"What is dispensationalism and is it biblical?" - Gotquestions.org

A dispensation is a way of ordering things—an administration, a system, or a management. In theology, a dispensation is the divine administration of a period of time; each dispensation is a divinely appointed age. Dispensationalism is a theological system that recognizes these ages ordained by God to order the affairs of the world. Dispensationalism has two primary distinctives: 1) a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy, and 2) a view of the uniqueness of Israel as separate from the church in God’s program. Classical dispensationalism identifies seven dispensations in God’s plan for humanity.

Dispensationalists hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible as the best hermeneutic. The literal interpretation gives each word the meaning it would commonly have in everyday usage. Allowances are made for symbols, figures of speech, and types, of course. It is understood that even symbols and figurative sayings have literal meanings behind them. So, for example, when the Bible speaks of “a thousand years” in Revelation 20, dispensationalists interpret it as a literal period of 1,000 years (the dispensation of the Kingdom), since there is no compelling reason to interpret it otherwise.
There are at least two reasons why literalism is the best way to view Scripture. First, philosophically, the purpose of language itself requires that we interpret words literally. Language was given by God for the purpose of being able to communicate. Words are vessels of meaning. The second reason is biblical. Every prophecy about Jesus Christ in the Old Testament was fulfilled literally. Jesus’ birth, ministry, death, and resurrection all occurred exactly as the Old Testament predicted. The prophecies were literal. There is no non-literal fulfillment of messianic prophecies in the New Testament. This argues strongly for the literal method. If a literal interpretation is not used in studying the Scriptures, there is no objective standard by which to understand the Bible. Each person would be able to interpret the Bible as he saw fit. Biblical interpretation would devolve into “what this passage says to me” instead of “the Bible says.” Sadly, this is already the case in much of what is called Bible study today.

Dispensational theology teaches that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the church. Dispensationalists believe that salvation has always been by faith—in God in the Old Testament and specifically in God the Son in the New Testament. Dispensationalists hold that the church has not replaced Israel in God’s program and that the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been transferred to the church. Dispensationalism teaches that the promises God made to Israel in the Old Testament (for land, many descendants, and blessings) will be ultimately fulfilled in the 1000-year period spoken of in Revelation 20. Dispensationalists believe that, just as God is in this age focusing His attention on the church, He will again in the future focus His attention on Israel (see Romans 9–11 and Daniel 9:24).

Dispensationalists understand the Bible to be organized into seven dispensations: Innocence (Genesis 1:1—3:7), Conscience (Genesis 3:8—8:22), Human Government (Genesis 9:1—11:32), Promise (Genesis 12:1—Exodus 19:25), Law (Exodus 20:1—Acts 2:4), Grace (Acts 2:4—Revelation 20:3), and the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20:4–6). Again, these dispensations are not paths to salvation, but manners in which God relates to man. Each dispensation includes a recognizable pattern of how God worked with people living in the dispensation. That pattern is 1) a responsibility, 2) a failure, 3) a judgment, and 4) grace to move on.

Dispensationalism, as a system, results in a premillennial interpretation of Christ’s second coming and usually a pretribulational interpretation of the rapture. To summarize, dispensationalism is a theological system that emphasizes the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy, recognizes a distinction between Israel and the church, and organizes the Bible into different dispensations or administrations.

Recommended Resource: Dispensationalism by Charles Ryrie

What is Amyraldism / Four-Point Calvinism?" - Gotquestions.org

Amyraldism (sometimes spelled Amyraldianism) is an off-shoot of Calvinism that holds to four of Calvinism’s five points—limited atonement being the only point to be rejected. For this reason, Amyraldism is sometimes called “four-point Calvinism” or “moderate Calvinism.” Amyraldism is named after Moses Amyraut (Moyses Amyraldus), a 16th-century French theologian who was influential in the development of the doctrine of “hypothetical redemption” or “hypothetical universalism.” Some Calvinists see Amyraldism as a “liberal” form of Calvinism; others see it as an unnecessary compromise with Arminianism; still others see it as inconsistent with itself and therefore illogical.

In order to better understand Amyraldism, it is beneficial to recap what Calvinism is. Classic Calvinism centers on the so-called five points of Calvinism, which are summarized below:
1. Total Depravity – Man, in his fallen state, is completely incapable of doing any good that is acceptable to God.
2. Unconditional Election – As a result of man’s total depravity, he is unable (and unwilling) to come to God for salvation. Therefore, God must sovereignly choose those who will be saved. His decision to elect individuals for salvation is unconditional. It is not based on anything that man is or does but solely on God’s grace.
3. Limited Atonement – In order to save those whom God has unconditionally elected, atonement for their sin had to be made. God the Father sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to atone for the sins of the elect and secure their pardon by His death on the cross.
4. Irresistible Grace – The Holy Spirit applies the finished work of salvation to the elect by irresistibly drawing them to faith and repentance. This saving call of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted and is referred to as an efficacious call.
5. Perseverance of the Saints – Those whom God has elected, atoned for, and efficaciously called are preserved in faith until the last day. They will never fall away because God has secured them with the seal of the Holy Spirit. The saints persevere because God preserves them.

As mentioned above, the particular point that Amyraldism denies is the third point, limited atonement. Amyraldism replaces it with unlimited atonement, or the concept of “hypothetical universalism,” which asserts that Christ died for the sins of all people, not just the elect. Amyraldism preserves the doctrine of unconditional election even while teaching unlimited atonement this way: because God knew that not all would respond in faith to Christ’s atonement (due to man’s total depravity), He elected some to whom He would impart saving faith.

Amyraldism is somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism when it comes to the extent of the atonement. Calvinism teaches that the atonement is limited to the elect; Christ’s death on the cross makes salvation a reality for the elect. Arminianism teaches that the atonement is unlimited and available to all; Christ’s death on the cross makes salvation possible to all, and man must exercise faith to make salvation actual. Amyraldism teaches that Christ died for all men, but God only applies this salvation to those whom He has chosen. This is related to a view held in some Calvinistic circles called “unlimited/limited atonement.”

