----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute.
----------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research
Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may
be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware,"
without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain
the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian
Research Institute"). This data file may not be used without the
permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the
enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its
content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to
exceed more than 500 words.
If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file
for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale,
please give the following source credit: Copyright 1994 by the
Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92693.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Questions and Answers" (from the Bible Answer Man column of the
Christian Research Newsletter, Volume 5: Numbers 1-5, 1994) by
Ken Samples, Ron Rhodes, Marian Bodine and Elliot Miller.
The editor of the Christian Research Newsletter is Ron
Rhodes.
-------------
Volume 5, Issue 1
_This column is based on questions and answers excerpted from
the "Bible Answer Man," CRI's live call-in radio broadcast. In
this issue of the Newsletter, Ken Samples answers the question:
What is meant by the phrase, "sola scriptura"?_
Considered the watchword of the Protestant Reformation, the
Latin phrase _sola scriptura_ literally means "Scripture alone."
Embattled with the Medieval Roman Catholic church over what
constituted the church's final doctrinal authority, the
Protestant Reformers set forth the theological principle that
_Holy Scripture alone_ is the supreme and infallible authority
for the church. In other words, Scripture is the "final court of
appeal" in matters of faith and doctrine. This is in contrast to
the Catholic view that Scripture and Tradition are coequal norms.
This debate over religious authority was really the underlying
issue that separated Protestants from Catholics in the sixteenth
century.
Affirming Scripture as the final authority implies several
additional principles. First, Scripture can be our primary norm
of doctrine because it is a direct revelation from God (2 Tim.
3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20). To quote the great Reformed scholar Benjamin
B. Warfield, "When Scripture speaks -- God speaks."
Second, _sola scriptura_ implies that Scripture is completely
sufficient and that all other norms (for example, tradition,
creeds, and human reason) are to be subordinate to the Bible.
Third, Scripture can be held as the church's final authority
because its basic message is clear and understandable. Medieval
Catholicism, by contrast, considered the Bible an obscure book.
Related to this, the Reformers formulated an interpretative
principle known as "Scripture interprets Scripture" -- that is,
they understood the Bible to be _self-interpreting._ In summary,
then, _sola scriptura_ implies the inspiration, authority,
sufficiency, and essential clarity of God's Word -- the Bible.
Having established what the Reformers meant by _sola
scriptura,_ let me add a few words regarding what they did not
mean. _Sola scriptura_ does not imply a denial or rejection of
Christian tradition altogether. The Reformers saw tradition as a
useful guide in theology, but always subordinate to the supreme
norm of Scripture. A good example of this is seen in how the
Reformers accepted the trinitarian and christological statements
expressed in the creeds of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon
as expressing biblical truth. Christian tradition, therefore,
plays an important _secondary_ role in the authority of the
church.
For further information on this topic, please consult the
_Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms_ (Baker) by
Richard Muller, s.v. "Sola Scriptura"; "'Sola Scriptura' in
History and Today," by J. I. Packer, in _God's Inerrant Word_
(Bethany), edited by John Warwick Montgomery; and _Foundations of
Evangelical Theology_ (Baker) by John Jefferson Davis.
Volume 5, Issue 2
_This column is based on questions and answers excerpted from
the "Bible Answer Man," CRI's live call-in radio broadcast. In this
issue of the *Newsletter,* Ron Rhodes answers the question: Is the
Unity School of Christianity really Christian, or is it a cult?_
The Unity School of Christianity (hereafter _Unity_) may have
a Christian sounding name, but it is definitely not Christian.
Unity, an outgrowth of Phineas P. Quimby's metaphysical New Thought
movement, was founded in 1891 by Charles and Myrtle Fillmore. Other
cultic groups that emerged from Quimby's philosophy include the
United Church of Religious Science, founded by "Dr." Earnest
Holmes, and Christian Science, founded by Mary Baker Eddy.
Charles Fillmore explained the significance of the name Unity
this way: "We have borrowed the best from all religions; that is
the reason we are called Unity....Unity is the truth that is taught
in all religions, simplified and systematized so that anyone can
understand and apply it" (cited by James Dillet Freeman, _The Story
of Unity_ [Unity Village, MO: Unity Books, 1978], p. 60).
This eclectic mind-set is reflected in Unity's view of the
Bible. Unity proponents believe that the Bible is the greatest and
most spiritual of all the scriptures. But they also hold that other
"holy books" -- such as the Zoroastrian _Zend-Avesta,_ the Hindu
_Upanishads,_ and the Muslim _Quran_ -- contain expressions of
spiritual truth.
Charles Fillmore's concept of God is clearly unbiblical. For
example, he said that "each rock, tree, animal, everything visible,
is a manifestation of the one spirit -- God -- differing only in
degree of manifestation...." (cited by H. Emilie Cady, _Lessons in
Truth_ [Lees Summit, MO: Unity School of Christianity, 1962], pp.
8-9). Fillmore mainly perceived God as being impersonal.
