APRIL 2016

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the April 2016 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, our monthly web journal that covers a variety of issues. This edition is sure to be controversial, so we look forward to your kind and civil feedback, which can be sent to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

In this edition, we tackle topics such as election and divine foreknowledge, issues regarding religious liberty, and we also discuss the eligibility and honesty of one of our GOP candidates. Additionally, we have an “Eclectic Flashback” to an article about dichotomies from prominent emergent church authors. Also, we are proud to present another publishing opportunity that I (Matt Kasper) had in the Luther Rice Journal of Biblical Studies.

You don’t have to agree with everything that we say in order to visit our Facebook page and give us a “like.” We have a goal to get to 200 “likes” by the end of 2016, and we would love your help in achieving that. If you enjoy the free exchange of ideas and civil discussions, then please give us a “like” and feel free to dialog with us regarding any of our articles.

Again, you can also send your kind thoughts and comments on any of our articles to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we will reprint good feedback anonymously in a future edition.

Until then, thanks for reading, and stay eclectic!

JUST WORDS: What is God’s “Foreknowledge”?

One of the big debates between Calvinists and Arminians is the issue of God’s foreknowledge. The resolution to this debate, however, is more clear Biblically than many realize.

The idea of “foreknow” or “foreknowledge” is often misrepresented to mean that God looks ahead to see whether we will chose Him, and then bases His election of us on our will rather than His own. This is the position of foreknowledge that is associated with Arminianism. However, Calvinists believe that God elects believers without any reference to their own choice or will. He does not need to know ahead of time if someone will chose Him because, as Calvinists assert, people will always reject God. Thus foreknowledge must be based on God’s knowledge alone; God must actually chose people for salvation against their will, rather than as a result of their will.

There are many problems with the Arminian stance that “foreknowledge” means God looks ahead and elects those who would chose Him. Let’s start by looking at the words that are in play in this discussion.

“Foreknow” comes from the Greek verb proginosko, meaning “to know already, know beforehand; choose from the beginning, choose beforehand,” and is used in Acts 26:5, Romans 8:29, 11:2, 1 Peter 1:20, and 2 Peter 3:17. The noun form of the word is prognosis, from whence we derive the word “prognosis”; it means “foreknowledge, purpose” and is used in Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:2.

First, Arminian misrepresentation of “foreknowledge” contradicts what Scripture says about the fallen human will. Specifically, when offered a spiritual choice none would chose God because we are all spiritually dead. Fallenness and sin have crippled our spiritual capacities to do good as well as our moral volition to chose good or to chose God. Scripture, and especially Paul, is not ambiguous on this point (Ps 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Is 6:5; 64:6; Rom 3:9-18, 23; 28; Eph 2:1-10; Titus 3:5). The second problem with the Arminian position is the problem of “will.” Salvation is portrayed in the NT as a product of the will of the One who saves, not a result of the will of those who are being saved. That is, the focus is on the gracious will of God, not on the wise choice of saints. God chose some “according to the kind intention of His will” (Eph 1:5), “according to His purpose” (Rom 8:28; Eph 1:11; 2 Tim 1:9; see also 1 Peter 3:9), and “according to His mercy” (Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3; see also Eph 2:4-5). Scripture never portrays God consulting the will of some to see if they are worthy for justification or salvation.

The third problem has to do with the words themselves as they are used elsewhere in Scripture. Specifically, we should investigate the places where the verb proginosko or the noun prognosis are used to see if any of them even hint at the idea of looking ahead to discover something as opposed to deciding something now before it happens.

An instance of the verb proginosko later in Romans is very instructive. Romans 11:2 notes that God foreknew the Jewish people even though throughout their history, many of them rejected Him. That is, according to the misunderstanding of foreknowledge, God should have looked ahead, seen that many of the Jews would reject God, and therefore decided not to elect the entire nation. Rather, God chose the Jewish nation despite His previous knowledge of how most Jews would respond to Him rather than because of the knowledge of how they would respond.

Another point about this word is that the activity of “foreknowledge” is located before the creation of the world according to 1 Pet 1:20. This would mean, again according the Arminian view, that before anything was created, God had to look forward to consult the wills of yet-uncreated people. Surely, with God all things are possible, but this interpretation of 1 Pet 1:20 seems to be stretching the normal usage of this word as well as the boundaries of plausibility. Similarly, the use of the noun in Acts 2:23 focuses on God preordaining the life and purpose of Christ. God did not base these plans for Christ on future contingencies regarding who would chose to follow Him and who would reject Him.

Another instructive use of this word, specifically, the verb form proginosko, is in 2 Peter 3:17 and it is applied to believers. The idea is less that believers look ahead and know how something is going to happen. Rather, they are instructed to understand presently that many people generally twist Scripture, and therefore, we should determine now not to be carried away by the error of false teaching. That is, we understand circumstances and make moral decisions now, and do not base our choices on contingencies in the future. The word “foreknow” or “foreknowledge” simply means to have previous knowledge or to know something beforehand. It is illegitimate exegetically to read anything else into this word, such as that God appealed to human will to attain this knowledge or that God looked ahead to see how we would respond to Him before making a decision about us. The word simply means that God knew something before it happened because He had already planned it out.

Furthermore, most of the passages where foreknowledge is discussed are clearly in relationship to the will and plan of God, and explicitly undermine the notion that human will is a factor. In Romans 8, Paul mentions human weakness (v. 26), but then mentions God’s will (v. 27), and God’s purpose (v. 28) and God’s foreknowledge and election. The mention of foreknowledge in Rom 11:2 is clearly describing God’s will and choice (v. 5) of some despite the rejection of others. And of course, these references to foreknowledge in Romans must be seen in light of chapters 1-3 of Romans, which strenuously argue that human will has been universally and without exception turned away from God.

