problems associated with existentialism itself.

But before I get to far down a rabbit hole regarding existentialism (maybe some time we will journey down that road from a logical perspective), I want to get back to the point of tonight's post. That being a truth that is disregarded in light of existentialism, even within the Church. Specifically the Pope of the Catholic Church, which many gravitate towards in and outside the Church. So what is my concern with the Pope (this time)? You may recall a declaration he made the other week regarding women and abortion.

"I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it."

Now, this sounds great; and don't get me wrong, forgiveness for sin is! Yet in this statement comes to light a major flaw within Roman Catholic dogma (tradition): that being the word of the Pope is of equal and/or greater authority than Scripture. This is a major divide between Roman Catholic and Protestantism, rooted in the actions of Martin Luther confronting the Roman Catholic Church in his day and declaring "Sola Scripture", translated from Latin to be "Scripture Alone". Luther's issue was what I just highlighted, that within the Roman Catholic Church, Scripture alone was not the authority for the Church and believer. While not termed this yet, in essence the Roman Catholic Church was practicing a type of existentialism reserved for the Pope, and we continue to see this today in the form of Church dogma.

So why is this an issue? He is the Pope after all, right? One must keep in mind that regardless of title, all are human. Only Christ walked this earth perfect and sinless, as God in flesh. The truth is that there is only one absolute authority, God. He provides His truth through Scripture and the working of the Holy Spirit; and on that note let me clarify that the work of the Holy Spirit should be able to be confirmed by Scripture. What do I mean by that? One must be able to distinguish the moving of the Holy Spirit from indigestion; and Scripture is the ruler by which we can measure. For example, if you think God has spoken to you through the Holy Spirit and yet what He told you fails to measure up to Scripture, then what you heard was not true. John instructs us to do just this with every spirit (1 John 4:1-3).

Paul clarifies that Scripture is authoritative in his instructions to Timothy (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Paul makes it clear that Scripture holds the answers one needs for life, and in that completeness, the absolute authority on how man should live. We must remember our condition, of which the Pope is also subject to. We are fallen sinners, though with salvation we are redeemed before God. And while we are empowered with the Holy Spirit, we are still prone to sin and fallible (Romans 8).

The truth is that regardless of a declaration made by the Pope, he does not hold the authority to forgive sins. The truth is that Jesus Christ is the only One who has the power and authority to grant forgiveness, and God ensured this long before the Pope. And it doesn't just apply to abortion; forgiveness is available for all sins as I stated in my previous post. John made this clear for us when he wrote,

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).

It's not complicated. You don't have to wait for permission from the Pope and a blessing from a priest. All it takes is sincere confession to God; David illustrates this in Psalm 51. Now, to be clear this is reserved for a believer in context. Apart from Christ as Savior and Lord there is no forgiveness. This takes confession in and of itself; we must stop trusting in ourselves or anything else, thinking we are "good" enough to stand before God and please Him. Paul in his letter to the Roman Church makes it clear that on our own we are all sinners before God, and that His law only brings to light our sin and need for redemption (Romans 3:9-20). With this news however, Paul also makes it clear that redemption is a free gift through the acceptance of Christ's sacrifice upon the cross (3:23-26).

It's not up to a man. It's not up to you or me. The issue of forgiveness being granted has already been decided, and God said yes. We just have to participate by accepting His Son's sacrifice in our place. It's really that simple. While it sounds "cool" to hear the Pope make his declarations, remember he doesn't hold the authority proclaimed.

God does.

It's absolute, unchanging, gracious, and just.

What do you want to put your faith in?

The Firstborn

The following comes from a discussion in one of my theology classes.  Please share your thoughts as a comment in response if you would like.  I hope that these posts help and encourage you to gain a deeper and more fuller understanding of who God is based on Scripture.

Topic: Colossians 1:15 reads in the NKJV (and is similar in most translations): "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."  Jehovah's Witnesses understand that by Christ being the firstborn over all creation, he is actually the first created being through which all other things are created (see their New World Translation).  Mormons, on the other hand, take the English translations quite literally and believe that Christ is literally the firstborn child of Heavenly Father and one of his goddess wives (thus Jesus is our eldest brother).  The Greek word translated " firstborn" is prototokos.  How should Christians understand the use of this term in this context, and how might Christians in turn respond to the interpretations of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons regarding the nature of Christ as the "firstborn"?

