The Benefit of the Daily Office Prayers

     The Daily Office is not just another day at the office, but is another day to pray to the Lord with all your heart. The Daily Office is essentially a section you will find in the Book of Common Prayer where you have a routine for prayer in both Morning and Evening Hours. It is almost like part Sunday Service with part prayer time. This is something I discovered when becoming Episcopalian/Anglican and as a result, wanted to share with others the benefits that is found in using this particular practice while explaining the tradition and history behind it.

    When it comes to the early church practice, we receive this info from the definition of Daily Office from the Episcopal Church Dictionary: "Use of daily prayers to mark the times of the day and to express the traditions of the praying community is traditional in Judaism and in Christianity. The third, sixth, and ninth hours (9 a.m., 12 noon, and 3 p.m.) were times of private prayer in Judaism. The congregational or cathedral form of office developed in Christianity under Constantine (274 or 288-337) with the principal morning and evening services of lauds and vespers. The people participated in the cathedral form of office. The monastic form of office also developed at this time. In addition to lauds and vespers, the monastic form included matins (at midnight or cockcrow), prime (the first hour), terce (the third hour), sext (the sixth hour), none (the ninth hour), and compline (at bedtime). By the late middle ages, the Daily Office was seen as the responsibility of the monks and clergy rather than an occasion for participation by all in the prayers of the community throughout the day."

    Furthermore, we read of the following regarding the Anglican tradition during the Reformation: "After the Anglican Reformation, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) reduced the eight monastic offices to the two services of Morning and Evening Prayer. These services were printed in vernacular English and intended for use by all members of the church. Participation in the Daily Office is at the heart of Anglican spirituality. It is the proper form of daily public worship in the church... These offices include prayers, a selection from the Psalter, readings from the Holy Scriptures, one or more canticles, and the Lord's Prayer. Forms for Morning and Evening Prayer include an optional confession of sin. The BCP provides a Daily Office Lectionary that identifies readings and psalm choices for Morning and Evening Prayer, and a Table of Canticles with suggested canticles for use at Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer. The officiant in the Daily Office may be a member of the clergy or a lay person."

    So now with this in mind, how should one go about using the Daily Office? Well it will always depend on your Book of Common Prayer (BCP). I own the 1662 International Edition BCP along with the 1979 BCP, which is the official version used by the Episcopal Church. There are others, but my experience will always sat that to a new person who isn't even Anglican yet can try the 1979 version as it is more simple and easy to use with even so much customization for the prayers for the perfect occasion. There is even a Noonday and Compline (bed time) prayer section for those wanting to add more to their prayer life. However, the question then becomes the structure of the BCP prayer for the Daily Office.

    The Daily Office usually begins with the use of reading a couple of scriptures in the recommended section. Such as Isaiah 40:3. Then we launch into the Confession of Sin (with Exhortation before that if you use the 1662) before praying the absolution of sin. The Invitatory is said next with the classic "O Lord, open thou our lips and our mouth shall show forth thy praise." & the Gloria Patri. Then for morning prayer, the Venite (Psalm 95) is chanted or read while the Phos Hilaron (O Gracious Light) is done for the evening prayer. Then the Psalms are read, which will vary. For the 1979, they have a Daily Office Lectionary that tells you which particular Psalms to read along with Bible readings, but if you want to do what I do and just use the original 1662 assigned readings which can still be seen in the 1979, you can just cite those whole entire Psalms. Doing this will have it so that you have read all 150 Psalms in one month.

    Then we go into the Reading/Lessons as well as the Canticles. Canticles are essentially passages of scripture which can be read or chanted in song. The Readings will always include an Old Testament for the Morning and New Testament for both. However, if you use the 1662 Daily Office, this will always have the Old Testament as the first lesson for the readings. We would proceed then to the Apostle's Creed for reciting or singing before we get to the prayers. The prayers then go in the order of the Lord's Prayer, a suffrage (responsive prayers of petition), a collect (prayer meant to gather the intentions of the people and the focus of worship into a succinct prayer), prayer, for mission, custom prayers for any occassion that can be put afterwards, the choice of either the General Thanksgiving or St Chrysostom's Prayer, and then finally another final passage of scripture which is usually 2 Corinthians 13:14.

    This the overall essence of prayer during morning and evening. Some may wonder about the idea of reading the prayers as opposed to closing your eyes and improvising from the heart. I respond with stating that nowhere does it forbid doing prayer like this and half the time, it's praying the prayers from Scripture itself to pray. Such as the Lord's Prayer, The Magnificat (Luke 1:46-54), The Prayer of Simeon (Luke 2:29) and various others. It also includes prayers from the early church that can be found. It is essentially prayers that connect you to a rich history of Christian prayer life throughout the centuries. It even will help you memorize certain longer prayers word for word and you'll be able to say these prayers even when you are improvising.

    One of the benefits of this is obviously a stronger prayer life as you will be finding yourself involved in the pattern. Even if you don't do the noonday or compline prayer, the morning and evening prayers are essentially the chunk of the prayer that you will likely spend 15 to 20 minutes doing the office. You will even be there for 30-35 minutes for the 1662 Daily Office. That is good time to spend towards God for the start of the day and for the close of the day.

    Another is the fact that you will get to read scripture quite often because of the emphasis on the scripture readings. Some might keep in mind that it's best to call them lessons or readings because sometimes, you will read from the Apocrypha which is good for edification and devotion. However, because they are not considered scripture or canon among Protestants, it is best to say "Here endeth the lesson/reading" as opposed to "the Word of the Lord" normally. Just be prepared if you read the 1662 Daily Office as that means you read a single chapter per lesson.

    The benefit of being able to read prayers is great for those who have a hard time coming up with words to pray to God. It makes it seem like riding a bike with training wheels only to be told you can still keep using them as you go. It also is beneficial to read the prayers that our church brethren of the past used, connecting us with them as well as being unified into the single body of Christ. So overall, it also helps us learn our church history.

    The final benefit is in the fact that it will bring about a sense of peace, unity and fellowship with God. You will certainly feel like you have gotten closer to God as you are praying. I know I have certainly felt this whenever I started doing these prayers during the season of Lent. If you want to read on these and try using the daily prayers, check out the following links.

BCP 1979 Online: https://www.bcponline.org/

Daily Office 1979: https://www.bookofcommonprayer.net/#

1662 Daily Office: https://ie.dailyoffice1662.com/

An Episcopalian Examination/Response Towards The Provisionism Movement & Leighton Flowers

     So there is what I believe is most accurate to call a new movement that has come in response to certain theological issues and debates as of lately. We've seen it before with the Lordship Salvation controversy and the Free Grace theology movement as well as in the case of the Open Theist debate that started up in the 80s with Richard Rice's book on the Openness of God. However instead of dealing with the central focus on the knowledge of God and the process of salvation as it pertains to works and faith, we are now entering a general soteriology movement that aims itself to mostly combat against Calvinism as opposed to some of the other soteriological positions (though there has been debates between the two as there is still the issue of the debate on total inability). With this, a question must then be put forth: How do we engage with Provisionism and what does it mean to begin with?

