Audio: Galactica Conclusio Philosophicus

Why Study Theology?

“[If] you do not listen to Theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones— bad, muddled, out-ofdate ideas. “—C. S. Lewis

Mention the words theology or doctrine in almost any gathering of Christian believers and you’ll get a variety of reactions, some quite negative. Some Christians glibly—almost proudly—confess ignorance of the subject. Few, it seems, want to be seen as ‘‘theologians.’’

Aren’t theologians, after all, pious but impractical people given to fussing over Bible trivia, engaging in doctrinal hair-splitting, and writing on obscure topics in pretentious tomes no one reads? While these specialists are wasting precious time on things that matter little—if at all, so the thinking goes—the rest of us are busy trying to live out our Christian faith in a sometimes hostile environment.

If you have harbored such thoughts, Bruce Milne’s claim that ‘‘every Christian is a theologian’’ may surprise or even dismay you. But think about it for a moment.

Theology is the study or science of God. We all know something about God, yet we rarely think of what we know as ‘‘theology.’’ By virtue of being born again we have all begun to know God and therefore have a certain understanding of his nature and actions. That is, we all have a theology of sorts, whether or not we have ever sat down and pieced it together.

So, properly understood, theology is not for a few religious eggheads with a flair for abstract debate—it is everybody’s business. Once we have grasped this, our duty is to become the best theologians we can to the glory of God, as our understanding of God and his ways is clarified and deepened through studying the book he has given for that very purpose, the Bible. (See 2 Timothy 3:16.)

As children of God it only makes sense that we should strive to know all we can about our heavenly Father, his ways and his will for our lives. Taking a casual approach to our beliefs nearly guarantees frustration and misunderstanding in our relationship with God.

Given the choice between ‘‘theology’’ and ‘‘practical faith,’’ most Christians opt for the latter. But is it truly possible to grow in faith without growing in knowledge of God? How are we to know we are acting rightly, making wise choices, living in a manner pleasing to him, without some basis for such knowledge?

Alister McGrath asserts that for anyone interested in doing the right thing, ‘‘it is necessary to have a set of values concerning human life. Those values are determined by beliefs, and those beliefs are stated as doctrines. Christian doctrine thus provides a fundamental framework for Christian living.’’

Where McGrath sees a framework, Philip Yancey speaks of a foundation: Jesus told a story of two men who built houses that, from the outside, looked alike. The true difference between them came to light when a storm hit.

One house did not fall, even though rain poured down, streams rose, and winds beat against it, because its foundation rested on rock. The second house, foolishly built on sand, fell with a great crash. In theology as well as in construction, foundations matter.

A frequent complaint about theology is that it engenders argument more readily than spiritual progress. Wouldn’t it be better, Christians often reason, if we expended more energy on loving each other and less on proving ourselves right and others wrong?

Admittedly, doctrine is too often used as a weapon (often a blunt instrument!) to discredit the views of others. Promoting one’s own ‘‘rightness’’ at the expense of ‘‘righteousness’’ is never to be commended. But to avoid the study of doctrine because some handle the subject badly is as foolish as haphazardly constructing a house with no foundation simply because someone else’s house is a monstrosity.

The apostle Paul admonished that knowledge can make us arrogant (1 Corinthians 8:1), yet he chastised those who were sinning, having ‘‘no knowledge of God’’ (15:34 NASB). We must find a balance between knowledge and love, between knowledge and faith.

The modern Christian tends to ignore or decry the importance of right doctrine. Tired of endless disputes, Christians today embrace the idea that what really matters is right relationships, not right doctrine.

The idea that one is more important than the other is a faulty premise; both right relationships and right doctrine matter. 6 At the same time: Correct doctrine in itself is not enough; it is tragically possible to fail to work God’s truth out in practical obedience. That is one reason why doctrine often gets a bad press.

