All Christians should be confident that God raised His Son Jesus from the dead (Rom 10:9-10)! If you are not confident about this fact, then I would invite you to ask questions and find answers. Enlightenment thinking has had quite a negative impact on our thinking about miracles and the supernatural. If you grew up in western culture, then you have been affected by materialism (and I do not mean wanting to buy lots of things! I mean anti-supernatural presuppositions.) Materialists (athiests/agnostics/humanists) people think it is funny and curious when we tell them that God raised Jesus from the dead. However, we are not appealing to the fancy of our imaginations, we are appealing to the testimony of history. N.T. Wright’s famous quote is ‘the christian has nothing to fear from history’. In this work Wright using ‘historical-critical’ methods analyzes the Case for the resurrection of Jesus. It is a magnum opus, a must read for 21st century dwellers.

N.T. Wright has taught at Cambridge, Oxford, Duke, McGill, etc.. He’s published 40 books. Here is a
CV excerpt, all degrees are from Oxford University:

• 2000 D.D.
• 1981 D.Phil.
• 1975 M.A.
• 1973 B.A.(1st class Honours), Theology; Denyer and Johnson Prize (shared) for top first class of year; College Prize
• 1971 B.A.(1st class Honours), Literae Humaniores; College Prize

• 1. The Jewish theological beliefs of the early Christian community underwent 7 mutations that are inexplicable apart from the bodily resurrection of Jesus
• 2. The empty tomb
• 3. The post-mortem appearances of Jesus to individuals and groups, friends and foes

• William Lane Craig (Biola) vs Roy Hoover (Whitman College)
• Mike Licona (Independent) vs Bart Ehrman (UNC Chapel Hill)
• Gary Habermas (Liberty) vs Joel Marcus (Duke) – Part1, Part2, Part3

Hello friends and family! 

Hope you are all so well! We love you all very much.  We're BOTH graduating and first of all just want to say thanks for all you've been to us in our lives--we really appreciate each you and consider you as people who have formed who we are and helped us along our own journey.  Thank you!! We also wanted to invite those of you who are around to join us in either of our graduations and/or graduation party.  We would love you see you and catch up! If you can't make it, we just wanted to let you know what's going on in our lives and say thank you!!! 

Here is our graduation announcement!


*Please pass this on to anyone else you know might want to come!

Tags: rants, thinking, upset, stoked, blessed, wierd worldstoked

I listened to a ‘video-blog’ yesterday that broke my heart, and made my anger (I think it was righteous anger) burn. I go to seminary and run into ‘popular calvinism’ often, but for some reason hearing a popular ‘apologist’ whom I respect advocating High-Calvinism it pushed me over the depression edge. Why? Because High-calvinism hides the gospel of Jesus!

The apologist was arguing that ‘God is not obligated to save anyone.’

My response to Him was:

I often hear the "God is not obligated" to save anyone 'argument'. This argument saddens my heart in the deepest degree. Has God not bound Himself to bless all the families of the earth in Gen. 12? Your argument diminishes the covenant God made with Abraham!! God bound Himself to bring salvation to the world (all people, Jn 3:16) in the Abrahamic covenant! The hebrew text says that in Abraham all the families (mishpachat) of the earth would be blessed, is that not everyone?! And Has God not atoned for the sins of entire world in Jesus death (1 Jn 2:2)? Does God not want all to repent (1 tim 2:4)? Does God not want none to perish (2 Pet 3:9)? He is the savior of all men (1 Tim 4:10)! Many people will reject God, even though He has purchased them with the blood of His own Son (2 Pet 2:1). Your argument completely ignores the universal reconciling work of Jesus on the cross (2 Cor 5:18-21, Col 1:19-22, Rom 5:8-10). My heart is breaking because, in my judgment, you are ignoring the gospel.

The apologist has not responded to me yet, but if He does I will post His response on my blog. Whenever I talk about the reconciling work of God through Jesus I always get asked if I am a universalist, which I am not. In the discussion thread a guy name Sam asked me this question.

Sam asked:
Jesse, are you advocating universalism?