    This is what we aim to accomplish because some might be familiar with it and others may not be. The goal of this article is to comment on the origins of the Provisionism movement, discuss the doctrines that it emphasizes on, determine if it would be considered orthodox, heterodox or heretical under the position of the Episcopalian/Anglican tradition and then to assess a response of concerns and even list some pros/cons of the theological movement's affirmations. It will not aim to be a critique that aims to use polemics, but will instead focusing on giving a graceful examination in light of tradition, the bible and reason. So if you are looking for some kind of heated throwing of metaphorical knives or a challenge request to debate some Provisionists, then you will be disappointed as they will not be found here.

    To begin, let's start with the founder of the movement: Leighton Flowers.

    Dr. Leighton Flowers is a theologian, apologist & evangelist who serves as an Adjunct Professor of Theology for Trinity Seminary. Leighton Flowers has been involved in studying theology for years as he at least first received his Bachelor's Degree in Applied Theology at Hardin-Simmons University in 1997. He eventually got his Doctorate in 2017 at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is not just a simple layman, but a well educated individual who has done research and studies with the seminary degrees to support it. However, there is also an element to him where he used to be a Calvinist until he eventually left and departed from that position. Enter around the year 2014 when there was the explosion of a new channel called "Soteriology 101" and the conversation it soon led to the development of our discussion today.

    Leighton Flowers was not satisfied with the solutions Calvinism had to offer and was trying to also look for alternatives to the Wesleyan or Arminian perspective of the soteriology debate as there were other different views as well. He was interested in an earnest goal to interpret scripture correctly, which is what I hope is the mind of all Christians regarding their perspectives. There is a detailed analysis of his story that you can refer to which is entitled "The 5 Points That Led Me To Leave Calvinism." Leighton ultimately sums up his reason in 5 points, which include the following:

 POINT #1: I came to realize that the “foresight faith view” (classical Wesleyan Arminianism) was not the only scholarly alternative to the Calvinistic interpretation.

POINT #2: I came to understand the distinction between the doctrine of Original Sin (depravity) and the Calvinistic concept of “Total Inability.” 

 POINT #3: I realized that the decision to humble yourself and repent in faith is not meritorious. Even repentant believers deserve eternal punishment.

POINT #4: I accepted the fact that a gift doesn’t have to be irresistibly applied in order for the giver to get full credit for giving it.

POINT #5: I came to understand that sovereignty is not an eternal attribute of God that would be compromised  by the existence of free moral creatures.

    These are of course his reasons and everybody has other reasons. So we at least understand Leighton Flowers coming out of it. However, what was it that he would affirm as being the theology to go for? It would be something called Traditionalism. You might be saying "I thought he was the founder of Provisionism?" He is, but this seems to be the first name that was used. In one lecture he gave at Texas Baptists entitled "Calvinism: Is There A Better Option?" he gives us his definition as follows:

"By predestination we mean the predetermined redemptive plan of God to justify, sanctify and glorify whosever freely believes. All people are created with equal value as image bearers of God. Because God desires mercy over justice and self-sacrificially loves everyone, He has graciously provided the means of salvation to every man, woman, boy and girl. No person is created for damnation, or predetermined by God to that end. Those who perish only do so because they refused to accept the truth so as to be saved."

    It does seem like a very good idea and this of course is called Traditionalism in light of the Southern Baptist apologetic since this is the church that Leighton is involved in. However, with that in mind, he was planning for a more self-encompassing and inclusive label for all other denominations and ideas. So he eventually explained that "Dr. Eric Hankins wrote a statement which references the “traditional” beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention over the last 75-100 years. The label “Traditionalist” was used by some to distinguish our view from the more recent resurgence of Calvinistic beliefs within the convention. We recognize the shortcomings of this label which is why some prefer the term Provisionalism." Here is where we now encounter the beliefs under the new name.

    So we now encounter what is essentially the TULIP of Provisionism which would be PROVIDE. I do find it interesting that there are 7 points which to me can fit within a Christian theme of the number 7 as it relates to the days of the week and many other similar elements. It does affirm several points which can be found among others. However, the only one that I can see sparks a serious debate worth engaging in is the points regarding sin. In the Articles of Affirmation & Denial on Soteriology101, we read the following in Article Two:

"We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell.

We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty (?) before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel."

    There is mostly concern out of the concept of the rejection of the doctrine of Original Sin and thus if Provisionism rejects this doctrine. So far, in my reexamination of the doctrines, it's not as clear. He does seem to at least to be against the ideas of what he calls "Augustinian Original Guilt" while also affirming the following statement in his video on What Is Provisionism: "We believe that people are sinful, they’re fallen, but they’re still responsible; meaning, they’re still able to respond to Gods appeal to be reconciled." So some Calvinists have used this language to still affirm Original Sin and therefore Original Guilt. In fact, I remember encountering one person who was against Calvinism and after saying the the words "we believe that people are sinful and they are fallen creatures," I am met with "I don't believe in that Calvinist garbage." So the words can still evoke a similarity between Calvinists and Provisionists to the point of reconciliation.

    One side note I will add on the Original Sin question is that I do think it would be very harmful to the case to paint Augustine as if he is somebody who should be discredited or viewed as coming up with an idea that may be considered harmful. Though I would argue there were others like Clement of Rome, Cyprian of Carthage, Tertullian and others who would've agreed with Augustine, I think the main thing to be careful of is to avoid saying statements which could lead to a false understanding or view of Church History. Especially as it relates to the Ecumenical Councils, which would be affirmed by all Protestants, including the Council of Ephesus. Though I am curious if Flowers, while disagreeing with Augustine, does still view Augustine as a saint who is a brother in Christ.

    So the question than comes about to ponder on if Provisionism is orthodox, heterodox or heresy? I would argue that it would be on the tipping point scales between orthodox & heterdox believes. I would of course say heterodox in general, but just because it may be different from other orthodox views under my creed in the 39 Articles or the other historic creeds of early Christianity, doesn't mean I would consider throwing all Provisionists, including Leighton Flowers, to the heresy circle. I think we need to be more fair and not engage in the polemics involved by some of the online internet Calvinists in critiquing Leighton and others in his camp.

    I will begin with my examination of the Pros of Provisionism. First, it offers another systematic approach to soteriology apart from the other options that will certainly go down in theological history. Some will have a tough time trying to come up with new ideas of theology in a systematic approach. Mind you, this is only a soteriological view and not a full on system like Methodism or Anglicanism, there is still an achievement to be viewed by Leighton Flowers here. It shouldn't be a surprise though considering again his educational background that has been demonstrated.

    Another example of a benefit in Provisionism is that it offers an alternative to equally teach the same gospel message affirmed by Christians for centuries. The one phrase that has been said before is that "Calvinism is the Gospel" and to a degree, this is true. So is Wesleyanism, Arminianism and at this point, Provisionism also the Gospel. It teaches a message of grace which affirms salvation much in the same way other views have taught. This would be something that can be demonstrated too as I have gone street preaching before with others who weren't Calvinists and either affirmed Wesleyan, Tradtionalism Southern Baptist Soteriology, and something closer to Provisionism at the time. All affirmed the same message and preached the same gospel in harmony and unity.