The foreknowledge of God is referred to twice in 1 Peter 1 (vv. 2 and 20), a chapter saturated with truths about God’s will (vv. 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 17-21) as well as exhortations for how we are to respond to God’s will (vv. 6, 8, 13-16). Also, human will in regard to salvation is frequently in the passive voice in this chapter: believers were “caused . . . to be born again” (v. 3); we “are protected” (v. 5); we “were redeemed” (v. 18), further implying how human will had no place in God’s foreknowledge and election.

In conclusion, we must reject any sense that divine foreknowledge – or the knowledge that God had ahead of time – was contingent on human response and will in any way. God inherently possessed at all times all knowledge, and that knowledge was not based on any will but His own.

Questions, comments, or responses? Send them to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we will present them (and perhaps our own responses) anonymously in a future edition.

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: Critical Points About Religious Liberty Legislation, Part 1

Recent debates regarding religious liberty legislation has raised ire on both sides of the aisle, and this article may do so, also. I hope that you will respond to this article, but please do so only after you have read all of it (we know it's a long one, but we can tell from feedback when people have only read a paragraph or two!). Also, please respond with thoughtful civility, rather than mindless hostility. Both compliments and critiques may be sent to feedback@eclectickasper.com and will be reprinted anonymously in future editions.

Also, this article was slightly revised in December 2017.

You like theology?

Theology is one of our specialties here at The Eclectic Kasper. You can see a whole host of theological topics here in our “Eclectic Archive,” including a series about the “essentials” of Christianity, some concerns about the emerging church movement, a series about charismatic churches, and several articles about Martin Luther.

He was an iconic nineties figure in the Seinfeld gallery of rogues: the Soup Nazi. If you entered his store to partake in his majestic soup, you had to do it his way, follow his process. If you deviated in the slightest he would refuse to sell soup to you and would ban you from his store. Even a minor indiscretion on the client’s part could merit his indignation and deprive you of his unparalleled product. And nobody questioned this. It was his domain, his soup, his decision. Yes, it was awkward, but it never hurt his business, and he never lacked for customers. He compensated for his discrimination with a great product. And he always seemed to have the right to sell to whom he wanted for any reason he wanted, and he never had to explain his actions or justify turning someone down for a soup sale.

The juxtaposition between free commerce and personal convictions have sent many of the south-eastern states into ignorant debates about religious and commercial liberties. In this article I will provide some helpful and clarifying remarks about religious liberty and economic freedom.

Americans have commercial freedom. First, in a free society, with freedom of speech and freedom of religion, a large or small business that peddles goods or services should have some measure of freedom to refuse to exchange products or services for whatever reason they want. They have every right to sell or to decide not to sell, as well as to hire and fire as they choose. Refusing to hire or sell a product to a homosexual, a Muslim, a child-molester, or an evangelical may be consistent with that company’s policies or that business owner’s convictions, even though such policies and convictions may defy today’s version of political correctness.

And keep in mind that if being politically correct is our standard, then we’re standing on shifting sands. People get away with things today that were unthinkable one hundred, fifty, or even thirty years ago. Today’s political correctness is tomorrow’s social gaffe.

We also have tremendous freedoms as consumers, to patronize or to neglect the businesses we chose for any reason. Our purchasing decisions revolve around a range of reasons that are economic and personal, and that are sometimes rational and sometimes not. We may chose to purchase something because of the quality of the product, or we may discriminate and purchase from a company that is local rather than one far away. We sometimes decide to buy products based on our knowledge of the company or based on how that company aligns with our religious beliefs and worldview. This, by the way, is where the offended person should simply choose to walk out of the offending cake store or florist shop and decide to proceed to one more sympathetic with their lifestyle without demanding that every cake store or florist shop acquiesce to that consumer’s lifestyle and preferences.

Like Seinfeld’s soup vendor, a large or small business should not be coerced into making a commercial exchange with someone if they decide not to. You may praise it as discernment or vilify it as discrimination, but either way, such decisions stem from a variety of factors including freedom of conscious and freedom of choice. Aren’t liberals always telling us that choice and freedoms are vital to our society?

By the way, glance through this article so far and note how many times we have used some derivation of the words “freedom,” “choice” or “decide.” Author Andrew T. Walker summed this up well: “All that religious freedom laws ask is that a handful of religious business owners not be legally coerced into using their creative talents in service of something they find morally or religiously objectionable” (Andrew T. Walker, “3 Reasons Why Religious Liberty Laws Don’t Discriminate,” accessed 04-12-16).

These commerce decisions and freedoms are apparently not acceptable for religious people, but celebrities are praised when they refuse to do business with certain clients. Bruce Springsteen decided not to provide his services to North Carolina because he didn’t like that the state passed House Bill 2, a.k.a., the “bathroom” law. Singer Bryan Adams also canceled a concert in Mississippi in protest of their religious liberty legislation. He asserted: “I cannot in good conscience perform in a state where certain people are being denied their civil rights due to their sexual orientation.” These situations drip with the irony that celebrities are lauded when they vote with their economic “conscience” while Christians are vilified and called bigots for doing the same! Director Michael Moore is similarly trying to pull his latest movie from theaters in North Carolina in protest over House Bill 2. How is their discrimination based on their conscience and their deeply held beliefs any different from the commerce choices that Christians make?