Response:
The term “firstborn” can be confusing without examining the context in which it is being used. There is the usage of the word in both the Old and New Testament meaning the first in order, and literal reference to being born first. However, the word for firstborn in both Greek and Hebrew can also mean a position of preeminence, a high position, or that of blessing. With reference to being the literal first born, we see this example in Exodus 13:2, where Moses is instructed by God that all firstborn from the womb is the Lords. Now, it is easy in this example to understand the literal meaning due to the wording and context of the passage, primarily the connection of the word firstborn to the womb. This clearly indicates that in this case, firstborn is referring to the literal meaning of being born first. However, when we examine the context of other passages, this conclusion causes problems. One example is also in Exodus, where reference is made of Israel being the first nation (4:22). Now without examining the context and referring to other Scripture it would be easy to accept a literal meaning of the word, and conclude that Israel was the first nation on earth. But we know based on Genesis 10 that there were many nations prior to that of Israel. In examining the context related to this passage in Exodus 4 we can determine that the term firstborn here is being used not literally, but to refer to a position of favor and blessing. This is seen to be true throughout Scripture and history, that Israel as a nation has been blessed. Another example of this is Psalm 89:27. Here we see David being referred to as the firstborn, but we know from the story in 1 Samuel that he was the youngest of Jesse’s sons. However, when we consider the context and history, we can understand the use of this word to be in reference to that of blessing and preeminence as he was king of the nation of Israel, and head of a household.
Our focus in this discussion is centered on the use of this term in Colossians 1:15, where we find Paul referring to Christ as the “firstborn of all creation”. This has caused confusion for many, and in other religious groups misinterpretations due to misunderstanding the use of the word. We know that Jehovah’s Witnesses see Jesus as being the first creation, through which everything else was created. Because of this belief, when they read this passage of Scripture, they take a very literal interpretation of Jesus being the first created being (first in order). Mormons have a slightly different view, but still misinterpret the use of the term in this passage. Mormons believe that Jesus was the literal firstborn of God, that being He is the product of an intimate relationship between God and a goddess. This makes him our “eldest brother” in that He was the firstborn of creation, and we followed after. Both views as stated before are wrong. Both views fail to take into account the context in which the word is being used. Further, there are examples throughout Scripture that can illustrate both uses of the term dependent on their context. With respect to Colossians 1:15, we find clearer evidence of a less literal interpretation in verse 18. In this verse, Paul goes on to explain “...that in everything he might be preeminent.” Here Paul clearly paints a picture of his use of the term firstborn in reference to Christ. Again, the context surrounding the passage is of great importance. When we ignore this and begin to come to our own conclusions we risk making the mistakes the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons have done.

The Hell Debate: A Reflection

The following is a research paper I have written for a Theology class, exploring the topic of Hell.  I do not claim to be right about everything, save the truth that there is a real literal place called Hell that lasts for all eternity in duration, not simply consequence.  Enjoy as you read, and I pray that this will challenge your thinking and bring you closer to God through a deeper understanding of who He is and what He has done for us through His Son Jesus Christ.

THEOLOGICAL RESEARCH PAPER II: THE HELL DEBATE

 

Much like the debates over the topics of the Charismatic Gifts, Baptism, Christology, Providence, and the Destiny of the Unevangelized, that pertaining to the topic of Hell is equally diverse and complex. With each debate issue comes differing views, and with the issue of Hell one can find a

few as well. But what is it about this topic that causes so much fuss? Are people just uncomfortable
with the possibility of a reality of Hell? Is it a fear of potentially ending up there? Or is it confusion
regarding what Hell really is? Most people have a concept of Hell, but the question is how Biblically
accurate is it.

In this paper we will seek to understand more fully what a correct concept of Hell looks like.  Within the contents of this paper we will take time to explore the words used to express Hell and their meanings, the history behind the concept of Hell, the two main views that dominate Protestant Evangelicalism, and finally conclude with my personal conclusion regarding Hell based on the research uncovered. As with the other major debates, history has much to say regarding the debate of Hell and we would be unwise to neglect this information in our study.

When we examine the words used in Scripture for Hell, we find only three in the New Testament. The first and most frequently used, is geenna, a Greek noun that is transliterated as “Gehenna, hell, ‘Valley of Hinnam’”. While this word is used a total of twelve times,  the second word is used ten. 1 This second word is the Greek hades (noun), which is transliterated as “hades, the grave, the place of the dead, ‘the underworld’”. Additionally, it is used as Hades five times, depths two times, grave two times, and hell once. The third word used in the New Testament is 2 the Greek tartaroo (verb), used once and transliterated as “to send to hell, hold captive in Tartarus”. It is “a derivative of the Greek ‘Tartarus,’ a place of torture and torment lower than Hades in Greek and Jewish apocalyptic literature, not found in the NT”. 3 It is interesting to note the difference between the different words

from a cultural perspective, as geenna (the eternal abode of the wicked) was similar to tartaroo in that they were both used to signify a place lower than Hades. Specifically Gehenna (geenna) is eternal hell, and the place of eternal damnation. 4