Amyraldism seems to resolve a problem that a belief in limited atonement presents—namely, the difficulty of reconciling Calvinism with passages that teach Christ died for everyone (John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2). But Amyraldism is not without its own difficulty: if Christ died for all men, then, logically, there are people in hell right now whose sins have been atoned for. Those in hell are not the elect, according to Amyraldism, so did God pass over people for whom Christ died? This is the main theological question facing Amyraldians, who respond by saying God’s salvation (through the unlimited sacrifice of Christ) is offered to everyone equally. But this salvation has a condition: faith. In one sense, God’s grace is universal—He desires all to be saved (2 Peter 3:9)—but, in another sense, His grace is narrowed down and applied (through election) only to those who do not reject salvation.

Amyraldism, or four-point Calvinism, is popular today among many evangelicals, including independent Bible churches, Baptists, and some Presbyterians. Four-point Calvinism is also the official position of Got Questions Ministries, as we hold the view that the extent of the atonement was unlimited.

Recommended Resource: Chosen But Free, revised edition: A Balanced View of God's Sovereignty and Free Will by Norm Geisler and The Potter's Freedom by James White

What is Molinism and is it biblical? - Gotquestions.org

Answer: Molinism is named for the 16th-century Jesuit, Luis de Molina. Molinism is a system of thought that seeks to reconcile the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. The heart of Molinism is the principle that God is completely sovereign and man is also free in a libertarian sense. Molinism partly seeks to avoid so-called “theological fatalism”: the view that God decrees who will be saved or damned without any meaningful impact of their own free choice. Today’s highest-profile defenders of Molinism are William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga.
The primary distinctive of Molinism is the affirmation that God has middle knowledge (scientia media). Molinism holds that God’s knowledge consists of three logical moments. These “moments” of knowledge are not to be thought of as chronological; rather, they are to be understood as “logical.” In other words, one moment does not come before another moment in time; instead, one moment is logically prior to the other moments. The Molinist differentiates between three different moments of knowledge which are respectively called natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge.

1. Natural Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths: all things which “can be.” In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths. This knowledge is independent of God’s will, a point few if any theologians would dispute.

2. Middle Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what a free creature would do in any given circumstance: all things which “may be.” This knowledge is what philosophers call counterfactuals. This knowledge, like natural knowledge, is independent of God’s will.

3. Creative command – this is the “moment” where God actually acts. Between His knowledge of all that is or could be, and all that actually comes to be, is God’s purposeful intervention and creation.

4. Free Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what He decided to create: all things that “actually are.” God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is. This knowledge is completely dependent on God’s will.

Using middle knowledge, Molinism attempts to show that all of God’s knowledge is self-contained, but it is ordered so as to allow for the possibility of man’s free will. In other words, man is completely free, but God is also completely sovereign—He is absolutely in control of all that happens, and yet humanity’s choices are not coerced.

According to Molinism, God omnisciently knows what you would have been like had you lived in Africa instead of Australia, or had a car accident that paralyzed you at age 9. He knows how the world would have been changed had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated. More importantly, He knows who would choose to be saved and who would not, in each of those varying circumstances.
Accordingly, it is out of this (middle) knowledge that God chooses to create. God has middle knowledge of all feasible worlds, and He chooses to create the world that corresponds to His ultimate desires. Therefore, while a person is truly free, God is truly in control of who is or is not saved. Molinists differ on how God defines His underlying desires. For example, some believe God is seeking the maximum number of people to be saved. Others believe God creates in order to maximize some other divine goal.

Is Molinism biblical?
Molinists point to various texts to establish that God has “middle knowledge.” For example, Matthew 11:21–24where Jesus denounces Chorazin and Bethsaida. Here, Jesus tells those cities that “if the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” This type of “if-then” is an example of divine knowledge of what would happen given a different set of circumstances. As such, Molinism sees this verse as evidence that the doctrine of middle knowledge is true.

Strictly speaking, Molinism is a view that cannot be rebutted or defended wholly on biblical grounds. The same is true of other philosophical-theological systems such as Calvinism or Arminianism. Middle knowledge is a philosophical concept that attempts to uphold both the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. At the same time, it can be evaluated on multiple levels, including biblically and philosophically.

Molinism is often criticized by both Calvinists and Arminians. Calvinists claim that holding to human free will denies God’s absolute sovereignty. Arminians claim that, if God is in control of who is or is not saved, then free will is merely an illusion. Molinists would argue that both sovereignty and free will are biblically represented and real, and that middle knowledge allows both a God who is completely in control and a humanity who is completely free.

Not all people feel Molinism is the best way to think about God’s sovereignty and human free will. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things (Proverbs 16:33; Matthew 10:29; Romans 11:36; Ephesians 1:11), even human decisions (Proverbs 20:24; 21:1). Although God does not stir men to sin (James 1:13), He is still working everything, from individuals to nations, to the end that He has willed (Isaiah 46:10–11). God’s purposes do not depend upon man (Acts 17:24–26). Nor does God discover or learn (1 John 3:20; Job 34:21–22; Psalm 50:11; Proverbs 15:3). All things are decreed by God’s infinitely wise counsel (Romans 11:33–36).

That being said, it should be noted that Molinism would agree with everything said in the above paragraph. It is not on this level where Calvinists and Molinists disagree. Where Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism disagree most is in interpreting doctrines such as total depravity and limited atonement, in light of these other ideas.