My response to Sam was:

Sam,

Universalism is unbiblical in the highest degree, that is not what I am arguing for. In my judgment, scripture is clear, more people will end up in Hell than heaven, but this is not what God intended. I am affirming here that in this world things do happen that are against the will of God. God does not will for anyone to go to Hell (2 Pet 3:9, Ezek 33:11). This is why He sent Jesus to take away our sins through His universal atoning death (Jn 1:29, 1 Jn 2:2, 1 Tim 4:10, 2 Pet 2:1). This is why He sent the Spirit to convict the world of Jesus Lordship (Jn 16:8-9). God does indeed command all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:11). Why does God command all people to repent? Because He has appointed a day when He will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ. He commands all people to repent and believe in Jesus the Lord, because He does not want them to go to Hell (2 Pet 3:9, 1 Tim 2:3-4).

Look at the parable of the Final assize, when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats. The sheep (believers) inherit life eternal, and the goats (unbelievers) inherit death and hell. If there was ever a better time for Jesus to tell us plainly about How God prepared Hell for certain people this would be it, but what does Jesus say to the unbelievers? Jesus says in Matt 25:41 to those on His left hand at the assize "Depart from Me, you cursed, ​​into the everlasting fire prepared for ​the devil and his angels." Why does Jesus not say to the cursed, "Depart from Me, you cursed into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil, His angels, and you!" with an angry sneer in His voice. Why? Because God did not prepare Hell for anyone, nor does He have pleasure when people go there (2 pet 3:9, Ezek 33:11).

It saddens me in the deepest degree that we do not love sinners the way Jesus did. However, it is as Jesus said it would be in the last days

"And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow ​cold." (Matt 24:12)

If you are interested in reading more on these issues.

Here is a PDF of Bruce Ware Ph.D (A moderate Calvinist from SBTS) on Unlimited Atonement
Here is a PDF of Leon Morris Ph.D (Well liked among Reformed) on Romans 9
Here is a PDF of James Deyoung Ph.D (Professor of NT at Western Seminary) on “The Doctrine of Reconciliation against the shack and other emergent fiction.”
Scott Mcknight has a good article on the ‘New Calvinists’

Tags: rants, thinking, upset, stoked, blessed, wierd worldwierd world, upset

Gerry Breshears is Carissa and I’s theology professor. He is great at theological method, and even better at marriage stuff. Here is a recent post from Gerry on resolving conflict in marriage.

Every marriage has conflict, even mine, where Sherry and I have never fought or raised our voices to each other in 42 years of marriage. We just do conflict in different ways. So what are some basic steps for resolving conflict? The key is to work for partnership in problem solving rather than going into argument to win. The problem is the issue, not the spouse.
Attitude is everything. Throughout this process both spouses should be thinking “What can I give to my spouse?” In arguments, it is how can I win my point. When it is right, then our value and goal is the relationship before the issue.
Commitments as you begin the discussion (from Ephesians 5:22-32; 1 Peter 3:1-7):
Husband: I agree to give myself to my wife as Christ gave himself for the church. Wife: I agree to submit to my husband as unto the lord.
Time outs are to be used for contemplating how to understand each other better (NOT to work on a stronger defense case because that is what happens in arguments).
1. Husband listens to wife
a. Husband’s job is to understand wife (see example of Jesus in the garden at Gethsemane Luke 22:42) by helping her state her case (an active role) remaining engaged, listening non-defensively, asking questions for understanding (not for personal agenda or to make jabs).
b. Wife’s job is to express her wants/feelings with trust in a non-attacking way (to speak honestly but not to overpower or persuade husband to agreement).
c. Husband is to stay with wife with respect (1Peter 3:7) and paraphrase to check for clarity/accuracy of understanding what wife has said. (NOTE: the goal is for the wife to feel heard, understood and cared for by his attentiveness, conduct and understanding).
d. Wife is to speak with a gentle and quiet spirit showing respect for her husband not letting herself give way to fear (1 Peter 3:1-6) (NOTE: the goal is for the husband to feel her submissive spirit, that she genuinely cares for his best as she expresses her feeling and desires).
Sometimes at this point, issues will be resolved simply by husband’s clear understanding of wife. If that is the case, “hooray” and the matter is resolved.
2. Wife listens to husband if the issue remains unresolved, and the roles reverse (all with the same motives, attitudes, conduct, etc.) including additional new instructions.
a. Wife seeks to understand husband without being pushy or critical.
b. Husband states his case, offers his thoughts (including those that are incomplete) and his feelings, and avoids sarcasm and stonewalling.
c. Wife paraphrases and seeks confirmation of understanding.
d. Husband speaks with a respectful and considerate tone.
Sometimes at this point, issues will be resolved when wife understands husband’s perspective. If so, “hooray” and the matter is resolved.
3. Find all areas/aspects of common ground and list them. Both are looking for areas where he/she can move toward the other as they explore the options together is a spirit of love and respect rather than defensiveness or self-protectiveness.
4. If things are still at an impasse and the decision needs to be made, the husband makes recommendation/decision, expressing it with respect and honor and sadness that the process could not achieve resolution, taking responsibility for the decision. The wife submits gently and respectfully and gives her support to her husband. The limitation on her submission is if it were to be directly contrary to God’s scriptural command. If this happens, then they will need to get help from a wise Christian.