But the words for Hell are not only contained within the New Testament. The concept of this place can be found throughout the Old Testament as well in the Hebrew word seol (transliterated sheol), translated often as “the grave, hell, the pit”.5 In Job 17:13; Psalm 16:10; and Isaiah 38:10 the word is referencing the grave, where as in other passages (Genesis 37:35; Numbers 16:33; Job 14:13; Psalm 55:15; Proverbs 9:18) it refers to the abode of both the dead, both good and bad. 6 It is the place that all of the dead would immediately go upon death; it was more often spoken of in reference to

those dieing and believing they had no hope, being in opposition to the Lord. At the end of thediscussion regarding this Hebrew term, it is unclear as to the full meaning behind it. 7 But what is clear through studying this term in the Old Testament is that the concept of an afterlife for the wicked was prominent in the ancient Hebrew mind.

Additionally, many other words are used throughout Scripture in reference to and to describe Hell in both the New and Old Testament. Jesus Himself spoke about the reality of Hell the most, and was very pointed when He did so. One of the better known and explicitly clear teachings about thereality of and nature of Hell is Jesus’ story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. In this passage 8 Jesus tells the story of the rich man who had everything he wanted, and outside his gate sat Lazarus; poor, sick and wishing for the crumbs off the rich man’s table, which he fed to his dogs. Eventually they both die, and we discover that Lazarus is carried to Abraham’s side by the angels while the rich man found himself in Hades.

But Jesus goes further to describe what Hades was like for this rich man, who once had everything he wanted and now was eternally separated from the Lord. Jesus used words like torment, anguish, and flame to describe the experience of Hell. Further, Jesus says that there is a chasm separating Heaven and Hell that is uncross-able and eternal. Additionally, the expressions “unquenchable fire”, “furnace of fire”, “outer darkness”, “eternal fire”, “lake of fire”, and “the lake that burns with fire and brimstone” are used in Matthew, Mark, and Revelation to describe the environment of Hell. 9 Another strong passage that demands an understanding of the eternality of Hell and one’s presence there once sent is Jesus’ words when he says “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life”. 10 Now that we have an understanding of the terms used, their meanings and that within the Old Testament, we have set the stage for diving into the history and two main views of the concept of Hell.

Over the centuries, differing views have come to the forefront of Christian thought while others

faded. Additionally, there have been views that though not as prominent as others, have been

recognized and found to have support as well. This paper however is more concerned with the two

main views concerning the nature of Hell within the Protestant Evangelical Christian faith. The main

question that is sought to be answered, as alluded to previously, is whether the punishment of Hell is

eternal in duration or in consequence. We approach the debate in this case with 11 the understanding

that Hell itself is a reality, that it is a real place for a real purpose and real people.

Before diving into the two main views within the Christian faith, perhaps it would do us well to

understand that there are three additional views regarding Hell that fall outside the realm of Christianity,

and are thus unbiblical regardless of the “support” they may claim in Scripture. The first is Universalism, which holds that eventually everyone will come to be saved either in this life or the next. 12  This view was largely developed and taught by Origin in the early Church, and has been supported by more recent individuals such as Karl Barth, C.H. Dodd, and John A.T. Robinson. 13 A second unbiblical view is Reincarnation, which believes that an individual is “reborn” on earth and that they then pay for past sins through situations encountered in their new life. This view rejects the belief in a final judgment. The third is called Naturalistic, and believes that there is no standard 14 by which one should be judged. This in turn rejects the need for Hell or Salvation, excusing any responsibility for our actions, and placing it in stark contrast to the Bible. 15 Regarding these three views, they are unbiblical as they minimize or altogether reject the need for Christ’s work upon the cross and the responsibility of the individual for their actions and choices in this life.

With a basic understanding of these three unbiblical views, we can now begin to explain the first

main view. While this understanding of Hell continues to grow and is held by many believers, I would

propose that it too is unbiblical like the others mentioned previously. This view is known well as

Annihilation, or The Wicked Shall Be No More. This view simply says that the punishment of the

wicked is everlasting in consequence, not duration. 16

Traditionally this view has not been held by Evangelicals, but rather such groups as Seventh Day

Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses. 17 But as mentioned, today it has become a more popular view

among Evangelical Christians. They state first that the main issue with the traditional view (of which we
will discuss next) is that it is rooted in a “Hellenistic philosophy” which generally viewed the human soul

as immortal. 18 With that, they report that the early church fathers read into the Scripture a belief that

the wicked suffer unending torment, leading to their conclusion (and in turn became the Traditional

View) that humans were eternal in spirit thus suffering eternal duration of punishment.