If correct doctrine does not lead to holy, loving, mature lives, something has gone terribly wrong. But that is no reason for neglecting or discounting it. The greatest commandment, Jesus said, is to ‘‘love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind’’ (Matthew 22:37). He did not give categorical options, as if we could love God with heart or soul or mind; the command requires all of the above.

Loving him with our minds will naturally entail finding out as much as possible about him. Just as in any relationship, love compels us to know and understand what he is like, how he works in the world and in us, what he loves, what he desires, what offends him, what delights him. Doing so requires our full attention and our diligent study.

Dr. Jack Nelson

Luder-Wycliffe Seminary Announces Eschatology Essay Contest

On August 15,2015 Luder Wycliffe Theological Seminary will be awarding a 100% Scholarship on our Eschatology degree program(excluding books and Graduation Fee) to the best submitted essay of 2000 words on how and why eschatology has shaped the Church as well as the different views on the subject.

The essays will be judged for its scholarly writing and insights.

The work must be original and well referenced.

The winner will be announced on Facebook on the date listed above.

God bless and good luck!

Dr. Jack Nelson

Education Key To Satanic Infiltration Of The Church

One of the disheartening things I notice is the hand of Satan inside the Church as well as outside the Church. You can easily see the discord among Christians even here on Facebook.

There seems to be more disagreement than agreement, even to the point of hostility. Is this the work of the Holy Spirit or Satan?

You tell me?

As I am gathering data for my next book I have discovered the main reasons for the ever decreasing numbers of people ( especially young people) in Churches around the world.

It has to do with so-called Higher Education.

The humanists have control of our Universities and Colleges and have slanted the curriculum in their favor.

The sciences and humanities is mainly where Satan's Seat resides.

These schools are atheist makers. Make no mistake about it!

The atheistic educators have made this general statement more than once, ( I will paraphrase it) so please take it to heart: " our primary hindrance for bringing about our model of "truth" in evolution and other social sciences are the Christian conservatives.

The liberal Christians have already succumbed to altering their religious beliefs to scientific evidence and therefore are no longer a threat, but it remains that the conservative branch continues to resist our efforts to fully control the answers to life and its origins.

This goes as well for other portions of everyday life that the "Free Thinker" encounters."

The above paraphrased statement was taken from various authors such as Dawkins, Coyne and many others.

I am working from memory here but will later provide some exact quotes.

So, you can see that we have our hands full, but God is still in control and we will prevail!

Keep on keeping on!

Blessings!

By Jack Nelson, President Of Luder-Wycliffe Seminary

The World’s First “Apocalypse Degree” Offered only through Luder Wycliffe Theological Seminary

The Luder Wycliffe Theological Seminary is now accepting applications for its unique graduate and post graduate degree programs in Eschatology (End Times Studies) that are not available elsewhere in the world. The Luder Wycliffe Online Seminary is the only place where students can earn a degree in eschatology, and has quickly earned the nick name “The Apocalypse Degree.”

Eschatology is the study of the end times and events that are yet to take place in the world, and forms an important part of Christian theological studies. But there is only one seminary that actually offers graduate and doctoral programs in this field. As a non-regional seminary, LWTS is a non-regionally accredited school that also offers the complete range of seminary degree programs available elsewhere.

The Masters and Doctoral programs in eschatology are both comprehensive and rigorous, and students which have studied this specialized field of theology, can finally funnel their energy into a credible and viable degree program.

Since the Christian Church shares several different views concerning the final events surrounding end time prophecy, students that enroll at LWTS for the Eschatology Degree Program will learn every angle of each position and thereby receive a well balanced and overall picture of eschatological teaching, regardless of their personal view.

The Luder Wycliffe Theological Seminary offers one of the most in-depth and targeted learning systems available by any online religious institution. Its studies comprise both a mixture of online and physical textbooks as well as completely offline and paper based course work for those who prefer the traditional methods. LWTS also offers one-on-one mentorship with their studies.

