Blog Archives

Contradictions?

3/18/2022

Recently, I was on Twitter and was challenged by an individual who claimed the Bible was full of contradictions. When I responded there were no contradictions in the Bible, this person responded with, “no contradictions? okay here goes this will be FUN” followed by several Tweets wherein they listed what they believed were contradictions in the Bible. They then topped it off by saying they could go on and on.
I believe this person simply went to their favorite “attack the Bible” website such as the Skeptics Annotated Bible site or some other site; and just copy and pasted some of the alleged contradictions listed there. I say this for two reasons. First, because they were able to Tweet them so quickly. They either went to the site, or had already been there to copy and save them, hoping for the opportunity to jump on someone with them. The second reason is I don’t think they actually read what these passages say. If they had, perhaps they would not have been so quick to claim their examples were contradictions.
Now then, let’s take a look at this person’s alleged contradictions:

“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20

“I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5

Response: When reading the Bible, it is important to avoid “Cherry Picking,” that is, taking verses out of context in such a way as to try and make them say something which they did not actually say. Cherry picking is what is happening here (and in most of the alleged contradictions in this post).
In Exodus 20:5 we read that God “visits” the iniquity of the fathers upon the children…” The term “iniquity” as used here means suffering as a consequence for iniquity. Certainly the fathers will suffer for their iniquity, and so will their families. The fathers will receive punishment. The children will not receive punishment, but will still suffer as a direct consequence for their father’s iniquity. With regard to Exodus 20:5, the iniquity is the premeditated worship of a false god, which is punishable by death. With their father gone, who will support the children? Who will care for the children? This instant poverty that the children are thrust into because of their father’s iniquity will cause them untold suffering, and will force the family into poverty for several generations.
The person making the allegation of contradiction failed to read the context of the passages; and failed to understand, or make an effort to understand, the meaning of key words in the passage. There is no contradiction here.

“This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.” — Genesis 17:10

“…if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” — Galatians 5:2

Response: What was the purpose of circumcision in the Old Testament? Genesis 17:10 gives a partial answer, it was a sign of the covenant the Lord had with Abraham and his physical and spiritual descendants. But what is the covenant about? It is between God and those who love Him and have their salvation in and through Him. It was an outward sign of an inner faith in God. This is explained in Romans 4:9-13. In Deuteronomy 10:12-16 we read that the physical act of circumcision is of no value, while the spiritual aspects of circumcision are of great value and importance. Again, circumcision is an outward sign of an inner faith in God.
In the New Testament, physical circumcision is not necessary for those who have faith in God, because we are in Christ Jesus, His circumcision is valid for all believers. We read about this in Colossians 2:9-14.
In Galatians 5:2-6 we read that because believers are circumcised in Christ, there is no need for a physical circumcision – a second circumcision if you will; and, in the case of believers, obtaining a physical circumcision displays a server lack of faith in Jesus Christ, and thus negates the circumcision believers have in Christ, and leave the person with no benefit whatsoever while requiring them to keep the entirety of the Old Testament law.
Again, the person making the allegation of a contradiction here has failed to fully read and understand the Scriptures concerning circumcision. There is no contradiction here.

“…thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. ” — Exodus 21:23-25

“…ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Response: The person making the claim of a contradiction here, has cherry picked certain phrases within a larger passage, and used them to formulate a conclusion. This person has failed to even include the complete verses they are quoting!
In the first passage, Exodus 21:23-25, we read the following (verse 22 is included for context):
22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (NASB)
This passage is part of a larger passage beginning around verse 12, which discusses the death penalty in Old Testament Jewish Law. As we see in Exodus 21:22-25, the situation is one where a pregnant woman is struck by a man, and the blow causes the death of the unborn baby. In such a situation the Lex Talionis (Life for a Life principle) is implemented and the death penalty imposed.
In the second passage, Matthew 5:39, we read, “39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (NASB)
This too is part of a larger passage, namely Matthew 5:38-48 (which I am not going to reproduce here due to space constraints). In Matthew 5:39 we read about an evil person who seeks to wrong you. And indeed all of verses 38-48 address this same issue. Please note that this is not the same issue as is addressed in Exodus 21:22-25. In the first the issue is murder, and the law’s response to murder. In the second the issue is someone being mean to you, and the Lord’s command in this type of situation is to not take vengeance yourself, but instead to treat them in a Christlike manner.

“… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26

“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19

Response: Once again the individual making the claim of a contradiction here is cherry picking phrases out of certain passages in order to support their claim. And, once again they have failed to understand the passages and phrases they are using. In the first passage, Matthew 19:26, Jesus is indeed reiterating the sovereignty of God. The second passage, Judges 1:19, however, is not talking about what God can or cannot do. It simply states that God was with Judah, not what God could or could not do. The verse and the verses surrounding it, talk about Judah and his men being unable to drive out the inhabitants of the valley.
Once again, the person making the claim has failed to understand what is being stated here, and once again, there is no contradiction.

“… Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God…” — Leviticus 18:21

[In Judges, though, the tale of Jephthah, who led the Israelites against the Ammonoites, is being told. Being fearful of defeat,

“when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering” — Judges 11:30-31

[The terms were acceptable to god — remember, he is supposed to be omniscient and know the future — so he gave victory to Jephthah, and the first whatsoever that greeted him upon his glorious return was his daughter, as god surely knew would happen, if god is god. True to his vow, the general made a human sacrifice of his only child to god!] — Judges 11:29-34

Response: The general point of this alleged contradiction is God forbids human sacrifice, and Jephthah “made a human sacrifice of his only child to god!” I have two points to make about this claim. First, Scripture records numerous instances of people violating God’s Law. Simply because God forbids something, and later Scripture records someone breaking God’s Law by doing that which was forbidden, is not a contradiction, and it is a huge stretch to claim it is, and it also involves redefining the word “contradiction” in order to make it fit your claim.
Second, Jephthah did not make a human sacrifice of his only child.. She became a temple worker for the rest of her life, unable to marry and thus remaining a virgin. And, it is important to note that she voluntarily chose to acquiesce to her father’s decision. She could have run away, she could have pleaded with her father to not send her away, there were all manner of things she could have done to avoid spending the rest of her life in the temple, but she didn’t. She knew she wasn’t going to be put to death, and that she would remain safe, and thus went voluntarily.
Again, no contradiction.

“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30

“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18

Response: The person claiming this is a contradiction has failed to notice the distinction in the sense in which God is either seen or unseen. This is due to their failure to read the context of the passages, and instead relying on cherry picked verses, and portions of verses.
In one sense it is possible to see God, and that is when He takes on a physical representation. Whether appearing as a man, or a column of smoke or fire, or a burning bush, etc. It is also possible to see God if He appears in a physical representation in a dream or vision.
In the other sense, it is impossible to see God as He actually is, in His actual form, because He is an invisible Spirit. He exists on a different plane of existence, and so cannot be seen by anyone at anytime.
Both verses are correct, and there is no contradiction.

“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4

“… the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Peter 3:10

Response: Once again the person claiming this is a contradiction has failed to include the complete verses, failed to understand the text, misrepresented the passages, and cherry picked portions of verses to support their claims.
Ecclesiastes 1:4 is correct in saying the Earth will last forever. Please note it does not say what condition it will be in, only that it will last forever.
2 Peter 3:10 states that the Earth will melt with heat, and the things on the earth will be burned up. Please note that it says nothing about the Earth not lasting forever.
In failing to recognize this – whether intentionally or unintentionally – has served to create a false contradiction where no contradiction exists. If the person had looked at the context, i.e. what the Bible says about the Earth; they would have perhaps learned that the Earth started as a formless void created by God. At a specific point in time, the Earth will become nothing more than a bald rock floating in space. Still existing, but with nothing on it. The Earth will then be re-populated with flora and fauna by the Word of the Lord, and a re-created heaven will come down and reside on earth, and believers will live there for the remainder of eternity. There is a lot more to this of course, but in a nut shell this is exactly what will happen to the Earth.
It will last for the remainder of eternity.