The support of this view is mainly a refutation of the Traditional View, leaning more towards a

“moral revulsion” of the idea of an all loving God damning people, as admitted by Clark H. Pinnock,

“than by exegetical considerations”. With regards to Scripture, they claim such as 19 passages referring

to an “unquenchable fire” and “undying worm” teach that the wicked will inevitably be eternally destroyed after they suffer justly for their sins; however, their suffering will only be for a time and not eternal. 20 While this view uses several Scriptures to support their view, as Pinnock stated himself, the conclusions of these passages are reflections of poor exegesis. For example, one verse this view uses is Matthew 10:28 which reads,

     “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.

         Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

The Annihilationist View claims that this passage teaches the God will do to the souls of the wicked,

what humans do to the body when they kill it. In other words, the souls of the wicked will not go on

existing in a conscious state just as the body will cease to exist. 21 As mentioned, this view is incorrect

and displays poor exegesis. First, the word “destroy” used here is the Greek assir, which is

transliterated “captive, prisoner”. 22 Secondly, Jesus used the Greek word geenna in this passage for

“hell”, and we know from earlier this is transliterated as “Gehenna”. We know that this place, also

called the “Valley of Hinnom” was a real place, associated with wickedness and filth in ancient Israel.23

What Jesus was communicating in this passage, as opposed to the Annihilationist View claims, is that there is a real place in which the wicked will be kept “captive” eternally, not destroyed as a surface study of the text might lead one to believe. This same method is neglected with other passages as well used to defend their position. When one takes the time to examine the Scripture properly, with correct exegesis, a clear understanding comes forth that contradicts the teaching of the Annihilationist View. The correct view is our next focus.

After reviewing the first view, it is now time we turn our focus to a more Biblical and traditional

understanding of Hell. This view is recognized within Evangelical Christianity as The Classical View,

also known as The Unending Torment of the Wicked. This has been the traditional view of the Church

regarding Hell, and simply holds that “the wicked will be cast into hell, where they will experience unending suffering”. In regard to the terms used previously, this view argues that 24 the punishment of Hell is eternal in duration, not just simply consequence. Many supports are given to this view, both logically and Scripturally. With regard to Scripture, this view strives to exegete the Scripture properly, not allowing emotion to guide the interpretation.  In defense of their view and refutation of the Annihilationists the Classical View raises several pointed questions that challenge the logic behind the opposing argument. One is the question of how the wicked could experience shame and contempt eternally as described in many of the passages noted

earlier, if they are not eternally conscious. Often, when the torment of the wicked is 25 expressed it is in

contrast to the eternal joy of the righteous. This view argues that this logically concludes that the wicked are consciously and eternally tormented in duration. To sum this up, it has been stated that “If the state of eternal life is an eternal state of consciousness, the state of punishment must also be one of eternal consciousness. ...hell cannot simply be eternal in consequence, as annihilationists teach.” 26

This view also adds to its defense Romans 2:89, concluding that for the anguish and torment described here to be experienced one must be conscious, in turn implying that Hell itself is a conscious state. Additionally, other teachings from Jesus in the Scripture clearly indicate that Hell is an eternally conscious state both in nature and duration, not just simply consequence. 27

Perhaps the biggest issue with the opposing view is the idea that we as humans have the correct standard of fairness and we then judge God based on this standard, concluding arrogantly that God would not be so cruel as to subject people to eternal torment in duration. But we must step back, as the Classical View does, and recognize that our minds and understanding is finite and incapable of fully fathoming and understanding the purposes or reasons of God. Regardless of this though, one can find the logic in the truth presented in the Classical View if they only look. We understand logically that a criminal should pay for their crime, and if they cease to consciously exist their crimes cannot be atoned for and in conclusion justice is not served. This same logic applies to Hell. Sin against God is infinite, because God is infinite; that is deserving of an infinite punishment. 28

One final note regarding this view before moving on; it proclaims that the images of Hell
described in Scripture should not be taken literally, as they tend to contradict themselves (e.g. being a
place of “outer darkness” while simultaneously being filled with eternal fire). Rather, the purpose of the description is to “convey the truth that to fall under the judgment of God and to miss out on the joy of heaven are the worst things imaginable.” 29

This brings us to the conclusion, that being a reflection of my thoughts, opinions and convictions
regarding the doctrine of Hell in light of Scripture, proper exegesis and logic. I conclude with a view very much in line with that of the Classical View, as I firmly believe that logically and Scripturally Hell is an eternal conscious state both in nature and duration. To conclude that Hell is only eternal in
consequence and not duration seems to contradict a proper exegesis of Scripture dealing with this issue.

