Monthly Archives: November 2011

Children and heaven

Eight-month-old twin sisters (photo courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear PhD

After the death of a child or following an abortion, thoughtful people have asked, “What happens to children who die?” Where does a baby go who dies before he or she can understand right from wrong? What about the death of a person with a mental disability who is incapable of rational comprehension? Are aborted foetuses nothing more than scrap-heap refuse? Is there any after-life for them? [1]

A.  The example of King David

In the Old Testament, there is a ray of light in an incident that is surrounded by sin, distress and disappointment. King David had committed adultery with Bathsheba and had arranged for the murder of Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, on the battle field.[2] The scene was atrocious–everything that one could expect from a modern movie. A son was conceived through illicit sexual intercourse.

When confronted by the prophet Nathan, David confessed, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt, the son born to you will die.”[3]

The son became desperately ill. David was distraught and wept bitterly. He fasted and pleaded with God to restore the child to health. But the child died.

It is at this point that the Old Testament gives us a glimpse of what happens to children after death. It is only a snap-shot of the eternal future, but it is enough to give immense hope to Christian believers whose children have died.

David said, “Now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”[4]

“The last comment does not mean merely that David would eventually die himself. The point of the story is that David comforted himself (and Bathsheba) after the child’s death, and there would be no comfort unless David believed that, although he could not bring the child back, nevertheless, one day they would see the child again in heaven.”[5]

David expected to see his son again–“not just a nameless, faceless soul without an identity, but that very child.”[6] This is an assurance that believers will know people in heaven.

King David’s words

    indicate a belief in the continued existence of the child, and even that David would recognize and know him in the future world. Less than this would have given no comfort to the father for his loss… He expressed a hope of conscious reunion in the future world; and the Christian, taking up the words, can express by them a fuller and more confident hope of rejoining his little children and Christian relatives and friends in a state of blessedness… `

1.  Not lost, but gone before

    ‘is a thought that is daily comforting thousands’.[7]

A reminder of the alternative is often needed to show us how far God has brought us by His grace: “How dreadful the reunions hereafter of those who have lived together in ungodliness and sin here, and encouraged and helped each other in the practice of them! Better to have died in infancy! Better not to have been born!”[8]

2.  David knew where he was going after death

Where was David going at death? Speaking to the Lord, David said, “And I–in righteousness I will see your face; when I awake, I will be satisfied with seeing your likeness.”[9] While Psalm 16:9-11 is Messianic, pointing to Christ,[10] it had a temporal fulfillment in the life of David:

“Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand.”[11]

At death, David would experience eternal life (heaven) in the presence of God. That is where he expected to meet his infant son again.

How is it possible that eternal life is reserved for anyone who has repented, confessed his or her sin to Christ and received Christ [12], yet children who have not known how to repent are granted entry? There is a hint in Deuteronomy 1:39 when children are spoken of as those “who do not yet know good from bad.”

It is clear from the Bible that children are sinners from conception.[13] The heavenly status of children who die before reaching moral competence is a contentious one. However, it appears that the Lord takes into account the lack of moral understanding of children. Based on the following considerations, it is difficult to maintain that children are lost eternally. There are definite grounds in the Bible, although limited in detail, for stating that upon death, children go to heaven.[14]

By inference and application, surely this applies also to the mentally incompetent? We have confidence in answering the question, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”[15] with an absolutely positive, “YES!”

B.  Jesus Christ’s view of children and heaven

Christ’s disciples seemed to have a view that children were not important–“should be seen but not heard.” Jesus rebuked them and challenged their distorted views. He said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”[16] Even though it was meant as correction, Christ included an important view of a child’s place in heaven. “In principle all blessings of salvation belong even now to these little ones, a fact which was to be realized progressively here on earth and perfectly in the hereafter.”[17] An Anglican bishop from the last century, J. C. Ryle, affirmed Christ’s view that children would go to heaven at death: “We may surely hope well about the salvation of all who die in infancy. `Of such is the kingdom of heaven.'”[18]

C.  Believers will know one another in heaven

We know from an incident that happened on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus Christ and His disciples that believers who have died will be recognised in eternity (heaven). Moses and Elijah who had died centuries earlier still maintained a clear identity.[19] Peter, James and John recognised them without an introduction by Jesus.[20] This “implies that we will somehow be able to recognize people we’ve never even seen before. For that to be possible, we must all retain our individual identities, not turn into some sort of generic beings.”[21]

Jesus related another story about the rich man and Lazarus that emphasises this point. The rich man went to hell and was in torment. He lifted up his eyes and “saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.”[22] There is clear recognition here of the departed. They know each other in life after death.

D.  What about foetuses that have been aborted?

murdered child

(photo courtesy abortiontruth.com)

This question is related to when human life begins. There is startling evidence from biology that life begins before birth.

1.  Human Life Begins at Conception: Biological Evidence

The United States Senate Judiciary Sub-committee held hearings in 1981 on the issue of when life begins. Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation.

Dr. Richard V. Jaynes wrote: “To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is . . . utterly ridiculous” (Ob. Gyn. News, September 15, 1981).

Typical of the overwhelming majority of those who testified at the 1981 hearings were the following:

a.  Dr. Jerome LeJeune, former professor of genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, France (d. 1994):

“When does life begin? I will try to give the most precise answer to that question actually available to science. . . Life has a very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning, the moment of conception. . . To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being, conception to old age, is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”

b.  Dr. Watson A. Bowes, Jr., of the University of Colorado Medical School:

“The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter–the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political or economic goals.”

c.  Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School noted that the standard medical texts have long taught that human life begins at conception:

“I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty. . . is not a human being. This is human life at every stage albeit incomplete until late adolescence.”

d.  Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, research associate of Harvard University Medical School:

“It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive. . . It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception. . . Our lives, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

e.  Professor Hymie Gordon, chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics at Mayo Clinic, [Rochester, Minnesota]:

“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

f.  Dr. McCarthy De Mere, practicing physician and law professor at the University of Tennessee:

“The exact moment of the beginning [of] personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.”[23]

Not surprisingly, the Bible agrees:

E.  BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS FOR VIEWING THE FOETUS AS FULLY HUMAN

1. Unborn babies are called “children,” the same word used of infants and young children,[24] and sometimes even of adults.[25]

2. The unborn are created by God[26] just as God created Adam and Eve in his image.[27]

3. The life of the unborn is protected by the same punishment for injury or death[28] as that of an adult.[29]

4. Christ was human (the God-man) from the point he was conceived in Mary’s womb.[30]

5. The image of God includes “male and female”[31], but it is a scientific fact that maleness or femaleness (sex) is determined at the moment of conception.

6. Unborn children possess personal characteristics such as sin[32] and joy that are distinctive of human beings.

7. Personal pronouns are used to describe unborn children[33] just as any other human being.

8. The unborn are said to be known intimately and personally by God as he would know any other person.[34]

9. The unborn are even called by God before birth.[35]

10. Guilt from an abortion is experienced, therefore, because a person has broken the law of God (sinned), “You shall not murder.”[36] Forgiveness can be received through confession to Jesus Christ.[37]

3d-red-star-small “Taken as a whole, these Scripture texts leave no doubt that an unborn child is just as much a person in God’s image as a little child or an adult is. They are created in God’s image from the very moment of conception, and their prenatal life is precious in God’s eyes and protected by his prohibition against murder.”[38]

Since human life begins at conception and concludes at death, we may therefore conclude that the death of a human being by abortion means that the infant will experience the same eternal life as the child who dies after birth (evidence above). There is one important difference between the aborted life and that of a child who has been born. The aborted child was not known personally to the mother, father and others. Or, will the situation be similar to Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration who were known by the disciples without having met them? Will the aborted children in heaven be known by the parents who are Christians? We have no biblical evidence to support the knowledge we will have of aborted children in heaven. One thing we do know–the unborn child is known to God. The psalmist explains in poetic language:

“My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Ps 139:15 NIV).

(photo courtesy public domain pictures)

Works consulted

James Montgomery Boice 1986. Foundations of the Christian Faith (revised in one volume). Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Millard J. Erickson 1985. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Norman L. Geisler 1989. Christian Ethics: Options and Issues. Leicester, England: Apollos (Inter-Varsity Press).

William Hendriksen 1973. The Gospel of Matthew (New Testament Commentary). Edinburgh (Scotland): The Banner of Truth Trust.

John F. MacArthur 1996. The Glory of Heaven. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books.

J.C. Ryle 1977. Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Volume One, Matthew-Mark). Welwyn, Herts., England: Evangelical Press.

Landrum B. Shettles with David Rorvik 1983. Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell (eds.) 1950. The Pulpit Commentary (Volume 4: Ruth, I & II Samuel). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Endnotes:

1. These kinds of questions have been asked of me after I’ve preached, led a Bible study, interacted on a Christian forum online, and in other circumstances.

2. Read the story in 2 Samuel, chapters 11 & 12. All quotations in this article are from the New International Version of the Bible.

3. 2 Samuel 12:13-14.

4. 2 Samuel 12:23, emphasis added.

5. Boice (1986:718).

6. MacArthur (1996:138).

7. Spence & Exell (eds.) 1950: 290, 324 (II Samuel).

8. Ibid., 324.

9. Psalm 17:15, emphasis added

10. See Acts 2:27; 13:35.

11. Emphasis added.

12. See John 1:12; 3:16; Acts 17:30-31.

13. An example is Psalm 51:5, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”

14. Erickson (1985:638).

15. Genesis 18:25.

16. Matthew 19:14, emphasis added.

17. Hendriksen (1973:720).

18. Ryle (1977:236).

19. Matthew 17:3.

20. Matthew 17:4.

21. MacArthur (1996:139).

22. Luke 16:23.

23. The above quotes on “biological evidence” were given at the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, report to the U.S.A Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st session, 1981 on the issue of when life begins. They are quoted in Shettles & Rorvik (1983:113-114) and Geisler (1989:148, emphasis added).

25. 1 Kings 3:17.

26. Psalm 139:13.

27. Genesis 1:27.

28. Exodus 21:22.

29. Genesis 9:6.

30. Matthew 1:20-21; Luke 1:26-27.

31. Genesis 1:27.

32. Psalm 51:5.

33. Jeremiah 1:5 LXX; Matthew 1:20-21. The original Old Testament was primarily written in Hebrew, with a few passages in Aramaic (a Hebrew dialect). The LXX is the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

34. Psalm 139:15-16; Jeremiah 1:5.

35. Genesis 25:22-23; Judges. 13:2-7; Isaiah. 49:1, 5; Galatians 1:15.

36. Exodus 20:13; Matthew 5:21; 19:18; Romans 13:9.

37. 1 John 1:9.

38. From Geisler (1989:148).

Copyright © 2007 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 11 April 2020.

Hell and judgment[1]

ACTS 17: 22-31

Flame 11 Clip Art
Clker.com

By Spencer D Gear

“When I die, I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive,” said the late British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, who died in 1970. [2] We can hardly argue with his statement.  It is obviously true concerning the physical body. Three years after he published that statement, Russell died. But is it the whole truth? Does the real “me” disappear? Epicurus, the Greek pleasure-loving philosopher, said long ago, “What men fear is not that death is annihilation (complete destruction), but that it is not.” [3] Bertrand Russell said more than when he dies he rots. He sailed into Jesus when he said: “There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment.” [4]

I read a fascinating poem by John Betjeman where he described his thoughts before a surgical procedure in the operating theatre. He was lying in a hospital in Oxford, England, listening to the tolling of St Giles’ bells. A few lines of the poem are:

    Intolerably sad, and profound
    St Giles’ bells are ringing round…
    Swing up! and give me hope of life,
    Swing down! and plunge the surgeon’s knife.
    I, breathing for a moment, see
    Death wing himself away from me
    And think, as on this bed I lie,
    Is it extinction when I die?…
    St Giles’ bells are asking now
    `And hast thou known the Lord, hast thou?’
    St Giles bells, they richly ring
    `And was that Lord our Christ the King?’
    St Giles’ bells they hear me call
    `I never knew the Lord at all…’

In the poem he goes on to speak of a vague belief in God that he had because he went to church:

    Now, lying in the gathering mist
    I know that Lord did not exist;
    Now, lest this ‘I’ should cease to be,
    Come, real Lord, come quick to me…
    Almighty Saviour, had I faith,
    There’d be no fight with kindly Death…
    The poem is called,

Before the Anaesthetic or A Real Fight [5]

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matt 7:13,14)

Christ made many statements that there is such a thing as judgment to come. Hebrews 9:27 gets right to the point: “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.”

A. THE CORRECT ATTITUDE

It is important that we approach this matter of judgment with the right attitude of mind.

1. IT’S TOO SERIOUS TO LEAVE IT UP TO GUESSES.

When Paul, the apostle, was in Athens, he spoke about the judgment in the intellectual atmosphere of Mars Hill (Acts 17). These people “spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas” (v.21). They just loved sitting down over the equivalent of a cup of tea or coffee, and toss ideas to & fro, debating them furiously, discussing them into the night, and then throw them all away. It was fun, an intellectual exercise.

The safest way to approach any subject that threatens to be serious and personally challenging is to laugh at it.  I guess people laughed at and mocked Noah as he preached about God’s impending judgment.

What did others think of Christ when he wept over Jerusalem because they were blind to their need of him and to the judgment to come. Rather emotional! Trying to frighten us into faith, hey? It was no idle speculation.  Jerusalem was besieged and utterly destroyed in AD 70.

Christ also said this about judgment, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28).

Judgment is not a matter for idle speculations.

2. JUDGMENT IS NOT AN EMPTY THREAT

I’ve heard of parents say things like, “If you don’t stop doing that, I’ll scratch your eyes out.” Vicious words, but an empty threat. But when a mother says, Don’t go near that fire — you may get burnt.” An empty threat?? Certainly not! It’s a realistic warning.

And when Christ repeatedly warns us of the extremely serious consequences of rejecting him, or of neglecting his offer of salvation, because of the judgment to come, is that an empty threat?  It’s a realistic warning; it could happen.

3. HELL IS NOT A SUBJECT THAT CAN BE IGNORED

Fire Ball Clip Art

Clker.com

For some reason, death and judgment are two forbidden themes in conversation today. The fashion is to live life to the full, concentrate on what you can see and touch — get all the thrills you can. And make Ray Price’s song our theme song for life: “For the good times!” Why be morbid and think about death and judgment?

Many dismiss the Christian faith because they say they want to be rational and realistic about life. Yet, at the same time, they are being utterly irrational and unrealistic about the only fact of life we can be sure of: One day we must die.  (There will be some exceptions: those who are alive at the second coming of Jesus Christ.)

What will happen at death?  When I die do I rot, or does life continue?

I can never understand why people find the subject of judgment difficult. The idea of accountability is built into all of life. Society would collapse without it. Everywhere, we must give account of our work, time, or money to someone.

Why should it then be unreasonable that a created being must give an account of his/her life to his or her Creator. It is plain common sense.

Paul, the apostle, when he was preaching on Mars Hill, Athens, was speaking to intelligent people. He noticed an inscription on one of their altars, “To an unknown god.”  Those people believed in the probable existence of some god, although they didn’t know him from experience.

So, to this intelligent, sincere audience, Paul spoke about Christ, the Judge (Acts 17:22-31).

We must have the right approach to judgment. It is:

  • not a matter for idle speculation;
  • it is not an empty threat;
  • it is not a subject that can be ignored.

 

B. JUDGMENT IS GUARANTEED!

God “has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed.” (Acts 17:31)

Judgment is inescapable because it is universal. This idea of judgment is not very popular today. However, our gospel is deficient if we miss it out. Usually, there are a number of objections. Let’s consider a few of them briefly:

 

1. WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD OF CHRIST?

This is a common objection. The Bible gives two general answers:

    a.    Judgment is according to opportunity,

so that those with little or no opportunity of learning about Christ will be judged accordingly. At Athens, Paul said, “In the past God overlooked such ignorance” (Acts 17:31).

    b.    In the words of Abraham, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25).

We can leave the matter with absolute confidence in God’s hands.

If a person has a Bible, has access to a Bible, then he/she has heard or could find out. And the Bible is very clear, then, about his/her position. The discussion of the destiny of those who have never heard, by those who have heard, is academic.

Each of us has to give an account of his/her own life according to his/her own opportunities.

Another objection against hell and judgment is:

 

2.  I DON’T DESERVE GOD’S JUDGMENT

It’s a common protest, ” I don’t go to church, but I reckon I’ve got a pretty good chance of heaven, because I live a decent, honest and generous life. I’m a pretty good bloke. My life is just as good as many Christians; maybe even better.”

