On Dating Luke & Acts, and It’s Synoptic Consequence

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Larson

REL3250

12 April 2008

On Dating Luke-Acts, and It’s Synoptic Consequence

When looking at the dating of the New Testament Documents, we are quickly approached by scholarly presuppositions. In analyzing why certain critical scholars may be inclined to favor later dates, the first reason that would come to mind is, as a liberal biblical critic, one may be trying to find a way to shake the historicity and reliability of Gospel claims. By no means is this an over-all claim of critical scholarship and scholars in general, but due to the existence of a bias in human nature, it’s understandable that some scholars may overlook internal and external evidences for the pursuit of a conclusion that agrees with their presuppositions against Christianity’s claims; or they may solely find agreements to their previous biblical conclusions. The reason why they would seek to separate the writing of the documents to the life of the original disciples has to do with the concept of the Gospels containing mythology. Some of these scholars enter the dating arena with the notion that the gospels contain a degree of mythology (miracles, virgin birth, resurrection, etc), and because of this they date the books with an innate bias for later dates. Sadly, some scholars build from this bias when the reverse should be attempted. Many of these biblical critic’s arguments rely on the fact that the window between the disciple’s lifetime, and the drafting of the documents, is so extensive that time allowed certain ‘myths’ to develop surrounding Jesus. This then allows them to analyze certain scriptural claims in light of mystified information, and thus oversee certain crucial Christian and biblical statements. From here, the scholars conclude that “the writers created the events contained, rather than reported them.” On the other side, certain scholars hold biases seeking out early dates to the documents, as this further strengthens the tenets to their arguments, and the reliability of the Gospels themselves. With these two opposing views, and the importance not only behind the dates, but the ramifications dating itself brings to their opposing arguments, we can understand how important it is to explore the possibility of dating the Gospels.

Of these Gospels, conservative scholars in particular have championed one as the historical narrative, and its author as the biblical historian himself. This is none-other than Luke the Physician, and his writings of Luke-Acts. In analyzing Luke-Acts we will get a feel for both the dating and historicity of the Gospel documents, and thus come to a conclusion regarding the conservative and liberal scholarly traditions. This paper will explore the possibility of dating Luke-Acts, and will conclude as later argued and illuminated through various professionals and their observations, that the traditional dating estimate is most accurate, while the critical argument for a second century date results from ignored internal and external evidences.

The date the books of the New Testament were written is a very important question to both Scholars and Christians. The time in which these documents were drafted gives us an idea of the reliability of the texts themselves, and the ability to bypass an argument of Jesus-mythology in favor of actual witness-based accounts. This paper will argue the above thesis of the dating of Luke-Acts in the following format: First we will analyze the arguments and conclusions of some of the world’s best scholars, apologists, and historians. This list includes the observations of Roman historian Colin J. Hemer, the statements of the ending of Acts and Paul & Prophecy from Adolf Harnack, and the arguments of historicity and special local knowledge by Norman Geisler. After analyzing these three individuals and their argumentation, we will then analyze the conclusions of an ex-liberal biblical scholar, William F. Albright, and the conclusion of a biblical critic and a leader in the “God is Dead” movement, John A. T. Robinson. After observing the conclusions these two renowned individuals came to, we will go into the internal and external methods of dating Luke-Acts by analyzing early Greek citations, and the numerous early Greek manuscripts. After analyzing these external evidences of Greek manuscripts and citations, we will quickly review the arguments made by critics, and where their assumptions fail. We will finally finish off with the summarized conclusions of the above-mentioned scholars, historians, and apologists, and weigh whether the internal & external evidences and the various arguments favor the traditional or critical date.

We can start analyzing the dating of Luke-Acts by taking into account their single authorship. For the sake of this papers focus, we will take for granted that Luke and Acts had the same author. Also tradition has given the authorship to Luke the Physician, and whether or not we take this for granted, this paper shall focus more on the date written then by who it was written by. However, dating will also bilaterally illuminate the issue of authorship, as the question of dating can roughly aid the decision by the timeframe in which the documents were written. As Ernest F. Scott mentioned, “if the book can be dated at any time within the first century, there is every inclination that Luke was its author.” If the conservative estimates are true, and the date finds itself within the first century, then the traditional application of Luke as the author holds more ground, and if the dating seems to find itself in the second century, then the authorship by Luke becomes impossible and can be cast aside without any further exploration. Acts 1:1 initially claims to be part of another document, which potentially refers to Luke as its “former account”. Also, “the destiny (‘Theophilus’), style, and vocabulary of the two books betray a common author.” In addition to the two having the same author, we can further conclude that by dating Acts we may automatically assume Luke to have an earlier date, as Acts claims to be a later second portion of another document, with this first portion being Luke (Acts 1:1). With the long-standing and accurate position of the two having the same authorship, we can now start analyzing the dates of the documents as a whole.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, which represents at best the viewpoint of the Catholic Church and that of apostolic tradition, argues that the date of Luke-Acts is reliable on the time in which Paul dwelt peaceably in Rome. Acknowledging that Acts ends abruptly, and that Acts gives only two verses to explain the two years of relative peace Paul had preaching the Gospel in Rome, the Catholic Church suggests that these two quiet years were a time St. Luke spent drafting the Book of Acts. St. Luke then quickly terminates his work due to some emergency, concluding with the result of the abrupt end to the document of Acts. For this reason, the Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that the “date of the completion of Acts is therefore dependent on the date of St. Paul’s Roman captivity. Writers are quite concordant in placing the date of Paul’s coming to Rome in the year 62; hence the year 64 is the most probable date for the Acts.”

Having explored the traditional date and the conclusion of the Catholic Church, we may now analyze the various arguments of scholars, historians, and apologists. In the last two hundred years following the enlightenment, the critical analysis of the New Testament has been extremely popular. It hasn’t been until recently, with the focused tool of Archaeology, that the traditional claims of Christianity have been strengthened. During this time of Biblical Criticism, there has been a series of Roman Historians that have argued against the Critic’s claims; instead advocating for the reliability of early-authored dates. One Roman Historian in particular is that of Colin J. Hemer. While the critics toyed with positioning the date of Luke-Acts sometime in the 2^nd century, Hemer offered a list of seventeen arguments favoring the early placement of Luke-Acts within the traditional dating sphere of A.D. 62. Although all of Hemer’s seventeen claims carry powerful weight, a few in particular will be discussed here for the purposes of time and their ability to bring the most powerful of Hemer’s claims:

1. There is no mention in Acts of the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, an unlikely omission, given the content, if it had already occurred.

2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in A.D. 66, or any drastic or specific deterioration of the relations between Romans and Jews, which implies it was written before that time.

5. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62 recorded by Josephus. (Antiquities 20.9.1.200)

7. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts belongs to the Pre-70 era, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.

16. The ending of the book of Acts. Luke does not continue Paul’s story at the end of the two years of Acts 28:30. ‘The mention of this defined period implies a terminal point, at least impending.’ He adds, ‘It may be argued simply that Luke had brought the narrative up to date at the time of writing, the final note being added at the conclusion of the two years’

In agreement with the arguments of Roman historian is the scholar Adolf Harnack. In his book On Dating Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, Adolf Harnack also argues for an early dating of Luke-Acts. One point Harnack brings up regarding Luke and his detailing of Paul’s journey to Rome, is that “Throughout eight whole chapters St Luke keeps his readers intensely interested in the progress of the trial of St Paul, simply that he may in the end completely disappoint them — they learn nothing of the final result of the trial!” In addition to this odd void in the narrative, Harnack then goes on to mention how “in the last half of the book the trial of St Paul has become the subject which overshadows all others, and that it is against all the laws of psychology to suppose that the author could have been so much master of himself as to suppress the account of the result of the trial, because, according to the general plan of his work, its mention was not necessary.” Why exactly would the author of Acts detail the adventures of Paul’s missionary journeys, and then focus on his arrest and trial, only to end the book without any mention of his death around 64-67? Harnack argues that:

The more clearly we see that the trial of St Paul, and above all his appeal to Caesar, is the chief subject of the last quarter of the Acts, the more hopeless does it appear that we can explain why the narrative breaks off as it does… It is no use to struggle against this conclusion. If St Luke, in the year 80, 90, or 100, wrote thus he was not simply a blundering but an absolutely incomprehensible historian!

In addition to this striking absence of the mentioning of his death, nowhere in the book of Acts do we find any hint or presupposed notion of Paul’s Death, which is something the author would have surely attempted with the writing style of the day. Harnack concludes his argument on the basis of the narrative ending of Acts by stating that “the concluding verses of the Acts of the Apostles, taken in conjunction with the absence of any reference in the book to the result of the trial of St Paul and to his martyrdom, make it in the highest degree probable that the work was written at a time when St Paul’s trial in Rome had not yet come to an end.”

A second argument that Harnack brings up in his book is that of Paul and prophecy. In Acts chapter 20:25, and 38, the author quotes Paul as telling his Asiatic friends that they would not see his face again. However, if his second imprisonment is taken as a historical event, this directly contradicts the letter of 2 Timothy 4, where Paul came back to Asia. With the conflicting accounts of the prophecy in Acts 20:25, and the second arrest of 2 Timothy 4, Harnack argues that “it cannot be imagined that St Luke would have reported the prophecy or would have placed it in the mouth of St Paul.” Simply stated, if the prophecy in Acts 20 was contradicted in a second arrest and visit, and with someone so keen on using accurate prophecies as Luke, the contradiction is strong evidence and testimony for an earlier date. Harnack concludes this Paul & Prophecy argument by saying if “on the assumption that the Apostle was released from his first captivity, the passage Acts xx. 25 affords strong testimony that St Luke wrote previously to that release.”

Having analyzed the internal historical observations of the Roman historian Hemer and the scholar Harnack, and their insights on narrative voids, which become illogical given the context of Luke-Act’s, we may now analyze the observations of the world renown apologists, Normal Geisler. In his Baker Apologetics Encyclopedia, Geisler illuminates the issue of dating by targeting the historical and geological information that only a local with specialized knowledge could contain, as well as the general historicity of the account. “Luke manifests an incredible array of knowledge of local places, names, conditions, customs, and circumstances that befits an eyewitness contemporary recording the time and events. Acts 13-28, covering Paul’s travels, particularly shows intimate knowledge of local circumstances.” World-renowned Apologist and author, Norman Geisler, offers a list of 43 different historical finds that, through archaeology and historical methods, have affirmed certain specialized claims from the book of Acts. These 43 different historical affirmations not only show the amount of historical accuracy found in Acts, but also information that only someone who personally visited all these locations could have known. The argument that such details could have been identified during the second century is incredibly timid, as the amount of specialized and local knowledge behind the assorted facts necessitates a first-hand experience of the travels and events; something Luke had as a companion of Paul. This focus on the author actually traveling to these areas further sheds light on a Luke-authorship of the text, and a general authorship during the time of Paul’s travels (once again pointing back to the traditional date of A.D. 62). Although time and space will not require me to list all 43 examples Geisler uses, I will provide six of Geisler’s examples that I believe highlight the detail of first-hand knowledge required, which then underscore Acts as having an author from the traditional date of Paul’s travels (A.D. 62):

Exp 1: “The Proper river port, Perga, for a ship crossing from Cyprus,” (13:13)

Exp 2: “The proper port, Attalia, for returning travelers (14:25)

Exp 3: “The correct route from the Cilician Gates (16:1)”

Exp 4: The proper locations where travelers would spend successive nights on this journey (17:1).”

Exp 5: “The correct explanation that sea travel is the most convenient way to reach Athens in the summer with favoring east winds (17:14)

Exp 6: “The permanent stationing of a Roman cohort in the Fortress Antonia to suppress disturbances at festival times (21:31). The flight of steps used by guards (21:31, 35).

In the end, Norman Geisler concludes by telling us that the historicity and accuracy of the traditional date is found in two pieces of evidence. The first is that “nothing like this amount of detailed confirmation exists for another book from antiquity.” Geisler argues that this record of detail not only confirms the data given by the earliest Christian’s belief in the life and death of Jesus, but also that the accuracy and historicity of Luke-Acts confirms the message given in the other Gospels. Secondly, he concludes that the “best evidence is that this material was composed by A.D. 60, only twenty-seven years after the death of Jesus.” Thus, Geisler argues and concludes that the narrow gap in which it was written, as according to the traditional date in the 60’s, gives no room for the development of myth, and thus confirms the truths stated in the previous gospels and the documents themselves.

In addition to the various arguments made by the previously discussed individuals, the conclusions and comments of two other renowned scholars are worth mentioning. The first of these two is none-other than William F. Albright, a former liberal scholar who sides with the early dating of the Gospels. In his book, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, Albright concludes that “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.” In addition to this conclusion, Albright also comments in his article “Toward a More Conservative View” that “every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75).”

In addition to William F. Albright, a second former critic is worth mentioning. John A. T. Robinson is a leader of the “Death of God” movement, and who wrote the book Redating the New Testament. In this revolutionary book, “Robinson places Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from before 40 to after 65.” The ramifications for these extremely early dates by an extremely critical skeptic is that all Gospels were composed within the lifetime of those who witnessed Jesus birth, death, and resurrection, which further add credibility to their accounts.