I also believe that this is an important issue for the Church to address truthfully, as Jesus gave much

attention to it Himself. What we have today however, are churches who are more concerned with
numbers and popularity, and in turn “sugarcoat” or altogether ignore the truth of Hell and calling sinners to conviction for their sin. They would rather give them earthly comfort by telling them that either they will all end up in heaven, or that those who will not will only suffer a short time if at all. These however are nothing but lies from Satan, and fly in the face of our Holy and Just God who requires atonement for sin whether that be through His Son Jesus Christ or our own willful torment for eternity in Hell.

I believe that while the images expressed in Scripture may not be literal, they still give us a

gripping mental and emotional image of the agony and torment those who reside in Hell will suffer. As Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church has said in regard to teaching on Hell, “My job is to tell the truth, your job is to make a choice. Not making a choice is making a choice.” 30  My job 
as a believer in Jesus Christ is to tell the truth, and this includes the truth of Hell. If you do not believe that Jesus took your place upon the cross in death, taking on your sin to satisfy a Holy and Just God, you will reside in Hell. There is only One way and One God. Jesus Christ was not just a “good teacher”, He was the Creator and Savior of His creation. And we will be held accountable before God for the choice we make regarding Him. What is yours? 

_____________________________

 1  Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III, The Strongest Niv Exhaustive Concordance
      (strongest Strong's), Supersaver ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004), 1537.

2  Ibid., 1524.

3  Ibid., 1596.

4  Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker

     Academic, 2001), 547548.

5  Ibid., 547.

6  Ibid., 548.

7  Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker

     Academic, 2001), 931932.

8 Luke 16:1931

9 Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Rev. and expanded. ed. (Chicago: Moody

     Publishers, 2008), 394.

10 Matthew 25:46

11 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical

Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 281.

12 Ibid.

13 Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Rev. and expanded. ed. (Chicago: Moody

     Publishers, 2008), 395.

14 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical

Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 281.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid., 282.

17 Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Rev. and expanded. ed. (Chicago: Moody

     Publishers, 2008), 395.

18 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical

     Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 286.

19 Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Rev. and expanded. ed. (Chicago: Moody

     Publishers, 2008), 395.

20 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical

     Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 287.

21 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical

     Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 289.

22 Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III, The Strongest Niv Exhaustive Concordance

     (strongest Strong's), Supersaver ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004), 706.

23  J.D. Douglas et al., The New International Dictionary of the Bible, Pictorial ed. (Grand Rapids,

     MI, U.S.A.: Zondervan, 1999), 377378.
 

24  Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical

     Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 281.

25  Ibid., 282.

26  Ibid., 283.

27  Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical

     Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 283.

28  Ibid., 284285.

29  Ibid, 285.

 

30  Mark Driscoll, “Luke's Gospel: Investigating the Man Who Is God, Heaven and Hell,” Mars Hill

     Church, http://marshill.com/media/luke/heavenandhell
     (accessed May 10, 2013).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boyd, Gregory A., and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical

     Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009.

Douglas, J.D., revising editor, Merrill C. Tenney, and general editor. The New International

     Dictionary of the Bible. Pictorial ed. Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A.: Zondervan, 1999.

Driscoll, Mark. “Luke's Gospel: Investigating the Man Who Is God, Heaven and Hell.” Mars

     Hill Church. http://marshill.com/media/luke/heavenandhell

     (accessed May 10, 2013).

Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker 

     Academic, 2001.

Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Rev. and expanded. ed. Chicago: Moody

     Publishers, 2008.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1998.

     Goodrick, Edward W., and John R. Kohlenberger III. The Strongest Niv Exhaustive Concordance
     (strongest Strong's). Supersaver ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004.

Hannah, John. Our Legacy: the History of Christian Doctrine. Colorado Springs, Colo.:

     NavPress, 2001.

Koessler, John, and general editor. Foundational Faith: Unchangeable Truth for an Ever Changing 

     World. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2003.

Lutzer, Erwin. The Doctrines That Divide: a Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate
     Christians. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.

Ministries, Published by Ligonier, and General Editor: R. C. Sproul. The Reformation Study

     Bible: English Standard Version Burgundy Leather 2nd Ed W/maps. 2nd Edition with Maps
     ed. 400 Technology Park, Lake Mary, FL 32746: P & R Publishing, 2008.

Towns, Elmer L. Theology for Today. 2nd ed. Mason: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2001.

The Baptism Debate: A Reflection

The following is a research paper written for a theology class regarding the issue of baptism within the Christian faith.  Some of the proper formatting has been lost in transferring the text to this blog, but this should not detract from being able to read and follow the end notes.  Enjoy, and I pray that this will challenge your thinking and encourage you to become more grounded in an understanding of the Scriptures and proper Doctrine.