We can’t dispute that. By human standards, it is no doubt true that some unbelievers outshine believers by the thoughtfulness and kindness of their lives. The only basic difference between the Christian and the non-Christian is that the Christian knows that he needs a Saviour, and has asked Christ personally to be the Saviour that he needs.

The basic sin is that we usurp — take over — God’s place at the centre of our lives.

Most people, by being the centre of reference of their own lives, are saying in effect to Christ: “Depart from me.  I want you to leave me alone.  I do not want you God, to interfere with my life.  I want to be king of my own castle.  Therefore, depart from me.”

If a person says that now, and goes on saying that, surely it is fair that Christ should say to that person on the Day of Judgment, “Depart from Me.”  It was surely the person’s own decision.

Another objection is:

3.  JUDGMENT SEEMS TOO OLD FASHIONED FOR MODERN PEOPLE. TRENDIES WANT TO RELEGATE IT TO OUT-OF-DATE, MEDIEVAL IDEAS OF CENTURIES AGO.

Some who give this objection are thinking of those grotesque pictures from the middle ages, that show tortured bodies writhing in the furnace. Pictures like this obscure the real teaching of Christ and don’t even begin to convey the true severity of hell. It is far greater and more serious than that of a furnace.

J.I. Packer explains some of the terms which Jesus used when he taught, soberly and deliberately, about hell:

  • the ‘worm does not die'(Mark 9:48), an image, it seems, for the endless dissolution of the personality by a condemning conscience;
  • ‘fire’ for the agonising awareness of God’s displeasure;
  • ‘outer darkness’ for knowledge of the loss, not merely of God, but of all good, and everything that made life seem worth living;
  • `gnashing of teeth’ for self-condemnation and self-loathing. [6]

These things are dreadful. But they are not arbitrary things inflicted on us by a God who loves to hand out punishment. Nobody stands under the wrath of God unless he/she has chosen to do so.  By hell, God’s action in wrath is to give people what they chose in all its implications.  God is doing no more than confirming the judgment people have placed on themselves.  Many Calvinists would disagree, proclaiming that God predestines people to heaven and to hell.  That is not the view here espoused.

This partly answers the next (and last) objection:

 

4. HOW CAN A GOD OF LOVE POSSIBLY TALK OF HELL OR JUDGMENT FOR ANYONE? GOD IS TOO LOVING & MERCIFUL TO CONDEMN ANYONE.

At face value, this seems to be a powerful, irrefutable objection. However, how can we explain the fact that Christ (who more than anyone, showed us the love of God) also spoke to us more than anyone about the judgment of God?

What is possibly the greatest ‘love’ verse in the whole Bible, John 3:16, clearly implies the possibility of appalling judgment: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” The astonishing measure of God’s love is seen only when we admit that we all deserve to perish and to be excluded from his presence.  The depth of God’s love is such that we need not, but can know forgiveness.

Repeatedly we are told:

  • God desires all people to be saved;
  • God knows our inclinations lead us down the broad road to destruction;
  • Therefore, in his love, God puts obstacles in our path: the Bible, churches, Christian friends, Christian books, radio & TV programs, trials and difficulties in our lives,
  • and above all the outstretched arms of Jesus on the cross.

If a person rushes past all of these, who is to blame?

Most of us disapprove of deceit, lies, theft, bribery, murder, and so on. What would you think of an absolute power in the universe who always turned a blind eye to corruption — moral corruption?  There would be complete and utter chaos. Unless God detests sin and evil with a great loathing, he cannot be a God of love.

Australian doctor, John Hercus [7] put it very shrewdly:

The truth is that men never really have any problem, never any real problem, in understanding the strong, awesome judgment of God. They may complain about it, but they have no difficulty at all in understanding the ruthless judgment that declares that black is black because only the purest white is white. True, we hear from right, left and centre, from ignorant pagans and even highly-trained theologians, the ignorant prattle about ‘All this hell-fire and brimstone talk isn’t my idea of God. I think God is a God of love and I don’t think He’d hurt a fly.’ But it is easy to know why they talk like that; it’s because they are terrified of the alternative.”

C. WHAT’S THE ALTERNATIVE?

If this doctrine of hell is not true, then heaven itself is meaningless. How could heaven be heaven if it were full of people who had no time for God? The apostle Paul wrote:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (I Cor. 6:9,10)The widely accepted theory of universalism sounds attractive. The idea is that everyone will one day be in heaven, regardless of his or her attitudes towards God in this life. This view makes nonsense of heaven itself.

Somebody put it this way:

The effects of universalism at a funeral service will be startling. Whether you are conducting a funeral service of a Nero or St Paul, or Eichman or Schweitzer, of Hitler or Niemoller, of an agnostic or Augustine, or an atheist or Athanasius, of Judas or James, you will be able to commit them all equally `in the sure and certain hope of the resurrection of the dead unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.’ [8]

The astonishing point is that this is quite possible if all have repented and put their trust in Christ. Otherwise, it makes sheer mockery of the justice and holiness of Almighty God.

If the doctrines of judgment and hell are not true, then sin pays. We can be as selfish as we like, do whatever we like, steal, lie, sleep around, murder…There is no reason to have any standards at all. Why bother to consider other people if there is no day of reckoning?

Richard Wurmbrand, the Romanian pastor who spent 14 years in a communist prison, 3 of them in solitary confinement, put it this way:

“The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The communist torturers often said, ‘There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.” I have heard one torturer even say, ‘I thank God, in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.’ He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners.” [9]

D. JUDGMENT: SUDDEN & UNEXPECTED

Perhaps the most sobering truth which comes from Christ, concerning the Day of the Lord (the Day of Judgment), is that it will take people by surprise. Paul told the people at Athens: “God has fixed a day on which he will judge the world.” Christ said, “You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him” (Luke 12:40). We do not know when that time will come. It is unexpected; therefore, be ready. It will come “like a thief in the night.”

The great Scots preacher, Robert Murray McCheyne, was once preaching on the coming of Christ and the judgment to follow. He asked his elders, one by one, before the service, “Do you think that Christ will come again tonight? One by one they all replied, “No, I don’t think so.” Then McCheyne announced his text: “The Son of Man cometh at an hour that ye think not.” [10]

Those of us who know of the suddenness of death should surely understand the suddenness of the final day of judgment. Some people with a terminal illness linger on for months and years before death arrives. Others, like my own father, kissed his wife goodbye to go off to work and he never returned. At the age of 57, he dropped dead of a fatal heart attack. Death was very sudden and unexpected for him. Because of God’s grace to him through Christ, I have the assurance that I will meet him again in God’s heaven.

Christ expressed the urgency and seriousness of this matter in a dramatic story: about two men, one rich and the other poor. One lived a wonderfully free and independent life, free of all those narrow restrictions of religion, free of God himself.

The other, Lazarus, was a poor, pathetic creature in comparison, but he knew and loved the Lord. Both men died: death was almost the only experience, apart from birth, which they had in common. Suddenly there was a great separation. One found himself in heaven, the other in hell.

This is how Christ described the feelings of that rich man:

“In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.” (Luke 16:23,24)If it were like our day, there would be an obituary in the Jerusalem Times,and I could imagine that he had a magnificent funeral. But in hell he simply cried out, “I am in agony in this fire.”

Here it was at last — the agonising awareness of God’s displeasure. He, at last, saw himself as he really was. He knew how empty his life had been — full of worldly things that he had to leave behind, but empty of God.

Christ makes it very clear that hell is a place of eternal separation from everything good, a place where a person will see that God is right and that he is wrong, and will know at last the glory of God — but he can never experience it.

In this story in Luke 16, Christ talks of “a great chasm fixed.” There is no second chance after death!

Where will you be one minute after you die? [11]

I understand that in a cemetery in Indiana, USA, there is an old tombstone with the epitaph:

Pause, stranger, when you pass me by
As you are now, so once was I
As I am now, so you will be
So prepare for death and follow me.

Somebody who walked past the tombstone read the words and scratched his response:

To follow you I’m not content
Until I know which way you went. [12]

Jesus said: “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25, NIV)

For a more comprehensive challenge to consider your eternal destiny, I enthusiastically recommend, Robert A. Morey, Death and the Afterlife [13], John Blanchard, Whatever Happened to Hell? [14] and Eryl Davies, Condemned For Ever! [15]

Endnotes:

[1] I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness for most of the content of this message to the late, David Watson. See David Watson, chapter 3, “Hell: and a God of love,” My God is Real. Westchester, Illinois: Good News Publishers (Crossway Books), 1970. As of 15th May 2002, the book was out of print according to the web site of Koorong Books, Australia.

[2] Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian. London: Unwin Books, 1967, 47. I am indebted to Robert A. Peterson, Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1995, p. 3, for directing me to the exact reference for this quote. It is in David Watson, but without bibliographical reference.

[3] In Watson, ibid.

[4] Russell, pp. 22-23, in Peterson, p. 4.

[5] In Watson.

[6] Ibid., pp. 35-36.

[7] David, IVP, 1969, in ibid., p. 37.

[8] In Watson, p. 38.

[9] Tortured for Christ. Hodder & Stoughton, 1967, in Watson, p. 38.

[10] In Watson, p. 39.

[11] See Erwin W. Lutzer, One Minute After You Die. Chicago: Moody Press, 1997.

[12] In ibid., pp. 10-11

[13] Robert A. Morey, Death and the Afterlife. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1984.

[14] John Blanchard, Whatever Happened to Hell? Darlington, Co. Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1993.

[15] Eryl Davies, Condemned For Ever! Welwyn, Hertfordshire, England: Evangelical Press, 1987.

Hell is as real as heaven. 

There will be no second chance!

Copyright (c) 2007 Spencer D. Gear.   This document last updated at Date: 7 October 2015.

Double faults and not aces: Margaret Court

The falsehood of ‘blab it and grab it’ theology

By Spencer D Gear

The cover story in New Life Christian newspaper (Melbourne, Australia), “Tennis great aces crowd” (King & Woodall 2004:1), should have come with a warning.  The headline should have read, “Tennis great also serves faults, even double faults, to the crowd.”  It was stated that Margaret Court, former international tennis player, was “the only tennis player in the world, male or female, ever to win 64 major tournaments and [was] the founder of Victory Life Centre, a Western Australian [Perth] church with an average Sunday attendance of 1300 people” (p. 1).  No matter what the size of her congregation, I have grave concerns about the content of some of her theology.

Margaret Court 1964.jpg
Margaret Court AO MBE in 1964
(Courtesy Wikipedia)

Based on this article, it is stated that Margaret Court gave a great testimony about her Christian life and ministry at the 21st Melbourne Prayer Breakfast, Melbourne Convention Centre, 7am 29 October 2004.  However, it was served up with some spiritual poison.  I am referring to these statements: “I have learned the power of words.  God created the world with words.  He framed it in words.  We need to teach our young ones to speak in a way that shapes their destiny” (King & Woodall 2004:2).

I have spoken with Christians in the charismatic movement who have been devastated by this teaching.  They have sought prosperity in following this formula of visualisation and making positive affirmations, but it left them devastated – and still in poverty.  Others go around confessing their healing, but the sickness continues.  I find this to be cruel Christianity.  It promises much, but has a habit of not delivering all of the time.

This is known as positive confession, promoted by a segment of charismatic Christianity known as the Faith Movement.  The Watchman Fellowship (2000) defines positive confession as: “the belief that if a believer speaks ‘spiritual’ or ‘faith-filled’ words then he [or she] can have what he [or she] says.”  Kenneth E. Hagin Sr. (who died in 2003 at the age of 86) advocated it with these kinds of statements [2] :

3d-red-star-small“Did you ever stop to think about having faith in your own faith?  Evidently God had faith in His faith, because He spoke words of faith and they came to pass. . .  In other words, having faith in your words is having faith in your faith.  That’s what you’ve got to learn to do to get things from God: Have faith in your faith” (Hagin 1980a:4-5).

3d-red-star-small Hebrews 4:14 states, “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to  the faith we profess” (NIV)  Hagin uses this verse to claim that “you are what you say” (Hagin 1974: 86-87).

3d-red-star-small  “Don’t pray it; say it” (Hagin 1979b:78).
3d-red-star-small  “Your lips . . . can make you a victor or keep you a captive” (Hagin 1974:91).
3d-red-star-small  “What I confess, I possess” (Hagin  1974:93).
3d-red-star-small  Hagin uses Rom. 10:8 to justify his belief that “believing with the heart and saying it with the mouth . . . creates reality” (1974:89).

3d-red-star-small  “If you are defeated, you are defeated with your own lips” (Hagin 1980b:10).
3d-red-star-small  If a believer states, “According to God’s word ‘I’m healed'” and then says, ‘Yes, I’ve got heart symptoms,” the latter confession will nullify the result of the first confession (Hagin 1980c,:90, 138).

3d-red-star-small Hagin uses Prov. 6:2 to justify this statement: “The reason so many are defeated is that they have a negative confession” (Hagin 1974:90-91).

3d-red-star-small “Every time you confess . . . your weakness and your disease, you are openly confessing that the Word of God is not true” (1974:118).  Since he began following this procedure, Hagin claims that he has not had a headache since 1933 (Hagin 1979a:6).

Margaret Court’s teaching was stated by Hagin in this way, “The kind of faith that spoke the universe into existence is dealt to our hearts” (Hagin  1980d:74). It seems as though Hagin got his teaching from E. W. Kenyon who stated, “What I confess, I possess” (Kenyon 1970:98; Hagin 1974:92; see McConnell 1988, for an assessment).

This kind of teaching is found in other leaders of the Faith Movement:

3d-red-star-small Kenneth Copeland:

“Confession is a powerful word. It’s a Bible word that means far more than just an affirmation of something.

Romans 10:10 says, “For with the heart man believeth…and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”

In other words, confession brings possession. It brings possession of everything God has promised us in His Word. It brings salvation, healing, protection, prosperity and so on.
That’s why, when we confess our faith, we’re not simply affirming something positive we want in our lives. We’re staking our claim on what is already ours according to God’s Word.
In light of that, our responsibility is to go to the Word, find scripture that covers whatever we’re believing God for, and then stand in faith on the truth of that Word. If it’s something not promised in the Word, we have no business confessing it” (Copeland 2007).

3d-red-star-smallJoyce Meyer: “We must realize and understand the power carried by our thoughts and words.  They are so powerful that they can bring either blessings or curses into our lives, depending on their nature.  Our thoughts and words are like the rudder of a ship — they may seem small, but they affect the very direction of our lives” (Meyer 2004).
3d-red-star-smallCharles Capps has written a book titled, The Tongue: A Creative Force (original edition 1976; rev 2012).
3d-red-star-smallFred Price said, “When I first got saved they didn’t tell me I could do anything. What they told me to do was that whenever I prayed I should always say, ‘The will of the Lord be done.,’ Now, doesn’t that sound humble? It does. Sounds like humility, it’s really stupidity. I mean, you know, really, we insult God. 1 mean, we really do insult our Heavenly Father. We do; we really insult Him without even realizing it. If you have to say, If it be thy will or’ Thy will be done’-if you have to say that, then you’re calling God a fool because he’s the One that fold us to ask. . .  If God’s gonna give me what He wants me to have, then it doesn’t matter what I ask. I’m only gonna get what God wants me to have. So that’s an insult to God’s intelligence” (Price 1990).

I was alerted to the dangers of “name it and claim it” or “blab it and grab it” theology a number of years ago by a friend who became a Christian after many years as an occult practitioner.  Her question to me was: “Why are these Pentecostal Christians using the same kind of technique I used in witchcraft?”

In David Conway’s book, Magic: An Occult Primer, he wrote:

“Unseparable from magical speculation about words is the theory of vibrations, which supposes that certain sounds have a powerful acoustic impact on both the spiritual and astral worlds. Like the spiritual world and astral plane can in some circumstances be affected by sound, so that verbal magic may be said to derive its power not only from the idea contained in certain words, but from the peculiar vibrations these words create when spoken” (Conway 1972:74-75).

Many teachers in the Faith Movement would justifiably deny any association with psychic and occult powers in their doctrines of prosperity and healing, but the origins of this technique are found in witchcraft.  Also read Mary Baker Eddy of Christian Science.  She has a similar kind of false teaching.