Luder Wycliffe is a Baptist based school, but is open to all evangelical persuasions, as is the case with such a school like Liberty University.

“Having a degree in eschatology has been long overdue, and I’m surprised no other school has ever thought of it. The appetite and need for this subject is there, so therefore must be the demand." said Jack Nelson, D. Min., President and Founder.

To know more, please visit: www.luderwycliffe.com

Luder-Wycliffe Theological Seminary

P.O. Box 495

Endicott, NY 13760

Tel: (607) 754-0133

E-mail: drnelson@luderwycliffe.com

Biomedical Developments Require Advanced Ethical Reflection

With advances in medical science, the line between when doctors should intervene to save a life and when they should step back to allow nature to take its course has become increasingly blurred. Since life sustaining support systems can be financially burdensome and because the average person emphatically projects themselves into such a situation and find that they are unsettled in the spirit when confronted with these devices, many make statements to their loved ones and even draw up legal documents that specify that they do not wish to receive such treatments to sustain their earthly lives. However, when the individual enunciates these kinds of concerns to their friends and family, they must be explicit as to what they desire or lawyers and related bureaucratic scavengers could very well descend around the withering remains to pick and claw as they play the word games for which their breeds are infamous amidst shades of ambiguity.

As an illustration, consider the following. A young mother with two small children has an accident one morning that does not kill her but leaves her in a coma. She is taken to the trauma center where she is placed on life support. Her husband informs the medical staff that his wife stated that she desired no treatment should she ever find herself in such a condition. Since her temperature is rising significantly, her physician believes she should be treated for an infection. Her husband does not approve.

To decide whose wishes should prevail (either her husband’s or the doctor’s), any bioethics committee called in to make a determination would first have to consider a number of factors. For starters, a bioethics committee would need to distinguish between extraordinary and ordinary means of treatment.

According to Rae, ordinary means are those courses of treatment for a disease that offer a reasonable hope of benefit to the patient without being excessively burdensome; extraordinary means are those that do not offer such hope and place undue burdens on the patient (185). In other words, extraordinary means would include things such as respirators that temporarily extend a life that would come to an end without the intervention of such a device. Ordinary means would consist of those things that ordinarily sustain or improve the normal processes of life such as food and water. Antibiotics could be considered an ordinary means of treatment since these substances are administered to curb an infection threatening life and health rather than prolonging life that is beginning to fade away.

Second, the bioethics committee should look into the quality of the of relationship between husband and wife. While such a suggestion might seem nosy, in light of certain disturbing aspects of the Terri Schiavo case, it would be helpful to know whether the spouse is sincerely seeking to fulfill the wishes of their mate in these grim matters or merely looking for an easy way out to make their way on to their next victim, I mean partner.

This case is not that difficult for objective observers with a traditional Judeo-Christian worldview. Administering antibiotics to fight off the infection in order to bide more time to ascertain more fully God’s future plans for this woman would be a moral obligation.

More extensive life support measures would be a decision best left to the family. The most difficult task might be educating the husband as to the distinctions between ordinary and extraordinary means. Though some might consider it presumptuous to speak on someone else’s behalf, at the time his wife made the statement about not wanting treatment if she ever found herself in such a situation, she was probably not referring to treatments such as food, water, and regular medicines but rather to things more like breathing tubes and respirators. For example, one could argue that, if the “no treatment” criteria was to be upheld as an inviolable absolute, the administration of painkillers would have to be withheld as well since these are also a form of treatment.

Furthermore, the medical professional must make it clear that it is not over until it’s over. The antibiotics do not interfere with the chain of events set into motion by the accident, the outcome of which no mortal can know for certain. Rather, these substances prevent an otherwise preventable or treatable secondary matter from overtaking the body and weakening it further. By administering the antibiotics, the family can better prepare themselves for the ultimate will of God in the life of their loved one, which could consist of any number of possible outcomes such as death, healing, or life-long disability.

