Jon Webb

Anonymous asked: Why has Satan chosen evil? How can anyone chose evil having experienced God's presence?

While the Bible tells us a lot about Satan’s attributes and behavior, it does not reveal in detail the specifics of his rebellion. You pose an interesting question. Wouldn’t the fear and awe inspired by the presence of God Himself prevent any thought of rebellion from entering the mind?

The Bible does not go into great detail about Satan’s rebellion. We do know, however a few key facts about Satan and his angels. First of all, we know that Satan is a created being. Colossians 1:16 tells us that by Jesus Christ “all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him.” This obviously includes angelic beings such as Satan. Also, Satan must be a creation because he can not be eternal. God alone is eternal, and for Satan to share in this eternality would introduce a duality to Christianity that is incompatible with the Bible.

We also know that Satan, must have rebelled against God at some point between his creation and his tempting of Adam and Eve in the Garden. Since God declared all things He had created “very good,” Satan, a created thing, must have also been “very good” at this point.

There is much debate on passages in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 that are traditionally understood as referring to the fall of Satan. While these passages prophesy the downfall of earthly kings, many believe that there they may also refer to Satan’s rebellion. It is not unusual for prophetic passages to refer to two events, separated by a great length of time. This is true of many passages that refer both to King David and to Jesus Christ.

If these passages do refer to Satan, we learn a bit more about his character and history. Firstly, we learn that Satan was an unparalleled creation: incredibly wise, and highly privileged. Donald Barnhouse imagined the Satan’s position in heaven like this:

He awoke in the first moment of his existence in the full-orbed beauty and power of his exalted position; surrounded by all the magnificence which God gave him. He saw himself as above all the hosts in power, wisdom, and beauty. Only at the throne of God itself did he see more than he himself possessed, and it is possible that even that was in some sense not fully visible to the eyes of the creature.… Before his fall he may be said to have occupied the role of prime minister for God, ruling possibly over the universe but certainly over this world” 

Secondly we learn the nature of his fall. According to Ezekiel 28:15-17, “sin was discovered” in Satan. He became proud because of his high position and beauty. In his incredibly foolish ambition, he wished to displace God Himself, claiming that he would “make himself like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:12-17). As a result he was cast out of heaven.

The covers what we know of the history of Satan’s rebellion. It does not, however, answer your question. Why did such a privileged being, so intimately acquainted with the glory of God, ever choose to rebel against him?

I have only one thought. God’s majesty probably motivated Satan’s sin in the first place. He was jealous of God, jealous of his position, his perfection, and his glory. He lusted after it. He sinned, in the presence of a perfectly holy God. Do I understand it? No. I can say this: God knew that Satan was going to rebel. He knew that Satan was going to tempt mankind. He knew that mankind would rebel just like Satan did. But before He ever created Satan He had a plan, one in which Satan played an important role.

Satan’s rebellion against God truly is foolish, isn’t it? He can’t win. There is no possible outcome where Satan wins. This was as true before Satan was ever created as it is now. And yet he still persists in his rebellion, and he always will.

The Evangelical/Fundamentalist Cold War (Long but worth it, I hope.)

Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism are two movements within Protestant Christianity in North America. They are similar in many ways, including their disapproval of modernism and liberal theology and their emphasis on orthodox Christian doctrines. Fundamentalism began as a movement within evangelicalism itself. Despite this, by the 1940’s fundamentalists and evangelicals were cutting ties. While there is overlap, the gap between the groups has widened significantly. There are many reasons for this split. But at the heart was the doctrine of “ecclesiastical separation”.

Evangelicalism is a movement within Protestant Christianity that began during the late 1600’s among the Methodists and Lutherans in Scandinavia and Germany. Evangelicalism discourages ritualism, instead emphasizing personal holiness and evangelism. Evangelicalism denies the office of a priest as practiced in the Catholic Church. Instead evangelicals adhere to the “priesthood of the believer,” which makes every Christian accountable not to a priest, but directly to God. Evangelicalism is not a denomination, but contains many denominational and non-denominational churches.

Evangelicals place high value on the inerrancy of Scripture and the doctrines of Christian orthodoxy. Like fundamentalists, evangelicals believe in separation from the world. Unlike fundamentalists, they tend not to separate from other orthodox Christian movements and denominations.