I am concerned about this heretical teaching for these reasons:

button, flashing, ac1009 I understand it is idolatry because it promotes faith in a god of metaphysics and not the Lord God of the universe, as revealed in the Christian Scriptures. The problem relates to the fact that biblical language for God is used, but the theology taught is that of metaphysics.
button, flashing, ac1009[1] God is sovereign and does not obey human laws.  Psalm 115:3 (NIV) states, “Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him”.  See also Dan. 4:34-35 and Eph. 1:11.

button, flashing, ac1009[2] The Almighty God is a person and not a principle.  If we speak of the “force of faith” (Kenneth Copeland 2012), it sounds more like Luke Skywalker in Star Wars who manipulated the “good side of the force” with mind control.

button, flashing, ac1009[3] Exodus. 20:7 (NIV) states, “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.”  The “force of faith” seems to me to be taking the Lord’s name in vain.

button, flashing, ac1009[4] Human beings are creatures and not the Creator.  Who are we to create healing and prosperity through the words we speak? That is the responsibility of the sovereign Lord God.
button, flashing, ac1009[5] A. W. Tozer wrote that “what comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us….  The gravest question before the Church is always God Himself”  (Tozer 1961:1).  Positive confession exalts human beings with the “creative powers” of the word of faith.  It’s a poor view of the nature of God, claiming that we can manipulate God by the words we speak.  Back in 1988 when Dan McConnell wrote his critique of the Faith Movement he made a sound assessment: “Creation is from the Father; through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit.  Man is a creature and no creature in the Bible is ever accorded creative powers: no man, no angel, no devil, no animal” (McConnell 1988:145).

button, flashing, ac1009[6] Faith theology in its positive confession twists the relationship between God’s Word and His will.  The universe is not held together by spiritual  laws, but by God Himself (see Heb. 1:3; Col. 1:17).  The Word of God is not an independent force that manipulates God

button, flashing, ac1009[7] Faith theology is based on an erroneous translation of Mark 11:22 by translating it as a subjective genitive: “Have the faith of God” (‘The God Kind of Faith’, Kenneth E. Hagin).  New Testament Greek scholar, C.E.B. Cranfield, has called this translation as a subjective genitive, “have the sort of faith God has,” a “monstrosity of exegesis” (Cranfield 1959:361).  “Have faith in God,” an objective genitive, is the correct translation.  God is not granting godhood to us (i.e. have the faith of God) but we are exhorted to have faith in the person of God Himself.  Renowned Greek scholar of the 20th century, A. T. Robertson, agrees that the translation ought to be, “Have faith in God.”  He refers us to other examples in Gal. 2:26; Rom. 3:22, 26 (Robertson 1930:361).

In speaking of the context of Mark 11:23, Kenneth E. Hagin stated, “You can have what you say” (1974:117).  See also Hagin (1979a:3; 1980a:3-4).


Margaret Court Arena, Melbourne, Australia (public domain)

I have so much appreciated Margaret Court’s feats on the tennis court and I don’t find it a pleasant task having to expose this false teaching, but the Scriptures call upon us to “do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15 NIV).

Some will not like the fact that I have mentioned names when exposing false doctrine, but that is exactly what Paul did to Peter in Galatians 2:11 (NIV), “When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong”.  Consider other examples of Paul’s correction of people by naming them: I Tim. 1:20 (NIV), “Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme” and 2 Tim. 4:14 (NIV), “Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done.”  What did the apostle John do with somebody who publicly taught false doctrine?  “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us.  So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church” (3 John 1:9-10 NIV).  We have had these examples in writing for about 2000 years.

These verses confirm F. F. Bruce’s wise counsel: “Since the offence was public, the rebuke had also to be public” (Bruce 1982:132).

Positive confession is a spiritual cancer in the body of Christ and we dare not present it as an ace when it is a fault.

It has been promoted openly; it needs to be exposed in public as well.

For further refutations of the positive confession and the prosperity false teaching, see:

References:

Bruce, F. F. 1982, New International Greek Testament Commentary on Galatians, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Capps, C. 1976, The Tongue: A Creative Force, Harrison House Publishers, Tulsa, OK..

Conway, D 1972. Magic: An Occult Primer.  New York: E P Dutton.

Copeland, K 2007. Tame Your Tongue and Set Your Course By Kenneth Copeland. Available at: http://christianebuymarketplace.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/tame-your-tongue-and-set-your-course-by.html (Accessed 13 January 2016).

Cranfield, C. E. B. 1958, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, Cambridge University Press, London.

Hagin Sr., K. E. 1974, Bible Faith Study Course, Kenneth Hagin Ministries, Tulsa, OK.

Hagin Sr., K. E. 1979a, Words, Kenneth Hagin Ministries, Tulsa, OK.

Hagin Sr., K. E. 1979b, What To Do When Faith Seems Weak and Victory Lost, Kenneth Hagin Ministries, Tulsa, OK.

Hagin Sr., K. E. 1980a, Having Faith in Your Faith, Kenneth Hagin Ministries, Tulsa, OK.

Hagin Sr., K. E. 1980b, You Can Have What You Say, Kenneth Hagin Ministries, Tulsa, OK.

Hagin Sr., K. E. 1980c, The Name of Jesus, Kenneth Hagin Ministries, Tulsa, OK.

Hagin Sr., K. E. 1980d, New Thresholds of Faith, Kenneth Hagin Ministries, Tulsa, OK

Hanegraaff, H. 1993, Christianity in Crisis, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon.

Kenyon, 1970, The Hidden Man (5th ed), Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing Society, Lynwood, WA.

King, A. & Woodall, H. 2004, ‘Tennis great aces crowd’, New Life, 11 November 2004, pp. 1-2. Now available at: http://www.marketplaceconnections.com/archive/2004/mpb_2004.htm (Accessed 24 May 2015).

McConnell, D. R. 1988, A Different Gospel, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts.

Meyer, J. 2004, ‘The mouth has a mind of its own’, Available from: http://www.joycemeyer.org/cgi-bin/msoft/msoft.cgi [18 November 2004]. Now available at: www.joycemeyer.org/articles/ea.aspx?article=the_mouth_has_a_mind_of_its_own (Accessed 24 May 2015).

Price, F. 1990, ‘Ever Increasing Faith’ television programme on TBN November 16 ,1990, cited in ”I have what I think and say I have’, Let Us Reason Ministries, Available from: http://www.letusreason.org/Wf8.htm [18 November 2004].

Robertson, A. T. 1930, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 1, Broadman Press, Nashville, Tennessee.

Simpson, S. 1999, ‘Dear Saint, Don’t believe what they say!  Rebuttal to the Believer’s Voice of Victory, “Q&A” section, October 1999’. Available at: http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/vov.html [18 November 2004].

Tozer, A. W. 1961, The Knowledge of the Holy, Harper & Row, Publishers, San Francisco.

Warrington, K. 2000, ‘Healing and Kenneth Hagin’, Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 119-138, Available at: http://www.apts.edu/aeimages/file/ajps_pdf/00-1-kwarrington.pdf (Accessed 13 January 2016).

The Watchman Fellowship 2000, ‘Positive confession’, The Watchman Expositor, vol. 10, no. 3, 1993, Available from: http://watchman.org/reltop/posconf.htm [18 November 2004].

Endnotes

2.  Most of these quotes were accessed through Warrington (2000) and McConnell (1988).  See especially McConnell’s chapter, “The Doctrine of Faith” (1988:134 ff).

Copyright (c) 2007 Spencer D. Gear.  This document last updated at date:  13 January 2016.

3d-red-star-small3d-red-star-small3d-red-star-small3d-red-star-small3d-red-star-small3d-red-star-small3d-red-star-small

Are there apostles in the 21st century?

Billy Graham

ChristArt

Spencer D Gear

Why is it that some Christians are so strong in their opposition to the gift of apostle as one of the gifts of the Spirit for people in today’s church? I interacted on a student bulletin board (on the Internet) with students who were cessationists. They used verses such as Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5 to prove their views. They believe that the gift of apostleship ceased with Christ’s apostles. [See Appendices 1 & 2 at the end of this article for a sample of this interaction.]

 

I. Signs of an Apostle: 2 Corinthians 12:12 [1]

“The signs of a true [3] apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles” (NASB) [4]

A.   Are miracles the signs of the original apostles

Cessationists have used 2 Cor. 12:12 to argue for miracles to cease when the original 12 apostles of Jesus Christ died.

Why is this not valid here? Paul’s chief argument is not to distinguish between average Christians (who don’t perform miracles) and apostles who see miracles happen in their ministries. Examine the context of “false apostles” in 2 Cor. 11:13. Here in chapter 12, Paul is attempting to show (in 12:12) that he is “a true representative of Christ in distinction from others who are ‘false apostles’ (2 Cor. 11:13)” (Grudem, 1994, p. 362). In 2 Cor. 11:14-15, Paul shows that these false apostles are servants of Satan himself who “disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.”

So, the issue Paul is addressing is genuine Christian apostles vs. apostles who are pretenders (i.e. satanically inspired apostles).

B.  What is 2 Corinthians 12:12 saying?

It is doubtful that Paul is saying that the “signs of an apostle” mean the miraculous, based on the Greek grammar. [5] What it is saying is that the miracles were performed, along with the signs of an apostle. The phrase, “‘signs of a true apostle’ must refer to something different, something that was  accompanied by (done ‘with’) signs and wonders” (Grudem, 1994, p. 363, emphasis in original). The word for “sign” (s?meion) in the Greek often refers to miracles but it has a much broader application where the non-miraculous are also called “signs.”

Examples (based on Grudem, 1994, n17, p.363) include:

  • Paul’s handwritten signature was a sign (2 Thess. 3:17);
  • Circumcision was a sign of Abraham’s imputed righteousness (Rom. 4:11);
  • Judas’s kiss was a “sign” to the Jewish leaders (Matt. 26:48);
  • In the Old Testament Greek Septuagint (LXX), the rainbow was a “sign” of the covenant (Gen. 9:12);
  • Eating the unleavened bread during Passover every year was a “sign” of the Lord’s deliverance (Ex. 13:9 LXX).
  • There’s a writing from the Early Church that describes Rahab’s scarlet cord as a “sign” that the spies told her to hang in her window (I Clement 12:7).

So, in 2 Cor. 12:12, what are the “signs” of an apostle? They are probably “best understood as everything that characterized Paul’s apostolic mission and showed him to be a true apostle. We need not guess at what these signs were, for elsewhere in  2 Corinthians Paul tells what marked him as a true apostle” (Grudem, 1994, p.363. The following list of characteristics of a “true apostle” in 2 Corinthians (based on Grudem, 1994, pp. 363-364) are:

  1. Spiritual power in conflict with evil (10:3-4, 8-11; 13:2-4, 10);
  2. Jealous care for the welfare of the churches (11:1-6);
  3. True knowledge of Jesus and his gospel plan (11:6);
  4. Self-support (selflessness) (11:7-11);
  5. Not taking advantage of churches; not striking people physically (11:20-21);
  6. Suffering and hardship endured for Christ (11:23-29);
  7. Being caught up into heaven (12:1-6);
  8. Contentment and faith to endure a thorn in the flesh (12:7-9);
  9. Gaining strength out of weakness (12:10).

Further evidence that these “signs” were not miracles is found in the fact that they were described as “performed among you with perseverance” (12:12), or “with utmost patience” (ESV). This is hardly a way to describe miracles that normally happen very quickly, but “it would make much sense to say that Paul’s Christlike endurance of hardship for the sake of the Corinthians was performed ‘in all patience'” (Grudem, 1994, p. 364).

Nowhere in the list above from 2 Corinthians does Paul indicate that he proves his genuine apostleship by the miracles in his ministry. What distinguishes these “false apostles” is  not humility,  not selflessness,  not generosity,  not by seeking the well being of others,  not by spiritual power in physical weakness,  but by confidence in their own strength. When Paul acted with Christlike character among them, he was showing the genuine signs of a true apostle (Grudem, 1994, p. 364).

But there’s a dilemma. Why did Paul have to mention anything about “signs and wonders and miracles”?  Paul seems to be adding one more factor to the signs of his genuine apostleship. Yes, there were miracles that confirmed the truth of Paul’s message, in addition to all of these other signs.

There’s another reason why miracles do not prove anyone to be an apostle.  That reason comes from other New Testament evidence, which makes it clear that there were others, besides the apostles, who were gifted by God to perform miracles. A few examples include:

a. Stephen (Acts 6:8);
b. Philip (Acts 8:6-7);
c. Christians in some churches of Galatia (Gal. 3:5);
d. Those who have been given the gifts of “miracles” (I Cor. 12:10, 28).

These examples make it clear that “miracles” are not the exclusive right to the apostles in the first century church. In fact, I Cor. 12:28 is clear to state that the gifts of “miracles” and “healings” (ESV) are distinguished from the gift of “apostles.” Even though Mark 16:17-18 is not in the earliest of New Testament Greek manuscripts, it does represent a “strand of tradition within the early church” (Grudem, 1994, p. 365). It reads:

And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover” (ESV).

Here the power of miracles is assumed to be given as a gift from God to all Christians. Even if this does not appear in the New Testament, those who wrote it were not convinced that the working of miracles was the exclusive gift of the original apostles.

To the charge by cessationists that miracles in the early church were associated with apostles and their close associates, a similar argument could be made for churches being founded only by the original apostles or their close associates. In the New Testament, apostles and associates did missionary work. What about evangelism? “These analogies show the inadequacy of the argument: the New Testament primarily shows how the church should seek to act, not how it should not seek to act” (Grudem, 1994, p. 365, emphasis in original).

II. Other Scriptures

A.  What about Ephesians 4:11?

This verse states, “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the  pastors and teachers . . .” (ESV), or to include the Greek particles,  tous men and  tous de, “And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers” (NASB). [7]

Some object to the teaching of the cessation of the gift of apostleship, by pointing to this verse, claiming that the teaching of the “fivefold ministry” is that the risen Christ gave apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor-teachers as gifts to the church throughout history — when and as Christ determined. This view is that the gift of apostle is still given to the contemporary church. Is this a valid perspective?

Commenting on this verse, Hendriksen (1967) states that “apostles, in the restricted sense of the term, are the Twelve and Paul. There are the charter-witnesses of Christ’s resurrection, clothed with life-long and church-wide authority over life and doctrine, but introduced here . . . in order to stress the  service they render” (p. 196, emphasis in original). By this type of comment, is Hendriksen saying that apostles are not given as gifts to the contemporary church? This was his “strictest sense” description. However, he believes the Scripture teaches another view that encompasses a “broader” understanding of apostleship. It is this latter view that would apply in the twenty-first century?

He speaks of the strict sense including only the “the Twelve and Paul” and in “that fullest, deepest sense a man is an apostle  for life and  wherever he goes. He is clothed with  the authority of the One who sent him, and that authority concerns both  doctrine and life” (1957, p. 50). However, there is “the broadest sense” of an apostle that is not limited to the Twelve and Paul. The Greek,  apostolos, is

a term derived from a verb which means  to send, to send away on a commission to dispatch: apostello. . . In its widest meaning it refers to any gospel-messenger, anyone who is sent on a spiritual mission, anyone who in that capacity represents his Sender and brings the message of salvation. Thus used, Barnabas, Epaphroditus, Apollos, Silvanus and Timothy are all called ‘apostles’ (Acts 14:14; I Cor. 4:6, 9; Phil. 2:25; I Thess. 2:6, cf. 1:1; and see also I Cor. 15:7). They represent God’s cause, though in doing so they may also represent certain definite churches whose ‘apostles’ they are called (cf. II Cor. 8:23). Thus Paul and Barnabas represent the church of Antioch (Acts 13:1, 2), and Epaphroditus is Philippi’s ‘apostle’ (Phil. 2:25). Under this broader connotation some would include also Andronicus, Junius (Rom. 16:7), and James, the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1:19), but the exact meaning of the passages in which, together with the term ‘apostles,’ these men are mentioned is disputed” (Hendriksen, 1957, pp. 49-50).

Therefore, in its “broadest sense,” it seems reasonable that God would continue to dispatch gospel-messengers, commissioned by the Christ, the Giver of gifts, throughout the history of the church. Surely there is a need for pioneer gospel-messengers wherever Christ’s message has not penetrated!

What does the Scripture say?

1.  Not so, say the cessationists

    John Stott acknowledges that “the word ‘apostle’ has three main meanings in the New Testament” (1979, p. 160). These are/were:

  1. Every believer being a servant and a sent-one, apostle (as in John 13:16);
  2. “Apostles of the churches” who were “messengers sent out by a church either as missionaries or on some other errand” [see 2 Cor. 8:23; cf. Phil. 2:25] (p. 160).
  3. The “apostles of Christ” who were

a very small and distinctive group, consisting of the Twelve (including Matthias who replaced Judas), Paul, James the Lord’s brother, and possibly one or two others. They were personally chosen and authorized by Jesus, and had to be eyewitnesses of the risen Lord [Acts 1:21, 22; 10:40-41; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8-9]. It must be in this sense that Paul is using the word ‘apostles’ here, for he puts them at the top of his list, as he does also in 1 Corinthians 12:28 (‘first apostles’), and this is how he has so far used the word in this letter, referring to himself (1:1) and to his fellow apostles as the foundation of the church and the organs of revelation (2:20; 3:5-6) [6]. We should not hesitate, therefore, to say that  in this sense there are no apostles today (Stott, 1979, p. 160).