Even though a number of these states may be far from what we would consider ideal and we might even question them sometimes as mere human beings, it is not our place to be the direct cause of the conclusion of the process known as life. It is rather the duty of the family and authorized caregivers to make the loved one as comfortable as possible and this is most likely what a person means when they say they do not want to be subject to all kinds of extraordinary treatments.

By Frederick Meekins

The Imperative Of Sound Hermeneutics

One of the things I stress when I teach courses on interpretation in theology (Hermeneutics) is staying true to the known and accepted rules of interpretation. IF... you do this, you will have a better chance of staying on track in applying sound biblical exegesis.

I often become concerned when I encounter individuals that insist on maintaining a biased system of hermeneutics in order to satisfy their predetermined school of thought concerning particular doctrinal positions. What I mean by "biased" is that they knowingly violate the rules of interpretation when forming their hypothesis.

When someone tells me that they believe every word and every phrase in the Bible WITHOUT CHANGING, ADDING TO or TAKING AWAY FROM the Word of God....I do not believe them because it is not true! If I present a few words or phrases straight from the Bible they will give me a long drawn out reason as to why they must do so.

One either sticks to their original statement or they don't.

This is the very reason we need to be careful when we soundly interpret the Word of God, not because every word is not true...it is, but IN CONTEXT with the historical background, to whom it was originally written, the linguistics involved, the type of language used, (whether literal or symbolic), as well as a myriad of other issues which cast light upon the section of Scripture in question.

We all need to be careful not to become trapped within our own preconceived ideas...it will prove to come back and haunt us!

Our slogan here at Luder Wycliffe is..."Train Hard...Serve Well"

Blessings!

Dr. Jack Nelson

The Best Seminaries in the U.S.?

When one thinks about the question of top rated seminaries, one of the first things that pops into the mind of a casual reader are that of the Ivy League schools such as Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge and others. These institutions are also rivaled by other so-called top notch schools that are highly praised by the world’s most sought after regionally accredited associations.

It is no more than common knowledge that such schools are the enemy of conservative biblical education. The Bible itself is no more considered God-breathed by these institutions than is a copy of Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer. Their stance toward biblical criticism goes far beyond mere questions of authorship and hermeneutics, it rather embraces the idea of historical fiction. The bible is not read as a book of redemption or a prime source of moral absolutes, but more as a provenience of estranged literary prose and storyline fables.

This is a primary reason why so many within the Church today make the claim that if one enters a liberal seminary today, his faith will be destroyed tomorrow. The sad fact is that even our more conservative seminaries which share the same liberal accreditation, are feeling the pressure of instituting the severe side of biblical criticism, which will in turn wreak havoc upon the lives and ministries of countless souls around the globe.

It has already been determined that multiple thousands of sitting pastors of several mainline denominations are now agnostics, but are afraid to come forward in fear of losing their position in the Church and society. This my friend is the product of the liberal side of regional accreditation and biblical criticism and the reason that I and others that run non-regional seminaries are concerned about the current state of affairs, because we care about the inerrant , infallible and unchangeable Word of God and the necessity of it being taught within the coursework of our schools.

When one seeks out a seminary, regional accreditation should not be a factor unless he chooses to work as a Military or a State endorsed Chaplain or for a liberal denomination that cares more about State approval than they do about biblical sovereignty and integrity. It is of my humble opinion that Church doctrine and biblical higher learning belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ and not the State, thereby accreditation should be overseen by a credible conservative Christian organization…period!

Seminary students are coming out not only with their faith and many times their marriage in shambles, but also their bank account broken with a huge debt to be paid off for years to come. This alone is unbiblical to say the least. The answer is simple…seek out a seminary where you can learn at home with a very reasonable tuition and still get a superior education. I truly believe that this the more godly route!

By Dr. Jack Nelson

Luder Wycliffe Theological Seminary Provides Rigorous Education

Luder Wycliffe Theological Seminary uses online teaching methods which fosters critical thinking and produces superior course outcomes for the student.