Recommended Resource: Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach by Kenneth Keathley and The Potter's Freedom by James White

What is Progressive Dispensationalism - Gotquestions.org

Answer: In order to present progressive dispensationalism, it is first necessary to understand what traditional dispensationalism is. According to Charles Ryrie, author of the book Dispensationalism, there are three primary principles of dispensationalism:
1) The Church and Israel are distinct and separate. Israel was not absorbed into the Church (which began on the Day of Pentecost, Acts 2). Promises made specifically to Israel in the Old Testament that have not been fulfilled will still be fulfilled to the nation of Israel. These promises are not to be spiritualized or assumed they now apply to the Church. For example, in the Abrahamic Covenant, God promised to Abraham that a large section of land in the Middle East would belong to Abraham's descendants. This is yet to be fulfilled, but will be in the future, in the 1,000-year kingdom that Christ will rule over.
2) God's purpose in all that He does is to bring glory to Himself. Other theological systems would say that all God does is to bring about the salvation of mankind, but this simply cannot be true, for there are many things that God has done that have no effect on the salvation of mankind.
3) A literal or normal hermeneutic is to be used for interpreting all of Scripture, including unfulfilled prophecy. Hermeneutics defined is "the method used for interpreting Scripture." Using a literal or normal hermeneutic means simply that you read and understand the Bible text in a normal sense. You understand the words of Scripture in a normal sense with their normal meanings. This does NOT mean you ignore figures of speech. Figures of speech are also part of normal interpretation. A modern-day figure of speech is "it is raining cats and dogs outside." Anyone would recognize this as a figure of speech and understand that what is meant is a very heavy rain. Figures of speech are important because dispensationalism is often wrongly criticized for using a literal hermeneutic. It is wrongly stated that dispensationalism takes figures of speech literally.
Figures of speech are accounted for in normal interpretation. Another theological system uses a dual hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture, where a literal or normal hermeneutic is used for all of Scripture EXCEPT prophecy. For unfulfilled prophecy, an allegorical hermeneutic is used. Normal meanings of words are ignored, and the words of prophecies are "spiritualized." An example of an allegorical hermeneutic or spiritualizing would be that the future 1,000-year kingdom spoken of in Revelation 20:1-6 would NOT be understood to be a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth. Instead, it is treated as a kingdom that is happening now, and the reference to 1,000 years represents a long period of time, not a literal 1,000-year period.
Different theological systems always differ in the way they interpret Scripture (they differ by their hermeneutic). Progressive dispensationalism is held by those who believe that the normal hermeneutic held by traditional dispensationalists should be slightly modified. Progressive dispensationalists hold to what they describe as a "complimentary hermeneutic." This hermeneutic is BASICALLY the same as that held by traditional dispensationalists, BUT progressive dispensationalists come to different conclusions than do traditional dispensationalists.
The greatest debate between those who hold to traditional dispensationalism and those who hold to progressive dispensationalism concerns the issue of David's throne. In the Davidic Covenant, God promised David that he would never permanently cease to have a descendant sitting on the throne. Although there have been times prior to Christ's coming—and presently there is no one sitting on David's throne as king over the kingdom—this promise to David will be ultimately fulfilled by God when Jesus Christ returns to set up and rule the kingdom on earth (Revelation 19:11 - 20:6).
The debate is this: progressive dispensationalism says that Christ is right now at this present time sitting on David's throne and ruling. Progressive dispensationalists do not deny a literal 1,000-year kingdom that Christ will rule over. But they say that He is already sitting and ruling on David's throne. This is known as "already but not yet." Jesus is already on David's throne but has not yet completely fulfilled the promise of God to David for a descendant to sit on his throne. Central Bible texts for this issue are Psalm 132:11; Psalm 110:1-4; Acts 2:30; and Acts 3:19-22. Traditional dispensationalists hold that, although Christ is sitting at the right hand of the Father and is obviously ruling, this does not mean that He is sitting on the throne of David. They say that progressive dispensationalism assumes too much. Jesus can sit on a throne and rule now and not be sitting on the throne of David.
This has been very brief. Though progressive dispensationalism is relatively new (probably less than 15 years old), volumes have been written on the subject.
Recommended Resource: Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism by Herbert Bateman

What is Calvinism - Gotquestions.org

Answer: The five points of Calvinism can be summarized by the acronym TULIP. T stands for total depravity, U for unconditional election, L for limited atonement, I for irresistible grace, and P for perseverance of the saints. Here are the definitions and Scripture references Calvinists use to defend their beliefs:

Total Depravity - As a result of Adam’s fall, the entire human race is affected; all humanity is dead in trespasses and sins. Man is unable to save himself (Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-18).

Unconditional Election - Because man is dead in sin, he is unable to initiate a response to God; therefore, in eternity past God elected certain people to salvation. Election and predestination are unconditional; they are not based on man’s response (Romans 8:29-30;9:11; Ephesians 1:4-6, 11-12) because man is unable to respond, nor does he want to.

Limited Atonement - Because God determined that certain ones should be saved as a result of God’s unconditional election, He determined that Christ should die for the elect alone. All whom God has elected and for whom Christ died will be saved (Matthew 1:21; John 10:11; 17:9; Acts 20:28; Romans 8:32; Ephesians 5:25).

Irresistible Grace - Those whom God elected He draws to Himself through irresistible grace. God makes man willing to come to Him. When God calls, man responds (John 6:37, 44; 10:16).

Perseverance of the Saints - The precise ones God has elected and drawn to Himself through the Holy Spirit will persevere in faith. None whom God has elected will be lost; they are eternally secure (John 10:27-29;Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1:3-14).

While all these doctrines have a biblical basis, many people reject all or some of them. So-called “four-point Calvinists” accept Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints as biblical doctrines. Man is definitely sinful and incapable of believing in God on his own. God elects people based on His will alone – election is not based on any merit in the person chosen. All those whom God has chosen will come to faith. All those who are truly born-again will persevere in their faith. As for Limited Atonement, however, four-point Calvinists believe that atonement is unlimited, arguing that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, not just for the sins of the elect. “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). Other verses in opposition to limited atonement areJohn 1:29; 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:6; and 2 Peter 2:1.

The five-point Calvinists, however, see problems with four-point Calvinism. First, they argue, if Total Depravity is true, then Unlimited Atonement cannot possibly be true because, if Jesus died for the sins of every person, then whether or not His death is applicable to an individual depends on whether or not that person “accepts” Christ. But as we have seen from the above description of Total Depravity, man in his natural state has no capacity whatsoever to choose God, nor does he want to. In addition, if Unlimited Atonement is true, then hell is full of people for whom Christ died. He shed His blood in vain for them. To the five-point Calvinist, this is unthinkable. Please note: this article is only a brief summary of the five points of Calvinism. For a more in-depth look, please visit the following pages: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement,Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.