    That being said, there is some Cons to this (as all views have both pros/cons including Calvinism shockingly enough). The first of these is that with it being fairly recent and new, it's getting tough to define it and with it's inclusionary aspect to be able to incorporate others into it that aren't Southern Baptists, it can lead to a confusion on matters. I do think this is easily able to be resolved by more content from other authors on the subject. So far, Flowers' books entitled "The Potter's Promise: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology" & "God's Provision For All: A Defense of God's Goodness" are two good resources that help defend and explain the ideas as well as the articles on Soteriology101. But I do think more is needed on this, especially more besides Leighton Flowers.

    Another Con to this would be involved in the attempt to be avoiding unifying it under a particular church and trying to incorporate it with other churches outside of the Southern Baptist faith. To me, as a former Southern Baptist turned Episcopalian, I would see there can be one issue in mind in trying to use Provisionism in some denominations outside the Baptist tradition. For example, if there is the idea of affirming Provisionism regarding the providing of the free option and gift of grace to anybody willing to accept it, then what about the issue of infant baptism. Infant baptism is a practice affirmed by Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, certain "Northern Baptist" churches & Methodists. Though this then must consider the question on if one then affirms or rejects Baptismal Regeneration, which would affirm that Baptism is a sacrament which also brings about salvation? While I do not agree with this doctrine, this would be a good discussion on if Provisionism can have room for infant baptism and baptismal regeneration combined considering the R O I & E of the PROVIDE.

    My main final point is going to be slightly towards Leighton Flowers, but mostly is aimed at the ones who have recently adopted belief of Provisionism that were inspired by Leighton Flowers. While Leighton has tried to encourage people to not dismiss Calvinists as non-Christians and has affirmed that Calvinists are still saved by their faith in Christ alone. However, the people seemed to have ignored this one video of Flowers and have continued to shout that Calvinists are heretics, non-believers and demons. I understand that some might find slightly similar tactics from those among the James White Calvinist group (one of which I am not a fan of in particular ever since the whole Divine Simplicity fiasco and his uncalled for attacks on the credibility of David Pallmann), this should still be noted as this is why I see two of these groups as essentially the same blood. My only hope is that Flowers can at least be more vocal in the response and holding some of these people accountable online. Especially if they are going to be representing Provisionism in their evangelism and apologetics. Which leads me to the final point of this.

    Leighton is trying to use his ministry to do the following as noted in his Are Calvinists Saved video: to convert people out of Calvinism. I do think it's not a bad idea to encourage others to come over to your own perspective of things, which is why I would say it might be my wish for Flowers to leave the Southern Baptist Convention and join the Anglican/Episcopalian tradition. However, the issue is that there seems to be a desire to convert Christians from one adiaphora belief to another (by Leighton Flowers' own admission too as he sees this as a "secondary issue" that doesn't affect salvation). We shouldn't have this in our mind. Instead, we should consider the one principle that can fix these matters and help build the path to church unity. "The Middle Way" or "Via Media."

    This is something that has helped bring an affirmation of unity among the Episcopalian Church which I have defined before in my old article entitled A Journey of Faith: My Testimony & Why I Became Episcopalian. In this principle however, it can affect our means of reaching to others in Christ and to bring converts as well. In an article by Winfield Bevins on The Anglican Compass entitled "Whatever happened to the Anglican Via Media?" we read that the Middle Way "allows us to synthesize great Christian truths into a central core, rather than focusing on extremes." Further in the article, we read the following:

"Anglicans have always tried to embrace the paradoxes of the faith through the via media. One of the best examples of this can be found in the life and ministry of John Wesley, who lived and died an Anglican priest. John Wesley’s unique Evangelical Anglicanism comes to light in his ability to find a synthesis between radical extremes and paradoxes, such as divine sovereignty and free will, evangelical and sacramental, and saving and sanctifying grace. To be an Anglican is to understand and to live in the tension of the paradoxes of the Christian faith by employing the via media. Perhaps the most practical way in which the Anglican Church lives in tension comes as it seeks to bring together a variety of dimensions of the Christian faith. At first, these may seem like opposing extremes, but in many ways these different streams are symbiotic and belong together... In many ways, Anglicanism offers a balanced faith that brings together the best of the Christian traditions. There is a unique balance of unity and diversity in Anglicanism through the via media and the importance of bringing together the different streams within Anglicanism, which include: Catholic, Evangelical, Broad, and Charismatic."

    So with this in mind, that would be my main approach to this situation is that we should bring forth the unity of the church of our Lord through the means of not trying to convert people from Calvinism to Provisionism or Provisionism to Calvinist, but to instead bring unity through the Via Media towards Provisionist & Calvinist brothers & sisters in Christ. If Leighton ever responds to this, hopefully you are able meditate upon and ponder these issues in thought or response. To any other Provisionists reading this, I offer the same advice and would ask that you consider what I have said and the words of Leighton Flowers in the Are Calvinists Saved video among other things. We should try to avoid the infighting over non-essentials and if we debate, it is friendly, calm and in good spirit without intending to try and think of converting people from different perspectives of Christian belief, but offering an invitation like a bridge, to show unity among disagreement.

Prayer for the Unity of the Church

"O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Savior, the Prince of Peace: Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions; take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatever else may hinder us from godly union and concord; that, as there is but one Body and one Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

A Song of Anselm (Happy Mother's Day)

 Jesus, like a mother you gather your people to you;

you are gentle with us as a mother with her children.

Gather your little ones to you, O God,

as a hen gathers her brood to protect them.

Often you weep over our sins and our pride,

tenderly you draw us from hatred and judgement.

Gather your little ones to you, O God,

as a hen gathers her brood to protect them.

You comfort us in sorrow and bind up our wounds,

in sickness you nurse us, and with pure milk you feed us.

Gather your little ones to you, O God,

as a hen gathers her brood to protect them.

Jesus, by your dying we are born to new life;

by your anguish and labour we come forth in joy.

Gather your little ones to you, O God,

as a hen gathers her brood to protect them.

Despair turns to hope through your sweet goodness;

through your gentleness we find comfort in fear.

Gather your little ones to you, O God,

as a hen gathers her brood to protect them.

Your warmth gives life to the dead,

your touch makes sinners righteous.

Gather your little ones to you, O God,

as a hen gathers her brood to protect them.

Lord Jesus, in your mercy heal us;

in your love and tenderness remake us.

Gather your little ones to you, O God,

as a hen gathers her brood to protect them.

In your compassion bring grace and forgiveness,

for the beauty of heaven may your love prepare us.

Gather your little ones to you, O God,

as a hen gathers her brood to protect them.

— Anselm of Canterbury.