THEOLOGICAL RESEARCH PAPER I: THE BAPTISM DEBATE

 

The issue of baptism is no small topic to undertake.  With it comes a plethora of views, beliefs and practices stretching from today, back to the first recorded baptisms performed by John the Baptist.  Over the course of history, the Church has meet on numerous occasions to discuss, debate, solidify and affirm different doctrines and practices within the Christian community.  Baptism, more specifically beliefs surrounding it, have been one of the issues found at the tables of these counsels.  And yet, with each denomination, each faith stream within the Christian faith one can find varying differences pertaining to the meaning and mode of baptism within the Church.
Within the confines of this study, we will be looking primarily at five aspects of baptism, beginning with a look at the meaning, followed by its purpose and merit within the Church, who the practice is meant for,  a look at what mode of practice is Biblical, and finally some concluding thoughts on the research presented.  History along with Scripture has much to say regarding the issue of baptism in general, and these five aspects specifically.    Let us now begin by developing an understanding of the meaning of baptism.
When we examine Scripture for references of the practice or instruction of baptism, we only find this occurring within the New Testament.  When we observe more closely the terminology used regarding this subject, we find three primary Greek terms each varying slightly from the other.  The first is the Greek baptizo (verb), transliterated as “to baptize, wash; the baptizer”, and is used a total of seventy-seven times throughout the New Testament.1  The second is the Greek baptisma (noun), which transliterated means “baptism”, and is used twenty times throughout the New Testament.2  The third primary word used is the Greek baptismos (noun), transliterated as “baptism, ceremonial washing”, and is used in the New Testament three times.3  One explanation of the term baptism finds its roots in the Greek baptisma, and simply put “denotes the action of washing or plunging in water”.4  Put this only helps to define the mode of baptism, and not so much the meaning behind it.  (We will address this issue in more detail later).
While the practice and instruction of baptism is found only in the New Testament, the idea of baptism can be found within the pages of the Old.  When we examine the Scripture we find the idea and practice of ceremonial washing popping up numerous times within the Mosaic laws dealing with purification.5  We see this idea presented as early as when God instructs Moses to “bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance of the tent of meeting and wash them with the water”.6  It is here we see the implementation of the law of purification that had to be done prior to anyone entering the Tabernacle.  One could not enter unclean, as they were going before the Holy God.  Other passages in the Old Testament paint the same picture, and this is carried on into the New Testament and developed into the practice and instruction of baptism for Believers.  This new meaning and significance was brought about with John the Baptist.7  We see this event, particularly the participation of Jesus being baptized by John in Matthew 3:13-17, and when John is preaching and confronting the people who came to be baptized by him in Luke 3:3-6.
When John began the practice of baptism, as mentioned previously, he injected into the act a new meaning and significance.  Instead of simply being an act of ritual purification practiced by the Jews, it became symbolic of one’s conscious decision to submit to Christ as Lord and be transformed from within by the Spirit.  But this meaning was not fully understood when John began this practice.  One can find explanation of this significance later in time, when Jesus spoke of his own death being a “baptism”.8  In Luke 12:50, we find Jesus speaking to His disciples about His mission.  While speaking of the judgement that was to come, Jesus speaks of a baptism in which He was to go through.  This being said after He had already been baptized by John indicates as has been concluded by Scholars, that He was speaking of His coming death.
We see more evidence to support this view of Jesus’ future baptism in passages such as Matthew 20:22, and Mark 10:38.  In these passages, though one indicates that the disciples ask and the other their mother, Jesus is responding to a request for James and John to sit at His left and right hand.  In both responses He speaks of the cup that He will drink, a reference to His death and suffering.  In the Mark passage there is an addition not found in Matthew, that being reference to the baptism.  In the context of His speaking about the cup (death and suffering), one can conclude that the baptism He speaks of is also linked to this death and suffering.  And this is where we find the meaning behind the practice for us today.  It is strongly symbolic, first in that Christ died and was raised from the dead, and that like Him we die to ourselves (our former, sinful way) and are raised again to new life in Christ as a child of God.  As mentioned before, this does not bring salvation, as is explained throughout Scripture, but signifies our salvation as a way of identifying ourselves with the risen Lord.
But the meaning of baptism is not just simply symbolic; it is also subjective, in that through the Holy Spirit it brings the believer into a right standing before God.9  Paul helps explain this along with tieing in the symbolism of the act, particularly in his letter to the Roman church.  In Romans 6:3-5 Paul explains the significance of their own conversion in light of Christ’s death and being raised again.  But what of the purpose and merit of baptism?  We can see that the meaning behind it is substantial, yet the purpose and merit it holds is strongly linked to the meaning and all the greater.
Paul was not one to beat around the bush when it came to the issue of salvation.  He was forthright regarding the nature of man and the implications this had on our relationship with our Creator.  One can find a great deal of explanation regarding this issue in his letter to the church in Rome.  All throughout in passages such as 3:23-24, 5:6, 6:3-11, 6:23 just to cite a few, we come to understand the state in which every human being is in prior to the saving grace of Jesus.  But to be clear, salvation is not automatic; this free gift requires a conscious choice on our part to accept Christ’s death as our own.  In these passages, Paul explains that everyone is a sinner, that our sin is what separates us from God eternally, and that there is only one way to solve this eternal problem: Salvation through Jesus Christ who died on a cross in our place.  And at the same time of explaining this, he connects the symbolic and subjective meanings of baptism to what Christ did, and makes it clear for us to understand the significant merit of both.  One might argue that many of the Scriptures brought up here give merit to Christ’s sacrificial death alone, and not baptism. But I believe based on the context of the passages and the purpose behind Paul’s writing this letter that he intended to tie Christ’s sacrifice, the act of baptism, and the gift of Salvation together for his readers to understand more fully the merit of all three.10