I have been following Craig Evans recently and have been encouraged by His scholarship, writing, and the scores of interviews He has done with media in regards to the historical Jesus. You should check out His website and consider grabbing the book ‘The Last days of Jesus’ He co-authored with Bishop Tom Wright. A book I recently just finished by Evans is ‘Fabricating Jesus: How modern scholars distort the gospels.’ It was superb scholarship! In a day where academia continues to fabricate a new Jesus, we should feel very blessed by the true Jesus to have Dr. Evans still being true to Jesus of Nazareth. I uploaded some videos of Evans discussing His recent book with Wright, and the dead sea scrolls on my video page.
http://www.craigaevans.com/

I have been reading Leon Morris lately. It has been very encouraging to me.
Leon Morris received his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge on the subject which became his first major book, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. For me it has been a breath of fresh-air to read a Biblical Theologian speak of the major themes of the cross. Morris takes each word and traces the hebrew and greek, LXX and NT root of that word. He then draws out the Apostles thought forms for preaching the cross. Personally, I have been wrestling through what happened on the cross in all of its significance for the past several years. This personal wrestling came about as a result of some transgression I willfully, rebelliously, committed in my life when I was 22 yrs. For the past several years I have struggled to forgive myself for it, and the accusing voice has never stopped lying to me. So I decided not to ignore the lie, but to see if there was any substance to it. As, I read the text, and thought about what Jesus accomplished on the cross, I have come to discover that there was no substance to the lie. It was false! It would be like someone telling you 2+2=5, and then you researching and realizing, “No...2+2=4”. I realized that nothing can separate me, or anyone else for that matter, from the Love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. The biggest doctrine to impact me personally in this book by Morris is the doctrine of Reconciliation. After so clearly transgressing against my Father and alienating myself willfully from Him, I wondered to myself, “will He take me back again?” The answer I have found in scripture according to the cross, which is God’s means of reconciling the world, is YES! He pleads with me to return to Him, though I have transgressed, and committed spiritual adultery against Him, He pleads with this transgressor, “return to me!”

If you are interested in reading Dr. James Deyoung’s ETS paper on Reconciliation

Here is the outline of Leon Morris’ book.
1. Redemption
2. Covenant
3. The Blood
4-5. Propitiation
6. Reconciliation
7-8. Justification.
9. Conclusion

A bibliography of Leon Morris work, with some downloadable PDF’s.
Another book by Morris I read recently is “Testament of Love” This book traces the idea of the Love of God in both testaments. The Hebrew, LXX & Koine. Morris shows that God is chesed’ for Israel and the Nations.

Sean Mcdowell wrote a great article on “Is Postmodernism a myth?” On what Sean says, I heartily agree. I personally think fideism (not postmodernism) is the primary paradigm (when it come to religion) among the emerging generation. Fideism being that “faith is separate from fact” the “faith-fact” dichotomy is an arbitrary part of a 21st century paradigm. Postmodernism is really an objective assertion that objective truth is unknowable. Postmoderns may say so in religious or ethical matters, but they would never say math or science is subjective or relative. I think postmodernism is a demonic smokescreen for those who wish to not intellectually engage in the classical categories of philosophy like metaphysics, and epistemology. So I would definitely recommend that you read Sean’s post! Also I have been reading “Reasonable Faith” by William Lane Craig. This is the best defense of the Christian paradigm, and Jesus the Lord and Christ, I have personally ever read. Lastly, if you are into apologetics and learning about arguments for the existence of God, the reliability of the Old & New Testaments, the Historicity of Jesus life-death-and Resurrection, prophecy, archaeological discoveries, and the like you must watch the flash curriculum videos at this site. They are very concise and informative, I will recommend them to many people for years to come. I have also embedded the page on my site here.