Recommended Resource: Chosen But Free, revised edition: A Balanced View of God's Sovereignty and Free Will by Norm Geisler and The Potter's Freedom by James White

What is Reformed Theology? - Gotquestions.org

Answer: Broadly speaking, Reformed theology includes any system of belief that traces its roots back to theProtestant Reformation of the 16th Century. Of course, the Reformers themselves traced their doctrine to Scripture, as indicated by their credo of “sola scriptura,” so Reformed theology is not a “new” belief system but one that seeks to continue apostolic doctrine.

Generally, Reformed theology holds to the authority of Scripture, the sovereignty of God, salvation by grace through Christ, and the necessity of evangelism. It is sometimes called Covenant theology because of its emphases on the covenant God made with Adam and the new covenant which came through Jesus Christ (Luke 22:20).

Authority of Scripture. Reformed theology teaches that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God, sufficient in all matters of faith and practice.

Sovereignty of God. Reformed theology teaches that God rules with absolute control over all creation. He has foreordained all events and is therefore never frustrated by circumstances. This does not limit the will of the creature, nor does it make God the author of sin.
Salvation by grace. Reformed theology teaches that God in His grace and mercy has chosen to redeem a people to Himself, delivering them from sin and death. The Reformed doctrine of salvation is commonly represented by the acrostic TULIP (also known as the five points of Calvinism):

T - total depravity. Man is completely helpless in his sinful state, is under the wrath of God, and can in no way please God. Total depravity also means that man will not naturally seek to know God, until God graciously prompts him to do so (Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-18).

U - unconditional election. God, from eternity past, has chosen to save a great multitude of sinners, which no man can number (Romans 8:29-30; 9:11; Ephesians 1:4-6,11-12).

L - limited atonement. Also called a “particular redemption.” Christ took the judgment for the sin of the elect upon Himself and thereby paid for their lives with His death. In other words, He did not simply make salvation “possible,” He actually obtained it for those whom He had chosen (Matthew 1:21; John 10:11; 17:9; Acts 20:28;Romans 8:32; Ephesians 5:25).

I - irresistible grace. In his fallen state, man resists God’s love, but the grace of God working in his heart makes him desire what he had previously resisted. That is, God’s grace will not fail to accomplish its saving work in the elect (John 6:37,44; 10:16).

P - perseverance of the saints. God protects His saints from falling away; thus, salvation is eternal (John 10:27-29; Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1:3-14).

The necessity of evangelism. Reformed theology teaches that Christians are in the world to make a difference, spiritually through evangelism and socially through holy living and humanitarianism.
Other distinctives of Reformed theology generally include the observance of two sacraments (baptism and communion), a cessationist view of the spiritual gifts (the gifts are no longer extended to the church), and a non-dispensational view of Scripture. Held in high esteem by Reformed churches are the writings of John Calvin, John Knox, Ulrich Zwingli, and Martin Luther. The Westminster Confession embodies the theology of the Reformed tradition. Modern churches in the Reformed tradition include Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and some Baptist.

Recommended Resource: The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Enns

"What is Covenant Theology?" - Gotquestions.org

 

Please note, as a ministry, GotQuestions.org is not in agreement with all aspects of Covenant Theology. While we are for the most part in agreement with covenant theology in regards to the doctrines of grace (Calvinism), we do not agree with Covenant Theology in regards to the relationship between Israel and the Church, and in regards to the end times. The below article is written by someone who holds to all aspects of Covenant Theology. We thought it would be worthwhile to have an article that positively presents Covenant Theology, as it is always good for our viewpoints to be challenged, motivating us to further search the Scriptures to make sure our beliefs are biblically sound.

(Special note, I would agree with the above statement)

Answer: Covenant Theology isn’t so much a “theology” in the sense of a systematic set of doctrine as it is a framework for interpreting Scripture. It is usually contrasted with another interpretative framework for Scripture called “Dispensational Theology” or “Dispensationalism.” Dispensationalism is currently the most popular scriptural interpretative method in American evangelicalism, and has been so from the latter half of the 19th century. Covenant Theology, however, remains the majority report for Protestantism since the time of the Reformation, and it is the system favored by those of a more Reformed or Calvinistic persuasion.

Where Dispensationalism sees the Scriptures unfolding in a series of (typically) seven “dispensations” (a dispensation can be defined as the particular means God uses to deal with man and creation during a given period in redemptive history), Covenant Theology looks at the Scriptures through the grid of the covenant. Covenant Theology defines two overriding covenants: the covenant of works (CW) and the covenant of grace (CG). A third covenant is sometimes mentioned; namely, the covenant of redemption (CR). We will discuss these covenants in turn. The important thing to keep in mind is that all of the various covenants described in Scripture (e.g., the covenants made with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and the New Covenant) are outworkings of either the covenant of works or the covenant of grace.
Let’s begin to examine the various covenants detailed in Covenant Theology, beginning with the covenant of redemption, which logically precedes the other two covenants. According to Covenant Theology, the CR is a covenant made among the three Persons of the Trinity to elect, atone for, and save a select group of individuals unto salvation and eternal life. As one popular pastor-theologian has said, in the covenant of redemption, “The Father chooses a bride for His Son.” While the CR is not explicitly stated in Scripture, Scripture does explicitly state the eternal nature of the plan of salvation (Ephesians 1:3-14; 3:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:9; James 2:5; 1 Peter 1:2). Moreover, Jesus often referred to His task as carrying out the Father’s will (John 5:3, 43; 6:38-40; 17:4-12). That the salvation of the elect was God’s intention from the very beginning of creation cannot be doubted; the CR just formalizes this eternal plan in the language of covenant.