Link to song is found here: https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/common-worship/daily-prayer/canticles-daily-56

A Journey of Faith: My Testimony & Why I Became Episcopalian

     This all starts with an origin that arises from being born and raised in the south. Especially growing up in the old bible belt area, I would be certainly exposed to the language and formalities of the Christian religion by name. I would hear constantly about the mentioning of Jesus as this good role model, how Christians are teaching upon the works of righteousness and that America is this great Christian nation which grants us the freedoms we have because of Christianity alone. I used to affirm these things, but then there was also poison which was taught. I was also taught by some of my peers at school (not my family or parents, thank God) that Christianity was a white person's religion and that non-white people (African Americans in particular) were people whom we shouldn't associate with and distance ourselves from. This was during the late 90s to early 2000s and there was still some scars of racism that could be found. While I participated in that cultural sinfulness at that time in my early elementary school youth, I repented of and resented that history which taught one thing that I eventually learned was sinful.

    But it didn't necessarily start from my middle school years for my time to become Christian. What I was learning was the shock of seeing friends and students who were clean at first in their behavior to immediately going into the 6th grade with loads of cussing and profanity as well as they had interests in doing drugs and other things that I cannot speak of on here. It was shocking and it lead to me eventually adopting one of my other past ways of living that showed another distortion on Christianity from my part: Perfectionism. I was eventually of the persuaded mind that everybody needed to begin to act right and if they showed one sign of any form of sin, lie, or imperfect act, then I was to dismiss them and never view them as somebody to associate with or ever trust again.

    The problem with this, I am sure you can imagine, is that I was essentially a big hypocrite regarding this manner. I was applying this standard to others and yet was quick to dismiss it when it came to myself. At least in partiality. I became aware of the hypocrisy later in my life until I eventually got into high school and would find ways to beat myself up physically either by punching myself in the face, taking my belt to beat my own self behind closed doors, or to scream loud in private. I was somebody who struggled. It could've been a combination of my eventually learned autistic tendencies (I found out I was formally diagnosed as being on the spectrum) and anger that I had built up from previous experiences. However, it was still all rooted in this one idea about perfection in which I was hearing about that Jesus taught.

    Keep in mind that at this moment, I have never read a bible. I have not picked it up in my life. I went to church at times (we weren't necessarily forced to attend or made to go unless it was a holiday) and I always ignored the sermon or dismissed the bible being read. I eventually came to the misguided conclusion that Jesus was a righteous perfectionist and that he was persecuted by wicked people. I then talked often about how I was going to one day invent a time machine and rescue Jesus from being crucified so that I could help him continue his message. It is probably at this point you have seen what all kind of whacky nonsense I was being taught indirectly by my peers at the time. I was rebellious, but even more so I was being built by a strange culture that combined secular politics of the south with the religious themes of the bible. I repented of racism, but only moved onto perfectionism as another way to isolate those around me. Until that fateful Sunday of March 31, 2013. It was on Easter Day that a miracle was performed.

    I was enjoying the food and starting to get curiosity in watching a show that was on entitled "The Bible" on the History Channel. I was trying to watch it when my grandpa from my stepmom's side of the family came over to watch the TV with me. I had heard from him about Christianity only briefly and he was never the origin of my ideas. Until now. I asked him briefly about Jesus and asked "Why did the Romans kill him? Why did they crucify him in such a brutal way?" My PawPaw (as I call him), would look at me and tell me these words that would forever change my life. "He came to die on the cross so that our sins would be forgiven and atoned for." I then asked if this meant Jesus would willingly die for us. He responded "He did willingly do so. He went to that cross when he had the power to save himself. He went to that cross so that we would be made right with God and that our sins would be forgiven." This shook me at my core and was wrestling against my view of perfectionism. I believed people who sinned shouldn't be forgiven and I wanted to rescue Jesus. Jesus, however, came to forgive and redeem us so that we could be made right before God. I went to my room after lunch and sat there privately, pondering upon these words.

    I would then finally pick up this very old KJV Bible up and read the words contained as I searched for answers in the New Testament. I then even came upon the part of the New Testament which read as such in John 18:10-12:

"Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus and bound him."

    It was at this point that these words would help me find somebody that I felt closely identified to in the biblical text. I was Peter in my desire to rescue Jesus and in reading this, would discover that Jesus would've rejected my help if I did try to save him. I was shocked. I then thought about my sins and how I could be forgiven and redeemed simply by putting my faith and trust in Jesus Christ. I then felt no sorrow, yet tears managed to rush down my face as if it was like a river. I then looked down after this and thought it was an illusion until I felt two wet spots on my carpet floor that indicated it wasn't false. I then decided at that point to dedicate my life to Christ as I became born again on that fated Easter Sunday. It would be at this point that my life would change forever.

    I would then study my Bible often and even attempt to read all of the books of the Bible. It took some time before I finished it all, but I at least was dedicated. I was even interested in sharing my faith with several others at school and eventually college. I have then also started learning more and even getting my family involved. One of the influential people in my faith was my stepmom, who was pretty much a blessing to me and was even somebody who I just called my Ma at times because of how much she put up with me while showing loving kindness that I haven't learned from others before. We got to the point that eventually we would talk about the Bible with several questions and curiosities.

    I would however encounter one other problem that I needed to resolve. Where would I go to church? What was my denominational belief? I started going to a non-denominational church as I originally identified as such. It was there that I would study the Bible and learn more from the church at this point. However, I was also bound to be ignorant of certain things and would develop a brief and short affirmation of some sort of Universalism during this time (universal reconciliation theory to be precise). I would even talk about how everybody is going to heaven and that we shouldn't worry about Hell. However, I would eventually be shown how this was contrary to scripture and ignores Jesus' teachings of Hell and eternal damnation. I would struggle afterwards with being a part of this church and tending as I eventually fell out of the church there.

    However, I then decided to join my uncle's church and learn Baptist theology (Southern Baptist in particular). I would get fired up from the old fashioned southern preaching of my uncle/pastor who then showed a big influence unto me about the love of God as he taught very much about forgiveness, love and compassion for people. Especially about other people. He even would talk about how in the Southern Baptist church, people were being sectarian among other protestant denominations such as Baptists, Methodists, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, and various others were saying that we can't learn or fellowship with each other. My pastor would sometimes repeat this often understood position of some southern Christians before shouting "Oh quit it! God cares about if you follow after Jesus Christ as your Lord, not which way you baptize your family or what denomination you join." This really shocked me as this was a Southern Baptist pastor saying he didn't care if people weren't Southern Baptists. This was amazing!

    I eventually started affirming an affirmation of what is called Reformed Theology or Calvinism as others call it. I started off in a very cringe & horrible way of thinking first in what would be called "Cage Stage" Calvinist because I would be like "be a calvinist bro. Why aren't you calvinist! It's soooo biblical apart from these free will trash religions" or "debate me bro!" I eventually got away from that toxic and poisonous way of thinking. However, I would eventually notice that people were not okay with this view as I noticed some would disagree (as is normal), but some would go as so far to condemn it as heresy. It would even be so much of a charge that I was treated as a non-Christian and therefore people should not associate with me because I follow "a doctrine of demons."