Why is it that this ministry gift of apostles in Eph. 4:11 has to be given the restrictive, “distinctive group” label by Stott? It is hardly surprising that he would conclude that this type of “distinctive group” of apostles ceased being given by Christ with their death. He has so narrowly defined the gift and its operation to be restricted to the church of Christ’s immediate apostles. He has not shown me in context of Eph. 4 that this is the correct understanding of the gift of apostleship.

In fact, the context of Eph. 4:11 indicates that a broader, continuing gift is what is indicated. I am referring to:

  • When Christ ascended “he gave gifts to men” (4:8);
  • The purposes of these five ministry gifts were:
  1. “To equip the saints for the work of ministry” (4:12);
  2. “For building up the body of Christ” (4:12);
  3. “Until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God” (4:13);
  4. “To mature manhood” (4:13);
  5. “So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (4:14);
  6. “We are to grow up in every way into him” (4:15);
  7. “When each part is working properly” (4:16).

If the gift of apostles ceased with the death of Christ’s immediate apostles, so did the other gifts mentioned in Eph. 4:11 — prophets, evangelists and pastor-teachers. This is hardly a sustainable position in today’s church, where evangelists and pastor-teachers are very evident. So are apostles and prophets if one does not define them away with presuppositions.

I am convinced that these purposes of the ministry gifts are as valid now as they have ever been. They are needed in every generation of the church.. In fact, this list of purposes is what the contemporary church needs so desperately.

We need to grow up as believers to be able to counter the onslaught of false doctrine that is invading the church. I am not just speaking of the heretical doctrines of a John Shelby Spong or those of the Jesus Seminar (Robert Funk, John Dominic Crossan, etc.). In my own ministry experience, I have heard supposed evangelical pastors teach, “Jesus was not God when he was on  earth,” or, “It is God’s will for all of his children to be healed from all sicknesses. Afterall, ‘by his stripes we are healed.'” I have heard preaches duck and weave about the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality. The Uniting Church in Australia (an amalgamation of Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational) in July 2003 endorsed the ordination of practising homosexuals. Cloud in the pulpit leads to fog in the pew.

Gordon Fee agrees:

Here [in Eph. 4:11] he elaborates on the role of these ministries for the carrying out of the imperative in vv. 1-3. The return to ‘each one’ takes place in our passage in v. 12, in the form of ‘the saints’ who have been ‘equipped’ by the ministries he lists. These ministries empower the whole body to carry out its ministry” (1994, p. 706, emphasis added).

Since all Christians are gifted by God, “the body [of Christ] does not consist of one member but of many” (I Cor. 12:14), there will always be a continuing need for ministry gifts that “equip the saints for the work of ministry” (Eph. 4:12). Why should the five-fold ministry gifts be stripped of the apostle and the prophet after the death of first-century apostles and prophets?

The following context of Eph. 4:11 indicates the continuing need for these ministry gifts in the church of every era.

John MacArthur Jr. takes a similar line to Stott. He acknowledges two uses of “apostles” in the New Testament: (a) The Twelve (including Matthias) and Paul, and (b)

A more general sense of other men in the early church, such as Barnabas (Acts 14:4), Silas and Timothy (1 Thess. 2:6), and a few other outstanding leaders (Rom. 16:7; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25. The false apostles spoken of in 2 Cor. 11:13 no doubt counterfeited this class of apostleship, since the others were limited to thirteen and were well known. The true apostles of the second group were called ‘messengers (apostoloi) of the churches’ (2 Cor. 8:23), whereas the thirteen were apostles of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1; etc.) (MacArthur, 1986, p. 141).

MacArthur concludes that “apostles in both groups were authenticated ‘by signs and wonders and miracles’ (2 Cor. 12:12), but neither group was self-perpetuating. Nor is there any New Testament record of an apostle in either group being replaced when he died” (1986, p. 141).

This is begging the question. A better question would be: Why would Christ find it necessary to  replace apostles, if the gift of apostleship is a timeless one, given as Christ sees the need, until the consummation?

Why would the gift cease?  Why is there no longer an apostolic ministry needed by which God’s gifted apostles are “messengers of the churches” as in 2 Cor. 8:23? It seems as though cessationist presuppositions are driving the conclusion, that leads MacArthur to state that “both apostles and prophets have passed from the scene (Eph. 2:20), but the foundation they laid is that on which all of Christ’s church has been built” (1986, p. 142).

2.  What would an apostle look like?

Since the broader definition of an apostle is a God-sent messenger of the churches, what would be his or her job description? In Eph. 2:20 and 3:5, Paul stated that he himself manifested the gifts as apostle and prophet.

An examination of the gifts of apostles, prophets and evangelists in the New Testament indicates that these gifts were, generally, itinerant ministries among the early churches.

a.  These itinerant workers “founded churches by evangelizing and built them up through prophetic utterances. There can be little question that this is the understanding of the term ‘apostle’ in Paul’s letters” [see I Cor. 9:1-2; 2 Cor. 10:15-18; and Rom. 15:17-20]” (Fee, 1994, p. 707).

b.  Therefore, it can be concluded that an apostle, as a general rule, would be a pioneering church planter anywhere in the world, whose ministry also involved equipping other believers for their work of ministry.

B.   I Corinthians  12:28

The verse reads, “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.” “Appointed” (etheto, aorist, indicative, middle of tithemi) indicates an action in the past (aorist indicative indicates the past tense action) that God appointed for himself (middle voice).

There are several surprising features about this verse (stated by Fee, 1987, pp. 618-620):

1. The sentence begins with the emphatic, “And some God appointed in the church.” God is responsible for this diversity in the church.

2. The mix of gifts in this verse is amazing because Paul begins with three types of persons (apostles, prophets, teachers) and then mixes in some of the  charismata from vv. 8-10, miracles and gifts of healings, before adding the sixth and seventh items of “helps” and “administration” (gifts of service that are not mentioned again in the New Testament), and then follows the  charisma of “tongues.”

3. Here we have what looks like personal ministries, charismata and deeds of service in combination.

What one is to make of this mix is not certain. At best we can say that the first three emphasize the persons who exercise these ministries, while the final five emphasize the ministry itself. . . The first three items are not be be thought of as ‘offices’ held by certain ‘persons’ in the local church, but rather as ‘ministries’ that find expression in various persons; likewise the following ‘gifts’ are not expressed in the church apart from persons. . . Why, then, does Paul rank the first three? That is more difficult to answer, but it is almost certainly related to his own conviction as to the role these three ministries play in the church. It is not so much that one is more important than the other, nor that this is necessarily their order of authority, but that one has precedence over the other in the founding and building up of the local assembly (Fee, 1987, p. 619).

Here is seems to be Gordon Fee’s view that the apostles, prophets and teachers are necessary for the founding of a local assembly. Surely this didn’t apply just to the Corinthian church, but to other churches as well! The tense of the verb, “appointed,” does not solve the issue as the other gifts in the list (e.g. teachers, helps and administration) surely are not restricted to the first century church. They are clearly being given to the contemporary church. Why, then, should the other gifts, including apostles, be limited to the first century if the others aren’t’

C.   Howard Snyder’s view on the gift of apostle

Although he wrote the following material over 25 years ago, Howard Snyder (1977), a church renewal leader, has successfully cut through some of the excesses and presuppositions of both camps — charismatic and non-charismatic advocates. He admits:

“Fortunately, we are beginning to see a new emphasis among both Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals on the fact that spiritual gifts must be understood in their biblical context, that is, as part of God’s plan for the normal functioning of the Christian community.

“The basic question is not whether specific spiritual gifts such as those of apostle, prophet or tongues-speaking, are valid today. The question is whether the Spirit still ‘gives gifts to men,’ and the answer is yes. Precisely which gifts he gives in any particular age is God’s prerogative, and we should not prejudge God. Interpretations as to specific gifts may vary. But we have no biblical warrant to restrict the charismata to the early church nor to ban any specific gift today. Arguments against gifts generally arise from secondary, not biblical considerations and fear of excesses or abuses.

“My own study of the Church in the New Testament convinces me that we can understand God’s plan for the Church only as we give proper attention to spiritual gifts. This is no strange doctrine but something the early church understood very well. In Ephesians spiritual gifts form the connecting link between Paul’s statement of God’s cosmic plan for the Church and his description of normal local church lift: ‘There is one body and one Spirit. . . But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. . . It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers’ (Eph. 4:4, 7, 11). . .

“The life and growth of the early church can be seen best as a community of Spirit-filled Christians exercising their spiritual gifts” (Snyder, 1977, p. 77).

Snyder affirms the unique foundational role of the Twelve, plus Paul (1977, p. 87) and asks, “Did apostleship continue beyond the New Testament?” (p. 87). He answers:

Because of the obvious uniqueness of the original apostles, some have argued that apostles no longer exist today. But this conclusion runs counter to biblical evidence and makes too sharp a break between the original apostles and the church leaders who followed them (p. 87).

What, then is the function (job description) of  apostolos in the New Testament, a word that “occurs eighty-one times” (Snyder, 1977, p. 87)? Snyder considers that there are three meanings of “apostles”:

1. There were the 12 apostles especially chosen by Jesus, a word that “occurs with this meaning seven times in the Gospels, as well as in Acts 1:2 and possibly Jude 17” (p. 87).

2. Snyder considers apostles and leaders in the first century church.

Apostles designates the principal leaders of the early church in the book of Acts. . . Beginning with Acts 8, we can no longer be sure that  apostles refers only to the Twelve. Gradually the meaning of the term seems to expand to include other emerging leaders (p. 87).

These “emerging leaders” included Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14), James, Jesus’ brother (Gal. 1:19), Apollos (1 Cor. 4:9) and Silas (1 Thess. 2:7). Andronicus and Junias (Rom. 16:7), “the latter possibly a woman, seem also to have been considered apostles” (p. 87).

In the book of Acts, apostles in the broader sense of general church leaders — not necessarily restricted to the Twelve — appears twenty-four times. The identity of the ‘apostles and elders’ in Acts 15 is not specified, and we have no solid grounds for assuming  apostles here means the Twelve only, especially considering the prominence of James at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:13) . . . Note also the general, unspecified references in 1 Corinthians 9:5; 15:7. . . Apostles seemingly has a broader meaning than the Twelve also in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. Paul says the risen Jesus appeared first to Peter, ‘then to the Twelve,’ and later ‘to James, then to all the apostles’ (Snyder, 1977, p. 88; n19, p. 199).

3. Apostles is used in the New Testament “in a still broader sense as referring to messengers or missionaries” (Snyder, 1977, p. 88). Examples are found in John 13:16; 2 Cor. 8:23 (the ESV translates apostolos as “messengers”) and Phil. 2:25.

Against this background, Snyder concluded that

we have no warrant for restricting the meaning here [I Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11] to the original Twelve. Surely we can recognize a unique, unrepeatable apostleship in that first group of apostles. But already in Paul’s day there were other apostles. What Paul is indicating is not the original Twelve, but rather the function of apostle which God has given as a permanent aspect of the charismatic nature of the Church. Nothing in Paul’s treatment of spiritual gifts suggests that he was describing a pattern for the early church only. Quite the opposite. For Paul  the Church is a growing, grace-filled body, and apostles are a permanent part of that body’s life.

It cannot be successfully maintained, therefore, that the apostolic ministry passed away with the death of the original Twelve. Nor is there biblical evidence, conversely, that the apostolic ministry was transmitted formally and hierarchically down through the history of the church. Rather,  Scripture teaches that the Spirit continually and charismatically gives to the Church the function of the apostle” (Snyder, 1977, p. 88, emphasis added).

The function of apostles

Snyder’s view is that:

  1. They were general leaders of the church;
  2. Their place and authority were recognised throughout the church;
  3. This was so, because of “the general conviction that the Spirit of God has raised them up” (1977, pp. 88-89). <>Their
    “authority is based in their being raised up by God and in their faithfulness to revealed truth, that is, the Bible. Their authority is contingent upon their faithfulness as witnesses; ceasing to witness faithfully to the truth of God’s revelation, they cease to have authority.”Apostles today, then, are the Church’s general leaders, whose who have responsibility for the general oversight of the Church” (p. 89).
  4. “It makes little difference biblically whether apostles today are called bishops, superintendents, moderators, presidents or what have you” (p. 89).
  5. The apostle is a person, not an official with an office.”Apostleship is a  function, a gift. God has not established the office of apostle, prophet, evangelist and so forth. This would be to think in static, institutional terms. Rather, ‘his gifts were that some should be apostles, prophets, evangelists.'” The gift from God is persons, not offices.” (p. 89)

Assessment

I cannot agree with Snyder’s teaching that the gift of the person of an apostle coincides with general church leaders today, as the thrust of this paper provides evidence to the contrary. I endorse his teaching that the gift of apostles continues in the contemporary church. The use of priority in biblical terminology seems to suggest that pioneer, church planting messengers (apostles) or missionaries are closer to the biblical understanding of being an apostle: “God has appointed in the church first apostles . . .” (ESV, I Cor. 12:28) and “he gave some as apostles [mentioned first]. . .” (NASB, Eph. 4:11). However, the purpose of these five ministry gifts “to equip the saints for the work of ministry” (Eph. 4:12, ESV), is a strong indicator that these gifts should be functioning in association with every church. It could be that the apostle eminated from a local church and had a wider ministry of church planting, based in that local church. These are only suggestions based on the evidence considered in this paper.

I am supportive of Fee’s (1994) view that, apart from I Cor. 9:5 and 15:7-11,

There is no other evidence of any kind that Paul thought of a local church as having some among it called ‘apostles,’ who were responsible for its affairs. . . There is no place in Paul where there is a direct connection between the Spirit and apostleship. His apostleship is received ‘from Christ’ (Rom. 1:4-5 and ‘by the will of God’ (I Cor. 1:1); it is never suggested to be a ‘charism’ of the Holy Spirit” (p. 192).

Fee acknowledges that “in Eph. 3:5, the mystery of the gospel is revealed to the apostles and prophets by the Spirit; but that is a different thing from being designated or ‘anointed’ for this ministry by the Spirit” (1994, n406, p. 192).

There is support in I Cor. 12:28 and Eph. 4:11 for the gift of apostle having to do  with function and  not with office. The function is that of an equipper of the saints who helps to bring people to maturity and unity in Christ. These ministry gifts help believers to grow up in the Lord.

F. Greek verbs and the continuation of apostles

I know that English grammar is not a favourite subject for today’s English students and it was not so for their parents either. When I teach New Testament Greek, I have to precede the first lessons with a review of fundamental English grammar before Greek grammar can be introduced. This is a shame and a tragic statement about the deficiencies in our Australian educational system. Some trendies would challenge my old-fashioned and fundamental view.

It’s time for an investigation into the “aorist-loving” Greek language.

1.  The dilemma

If we use English translations to determine the validity or otherwise of the gift of apostle, this is what we discover:

a. I Cor. 12:28, in an English translation, states: “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, . .” (ESV). “Has appointed” is an example of the English perfect tense –”an action completed, or perfect, in past time” (Thomson & Foreman, 1985, p. 26).

b. Eph. 4:7 in English, “. . . and he gave gifts to men” (ESV). “Gave” is an example of the simple past tense in English.

c. Eph. 4:11 in English, “And he gave the apostles. . .” (ESV). Again, “gave” is the simple past tense.

The English grammar affirms that God appointed and gave the gift of apostle in the  past, but these verbs, in English, when associated with the gift of apostle indicate actions by God & Christ  in the past. This sounds like clear support of the cessationist argument that this gift was given at a time in the past (with Christ’s immediate 12 apostles and Paul) and that they have ceased.

These are examples of the dangers of exegeting the Scriptures by use of the English language only.

2. Greek is an aorist-loving language

One of my former Greek teachers used to say (and the quote may not be original with him) that “Greek was an aorist-loving language.” And it is.

a.  Aorist as punctiliar action

The aorist tense is so pervasive in the Greek New Testament that Dana & Mantey speak of the aorist as “the most prevalent and most important of the Greek tenses,” adding that “it is also the most peculiar to Greek idiom.” Why? “The fundamental significance of the aorist is to denote action simply as occurring, without reference to its progress. . . The aorist signifies nothing as to completeness, but simply presents the action as attained. It states the fact of the action or event without regard to its duration. . . The aorist may be represented by a dot (l )” (1955, p. 193, 179).