There is no contradiction here.

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” — Exodus 20:8

“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” — Romans 14:5

Response: Exodus 20:8 is God’s command to remember the Sabbath, the Day of Rest, and keep it holy. In other words, a day dedicated to the Lord where no work is done, other than work for the Lord. Romans 14:5 states that one man holds one day above another, and another man looks at all days the same. It then gives the command from God to “let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” It says nothing about the Sabbath Day of Rest whatsoever.
Since the two verses don’t have much of anything in common, there is no contradiction.

There you have it. All eight of the persons alleged contradictions are exposed as not being contradictions at all. At best, they are misrepresentations of Scripture; which means, the person has either intentionally misrepresented the Scripture in an effort to support their premise that the Bible contains contradictions; or, they have unintentionally misrepresented Scripture due to their inability, their incapability to understand the Scriptures, and thus see things in them that are not actually there.

0 Comments

Know Your Heresies - Kenosis

3/13/2022

0 Comments

Know Your Heresies:

Kenosis

A very basic explanation of the Kenosis Theory (also known as the Kenotic Theory) is that at some point between conception and adulthood, Jesus emptied Himself of some or all of His Divine Attributes. Different proponents of Kenosis have differing views as to when this emptying took place. Many of us are at least somewhat familiar with the this heresy, as Christians have been singing about it since the 18th century. The song I am referring to is, “And Can It Be (That I Should Gain?)” by Charles Wesley, one of the two founders of the Methodist Church. Here is the first verse and the refrain that I hope will help you to recognize this song.

And Can It Be, That I Should Gain?

1. And can it be that I should gain
An int'rest in the Savior's blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain?
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! how can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Refrain:
Amazing love! how can it be?
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me!

Now, to be honest, this is one of my favorite songs. I love it. I always have. And it wasn’t until today when I was singing it, that as we got to the third verse, and reading as I was singing, we got to the third line of the third verse, and my heart just sank. I stopped singing. I couldn’t even bring myself to say it. Here is the third verse, with the offending third line highlighted in bold type:

3. He left His Father's throne above,
So free, so infinite His grace;
Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam's helpless race;
'Tis mercy all, immense and free;
For, O my God, it found out me. [Refrain]

And there it is. Speaking about Jesus, the third verse states, “Emptied Himself of all but love…” The Kenosis heresy.
For those who subscribe to this heresy, the go to text they use to support Kenosis is Philippians 2:7. To give this some context, here are verses 5-8,
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Phil.2:5-8 NASB 1995)

There it is in verse 7. In speaking of Jesus, the Apostle Paul writes, “but emptied Himself,…” The word “emptied” is translated from the Greek word, ekenōsen (Strong’s G2758), which is from the Greek word, kenoó. The word does not have the same meaning as we might think. We generally think of the word “emptied,” as meaning removing the contents of something. That, however, is a simplistic understanding of the word, and it doesn’t express the actual meaning of the word.

Those who subscribe to the Kenotic Theory, or Kenosis, have used this simplistic explanation of ekenōsen as meaning “removing the contents of something,” because it fits their theology. This is a type of eisegetical theology, or forcing ones personal beliefs into the text, thus making it support what one already believes. In this instance, they have Jesus removing from Himself all or some of His Divine Attributes. However, as I said, the word does not simply mean that at all. According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary we read, “From kenos;...to abase,...(to make of none effect, of no reputation).” The word ekenōsen actually means abased.

Now then, what does Abased mean? Well, according to the current Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the question is asked, “What does abased mean in the Bible?” and the answer given is, “1 formal : to lower in rank, office, prestige, or esteem; abase oneself;” and when we go back to the very first Webster’s Dictionary from 1828, the definition of the word abased is, “ABASED, pp. Reduced to a low state, humbled, degraded.”

