Evidence from Herb Kersten that the ancient Chinese knew about basic Bible principles such as creation, temptation, the entry of sin, the fall of man, the first murder (Cain and Abel), the flood, the tower of Babel, blood atonement, righteousness by faith, an unblemished lamb for sacrifice, as well as many others.
Chinese characters and how they relate to the Book of Genesis:
Sixties, Berkeley Radical Learned to Live with Depression, God’s Way (Xulon Press, 2004). This article first appeared in the Practical Hermeneutics column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 34, number 02 (2011). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
The letter to the Hebrews presents many teachings affirming the deity of Christ and His supremacy over the angels, Moses, and everything else that had come before Him.
However, after asserting that Jesus “made the worlds,” that He is “the brightness of [God’s] glory and the express image of His person,” and that He upholds “all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:2–3),1 this letter cites a controversial verse—at least controversial today—to prove that He is uniquely related to the Father as His Son: “For to which of the angels did He ever say: ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You’?” (Heb. 1:5; quoting Ps. 2:7).
Certainly, Scripture never does refer to angels in this manner. However, this verse suggests to some that Jesus is “begotten” in the sense of being created and having a beginning in time. If this is the case, then He can’t be eternal, and therefore He can’t be God. This same “problem” is also reflected in perhaps the most famous New Testament verse: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten [monogenes in Greek] Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
Many cults understand this verse, and others like it, to affirm that Jesus was birthed into existence. Mormon Doctrine reads, “Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.”2
However, this is to understand the term “begotten” with our understanding and not from the perspective of scriptural usage. Hebrews 1:5 was quoted from Psalm 2, a psalm widely regarded as messianic, even among ancient Jewish authorities: “I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, ‘You are My Son; Today I have begotten You’” (Ps. 2:7).
“Begotten” must be understood in the way it was originally intended, and we can determine this by examining the context. In this context, “begotten” can’t possibly mean, “to physically birth.”3 The One who is “begotten” is being addressed. He therefore already exists, even before He is “begotten.” The verse therefore can’t mean, “The Lord has said to Me… ‘Today, I am giving birth to you.’” Instead, “begotten” must mean something else. Besides, Hebrews quotes Psalm 2:7 to prove the superiority of Christ over the angels. Reference to a physical human birth could hardly demonstrate His superiority.4 Continue reading
The Marrow of Calvinism by Joel Beeke
‘There is no true religion in the world which is not Calvinistic-Calvinistic in its essence, Calvinistic in its implications…. In proportion as we are religious, in that proportion, then, are we Calvinistic; and when religion comes fully to its rights in our thinking, and feeling, and doing, then shall we be truly Calvinistic…. [Calvinism] is not merely the hope of true religion in the world: it is true religion in the world-as far as true religion is in the world at all.’ – BENJAMIN B. WARFIELD
If you were to ask theologians in seminaries or people on the street, “What is Calvinism all about?” the answers you would receive would vary widely. Caricatures abound. For instance, on Thanksgiving Day 2007, the Grand Rapids Press printed an article by John M. Crisp titled, “Thinking like a Pilgrim on Thanksgiving.” It said of the Pilgrims: “Their religious roots reached back to the gloomy tenets of John Calvin, which means-at the risk of oversimplificationthat they lived with the nagging fear that they dangled every moment by a thin thread over the fiery pit of hell in spite of their own faith or good works or the outward manifestations of the blessings of God.”2
Does any Calvinist recognize this as a definition of Calvinism? I wrote back to the Grand Rapids Press: “This statement is not an oversimplification. It is a misrepresentation. Calvin and most of the Pilgrims rejoiced in Christ their Savior, and lived joyous Christian lives of spiritual depth with assured faith in the rich promises of God.”3
Of course, most evangelical Christians and, sadly, even some Calvinists, lack a proper understanding of the real heartbeat of Calvinism. “There is nothing upon which men need to be more instructed than upon the question of what Calvinism really is,” Charles H. Spurgeon once said.4 Whether you are a Calvinist, a non-Calvinist, or an anti-Calvinist, you need to give this question a fair hearing: what really is the marrow of Calvinism?
THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF CALVINISM
Calvinistic theology includes all the essential evangelical doctrines, such as the deity of Christ, objective atonement, and the person and work of the Holy Spirit. It also includes many doctrines developed by theological giants such as Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, and Martin Luther. Yet, it is not entirely correct to say, as did “Rabbi” John Duncan, “There’s no such thing as Calvinism [because] the teachings of Augustine, Remigius, Anselm, and Luther were just pieced together by one remarkable man [Calvin], and the result baptized with his name.”‘
Calvin’s synthesis is far more remarkable than that; he certainly was no midget standing on Augustine’s giant shoulders. Calvin’s presentation of the plan of salvation, choice of materials, and sense of the interconnectedness of biblical doctrine are unique. He was a genius in organization and systematization. His indebtedness to his predecessors does not detract from his originality, which is clearly evident in his doctrine of divine Sonship; his emphasis on the humanity of the Redeemer and His threefold mediatorial office as Prophet, Priest, and King; his explanation of the inward witness of the Holy Spirit; his development of Presbyterian church polity; and his exposition of how worship should be based on the Second Commandment, which the Puritans would later develop as the regulative principle of worship.
In addition, Calvinists throughout history have not been mere imitators of Calvin. For example, in their development of covenant theology, decretal theology, and the doctrine of assurance of faith, they labored hard to explain the whole counsel of God within the context of all the profundity, harmony, and consistency of Scripture. Continue reading