    I would confide in my pastor to talk about these things and he gave me a wise piece of advice. He essentially told me that he disagreed with Calvinism because he would rather only learn from the Bible. We agreed with this as we were both affirmers of Sola Scriptura. He then talks about he will quote any commentary or Christian man regardless such as John Calvin, John Wesley, Matthew Henry (his favorite I think), John Gill and many others. He believed that several men could be wrong on things, but he didn't view John Calvin or Calvinism as something sinful or heretical. This showed me as well that among the Southern Baptists, there was this unity and diversity of the church. 1 Corinthians 12:12-31 helps teach this lesson that I eventually learned and then preached on back then.

"For just as the body is one and has many parts, and all the parts of that body, though many, are one body—so also is Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and we were all given one Spirit to drink. Indeed, the body is not one part but many. If the foot should say, “Because I’m not a hand, I don’t belong to the body,” it is not for that reason any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I’m not an eye, I don’t belong to the body,” it is not for that reason any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But as it is, God has arranged each one of the parts in the body just as he wanted. And if they were all the same part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” Or again, the head can’t say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” On the contrary, those parts of the body that are weaker are indispensable. And those parts of the body that we consider less honorable, we clothe these with greater honor, and our unrespectable parts are treated with greater respect, which our respectable parts do not need. Instead, God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the less honorable, so that there would be no division in the body, but that the members would have the same concern for each other. So if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and individual members of it. And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, next miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, leading, various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all do miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But desire the greater gifts. And I will show you an even better way."

    It was in this lesson that I eventually became aware of some divisions among the church despite the need for unity. I was still a Protestant who rejected Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but I was sympathetic of a desire to unify the church. It was harmful to see some willing to cut ways with me because I was a Calvinist, but it was even more harmful to see some of my fellow Calvinists willing to cut off fellowship with people who weren't Calvinists. It was a sad thing because rejecting Calvinism was not heresy and neither was affirming it heretical. But we saw people willing to excommunicate and declare others as non-Christians for mundane things. So it was in this that I even distanced myself from certain Calvinists who acted as if they remained the Cage Stage and just resorted to be separating themselves from other Christians in the body of Christ.

    It was also at this point I had started studying more and started to approach my ten year anniversary of becoming a born again Christian that I was struggling with understanding worship and doing so as a Protestant. I was also really struggling with praying as I used to only do so at night or rarely saying grace before my meals. I however soon started reading the early church fathers more in detail. I was already familiar with 1 Clement and the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, but I hadn't tried reading the others as I wasn't too familiar. I have read briefly some church history works, but it was time to enrich my knowledge on the early Christian church to understand how they worshipped. It was even moreso interesting when I encountered the Didache. I found some interesting patterns of worship and understanding that soon become more familiar to the Anglican tradition I had read up on.

    I soon eventually settled on finding a church in my town and discovered a church that was called the Episcopalian Church, a denomination of Anglicanism that would follow similar patterns with some slight differences. I came to love this church as I would learn of it's use of bishops, deacons and priests as well as it's affirmation of tradition. It was even more edifying and glorious when I attended the Eucharist services and soon learned that the services used more scripture than I ever read in a sermon in church. They would sing the psalms and canticles (songs of the bible), they would read the Old Testament and New Testament epistles, they would even read from the Gospel. This was all in one sitting before we even managed to get to the sermon which only last 15 minutes. It was about a whole hour which was mostly of scriptural readings and prayers before God. Especially in the taking of the Eucharist every Lord's Day (while there is also a Wednesday Eucharist as well at noon).

    I started then pondering upon this and figured out that I craved this church and talked with my uncle/pastor about departing ways with the church so that I would seek this, though let him know that there was nothing that I thought he did wrong. He agreed that this would be best for me if I felt that this is what the Spirit led me to. With that, I became an Episcopalian in The Episcopal Church. It was at that point that I enjoyed the worship, the fellowship and even my daily prayer found in the Book of Common Prayer (which I will eventually make a blog post on). I also realized that there was one thing that was a benefit to being a part of this church. The unity among diversity with the body of Christ. Though the phrase I came across was Via Media or "The Middle Way."

    To quote from the Episcopal Church Dictionary it is defined as such:

"It is from the philosophy of Aristotle. In his Nicomachean Ethics, he found the virtues such as justice and courage to be the middle way between the extremes of either side. “Courage” was thus the via media between foolhardiness and cowardice. The via media came into religious usage when Anglicans began to refer to the Church of England as a middle way between the extremes of Roman Catholicism and Puritanism. Under Queen Elizabeth I, the via media of the Elizabethan Settlement retained much of the traditional catholic practice but without submission to papal authority. Uniformity of worship was required, but considerable latitude was allowed for individual conscience. Richard Hooker was the great apologist for the Elizabethan Settlement against both Puritanism and Roman Catholicism. Via media is often misunderstood in a negative way to mean compromise or unwillingness to take a firm position. However, for Aristotle and those Anglicans who have used it, the term refers to the “golden mean” which is recognized as a more adequate expression of truth between the weaknesses of extreme positions."

    I became enriched with wanting to practice my faith and thus this would be one which settles it for me. If I soon forsake becoming a Calvinist, I wouldn't have to worry about which denomination I am in because the Episcopal Church accepts Calvinists and non-Calvinists. If I forsake Divine Simplicity, the Episcopal Church would still accept me. If I affirmed some small difference, they'd accept me as we still affirmed the essential creeds and the seven ecumenical councils. We also affirmed Sola Scriptura among other Protestant doctrines. It was in this that I found a way to belong to a church that I could be satisfied in with my thirst and hunger for Christianity while also maintaining the affirmation of the universal catholic church that is united yet diverse as opposed to divided. United by the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. Amen.

A Short Summary of Presuppositional Apologetics

     I wanted to try and make a post that didn't necessarily rely on the usage of citing many sources and would instead rely on my own words to type up the essay this time. So this is my short attempt to try and type up an essay to explain and briefly defend the usage of what has been called "Presuppositional Apologetics." To at least define it right now, Presuppositional Apologetics is the defense of the Christian Faith, by beginning with and reasoning with the Christian system of belief as the starting point. Meaning we don't begin neutral, but we reason and argue from the Triune God as our ultimate authority. We use the Bible as a defense for the existence of God and other subjects of debate with the non-Christian.

    When we come to the means of how it is done, we simply must put ourselves into this position: Imagine you are a Christian and you are walking around a park where people come to debate and go over several subjects. You encounter an atheist, Muslim and an Orthodox Jew. You see they each have objections towards your faith and they have varying objections based on their own particular worldview. While an atheist, for example, may try to ask you to prove that God exists, the Muslim might argue that you need to prove why your Bible should be reliable to them and answer why you do not affirm the Quran as being from God. You have to also consider where each person is coming from as well in order to deal with their objections.