Decisions have consequences. Of course, small business owners or large business CEOs must accept the ramifications of their decisions. If the Soup Nazi begins kicking more and more people out of his store, that would inevitably affect his bottom line. Similarly, if a company refuses to sell widgets to lefties, for instance, then that company must accept the social (social pressure and social media) backlash they receive, as well as economic ramifications from the customers they may lose.

This, by the way, is one of the problems I have with the whiny Christians in our society who face opposition for their commercial decisions. These are your decisions, and you must own them. Of all people, Christians should appreciate the relationship between actions and consequences (this is basically the entire theme of the book of Proverbs!). If you decide to engender honest and impartial business practices by selling flowers to homosexuals, you reap both a financial benefit for doing so, you avoid unnecessarily social and political (and potentially legal) ramifications. Also, you provide an opportunity to develop a winsome relationship with individual homosexuals and with the homosexual community.

Or, refuse to sell; that’s fine. Whether you will always have that right or not, in most cases, you still have that right. But as you make these choices, recognize that with them come a panoply of consequences, some of which you can predict and control, and some of which you can’t. There will be a variety of legal and social ramifications for your actions; some will be good and some will be horrible. Don’t whine about it, and don’t claim that you are being treated unfairly or being victimized. If you claim that your decisions are based on your religious convictions, don’t be surprised or disturbed when you get serious push back from a world system that hated Christ and will also hate you when you claim to represent Him (Matt 10:22; 24:9; John 7:7; 15:18-19; 17:14; 2 Tim 3:12; 1 John 3:13). You know ahead of time that the world thinks your religious convictions are antiquated and ignorant; unbelievers will utilize all available means to quell them. Don’t pout or whine when this happens, but stand up and fight with the weapons of Christian virtue, godly compassion and Biblical truth (Eph 6:10-18). If we need to utilize legal measures in this fight as well, so be it; but these should not be our primary tools for promoting God’s kingdom, for they are certainly not our most powerful tools.

Coercing commercial decisions. Rarely can the government force you to buy or sell a product or service. You can defy forces greater than you or you can compromise, but rarely can they force and coerce you commercially.

I’ll give you a non-profit example; admittedly some of these principles transfer easily to business and some don’t. The advantage of this example, however, is that the recent legislation in Georgia that was vetoed by Governor Nathan Deal – called House Bill 757 – dealt primarily with religious non-profits.

As some of our The Eclectic Kasper readers know, I (Matt) am a pastor by day and a web vigilante by night (or, let’s say, by late evening). As a licensed, ordained, full-time pastor for the last fifteen years, I have been asked to officiate several weddings. Being asked to do pre-marital counseling and to minister in a wedding ceremony is not something I have to do just because someone asks me. I have turned down some couples for a variety of reasons. In fact, I do not even consent to begin counseling until both individuals sign a document agreeing to comply with certain pre-arranged standards (such as not living together before the wedding). Even then, I make it clear that I may go through pre-marital counseling, decide the couple is not fit for marriage, and refuse to do the wedding. That may sound too “discriminating,” but I am gratified that due in part to such care and forethought, I – as far as I know – have a perfect record when it comes these couples not getting divorced.

People tell me that there may come a time where the government will force me to officiate a gay wedding. This is a completely false narrative that sensationalists propagate as a scare tactic. I shall be clear: Nobody ever will, ever can, nor should ever be able to force me to officiate a wedding ceremony that I chose not to officiate. I will not do a homosexual wedding, a polygamous wedding, or a wedding between a person and an animal (and I don’t doubt that this is soon coming down the pike). Nobody can make me or force me to perform these ceremonies.

Now, as mentioned above, there may someday be serious consequences for refusing to officiate a gay wedding. But that doesn’t change the facts that nobody is forcing me to provide my religious services against my will, and nobody ever could. This is why the religious legislation in Georgia is so feckless; the state can threaten, coerce, manipulate and even send me to jail, but again, nobody is, can or will morally or physically force me to officiate a wedding for anyone that I don’t want to. I would not marry a homosexual couple, a Muslim couple, a Mormon couple, a Christian to a non-Christian, an adult to a minor, or two people whom I deem to be clearly unsuitable for each other or unsuitable for marriage.

Christian pastors and organizations should stop lying to people and scaring them by saying that the government will “force” them to do or sell something. The honest way to say it is this: the government and our society will increasingly forsake the U. S. Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, and create legal, social and cultural incentives to compel companies, business owners and religious leaders to conform to political correctness. They will create innovative ways to motivate compliance, including the use of fines and arrests, and maybe even employing reasons as compelling as loss of life.

However, a human government cannot force anyone to act, think or believe in a way that opposes their faith or convictions. Nebuchadnezzar couldn’t force Daniel to bow down to the statue. The Sanhedrin couldn’t force the Apostles to stop proclaiming the Gospel of the resurrected Jesus Christ (Acts 4:18-20; 5:27-29). Many Christians died in the early centuries of the church because they refused to worship the Caesar or the Roman gods. The government can incentivize compliance, but they cannot force behavior or belief.

There’s a lot more to cover in this debate, but we’ll stop here for now, and pick it up again with “Part 2” in a future edition. Until then, feel free to send kind and civil comments on this issue to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

ROMANS: The Consequences for Rejecting God, Romans 1:21-22

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools (NASB).

In the last article in this series called, “Seeing His Invisible Attributes, Romans 1:20” from the February 2016 edition, we discussed how God clearly makes His existence and even some of His attributes known even in our seemingly chaotic world. But what about those who still reject God, His existence, His compassion, and His truth? Romans 1:21-22 begins to spell out the chilling consequences for rejecting God as Creator and Provider.