When we come to deal with the issue of apostles today or not-for-today, we have to examine the use of the aorist tense. The three verbs translated in English with a past action (perfect and simple past) in I Cor. 12:28 and Eph. 4:7, 11, are all aorist tenses in the indicative mood. The indicative mood “is the mood of  certainty.” Dana & Mantey go on to say that with the Greek verb, two elements are involved, “time  of action and kind of action,” but “time is but a minor consideration in the Greek tenses ” (1955, p. 177, emphasis in original).

b. Aorist indicative as simple past action

But there is one exception where the aorist tense has a past tense function, and that is with the indicative mood. The aorist tense generally indicates “action simply as occurring, without reference to its progress.” However, “its time relations” are “found only in the indicative [mood], where it is used as past [tense]” (Dana & Mantey, 1955, p. 193). Machen lends support: “The tense which in the indicative is used as the simple past tense is called the aorist” (1923, p. 65; also Moule, 1959, p. 10).

This should solve the problem permanently regarding when the gift of apostle is given. The three verses here considered (I Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:7,11) all use verbs in the aorist indicative. It was simple action in the past. It happened in the past with no indication of its continuation — end of story.

In relation to his interpretation of Eph. 4:11, Wayne Grudem affirms this view, stating that this verse

“Talks about a one-time event in the past (note the aorist  kai edoken, ‘and he gave‘), when Christ ascended into heaven (vv. 8-10) and then at Pentecost poured out initial giftings on the church, giving the church apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor-teachers (or pastors and teachers). Whether or not Christ would later give more people for each of these offices  cannot be decided from this verse alone, but must be decided based on other New Testament teachings on the nature of these offices and whether they were expected to continue. In fact, we see that there were many prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers established by Christ throughout all of the early churches, but there was only one more apostle given after this initial time (Paul, ‘last of all,’ in unusual circumstances on the Damascus Road) [Grudem, 1994, n9, p. 911, emphasis in original].

Grudem acknowledges that

“The word  apostle can be used in a broad or narrow sense. In a broad sense, it just means ‘messenger’ or ‘pioneer missionary.’  But in a narrow sense, the most common sense in the New Testament, it refers to a specific office, ‘apostle of Jesus Christ'” (1994, p. 911).

c.  A warning

But the solution is not that simple because of these factors:

(1) The Greek tenses major on the kind of action, rather than the time of action. A. T. Robertson warns: “The caution must be once more repeated that in these subdivisions of the aorist indicative we have only one tense and one root-idea (punctiliar action). The variations noted are incidental and do not change at all this fundamental idea” (1934, p. 835).

(2) The gift of apostle that God/Jesus “gave” (Eph. 4:7, 11) or “has appointed” (I Cor. 12:28) could be a gnomic aorist, “a universal or timeless aorist and probably represents the original timelessness of the aorist indicative” (Robertson, 1934, p. 836). Because there is no Greek tense to represent punctiliar action in the present time, the aorist idiom would be appropriate in the “so-called Dramatic Aorist [which] is possibly the oldest use of the tense” (Robertson, 1934, p. 841).

(3) The Greek aorist states an undefined punctiliar action and if we want to use it in the present time, we still use the aorist and often translate it with the simple English past or perfect tenses. But we must never lose sight of the fact that the root-idea of the aorist is point-action of fact. Timeless (gnomic) or dramatic aorists could still be actions of fact in the present time and apply to I Cor. 12:28 and Eph. 4:7, 11.

(4) This leads Robertson to say that in translating the aorist tense into English,

the Greek aorist indicative, as can be readily seen, is not the exact equivalent of any tense in any other language. It has nuances all its own, many of them difficult or well-nigh impossible to reproduce in English. Here, as everywhere, one needs to keep a sharp line between the Greek idiom and its translation into English. We merely do the best that we can in English to translate in one way or another the total result of word ( Aktionsart), context and tense. Certainly one cannot say that the English translations have been successful with the Greek aorist. . . Burton puts it clearly thus: ‘The Greek employs the aorist, leaving the context to suggest the order; the English usually suggests the order by the use of the pluperfect.’ . . . The Greek aorist and the English past do not exactly correspond, nor do the Greek perfect and the English perfect. The Greek aorist covers much more ground than the English past. . . From the Greek point of view the aorist is true to its own genius.  The aorist in Greek is so rich in meaning that the English labours and groans to express it. As a matter of fact the Greek aorist is translatable into almost every English tense except the imperfect, but that fact indicates no confusion in the Greek” (Robertson, 1934, pp. 847-848, emphasis added).

d. A conclusion

The Greek aorist indicative, as in I Cor. 12:28 and Eph. 4:7, 11, could be translated as simple past tenses in the English  (as in the ESV) and this would indicate that the gift of apostle has ceased.However, a broader understanding of apostle (as shown above) and the use of the gnomic (timeless) or dramatic (expressing what has just taken place) aorists should be a pointer to God’s continuing gift of apostles. Since Greek uses the aorist, leaving the context to suggest the order of action, Eph. 4:11-14 shows that the five ministry gifts, including apostles, are needed “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith . . . to mature manhood. . . so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.”

This will be a continuing ministry until Christ returns. To say that it’s okay for evangelists and pastor-teachers to continue throughout the church age, and that apostles and prophets are excluded, makes one’s agenda obvious.

“When Niccolo Paganini willed his finely crafted and lovingly used violin to the city of Genoa, he demanded that it never be played again.  It was a gift designated for preservation, but not destined for service.
“On the other hand, when the resurrected Christ willed his spiritual gifts to the children of God, he commanded that they be used.  They were gifts not designated for preservation, but destined for service” (Green, 1982, p.352)

The gifts of apostles are not given by the risen Christ to be defined away or annihilated, but they are destined for service.  May we never silence God’s gracious gifts to us — the body of Christ.  Paul, to the Corinthians, wrote: “God arranged the members in the body, each one of them as he chose” (I Cor. 12:18).  May we never snuff out the gifted members of the body that God chose!

God arranged the members in the body, each one of them as he chose (I Cor. 12:18)

Appendix I

On a theological forum on the www, I interacted with a few people on the continuation or cessation of the gift of apostle.  Bill (not his real name) responded to one of my postings.

Bill wrote: “I wonder how can a dictionary define apostolos as meaning ‘having miraculous powers.’  Surely the definition has to do with ‘being sent’,  ‘messenger’, etc. And surely the attribution of miraculous powers is nothing but the personal interpretation and imposition of the dictionary editor, no?”

My response: Any language relies on basic dictionary definitions, based on etymology (study of historical & linguistic change) and various usages. Here in Greek, we depend on lexicons such as Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich, and Thayer; word studies such as Colin Brown’s New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. None of them is infallible.

We may disagree with some of their conclusions regarding the meaning of words, but these scholars have done the hard slog in carving out basic understanding of words.

Take an example like John 13:16 (ESV): “Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant ( doulos = bondservant/slave) is not greater than his master ( kurios = lord), nor is a messenger ( apostolos = sent one, delegate) greater than the one who sent him”

How do we know that  doulos means bondservant/slave,  kurios as lord, and apostolos as messenger, sent one or delegate? Scholars who have dedicated themselves to the task of finding the meaning of Greek words have arrived at definitions that have generally been accepted. However, these meanings must be open to challenge, but we need to have good reasons to go in another direction.

Concerning “apostolos,” Thayer’s lexicon gives the basic meaning of “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders” (1962, p. 68). He referred me on to Bishop J. B. Lightfoot’s application of the term in a section, “the name and office of an Apostle” (Lightfoot, 1957, pp. 92-101). In his final paragraph, Lightfoot stated: “Ancient writers for the most part allowed themselves very considerable latitude in the use of the title [apostle]” (p. 101). For anyone wanting a developed word study on the meaning of “apostolos,” this extended treatment by Lightfoot is well worth the read and study.

Bill stated: “Surely the attribution of miraculous powers is nothing but the personal interpretation and imposition of the dictionary editor, no?”

My response:

What do you say of 2 Cor. 12:12 (ESV), “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works”? These are hardly “the personal interpretation and imposition of the dictionary editor” but the signs and wonders that Paul, a true apostle, performed among them. They are “the signs of a true apostle” according to the Apostle Paul. Could anything be clearer? Why should such signs not be associated with true apostles of today (e.g. Eph. 4:11; I Cor. 12:18, 28)?

[For a view, which I support, by Jack Deere, on why the miraculous gifts continue, see: “Were Miracles Meant to Be Temporary?”.  For a contrary view by Richard Mayhue, see, “Who Surprised Whom? The Holy Spirit or Jack Deere?” There is a more balanced perspective (than Mayhue’s criticism) in “Questions Cessationists Should Ask: A Biblical Examination of Cessationism”]

Appendix 2

I responded to another student, James (not his real name):

My response:  I have no axe to grind. Because I am committed to the inerrant Scripture and historical-grammatical hermeneutics, I want to hear what the Scriptures say. If it can be clearly and definitively shown from the Word that the gift of apostle refers only to those who have been with Jesus and have witnessed his resurrection and that gift has ceased, I willingly submit to the Word. To this point, I have not been shown by my study of the Word or from the comments on this Forum, that this qualification is what definitively determines the continuing gift of apostle —  if such exists today.  In fact, I find it unusual that Paul, in writing to the Corinthians and Ephesians, many years after the resurrection of Christ, would continue to affirm the giving of the gift of apostleship if such a gift  ceased with those who physically saw the resurrected Christ.

We know that there were more than 12 apostles.

1. Paul and his associates were apostles: 1 Thess. 2:6, “Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though  we could have made demands  as apostles of Christ.” These apostles (the “we”) could possibly be referring to Silvanus and Timothy as well (1 Thess. 1:1).

2. Paul did not meet the qualifications you are stating and yet was appointed as such (see Acts 9:5-6; 26:15-18). He defends his apostleship in I Cor. 9:1-3.

3. In Acts 14:14, both Barnabas and Paul are called apostles.

4. Gal. 1:19 seems to indicate that our Lord’s brother, James, was an apostle. We know from I Cor. 15:7-9 that the resurrected Christ appeared to James. In James 1:1 he calls himself a “slave/servant —  doulos.”

5. There’s the possibility that Andronicus and Junias (Rom. 16:7) could be “among the apostles.” This is only one interpretation through the years of exegesis.

6. Epaphroditus, in Phil. 2:25 is called an “apostle” ( apostolos), but the ESV, NIV, KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, etc. translate as “messenger.”

In total, this makes approx. 18 identified as apostles. This could be reduced in number if we exclude Timothy (cf. 1 Thess. 2:2, 6).

James wrote: “It might have something to do with the qualifications of the office. Although there may be many excellent characteristics of an apostle, there was one special requirement laid upon the 11 for the selection of Judas’ replacement.  Anyone can be an apostle who has seen the LORD Jesus Christ and had walked with Him.”

My response: As this point in my Christian pilgrimage, I am not able to accept your premise that “anyone can be an apostle who has seen the Lord Jesus Christ and had walked with Him.” Acts ch. 1, in context, makes it very clear that this was a qualification for a choice of a replacement for Judas. Acts 1:21-22 (ESV), “So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, [22] beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us — one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 9:1-3), asks a question, “Am I not an apostle?” With the particle “ou” he expects a positive answer. Here he seems to give two qualifications for apostleship:

(a) First, he had seen the Lord (9:1). There’s a volume of literature debating whether this “seeing” was actual or a revelatory vision.

(b) Second, the establishment of churches in new areas (“for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord”, 9:2) See also I Cor. 3:6, 10; 4:15; 2 Cor. 10:13-16.

I fully accept the statement of the foundational role of apostles and prophets, as in Eph. 2:20, “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” However, I am yet to be convinced that the ministry gift of “apostles” has ceased. At this point, I am of the view espoused by F. F. Bruce (1961) — see below.

Second Cor. 11:13 makes it clear that there were false apostles in Paul’s day at Corinth. If such gifts are still given today, we should also expect the false to manifest as well as the genuine.

Have I missed something? Where does it say in Scripture that all apostles (given as gifts by the resurrected and ascended Lord) must meet these same qualifications?

How can the resurrected and ascended Lord continue to give gifts of apostles (Eph. 4:7-11; cf. I Cor. 12:27-30) who are required to have lived and walked with him and to have witnessed his resurrection,  after his resurrection and ascension? Paul is giving superfluous instructions to Corinth and Ephesus if such gifts are no longer possible — yet he includes them among gifts that continue.

James wrote: “So when I Cor 11 and Ephesians 4 were written had the authors seen the living Lord? Were there apostles still living who [were] eye-witnesses to the gospel? Is this a valid requirement today?”

My response:  Or is your premise invalid that all apostles had to be eye-witnesses to the resurrection (what do you mean by “eye-witnesses to the gospel” as I am an eye-witness to the gospel today)?

F. F. Bruce considers your premise invalid. In his comments on Eph. 1:1 (“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ”) he stated that:

The term ‘apostle’ (Gk. apostolos), as used of Christians in the New Testament has two meanings, a wider and a narrower. In the wider sense it is used of Christian missionaries in general (e.g. of Timothy and Silvanus in 1 Thess. 2:6, or of Barnabas in Acts 14:14), or of ‘messengers of the churches’ (as in 2 Cor. 8:23). But in the narrower sense, in which Paul uses it of himself here and elsewhere, it is confined to those who have received their commission directly and independently from Christ, apart from any mediation — that is to say, to Paul and to the Twelve” (1961, p. 25).

James wrote:  “If not, then perhaps this is an historic office only.”

My response: Perhaps! But I have not seen a definitive interpretation of Scripture that convinces me, but I am open to such.

James wrote: “Can you think of a third option?”

My response: Most certainly! Your interpretation could be wrong, and so could mine be!!

Appendix 3

James wrote again [I did not respond as he was not reasoning from the Scriptures, but quoting his favourite cessationist authors]:

“I will make a scholarly reply in one long posting even tho I fear it will overwhelm you. We have a tendency to not read material that opposes our view holding the mind in check while we dream up a convincing reply.”

Here goes:

[I] John F. Walvoord, “The Person of the Holy Spirit. Part 8 The Work of the Holy Spirit in the Believer,” Bibliotheca Sacra 99, no. 393 (Jan 42): 26ff

Walvoord writes about the office of apostleship. He notes that the word apostle, a translation of the Greek “apostolos,” means literally, a delegate, messenger, or one sent forth with orders (See Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, in loco).

Walvoord gives the following list of qualifications:

(1) They were chosen directly by the Lord Himself, as in the case of Barnabas by the Holy Spirit (Mt. 10.1,2; Mk. 3.13,14; Lk. 6.13; Acts 9.6,15; 13.2; 22.10,14, 15; Rom. 1.1).
(2) They were endued with sign gifts, miraculous powers which were the divine credentials of their office (Mt. 10.1; Acts 5.15,16; 16.16-18; 28.8,9).
(3) Their relation to the kingdom was that of heralds, announcing to Israel only (Mt. 10.5,6) the kingdom as at hand (Mt. 4.17, note), and manifesting kingdom powers (Mt. 10.7,8).
(4) To one of them, Peter, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, viewed as the sphere of Christian profession, as in Mt. 13., were given (Mt. 16.19).
(5) Their future relation to the kingdom will be that of judges over the twelve tribes (Mt. 19.28).
(6) Consequent upon the rejection of the kingdom, and the revelation of the mystery hid in God (Mt. 16.18; Eph. 3.1-12), the Church, the apostolic office was invested with a new enduement, the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.1-4); a new power, that of imparting the Spirit to Jewish-Christian believers; a new relation, that of foundation stones of the new temple (Eph. 2.20-22); and a new function, that of preaching the glad tidings of salvation through a crucified and risen Lord to Jew and Gentile alike.
(7) The indispensable qualification of an apostle was that he should have been an eye-witness of the resurrection (Acts 1.22; 1 Cor. 9.1).”

[II] O. Palmer Robertson, “Tongues: Sign of Covenantal Curse and Blessing,” Westminster Theological Journal 38 (Fall 1975): 43-53.

Robertson writes, “In the case of the founding office of apostle it has fulfilled its function as covenantal sign for the Old and New Covenant people of God. Once having fulfilled that role, it has no further function among the people of God” (p. 53).

[III] John A. Witmer, Review of “Understanding the Miraculous Gifts in the Scripture,” by Edward N. Gross, Christian News, February 2, 1987, pp. 13-15 in Bibliotheca Sacra 144, no. 576 (Oct 87) p. 464.