Evangelicalism came into its own in the 20th century, overtaking Roman Catholicism and mainline Protestant denominations in the United States. As of 2004, 28.8 percent of Americans describe themselves as evangelicals, while 22 percent are Roman Catholic and 13.9 percent are members of other Protestant denominations. About 10 percent of Americans attend an evangelical church service on any given Sunday.

The fundamentalist movement was a movement within evangelicalism early in the 20th century. In 1909, Lyman Stewart, a wealthy oilman, decided that the basic truths of Christianity needed to be defended against the onslaught of modernism and liberal theology. The result was a series of books titled The Fundamentals, from which fundamentalism gets its name. Sixty-four authors contributed to the series, which emphasized five basic doctrines of the Christian faith: the sinful nature of man, his inability to be saved apart from God’s grace, the centrality of Jesus’ death for the regeneration of the individual, and the authoritative revelation of the Bible. If a fundamentalist is one who affirms these five basic doctrines, then all evangelicals are fundamentalists. Indeed, at first this was true. But soon fundamentalism diverged from these teachings, and the fallout was tremendous.

Fundamentalism came to be characterized by its spirit of confrontation. As Jerry Falwell, perhaps the most influential of all the evangelical fundamentalists, put it, “A Fundamentalist is an Evangelical who is angry about something.” Soon evangelicals began distancing themselves from the fundamentalist movement. At the same time fundamentalists began to separate from the evangelicals. There were 3 main points of contention, with the last being the most significant:

(You’re a fifth of the way done! Continue reading after the break.)

Read More

Trinitarian Universalism

While I haven’t posted much recently, I have been reading everything in my stream, and there’s one thing that has caught my attention: the amount of universalism I am seeing. I am going to summarize Christian Universalism, then at the end I will give my opinion. Remember, it’s just that, an opinion. I’m not trying to judge anyone or make anyone feel guilty.

Universalism began to take root in America in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. One important founder of Universalist thought in the United States was George de Benneville. He translated the first German Bible in America. What made his version unique was that all verses supporting universalist doctrines were bolded so that they would stand out!

Trinitarian or evangelical universalism is the type I will discuss. Unlike other forms of universalism, trinitarian universalism holds to Jesus Christ being the Savior of mankind. They are conservative and reformed in most of their beliefs, except in their understanding of hell. Instead of eternal punishment, trinitarian universalists believe in eventual universal reconciliation with God. According to trinitarian universalists, all mankind will be glorified and reunited with God at the end of time.

Now, I realize that there is an incredible amount of variation within the evangelical/trinitarian universalist camp. I would say that there is greater difference of opinion within trinitarian universalism than there is within conservative reformed/fundamental theology, with their five hundred year old (but still unresolved) debates concerning election, limited atonement, millennialism, and covenant versus dispensational theology. I am not intending to misrepresent universalism. I am intending to summarize some of their core beliefs, beliefs that are common to most universalists.

At the core of trinitarian universalism are beliefs that conservative Christians find familiar and fundamental.

• They believe that God is a trinity.
• They believe that God is love. They also believe that His holiness is an aspect of His love, one could call it “holylovingkindness”. This comes into play a little later.
• They believe that mankind is reconciled through Christ.

Well, that wasn’t so bad! These are all doctrines that conservative Christians affirm and rejoice in! But hang on, we aren’t through yet. Many beliefs of universalists contradict highly valued teachings of conservative Christians. Many Christians react violently when these doctrines are denied. So take a deep breath as we venture deeper into the mind of a universalist.

• Universal atonement of sins.

This statement elicits two distinct reactions from Christians at first glance. Calvinists balk, because it contradicts their belief in limited atonement, that Christ died for the sins of only the elect. Those who believe in free will smile, because they believe Christ died to give all the opportunity to be reconciled to Him.

But that’s not the universalist’s idea of universal atonement. Take the universal nature of the non-calvinist’s atonement, and splice it onto the Calvinist’s election. The result: an atonement that is, well, really universal. As in, you can’t escape from it. All mankind is atoned, all mankind is forgiven, and all mankind is saved. A truly lovingkind God cannot allow His creation to be separated from Him.

Read More

framesandflames asked: so, according to your last post, to be a good christian, you must be consistent with god's view, right? the entire bible? every word? how about Exodus 35:2 ? "2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death." I Imagine that you sir, may have done some form of work on a Sunday. I don't see how it's okay to pick and choose Bible verses you agree with and ignore the barbarism in some.