From a redemptive historical perspective, the covenant of works is the first covenant we see in Scripture. When God created man, He placed him in the Garden of Eden and gave him one simple command: “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17). We can see the covenantal language implied in this command. God sets Adam in the Garden and promises eternal life to him and his posterity as long as he is obedient to God’s commands. Life is the reward for obedience, and death is the punishment for disobedience. This is covenant language.
Some scholars see in the covenant of works a form of what is called a suzerain-vassal covenant. In these types of covenants, the suzerain (i.e., king or ruler) would offer the terms of the covenant to the vassal (i.e., the subject). The suzerain would provide blessing and protection in return for the vassal’s tribute. In the case of the covenant of works, God (the suzerain) promises eternal life and blessing to mankind (the vassal represented by Adam as the head of the human race), in return for man’s obedience to the stipulations of the covenant (i.e., don’t eat from the tree). We see a similar structure in the giving of the Old Covenant through Moses to Israel. Israel made a covenant with God at Sinai. God would give the Promised Land, a reconstituted Eden (“a land flowing with milk and honey”) and His blessing and protection against all enemies in return for Israel’s obedience to the stipulations of the covenant. The punishment for covenant violation was expulsion from the land (which occurred in the conquest of the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C. and the Southern Kingdom in 586 B.C.).

When Adam failed in keeping the covenant of works, God instituted the third covenant, called the covenant of grace. In the CG, God freely offers to sinners (those who fail to live up to the CW) eternal life and salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. We see the provision for the CG right after the fall when God prophesies the “seed of the woman” in Genesis 3:15. Whereas the covenant of works is conditional and promises blessing for obedience and cursing for disobedience, the covenant of grace is unconditional and is given freely on the basis of God’s grace. The CG takes the form of ancient land-grant treaties, in which a king would give land to a recipient as a gift, no strings attached. One can argue that faith is a condition of the covenant of grace. There are many exhortations in the Bible for the recipients of God’s unconditional grace to remain faithful to the end, so, in a very real sense, maintaining faith is a condition of the CG. But the Bible clearly teaches that even saving faith is a gracious gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9).

We see the covenant of grace manifested in the various unconditional covenants God makes with individuals in the Bible. The covenant God makes with Abraham (to be his God and for Abraham and his descendants to be His people) is an extension of the CG. The Davidic Covenant (that a descendant of David will always reign as king) is also an extension of the CG. The New Covenant is the final expression of the CG as God writes His law upon our hearts and completely forgives our sins. One thing that should be apparent as we look at these various OT covenants is that they all find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. The promise to Abraham to bless all the nations was fulfilled in Christ. The Davidic king who will eternally rule over God’s people was also fulfilled in Christ, and the New Covenant was obviously fulfilled in Christ. Even in the Old Covenant, there are hints of the CG as all of the OT sacrifices and rituals point forward to the saving work of Christ, our great High Priest (Hebrews 8–10). This is why Jesus can say in the Sermon on the Mount that He came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).

We also see the CG in action in the OT when God spares His people the judgment that their repeated sin deserves. Even though the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant (an application of the CW) promised God’s judgment upon Israel for their disobedience to His commands, God deals patiently with His covenant people. This is usually accompanied by the phrase “God remembered the covenant he made with Abraham” (2 Kings 13:23; Psalm 105; Isaiah 29:22; 41:8); God’s promise to fulfill the covenant of grace (which by definition is a one-sided covenant) often overrode His right to enforce the covenant of works.

That’s a brief description of covenant theology and how it interprets Scripture through the lens of the covenant. A question that sometimes arises regarding covenant theology is whether or not the CG supplants or supersedes the CW. In other words, is the CW obsolete since the Old Covenant is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13)? The Old (Mosaic) covenant, while an application of the CW, is not the CW. Again, the CW goes all the way back to Eden when God promised life for obedience and death for disobedience. The CW is further elaborated in the Ten Commandments, in which God again promises life and blessing for obedience and death and punishment for disobedience. The Old Covenant is more than just the moral law codified in the Ten Commandments. The Old Covenant includes the rules and regulations regarding the worship of God. It also includes the civil law that governed the nation of Israel during the theocracy and monarchy. With the coming of Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah of the OT, many aspects of the Old Covenant become obsolete because Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant types and figures (again, see Hebrews 8–10). The Old Covenant represented the “types and shadows,” whereas Christ represents the “substance” (Colossians 2:17). Again, Christ came to fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17). As Paul says, “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ. And so through him the ‘Amen’ is spoken by us to the glory of God” (2 Corinthians 1:20).

However, this does not abrogate the covenant of works as codified in the moral law. God demanded holiness from His people in the OT (Leviticus 11:44) and still demands holiness from His people in the NT (1 Peter 1:16). So, we are still obligated to fulfill the stipulations of the CW. The good news is that Jesus Christ, the last Adam and our covenant Head, perfectly fulfilled the demands of the CW and that perfect righteousness is the reason why God can extend the CG to the elect. Romans 5:12-21 describes the situation between the two federal heads of the human race. Adam represented the human race in the Garden and failed to uphold the CW, thereby plunging him and his posterity into sin and death. Jesus Christ stood as man’s representative, from His temptation in the wilderness all the way to Calvary, and perfectly fulfilled the CW. That is why Paul can say, “As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22).

In conclusion, Covenant Theology views the covenants of Scripture as manifestations of either the CW or the CG. The entire story of redemptive history can be seen as God unfolding the CG from its nascent stages (Genesis 3:15) through to its fruition in Christ. Covenant Theology is, therefore, a very Christocentric way of looking at Scripture because it sees the OT as the promise of Christ and the NT as the fulfillment in Christ. Some have accused Covenant Theology as teaching what is called “Replacement Theology” (i.e., the Church replaces Israel). This couldn’t be further from the truth. Unlike Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology does not see a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church. Israel constituted the people of the God in the OT, and the Church (which is made up of Jew and Gentile) constitutes the people of God in the NT; both just make up one people of God (Ephesians 2:11-20). The Church doesn’t replace Israel; the Church is Israel and Israel is the Church (Galatians 6:16). All people who exercise the same faith as Abraham are part of the covenant people of God (Galatians 3:25-29).