In addition to the various arguments given by the above-mentioned individuals, we may also analyze the external citations of the Gospels in early Greek manuscripts, and thus affirm the reliability of an earlier date.

Of the four Gospels alone there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on. This includes 268 by Justin Martyr (100-165), 1038 by Irenaeus (active in the late second century), 1017 by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155-ca. 220), 9231 by Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254), 3822 by Tertullian (ca. 160s-ca. 220), (ca. 160s-ca. 220), 734 by Hippolytus (d. ca. 236), and 3258 by Eusebius (ca. 265-ca.339)… between 110 and 150 Polycarp quoted from all four gospels, Acts, and most of Paul’s epistles. Shepherd of Hermas (115-140) cited Matthew, Mark, Acts, 1 Corinthians, and other books. Didache (120-150) referred to Matthew, Luke, 1 Corinthians, and other books.

What exactly do these citations show? They argue in favor of an earlier date sometime before the end of the first century, as time would have been necessary for these outside citations to find their way towards penmanship. This was not the day of UPS and the Postal Service, and as such, the massive amounts of citations from early church leaders and other individuals argue in favor of an earlier date in which this massive throng of documents could have the time to be circulated.

One other remarkable thing about the New Testament is the relatively small time gap between the drafting of the Gospel documents and the earliest manuscript copies of the New Testament we have discovered. “No other book from the ancient world has as small a time gap between composition and earliest manuscript copies as the New Testament.” The Bodmer Papyri, containing whole books, are available from around 200 A.D. Most of the New Testament can also be found in the Chester Beatty Papyri manuscripts, which are available around 250 A.D. Another interesting manuscript, which deems mentioning, is that of the John Rylands papyri (P52), which contains fragments of John’s Gospel. This manuscript was found in Egypt and is dated around 117-138 A.D. Given the time it would take to circulate to Egypt, the John Rylands papyri would mean that John must have been written within the 1^st century. In addition to the remarkable early arrivals and editions of Greek manuscript copies, Jose O’Callahan has recently claimed to identify nine fragments from the caves of Qumran with New Testament texts. Although his finds are highly contested, the implication of his observations are enormous if shown accurate, as it would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these early editions of the Gospels found in fragments 7Q6, 7Q15, 7Q5, 7Q7, and 7Q6 conclude them as dated well before the ending of the first century.

If Acts were written by the traditional date of 62 A.D., then it would offer great historical value to the claims made within the Gospels. We could also say that the Gospels in general are dependent on the date of Acts, for if Acts is proved to have an earlier date, the Synoptic Gospels must be dated before that of Acts. In addition, if it were written around this time, it would also have been within the time frame of witnesses who viewed firsthand Jesus’ claims, and these witnesses could have also been the individuals Luke could have interviewed while writing his Gospel. In addition, this date fits within the lifetime of Luke, giving further credibility to the possibility of his authorship, and “If Acts was written by Luke, the companion of the apostle Paul, it brings us right to the apostolic circle, those who participated in the events reported.” If written by or before A.D. 62, we have the historical value of the Gospel, the potential 1^st-person witnesses, the apostolic perspective, and the timeframe of Luke’s lifetime. If shown to be historically accurate, this would all add further credibility to the Christian claims of the birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, further supporting the miracles and ascension of Jesus as an actual and not mythological event. This is why the topic of dating Luke-Acts alone is so important to the backbone of Christian Doctrine and its claimed truths. We could also claim that the dating of Luke-Acts becomes the standard by which we date Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for neither of them could have been drafted after Acts.

Having discussed the various arguments and evidences in favor of the early traditional date, we will now analyze and shortly refute general critiques of an early date. One problem that we find with the estimates offered by different biblical critics is their efforts of dating Luke-Acts in attachment to the other synoptic Gospels. They tend to ignore certain internal evidences that we previously illuminated and instead focus on dating Luke-Acts relative to other gospel accounts. Ernest F. Scott isn’t that far off in his observations, and makes astute claims regarding Luke the Physician’s role in the gospel (siding with a usage of a Lukan diary as source-material), but he commits the above mentioned grievance by placing the dating of Luke-Acts around 90 A.D., because “the author is unacquainted with Matthew’s work, and may have written a little earlier, but more probably just about the same date.” Scott should not commit the error of dating Luke-Acts in terms defined by Matthew, but should instead use the high degree of historicity of Luke-Acts to aid in dating Matthew. Although Ernest F. Scott is by no means far off in his dating, the credibility and historical data of Luke makes it a better standard in which to date the other synoptic Gospels, which in turn Luke’s material confirms. In Raymond E. Brown’s An Introduction to the New Testament, he makes roughly the same mistake, arguing that if “Luke used Mark is most plausible from internal evidence; and if Mark is to be dated in the period 68-73, a date earlier than 80 for Luke is unlikely.” Although the usage of Mark by Luke is internally evident, this problem fades away when the date of Mark is found to be earlier than previously stated, and the reasonable argument for the early dating of Acts further pushes back all the previous Gospels (including Mark). Even when we understand the validity of dating Acts early as credible, the Gospel of Mark has compelling arguments in favor of an early-authored date by such scholars as Harnack and Maurenbrecher. The combined arguments of Luke-Acts being the standard by which the other documents should be dated (due to it’s historicity), and the strong arguments for earlier dating of Mark, result with the repudiation of opposing critique’s by Scott, Brown, and other scholars.

After having analyzed the various arguments of Hemer, Harnack, and Geisler, the observations of renowned scholars Albright and Robinson, the external and internal evidences of early Greek manuscripts and citations, and the refutation of several critiques, we can now come to the conclusion on whether this paper confirms an earlier date. However, before this paper comes to it’s own affirmation, the added weight of the conclusions of authoritative individuals are once more warranted. Norman Geisler concludes that: “The historicity of the book of Acts is confirmed by overwhelming evidence. Nothing like this amount of detailed confirmation exists for another book from antiquity.” D. A. Carson concludes that: “the evidence for an early date seems more convincing than that of a later time, and while it comes short of complete proof, it should be accepted.” William F. Albright concludes that: “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.” The combined conclusions of these individuals and that of the previous mentioned scholars are conclusive: by the proposed arguments, observations, and evidence, Luke-Acts clearly favor an earlier date sometime around 62 A.D.

In conclusion, we can safely say that Acts’ early date of authorship is not only supported by overwhelming evidence, but that this evidence adds greater weight to the claims of the life, death, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus as not mythological events fictionalized by later writers, but as actual historical claims recorded within the peer-reviewed generation of first person witnesses and first person apostles. The later dating and the argument of mythology simply hold no ground, and leave no other reason not to conclude that the earlier traditional dating of 62 A.D. is reasonably and historically warranted.