Gross does not deny that miracles occur today. He recognizes that our God is a miracle-working God” (p. 14). Gross’s own experience as a missionary in Africa taught him that. But, he insists, there is a difference between the occurrences of miracles and the gift of performing miracles. The former are not the effect of the latter. His second argument deals with the unique office of apostle and the “signs of an apostle.” These signs are the powers given only to the Apostles. The miraculous gifts, as sign gifts, are bestowed only through the Apostles. When the last apostle died, the miraculous sign gifts also disappeared.

[IV] Alan Askins, “Paul’s Defense of His Apostolic Authority to the Galatians,” Conservative Theological Journal 2, no. 6 (September 1998): 304ff.

First, Paul claimed to be an apostle given divine authority and sent on a divine mission. Second, the office of apostle was created with a practical purpose in mind, not for self-exaltation or ceremony. Apostles were not high churchmen, but lowly instruments chosen to carry a message. K. H. Rengstorf writes:

An objective element, the message, thus becomes the content of the apostolate. Full and obedient dedication to the task is demanded. Action accompanies speech in demonstration of authentic commissioning. The works are not a subject of boasting or evaluation but of a joy that expresses a complete ignoring of the person and absorption in the task. (TDNT p.72)

The office of apostle was never intended to be perpetual in the Church. It was a unique position, in a unique time, serving a unique purpose.

[V] John H. Fish III, “Brethren Tradition or New Testament Church Truth,” Emmaus Journal 2, no. 2 (Winter 1993): 123.

“The leadership of the apostles as those directly appointed by Christ was immediate and continued without change throughout their lifetime. Because the gift and office of apostle was temporary there was of necessity a transition to the period when the apostles were no longer alive.”

[VI] James L. Boyer, “The Office of the Prophet in New Testament Times,” Grace Journal 1, no. 1 (Spring 1960): 20.

“Take the office of apostle for example. There are no apostles today. They were the authoritative general leaders of the church in the New Testament. That office has ceased to exist. Its function is carried on in the congregational government of the churches. But the pronouncements of churches are not authoritative decrees to be put up alongside the Scriptures.”

[VII] : 53.

“Today there is no need for a sign to show that God is moving from the single nation of Israel to all the nations. That movement has become an accomplished fact. As in the case of the founding office of apostle, so the particularly transitional gift of tongues has fulfilled its function as covenantal sign for the Old and New Covenant people of God. Once having fulfilled that role, it has no further function among the people of God.”

“Hope you made it through them” [ says James].

Endnotes

1. I was helped in clarifying my understanding of the gift of apostleship by Wayne Grudem (1994, pp. 362-365).

2.  I am an Australian, retired as a counsellor and then a counselling manager, PhD in New Testament (University of Pretoria, South Africa, 2015), and an active Christian apologist.

3. The word, “true,” is not in the original text, which simply reads, “the signs of an apostle.” The RSV, NRSV, ESV and the NASB have added “true” and the RV has added “truly” to give the sense. Paul is contrasting his ministry with that of false apostles in 2 Cor. 11:13.

4. Unless otherwise stated, the translation used is the NASB:  The New American Standard Bible.

5. In the Greek of this verse, “the signs” [of an apostle] is in the nominative case while “signs and wonders and miracles” is in the dative. Therefore, the “signs and wonders and miracles” cannot be in apposition to “signs” of an apostle. This means that ” the signs of an apostle” cannot be described as “signs and wonders and miracles.” For that to be the situation, “the signs” [of an apostle] would have to be in the  same case as “signs and wonders and miracles.” The NIV translates incorrectly as ” The things that mark an apostle — signs, wonders and miracles . . .” This translation violates the grammar just described. The KJV also does not accurately translate the grammar with the translation, “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” The RSV, NRSV, ESV and NASB give a more precise translation. For example, the ESV translates 2 Cor. 12:12 as, “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.” I am indebted to Grudem (1994, n. 16, p. 363) for alerting me to this distinction.

6. Stott writes Eph. 3:26 (1979, p. 160), but there are only 21 verses in Eph. 3. I presume he means Eph. 3:5-6 and I have inserted these two verses here in Stott’s quote.

7. In the NASB, “as” is not in the Greek manuscripts, but is inserted to clarify the meaning. The NIV accommodates this Greek idiom of separating one thought from another in a series, by translating as: “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers.”

References

Bruce, F. F. (1961). The epistle to the Ephesians. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company.

Dana, H. E. & Mantey, J. R. (1927/1955). A manual grammar of the Greek New Testament. Toronto, Ontario: The Macmillan Company.

ESV (2001). The holy Bible: English standard version. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles (a division of Good News Publishers).

Fee, G. D. (1987). The first epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Bruce, F. F. gen. ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Fee, G. D. (1994). God’s empowering presence: the Holy Spirit in the letters of Paul. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.

Green, M. P. (ed., 1982).  Illustrations for biblical preaching.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Hendriksen, W. (1957). I & II Timothy & Titus (New Testament Commentary). Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust.

Hendriksen, W. (1967). Ephesians (New Testament Commentary). Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust.

Lightfoot, J. B. (1957). The epistle of Paul to the Galatians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

MacArthur, Jr., J. (1986). The MacArthur New Testament commentary: Ephesians. Chicago: Moody Press.

Machen, J. G. (1923). New Testament Greek for beginners. Toronto, Ontario: The Macmillan Company.

Moule, C. F. D. (1959). An idiom-book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

NASB (1977). New American standard Bible. Anaheim, California: J. B. McCabe Company.

NRSV (1989). The holy Bible: new revised standard version. Nashville, Tennessee: Holman Bible Publishers.

Robertson, A. T. (1934). A Greek grammar of the New Testament in the light of historical research. Nashville, Tennessee:  Broadman Press.

RSV (1952). The holy Bible: revised standard version. New York: Harper and Brothers.

RV (1950). The holy Bible: revised version. London: The British and Foreign Bible Society.

Stott, J. R. W. (1979). God’s new society: The message of Ephesians (The Bible speaks today). Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Thayer, J. H. (1962). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament (trans., rev., enl.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Thomson, A. K. & Foreman, D. G. (1985). Living English (2nd ed.). Milton, Qld.: The Jacaranda Press.

Committed to “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15)

 

 

Copyright (c) 2007 Spencer D. Gear.This document last updated at Date: 11 October 2015.

Theology I learned in a hospital cardiac ward

Spencer D Gear

heart diagram

(image courtesy WPClipart)

On 28th February 2003, I was released from the cardiac ward of an Australian hospital after my 4th valve replacement open-heart surgery (I had a 5th such surgery in 2013). What follows in no way minimises the superb care I received at the hands of all of the caring medical & other staff at that excellent hospital.

However, from a number of different staff people and a visitor, I received some profound reflections on life and life-after-death issues that need to be examined and/or challenged.

This is theology from the cardiac ward.

I am young enough never to have heard Francis Schaeffer in person, although he lived and died (d. 15 May, 1984 from cancer) in my generation, but old enough to have read just about everything he wrote, learned deeply from him, and admired him from a distance.

He has taught me the necessity to think of all of life “worldviewishly” – seeing our world and life as a whole and not as bits and pieces. [1] It was Schaeffer who challenged us: “When people refuse God’s answer, they are living against the revelation of the universe and against the revelation of themselves.” [2]

He put it another way:

The strength of the Christian system – the acid test of it – is that everything fits under the apex of the existing, infinite-personal God, and it is the only system in the world where this is true. No other system has an apex under which everything fits. That is why I am a Christian and no longer an agnostic. In all the other systems something “sticks out,” something cannot be included; it has to be mutilated or ignored. [2a]

The revelation of the universe is stated clearly in:

Romans 1:19-20 (ESV), “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” [3]

The revelation of themselves is clear in:

Romans 2:14-16 (ESV), “For when Gentiles [non-Jews], who do not have the law [of God], by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

If you would like to investigate evidence for the accuracy and dependability of the Bible, see:

Flower11 Can you trust the Bible? Part 1

Flower11 Can you trust the Bible? Part 2

Flower11 Can you trust the Bible? Part 3

Flower11 Can you trust the Bible? Part 4

See also:

# F F Bruce 2003. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. This online link is to the 1959 edition.

# Walter C Kaiser Jr 2001. The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? Downers Grove, Illinois/Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press

# K A Kitchen 2003. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge UK: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company.

# C L Blomberg 2007. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd edn. Downers Grove, Illinois/Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press.

# Craig L Blomberg 2016. The Historical Reliability of the New Testament. Nashville, Tennessee, B&H Academic.

What follows is an analysis of some of the theology I picked up in that cardiac ward.

A.    After death – zip!

No Death

(image courtesy ChristArt)

I had the following conversation with a nurse:

Nurse (N): You are so much younger than many who have cardiac surgery here (everything is relative since I’m a 1946 model).

SG: Yeh!

N: Last week there was a fellow here for by-pass surgery at age 92. I don’t know why we waste money & other resources on expensive surgery for these oldies. They’ll never have a productive life again.

SG: So, what do you think we should do about it?

N: They should recognise that their time is up. There is nothing after death, so why waste precious resources?

Response:

1.  Is death the dead end?

How do we know what happens at death? Is death the end and the snuffing out of all life? Do we disappear into dust, or do we live beyond the grave?

“When I die, I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive,” said the late British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, who died in 1970. [4] We can hardly argue with that assessment: “When I die, I shall rot!” That is exactly what happens to the human body when placed in the ground. Three years after he published that statement, Russell had died. But is it the whole truth? Does the real “me” disappear?

Elsewhere, Russell stated: “There is darkness without, and when I die there will be darkness within. There is no splendour, no vastness anywhere; only triviality for a moment, and then nothing.” [4a] Russell most assuredly knows now whether his philosophical and atheistic ponderings about death were correct. But there’s a better way to have a more sure word about what happens at death (see below).

C. S. Lewis, Britain’s favourite fantasy writer of the Narnia series and other writings such as Mere Christianity [5] wrote that “There are no ordinary people. . . It is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit – immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.” [6]

Senior pastor at Moody Church, Chicago, Edwin W. Lutzer comes to a very different conclusion to Bertrand Russell:

One minute after you slip behind the parted curtain, you will either be enjoying a personal welcome from Christ or catching your first glimpse of gloom as you have never known it. Either way, your future will be irrevocably fixed and eternally unchangeable. [7]

In Indiana, USA, I understand that there is a tombstone with this epitaph:

Pause, stranger, when you pass me by
As you are now, so once was I
As I am now, so you will be
So prepare for death and follow me

An unknown passerby read the words and scratched this reply below the above verse:

To follow you I’m not content
Until I know which way you went. [8]

2.  Which way?

Down through the centuries there have been may who have attempted to roll back the curtain of what happens after death through channelling, a doctrine of reincarnation and an examination of near-death experiences.

It’s pretty natural to want to think that all will be OK beyond death or that death ends it all. Larry Gordon, chief executive of Largo Entertainment, commented, “We all want to believe that death isn’t so bad.” [9]

Some try to contact people after death through the demonic – through spirit mediums. Bishop James Pike tried to do it to contact his son who had committed suicide His son reportedly said, “I’m confused. . . I am not in purgatory, but something like Hell, here, . . . yet nobody blames me here.” [10]

Listen to Shirley MacLaine and she claims that

we can eliminate the fear of death by proclaiming that it does not exist. Through contact in the spirit world, she has discovered that in a previous existence she was a princess in Atlantis, an Inca in Peru, and even was a child raised by elephants. In some previous existences, she was male; in others, female. [11]

Raymond Moody, in Life After Life[12], recorded interviews with those who were near death and had been successfully resuscitated. The stories contained

many similar elements: the patient would hear himself being pronounced dead; he would be out of his body, watching the doctors work over his corpse. While in this state, he would meet relatives or friends who had died and then encounter a “being of light.” When he knows that he must return to his body, he does so reluctantly because the experience of love and peace has engulfed him. [13]

Melvin Morse tells of the near-death experiences of children in Closer to the Light [14] and most of the kids’ experiences are positive. Betty Eadie tells of her own experience on the “other side” in Embraced by the Light [15]. The title gives the clincher for her. She claims to have seen Christ and dedicates the book to him: “To the Light, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom I owe all that I have.”

In Doug Groothius’s comments on this book in Deceived by the Light, he wrote:

The initial printing of 20,000 copies [of Eadie’s book] sold in two weeks and the second printing of 30,000 also went quickly. Within six months the book was on the New York Times bestseller list, where it stayed for well over a year, selling more than a million copies. Paperback rights for the book were sold for nearly two million dollars, after which the paperback edition zoomed to the bestseller lists as well. And at the time of this writing, Eadie is busy speaking around the country and writing another book.

The dust jacket claims that the book offers “astonishing proof of a life after physical death,” and that Eadie “saw more, perhaps, than any other person has seen before, and she came back with an almost photographic view.” [16]

BUT . . . Eadie’s Jesus is radically different from the Jesus of the New Testament.

  • He is separate from the Father and would do nothing to offend her.
  • She had no reason to regret deeds committed in the past.
  • We human beings are not sinful people.
  • Human “spirit beings” assisted the heavenly Father at creation.[17]

It is common to hear of positive near-death experiences, but other research indicates that many people tell terrifying stories of the life beyond. Some speak of a lake of fire, darkness, and tormented people who are awaiting judgment. For this alternate view of near-death experiences, see Philip J. Swihart, The Edge of Death [18] and Maurice Rawlings, Beyond Death’s Door [19]. Rawlings is a cardiologist and cardiovascular specialist who has revived many patients. In his second book on near-death experiences, To Hell and Back, Dr. Rawlings notes:

Most people are deathly afraid of dying. They say, “Doctor, I’m afraid of dying.” But I have never heard one of them say, “Doctor, I’m afraid of judgment.” And judgment is the main concern of patients who have been there and returned to tell about it. . .    Drs. Moody and Ring, both now actively engaged in the paranormal – Moody into mirrors and crystal balls and Ring into UFOs — reviewed several thousand NDEs in the Evergreen Study and reported that less than 1 percent (actually only 0.3 percent) had hellish experiences and would have us think that life after death is, after all the evidence is reviewed, entirely a heavenly affair.    Fortunately, a few observers are beginning to disagree. One of the disagreements was by researcher Dr. Charles Garfield who noted, “Not everyone dies a blissful, accepting death. . .  Almost as many of the dying patients interviewed reported negative visions (demons and so forth), as reported blissful experiences, while some reported both. Note his ratio of roughly 50/50 for negative/positive. I am not the only researcher claiming large amounts of existing negative material [emphasis in original]. [20]

Dr. Rawlings relates the case of a patient who was resuscitated in the excitement of the Knoxville football stadium (Tennessee, USA) and was later transferred to the doctor’s clinic at the Diagnostic Center. The patient related:

I was moving through a vacuum as if life never ended, so black you could almost touch it. Black, frightening, and desolate. I was all alone somewhere in outer space.    I was in front of some type of conveyor belt which carried huge pieces of puzzle in weird colors that had to be fitted together rapidly under severe penalty from an unseen force. It was horrible. Impossible. I was shrieking and crying. I was deathly afraid of this force. I knew it was Hell, but there was no fire or heat or anything that I had expected.    I was alone, isolated from all sound, until I heard a mumbling, and I could vaguely see a kneeling form. It was my wife. She was praying at my bedside. I never wanted to be a Christian, but I surely am now. Hell is too real. [21]

Woody Allen, in his whimsical way, got to the point: “I’m not afraid of death. I just don’t want to be there when it happens” [22]

For a critique of Eadie’s near-death experiences and some thought-provoking questions and answers about life after death, I recommend Doug Groothuis, Deceived by the Light. [23]

Is there a better way to be determine how we can be as sure as possible about what happens at death? There certainly is and we will be eternally poorer if we neglect it.

3.   A more certain word on life beyond the grave

The best person to ask about what happens at death is to seek the One who made the human being immortal – God Himself – and gives the most sure word on life-after-death. Jesus states that “I have the keys of Death and Hades” (Rev. 1:18).

