Is God Personal, or Not?

The other day I ran into a fella who said he was in an odd theological category.  He explained that his closest sympathies lay with those who imagine God as an impersonal force.  Kinda like... well... the Force.

This would include Taoists who contemplate “the Tao”.  Or Hindus who believe in the impersonal “Brahman”.  Or even the ancient Greek concept of the “Logos”. These ideologies propose the Ultimate Explanation of Existence (UEE) is an eternal, non-personal principle of existence.

This belief would be incompatible with classical theism, which holds that God is inherently personal and rational.  So today I want to go over four arguments which point us toward Theism.

My Favorite NT References to the Deuterocanon / Apocrypha

If you were to lay a Catholic Bible next to a Protestant Bible*, you’d notice there is a slight difference in thickness between these two.

That’s because the Protestant Old Testament excludes 7 books which are included in the Catholic Bible.   Catholics refer to these books as the “Deuterocanon”.  Protestants refer to them as “the Apocrypha”.  They include:

One of the most common arguments one encounters when discussing the Deuterocanon is whether there are any direct quotes of those seven books in the New Testament.  The assertion works like this:

• If there are direct references, you can justify its inclusion in the Old Testament.
• If not, the book should (supposedly) be held in suspicion.  

Now, there are no direct, attributed references to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament.  But it doesn't really matter.  There are roughly a dozen Old Testament books which are not directly quoted in the New Testament...

.... and no one is suggesting we remove those.

Still, that’s not the end of the story.  From here one could ask:

“Are there any places where the books of the Deuterocanon are referenced indirectly or alluded to?”

Here the answer is “Yes”.  And today we’re going to look at four of them.

What Did the Early Church Believe About Baptism?

One of my students was recently asked about the Catholic (and Orthodox and Lutheran) practice of baptizing infants.  She did a fine job answering the fella, but she missed one important step.  Before one begins talking about baptizing infants, you first have to be on the same page about the nature of baptism itself.

There are some Christians who practice what is called "believer's baptism".  This view proposes baptism as merely a public sign of one's conversion to Christ.  But of itself, baptism affects no change in the person, confers no graces, and does not change one's status before God.  It is just a sign.  And if one approaches baptism with that framework, it is impossible to understand why one would ever think to baptize an infant.  

So today I wanted to look at the data from Scripture regarding baptism, and then see how that was reflected in the writings of the early Church.

Luther's Blindspot: Why the Church had to say "no"

The 500th anniversary of the posting of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses is coming up next year.  This is marked by many as the dawn of the Protestant era.

Today I wanted to look at a question which is rarely asked:  Why did the Catholic Church reject Luther’s doctrine of “faith alone”?  Was it because they were pure evil?  Or was there was actually something wrong with Luther’s philosophy?

That’s what I want to explore today.