Works Cited

Albright, William F. Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands. New York: Biblical Colloquium, 1955.

- – -. “Toward a More Conservative View.” Christianity Today (Jan. 1963).

Breen, A. E. “Acts of the Apostles.” NewAdvent Catholic Encyclopedia. Catholic Church, John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. 14 Apr. 2008 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01117a.htm>.

Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1997.

Carson, D. A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Harnack, Adolf V., and John R. Wilkinson. The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1911. Books.Google.com. 10 Apr. 2008 <http://books.google.com/books?id=SmZLAAAAIAAJ&printsec= frontcover&dq=DATE+OF+THE+ACTS+AND+OF+THE+SYNOPTIC+GOSPELS#PPP9,M1>.

Hemer, Colin J., and Conrad H. Gempf. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. N.p.: J.C.B. Mohr, 1989.

Josephus, Flavius, and William Whinston. The Complete Works of Josephus. Boston: Thompson & Thomas, 1901.

Scott, Ernest Findlay. The Literature of the New Testament. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963.

 

---

 

[1] Norman Geisler, Baker’s Apologetic Encyclopedia, 528

Ernest F. Scott, The Literature of the New Testament , 77, “That two writings are by the same hand might have been gathered from their many similarities of language and outlook, but it is placed beyond all question by the opening verse of Acts, in which the author refers to his previous work and dedicates the second, like the first, to his friend Theophilus,”

Scott 89; “Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.” (NIV Col. 4:14). “Paul, as we know, was subject to sudden attacks of illness, due apparently to some form of epilepsy, and the company of a physician in his travels would be valuable to him.”

Scott 91

Norman Geisler, Baker’s Apologetic Encyclopedia, 528

Ernest F. Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, 7,7, “The two works must be taken together before we can form a right estimate of the purpose of Luke’s Gospel, as well as of its date and authorship.”

A. E. Breen, NewAdvent Catholic Encyclopedia, “Acts of the Apostles”, 1

Breen 1

Flavius Josephus, The Complete Works of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.200 “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:,”

Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, 383

Hemer 387

Norman Geisler, Baker’s Apologetic Encyclopedia, 5

Adolf V. Harnack, The Date of the Acts of the Synoptic Gospels, 95

Harnack 96

Paul’s first three Missionary Journeys are found in Acts 13-14 (1^st), 15:36-18:22 (2^nd), 18:23-21:16 (3^rd), and his arrest and trial are found in Acts 21:17-28:31

Harnack 97

Harnack 97

Harnack 98, “There is no doubt that directly after the death of the Apostles legends grew up which included prophecies of their martyrdom. Concerning St Peter we know of two (St John xxi., 2 Peter i.), and St Paul himself gave expression to forebodings of his violent death. How, then, could a chronicler of the character of St Luke have overlooked this if St Paul had already attained to the crown of martyrdom!”

Harnack 99

New International Version, Archaeology Study Bible Acts 10:15, “ ‘Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again,’ ”

Adolf V. Harnack, The Date of the Acts of the Synoptic Gospels, 102

Harnack 102

Norman Geisler, Baker’s Apologetic Encyclopedia, 7

Ernest F. Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, 80 “That Luke had something to do with the authorship of Acts is certain, for in a series of passages the first person plural is used, indicating that the writer was himself in Paul’s company.” (Scott 89) “After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia,’ (NIV Acts 16:10).

Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28; 16

Norman Geisler, Baker’s Apologetic Encyclopedia, 7-8

Geisler 8

Geisler 8

William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 136

William F. Albright, “Toward a More Conservative View,” 3

The Death of God movement was his Liberal Theological efforts to denounce the ancient view of God as living in some material heaven, and thus abandoning him as a Cosmic Supremo. See his books Honest to God (1963), and Exploration into God.

Norman Geisler, Baker’s Apologetic Encyclopedia, 529

Geisler 529-530

Geisler 530

Geisler 530

Geisler 533

Text	Fragment	Approx. date
Mark 4:28	7Q6	AD 50
Mark 6:48	7Q15	AD ?
Mark 6:52, 53	7Q5	AD 50
Mark 12:17	7Q7	AD 50
Acts 27:38	7Q6	AD 60+
Rom. 55:11, 12	7Q9	AD 70+
1 Timothy 3:16, 4:1-3	7Q4	AD 70+
2 Peter 1:15	7Q10	AD 70+
James 1:23, 24	7Q8	AD 70+

 

Geisler 5

Geisler 5

Ernest F. Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, 92

Scott 76

Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, 273

D. A. Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament, 117, “if Mark is earlier than critics allow, Luke may also be earlier than they say. Both Mark and Luke were in the group associated with Paul, so it is probable that Luke obtained a copy of Mark’s gospel quite early,”

One good well-researched source for an early dating of Mark is found in the NIV Archaeology Bible, and the NIV Study Bible. John Wenham did extensive work on the early dating of Mark in his Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Two other scholars previously mentioned who have shared this approach are William F. Albright and John A. T. Robinson.

Adolf V. Harnack, The Date of the Acts of the Synoptic Gospels, 91, Also Maurenbrecher In his work Von Nazareth nach Golgotha, concludes that the early dating for Mark is not only well reasoned, but “that no weighty objection can be raised against a date of about 60 A.D. for the gospel of St Mark — a date which is necessarily presupposed by the earlier dating of the Lukan writings,”

Norman Geisler, Baker’s Apologetic Encyclopedia, 8

D. A. Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament, 117

William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 136

Norman Geisler, Baker’s Apologetic Encyclopedia, 8, “Julius Muller (1801-1878) challenged the scholars of his day to produce even one example in which an historical event developed many mythological elements within one generation (Muller, 29). None exist.”

 

 

The Evolution of Laissez Faire: Defining ‘Let Be’ Economics and Politics from Thomas Jefferson to Modern Libertarians.

Leonard O Goenaga

Question 2: The Evolution of Laissez Faire: Defining ‘Let Be’ Economics and Politics from Thomas Jefferson to Modern Libertarians.