The Jews were commanded to rest and worship the Lord on the Sabbath, which is Saturday (Ezekiel 18:4; Rom. 6:23; Deut. 13:1-9; Num. 35:31; Lev. 20:2). Today most Christians worship on Sunday. They also generally do some kind of physical work on both Saturday and Sunday.

The Ten Commandments were direct commands to the people of the nation of Israel. So why do Christians today, when they are not under the Law of Moses (Rom 6:14), follow them? It turns out that nine of the ten commandments are reinstated in the New Testament (Matt 19:18, Rom 13:9). Guess which one isn’t? That’s right. Not working on the Sabbath.

Mark 2:27 says,

“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”

In other words, the Sabbath was made to give man rest. It was not made just for man to observe it. But the Sabbath is fulfilled in Jesus. He is our rest (Matt 11:28)!

A verse in closing,

“Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.” - Colossians 2:16-17

Don’t assume that just because New Testament Christians don’t follow the exact requirements of the Old Testament Law, they’re “picking and choosing” the verses they agree in. As Gentiles, we are not under the Old Covenant, which was delivered to Israel. This is taught plainly in the Bible itself.

Thanks for your question!

Calvinist or Arminian?

This question came up in one of the many friendly debates we have in class. Someone wrote a paper on Thomas Aquinas and his Five Proofs for the existence of God. The word free will was mentioned. There were Calvinists in the room. There were non-Calvinists in the room.

Instantly the class was attentive. Latching onto every word, each student’s mind was a frantic beehive of primitive arguments. We were preparing for the fight we knew was coming. It was coming because free will had been mentioned.

As soon as Andrew finished with his presentation, the class exploded into a flurry of counter-statements.

“But where is free will if God is in control of everything?”

“Free will does not exclude God’s sovereignty,” I interposed.

“So you’re saying….ok I see, do you think that we can just get saved by ourselves whenever we want to? Where in the Bible is salvation our act, not God’s?”

“I never said that salvation was our act. God commands us to come to Him. We do, and He saves us. Him, not us.”

“But how can totally depraved people choose to come to God?”

“See,” I said. “This is where we’ll disagree. I define total depravity as being totally corrupted. You define total depravity as being completely dead and unable to respond to stimulus. God commands us to come to Him over and over. I don’t think He’s telling us to do something impossible.”

“But in Ephesians 2, Paul says that we are DEAD in sin.”

The debate went on, as debates tend to do. The outcome of the argument, the splitting of theological hairs, or being right are not important. We can become so right that we become wrong again. I value the Bible. We can philosophize all we want but if our conclusions don’t line up with Scripture, we’re wrong. 

That’s why I don’t call myself a Calvinist or an Arminian. First, because I don’t agree with everything they teach, and second, I don’t want my theology to be named after or defined by a person. Unless that Person is the Word of God, Christ.

I believe in election and sovereignty. I believe in free will. That’s because I believe in the Bible. God says that His ways are so much higher than ours that we can’t even begin to comprehend them. Why do we even try? Why not just accept what he says and worship in awe?

He tells us that He elects us. He tells us to come. I look at it as two points converging. God’s election and our free will and choices always converge on the exact same point, and that point is God’s will.

So, Calvinists, I believe many of the things you believe. Arminians, I believe a few things you believe in. But a true theology, or understanding of God, comes from God, not from man.

Do you have a pressing question? Ask me anything.

realistamagica asked: Is the belief in the power of Jesus' resurrection sufficient for salvation? For example, do you think it's possible to believe that Jesus died to save mankind from eternal separation from God, yet support something that the Bible claims is a sin (e.g., homosexuality)?

To be saved we know several things must happen. A repentant sinner believes in Christ and his death, burial, and resurrection, and personally relies on Christ alone for salvation. The sinner also calls out to Christ for salvation, and Christ answers him. He is regenerated, the Holy Spirit comes to live in him, and he is now a Christian. He has salvation.

Ok. Simple enough. But does having salvation (present tense) guarantee that you will always have salvation (future tense)?

The doctrine called Perseverance of the Saints is a fancy term that really means “once saved, always saved”. In other words, if you are in Christ at any point in time, you will always be in Christ.

“I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” - John 10:28

Once a believer is in Christ, nothing can remove him. No amount of failure, apostasy, or sin can separate the elect from Christ’s salvation.

The question though, is: Was the professing believer ever in Christ? True salvation is marked by a change in lifestyle. A truly altered believer with the Holy Spirit indwelling will begin to show good fruit. If the “believer” is rejecting Biblical truth and embracing worldly doctrine, was the “believer” ever saved?