The purpose of baptism is closely related to its merit, and one might even say they are one in the same.  As discussed before, the merit of baptism lies heavily in the connection between our sinful nature and the sacrificial death of Christ on our behalf.  While the merit of the act is theological in nature, the purpose is more practical.  That being said, the purpose is to act as a visible  testimony of one’s unity “with Christ in his death and resurrection”; they have been transformed through a conscious choice to trust and follow Christ, from their sinful ways that resulted in spiritual death and eternal separation from God to new life in Christ and eternal solitude with God.11  But one must be careful to not confuse baptism with salvation.
While closely related to each other in a sense, they are not interchangeable nor are they dependent on one another both ways.  We must understand that baptism does not dictate one’s salvation.  Yet on the other hand, baptism without one’s conscious confession of faith in Christ is meaningless.  We see evidence of this distinction very clearly in the scene of Jesus on the cross with the thieves.  While one mocks Jesus along with the crowd, the other in the midst of his pain and agony rebukes his fellow man and asks Jesus that he be remembered when He enters His kingdom.12  Jesus tells this thief that he will be with Jesus that day, indicating the man’s salvation; yet he is on a cross dieing, incapable of partaking in the act of baptism.  But as we see, this lack of baptism for the man does not hinder his salvation.  And while some have argued that the term “paradise” used here may have meant something other than heaven, based on the Greek here meaning “garden”, it can be concluded that the word used here is referencing heaven when one studies it more deeply along with other Scripture and context.
Now to address a question that has caused perhaps the most debate within the issue of baptism: who is it for?  Adults?  Believers?  Babies?  Everyone?  With each suggestion comes varying opinions, supports, and contradictions from one extreme to the other.  The primary views we will examine all take much of the information shared already into consideration, interpreting it one way or another.  I have shared with you how I view it in light of what I have studied and believe.  However, there are two main views within Evangelicalism that differ from one another dealing with baptism.  The first, known well as the “Believer’s Baptism” view believes that baptism is for believers only.  In their view, this disqualifies infants simply because they are not able to consciously make a choice to believe on their own.13  In addition, they also point to a different understanding of baptisms taking place within households of the New Testament.  Unlike paedobaptists, those of the Believer’s Baptism view do not believe that infants were included in these household baptisms, one main and very strong reason being that children (unlike servants) were not considered part of the “household” in ancient Rome.14   Paedobaptists, more commonly known as the Infant Baptism view, see things differently.15  Unlike their counterpart, they do believe that infants were included in the ancient Roman household, giving them historical support for their view.  Granted, historically within the Church, infants have more often than not been baptized.  In fact, this is still a practice done by Catholics, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox Church, and Presbyterians today.
After looking more closely at the two opposing views, the view of Believer’s Baptism seems to be the most logical.  While there is a history within the Church of infant baptism, we must remember that “tradition” does not justify practice.  The fact that the practice of infant baptism is historical is just that, history; it does not give it weight of being right. In addition, when we examine passages of Scripture used to support the view of infant baptism in light of passages such as Romans 6:4, 6, and 1 Peter 3:21 it becomes difficult to explain how these instructions can be legitimately accepted if infants are incapable of fulfilling them.
I personally was baptized as an infant in the Lutheran Church, and re-baptized when I was nine years old and came to understand what it meant to follow Christ at a basic level.  When I look back, I recognize that my infant baptism had no effect on me other than being a part of my life history.  It did not affect me on a personal level as it did when I was nine, because I was not able to comprehend the act or its significance.  I believe that much of what drives the idea of paedobaptism is fear and misunderstanding; misunderstanding of Scripture, God’s grace, and a misplaced fear breed out of the two.  When we do not understand the biblical grounds for salvation, it becomes easy to fall into the trap of believing something can save us that cannot.16  As mentioned before, baptism is not what saves us; our faith and believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and in what He did for our sake is what bestows the free gift of Salvation upon us.  I conclude therefore, that baptism is for not just adults, but anyone who comes to a saving knowledge and understanding of who Jesus is and what He has done for them.
Last is the issue of the mode of baptism.  Like the issue of who should be baptized, over the years of church history three primary views on the mode of baptism have been established.  When we examine the experiences in the New Testament it seems clear that new believers were immersed in a body of water, and this is the only way we find it being done.  However, as we move through church history, we begin to find baptism being done by way of pouring or sprinkling of water on the persons head.17  One must be mindful before going to deep in this issue, that it is not primary but secondary in importance.
We have already established that baptism has no saving power and is primarily symbolic of one’s commitment to follow Christ.  But again, one should also be cautious to not let historical tradition of a practice trump what Scripture has to say regarding the issue.  In this case, as mentioned, immersion is the mode in which baptism should be done.  However, this does raise questions regarding baptism for those who are unable to be immersed.  Should this mean that they not be baptized, or that their baptism is less significant than one who’s was done by immersion?  I believe not.  While I believe that the symbolism of immersion is powerful (being buried and raised to new life), the act is primarily about our commitment to following Christ, not imitating Christ’s death and resurrection.
Should an individual be able to be immersed, I believe that this is the mode in which it should be done based on the example given to us in Scripture, regardless of the inconvenience it may cause.  However, if doing so is not realistic, either pouring or sprinkling of water can be used.  Again, this is not a primary issue and should not be met with hostility over opposing views.  We should however strive to follow the example given to us in Scripture whenever possible, understanding that God is gracious and understanding that our circumstances do not always allow us to do so.
Many sub-issues circulate within the main issue of baptism.  It has been an issue of debate for years, and most likely will continue to be so in the days to come.  We as believers are responsible for understanding to the best of our ability when Scripture teaches regarding these issues, and then to practice them in our day-to-day life.  We understand that baptism is a one-time-only necessary event; that meaning it is unnecessary for a believer to be baptized more than once.  It symbolizes one’s commitment to a new life in Christ, and brings us into a right standing before God by work of the Holy Spirit thought our faith in Jesus Christ.