Many more things could be said regarding Covenant Theology, but the important thing to keep in mind is that Covenant Theology is an interpretive grid for understanding the Scriptures. As we have seen, it is not the only way to interpret Scripture. Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism have many differences, and sometimes lead to opposite conclusions regarding certain secondary doctrines, but both adhere to the essentials of the Christian faith: salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, and to God alone be the glory!

Recommended Resource: The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Enns

The Death Penalty–WDJB, Not WWJD! by Mark Looy on July 27, 2001

Once again the debate over the death penalty has become a major point of discussion in the United States and beyond. With last month’s execution of terrorist Timothy McVeigh for the 1995 bombing that killed 168 people in Oklahoma City, USA, once again the debate over the death penalty has become a major point of discussion in the United States and beyond (even Pope John Paul II had urged President George W. Bush to stop the execution; and Russian President Putin recently argued against the death penalty, stating that only “the Almighty” has the right to take life1). It is also an emotional debate, even among Christians. But because the Book of Genesis teaches on this subject, we submit this commentary to shed light (and we trust no heat) on what the Bible teaches. Indeed, it is a question that many Christians are currently asking themselves: is the death penalty still applicable today as the Biblical punishment for murder?

Unfortunately, many Christians don’t go to the Bible first to see what God’s Word says on this issue. Of those who do, some say that the commandment in Genesis 9:6 (“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man, shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man”) is from the time of the “law,” and therefore does not have any bearing in our so-called “New Testament Age.” (More about that objection below.)There are other objections to the death penalty expressed by some believers. For example, one Christian on American national television said that he was against the execution of Timothy McVeigh because he believes that Jesus would also be against it, applying the now-famous phrase “What Would Jesus Do (WWJD)?”2 As if he could “read the Lord’s mind” on this issue, he declared that the Lord would say “don’t execute McVeigh.”Both of the objections cited above by some Christians to the death penalty are symptomatic of a disturbing lack of Biblical understanding among believers in the United States (and probably the world as well). If the man interviewed on television had carefully read his Bible, he would know that his answer to the question “What Would Jesus Do?” was wrong. In fact, asking this question without first asking “What did Jesus BELIEVE?” (WDJB) is bound to give wrong answers. Christ accepted the historicity of the book of Genesis (e.g. John 5:47 “But if ye believe not his [Moses’s] writings, how shall ye believe my words?”) and did not rescind the Genesis 9:6 penalty for murder during His earthly ministry. It, therefore, seems to follow that He accepted (and still accepts) the death penalty. Man was created by Christ Himself (Colossians 1:16) and made in His (Christ’s) image.

Thus according to Genesis 9:6, if a murder was committed, permission has been given to man to take the life of the murderer, one who dared violate the Creator’s command not to kill His special creation, made in His image. Some Christians claim that the death penalty was voided by New Testament teaching. They point out that Christ came to make us free from the law of Moses (usually citing John 1:17, Galatians 5:14, and others). While the issue of law and grace is beyond the scope of this brief article, the point they miss in this debate is that Genesis 9:6 came well before the Mosaic law, and was a part of the universal Noahic covenant God made with all mankind. Therefore, there is nothing in the Bible that has rescinded Genesis 9:6: a person who has unquestionably (the Biblical standard of proof required eyewitness testimony) committed premeditated murder can be punished by execution.

To cement this issue, in Romans 13:1-4 Paul, the “Apostle of Grace,” refers to the ruling authorities having been ordained of God to carry out just acts to restrain evil. He points out that they are entitled to “bear the sword” to apply the just penalty to evildoers. In other words, in a fallen world, God has instituted human government, however imperfect, as an instrument to restrain evil to some extent. The state, of course, cannot be said to “bear the sword” to punish evil if, in fact, it could not legitimately remove life under any circumstances. Also, it should be stated that there is no contradiction between Paul’s teaching here and the Biblical commandment “thou shalt not kill” because the commandment actually uses the Hebrew word for “murder’-- the unjust, unsanctioned taking of a human life--not the word “kill.”Furthermore, if it were always wrong to take life, there would be no point in police wearing guns, as it would be clear to criminals that they could never use them, even when defending themselves against a life-threatening attack. It would also have been immoral, wrong, and evil for Allied troops to use weapons and deadly force to wrest Europe from Hitler’s thugs and liberate people from the death camps. Of course, if convicted murderers on Death Row were to repent and become truly converted, their sins (all of them) would be forgiven on the basis of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, and they would not have to face the ultimate penalty, what the Bible calls “the second death.” But the state would still have the right, if not the duty, to carry out the just penalty for their murderous actions.

There are difficult questions to face in the whole death penalty debate, not the least being the degree to which the state applies Biblical standards of proof, and whether it does so impartially and justly. The fact is that in western jurisprudence, using complex arguments about circumstantial evidence, some people are going to be wrongly convicted, and thus a great evil will have been done. And, of course, bloodthirsty calls for revenge should have no part in a Christian approach to such matters. Arguments rage over whether the death penalty is a deterrent or not. But such human opinions are ultimately not the issue–what counts are the Maker’s standards. The simple, stark comment in Genesis has nothing to do with deterrence, but with right and wrong. Our point here is not to join in any lobbying or politics, but simply to state that any argument that appeals to Christianity to oppose the death penalty must also take into account the clear teaching of the Bible on the matter. The death penalty, if fairly and justly implied, was:

1.  instituted by God in Genesis, in a statement to all mankind, not just the Israelites.
2.  never rescinded in the New Testament, but actually reinforced in principle.

9 BIBLE VERSES THAT TEACH THAT SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE IS A SIN - Nicholas Davis

Does the Bible teach that sex before marriage is a sin? A lot of people aren’t sure. This is because we live in a world of tweets and quick soundbites where people rarely have enough time for context.

The thinking often goes: If there is no Bible verse that answers my question, then the Bible must not have an answer to my question. I used to get asked this question often when I did college campus ministry, and I still hear it as a pastor.