I. Intro

· Opening Statement: Defining Laissez Faire

· Thesis Statement

II. Outline

III. Body

· Laissez Faire in the 18^th Century

o Thought 1: The Founding: Thomas Jefferson (18^th Century)

§ Thomas Jefferson

ú Declaration of Independence

ú First Inaugural Address (1801)

· Laissez Faire in the 19^th Century

o Thought 2: Free Labor: Abraham Lincoln (19^th Century)

§ Lincoln’s letters

o Thought 3: Social Darwinists (19^th Century)

§ Herbert Spencer

§ Andrew Carnegie, “The Gospel of Wealth”

§ William Graham Sumner, What the Social Classes Owe Each Other

· Laissez Faire in the 20^th Century

o Thought 4: Progressive Backlash and the Mixed Economy (20^th Century)

§ The Decline of American Laissez Faire

§ Progressivism

§ Wilson, FDR & Croley

o Thought 5: Defense of Laissez Faire (20^th Century)

§ Milton Friedman

§ Ayn Rand & Objectivisim

IV. Summary

· Summary statement of areas of Thought.

· Laissez Faire and the future of the 21^st Century

o Thought 6: The Future of Laissez Faire: Conservative and Libertarian Movements (21^st Century)

§ Reagan Conservatism

§ Ron Paul & the Young Libertarian Movement

V. Conclusion

· Restated Thesis

· Concluding Statements

Traditionally, laissez faire is coined from a French phrase meaning, “allow to do”. It is known to represent a strain of economic and political thought that calls for minimal government intervention in the private sector, characterized by a ‘hands off’ approach by the government, in hopes of having private sector solutions for private sector problems. Although the original source of the phrase is disputed, the first sign of its usage is claimed to be from the Marquis d’Argenson, whom claimed “Laissez faire,” in his 1736 Memoires (Keynes, II). Whatever the source, and there are several claims to it, laissez faire has been popularized throughout the ages. It has specifically been heralded as a rallying cry for different political groups and leaders throughout American history, from founders such as Jefferson, to current political leaders such as Ron Paul. It is this evolution of the term, and the continual passage of its importance from generation to generation, that this paper will explore. This paper will follow the passage of the torch of laissez faire throughout the 18^th, 19^th, 20^th and 21^st centuries, focusing on how it has been seen at the Union’s founding (Jefferson), the Free Labor movement (Lincoln), the Social Darwinist period (Spencer, Carnegie, Sumner), the Progressive backlash (FDR, Croly, Wilson), the revival of laissez faire in the 20^th century (Friedman, Rand), and finally conclude with an analysis of laissez faire’s future.

During the nation’s founding, few had such effect on the development of this new government than Thomas Jefferson. Having been an important thinker, and the writer of the Declaration of Independence itself, Jefferson makes a good starting point in our exploration of laissez faire. Perhaps Jefferson best exemplifies the goal of laissez faire in the statement “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” (Dolbeare 49). It is this Jeffersonian emphasis on the individual that makes laissez faire possible, and the quote itself hints at greater free-market sources: such as political theorist John Locke. The tradition of Jeffersonianism is grounded in the idea of sacred individualism, or the importance of preserving the individual as having precedence over government. This involved the establishment of individual rights, individual responsibility, and civic participation. This liberal individual-focus is perhaps where we can best draw Jefferson’s connection with laissez faire. Free markets themselves cannot function with a weighted understanding of the importance of the individual. As Jeffersonianism calls for a rejection of big government, so does laissez faire. The two stand on similar soil, necessitating both a small government and individual responsibility to properly function. It is no wonder that in various writings do we find elements characteristic of laissez faire. In his First Inaugural Address (1801), we find several portions emulating free-market ideas. One in particular perhaps best summarizes Jefferson’s tone: “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities,” (Dolbeare 151). The element of laissez faire found within the quote speaks for itself. This tone of free-market and individual-focus continues throughout Jeffersonian thought, and with the close association between Jeffersonianism and laissez faire, one will likely find them joined at the hip throughout their political evolution.

Next in line within the progression of laissez faire minded thinking is Abraham Lincoln. It is of interest that again, we find Jeffersonian ideals standing side by side with those of free market capitalism. Lincoln appears to have been incredibly influenced by Jefferson’s notions of individual liberty and freedom in the form of the Free Labor movement. It is of no surprise, given the ideals set in Jeffersonianism that someone like Lincoln would take them to their logical conclusions, which resulted with the emancipation of the slaves. This newfound freedom is also easily associated with laissez faire principles. One may wish to argue that a government stepping in to force the emancipation of slaves upon its member states appears to be interventionalist, and thus anti-laissez faire, but I would disagree. Laissez faire principles imply a genuine equality amongst the labor force. The ideals of a ‘hands off’ economic approached it rooted upon the principle that men are equal in their ability to work, create, and compete. A general air of freedom scents the ideas of laissez faire, as it necessitates a freedom from government interference, and freedom of the individual to work. Thus, I would argue that a government allowing such an institution as slavery, which clearly degrades an economic atmosphere of free competition, is a government intervening upon the market. Following this line of reasoning, I am inclined to see Lincoln in agreement. Lincoln argued that the Constitution was to be regarded as the law of the Union, while the Declaration to be it’s guiding spirit. We’ve already expressed the laissez faire qualities of Jefferson, the document’s author, and knowing a genuine Jeffersonian spirit existing within Lincoln (see Letter to Boston Republicans 1859), we see further ground for a laissez faire friendly mindset. Within Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address (1865), we are given a hint of his laissez faire convictions. The dilemma is the argument of possibly deporting black laborers, in fear that this newfound group would overrun white laborer’s occupations. In a true laissez faire fashion, Lincoln rejects any government interference, responding that to “reduce the supply of black labor, by colonizing the black laborer out of the country, and, by precisely so much, you increase the demand for, and wages of, white labor,” (Dolbeare 246). Lincoln states that occupation levels will remain the same, and shares derived theoretical principles of wages shared by classical liberals. Instead of advocating that the government step in and assure public anxiety, Lincoln calls for the market to run it’s own course, rejecting any intervention amongst the newly liberated workforce. Clearly, this hints at laissez faire presuppositions. What then, is the importance of Abraham Lincoln in the discussion of laissez faire? Most importantly, Lincoln took the necessity of freedom needed by laissez faire, and advocated by Jeffersonianism, to its logical conclusion and beyond social traditions such as slavery, resulting with a freed workforce that brought the actual laborers closer to the ideals stressed in free market capitalism. It would be difficult to relate laissez faire to free market capitalism, if the laborers in the market are hardly free.

Pinochet’s Authoritarianism; Between Might and Right

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Boronat

CPO3055

10 March 2008

Pinochet’s Authoritarianism; Between Might and Right

Whenever September 11th is mentioned in the United States, Americans always conjure up images of the flaming twin towers, as well as the other atrocities and acts of terror that marked that day in eternal sadness. Although this image is surely to also be recalled in Chile, they may also think of another important event full with its own violence; September 11 1973. It was on this day that Pinochet and the Military Junta he was a part of staged a Coup d’etat against the Allende administration, shelling the Capital building and later leading to Allende’s own suicide during the bombings. This earlier September 11 was to have its own dramatic influence on the Chilean nation, leading to the rise of the Authoritarian ruler Pinochet and the various human atrocities he would commit in the name of defending the Chilean constitution from Communist influence. This paper will explore the rise of the Authoritarian ruler Pinochet, the impact his childhood may have had on his rule, his regime’s mixture of economic remodeling and civil rights-ignoring, and finally conclude with an exploration on Pinochet’s brand of authoritarianism.