Our students will readily attest that the work is not easy, but it yields solid results!

If you really want to learn and are tired of inferior online seminary course work, then come home to Luder Wycliffe!

"Train Hard...Serve Well"

By Dr. Jack Nelson

Luder Wycliffe Announces Fast Track Program by Testing!

Luder Wycliffe will be instituting an additional degree program for students with professional experience and or knowledge in Biblical Studies and Ministry.

This new program is called "Degree by Testing."

This type of study is good for one degree level only. In other words, if one successfully completes the testing for a Bachelor Degree, he can not take a degree by testing for the Masters level and so on.

This is a fast track course of study, but do not be deceived...it is a tough test, but of course you can prepare for it.

The Superiority Of Theism Part 3: Unbelief's Defiance Of Common Sense

The Superiority Of Theism Part 3: Unbelief's Defiance Of Common Sense According to Geisler and Turek, a number of scientific discoveries come down on the side of the cosmological proof rather than the steady state hypothesis. To assist in remembering what these are, the authors have provided the acronym SURGE.

“S” stands for the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Laws of Thermodynamics stipulate that, within the universe, there is only a finite amount of energy and that over time this energy is dissipated into disorder or entropy.

From this, both the scientist and the theologian must come to similar conclusions. If there is only a finite amount of energy in the universe, by definition there had to have been some kind of starting point or things would have already reached maximum entropy in ages past. Yet we find that we are still here.

This alone is enough to cause the Steady State house of cards to come crashing down. However, from the remainder of their acronym, Geisler and Turek provide the apologist with additional lines of scientific evidence attesting to a moment of creation.

The letter “U” stands for universal expansion. In 1920, Astronomer Edwin Hubble deduced from the red shift in light that the universe is expanding outward from one particular point.

Traditionally, those embracing the idea of God creating the universe have held the notion of the Big Bang at arm’s length. The concept must be handled with caution because if one is not careful one can end up with a less than Biblical cosmology where matter is as eternally existent as God and not dependent upon Him for its existence. However, the expansion of the universe is itself a confirmation of the laws of thermodynamics as it points to a definitive point of creation because, if the cosmos was infinitely old, the universe would have collapsed back on itself by now.

The “R” in SURGE stands for “radiation” from the Big Bang. Discovered in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, cosmic background radiation was left over from the moment of creation and has not yet dissipated (81).

Yet another aspect of the cosmic background radiation attesting to a deliberate intelligence at work in the universe is the concept of “galactic seeds”, which serve as the “G” in SURGE. According to the theory of cosmic background radiation, this energy signature would not be uniform across the backdrop of space but instead be scattered about in concentrated pockets.

Geisler and Turek write, “These temperature ripples enabled matter to congregate by gravitational attraction into galaxies (82).” These seeds themselves attest to deliberation, as Geisler and Turek further elaborate, “The ripples show that...the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself (83)."

The "E" in SURGE stands for Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. According to Geisler and Turek, the theory posits a need for an absolute beginning for space, time and matter since these are interdependent with one not being able to exist without the others. It was because of the theory of relativity that scientists were able to discover the expanding universe, cosmic background radiation and galactic seeds (84).

Despite the marvels of nature, a number of those most familiar with its technicalities and implications continue on in their unbelief. For example, some such as Robert Atkins attempt to evade the matter of how matter came about. In his “Creation Revisited”, Atkins postulated origins derived from mathematical points swirling about in nothingness which Ravi Zacharias pointed out to him after a debate moderated by William F. Buckley were actually something (80).

Others such as Robert Jastrow admit, "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proved by their own methods that the world began abruptly in an act of creation...That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." Yet according to Geisler, these minds continue on in their agnosticism despite the evidence. Hence the name of Giesler's book “I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist”.

The theist might be ready to let his guard down to rest thinking a decisive victory has been scored in the apologetic encounter. However, the battle is far from over.