God has spoken decisively on what happens at death and we do well to listen to Him and act upon His exhortations. A brief summary of what to expect includes the following [24]:

Heaven or Hell(image courtesy ChristArt)

a. Death is abnormal

It was caused by the fall of human beings into sin (see Gen. 3:19; Rom. 5:12). The last enemy to be destroyed will be death (I Cor. 15:26).

b. Immortality (meaning deathlessness) and eternal life. Only God is immortal (I Tim. 6:16), yet through His death, Jesus Christ “brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10). God’s promise for the Christian believer is that he/she will live forever and this is a certain hope (I Cor. 15:44; 2 Cor. 5:1).

c. The Christian & resurrection

The uniqueness of Christianity is not only the assurance of eternal life but that, because of Christ’s resurrection, Christians will be resurrected at the last day ( I Cor. 15:17-18). This will be a resurrection and not a resuscitation, and the believer will inherit intellectual powers and wisdom (I Cor. 13:12).

d. Conscious experience after death. Death has no mastery over the Christian believer (Rom. 6:9). There will be rest from labor (including rest from toil, sorrow, pain and sin). There will be work, but in God’s service (Matt. 25:21).

e.  New language for the death experience for believers. After Christ’s resurrection, the disciples did not refer to death when they spoke of the ending of human life, but their language was:

    • To “depart and be with Christ” (Phil. 1:23),
    • “Those who have fallen asleep” in Jesus (I Thess. 4:15), and
    • “Away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8).

The Christian who departs this life goes immediately into the presence of Christ and will be forever with Him.

f.  Do believers go straight to heaven?  After the death and resurrection of Christ, the spirits of Christians go immediately into the presence of Christ in a place that is called heaven, paradise or the Father’s house (see 2 Cor. 12:2, 4; John 14:2-3). “After the death and ascension of Jesus the believer no longer has to pass through the portals of Hades [as in the Old Testament times], but instead goes immediately to be with Him.” [25]

g. Hell and the unbeliever.  The doctrine of hell is never a pleasant topic of conversation and some have tried to deny it or snuff out its impact by substituting annihilation as an alternative. The Bible is clear according to Matthew 25:46, “And these [the unbelievers on Jesus’ ‘left’] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” But doesn’t 2 Thess. 1:9 support annihilation: “They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” The word translated “destruction” means “ruin.”

There are no verses to support the doctrine of purgatory and many to contradict it.

There are many verses that reveal the existence of heaven (for the Christian believer) and hell (for the unbeliever). See Ps. 1; 73; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 7:13-14, 24-27; 25:1-13; John 3:16; 2 Thess. 1:8-10; Rev. 20:11-15; 22:14-15.

Conclusion: There is no biblical evidence for death being a dead-end. For the believer, it will be entrance into the presence of the Lord and heaven. For the unbeliever, it will be entrance into the presence of the Lord and hell. The Bible presents no other alternatives.

G. K. Chesterton once stated that “hell is the greatest compliment God has ever paid to the dignity of human freedom.” [26] What about others outside of Christ? C. S. Lewis offered the challenge: “If you are worried about the people outside [of Christ], the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside yourself.” [27]

B. Christianity the crutch

Healed

(image courtesy ChristArt)

When I related this story of the nurse’s statement that there is nothing at death, to a Christian friend who visited me in hospital, he told of a medical situation involving a mutual acquaintance who was in her late 60s & in hospital on the morning of surgery. As a doctor moved towards her bed, he asked what she was reading. When she explained that it was a Christian devotional book and that she was praying, the doctor’s response was: “Don’t you trust us? Why do you need a crutch?” She was too weak and in a pre-med state to give a response.

Response:

How are Christians to respond to the allegation that their dependence on Christ alone for salvation and their calling upon Him in prayer in difficult circumstances is the use of a “crutch”? It’s a fairly standard line from the soap-box, populist university agitator, “Ha! Ha! You Christians are weak and Christ is your crutch.” Karl Marx reinforced this stereotype with his proclamation, “Religion is the opiate of the people.”

The inference in this complaint against Christianity is that only weak people need a crutch. Real men/women can make it through life on their own without supernatural resources.

Amazingly, this snigger against Christ can raise some core issues with which to challenge the university atheist, sceptical medical doctor, and others.

1.    The Crutch Defined

A literal, physical crutch is “a staff or support to assist a lame or infirm person in walking,” but it is used also as a colloquial expression to mean “anything relied on or trusted.” [28]

2. Only the sick need a crutch

There is a sense in which Christianity could be described metaphorically as a crutch – all people have a terminal spiritual disease (the sin problem) and they need help for that disease. But this problem is more than a “disease.”

Also, if a crutch is something that we rely on or trust in, that applies also to the Christ of the cross and the resurrection in whom Christians put their trust.

But Christianity defined as a “crutch” comes with too much negative baggage to be of significant use in explaining the Christian faith. However, there is a sense in which “crutch” is ok and not ok. Consider the following:

  • Matthew 15:18-19: “But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.”
  • Romans 3:10-12: “As it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.’”
  • Romans 5:12: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one
    man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.”

The Bible takes sin seriously because it is the core human problem. Unless we solve the sin problem, there is no hope for each person or for the whole human race. R. C. Sproul correctly summarises our human dilemma as diagnosed by the Bible:

“The biblical meaning of sin is to miss the mark of God’s righteousness.“All human beings are sinners.“Sin involves a failure to conform to (omission) and a transgression of (commission) the law of God.“Only moral agents can be guilty of sin.“Each sin committed incurs greater guilt.“Sin violates God and people.” [29]

As politically incorrect as it is to state it this way – sin is the problem, not just for criminals and other rebels, but for all of us.

3. But the sin-sick need more than a crutch

In the Bible verses above, we’ve stated the problem – all of us have violated the law of God and stand guilty as sinners. The problem is very deep. Is there a solution that is more than a fanciful “crutch”? There is and that’s the good news:

Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

1 John 1:8-10: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”

If you are really serious about doing business with God and not seeking a crutch (superficial answer), consider these essentials:

flamin-arrow-small God is holy and absolutely just.

flamin-arrow-small We are sinners and God hates sin.

flamin-arrow-small God inflicts his wrath on sin; how can it be pacified?

flamin-arrow-small Consider who Jesus Christ really is and what he has done to deal with the sin problem through his death on the cross and the shedding of his blood.

flamin-arrow-small What does God demand of you for real change to happen in your life?

flamin-arrow-small What happens to those who reject God’s offer of salvation?

flamin-arrow-small If you want to know more, consider the Content of the Gospel.

By now you should understand that the diagnosis is far too serious and the solution radical enough to need something more than a crutch.

4.  It doesn’t sound or look like a crutch

Throughout history, many Christians could not be described as those overcome by weakness. They have sought anything but a crutch.

The early Christians . . . endured shunning, mocking, slander, illegal search and seizure, false arrest, kangaroo trials with perjured testimony, floggings, beatings, imprisonment, and stonings for their beliefs. They were crucified, burned alive, mutilated by lions, and hung on poles and covered with pitch and used as wicks to light [Roman Emperor] Nero’s gardens. They hardly sound like weaklings. Not a single crutch in sight. The history of the Christian church up to this very day is associated with reality – the martyrs’ blood has often been the nutrient of growth. [29a]

For a sample of some of the sufferings that Christians have endured for their faith, see

  • Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, and
  • By Their Blood: Christian Martyrs of the 20th Century [29b]

In the latter book, James and Marti Hefley wrote:

It appears likely that Dr. Paul Carlson was correct when he told Congolese believers before his martyrdom, that more believers have died for Christ in this [20th] century than in all the previous centuries combined. Of course, there is no hard evidence to prove this, since the records of most martyrdoms before the twentieth century are lost, and the names of countless martyrs in this [20th] century (those who died in the Soviet Union and China, for example) are not available for scrutiny. [29c]

If Christianity is a crutch, why is it that the children of martyrs have now become missionaries themselves for the Christian faith?

Dr. David and Rebecca Thompson, for instance, are now serving with the Christian and Missionary Alliance in Africa. Dr. Thompson’s father and mother were killed at Banmethuot, Vietnam, in 1968. Mrs Thompson’s father, Archie Mitchell, was captured by Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam in 1962, and is still unaccounted for, and her mother endured almost a year’s communist captivity in 1975. And five of six sons of Hector McMillan, martyred in Zaire, in 1964, are either already missionaries or under appointment to go. The remaining son has spent six months helping missionaries in Africa. Their mother died from cancer in 1976. [29d]

Christianity as a “crutch” is an accusation that doesn’t hold up. Even though resistance to the Christian faith may increase, more martyrs will fall, those totally committed to Jesus Christ will continue to proclaim him as Saviour, Redeemer, Reconciler and Resurrected Lord – until Jesus Christ returns. This proclamation by Christians will continue at home and in other countries, no matter what the risk. The Christian faith is no crutch at all. It is the faith for those seeking eternal life with God Himself – and it may lead to a martyr’s grave.

C.  Beat up on the church

(image courtesy WPClipart)

A nurse was pulling the wires out of my chest that were connected to my heart (the wires were there in case an electric charge was needed after surgery), so she needed to distract me from this minimally painful event. Out of the blue, she attacked “these Christians who are abusers of children.” Why? This was the first day that I was well enough to read extensively and my wife, Desley, had brought two contrasting books (at my request): a New International Version New Testament and John Dominic Crossan’s book, The Historical Jesus (studying for my doctoral thesis). [30]

I had divulged the content of my reading, so it was time to flog the church for its worst examples.

Playing by the wrong rules

I would never judge that hospital’s medical care by the nurses who might have abused patients or did the illegal. But it’s still OK to flog the church for its hypocrites. I’m ashamed of people like Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and others who have given the church a terrible public reputation.

However, there is a fundamental problem about this nurse’s response and Jesus knew it. He stated it clearly in the incident with the woman taken in adultery: John 8:7, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Even after a person becomes a Christian he/she is still a sinner – a redeemed sinner. Romans 7 details the Christians life-long struggle with sin. Note Romans 7:17 , “So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.” To believers, John wrote: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (I John 1:9).

I deeply regret the gross and much publicised sinful activity of some Christians that has become a blight on the church and a point of accusation against Christian believers. I have shown repentant remorse over my own sin and will continue to do that should I commit any known sin in the future.

But the facts are that Christians live by the power of God, sometimes fall into sin bringing a reproach on the Name of Christ, but God is still working on us and in us. This is not an excuse. This is just the way it is.

Perfection is for those who are in heaven. Until than, Christians live by the laws of sin and forgiveness, thanks to Christ’s redemptive work. Romans 6:11 states the battle, “So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.”

D.  I don’t believe anything any more

I spoke with a nurse who saw the unorthodox material I was reading (John D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus). She said that she read the book about 10 years ago when she did a graduate diploma in theology at a Roman Catholic (RC) seminary and then added: “But the sad fact is that now I don’t believe anything.” [An overstatement, but an attempt to convey that she has abandoned the faith of her fathers.]

Now, she was investigating Islam and commended the RC school that was teaching her grandchildren Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity and other world religions – all as worthy possibilities of following.

My wife and I had an open conversation with her as she transparently revealed that she (age 60) was raised “in a strict Irish RC family” who believed that “you need to have faith and don’t question.” She, a questioning person, could not accept the blind faith that was fed to her, read widely, and today doesn’t know what to believe.

This conversation raised three enduring issues for me:

  • There is no power in civil religion without a relationship with Jesus Christ.
  • Telling anybody, especially our children, to “just believe and don’t question,” is useless in preparing them for eternity and does not give them a foundation on which to build a Christian worldview of substance.
  • We must provide answers of substance to refute writers like John Dominic Crossan, the fellows of the Jesus Seminar, and others who are eroding confidence in the Scriptures by their reconstruction of biblical history.

Let’s examine these issues!

             1. Civil religion has no power

There is no staying power in civil religion – attending church and being part of organised religion – even if that religion is part of Christianity. The key is stated clearly in John 1:12-13 (ESV): “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

The keys are:

  • Receive Christ by believing on the person of the crucified and resurrected Christ;
  • To these, Christ gives the right and privilege to become children of God, in relationship with Him;
  • The people in relationship with Christ are born of God.
  • If you’d like to know more, see The Content of the Gospel.

             2.  An apologetic against: “Just believe and don’t question”

There is a great lack of emphasis on apologetics in training in theological colleges and seminaries. It is one of the main branches of systematic theology and is critical to our preparing all of God’s people, especially the young, for defending their faith.

An enduring faith is one built on factual evidence for the faith, the evidence of which can be tested. Leading apologist and theologian, Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, hit the mark when he said: “Lose the Bible and you lose the best evidence for God; defend the Bible and you discover ‘many infallible proofs’ for the salvation revealed once for all through the death and resurrection of His Son (Acts 1:3).” [31]

a.  Some reasons to believe

Basic biblical Christianity requires these dimensions:

          (1)  Proclaim the gospel and disciple believers

The Bible’s statements are clear:

Mark 13:10:  “And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations.”

Matthew 28:19-20:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

Linked with these commands by Jesus to take the gospel into all the world and disciple believers, is the requirement for gifted church leaders to equip believers for this kind of ministry:

           (2)  Equip believers for ministry

Ephesians. 4:10-14,

He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministryfor building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. (emphasis added)

Proclaiming the gospel and discipling believers are at the core of New Testament Christianity. So is the need for the people with ministry gifts (Eph. 4) to engage in training/equipping the people of God for ministry. This is a neglected area in the contemporary church where I live in Australia.

But there’s more to it than a simple proclamation of the Gospel and the equipping ministry of those gifted by God.

           (3)  The need to defend (give reasons) for the Christian faith.

Francis Schaeffer.jpg

Francis Schaeffer (photo courtesy Wikipedia)

Francis Schaeffer saw this need, understood the Bible’s message, and practised what he preached. He wrote:

At times I get tired of being asked why I don’t just preach the “simple gospel.” You have to preach the simple gospel so that it is simple to the person to whom you are talking, so it is no longer simple. The dilemma of modern man is simple: he does not know why man has any meaning. He is lost. Man remains a zero. This is the damnation of our generation, the heart of modern man’s problem. . . It is the Christian who has the answer at this point – a titanic answer! So why have we as Christians gone on saying the great truths in ways that nobody understands? Why do we keep talking to ourselves, if men are lost and we say we love them? Man’s damnation today is that he can find no meaning for man, but if we begin with the personal beginning we have an absolutely opposite situation. . . . Only one fills the philosophical need of existence, of Being, and it is the Judeo-Christian God – not just an abstract concept, but rather that this God is really there. He exists. There is no other answer, and orthodox Christians ought to be ashamed of having been defensive for so long. It is not a time to be defensive. There is no other answer. . . . Christianity is not only true to the dogmas, it is not only true to what God has said in the Bible, but it is also true to what is there, and you will never fall off the end of the world! It is not just an approximate model; it is true to what is there. When the evangelical catches that – when evangelicalism catches that – we may have our revolution. [32]

Basic Christianity requires faith (the just/righteous shall live by faith, Rom. 1:17), but Christianity requires more than what Francis Schaeffer calls “the simple gospel.”

1 Peter 3:15 declares: “But in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.”

Giving reasons for why we believe (making a defense) is core Christianity. This is the ministry of apologetics that is in such short supply in today’s church. This nurse in the cardiac ward was subjected to anaemic Christianity – Christianity without reasons.

Foundational material is found in Francis Schaeffer’s early books on the infinite-personal God who exists, is there, and has spoken. [33]

This kind of foundation would have been an excellent antidote for the nurse who “now believes nothing.” However, she was exposed to the doubts and reconstruction of writers such as John Dominic Crossan. That would be enough to give any searching person the turn-off for a long time [see below].

a.  Some recommended reading

If you are serious about seeking meaning in life and investigating the Christian faith, the following are recommended:

  • John Blanchard, Does God Believe in Atheists? Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2000 [John is a British author, teacher and conference speaker. This is one of the most provocative books I have read in a long while – 600 pages – but well worth the read if you want evidence and challenges.]
  • William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1994 [Craig comes out with the big guns in defense of Christianity. This is not for those who prefer light reading.]
  • Stephen Gaukroger, It Makes Sense. London: Scripture Union, 1989 [an excellent lay-level introduction to the key evidence for Christianity. Sadly, it is now out of print.]
  • Norman Geisler & Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1990. [Recommended]
  • John Warwick Montgomery, Faith Founded on Fact: Essays in Evidential Apologetics. Newburgh, IN: Trinity Press, , 1978.
  • Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview (Vols. 1-5). Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1982.
  • Francis A. Schaeffer, Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy (3 books in 1 vol.): The God Who Is There; Escape from Reason; He Is There and He Is Not Silent. Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1990. [In speaking to the people of our times, Francis Schaeffer was one of the best. These are his foundational books in one volume. Highly recommended.]
  • R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner & Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie Books (Zondervan Publishing Company), 1984.
  • Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House (Willow Creek Resources), 1998 [Strobel builds a strong case for the Christian faith as an investigative journalist. It is packed with facts to give excellent evidence for the faith.]
  • Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House (Willow Creek Resources), 2000 [Again, highly recommended.]

