Timeless Truth for a Sound Bite Culture

You Can HELP

Share TRUTH Across the World

Donate NOW

Join Our E-Mail List

JOIN

Orthodoxy / Orthopraxy

"Seminary Word(s)" of the day - Orthodoxy / Orthopraxy

Both words combine two Greek terms: "ortho" meaning straight, and either "doxa" (opinion / belief) or "praxis" (action). Thus, orthodoxy signifies right belief, while orthopraxy refers to right action.

The Christian faith is based on orthodoxy - true belief in the truth  (e.g., Mark 16:16; Ephesians 4:5, 6; Titus 2:1; 2 Timothy 1:13). In Christianity, orthodoxy is determined by adherence to scriptural teachings as stated in the Church's creeds (e.g., Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian, Chalcedonian) . Right belief is the basis for right action, so orthopraxy should always follow from orthodoxy. This is why many of Paul's epistles begin with theology and end with exhortation to right living.

For more information see:

  • Heresies by Harold O. J. Brown
  • Orthodoxy & Heresy: a Biblical Guide to Doctrinal Discernment by Robert M. Bowman

Could Jesus Christ Have Sinned?

This question came up on Friday and was dealt with a bit more on Monday. The issue concerns whether or not Jesus Christ could sin, and whether or not the ability to sin has a bearing on one's ability to be tempted. This is the question of impeccability, and it has been answered in different ways in order to explain the data of Scripture and theology.

First, we know that Jesus was tempted. Second, we know that Jesus did not sin. Both are clear from Hebrews 4:15 - "we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (ESV).

The Greek word for temptation here can refer either to tempting or to testing depending on the context.  Jesus' temptations in the wilderness (Mt. 4:1-11) are brought to mind. It is the same term in James 1:13 - "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one" (ESV). Testing occurs when God allows situations that, when overcome, will strengthen character and faith (as the whole of James ch. 1 indicates). Temptation is to sin, which God never brings about.

So while one may be tempted from outside, it is their inner reaction that determines whether or not they will be led into sin (note that in James 1:14-15 temptation leads to sin, it is not sin itself). Jesus passed His tests because He never sinned. In Him is no sin (1 John 3:5), He did no sin (1 Pet. 2:22), and He knew no sin (2 Cor. 5:21).

But could Jesus have sinned? It is difficult to imagine how a divine person could actually sin (whether incarnate or not).  A. W. Pink said it simply: "Christ was not only able to overcome temptation, but He was unable to be overcome by it." This response troubles some, for it seems to them that one who cannot sin cannot really be tempted. But this objection confuses the temptation/testing distinction made above. Satan can tempt Jesus with something that Jesus would not be tempted by. Jesus had no sin nature to be activated by evil offerings. As William G. T. Shedd said, "It is objected to the doctrine of Christ's impeccability that it is incompatible with his temptability. A person who cannot sin, it is said, cannot be tempted to sin. This is not correct; any more than  it is correct to say that because an army cannot be conquered, it cannot be attacked."

True, Jesus was His own person with His own human nature and will. But a divine person is still divine whether or not He is joined to human nature. We must remember that Jesus Christ is God! As such He is unchanging (if Jesus could sin then, could He sin now?), omnipotent (can God be overcome by anything?), and omniscient (and so does not need top experience inner temptation in order to know what it is like for us).

So while Jesus' human nature gave His divine person the ability to eat, grow, and even to die, it did not give Him the ability to sin. "The ultimate decision of the person . . .  was always in harmony with the decision of the divine nature." (Walvoord, The Impeccability of Christ).

The Bible and Archeology

The archeological evidence for the Bible's authenticity is overwhelmingly positive. There has never been an archeological find that has proved the Bible false. But this should not be construed as an argument from lack of evidence to the contrary; in fact, we find what the Bible says we should find. There are cities, cultures, governments, names of families, geography, history - all showing just how accurate the descriptions were when the disciples and others recorded what they had seen. In fact, those who have tried to use archeology to disprove the Bible's trustworthiness have often run into the exact opposite in their findings.

Sir William Ramsay, regarded as one of the greatest archeologists in history, set out to disprove the Bible by doing research in Asia Minor to show that the book of Acts was not written by Luke, but by someone in the second century as he had been taught. He studied the topography, antiquities, and society of that culture, and what did he find? In Ramsay's own words: "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." (see W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen).

Another interesting example is found in the book of Daniel. Daniel speaks of a king named Belshazzar of Babylon. Because of this reference, the book was dismissed as fictional due to the fact that there was no mention of a king with that name in existence other than Daniel's account. It was later discovered that the reigning king at that time had appointed Belshazzar as his co-regent while at war away from Babylon. Daniel was accurate, and the historicity of the Bible was proven once again (if it had been a later writing, how would they have known?).Time and again we see that the facts of archeology t add to the Bible's authenticity. For more on Biblical Archeology see:

What is Apologetics?

On our first radio show we discussed Christian Apologetics. “Apologetics” kind of sounds like “apology” - but Christians aren’t apologizing for their faith! The word is from the Greek term apologia used in 1 Peter 3:15 which says to “honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (ESV). To be “prepared to make a defense” is to be ready to defend the faith.Jesus Himself said that if people would not believe His words they should believe the miraculous proof He gave of Who He was (John 10:25, 37-38). Then he provided ” many infallible proofs” of His resurrection (Acts 1:3) - the ultimate proof of Christianity’s truth (1 Corinthians 15).

Paul said defending the faith was his calling (Philippians 1:17). Paul talks about talks about “bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5), and he used apologetics with the philosophers on Mars Hill (Acts 17) and some of them became believers.

Any time reasons are given for a thing, apologetics are being used - the only question is how well we will do so!

“Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt,
that you may know how you ought to answer each one.”

Colossians 4:6 

Perspicuity

Ironically, our first "Seminary Word" of the day is - Perspicuity (which means clarity)!

In theology it refers to the idea that the basic and important message of the Bible is clear and understandable to everyone.  The Bible is not so complicated that those without education can't get the main points that need to be understood.