Verse 21 begins by reminding the reader of what was affirmed in the previous verse, that God was known by humanity. Humanity both intuitively and externally knows of the existence of God. The percentage of theists throughout the world attests to that. People are aware that a supernatural Being exists, and that they have an instinct to worship even if they are not worshiping the correct God or worshiping God correctly (see v. 25).

The verse continues to describe humanity’s general response to God’s self-revelation in creation and how they did not worship or honor Him “as God.” That is, there is a way that He revealed Himself and He wanted to be worshiped and honored in a way consistent with His will. They worshiped, but they did not worship God as the one true God, but rather they worshiped gods that they concocted. The word “to glorify” and “to give thanks” are consummative aorist verbs, characterizing an entire period of time when most of humanity failed to approach God properly.

“Like” us on Facebook!

Do you love freedom, traditional values, and conservative ideas? Please support our cause and give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a “like”!

Having described what humanity did not do, Paul then describes what they did do. The verb mataioö means “to be foolish or given to worthless or futile speculation.” Though used only here in the NT, The adjective mataios is used six times (Acts 14:15; 1 Cor 3:20; 15:17; Titus 3:9; Jas 1:26; 1 Pet 1:18), and the noun mataiotes, “worthlessness, futility,” is used in Rom 8:20, Eph 4:17 and 2 Pet 2:18. The verb is also used several times in the Septuagint (a second century BC Greek translation of the Old Testament, also referred to with the symbol LXX), meaning, “to be considered foolish or chasing something in vain” (1 Sam 13:13; 26:21; 2 Kings 17:15; 1 Chron 21:8; Jer 2:5; 23:16). Very instructive among this list is the second half of Jer 2:5: “They went far from Me and walked after emptiness and became empty.” The English as well as the Greek pick up on the cognate elements in this verse (the Hebrew word hebel means “vapor” or “emptiness” and the word habal means “to act emptily, to become vain”). The verse teaches that one becomes what one worships, or, stated differently, someone begins to resemble that which he reveres. Shel Silverstein’s poem “Jimmy Jet” illustrates this principle by describing a boy that watched so much TV that he turned into a TV himself. This is why knowing God and also worshiping and obeying Him properly is so critical.

Specifically, they became or worthless in their “speculations.” The word dialogismos, from whence we receive the word “dialogue,” means “thought, opinion, motive.” It is almost always used negatively in the NT (Matt 15:19; Luke 5:22; 1 Cor 3:20; Phil 2:14; 1 Tim 2:8; Jas 2:4). Presently, one could point to positive anthropology, or a variety of cults or world religions, or liberalism or evolutionism to note the vast amount of foolishness and speculative opinions that exist in the world. Their minds are “darkened”; the word here is used literally in Matt 24:29 [parallel in Mark 13:24], and Rev 8:12, but figuratively only in Romans (here and in 11:10). It refers to how God hardens or darkens the minds and hearts of those who are already inclined away from Him, and is related to how God hardened Pharaoh’s heart in the early chapters of Exodus. Those who reject God also reject the life and enlightenment that can only come from Him.

Verse 22, then, asserts that whether they realize it or not, the people described in this passage exhibit a disconnect between what they think to be true and what is actually true. They rejected God, failed to worship God, and fabricated wrong assertions about God; consequently, they create wrong assertions about themselves. The word phasko means “to allege, claim, assert.” It usually portrays someone asserting ideas they assume are true, but which are actually either misleading or simply false (Acts 24:9; see also the LXX of Gen 26:20). In Acts 25:19, Festus is describing Paul’s preaching, and from Festus’ perspective, he believes that Paul is asserting something, namely the resurrection, which Festus believes to be untrue. In this case, phasko is used of someone asserting something to be true which is allegedly – though not actually! – false. Back in Romans 1:22, the verb is used in this sense; while people are professing their wisdom, they are, in actually, something else, namely, foolish.

The word moraino means “to make foolish,” and is the semantic grandfather of our derogatory word “moron.” The word also is used in Matt 5:13 and its parallel in Luke 14:34 meaning “to make tasteless,” that is, it is no longer able to accomplish the function it was supposed to. The word is used in 1 Cor 1:20 as well as in the LXX of how advisers and rulers become useless or fail to fulfill their functions because of their wrong presuppositions or actions (2 Sam 24:10; Sir 23:14; Is 19:11; Jer 10:14; 28:17).

These verses note several consequences for those who reject God. First, their worship is wrong, even if they think it is right. By not properly honoring God, their worship skews away from the truth into lies, as we will see in the subsequent verses. Second, they are darkened, and they have no hope of enlightening themselves with their own wisdom and means. Of course, Paul elsewhere affirms that all people begin by being spiritually “dead” and inclined away from God (Eph 2:1, 5; Col 2:13), which is why God must “regenerate” people (Titus 3:5), “make them alive” (1 Cor 15:12; Eph 2:5; Col 2:13) or cause us to be “born again” (John 3:3, 7; 1 Pet 1:3, 23). The third consequence is that humanity become fools. The irony here is that we become more foolish the more we attain knowledge and believe that we have become wiser.

These are serious consequences for not properly knowing and trusting in God. All the more reason why people must acknowledge their sinfulness before a holy God, trust in the sacrificial death and literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, and then enjoy the forgiveness, enlightenment, and truth that can only come from God and His Word.

DISTANCE AND DENIAL: Restoration

We have walked through one of the darkest moments of Peter’s life with him, the moments in Luke 22:54-62 that he repeatedly and intentionally denied knowledge of and association with Jesus Christ (see our November 2014, article, “Putting Christ Above Crisis”).