Before one dabbles into the middle of the coup and the economic reforms, it is best to explore the leader’s beginnings to seek out any signs that may illuminate his methods of rule. “Pinochet was born on November 25, 1915, in Valparaiso, Chile’s principal port city, which is located about eighty miles northwest of Santiago. Pinochet lived a relatively mild childhood, having a family lineage of ‘small or medium-sized landowners who raised cattle,’ ” (Burbach 21). He wasn’t particularly within the class of Chilean elites, and his family would have been classified as part of the average middle class. In 1933, after continuous support by his mother to do so, he entered Military School. He studied here at 17 for about four years, where he then graduated with a rank of Second Lieutenant within the infantry. After another round of Infantry school in 1940, he met his future wife, Lucia Hiriart Rodriguez, who was a character of her own, and they later had five kids; three daughters and two boys (Spooner 18). Pinochet later attended War school, and after obtaining the ranking of Officer Chief, he decided to go back and teach at the Military School while acting as a T.A. at the War Academy. In 1956 Pinochet was chosen with a group of individuals to organize the War Academy in Ecuador, and later returned to Chile in 1959. After other successes, he was appointed as sub-director of the War Academy in 1963. By the year 1969, he was promoted to Brigadier General and Commander in Chief of the IV division (Spooner 24). After more successes and rises in rank, he was appointed as General Chief of Staff of the Army in 1972. Finally, Allende appointed Pinochet as the Commander in Chief of the Chilean military on August 23, 1973 (Reel & Smith 1). A day before Pinochet’s appointment as Chief of Staff the Chilean Chamber of Deputies of Chile (the lower bicameral house of congress) released a resolution declaring that Allende had violated the constitution through his administration. It is from this stage in his career, having promised to defend the Chilean Constitution as a man of the Army, that we find him joining the Junta, which led rise to his political career. With a brief summary of his earlier years and his military career addressed above, we will now look into certain childhood traits that may hint to his authoritarian style of rule.

As mentioned before, Pinochet was raised in a normal family structure.  He had heavy influence from his mother, even going as far as being her personal favorite. We also find in his military career that “he had virtually no political persona that the world knew of before September 11. His writings prior to 1973 are largely devoid of political discussion,” (Burbach 22). Without any political ideologies to explore for authoritarian influence, we can look into his childhood for certain behaviors. One sign of his authoritarian persona was the bully role young Augusto took on. He had a history of chasing the poorer kids after school with his cadre of fellow bullies, and also later admitted that his brothers and sisters “ ‘were afraid of me because I acted like an ogre’,” (Burbach 22). An interesting similarity that Pinochet shares with the authoritarian rulers De Gaulle and Chiang Kai Shek’s are their childhood fascinations and interests with military games. Like De Gaulle and Chiang, Pinochet “would make believe he was a soldier, marching around, beating on a tambour and blowing a trumpet,” (Burbach 23). He would also play with various toy soldiers, even going as far as changing the guard before he slept (Burbach 23). This fascination with the military led to his interests in a military career, and like the rejection Chiang and De Gaulle faced in military school Pinochet was rejected twice from military school due to poor grades, but was accepted the third time he applied. Here at the military school Pinochet learned the important lesson of discipline, and basically grew to become a man.

Pinochet also had an interesting fascination with histories strongmen, and identified with them. Looking back at WW2, Pinochet sided with the Germans, and had a certain reverence for Rommel and his tactical expertise in North Africa (Burbach 25). His personal favorite strongman was that of Napoleon, which Pinochet overlooked his inflicted sufferings and instead claimed admiration for Napoleon being a great strategist, analyst, and patriot (Burbach 25). According to Patricia Lutz (an individual who consulted four of Pinochet’s psychiatrists), Pinochet displayed “no emotional commitment or empathy with others’ outside of his immediate family. He believed only in himself…and this enabled him to make the argument ‘If we don’t get them, they will get us.’ ” (Burbach 27). This all sounds vaguely familiar with Chiang Kai Shek’s own paranoia tendencies and his continuous efforts to distant himself from others and rely solely on his own efforts. With the similar childhood fascination of the military and a reverence for histories strongmen, we man now move on to the start of Pinochet’s political career, and begin to expose the links between his childhood and his style of Authoritarian rule.

On September 11 1973, Armed Forces overthrew Allende’s government in a coup d’etat, shelling the La Moneda presidential palace. It was during this intervention that Allende supposedly committed suicide. Here the presidential Republic period of Chile ended (1924-1973). The Junta, which sponsored and executed the coup, found justification in claiming that the Allende administration were planning a self-coup, which the Junta called ‘Plan Zeta’. Leading to this coup where several internal and external factors. Oppenheim exposes three important internal factors, which contributed to the chaotic scenario and resulted with the opening for the coup,

These include (1) seditious right-wing actions, especially the vitriolic propaganda campaign against Allende, along with the paramilitary and terrorist activities of Fatherland and Liberty; (2) the actions of the Christian Democratic Party, which initially vacillated between the right and the Left, but whose anti-Communism and perceived self-interest made it side, finally, with the right; and (3) divisions within the Popular Unity coalition itself, whose public debates weakened the government’s ability to govern and left it vulnerable to opposition criticism that was inefficient, incapable of governing, and too radical. (Oppenheim 95)

In addition to the three internal factors highlighted by Oppenheim, the US played a significant external role. In this role, “the US government countenanced, supported, and encouraged acts designed to subvert the democratic process in Chile, thereby legitimizing seditious activities by the domestic opposition,” (Oppenheim 95). This all set the stage for the Junta’s coming. The military Junta was established after this coup, and consisted of General Pinochet from the Army, Admiral Jose Toribio Merino from the Navy, General Gustavo Leigh of the Air Force, and General Cesa Mendoza from the Carabineros, or national police. This Junta worked as both the Legislature and the Executive, and suspended the Constitution and Congress. It was on December 11, 1974 that “Pinochet…takes the title of president of the republic” and the Junta is later given only a legislative role (Reel & Smith 1).