This is for God to decide and know, not us. We can’t know if someone is truly saved, or merely a carnal Christian, or unsaved. This doesn’t mean we should regard others with doubt, or question our own salvation constantly! All Christians fail at times. Even Peter denied Christ three times, rejecting any association with Him. Instead of reacting to this doctrine with doubt and fear, we should rejoice in God’s plan to bring His own to Him! Thanks for you question!

Have a question for Jon Webb? Ask him anything.

Anonymous asked: What do you think about William Lane Craig's idea(not sure if his idea or someone else's) of middle knowledge? Do you think it's biblical or true? Thoughts in general on it?

Actually, the idea of middle knowledge is attributed to Luis de Molina, a 16th century Jesuit theologian, but William Lane Craig popularized it. It is an attempt to reconcile the seemingly contradictory doctrines of free will and divine providence. (I’ll deal with it simply for the sake of space, but a Google search will provide further reading.)

Middle knowledge deals with what could have happened. More specifically, it deals with God’s knowledge of what could have happened. For instance, if you made a decision to move to another part of the country, God knows exactly what your life would have been like if you hadn’t chosen to move. This means that not only does God know what is going on at any point in the past, present, and future, but He also knows what could be going on at any point in time if a creature with a free will had made a different decision than they actually had. This extends God’s knowledge from the actual past, present, and future to any number of possible pasts, presents, and futures, all with different choices and consequences.

A popular text to support this is Matthew 11:23, where Jesus says,

And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Christ is stating what the Sodomites would have chosen if they had lived in Jesus’ day. This is a counterfactual statement, or a logically true statement that doesn’t deal with true (existing) thing or event.

So does God have middle knowledge? Let’s look at the implications.

First of all, if God creates a world, middle knowledge states that He foreknows every choice that every being will make…even though He does not directly influence their decisions (unless you count the creation of a world he knew would result in those decisions as direct influence). In the case of salvation then, every person would choose whether to accept God’s free gift, but God would already know the choice the person would make. So God retains His providence (after all, He created the world that resulted in the person making the decision) and the person retains his free will (he freely chose what to do without God’s forcing him to choose). This is not determinism. There are an infinite number of possible worlds, because of the infinite number of possible choices. God, according to middle knowledge, does not decide what choices will be made. But He does know what they are beforehand.

So as for your question, what do I think about Molinism (that’s what theologians that believe in middle knowledge call themselves)? I have to answer, I don’t know. I don’t know enough about it to decide! It is definitely intriguing. It certainly seems possible, even probable. But the Bible fails to define God’s omniscience this specifically. So while I assume that God knows everything, including every possible thing, I wouldn’t want to use this assumption to try to work out the problem of free will vs devine election. Layering arguments on assumptions bothers me.

Thanks for the great question, you definitely have me more interested in middle knowledge and Molinism!

Have a question for Jon Webb? Ask him anything.

Anonymous asked: One concept I can't grasp is that we all supposedly have a choice to follow God or not, and if not, you go to hell for denying him. But as much as I would like to believe that there is God that loves me, a purpose for my life and an afterlife where I will live for eternity with all of my loved ones, I can't bring myself to believe it. I didn't wake up one morning and decide to be atheist, it's just the way I think. It sounds like the whole concept is flawed, that I would go to hell by default.

Is God unjust for sending people to hell?

In Christian philosophy, He is not. The idea of a just God who has no choice but to punish sin is not hard to understand in itself, but it is difficult to accept.

If there is a just God, a ruler of the universe, He cannot let those who break His law get away scot-free. To do so would cause God to stop being God, because He would no longer be perfectly just. God is also merciful, so while he cannot deny His own nature and accept sinners into His presence, He did find a way to allow a creation in rebellion to be reconciled with Him.

Selfish? Perhaps to the human mind. But realize this: Jesus was God Himself. God did not send an angel or a man to appease His righteous wrath. He sent Himself. God Himself died. He died for you. He died because He wants you to be reunited with Him. He took the punishment. He paid the price.

So yes, man by default is on the way to Hell. Blame this on whomever you want, but do not blame it on God. Mankind as a whole is in rebellion against Him, and you as an individual are as well. God has gone to great lengths to save you. You are to blame, not God. It is you that are flawed, mankind that is flawed, not God’s righteousness.

Hard to accept, yes, because it requires us to confess that we are wrong and accept a gift we don’t want to admit we need.

Humbling yourself to that point is something God will have to do in your life.