This entire incident is all the worse for the bravado that Peter expressed earlier in this chapter (see Luke 22:33), bragging that he would gladly suffer imprisonment and death for Jesus.

We have explored the spiritual and literary contours of Peter’s betrayal, including his “First Dangerous Step” (from the December 2014 edition) and also the immediate “Consequences and Fallout” of this incident (from March 2015). This episode brims with insight regarding how we can deal with temptation in our lives and hopefully avoid errors and denials like Peter’s.

But is this the end of the story for Peter?

Of course, we know that Peter would move on from this blunder and have a profound influence on the early church. He probably worked closely with Mark in the writing of his gospel and Peter also wrote two books that are included in the New Testament canon.

But he didn’t know that. At the moment when the rooster crowed, it seems likely that he didn’t realize that he could ever recover from his betrayal of Christ.

What exactly happens to him after he “went out and wept bitterly” (Luke 22:62)? In the book of Matthew, the last reference to Peter is his denial. Jesus addresses His followers and specifically John from the cross, but none of the gospels confirm that Peter is present during Jesus’ crucifixion. While featured prominently throughout the gospel accounts of Jesus’ ministry, Peter’s is strangely absent after his denial of Christ.

In Luke 23, the entire scene of Jesus’ humiliation and crucifixion transpires without mention of Peter. We don’t hear about Peter again until Luke 24, after the women find the tomb of Jesus empty and the angel announces to them that Jesus has risen (24:1-8). Mark’s account, considered to be the memoirs of Peter, add the special note that the angels say to the women at the tomb: “But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you’” (Mark 16:7). And this is where we pick up the story of Peter and recognize the power of the Gospel to provide restoration and forgiveness.

In Luke 24:9, the women race back from the empty tomb to where the disciples are staying and apparently to a few others who were gathered with them. Verse 10 reports who these specific women were; these are individuals who had know of Jesus and had been deeply affected by His life and ministry.

It seems that the disciples would be thrilled to hear some good and hopeful news. In fact, this would be a happy ending, except for the unfortunate reaction by the men folk in v. 11. The report of the women seemed like “nonsense” or “empty talk.” The Greek word that is used here is leros, which was sometimes used of “futile reasons,” such as in the non-canonical work 4 Maccabees (5:11) and it was also used “in medical settings of the delirious talk of the very sick” (Bock, Luke, p. 1898). The good news of the resurrection was like sick, nonsense to these foolish disciples.

Also, the disciples were apisteo, which means “to fail or refuse to believe” or “prove or be unfaithful.” This verb is also used of actual unbelievers in 1 Peter 2:7. It is repeated again in Luke 24:41. It does not mean that the disciples didn’t necessarily believe in Jesus. However, it does show that even after Jesus appears, some of the disciples still had a hard time believing.

A conjunction indicating contrast begins v. 12: “but Peter.” He was so invested in any news of Jesus, any hope that his denial of Jesus was not the end of the story, that he refused to disbelieve. The particular form of Greek verb “got up” often precedes significant action in Luke and Acts. He at least gave credence to the women’s testimony enough to get up and act on it. Without listening to anything else the women say or asking any follow-up questions, Peter, instead, “ran” to the tomb. For all the times he has doubted and denied, this time he trusted in this report about Jesus. With Jesus there is always hope, there is always a chance. The word “ran” is trexo, meaning “to run; exert oneself, make an effort; speed on, make progress.” It is used by Luke elsewhere only in 15:20 in another impulsive and emotional run: “So he got up and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.” Both cases portray an urgent, single-minded pursuit that is so focused on the destination that the runner cares nothing about how others perceive or misperceive him along the journey (see also 1 Cor 9:24, 26; Heb 12:1).

Peter quickly reaches the tomb in Luke 24:12. The word “saw” is actually the present tense “sees,” a dramatic present intended to draw the reader into the drama of the moment. He saw “wrappings” but no corpse; if the body had been taken, the robbers would have taken the grave clothes, too. Peter looks around frantic and panicky; no evidence of grave robbers, or of struggle, or of mischief.

Could it be true? Could the apparent end actually be a new and glorious beginning!?

He doesn’t seem to rejoin the others; but goes to his own place or his own house. He “marvels” at what has happened. The word thaumazo, means “to marvel, wonder, be amazed,” a verb used elsewhere in Luke to describe people’s reactions to what Jesus says or does (4:22; 8:25; 9:43; 11:14; 20:26; 24:41). The word connotes the surprise and shock of something that has been confirmed by reality.

Of course, Peter’s amazement will be substantiated when he sees the resurrected Christ later in the chapter (24:36-37). Peter’s complete restoration to Christian ministry is seen in John 21:15-17. The resurrected Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves Him, surely an echo of the Peter’s earlier three-fold denial. All three times Peter affirms his love for Jesus; all three times Jesus responds with a metaphor that serves to restore and commission Peter for future Christian ministry. Sure enough, by Acts 2 Peter is the front man for the apostolic band, boldly proclaiming Christ and the judgment that will come to those who refuse to trust in Him. He even places himself in harm on more than one occasion in order to continue to preach the Gospel of Christ. What event and what power transforms Peter from a self-preserving, Jesus-denying, scared fumbler into one of the most prominent spokesmen for Christ? The answer is simple: the resurrection.

It is irrefutable that the resurrection produced a dramatic change in Peter. For believers today, as well, the resurrection can produce dramatic changes despite the sins and indiscretions that we have previously committed, even if we committed them while we have been saved. The salvation we receive by grace through faith in Christ makes us new creations (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; see also Romans 6:4; Eph 4:24). That salvation conquers our faults and unworthiness of the past and fits us for meaningful Christian service in the present.