Where exactly does the Bible call sex before marriage a sin? Here are several verses to consider.

1. 1 Corinthians 7:2

“But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.”

In this verse, the apostle Paul describes any activity outside of marriage as “sexual immorality.” That means when we read of “sexual immorality,” it includes sex before marriage as one of many examples of sin.

2. Hebrews 13:4

“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.”

What does an undefiled marriage bed look like? It looks like a bed that a husband and a wife share exclusively together. Any kind of sex that is before or outside or in addition to a married relationship of husband and wife is sinful according to the Bible.

3. Acts 15:19-20

“Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality....”

After the Jerusalem council met, the earliest group of Christians decided that Gentiles (meaning anyone who was not a Jew) could be Christians, but that they should refrain from sexual immorality, among other sins. In the wider biblical context, as we noted earlier, sexual immorality includes sex before marriage.

4. 1 Corinthians 5:1

“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife.” (See also, Ephesians 5:3)

This one is interesting. A man was sleeping with his stepmom or mother-in-law outside of marriage. Paul is very clear that this is a grievous sin, one that not even non-Christians in the city of Corinth were guilty of doing!

5. Galatians 5:19-21

“Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (See also Colossians 3:5)

In this long list of sins, the sexual sins that Paul includes are “sexual immorality,” “impurity,” “sensuality,” and even “orgies.” It would be very difficult to argue that Paul gives approval of sex outside of marriage, given these strong words against sexual intercourse of various types and kinds. If elsewhere, Paul gives permission of sex between a married man and woman, then all other forms of sex are sinful.

6. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5

“For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God….”

Here, Paul contrasts a believer’s self-control over his own body with living out of control, burning in passionate lust. The former is living a life that is pleasing to God and is holy, while the other is living a life that clearly does not know God. In which group do you think a hook-up culture that uses apps like Tinder is? Is sleeping with someone you met a few minutes ago demonstrating control over one’s body, or is it done in the passion of lust?

7. 1 Corinthians 7:8-9

“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

Paul clearly spells out that for unmarried, single people, God desires abstinence from sex for them. If abstinence is not something they can live with, then they should seek to get married. It’s clear that sex within the context of marriage is not a sin, but outside of marriage it is sinful.

8. Genesis 2:24-25

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.”

From the very beginning, God’s design for sex has been between a man and a woman in the context of marriage. This is not held out as the ideal, but this is supposed to be the norm for all sexual intercourse according to the Bible.

9. 1 Corinthians 6:18-20

“Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”

Finally, the last few verses that speak to the question of sex before marriage mention the basis of this difficult claim on our lives. A Christian is to refrain from sexual intercourse with other people because Christians belong not to themselves, but to God. We have been given the great gift of God indwelling us—the Holy Spirit lives within us—so when we join ourselves to others through one-night stands we are violating both our own body and the Lord who has purchased us by pouring out his own body and blood for us.

Concluding Thoughts on Sex

Sex is therefore not “just sex.” The Bible teaches that sex has meaning because marriage itself between a man and a woman is a beautiful picture of the gospel. Jesus, the Groom, sacrificially gives himself for his beloved bride, the church. Sex is ultimately a picture of this redeeming love that God has demonstrated by giving up his Son to save us.

If you've had sex before marriage, all hope is not lost. God is more than able to forgive you of all of your sins—even the sin of having sex before or outside of marriage. God is more than willing to forgive you of all lust and free you from all impurity through the cleansing blood of his Son, Jesus. Turn away from all sexual immorality and seek to live under God’s gracious and forgiving love.

For those of you who do struggle with burning passion, continue to wait patiently for the right time for you to enjoy the gift of sex. Pray for the Lord to bring you a faithful and God-fearing spouse. Sex is a wonderful privilege that comes with great responsibility. May the Lord bless you and keep you.

Bible Reliability: M-A-P-S to Guide You through Bible Reliability By: Hank Hanegraaff

Use M-A-P-S to guide you through Bible reliability:

Manuscripts, Archaeology, Prophecy, Statistics

Have you tried to show someone the historical reliability of the Scriptures, and not known where to start? A quick trip to your local well-stocked Christian bookstore likely will overwhelm you. Where among the dozens of impressive, comprehensive reference books should you start?
Fortunately, while there is a wealth of information available to support the reliability of Scripture, you don’t have to burn, the midnight oil to give a reasonable answer to those who ask, “How can we know the Bible is reliable?” Four basic principle chart your way to understanding basic biblical reliability.
To help you remember, I’ve developed the simple acronym “MAPS.” Remember the wordMAPS and you will be able to chart Bible reliability.