    I will now consider some key elements in how one would engage in Presuppositional Apologetics. The first one is simple: Worldviews are fundamental when engaging in the debate of Presuppositional Apologetics. Whenever you engage with somebody, they each have their own worldview that frames how they operate and understand reality around them. There is Islam as its own worldview for example. But there also sub worldviews that operate within it such as the Sunni, Shia & Ahmadiyya worldview. The same can then be put to atheism as there is not just one "Atheist Worldview," but several. There is an atheistic form of Idealism, an atheistic dualism, nihilism, and even atheist worldviews which try to argue for objective moral values and objective dignity as opposed to the normal subjective case. It is important to deal with each worldview accordingly based on the individual you encounter. Sometimes this will mean even reading sources from the worldview's perspective such as the Quran for the Muslim or the Talmud for the Orthodox Jew.

    The second key element is to begin with affirming the Christian Worldview as true. You may call this the "presupposition" one affirms as this is your worldview and you begin with it to make sense of reality. This is both easy and yet difficult to do as there is still the need to vindicate or justify your worldview. Cornelius Van Til, the father of Presuppositional Apologetics, has once said that "the only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything." To sum it up, this means simply that God is the necessary starting point to understand proofs or evidences. In other words, it would begin that we could observe the same evidences or data to use as proof for our worldview compared to others. One can examine certain biological data to come to different conclusions about evolution being true or false. Same in the case of different religions. A Christian will read certain verses in the Old Testament as prophecy of Jesus while a Muslim will try to use it to read as proof for Muhammad in the Bible. John 16 is a great example of this case in the New Testament where Christians view the Great Comforter is the Holy Spirit while Muslims think this is Muhammad.

    The third key element is the point of contact, or the element of mutual agreement that can be found. This is mostly in the Christian's affirmation of Romans 1:18-20. The text reads as such: "For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what he has made. As a result, people are without excuse." (CSB). So when we read this, we see that everybody knows God exists to some degree, though suppress it. There is at least key elements of that mutual knowledge found in the unbeliever's understanding of reality, knowledge and ethics as well as various other issues. In other words, they have to borrow from the Christian Worldview implicitly in order to justify their own worldview. As verses 21-23 point out: "For though they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became worthless, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles." (CSB).

    The fourth key element is the use of transcendental reasoning/argumentation. There is a popular indirect argument for the existence of God by Van Til which argues that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary. This is a difficult element to formulate into the a syllogism or formal argument for sure, but some have tried. A friend of mine from a while back certainly tried and has formulated this particular argument that I use today. I will show it as a way to hopefully somewhat explain the argument in a laid out structure.

P1: If Intelligibility did not exist, we would not be able to argue that intelligibility does not exist

P2: Intelligibility exists

P3: Christianity exhaustively provides both the metaphysical and epistemological grounds for intelligibility

P4: Any deviation whatsoever from Christianity no longer exhaustively provides both the metaphysical and epistemological grounds for intelligibility

P5: If intelligibility exists, Christianity is true.

C: Christianity is true.

    Though not exactly a perfect argument in formulation, it at least helps captures the essence of the method of arguing from a Presuppositionalist perspective of arguing for Christianity. One can at least then grasp the essence of this argument and put it forth in other arguments such as the Moral Argument, Cosmological Argument, etc. to then put forth a more Christianized version of this arguments by arguing for them in a transcendental reasoning.

    The fifth key element is to demonstrate that there is inconsistencies with the worldview of the non-Christian. This can be difficult and requires one to ask questions or study the other non-Christian worldviews to understand their foundations. One may point out to inconsistencies or double standards but be careful of doing so to the point of being guilty of the Tu Quoque Fallacy. One can also point out where foundational beliefs may themselves be self-contradictory. Once you can demonstrate the fault in the other's worldviews while also sustaining your own, you manage to show that your worldview has proper foundations while the other one will crumble apart.

     Though not a key element, I would call it something required for all Christians in apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15-16 is the overall apologetics verse that says something many tend to overlook: "But in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you. Yet do this with gentleness and reverence, keeping a clear conscience, so that when you are accused, those who disparage your good conduct in Christ will be put to shame." (CSB).

    We are not to just simply defend the faith or tear apart the other non-Christian worldviews with some sort of rudeness, arrogance or snobbery. We are instead called to be gentle and respectful doing so with a clear conscience. This is done so that when you are accused, those who disparage your good conduct in Christ will be put to shame. So, when some worry about being made fun of or having their own person attacked by the individual, the opposition will be put to shame because of your gentle and respectful good conduct. It is in this element that helps seal the Presuppositional method to full completion.

The Tri-Perspectivalism of John M. Frame: A Fresh Trinitarian Perspective

     Epistemology is known as the study or theory of knowledge. Whenever we discuss matters of how we know things, the source of knowledge, our justification of the things we know, etc., then we are engaging in epistemological discussions. There are various forms of epistemology, but the main distinction I will be arguing for is the distinction between Christian epistemology & non-Christian epistemology. Specifically, I will be arguing for the “tri-perspective” model argued by John Frame in his works that talk about multiperspectivalism. While he has written extensively on this in various books, we will only be citing from two of his articles entitled “A Primer on Perspectivalism” (PP) & “Epistemological Perspectives and Evangelical Apologetics” (EPEA). The purpose will be to defend an epistemology that reflects a perfectly triune apologetic of the Christian Faith.

    So the question we must ask ourself is this: What is multiperspectivalism? What is tri-perspectivalism? John Frame, the Christian philosopher who helped shape & formulate the tri-perspective view I’m defending, explains perspectivalism as a concept that says “because we are not God, because we are finite, not infinite, we cannot know everything at a glance, and therefore our knowledge is limited to one perspective or another” (PP).

    So when we examine things from a certain perspective, that perspective helps shape how we view the world we observe. However, multiperspectivalism affirms multiple perspectives in observing a particular subject or topic. What exactly does this mean though to do such a thing? It essentially is about different plural perspectives being applied to a particular topic or subject of observation & conversation. This brings us to our topic on tri-perspectivalism.

    What if I told you that there was an epistemological view of “perspectives” that was rooted in Trinitarian Christian thought? That seems to be what I’ve gathered from the literature of John Frame, specifically in his Systematic Theology book where he uses it to help explain theological truths. The best way to describe, as Frame does so often, is use a triangle to illustrate the truths of this perspectival approach. The triangle itself is the topic or subject, then we are engaged with three perspectives. These are the normative perspective, the situational perspective, and the existential perspective.

    The normative perspective refers to the perspective regarding the norms of the topic. Hence “norm” in normative. The next perspective is the situational, which merely refers to the facts or history of the situation. Finally, we have the existential perspective that deals with human experience and subjectivity. This perspective doesn’t mean that it’s trying to argue for subjective standards or subjective truth, but realizes that we humans are finite and that we must observe what we can of the topic through our own experiences. More importantly, this perspective is most certainly exclusive to the believer as Frame says the existential perspective asks “what belief is most satisfying to a believing heart?” (PP).