ECLECTIC FLASHBACK – EMERGENT CONCERNS: Dastardly Dichotomies or Unnecessary Options – Which one?

This article is originally from the June/ July 2013 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, with minor modifications.

Isn’t it frustrating when people give you a choice for one thing or the other, when in fact, you can have both? Mint chocolate-chip or strawberry ice cream? Both. Fries or onion rings? Both!

As I have read literature from Emergent authors, I have been amazed by the kinds of dichotomies that they foist upon Christianity. The choices sound good, and have quite a rhetorical flare. However, they create unnecessary options that are neither legitimate nor helpful. In fact, some of the dichotomies are misleading and destructive.

There are several stunning examples of this in a 2006 book by Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo called Adventures in Missing the Point: How the Culture-Controlled Church Neutered the Gospel (by the way, kudos to McLaren and Campolo for a great book title; really, I think it’s hysterical!).

One of McLaren’s chapters includes a list of ten suggestions for “reclaiming the Bible for contemporary readers” (starting on p. 81). One of the suggestions is: “Drop Any Affair You May Have with Certainty, Proof, Argument—and Replace It with Dialog, Conversation, Intrigue, and Search” (p. 78). Doesn’t that sound like an odd option to you? Or does it sound more like a dreadful dichotomy?

What I mean is, why must we drop certainty and replace it with something else? Won’t our dialog and conversation be more effective and more Biblical if it is based on certainty rather than doubt? Certainty and dialog are not polar opposites! The authors are concerned about the condescension and pride exhibited by many Christians when they present the Bible. But McLaren’s desire to promote winsome humility is not mutually exclusive with Biblical certainty.

Consider, for instance, that Proverbs 22:20-21 promotes the certainty and authority of divine revelation, but just a few verses earlier, the passage described the immense value of humility (22:4; see also 11:2; 15:33; 18:12; 16:19). Similarly, in John 17:8 Jesus recognizes the “certainty” ( “truly” from the Greek word alethōs) by which his disciples (eleven of them) received and believed in Him, and yet He had just a few hours earlier modeled humility for them (13:3-5). Certainty and humility should go hand-in-hand. Paul and the author of Hebrews suggested that believers can have knowledge of God and of our salvation with great assurance and certainty; the phrases “full assurance” or “complete understanding” in Col 2:2, 1 Thess 1:5, Heb 6:11 and 10:22 come from the Greek word plerophoria. Yet, they also demanded the need for profound humility and service among their readers (Col 3:12; 1 Thess 2:7-8; Heb 13:1-3).

You Like Theology?

Bible study and theology are our specialties at The Eclectic Kasper. You can find tons of theological topics here in our “Eclectic Archive,” including a series about the “essentials” of Christianity, concerns about the emerging church movement, a series about charismatic churches, and several articles about Martin Luther.

McLaren flings another dastardly dichotomy at us regarding how Christians should read the Bible: “Drop Any Analytical-Reductionist Tendencies and Instead Focus on the Big Story” (p. 84). He is suggesting that we spend less time analyzing the text and more time understanding the larger picture that it portrays. But, why should I abandon careful exegetical and analytical study of Scripture and “instead” focus on the big picture? Why must I “drop” anything!? When we read and study the Bible, typically we overview a passage or a book first, so that we get the big story. Then we go back and do finer exegetical work on each verse. The big picture informs the spadework we do in the text. Conversely, our exegesis helps us to see the bigger picture better, which clarifies the exegetical work, etc. It is an ongoing cycle between analysis and synthesis that helps us comprehend the passage, and, in turn, we comprehend God and ourselves more fully and accurately. Thus, not only is McLaren’s admonition to drop one of these counterproductive, it is also dangerous hermeneutically.

Another unnecessary option: “Find Things to Do with the Bible Other Than Read and Study It” (p. 85). Again, can’t I read and study it and use the Bible to inspire art, music, and poetry? Can’t I read both contemplatively, academically and missionally? These activities are not mutually exclusive, but are, rather, mutually informative (don’t emergents really like dialog!?). A poem I write can be motivated by familiarity with the Psalms; someone’s painting may include details that derive from a exegetical study of the text. Why does McLaren try to foist upon Christianity a choice that Church history or God Himself never did?

Here’s another: “If You Preach, Preach Differently” (p. 87). That is, you cannot try to teach differently sometimes and still teach “traditionally” at other times. But why can’t I preach the traditional way I was taught in seminary and also integrate story, proverb and poem. In fact, McLaren may be surprised to know that Bible school and seminary training does encourage prospective pastors to utilize a variety of approaches for presenting God’s Word and to integrate creativity into communication (the late, great Professor Howard Hendricks used to tell us that the greatest crime in Christianity is that we bore people with the Bible!).