And this is exactly what the passage states. Again in verse 7, “but [Jesus] emptied [abased] Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” Jesus abased Himself, gave Himself a lower position, that of man. It doesn’t mean He was emptied of His Divine Attributes. It means He actually added a second nature to Himself.

Now, to be fair, ekenōsen can be translated empty, or to empty, but this does not mean the same as empty does in today’s English. This is where context comes into play. Context is one of the primary rules of good biblical interpretation. When reading the Bible we have to remember to understand the text according to its proper context. We look at the passages around it, and then the chapters around it, and then we look at the Bible in its entirety. Where else do we find related passages? We also have to remember to take into consideration the historical context. What would the passage mean to those to whom the letter was intended? In this case, the Philippians.

Now, don’t panic, you are not required to have a doctorate in Bibliology (the doctrine of the Scriptures), nor do you need a degree in the history of Israel and nearby tribes and nations. What is helpful, however, is a good concordance (I recommend the Strong’s because it comes with comprehensive Hebrew and Greek dictionaries for every word in the Bible); A good lexicon, several translations of the Bible so as to compare what each one says, and a few other books. Fortunately, you can find all of this online, for free. The two primary websites I use are Bible Gateway (which I use to compare translations), and BibleHub.com which has (among other useful research tools) a great interlinear Bible. You simply type in the verse you want to read (you have to do one verse at a time), and it will bring it up in both English and Greek (both written in Greek, and also written out phonetically in English), as well as give the corresponding Strong’s reference number, Clicking on that reference number takes you to a wealth of information about that particular word.

Back to what I was talking about. The Kenotic or Kenosis Theory, began in Germany in the mid-19th Century. Then a small group of men in England picked up on it in the late-19th century, and it has taken off from these two beginnings. It features most prominently in Holiness groups, and Pentecostal and Charismatic groups, with the latter being the most vocal about it. They believe that upon His incarnation, Jesus emptied Himself of all or some (it depends on which group you talk to) of His Divine Attributes. The problem with this is that it is taught no where in the Bible. There is not one passage to support the Kenosis Doctrine. Many will point to Philippians 2:7, but I’ve already addressed that above.

More importantly, if Jesus’ Divine Attributes are removed, then He ceases to be God. At best He would be a lesser deity of some sort, but He certainly would not, and could not be part of the Triune God of the Bible. In fact, once you remove Jesus from the Trinity by saying He no longer possess all the Divine Attributes, then the Trinity itself ceases to exist as well, and it has become something else, something less.

Those who subscribe to the Kenosis doctrine will argue against all of this, and insist that although Jesus no longer possessed all the Divine Attributes that define God, He is still God and nothing has changed regarding His deity. But this is simply is not true. If I bake a cake, and I leave out the sugar, the eggs, the oil, and the the baking powder – all essential ingredients, or attributes of a cake; and, I use only flour, flavoring, and water. Is what comes out of the oven really a cake? Or is it something else, something less than? Perhaps not the best analogy, but it gets the point across.

What the Bible actually teaches, and what the Church has historically believed and taught, is the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. The term cannot be found in the Bible, but like the Trinity, the concepts are all easily found in Scripture. This doctrine says that upon His incarnation (which is conception, not birth), Jesus Christ had two natures. He was the “God-Man.” Fully and truly God, and fully and truly man. Not 50/50, or 60/40, but 100% God, and 100% man. His two natures, His Divine nature and His human nature, are both complete, and they are both distinct (which means they are not mingled together to form one partially Divine and partially human nature). While His Divine Nature is able to communicate to His human nature, His Human nature has no idea what His Divine nature is doing unless it is told, and His human nature cannot open up communication with His Divine nature.

This is similar to our communication with God. We don’t know what God is thinking, unless and until He tells us. Scripture tell us that His thoughts are higher than our thoughts and beyond our comprehension (see Isa.55:8-9; Rom.11:33). The same was true of Jesus. The thoughts of His Divine nature were higher that those of His human nature, and they were beyond the comprehension of His human nature. And while we can pray to God, just as Jesus prayed to God, unless God answers us audibly, it is only a one-way communication. It is only when God initiates the communication between Himself and man, that the communication can be both ways. The same is true between Jesus’ Divine nature as God, and His human nature as a man.