    Thus we have these three perspectives combined to shape our view of a topic. Keep in mind that they aren’t exclusive either. As Frame notes, “Given the above view of knowledge, the answers to these three questions [perspectives] coincide. But it is sometimes useful to distinguish these questions so as to give us multiple angles of inquiry. Each question helps us to answer the others. The normative perspective, therefore, contains all reality, for all reality is God’s general revelation to us. Similarly, the situational contains all reality, our whole environment. And the existential perspective also contains everything, namely all of our experience. In an important sense, then, the normative perspective includes the situational and existential. To think according to God’s norms is to take every fact (situational) and every experience (existential) into account.

    It is also true that the situational perspective includes the normative (for norms are facts) and the existential (for experiences are facts). And the existential includes the normative and the situational, for the norms and facts are aspects of our experience” (PP). John Frame first formally established this in his book entitled “Doctrine of the Knowledge of God”. Since the publication of this work, he’s written several books where he would formulated the “triad” of a tri-perspectival view.

    The original formulation is helped to be seen in one of the first examples regarding the lordship of God. The three perspectives on the lordship of God are as follows: Authority (normative), Control (situational) & Presence (existential). So if we go with the definitions from earlier, the norm (standard) for the lordship of God is His authority over creation. The authority of YHWH is the standard for what establishes is his Lordship. The facts (situational) of this in history is that God is in complete sovereign control over His creation. The existential is seen in the fact that God’s presence is with the believers in the covenant he establishes with His chosen people and church. Furthermore, these perspectives interact with each other as God’s Authority is supported by the fact he is in control and that he establishes this authority in the presence of his covenant people. God is also in control because of the Authority he has and shows this control to his covenant people, whom his presence is with.

    Finally, God’s presence reveals the authority and control he has as Lord to his covenant people. This helps show a demonstration of Trinitarian thought that is grounded in trinitarianism. However, this doesn’t mean we can use it to help describe the trinity. "It is tempting, therefore, for us to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity by saying that the three persons are “perspectives” on the Godhead and on one another. But that would be misleading. “Perspective” does not exhaust the ways in which the three persons are distinct. To say that the three persons are merely perspectives on the Godhead would be a Sabellian position, the idea that the differences of the persons are merely differences in the way we look at the one God. Such an approach would reduce the Trinitarian distinctions to distinctions within our own subjectivity. That certainly is not right. It is correct to say that the three persons are really persons. They interact with one another in ways similar to the ways human beings interact with one another. They talk together, plan together, express love for one another. So their relation is far more than merely perspectival” (PP).

    But how does it reflect the trinity? In the same way we observe the perspectives is how we observe the trinity. “So we cannot know any of these adequately without knowing the others. Although the three are distinguishable, our knowledge of each is a perspective on the others and on the whole. To know the Spirit’s work, we must see it as an application of the Son’s work by the Father’s plan. Similarly with knowing the work of the Father and Son” (PP).

    This view can be applied to various topics from a Christian perspective and I’ll at least give an example here. In terms of abortion, we can at least formulate a decent argument against it. In fact, this was formulated in a conversation with somebody. The normative perspective would be God’s law which is the high standard. God’s law which states that murder is wrong. Then the situational perspective would be the facts of abortion being the humans robbing of innocent life from the womb (this would fit the Bible’s definition of murder). The existential perspective would be our knowledge & personal experience of death. This is the triperspectival look and response towards abortion. They would interact in this way: God’s Law is the norm as it teaches that the situation of human beings taking innocent life, like the baby’s, is wrong and that our sense of experience reveals this existentially. Likewise, the murder of innocent life is wrong due to God’s law and how our experience/knowledge of death reveals this fact to us. Finally, our experience and knowledge of death leads us to recognize God’s Law (Romans 2:14-15) and that because of this, we can see the fact that murder is wrong when it is done to innocent human life.

    So it’s with this system of thought that one can look at reality and make philosophical observations that not only root themselves in a strictly Christian form of thought, but that through this epistemological method, one can demonstrate the theology of the trinity in such a  way to show how even certain principles that aren’t material (even though some of them could be material if he example requires this) interact with each other in order to demonstrate their truth and consistency. From Frame we read the following: “In every act of knowledge, we simultaneously come to know God’s law, his world, and ourselves. These are not three separable “parts” of our experience, but three “aspects” of every experience, or (perhaps better) three “perspectives” on experience. Thus I speak of “normative,” “situational” and “existential” perspectives on experience.... The resulting epistemology is complex, but illuminating” (EPEA).

    So in the final analysis of this topic, let’s summarize this all up. In light of the idea of “multiperspectivalism”, we should adopt the consistent Trinitarian epistemology of tri-perspectivalism since this will help us brighten our understanding of God’s world and how it operates. It will grant us a biblical understanding of things that will help in our apologetic and witness of the faith to people who need to hear the truth. For indeed, we want to not defend a generic theism faith, but the explicit truths of the triune God and what he has called us to be in today’s day and age.

Christianity, Salvation & The Atonement

[Originally an Essay from April 2020's Defender Times]

    The doctrine of the atonement is something that I believe has been often overlooked when discussing the issue of the doctrine of salvation regarding Christianity. In fact, it is so important to Christianity and the doctrine of salvation that if this didn’t happen, then we wouldn’t be able to be able to go to Heaven. In 1 Corinthians 15:3, we read the following: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.” If indeed Christ died for our sins, why did this need to be the case? What does it mean for this act to be “in accordance with the Scriptures” as it reads in the text? We must analyze these points and ask questions to be able to understand the doctrine.

    To begin, we shall define what the word Atonement means. According to one dictionary, Atonement is defined as follows:

“Biblical doctrine that God has reconciled sinners to Himself through the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ. The concept of atonement spans both Testaments, everywhere pointing to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for the sins of the world” (Moore, Russell D. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Edited by Chad Brand et al., [Holman Reference, 2015], p. 144).

    So the doctrine is able to be found in both the Old and New Testament according to Russell Moore. This is important since it fits with that phrase we read earlier, “in accordance with the scriptures.” This phrase means that the doctrine of Christ dying on the cross was something we could find in the Old Testament. But why would this matter? Is it merely just a prophecy or is it relating to something important about a future event to come? Old Testament passages that speak on atonement are numerous in the fact that they merely reference atoning through sacrificing animals (Exodus 29:36, 30:12-16; Leviticus 1:4, 4:20, 22-35, 5:6-10, 6:7, 9:7, 10:17, etc.). Now I could’ve attempted to add more, but I don’t want to fully add too much to the essay regarding the evidence. However, the only important note I will add is an incident predating Moses and the Mosaic Law.

    In Genesis 22, we read of the story that some bible translations will dub as “The Sacrifice of Isaac.” This account begins with God commanding Abraham to “take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you” in verse 2. In the next verse, we read of Abraham waking up with his son to “cut the wood for the burnt offering and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.” After they traveled to the spot, they would place the wood where it needed to be. However, Isaac then says in verse 7, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” So what does Abraham do? Verse 8 is where Abraham says “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” While Abraham would lay Isaac on the altar to sacrifice him in order to obey God, the Lord stops Abraham before he could do it and says “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” Then verse 13 reads that there was a ram given to sacrifice instead.