Unity is distinguished from mainstream New Thought groups by
its doctrine of reincarnation. Unity advocates believe that
reincarnation is a merciful provision of the Father to enable human
beings to attain immortality. In other words, they believe that
reincarnation is God's means of restoring humankind to a deathless
state.
Regarding salvation, Unity proponents believe one is saved by
attaining "at-one-ment" with God -- a reuniting of human
consciousness with God-consciousness. Jesus allegedly attained this
at-one-ment with the Divine Mind; indeed, they say, all humanity
can.
In view of the above factors, it is clear that the Unity School
of Christianity is not a Christian group at all but is rather a
metaphysical cult.
Volume 5, Issue 3
_This column is based on questions and answers excerpted from
the "Bible Answer Man," CRI's live call-in radio broadcast. In this
issue of the *Newsletter,* Marian Bodine answers the question: Is
there any justification for the Jehovah's Witnesses" insertion of
the name "Jehovah" throughout their version of the New Testament?_
Jehovah's Witnesses are told through Watchtower publications
that God's true name is "Jehovah." They are taught that this name
was removed from the Bible by superstitious Jewish scribes, but
that the Watchtower's _New World Translation of the Holy
Scriptures_ has "faithfully" restored it in the Old Testament where
the Hebrew consonants "YHWH" appear. As well, the Watchtower's New
World Bible Translation Committee has inserted the name "Jehovah"
in the New Testament, at its _own_ discretion, in places where the
text is thought to refer exclusively to the Father.
However, there is _no manuscript authority whatsoever_ for
using the name "Jehovah" in the New Testament. This is just another
attempt on the part of the Jehovah's Witnesses to cloud the truth
-- that is, that the name the New Testament consistently uplifts is
Jesus, not Jehovah. To help the interested Jehovah's Witness
understand this, ask the following questions and look up the
accompanying Bible verses:
* In whose name should we meet together (Matt. 18:20~
* Demons are subject to whose name (Luke 10:17; Acts
16:18; 17:18)?
* Repentance and forgiveness should be preached in whose
name (Luke 24:47)?
* In whose name are you to believe and receive the
forgiveness of sins (John 1:12; 3:16; Acts 10:43; 1 John
3:23; 5:13)?
* By whose name, and _no other,_ do we obtain salvation
(Acts 4:12)?
* Whose name should be invoked as we bring our petitions
to God in prayer (John 14:13, 14; 15:16; 16:23, 24)?
* In whose name is the Holy Spirit sent (John 14:26)?
* Whose name and authority was invoked by the disciples
in healing the sick and lame (Acts 3:16; 4:7-10, 30)?
* Whose name did Paul tell us to call upon (1 Cor. 1:2)?
* Whose name is above every name (Eph. 1:21; Phil. 2:9)?
The above Scripture references are by no means exhaustive, but
they are sufficient to demonstrate to the Jehovah's Witness the
name by which true believers should be identified.
Volume 5, Issue 4
_This column is based on questions and answers excerpted from
the "Bible Answer Man," CRI's live call-in radio broadcast. In this
issue of the *Newsletter,* Elliot Miller answers the question: Is
it possible for human beings to have encounters with beings from
other planets?_
Although it is hypothetically possible, there are scientific,
theological, empirical, and biblical reasons for considering
contact with beings from other planets quite improbable.
_Scientifically,_ it is highly unlikely that alien beings, even if
they existed, could traverse the vast amount of space that
separates earth from the nearest potentially inhabitable planet.
_Theologically,_ it is hard for me to see the plausibility of
intelligent life on other planets. It is often argued, "Why would
God make the universe so vast and only populate one tiny planet in
it?" Scripture gives us a reason: "The heavens declare the glory of
God" (Ps. 19:1). The vastness of the universe helps us to realize
the infinity of God, who must be greater than His creation. But in
His creative purposes God is more concerned with _quality_ than
_quantity:_ His chief end in all of creation is living beings
created in His image who freely choose to worship and obey Him.
Therefore, the drama of intelligent beings choosing between
good and evil need not be reenacted on many planets for Him to
obtain the end He desires. If you hold that it was, then you have
certain theological problems to address.
Let's say, for instance, that these other alien races also fell
into sin. Would the Son of God need to incarnate and be sacrificed
a multiplicity of times? Considering that God can get what He wants
strictly from one race and planet, this seems like needless
suffering.
Let's say that these other races _did not_ fall. Then you have
to answer how unfallen beings could share the same universe with
fallen ones. In his popular space trilogy, C. S. Lewis suggested a
quarantined earth. As intriguing as this idea is for space fantasy,
in my view it is not theologically satisfying. The effects of
Adam's sin seem to pervade the entire universe (Rom. 8:19-22). (I
believe the second law of thermodynamics -- that all things tend
toward disorganization and death -- is the scientific description
of the curse God pronounced on creation in Genesis 3:14-19.) It
does not seem likely that God would allow the effects of sin to
impact a world of _unfallen_ creatures (e.g., Rev. 21:4).