Kenosis is a heresy that ultimately denies the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus Christ (whether its adherents are willing to admit this or not. Facts are facts.). His Divine attributes are what define Him as God. If He doesn’t have all of the Divine attributes He had when He was in heaven with the Father and the Holy Spirit, then He is something less that what He was, and He ceases to be God. So whether one believes Jesus emptied Himself of all His Divine attributes or just some of His Divine attributes, the end result is a different Jesus, and not the Jesus of the Bible; and, as we have already discussed, this also destroys the Trinity.

The Kenosis doctrine will inevitably lead to the embracing of other heresies as well. One cannot accept the Kenosis Theory as true Christian doctrine, especially after being taught the truth about it (as with this article) and not be in sin, Embracing heresy is a serious sin, which will very often lead to apostasy, and falling away from the faith (see Heb.6:1-8). The Kenosis Doctrine, or Kenotic Doctrine, is unbiblical and it is heretical. It is clearly nothing to play around with, and it should be avoided at all cost.

0 Comments

What is the Difference Between Sin, Trespass, Transgression, and Iniquity?

3/12/2022

0 Comments

Answer:

Sin: Sin is the general term for anything that “falls short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). It can refer to doing something against God or against a person (Exodus 10:16); or, doing the opposite of what is biblically right (Galatians 5:17); or, failing to do something you know you ought to do (James 4:17). At its root. sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4); sin is ultimately rebellion against God, and there will always be negative consequences for sin (Romans 6:23; Isaiah 66:24; Proverbs 24:33-34). We all have a sin nature that we have had passed down to us from our common ancestor, Adam (Romans 5:12-21); and, that sin nature leads to trespasses.
Trespass: To “trespass” is to cross the line, to go beyond one’s right by violating a boundary or law. We trespass when we violate God’s moral law, or the rights of other people. When we trespass we sin, and when we sin we have trespassed.
Transgression: A transgression is like “sin 2.0,” as it refers to presumptuous sin. To transgress is to choose to intentionally disobey; transgression is willful trespassing. Samson intentionally broke his Nazarite vow by touching a dead lion (Numbers 6:1-5; Judges 14:8-9), and allowing his hair to be cut (Judges 16:17). In doing this, Samson was committing a transgression. When we knowingly and intentionally run a stop sign, speed, tell a lie, or blatantly disregard an authority, we are transgressing. In short, transgression is to make a personal choice to intentionally sin.
Iniquity: Although iniquity is still sin, it is even more serious than transgression. It is more deeply rooted in a person. Iniquity refers to a premeditated choice. To commit iniquity, is to continue to sin without repentance. Micah 2:1 says, “Woe to those who plan iniquity, to those who plot evil on the beds! At morning’s light they carry it out because it is in theor power to do it.”

As we examine these biblical terms, let’s not think about people we know who exhibit all of these, who are perfect examples of them. We all know people like that, but seriously speaking, we should not think ill of them, but rather sincerely pray for them, and present the gospel to them. The true and undiluted gospel. Anything less does them a disservice, and it dishonors God.

Instead, we should look at these biblical terms, and apply them to our own lives, just as God has told us to do in His holy word (2 Corinthians 13:5; Philippians 2:12-13; Lamentations 3:40; 1 Corinthians 11:28-32). If we are honest to ourselves, and to God, especially in asking the Lord to reveal to us any sin that is in us, then when we repent of those sins, we are progressing in our sanctification, and becoming more and more holy, just as God has commanded, “You shall be holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:15-17; Leviticus 19:2 cf Hebrews 12:14).

0 Comments

Contradictions?

Know Your Heresies - Kenosis

What is the Difference Between Sin, Trespass, Transgression, and Iniquity?

Archives

Categories