A side note on McLaren’s list of dichotomies is necessary. In Tony Campolo’s response to McLaren’s section (p. 89), he affirms some of what McLaren says but also expresses his own concerns with McLaren’s approach. For instance, relative to McLaren’s dismissal exegetical analysis and propositional truth, Campolo declares: “Certainly we must be aware of those sections of the Bible that do contain propositional truths, and of the importance of analyzing those doctrines—for they have ultimate significance for the Christian faith.” Campolo also issues warnings about postmodern interpretative principles toward which McLaren seems to gravitate: “They tell us that no single interpretation should be considered objectively valid. The text, say these postmodernists, has a life of its own—and once it is written, the reader provides the meaning. To me, that approach to the Bible has inherent dangers.” In the book itself Campolo checks McLaren’s overstated rhetoric. I could pull from many other dichotomies that we have mentioned previously in this series on “Emerging Concerns.” Scot McKnight’s contention that “how a person lives is more important than what he or she believes” (“Five Streams of the Emerging Church,” Christianity Today, February 2007, p. 38) creates an unbiblical dichotomy between the doctrines of Christianity and the ethics of Christianity, or how we apply those doctrines and beliefs in daily life and relationships (John 8:31; 1 Tim 4:16; 6:3; 2 John 1:9). Similarly, Erwin McManus declares, “The power of the gospel is the result of a person—Jesus Christ—not a message. The gospel is an event to be proclaimed, not a doctrine to be preserved” (“The Global Intersection,” The Church In Emerging Culture, 248). But don’t Christians affirm both a Person and a message from and about that Person (Eph 1:3; 4:21; Col 1:5)? Isn’t the gospel about historical events and spiritual doctrines, in fact, doctrines about those events!?

For a post-modern approach that typically prefers “both/and,” emerging authors are amazingly “either/or.” As such, they unnecessarily suffocate Christian truth and spirituality with illegitimate choices and limits, and thus disseminate their own brand of narrow arrogance and legalism.

So, which is it: dastardly dichotomies or unnecessary options? Apparently, you’ll have to chose.

POLITICS: Clarifying Concerns About Cruz

Amidst all of the “Never Trump” efforts, the media and others wants to brainwash gullible evangelicals into believing that Cruz is just like us, and the only viable evangelical alternative. Sure, he’s said some evangelicalish sorts of things, but so did Bill Clinton, and Obama, and virtually every other politician who wants us to think that they are more moral than they actually are.

This present article will explain why this evangelical will not vote for Cruz in this election cycle, even if he is the nominee. I know that is strong, but just as many people feel very strongly about why they will never vote for Hillary or Trump, many people – even evangelical people – have very strong and legitimate concerns about Cruz. I have mentioned some of these arguments before, and I will even cite a previous article where I elaborate. The point here is merely to clarify these concerns and to see past the slick rhetoric and the evangelical façade.

Cruz has a hard time with the truth. And before you shoot me an e-mail beginning with the words “Well, what about when Trump said . . .”, let me just remind you that this article is about Cruz, and why he is unworthy to be president. That does not necessarily mean that I am endorsing Trump, Kasich or someone else. This article is an explanation for why Evangelicals don’t need to feel bullied into voting for Cruz as though that is the only evangelical thing to do.

Cruz, of course, does not stand alone as being a politician who frequently twists and misrepresents truth. The difference with him is that he portrays himself as an evangelical champion, when in fact, he frequently punts to duplicity, or, as I call it, “Cruzplicity.”

We cannot begin to catalog all of his duplicitous statements, so we’ll just present some highlights (or lowlights!). For instance, early in his candidacy, Cruz repeatedly claimed that the IRS contains 110,000 agents, when in fact, the IRS only has about 82,000 employees, merely 20,000 or so of whom are actually “agents” (see USA Today article).

He also received applause early on when claiming that small businesses were “going out of business in record numbers,” an odd assertion for something that is so easily discredited. PolitiFact clarifies: “In terms of sheer volume, that was true in 2009, at the height of the recession. . . . However, the total number of closures has since fallen. Data for the most recent year, 2012, shows business closures at about what they were in 2005. The percentage of firms that closed was quite high in 2009, but it wasn’t the highest point, and more recently, it is in line with historical figures. We rate Cruz’s statement False.”

During the March 3 GOP debate in Detroit, Cruz accused Trump of writing ten checks to Hillary Clinton, including four to her 2008 presidential run. An ABC article details the duplicity here: “First, the number of total donations isn’t 10, as Cruz said, but seven. The number of donations to her presidential campaign wasn’t four, as Cruz said, but two.” The number “ten” is either the result of sloppy research by Cruz and his team, or it is an outright lie. Cruz also failed to mention that a sizable portion of those donations were refunded back to Trump after the fact.

On the John and Ken Show on April 11 of this year, Cruz portrayed his recent delegate gains in Utah, North Dakota, Wisconsin and Colorado as winning “eleven elections all across the country.” He has to point to delegate conventions within these states to get to his duplicitous number of eleven; but to the rest of us it seems more like he did well in four contests. Also, he claims that these contests were “all across the country” when, in fact, they were very much in the middle of the country, in Cruz-friendly territory (apparently neither math nor geography were Cruz’s strong suits). Again, is this just bad research, insufficient knowledge of where these four states are (two of these states “all across the country” are right next to each other!), or an outright lie? Another lie: In an April 7 CNN interview, Cruz claimed that “Poll after poll after poll shows me beating Hillary.” That is discernibly not true according to Real Clear Politics list of Cruz vs. Clinton general election polls.

Are you concerned?

Then, you should see our series of articles on Emergent Concerns here. What is the emerging church movement? Is it Biblical or not? This series of articles discusses post-modernism and why the emerging church is a big concern!

As the graphic at right illustrates, Cruz seems to have a major problem with the truth. Of course, the fact-checkers themselves often need to be fact-checked; however, the comparison is telling. Trump, by the way, doesn’t do so hot on this scale, either; and kudos to Bernie and Kasich for being by far the most honest politicians of the five. In summary, a PolitiFact article assessing the truthfulness of Cruz (accessed on 12 April 2016) asserts that they “rated 67 percent of his claims either Mostly False, False or Pants On Fire.”