    John Gill comments on this by stating that the ram “was a type of our Lord Jesus, who was foreordained of God before the foundation of the world, and came into the world in an uncommon way, being born of a virgin, and that in the fulness of time, and seasonably, and in due time died for the sins of men. The ram has its name from "strength", in the Hebrew language, and was an emblem of a great personage, Da 8:3; and may denote the strength and dignity of Christ as a divine Person; being caught in a thicket, may be an emblem of the decrees of God, in which he was appointed to be the Saviour...” (John Gill’s Expository Commentary, Genesis 22:13).

    So while we have a good picture in the Old Testament about what the concept of the atonement is, we need to go further and look deeper into the New Testament to see how this is then applied. The Princeton seminary theologian, B. B. Warfield, once said that regarding the atonement of Christ that when “we look to the Levitical system or to the conceptions current at the time when the New Testament was written as determining the sense of the writers of the New Testament when they spoke of Christ as a sacrifice, the most natural meaning that can be attached to the term on their lips is that of an expiatory offering propitiating God's favor and reconciling Him to guilty man” (The Princeton Theological Review, v. xv, 1917, pp. 385-422).

    This is why the next set of research will dive into New Testament texts to discover the truth and importance. If you have heard street preachers or sermons quote from Romans, then you have heard “for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” from Romans 3:23. Then you hear a follow up sometimes that reads from Romans 6:23 where it says “the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” So why is it possible for Jesus to be who we can receive the gift of eternal life through? I mean this is repeated in John 3:16 when it says “for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” We see this New Testament language of salvation through the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Why though?

    The Gospels reveal how Jesus was seen to be as the atoning sacrifice. John 1:29 shows John The Baptist  saying “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” So Jesus so far is described as the “Lamb of God” and somebody who takes “away the sin of the world.” These two phrases are very strong terms. Referring to the Lamb of God, John Gill comments saying that the phrase means “with respect to the lambs that were offered in sacrifice, under the legal dispensation; and that either to the passover lamb, or rather to the lambs of the daily sacrifice, that were offered morning and evening.” How does he “taketh away the sin of the world” you may possibly ask? While John’s Gospel does not contain it, you can find in all three gospel accounts (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24 and Luke 22:20) that at the Last Supper, he shows a cup filled with red wine and says “this is my blood of the new testament [new covenant]” (brackets are mine).

    Jesus clearly makes reference to his blood which Matthew has the phrase “which is shed for many for the remission of sins” that follows afterwards. Mark’s gospel says “which is shed for many” instead of what Matthew says and Luke says “which is shed for you” in his Gospel.

    So far we see that the gospels give us an interesting depiction of Jesus viewing himself as the atonining sacrifice for sins in light of the Old Testament understanding. Commenting on the gospels usage, Richard L. Mayhue says the following:

    “While the OT revealed the shadow, the Gospels unveil the substance of penal substitution in Christ’s atonement. Three specifically clear texts teach this truth. First, Christ’s words from the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken Me?” (Matt 27:46; cf. Ps 22:1). Second, in the Upper Room Christ taught that the bread symbolically pictured “My body which is given for you” (Luke 22:19). And third, Jesus also taught that the grape juice symbolically represented “My blood of the covenant...shed on behalf of many” (Mark 14:24). None of these three statements by Christ make any sense outside of the context of penal substitution’” (Mayhue, R. L. (2009). The Scriptural Necessity of Christ's Penal Substitution. The Master’s Seminary Journal, 20(2), p. 144).

    Then we must ask ourselves about the post crucifixion events and whether or not Jesus’ death on the cross was viewed as the atoning sacrifice. Russell Moore comments by saying “The apostles and NT writers spoke of Jesus’ atonement as absorbing the wrath of God due to sinners. They described Jesus’ death a propitiation that turns aside the wrath of God (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 4:7). The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians that Jesus was counted as a sinner in order that sinners might be counted as righteous in Him (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus bore the curse of the law in order to bring the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant to the Gentiles (Gal. 3:10-14). Peter similarly spoke of Jesus bearing sins “in His body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24 HCSB)” (Moore, Russell D. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Edited by Chad Brand et al., [Holman Reference, 2015], p. 145).

    Jesus’ crucifixion was not just a mere event of a mere man’s death, but instead it was the act of something to come. From what we know of Jesus’ crucifixion and his own words at the Last Supper, we then read the messianic prophecy which reads “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth” (Isaiah 53:4-7 KJV). Jesus certainly constitutes a fulfillment of this prophecy of people having their sins “wounded” or “bruised” for. 

    So we have gone over several, though I admit it’s not exhaustive, reasons for the affirmation of the atonement of Christ being talked about in the scriptures. But now we come to what I said earlier about how “it is so important to Christianity and the doctrine of salvation that if this didn’t happen, then we wouldn’t be able to be able to go to Heaven.” Why is it that important? Remember the bible said we are all sinners who sinned and thus deserve the wrath of God in the form of “death” (Romans 3:23 & 6:23). But because we cannot pay off our sin debt or cleanse ourselves of our own sins with good works since “we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags”, then we need something besides ourselves to redeem us. This is done through the work of Christ to pay off the sin debt as Paul says in Colossians 2:13-14 when it reads “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

    So in conclusion, this is important when it comes to the gospel since we need to know the bad news. The bad news is that we are sinners who deserves God’s wrath. The good news is that Jesus Christ died on the cross to atone for sinners like you and me. You need to repent and believe in order that you be saved. While the price has been paid for, the bible commands things like “except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3) and “if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Romans 10:9). So I suggest that anybody who is reading this and considering Christianity to do just that and recognize the importance of your position before God if you are in unbelief.

    However, to the Christian reader I write the following: Recognize and understand the importance of this doctrine. It is by knowing the atonement of Christ that we can know how it is that humanity is able to be redeemed in the first place. It is by the atonement that a sinner who has broken God’s law is able to be reconciled and viewed as righteous before a holy and just God. This is the truth that scripture testifies to and in that truth is where I stand as the foundation of my belief in Jesus Christ as not just my Lord, but also my savior. Amen.

The Blog & Future Plans

     I have been planning on doing blog articles for quite some time and trying to make an  attempt to do written/online content as opposed to my usual YouTube content due to a loss of time and dedication to make content. I have decided to give blogging on here a shot to lay out my thoughts and present interactions with certain arguments, cases, and writings. I am not a fully detailed writer with tons of formulations of certain words, so I apologize if my use of the English language is not as fluent as my counterparts on here.

    Hopefully, I am able to at least present some coherent forms of thought and enjoy myself as that is my only main concern as well as trying to type up these things without my current arm pain getting in the way. My hope is to use this blog to glorify God and to give him praise through my posts as an apologist and writer for the Christian Faith. Until then, stay tuned as the blog is a work in progress.