Tags: rants, thinking, upset, stoked, blessed, wierd worldwierd world

Tim Keller is sharp as a tac, thank to Jesus working in Him.
In the below quote he contrasts "The Gospel", w/ "Religion".
here's a link to some sermons, I also found out He is 6’4” tall:


RELIGION: I obey-therefore I’m accepted.
THE GOSPEL: I’m accepted-therefore I obey.


RELIGION: Motivation is based on fear and insecurity.
THE GOSPEL: Motivation is based on grateful joy.


RELIGION: I obey God in order to get things from God.
THE GOSPEL: I obey God to get to God-to delight and resemble Him.


RELIGION: When circumstances in my life go wrong, I am angry at God or my self, since I believe, like Job’s friends that anyone who is good deserves a comfortable life.
THE GOSPEL: When circumstances in my life go wrong, I struggle but I know all my punishment fell on Jesus and that while he may allow this for my training, he will exercise his Fatherly love within my trial.


RELIGION: When I am criticized I am furious or devastated because it is critical that I think of myself as a ‘good person’. Threats to that self-image must be destroyed at all costs.
THE GOSPEL: When I am criticized I struggle, but it is not critical for me to think of myself as a ‘good person.’ My identity is not built on my record or my performance but on God’s love for me in Christ. I can take criticism.


RELIGION: My prayer life consists largely of petition and it only heats up when I am in a time of need. My main purpose in prayer is control of the environment.
THE GOSPEL: My prayer life consists of generous stretches of praise and adoration. My main purpose is fellowship with Him.


RELIGION: My self-view swings between two poles. If and when I am living up to my standards, I feel confident, but then I am prone to be proud and unsympathetic to failing people. If and when I am not living up to standards, I feel insecure and inadequate. I’m not confident. I feel like a failure.
THE GOSPEL: My self-view is not based on a view of my self as a moral achiever. In Christ I am “simul iustus et peccator”—simultaneously sinful and yet accepted in Christ. I am so bad he had to die for me and I am so loved he was glad to die for me. This leads me to deeper and deeper humility and confidence at the same time. Neither swaggering nor sniveling.


RELIGION: My identity and self-worth are based mainly on how hard I work. Or how moral I am, and so I must look down on those I perceive as lazy or immoral. I disdain and feel superior to ‘the other.’
THE GOSPEL: My identity and self-worth are centered on the one who died for His enemies, who was excluded from the city for me. I am saved by sheer grace. So I can’t look down on those who believe or practice something different from me. Only by grace I am what I am. I’ve no inner need to win arguments.


RELIGION: Since I look to my own pedigree or performance for my spiritual acceptability, my heart manufactures idols. It may be my talents, my moral record, my personal discipline, my social status, etc. I absolutely have to have them so they serve as my main hope, meaning, happiness, security, and significance, whatever I may say I believe about God.
THE GOSPEL: I have many good things in my life—family, work, spiritual disciplines, etc. But none of these good things are ultimate things to me. None of them are things I absolutely have to have, so there is a limit to how much anxiety, bitterness, and despondency they can inflict on me when they are threatened and lost.

Don’t let sin silent you in speaking about Jesus! Instead, let scripture, which is inspired by God, be used by the Spirit in your life to make you more like Jesus the Son. I would really like to be more like Jesus, and the Holy Spirit would really like me to be more like Jesus too. If you are a believer you as well want to be more like Jesus, and the Spirit wants you to as well. What a glorious truth that God’s powerful will is that we be more like Jesus. I recently finished memorizing Colossians, and it was very much about Jesus! Paul records an early church Hymn (1:15-20) about Jesus. Paul says Jesus is the one He preaches (1:28) for the goal that people would become more like Jesus (1:29). He does not want His readers in Colossae, Laodicea, or anywhere else for that matter to be carried away like the spoils of war (2:8) in believing good sounding arguments that are not about Jesus. Jesus is in fact God in the flesh (2:9) and so believers in Jesus do not need anything else other than...Jesus (2:10). Because of the work of Jesus, the Father identifies believers in Jesus as “hidden in Christ” (3:3). Since God so identifies us with Jesus we will be found on the day of judgment as holy, blameless, and above reproach (1:22). That is if we remain steadfast in the faith and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel (1:23). The whole point of Paul writing His letter was to warn and encourage this new faithful church to continue to trust in Jesus and not be moved. That is definitely, most definitely, a message for us!! We as believers in Jesus have been identified with Jesus (3:3), saved from our enemies by Jesus (2:14-15), reconciled to God by Jesus (1:21-22) and are therefore to remain trusting Jesus (1:23). Where else can you go? He alone has the words of eternal life!