_Empirically,_ in all my exposure to "strange encounters," I
have never heard of alien beings who espoused a _biblical_
theology. Typically, they present themselves as more "highly
evolved" entities who either malignantly want to exploit the earth
and earthlings or "benevolently" want to teach them about how to
prepare for the coming New Age. Evolution, denial of literal
biblical truth, pantheism (God and the universe are one), and
salvation through self-deification are typical components of their
message.
Furthermore, their modes of contact, communication, and
influence with and on humans are essentially the same as those of
other types of entities followed in the world of the occult:
departed spirits, angels, demons, fairies, "Ascended Masters,"
interdimensional beings, and so forth. The more one researches it,
the more the whole phenomenon of UFO encounters fits into the
larger category of spiritism, which the Bible condemns (Deut.
18:9-14).
The spirit world seems willing and able to take on many guises
(whatever man is gullible enough to believe in). But the message
presented always has the effect of leading the individual away from
biblical truth and into acceptance of the serpent's lie: "You shall
be as gods." Since Scripture reveals that Satan is capable of
producing visual signs in support of his lies (e.g., Rev. 13:13),
UFO encounters _may_ simply be yet another one of his devices for
leading human beings astray. It might even fit into the great
end-time deception involving the Antichrist (though this is purely
speculative).
In view of the above scientific, theological, empirical, and
biblical considerations, I would advise a healthy skepticism where
UFO encounters are concerned.
Volume 5, Issue 5
_This column is based on questions and answers excerpted from
"The Bible Answer Man," CRI's live call-in radio broadcast. In this
issue of the *Newsletter,* Ron Rhodes addresses the question: What
is the relationship between the human and divine natures in the
person of Christ?_
Crucial to a proper understanding of the Incarnation is
grasping what is meant by the word _nature._ This word is commonly
used to designate the divine or human elements in the person of the
incarnate Christ. "Nature" when used of Christ's divinity refers to
all that belongs to deity, including all the attributes of deity.
"Nature" when used of Christ's humanity refers to all that belongs
to humanity, including all the attributes of humanity.
Now, though the incarnate Christ had both a human _and_ a
divine nature, he was only _one_ person -- as indicated by His
consistent use of the pronouns "I," "Me," and "Mine" in reference
to Himself. Jesus never used the words "us," "we," or "ours" in
reference to His human-divine person. Nor did the divine nature of
Christ ever carry on a verbal conversation with His human nature.
_Before_ the Incarnation, Jesus had _only_ a divine nature.
Without getting too complicated, we might summarize it this way:
The eternal Son of God -- who, prior to the Incarnation, was one in
person _and_ nature (wholly divine) -- became, in the Incarnation,
_two_ in nature (divine and human) while remaining _one_ person.
One of the most complex aspects of the relationship of Christ's
two natures is that, while the attributes of one nature are never
attributed to the other, the attributes of both natures are
properly attributed to His one person. Thus, Christ at the same
moment in time had what seem to be contradictory qualities. He was
finite and yet infinite, weak and yet omnipotent, increasing in
knowledge and yet omniscient, limited to being in one place at one
time and yet omnipresent.
In the early history of the church, there was much confusion
regarding how such incompatible natures could be joined in one
person without one or the other losing some of its essential
characteristics. The discussion that resulted from this confusion,
however, led to the orthodox statement that the two natures are
united without mixture and without loss of any essential
attributes, and that the two natures remain distinct without
transfer of any property or attribute of one nature to the other.
In the joining of the human and divine natures in one person,
it is critical to recognize that there was no mixture to form a
third compound nature. The human nature always remained human, and
the divine nature always remained divine. The Chalcedonian Creed
affirmed that the two natures were united _without mixture, without
change, without division, and without separation._ Hence, the union
of the two natures in Christ should not be thought of as deity
possessing humanity, for this would deny true humanity its rightful
place. On the other hand, the Incarnation was not merely humanity
indwelt by deity.
Christ must be seen as a "theanthropic" person. The word
_theanthropic_ means "God-man." This word is actually a compound
word that combines two Greek words: _theos_ (meaning "God") and
_anthropos_ (meaning "man"). Jesus is the _Theos-anthropos,_ the
God-man.
We must stress that Christ in the Incarnation was neither a
divine man nor a human God. He is the God-man, _fully God_ and
_fully man._ He is no less God because of His humanity and no less
human because of His deity.
-------------
End of document, CRN0052A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"Questions and Answers"
release A, June 30, 1994
R. Poll, CRI
(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in
the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YOURS FOR THE ASKING
The Christian Research Institute (CRI) -- founded in 1960 by the
late Dr. Walter R. Martin -- is a clearing house for current, in-
depth information on new religious movements and aberrant
Christian teachings. We provide well-reasoned,
carefully-researched answers to concepts and ideas that challenge
orthodox Christianity.
Did you know that CRI has a wealth of information on various
topics that is yours for the asking? We offer a wide variety of
articles and fact sheets free of charge. Our informative
newsletter is freely available upon request as well. Write or
call us today for information on topics of interest to you. Our
first-rate staff will do everything possible to help you.
Christian Research Institute
P.O. Box 500-TC
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693
(714) 855-9926
---------------
End of file.