Having discussed Pinochet’s upbringing, his childhood, the factors leading to the coup and the Junta, we can now dabble into the actual regime. In the beginning, the Presidency was planned to rotate among members of the Junta. However, Pinochet ends up retaining the title, and later declares himself Supreme Chief of the Nation on June 27, 1974. He later changed this title to President on December 17 1974; a title that he maybe thought gave more legitimacy to his rule (a usual authoritarian practice). Later a plebiscite regarding a new Constitution was given on September 11 1980, and “Pinochet is sworn in as president according to the newly written constitution,” (Reed & Smith 1). Pinochet’s regime later returns to civilian rule in 1990 when “Pinochet hands over [the] presidency, [but] remains army commander” (Reed & Smith 1).

Having an overview of his regime, we may now look into his two most controversial topics, his civil rights abuses and his economic reform. During his reign Pinochet was known for various human rights atrocities. “According to a government report that included testimony from more than 30,000 people, his government killed at least 3,197 people and tortured about 29,000. Two-thirds of the cases listed in the report happened in 1973,” (Reel & Smith 1). One such operation of political murder was known as Operation Condor. This was a series of political assassinations and joint intellectual anti-left ventures by various rising authoritarian powers in South America. Operation Condor lead to various purges of left-wing intellectuals and political activists, and was lead in Chile by Pinochet’s secret police (The DINA).

Another controversial topic besides Pinochet’s political cleansing is his economic reform; also know by some in the West as the ‘Chilean Miracle’. Pinochet’s economic reform focused on a group of University of Chicago trained economists, known as the Chicago Boys, who “imposed a neoliberal monetarist program that was reasoned and highly inflexible,” and that focused on revolutionizing the previous internal-focused system (Huneeus 272). “The Chicago Boys rejected this state-centered model completely,” and instead focused on “an export oriented, market driven economy with substantinal foreign investment meant development, not dependency, which had been the earlier premise,” (Oppenheim 125). Although debate over the overall success of the Chicago Boy’s modernizing reforms are hotly debated, it stands out that “other Latin American dictators failed to manage their economies successfully, but Pinochet set up conditions friendly to growth, and his main economic institutions continue to function in Chile today,” (Huneeus 272).

Having overviewed all these different factors that made up his childhood and his regime, we may now analyze what made Pinochet’s Regime authoritarian. Carlos Huneeus lists five solid reasons that explain how Pinochet fits into the Authoritarian mold,

First…the regime was characterized by the use of violence applied by security services, the military, and the police…Second, the political order became very stable, based on a low level of institutionalization and the enormous personalization of power in the figure of General Pinochet. The regime also enjoyed the institutional participation of the armed forced through the governing junta and the presence of hundreds of the armed forces through the governing junta and the presence of hundreds of officers in the major position of authority… Third, the concentration of authority and power in General Pinochet turned him into the central figure… Fourth, Chile’s authoritarian experience brought about profound economic transformations, led by a group of technocrats known as the Chicago Boys…Fifth, Pinochet’s time in power did not end as the result of conflicts and divisions in the military due t the failure of economic management or defeat in war…[but] ended according to its own institutional rules, established in the 1980 constitution, with General Pinochet’s defeat in the 1988 plebiscite. (Huneeus 1-2)

In addition to these five factors that Huneeus uses to define Pinochet as Authoritarian, we can further compare it to the bureaucratic-authoritarian models of the day. These “were essentially nondemocratic regimes that repressed and controlled the popular sectors in order to carry out programs of economic growth utilizing market mechanisms, in close collaboration with technocrats,” (Oppenheim 102). The political scientist Guillermo O’Donnell first coined this term, and he used it to show why economically advanced South American countries were falling prey to prolonged military rule (Oppenheim 102). “In essence, bureaucratic-authoritarianism was nondemocratic and exclusionary, built on the three-pronged cooperation among high level military, civilian technocrats, and foreign capital,” (Oppenheim 102). In addition to Huneeus’ five reasons, and Guillermo O’Donnell’s applicable bureaucratic-authoritarian definition, another authoritarian aspect is that of the use of fear and the “systematic use of torture and persecution against perceived leftist subversives in an effort to ‘cleanse’ their nation,” (Oppenheim 103).

Although we clearly see that Pinochet’s regime was authoritarian in its use of violence, focus of power on a single individual, adherence to an institutional time restraint, and the mentality of modernizing the economy and protecting the Constitution, the Chilean regime differs dramatically from the normal Bureaucratic-Authoritarian model in that instead of a military institutional rule, we find the dictatorship of Pinochet (Oppenheim 103). Unlike Argentina and Brazil under military rule, Chilean power remained in the hands of Pinochet and was never really shared with the other members of the Junta. With this difference in the bureaucratic-authoritarian model, we may call it as it is; an authoritarian dictatorship with heavy elements of Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism, complete with the systematic use of fear and force, the focused empowered rule of the individual, the adherence to a timeframe in which to rule, and the mentality of ridding communism, protecting the Chilean Constitution, and modernizing the economy.

In Conclusion, having explored Pinochet’s life and rule, we conclude that his government was Authoritarian with heavy bureaucratic-authoritarian influence. Although his rule was rough and led to future civil prosecution for its abuses, “to his supporters, Pinochet was a patriot who saved his country from political and economic chaos under the threat of communism, restored order and led it into a period of unprecedented prosperity,” (Reel & Smith 1). As to the validity of this belief, like most authoritarian regimes that claim to modernize a state and prevent it from spiraling into communism, it will be left to history to decide if this is in fact is true.

When Do I Know I’m A Christian? A Biblical and Theological Inquiry;

This is a Response to a good friend’s exploration of when it is someone becomes a Christian and acheives salvation:

An inquiry in response to yesterday’s Morning Light’. I hope you can find some time to read it all.

Biblically Speaking:

An Inquiry: Upon repentance from sin, is this something separate of Christ? Or does repentance come upon acceptance on Jesus? Does salvation come with this repentance absent of Christ, or does salvation come from repentance in the name of Christ (namely being knowledge of Jesus, not the ‘letters’ of his name)? Are these two things that should occur at once, or are they engaged separately? I ask because upon the Pentecost, Peter gives his great sermon asking us to “repent and be baptized, every one of you, In the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2:38). Beforehand, John the Baptist asked people to repent and be baptized. In the Peter scenario, Peter now says that repentance in the name of Jesus will lead to them “receiv[ing[ the gift of the Holy Spirit,” (Acts 2:38), or the sign of Salvation (the Holy Spirit entering you upon becoming a Christian). We can easily say that upon becoming a Christian, one receives the gift of the spirit. We can say a sign of one’s salvation is that of the Spirit. This is pretty much universally agreed in Protestant Circles.

“Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.” Acts (2:41). In other words, 3000 heard the message, repented and were baptized in the name of Jesus, received the spirit, and were added to their number (The Church; aka body of Christians/Believers). They followed Peter’s teaching and became ‘Christians’.

I equate this to where Robert was when we had the discussion you narrated in the devotional. I understand an individual may be baptized and repent towards God (as the Jews and God-fearers in the OT did before the coming of the Messiah; Abraham, etc.), but after the crucifixion, we see Peter asking us not only to repent and receive baptism as if it’s a pre-requisite for accepting Jesus, but to repent and be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” There seems to be a difference here in merely repenting and facing towards God, and doing it with Jesus as the pivotal central concept of repentance and source of salvation. This is void of complicated dogma, but focused on the central tenet of a Christian; That salvation comes from Jesus.

If being a Christian involves living a life as modeled by Christ, and salvation comes from forgiveness of sins, and Peter explained forgiveness and repentance come through the name of Jesus Christ (aka the person), then I would only question someone claiming to be a Christian only if they didn’t understand their salvation and forgiveness not only comes from the genuine repentance (for even non-believers may be disgusted with their sin and repent from it via their conscious), but that understanding the central role that Jesus plays in that repentance, salvation, and forgiveness. I think the verses you’re mentioning in the devotional discuss how one who fears and loves God will openly accept the message of the Good News. Those who hate darkness will obviously flock to the message (Those 3000 heard the message of Peter, repented, and were saved. Those whose hearts liked darkness heard the disciples speaking in tongues and likened it to drunkenness. That’s an example of the verses you used, but it by no means implies that openness BEING salvation and making them Christian, but OPENING the opportunity).

That’s why I ask the initial inquiry in our past dialogue. Does someone repent, point their life towards God, and becomes a Christian (as John the Baptist called for), or does one’s Christianity and salvation begin with repenting and receiving forgiveness in the name of Christ? I would find anyone’s claim of salvation vague without a concept that their repentance and salvation are only meaningful in Christ.

How can we know someone is a Christian, and thus in the body of believers (the church)? They repent in Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins, and they receive the gift of the Spirit. Otherwise, I would not warrant repentance (even if genuine, and by all means it can be and is), the primal factor. Someone is not a Christian because they choose to repent their sins and seek God, but because, as scripture illustrates, they repent and understand the central role Jesus has in their becoming part of the Body.

Theologically Speaking:

Let me throw in some Theological Terms to further understand what makes someone a ‘Christian’:

1. Justification: is God's act of declaring or making a sinner righteous before God. Justification, from the Greek δικαιοω (dikaioō), "to declare/make righteous", is a Scriptural term, occurring in the books of Romans, Galatians, Titus, and James; the root noun δικαιοσ,-η,-ον righteous occurs throughout both Old and New Testaments.[1] The concept of justification occurs also in many Old and New Testament books. justification is a singular act in which God declares an unrighteous individual to be righteous because of the work of Jesus. Justification is granted on the basis of those who have faith, specifically faith in Jesus as their redeemer and savior.
2. Sanctification: refers to the act or process of making holy or setting apart (as special) and occurs five times in the Authorized Version of the New Testament (1 Corinthians 1:30, 1 Thessalonians 4:3,4, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Peter 1:2)
3. Glorification: Glorification is the completion, the consummation, the perfection, the full realization of salvation. The 3rd stage of christian development is to glorify God through one’s life, to decrease so that He may increase so that as others encounter a living breathing christian who is walking in Glorification, they encounter Christ and perceive His Glory and His presence. This is attainable while living, just as justification and sanctification are attainable while living.
   

The first step for someone to become a Christian, is for them to be Justified. God Justifies us in a single act, which is where Peter tells us to repent & receive baptism, in the name of Jesus. The result of Faith in Jesus as one’s savior and redeemer (expressed in such acts of repenting and being baptized in his name) leads to the gift of Justification (the Gift of Jesus’ Sacrifice). This moment where the Individual repents in the name of Jesus (faith in him as the Savior/Redeemer) is the moment where God justifies the individual, and they thus become Christian. After justification, the individual lives as a Christian and during this lifetime as a Christian they go through the process of Sanctification. Just because a Christian is Justified and going through Sanctification does not mean they are without Sin or Sinless. 1 John confirms to us the sinfulness of our nature. Paul speaks of the wonders of his continued temptation and struggle.

We live a life modeled of Christ, and through emulating Jesus’ lifestyle do we participate positively in this sanctification. We are not glorified (achievement of perfection), until we depart from the material body and enter into communion with God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Spirit completely in Heaven. It is here where we shed the sinful Body, and through that forgiveness of sins via Jesus, sanctification and guidance from the Spirit, and Justification from God the Father, that we are able to die, go before God as spirit, and achieve the glorification necessary to be with him and his trinity in Heaven.

An individual becomes a Christian upon Justification. Justification occurs when an individual submits themselves to following Jesus, and asks for forgiveness in the name of Jesus (aka repentance). Faith in Jesus. While he is a Christian the Holy Spirit guides him in his Sanctification, which is the path he walks emulating He who is completely glorified and sanctified (Jesus). Glorification occurs upon death of the body (or is the process where God is glorified through ones sanctified living. No man can be glorified on earth; Only Jesus).

In conclusion, Theologically I would say that someone is a Christian only of they understand that God justifies them because of the work of Jesus, in which the individual accepts and understands this central tenet. This central tenet is faith in Jesus as the forgiver, redeemer, and savior of the professing individual (insert the cut-and-copy salvation prayer here; “I am a sinner, etc etc).

Although the whole nature of Sanctification, glorification, time, etc etc are all complicated theological ‘dogma’ that the individual will learn later, the first premise of being Justified by Jesus actions is central to becoming a Christian. Following this is the Holy Spirit which comes as a gift in the path of sanctification.

Just repenting and walking in the direction of God with an opened heart does not mean one if justified and part of the Body. Someone can emulate the sanctification process (which is what I questioned by saying ‘how do you know?). However one cannot achieve sanctification without first being justified (Justification and Sanctification for the Jews is different in their scenario as according to the special covenants God made with them; we won’t go into this).

Someone is not a Christian, part of the Body, and ‘Saved’ because they repent and walk with an open heart. They may be more open to the message of Jesus and his resulting justification offered via the Cross, BUT they are not a Christian yet. One is not a Christian until this pivotal understanding of Jesus’ central role in one’s justification, forgiveness, and salvation. This is not dogma, but the opening of the heart to being saved via Christ. This is step 1 of being a Christian. This is why I ask ‘How do you know’.

Hope that clarifies, somewhat, that interrupted discussion we had in class.

God Bless, and wonderful devotional as always.