Bible Reliability-Manuscripts
Manuscripts relates to the tests used to determine the reliability of the extant manuscript copies of the original documents penned by the Scripture writers (we do not possess these originals). In determining manuscript reliability, we deal with the question: How can we test to see that the text we possess in the manuscript copies is an accurate rendition of the original? There are three main manuscript tests: the Bibliographic, Eyewitness, and External (a second acronym —BEE — will help you remember these).
The bibliographic test considers the quantity of manuscripts and manuscript fragments, and also the time span between the original documents and our earliest copies. The more copies, the better able we are to work back to the original. The closer the time span between the copies and the original, the less likely it is that serious textual error would creep in. The Bible has stronger bibliographic support than any classical literature — including Homer, Tacitus, Pliny, and Aristotle.
We have more than 14,000 manuscripts and fragments of the Old Testament of three main types: (a) approximately 10,000 from the Cairo Geniza (storeroom) find of 1897, dating back as far as about AD. 800; (b) about 190 from the Dead Sea Scrolls find of 1947-1955, the oldest dating back to 250-200 B.C.; and (c) at least 4,314 assorted other copies. The short time between the original Old Testament manuscripts (completed around 400 B.C.) and the first extensive copies (about 250 B.C.) — coupled with the more than 14,000 copies that have been discovered — ensures the trustworthiness of the Old Testament text. The earliest quoted verses (Num. 6:24-26) date from 800-700 B.C.
The same is true of the New Testament text. The abundance of textual witnesses is amazing. We possess over 5,300 manuscripts or portions of the (Greek) New Testament — almost 800 copied before A.D. 1000. The time between the original composition and our earliest copies is an unbelievably short 60 years or so. The overwhelming bibliographic reliability of the Bible is clearly evident.
The eyewitness document test (“E”), sometimes referred to as the internal test, focuses on the eyewitness credentials of the authors. The Old and New Testament authors were eyewitnesses of — or interviewed eyewitnesses of — the majority of the events they described. Moses participated in and was an eyewitness of the remarkable events of the Egyptian captivity, the Exodus, the forty years in the desert, and Israel’s final encampment before entering the Promised Land. These events he chronicled in the first five books of the Old Testament.
The New Testament writers had the same eyewitness authenticity. Luke, who wrote the Books of Luke and Acts, says that he gathered eyewitness testimony and “carefully investigated everything” (Luke 1:1-3). Peter reminded his readers that the disciples “were eyewitnesses of [Jesus’] majesty” and “did not follow cleverly invented stories” (2 Pet. 1:16). Truly, the Bible affirms the eyewitness credibility of its writers.
The external evidence test looks outside the texts themselves to ascertain the historical reliability of the historical events, geographical locations, and cultural consistency of the biblical texts. Unlike writings from other world religions which make no historical references or which fabricate histories, the Bible refers to historical events and assumes its historical accuracy. The Bible is not only the inspired Word of God, it is also a history book — and the historical assertions it makes have been proven time and again.
Many of the events, people, places, and customs in the New Testament are confirmed by secular historians who were almost contemporaries with New Testament writers. Secular historians like the Jewish Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100-110) make direct reference to Jesus or affirm one or more historical New Testament references. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome — all writing before A.D. 250 — shed light on New Testament historical accuracy. Even skeptical historians agree that the New Testament is a remarkable historical document. Hence, it is clear that there is strong external evidence to support the Bible’s manuscript reliability.

Bible Reliability-Archaeology
Returning to our MAPS acronym, we have established, the first principle, manuscript reliability. Let us consider our second principle, archaeological evidence. Over and over again, comprehensive field work (archaeology) and careful biblical interpretation affirms the reliability of the Bible. It is telling when a secular scholar must revise his biblical criticism in light of solid archaeological evidence.
For years critics dismissed the Book of Daniel, partly because there was no evidence that a king named Belshazzar ruled in Babylon during that time period. However, later archaeological research confirmed that the reigning monarch, Nabonidus, appointed Belshazzar as his co-regent whi1e he was away from Babylon.
One of the most well-known New Testament examples concerns the Books of Luke and Acts. A biblical skeptic, Sir William Ramsay, trained as an archaeologist and then set out to disprove the historical reliability of this portion of the New Testament. However, through his painstaking Mediterranean archaeological trips, he became converted as — one after another — of the historical statements of Luke were proved accurate. Archaeological evidence thus confirms the trustworthiness of the Bible.

Bible Reliability-Prophecy
The third principle of Bible reliability is Prophecy, or predictive ability. The Bible records predictions of events that could not be known or predicted by chance or common sense. Surprisingly, the predictive nature of many Bible passages was once a popular argument (by liberals) against the reliability of the Bible. Critics argued that the prophecies actually were written after the events and that editors had merely dressed up the Bible text to look like they contained predictions made before the events. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. The many predictions of Christ’s birth, life and death (see below) were indisputably rendered more than a century before they occurred as proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah and other prophetic books as well as by the Septuagint translation, all dating from earlier than 100 B.C.
Old Testament prophecies concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre were fulfilled in ancient times, including prophecies that the city would be opposed by many nations (Ezek. 26:3); its walls would be destroyed and towers broken down (26:4); and its stones, timbers, and debris would be thrown into the water (26:12). Similar prophecies were fulfilled concerning Sidon (Ezek. 28:23; Isa. 23; Jer. 27:3-6; 47:4) and Babylon (Jer. 50:13, 39; 51:26, 42-43, 58; Isa. 13:20-21).
Since Christ is the culminating theme of the Old Testament and the Living Word of the New Testament, it should not surprise us that prophecies regarding Him outnumber any others. Many of these prophecies would have been impossible for Jesus to deliberately conspire to fulfill — such as His descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:3; 17:19; Num. 24:21-24); His birth in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2); His crucifixion with criminals (Isa. 53:12); the piercing of His hands and feet at the crucifixion (Ps. 22:16); the soldiers’ gambling for His clothes (Ps. 22:18); the piercing of His side and the fact that His bones were not broken at His death (Zech. 12:10; Ps. 34:20); and His burial among the rich (Isa. 53:9). Jesus also predicted His own death and resurrection (John 2:19-22). Predictive Prophecy is a principle of Bible reliability that often reaches even the hard-boiled skeptic!

Bible Reliability-Statistics
Our fourth MAPS principle works well with predictive prophecy because it is Statistically preposterous that any or all of the Bible’s very specific, detailed prophecies could have been fulfilled through chance, good guessing, or deliberate deceit. When you look at some of the improbable prophecies of the Old and New Testaments, it seems incredible that skeptics — knowing the authenticity and historicity of the texts — could reject the statistical verdict: the Bible is the Word of God, and Jesus Christ is the Son of God, just as Scripture predicted many times and in many ways.
The Bible was written over a span of 1500 years by forty different human authors in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), on hundreds of subjects. And yet there is one consistent, noncontradictory theme that runs through it all: God’s redemption of humankind. Clearly, Statistical probability is a powerful indicator of the trustworthiness of Scripture.
The next time someone denies the reliability of Scripture, just remember the acronym MAPS, and you will be equipped to give an answer and a reason for the hope that lies within you (1 Pet. 3:15). Manuscripts, Archaeology, Prophecy, and Statistics not only chart a secure course on the turnpikes of skepticism but also demonstrate definitively that the Bible is indeed divine rather than human in origin.