_____________________________

1. Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III, The Strongest Niv Exhaustive Concordance (strongest Strong's), Supersaver ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004), 1535.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 129.

5. J.D. Douglas et al., The New International Dictionary of the Bible, Pictorial ed. (Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A.: Zondervan, 1999), 123.

6. Exodus 29:4

7. J.D. Douglas et al., The New International Dictionary of the Bible, Pictorial ed. (Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A.: Zondervan, 1999), 123.

8. Ibid., here we read that “John’s baptism was, nevertheless, only transitory - his baptism of repentance was but preparatory to a baptism of identification”.  We learn that it is “only in the light of the redemptive death and resurrection of Christ” that the full meaning of baptism can be understood.
9. Ibid., 124.

10. Ibid., 870. The issue I am referring to is that of theology.  At this point the church in Rome, composed of both Jews and Gentiles, were struggling to come together theologically and therefore Paul used this time to address the theological issues of sin, justification, sanctification, and glorification.  Throughout Paul draws from the Old Testament and then makes practical applications and gives meaningful insights for the members of the Roman church.

11. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1998), 1110.

12. Luke 23:32-43

13. Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 215-220.

14. Ibid., 218.

15. Ibid., 220-225.

16. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Rev. and expanded. ed. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008), 343.

17. Erwin Lutzer, The Doctrines That Divide: a Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 138.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boyd, Gregory A., and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical
Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009.

Douglas, J.D., revising editor, Merrill C. Tenney, and general editor. The New International
Dictionary of the Bible. Pictorial ed. Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A.: Zondervan, 1999.

Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Academic, 2001.

Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Rev. and expanded. ed. Chicago: Moody
Publishers, 2008.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1998.

Goodrick, Edward W., and John R. Kohlenberger III. The Strongest Niv Exhaustive Concordance
(strongest Strong's). Supersaver ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004.

Hannah, John. Our Legacy: the History of Christian Doctrine. Colorado Springs, Colo.:
NavPress, 2001.

Koessler, John, and general editor. Foundational Faith: Unchangeable Truth for an
Ever-Changing World. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2003.

Lutzer, Erwin. The Doctrines That Divide: a Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate
Christians. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.

Ministries, Published by Ligonier, and General Editor: R. C. Sproul. The Reformation Study
Bible: English Standard Version Burgundy Leather 2nd Ed W/maps. 2nd Edition with Maps ed. 400 Technology Park, Lake Mary, FL 32746: P & R Publishing, 2008.

Towns, Elmer L. Theology for Today. 2nd ed. Mason: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2001.