For while the cosmological argument brings the unbeliever into a more theistic orbit, it hardly brings him to the embrace of a creator that cares about His creation or even relates to it on a personal level. The reluctant theist might even attempt to save face by countering that, even if some force or entity we have come to refer to as God set the universe in motion, what we see around us including ourselves is the result of random chance and deterministic consequences spanning back millennia.

By Frederick Meekins

Bibliography: Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. “I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist.”

The Superiority Of Theism Part 1: Worldview Comparisons

Though things change dramatically as the years and centuries unfold with the average person enjoying luxuries now that even the bards of old couldn’t have devised for the Homeric pantheon, some of mankind's most basic aspirations and perplexities have remained constant throughout the course of history. Even though he said it dismissively in an attempt to assuage his own conscience, Pontius Pilate’s exclamation of “What is truth?” rings as true today as it did in the time of the Roman Empire.

In fact, confusion over it and related concepts can be found at the heart of many of the disputes and issues tearing at the fabric of the early twenty-first century world. In “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist”, Norman Geisler and Frank Turek analyze why it actually requires more effort to remain an unbeliever and provide a number of tools the Christian can utilize to defend the faith in hostile situations before skeptical audiences.

Often, Christianity is downplayed and its influence minimized by secularists in the broader culture through the claim that the system is not objective. From this conjecture, critics diverge into two branches.

Older Modernists will argue that their perspective, superficially free of any prior faith commitments and extolling science as the ultimate foundation for truth, is the only objective viewpoint. Postmodernists, having grown weary of maintaining such a facade, dump the illusion of objectivity all together by postulating that every perspective is merely a matter opinion with no viewpoint being any more universally authoritative than any other. In “I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist”, Norman Geisler and Frank Turek endeavor to show how Christianity is the best faith alternative for successfully balancing the tensions between the objective and the subjective.

Whether the detached skeptic --- often holding a tenured university chair --- wants to admit it or not, everyone (including himself) holds to some kind of religious position. In their analysis, Geisler and Turek classify religious worldviews into the three broad categories of Theism, Pantheism, and Atheism (23).

The authors define the first category of Theism as the belief that a personal God created the universe but that He is distinct from it. Examples of theistic belief systems include Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

The second worldview category is Pantheism, the idea that the universe as a mystical totality is God. To better understand this and the differences with Theism, Geisler and Turek provide the following example.

In Theism, God is analogous to an artist and the universe His distinct artistic work that is separate from Him but with which He interacts. In Pantheism, God is the painting. Major pantheist faiths include Hinduism, Buddhism, and the New Age movement.

The third worldview category is Atheism, which denies the existence of God and often a spiritual or immaterial component of reality all together. Under this category, Geisler and Turek have included Religious Humanism because --- even though differentiated from its secularist cousin in that it gives lip service to the existence of a power beyond the material realm --- Religious Humanism still looks to man rather than God as the final authority.

The Modernist and the Postmodernist have further skewered the discussion in their favor by creating barriers between the notions of belief and facts. Geisler and Turek write, “Despite its apparent persuasiveness, the claim that religion is simply a matter of faith is nothing more than a modern myth --- it’s just not true. While religion certainly requires faith, religion is not only about faith. Facts are also central to all religions because all religious worldviews --- including atheism --- make truth claims, and many of those truth claims can be evaluated through scientific and historical investigation (23).”

There is indeed a degree of correlation between what a person believes and the world beyond the self. One only needs to point out that insane asylums and mental wards are full of people who for various reasons and as a result of assorted circumstances have had their minds severed from reality. And though we as a society must exercise vigilance and even vociferously oppose those who would infringe upon the freedom and dignity of those whose outlooks run counter to prevailing perceptions but do not pose a definitive bodily harm to those around them, Christians should advocate for their worldview as the perspective that best harmonizes the inner and outer worlds.

By Frederick Meekins