Let me also issue a challenge to any who are reading this. Why don’t you pick a book of the NT and memorize it? Many Jewish and Muslim followers have the Quran or Torah memorized. Why should not people who follow Jesus memorize the New Testament? There are 260 chapters in the New Testament with a total of 7,957 verses. If you memorize 4 verses a day, you would have the entire New Testament in 5 years!! Just think 5 years from now you would have the New Testament memorized and the Holy Spirit would use the scriptures to make you more like Jesus.

I am so deeply encouraged by my Exegesis class right now. I deeply want to learn how to read scripture well, and help others read it well, as well. I am a big advocate of entire book memorization as an aid in interpretation, and I am beginning to think it is even more important as we seek to do exegesis well. It just gives a good grid to the interpreter to have the book memorized. This bible has helped me memorize just because of it’s compactness/cleanness, and it is only $5 right now, but be warned..its a NKJV!!! It was Calvary Chapel’s fault, but there is no way I can switch from the NKJV to sumin else now. I read other translations, and enjoy the eclectic greek text, and the majority text. I have also really enjoyed studying textual criticism these last weeks. Especially in light of Bart Ehrman’s recent rise in popularity. I like the critique Dan Wallace gives of Bart. I also linked the book image above, it is $12 on CBD and it is a great introduction into a complicated field. I sometimes feel like Indiana jones or someone on the goonies when I read/think on/do textual criticism and it definitely brings out the exploring little boy in me.

Fideism is an epistemological theory that maintains that faith is independent and separate from reason. Fideism maintains that one does not need to have reasons for faith. For faith is, according to fideists, irrational. This has created a great divide in the minds of our popular culture. It can be referred to as the FAITH-FACT dichotomy. This faith-fact dichotomy consequentially leads to sentiments among large numbers of people like “Why do people keep saying that one religion is right, and one wrong? This is so dumb! Can’t people see that all this religious intolerance is ruining society and keeping the world from moving towards human progress, peace, and safety for all.” In the mind of the fideist, religion is not something to be argued about, or debated, just individually preferred. The word fideism comes from fides the latin word for faith and literally means faithism. Since faith is not actually factual then faith should not be argued, defended, or debated for, “No religion should say it is right and others are wrong.” This conclusion follows logically from the fideistic premise. It is this premise that must be critiqued. There are different theories of truth. The correspondence theory of truth is truest to reality, though the other theories have strengths as well. The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world, and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on the one hand, and things or facts on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined solely by how it relates to a reality; that is, by whether it accurately describes that reality. As Aristotle claims in his Metaphysics: "To say that [either] that which is is not or that which is not is, is a falsehood; and to say that that which is is and that which is not is not, is true"

Are you really reading this blog right now? The Correspondence theory of truth would say, “you are really reading this blog this very moment” and that propositional statement would be defined as true since the statement corresponds to reality. If while you are reading this blog, someone was to say, “You are not reading the blog right now,” that propositional statement would be defined as false since it does not correspond to the fact that you really are reading the blog. Therefore, since language has meaning, humans can make propositional statements that correspond to reality as it exists. Therefore, faith that is not based on reality is faith based on fiction. Faith based on fiction is false and therefore should be abandoned. If it is true that there is no facts that establish our faith, than our faith is fact-less and should be abandoned since it does not correspond to reality. If our faith is based on facts that correspond to reality than our faith should be embraced, not because it feels good, but because it is true to reality and to not embrace reality is to embrace fiction. Fiction should be abandoned and reality should be believed.

Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, and Joseph smith all made propositional statements. The question that must be asked is, Did any of those men make true statements about reality? This must be investigated, critically.

If Jesus statements about His incarnation, life, death, and resurrection were never stated or are not accurate to reality there is no reason to follow Jesus for He would be a liar, or lunatic and the christian faith would be based on fiction. If Jesus statements about Himself were accurate and correspond to reality as it exists, we have every reason to fall at His feet and worship Him alone, because He has shown us what reality is really like.