Cruz has minimal experience. In short, Ted Cruz has a frighteningly little experience, and the leap from junior senator to U. S. President is monumental. We have mentioned this multiple times as early as our May 2015 article “Cruzing Toward Amnesia” and again in our recent February 2016 article “Cruz Highlights GOP Inconsistency.” In fact, I will merely quote from the latter to re-emphasize the point:

But do you remember back when we excoriated Obama for his lack of experience? He had at least already spent eight years in the Illinois state Senate. We could argue all day long about his feckless participation in that capacity as he continuously voted “present” on numerous important issues, rather than taking a definitive stand on them. But at least he had that experience. And he too had not completed a full U. S. senatorial term when he was running for the White House. At that time we decried—rightly so—his idealism and lack of meaningful executive experience.

Cruz has even less experience than Obama did. He served as Solicitor General of Texas for only five years before entering the U.S. Senate. He will have exactly the same amount of inexperience at the federal level as Obama did. Doesn’t anyone else see that this is problematic to have an inexperienced President in the White House . . . again?

The GOP had a field of candidates with considerable gubernatorial experience in relatively large states. The offices of governor and president are far more analogous than the leap from a senator to president, especially for someone who has only been senator for three years (and has been a candidate for most of the last year). Some of these other candidates served at least two terms as governors in large states, including Jeb Bush (two terms in Florida), Mike Huckabee (two-and-a-half terms in Arkansas), and Rick Perry (three-and-a-half terms in Texas). If the GOP selects a neophyte like Cruz over experienced and accomplished governors, then we really are in sad shape.

By the way, don’t buy into the lie that Cruz has many “accomplishments”; arguing, filibustering, standing up and speaking out are not accomplishments, but activities, and do not make anyone worthy of being president or even city dog-catcher. On this point, I’ll direct you to our article “Gauging and Faking Achievement” from the November 2015 edition, because if I start elaborating on this here, I’ll probably get so frustrated that I’ll explode.

Cruz is Constitutionally ineligible. I am not a Constitutional scholar, however, I have learned to read words (and have been able to do so since the first grade). The words of the U. S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5) are pretty clear in this manner, or at least we thought that they were in 2008 and 2012. If we questioned Obama’s eligibility for President based on the location of his birth, why are we not questioning the legitimacy of Cruz for President, especially since we know the location of his birth? Like we said in that February 2016 article “Cruz Highlights GOP Inconsistency”: “I can only conclude that Republicans are complete morons, either then or now. We were either morons then for making a big deal out of Obama’s birth when it really didn’t matter Constitutionally where he was born, or we are morons now for not making a big deal out of Cruz’s place of birth. Constitutional issues of presidential eligibility must be party-blind. We were either misconstruing the Constitution regarding eligibility then or we are doing so now.” I simply cannot get past GOP inconsistency, hypocrisy, and duplicity on this point. And, if the location of someone’s birth really doesn’t matter regarding their eligibility for President, then the GOP owes Obama an enormous apology.

In short, an evangelical, or anyone who believes themselves to be under the banner of “Christian,” does not need to be manipulated into believing that Cruz is the only legitimate candidate for God-fearing folk. Because of Cruz’s duplicity, inexperience and apparent ineligibility, I will not vote for Cruz in this election cycle even if he is the GOP nominee. I believe that he simply cannot be “TrusTed.”

PUTTING THE “ME” IN MEDIA: Putting the Luther in Luther Rice

Well, technically, we’re not putting the Luther in Luther Rice. However, the inaugural edition of the theological journal called the Luther Rice Journal of Christian Studies (LRJCS) features an article about Martin Luther written by . . . me!

Addicted to Politics?

Well, so are we! In fact, you can find a whole host of articles about political views and people here in our “Eclectic Archive.” And check out our article series on the 2016 election here!

Luther Rice College and Seminary is small, Bible school in Lithonia, GA, east of Atlanta, founded in 1962. Their first edition of the Luther Rice Journal of Christian Studies is online and it replaces the Journal of Biblical Ministry. I (Matt Kasper) had the privilege of being invited to contribute an article to this inaugural edition.

For a few years I have been studying the German Protestant Reformation. The interaction of the Reformers as well as their theological contributions, rhetoric, and prolific writings is a fascinating field of study and investigation. Just a few years ago I was invited to provide a chapter in a book called Reformation Faith: Theology and Exegesis in the Protestant Reformations. My contribution was chapter 12, “Returning to Marburg to Rethink Martin Luther,” which described the opportunities and tensions surrounding a meeting of Reformation leaders at Marburg in 1529. We mentioned this in the July 2014 edition of The Eclectic Kasper.

My studies more recently have revolved around the Peasants War of 1525. As a ramification of the new Reformation beliefs and teachings in the early 1520s, many Southern German peasants rebelled against oppressive princes and rulers and demanded radical social changes. Some of the Reformers, such as Thomas Müntzer, were more supportive of the peasants’ efforts, while Martin Luther was horrified that his teachings were being directed toward social protest and rebellion.

This project started as a term paper, then evolved into a conference paper that was delivered at a regional and then a national conference. Amidst this process, I was invited to submit a version of the project for the Luther Rice Journal of Christian Studies. The article is called “Reformation, Apocalypticism and Revolution: The Complicated Exchange between Martin Luther and the German Peasants, and Implications for Modern Civil Unrest” and it begins on page 42. In addition to the drama of the multiple skirmishes that constitute the Peasants War, Luther’s response to the peasants and what he said should be done with them was, as the article in LRJCS describes, curious and disturbing. The article then concludes with some implications for modern revolt, which is helpful as many are feeling a bit rebellious nowadays.

This first edition of the Luther Rice Journal of Christian Studies can be found here. I hope you take some time to check it out and see the article about Luther and the German Peasants War of 1525.