I have just finished memorizing Galatians and have spent the last couple weeks really immersing myself in the message of the book. I do not say this here to boast, but to share that the way I personally understand books of the bible best is by meditating upon them and memorizing the entirety of them. I begin to get a general context for the whole letter as I work my way through the different sections. I also receive a general understanding of the flow of the argument of the book, the big picture begins to make sense, and then the little details do as well. Paul’s attitude toward the church which was being “led astray” and his attitude toward the leaders who lead astray is different. His attitude towards the church is shock, concern, and worry that they do not understand the point of the Law and the new life of adoption they have received through the Holy Spirit. Paul’s attitude towards the leaders is “wishing, they would cut off there penises.” Paul is adamant that the Galatians are nor longer to find there relational access point to God through the law. They are instead adopted into the very family of God and are to relate to Him, through the Spirit, in light of His salvation historical work through Jesus, by faith. Jesus has come in the perfect “time” and Paul, as well as all who have been baptized into Christ, have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer they who live but Christ who lives in them. Paul wants to make sure that the Galatians do not set aside God’s salvation from the curse of the law. How has God saved these Galatians from the curse of the law? He has enacted a new way of relating to Him, by faith, through the Spirit. Paul’s shock comes in understanding that since God has made something better, how can the Galatians go back to relating to God through the former? Paul has derogatory things to say about the law; He calls the law Hagar. He says the law gives birth to bondage. He says the law is a tutor for little kids, but after we “grow up” we don’t need it any more. He calls it “weak and beggarly elements.” Paul says that “those who attempt to be justified by law have fallen from grace, and become estranged from Christ!” It is theological error to look to the law for salvation. Paul said He “withstood Peter to His face” in front of a bunch of people. From all this data, I gather that Paul really believed that Jesus death (which He boasted in) changed the way we relate to God. It is God’s will to deliver us from this present evil age through the new covenant (not old covenant) promises in Christ, which Paul adds were even given to Abraham, and those who truly want to be sons of Abraham, will relate to God by faith as well. Those who want to be in bondage, immature, cursed, estranged from Jesus, and associated with Hagar (unclean) should go on relating to God through the law. Those who want to be free, mature, blessed, adopted by Jesus, and associated with Abraham and the true Israel of God should begin sowing to the Spirit and relating to God by faith.

This is a really good outline on Galatians by Richard Longenecker

1. SALUTATION (1:1–5)
2. REBUKE SECTION (1:6–4:11)
3. OCCASION FOR WRITING/ISSUES AT STAKE (EXORDIUM) (1:6–10)
4. AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENTS IN DEFENSE (NARRATIO) 1:11–2:14
5. THESIS STATEMENT (1:11–12)
6. EARLY LIFE, CONVERSION AND COMMISSION (1:13–17)
7. FIRST VISIT TO JERUSALEM (1:18–24)
8. SECOND VISIT TO JERUSALEM (2:1–10)
9. THE ANTIOCH EPISODE (2:11–14)
10. THE PROPOSITION OF GALATIANS (PROPOSITIO) (2:15–21)
11. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT (PROBATIO) (3:1–4:11)
12. RIGHTEOUSNESS APART FROM THE LAW: AGAINST LEGALISM (3:1–18)
13. ARGUMENTS FROM EXPERIENCE (3:1–5)
14. ARGUMENTS FROM SCRIPTURE (3:6–14)
A. Ad Hominem Theological Arguments (3:15–18)
B. The Believer’s Life not “under Law” but “in Christ”: Against Nomism (3:19–4:7)
15. THE PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF THE LAW (3:19–25)
16. NEW RELATIONSHIPS “IN CHRIST” (3:26–29)
17. AN ILLUSTRATION OF RELATIONSHIPS (4:1–7)
18. PAUL’S CONCERN FOR THE GALATIANS (4:8–11)
19. REQUEST SECTION (4:12–6:10)
20. EXHORTATIONS AGAINST THE JUDAIZING THREAT (EXHORTATIO, PART I) (4:12–5:12)
21. PERSONAL APPEALS (4:12–20)
A. The Hagar-Sarah Allegory (4:21–31)
22. HOLDING FAST TO FREEDOM (5:1–12)
23. EXHORTATIONS AGAINST LIBERTINE TENDENCIES (EXHORTATIO, PART II) (5:13–6:10)
24. LIFE DIRECTED BY LOVE, SERVICE TO OTHERS, AND THE SPIRIT (5:13–18)
25. THE WORKS OF THE FLESH AND THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT (5:19–26)
A. Doing Good to All (6:1–10)
26. SUBSCRIPTION (6:11–18)