           (4)  A brief response to John Dominic Crossan, the reconstructionist

John Dominic Crossan (photo courtesy Wikipedia)

The havoc of historical and biblical reconstructionists such as John Dominic Crossan cannot be over-estimated in the negative impact on the Christian community and for others who are seeking God, or for those whose faith is not firmly grounded in the foundations of the faith.

It is not surprising that the nurse “believes in nothing” after reading Crossan. Take a read!

a.  Out of  the mind of Dom Crossan

Consider his views:

(1) “It is precisely that fourfold record [the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John] that constitutes the core problem. . . The gospels are, in other words, interpretations.” [34]

(2) “What those first Christians experienced as the continuing presence of the risen Jesus or the abiding empowerment of the Spirit gave the transmitters of the Jesus tradition a creative freedom we would never have dared postulate had such a conclusion not been forced upon us by the evidence. Even when, for example, Matthew and Luke are using Mark as a source for what Jesus said or did or what others said or did in relation to Jesus, they are unnervingly free about omission and addition, about change, correction, or creation in their own individual accounts. . . The gospels are neither histories nor biographies.” [35]

(3) “The journey to and from Nazareth for census and tax registration [in the birth story of Jesus] is a pure fiction, a creation of Luke’s own imagination. . . . I understand the virginal conception of Jesus to be a confessional statement about Jesus’ status and not a biological statement about Mary’s’ body. It is later faith in Jesus as an adult retrojected mythologically onto Jesus as an infant. . .” [36]

(4) Concerning the “son of man” sayings about Jesus: “It was thereafter easier to create and place upon his [Jesus’]] lips certain titular ‘Son of Man’ sayings as the tradition of his words grew after his death.” [37]

b. Crossan declares his hand

(1) “This is the central problem of what Jesus was doing in his healing miracles. Was he curing the disease through an intervention in the physical world, or was he healing the illness through an intervention in the social world? I presume that Jesus, who did not and could not cure that disease or any other one, healed the poor man’s illness by refusing to accept the disease’s ritual uncleanness and social ostracization. . . . But miracles are not changes in the physical world so much as changes in the social world.” [38]

(2) “I myself, for example, do not believe that there are personal supernatural spirits who invade our bodies from outside and, for either good or evil, replace or jostle for place with our own personality. But the vast, vast majority of the world’s people have always so believed, and according to one recent cross-cultural survey, about 75 percent still do.” [39]

(3) Concerning the raising of Lazarus by Jesus: “While I do not think this event ever did or could happen, I think it is absolutely true….  I understand, therefore, the story of Lazarus as process incarnated in event and not the reverse. I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time brings dead people back to life.” [40]

(4) “My proposal is that Jesus’ first followers knew almost nothing whatsoever about the details of his crucifixion, death or burial. What we have now in those detailed passion accounts [in the Bible’s gospels] is not history remembered but prophecy historicized. And it is necessary to be very clear on what I mean here by prophecy. I do not mean texts, events, or persons that predicted or forshadowed the future, that projected themselves forward toward a distant fulfillment. I mean such units sought out backward, as it were, sought out after the events of Jesus’ life were already known and his followers declared that texts from the Hebrew Scriptures had been written with him in mind. Prophecy, in this sense, is known after rather than before the fact.” [41]

(5) How do we deal with the death, burial, empty tomb and resurrection of Jesus? Crossan’s response is: “Is this fact or fiction, history or mythology? Do fiction and mythology crowd closely around the end of the story just as they did around its beginning? And if there is fiction or mythology, on what is it based? I have already argued, for instance, that Jesus’ burial by his friends was totally fictional and unhistorical. He was buried, if buried at all, by his enemies, and the necessarily shallow grave would have been easy prey for scavenging animals.” [42]

(6)”The core problem is compounded by another one. Those four gospels do not represent all the early gospels available or even a random sample within them but are instead a calculated collection known as the canonical gospels.” [43] In fact, Crossan prefers the material in the extracanonical gospels to the four canonical gospels.

Note what Crossan has done. In the above section, “Crossan declares his hand,” there is evidence of his presuppositions that drive his conclusions. Crossan ends where he begins — with his presuppositions. This is circular reasoning and is cheating. He does not listen to what the documents say, but imposes his views on them. It is expected that he will come out with conclusions that agree with his presuppositions.   His presuppositions include:

  • He does not believe that Jesus healed physical disease.  Nobody, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life again.  He’s a naturalist, disguised as a sociologist.
  • He does not believe in supernatural spirits.
  • He does not believe in supernatural foretelling in prophecy, but links it to mythology and fiction.  He rejects the Bible as the authoritative Word of God.
  • Therefore, he prefers the extracanonical gospels over the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

He calls it reconstruction; I call it dishonesty. He has personal reasons to debunk the biblical revelation and he does not allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves.  His presuppositions drive his agenda.

He admits that his writings, based on 80% of his correspondence, have met the needs of

A group in this country [USA] who claim a center of the road between the extremes of secularism and fundamentalism. They are also dissatisfied, disappointed, or even disgusted with classical Christianity and their denominational tradition. They hold on with anger or leave with nostalgia, but are not happy with either decision. . . But they know now that those roots must be in a renewed Christianity whose validity does not reject every other religion’s integrity, a renewed Christianity that has purged itself of rationalism, fundamentalism, and literalism, whether of book, tradition, community or leader. [44]

In spite of his repudiation of much of the Bible, he still wants to see himself as “a Christian.” [45] The reality of his theology is seen in this blasphemous statement from his memoir:

Mine eyes decline the glory of the coming of the Lord who will trample out the vintage made of human beings as grapes. I decline the first or second coming of such a Jesus and, even more emphatically, of a God whose final solution to the existence of evil and the problem of injustice is the extermination of all those considered evil or unjust. I reject, and I think we should all reject, that vision from the final book of the Christian Bible, from the book of Revelation, where “the wine press was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the wine press, as high as a horse’s bridle, for a distance of about two hundred miles”. [46]

c. How should we respond to Crossan’s approach to the Gospel of Christ?

The Scripture warns us of those who proclaim another gospel:

Matthew 12:30, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (see also Luke 9:50; 11:23; Mark 9:40)

2 Cor. 11:4, “For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.”

Galatians 1:8-9, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”

It is very clear that John D. Crossan is proclaiming a gospel that is contrary to that of the New Testament.

For a different assessment of what will happen to those who reject Christ, see Hell & Judgment.

What is Jesus’ assessment of a denial of Himself? Matthew 10:33 states, “But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” Where does that leave John Dominic Crossan?

E.  The happy wanderer

Five days before I exited that cardiac ward, Vince came to our room of 4 as a patient. He was the life of the “party.” He had such a happy disposition that he brought “sunshine” to that ward. He joked, laughed with us (sometimes a pain for my zipper chest) and we became the best of mates (Aussie for buddies) in such a short time. He gave the nurses heaps and put a sign on his bed, “Is there any Dr. who will claim me?” He had been admitted to hospital with suspected angina, had a series of tests, but for 2 days he was not visited by a Dr. because she thought that he had been discharged. Now that did bring some laughter to the room. I believe Vince brought to that ward a dimension of Prov. 17:22: “A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.”

F.  Now what?

1. Australian Christians have a long way to go in proclaiming the Gospel clearly so that ordinary, thinking people have a clear understanding of what happens when the last breath leaves the human body?

2. Religion as a crutch is a common rebuff. There’s a need to defend the faith here as Dr John W. Montgomery would say, “It is faith founded on fact.” A crutch that sends some Christians to a martyr’s grave hardly seems that it needs a crutch for a weakling.

3. When the unbeliever raises examples of Christian hypocrites who offend them, I want to empathasise with them. They offend me also. But we don’t judge any religion or anything else on the worst examples. Nursing is not judged by its worst representatives.

4. Civil religion and “faith” not based on evidence are due for a burial – sooner than later.

5. There’s an urgent need for all of us to be active apologists (see I Peter 3:15), if we are convinced by and have experienced the power of the crucified Christ. Those who have the gifts and motivation should be doing much more public defense of the faith in secular countries like my own.

6. Unorthodox proclaimers such as John Dominic Crossan and his mates from the Jesus Seminar need thorough refutations from convinced Christian apologists.

7. In all our seriousness, never forget that “a cheerful heart is good medicine.”

8. I must not forget to thank God for a godly wife who prayed, read Scripture, and meditated during 7.5 hours of surgery and was there to sit for hours per day beside my bed as I was in the intensive care unit (where it seems that I lost 2 days of my life) and then in the cardiac ward – for the 4th time.

G.  From the cardiac ward

These are my personal, theological and apologetic reminisces from time spent in the cardiac ward of an Australian hospital. I am grateful to my living Lord God Almighty for every breath I breathe. To my last breath I will praise him with the knowledge that, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints” (Ps. 116:15) and we “would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). I am assured that I will not leave this earth one minute before God’s appointed time for me (and all others):

Psalm 139:16:

Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there were none of them.

Endnotes

1. See especially, Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, “The Abolition of Truth and Morality” in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview (Vol. 5), p. 423-4. Here, Schaeffer stated:

The basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so, in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals.

They have very gradually become disturbed over permissiveness, pornography, and the public schools, the breakdown of the family, and finally abortion. But they have not seen this as a totality – each thing being a part, a symptom, of a much larger problem. They have failed to see that all of this has come about dur to a shift in world view – that is, through a fundamental change in the overall way people think and view the world and life as a whole. This shift has been away from a world view that was at least vaguely Christian in people’s memory (even if they were not individually Christian) toward something completely different – toward a world view based upon the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its present form by impersonal chance. They have not see that this world view has taken the place of the one that had previously dominated Northern European culture, including the United States [and my own country of Australia], which was at least Christian in memory, even if the individuals were not individually Christian.


These two world views stand as totals in complete antithesis to each other in content and also in their natural results – including sociological and governmental results, and specifically including law.


It is not that these two world views are different only in how they understand the nature of reality and existence. They also inevitably produce totally different results. The operative word here is inevitably. It is not just that they happen to bring forth different results, but it is absolutely inevitable that they will bring forth different results.

2. Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, Appendix A: “The Question of Apologetics” in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview (Vol. 1). Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1982, p. 180.
2a  Francis A. Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview (Vol. 1). Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1982, p. 339.
3. ESV refers to The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles (A division of Good News Publishers), 2001. Unless otherwise stated, all Bible quotations are from the ESV.
4. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian. London: Unwin Books, 1967, p. 47.
4a. In J. Kerby Anderson, Life, Death & Beyond. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980, p. 66.
5. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (rev. & exp. ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1952.
6. C. S. Lewis, “The Weight of Glory,” in The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (rev. & exp. ed.). New York: Macmillan, 1980, pp. 18-19.
7. Erwin W. Lutzer, One Minute After You Die: A Preview of Your Final Destination. Chicago: Moody Press, 1997, p. 9.
8. In ibid., p. 11.
9. Martha Smigis, Hollywood Goes to Heaven,” Time, 3 June 1991, p. 70, in Lutzer p. 17.
10. James A. Pike, The Other Side. New York: Doubleday, 1968, p. 115, in Lutzer, p. 18.
11.  In Lutzer, p. 21.
12. Raymond Moody, Life After Life. Covington, GA: Mockingbird, 1975.
13. Lutzer’s description, p. 22.
14. Melvin Morse, Closer to the Light. New York: Ivy, 1990.
15. Betty J. Eadie and Curtis Taylor, Embraced by the Light. Placerville, CA: Gold Leaf, 1992.
16. Doug Groothuis, Deceived by the Light. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1997, p. 11.
17. Eadie & Taylor, Embraced by the Light.
18. Philip J. Swihart, The Edge of Death. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1978.
19. Maurice S. Rawlings, Beyond Death’s Door. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1978. (Also released by New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1979.)
20. Maurice Rawlings, To Hell and Back. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993, pp. 32, 73
21. Ibid., p. 79.
22. In Groothuis, p. 9.
23. Ibid.
24. Based on J. Kerby Anderson, ch. 8, “Our lives beyond death,” p. 145 ff.
25. Ibid., p. 158.
26. In ibid., p. 167.
27. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 66.
28. The Macquarie Dictionary: Australia’s National Dictionary (3rd. ed.). Macquarie University, NSW, Australia: The Macquarie Library, 1997, p. 524.
29. R. C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1992, p. 144.
29a. D. James Kennedy, Skeptics Answered: Handling Tough Questiona about the Christian Faith. Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Books, 1997, p. 142.
29b. W. Grinton Berry (ed.), Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1978; James and Marti Hefley, By Their Blood: Christian Martyrs of the 20th Century. Milford MI: Mott Media, 1979.
29c. In James and Marti Hefley, p. 589.
29d. Ibid., p. 590.
30. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.
31. John Warwick Montgomery, Faith Founded on Fact: Essays in Evidential Apologetics. Newburgh, IN: Trinity Press, , 1978, p. xiii.
32. Francis A. Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent in Complete Works (Vol. 1), pp. 285-287, 290.
33. Schaeffer’s foundational material is now available as a separate volume: Francis A. Schaeffer, Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy (3 books in 1 vol.): The God Who Is There; Escape from Reason; He Is There and He Is Not Silent. Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1990.
34. John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography [this is an abbreviated version of his earlier book, The Historical Jesus]. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994, p. x.
35. Ibid., p. xiii.
36. Ibid., p. 21, 23.
37. Ibid., p. 51.
38. Ibid., p. 82.
39. Ibid., p. 85.
40. Ibid., pp. 94-95.
41. Ibid., p. 145, emphasis in the original.
42. Ibid., p. 160.
43. Ibid., p. x.
44. John Dominic Crossan, A Long Way from Tipperary: A Memoir. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000, p. xx.
45. Ibid., p. xix.
46. Ibid., p. 185.
47. Ibid.

Romans 8:28:
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

Copyright © 2007 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 06 November 2021.

Spong’s deadly Christianity

Bishop John Shelby Spong portrait 2006.png

J S Spong 2006 (courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

I read the article, “An Evening with John Shelby Spong,” in the Uniting Church of Queensland’s, Journey magazine, online (28 September 2007). Then, I read the positive letter towards Spong’s Christianity by Noel Preston.

1. Dear editor

I wrote this letter-to-the-editor of Journey:[1]

Letters to the editor,
Journey
Sent 27 Oct 2007 to:
[email protected]

Dear Editor,

It is with sadness that I must disagree profoundly with Noel Preston’s assessment of  Bishop Spong as having “the positive impact . . . on behalf of Christian faith” (Journey, Letters, Nov. 07).    While Spong was Bishop of Newark, NJ, the Episcopalians voted with their feet.  Membership dropped by more than 40%.  That redefines “positive impact.”

Spong throws out core Christian beliefs such as the atonement, calling it an “offensive idea.”  He denies the bodily resurrection of Christ, yet still wants to say: “I am a Christian. I believe that God is real. I call Jesus my Lord. Yet I do not define God as a supernatural being. I believe passionately in God. This God is not identified with doctrines, creeds, and traditions” (A New Christianity for a New World, pp. 3, 10, 64, 74).

Luke T. Johnson, a scholar of NT & Christian origins, states that “having a bishop [Spong] with opinions like these is a bit like hiring a plumber who wants to ‘rethink pipes.’  Spong imagines that he has escaped his own fundamentalist past, but he has not.  He remains defined by the literalism he so doggedly battles” (The Real Jesus, p. 33).

Anglican Bishop of Durham, England, and former Oxford scholar, N. T. Wright, takes Spong’s view to task in, Who Was Jesus?

Another has described Spong as “Mr. I-am-a-bishop-who-believes-nothing-of-the-Gospel”.[2]

Yet, Rev. Preston wants to link Spong to professing “his allegiance to Jesus Christ despite challenging certain questionable beliefs.”  Which Jesus?

Spong’s denial of central Christian beliefs makes him heterodox in his theology.  To call his ministry “prophetic” is an abuse of the word.  Spong’s Jesus is no more than regurgitated 19th century liberalism.

“Didn’t it happen to Jesus of Nazareth?” Rev. Preston asks?  Yes it did, but not for an anaemic Christ stripped of his essence by bishops like Spong.  Spongian “christianity” is deadly to church life.

Sincerely,
Spencer Gear,
Hervey Bay

2. The pro-Spong letter

This is the Noel Preston letter to which I was referring:

Spong again[3]

I write to commend you for the October Journey.

I was especially appreciative of the three commentaries on Bishop Spong’s public meeting in Brisbane.

I do not dissent from the impressions reported and share with Bruce Johnson a measure of disappointment that the address I heard from Jack Spong was short on the detail of “a new approach” to theology, though I have great admiration for the positive impact the Bishop has had on behalf of Christian faith throughout a courageous ministry lasting decades.

Your editorial on the subject mused over what it is that causes such a reaction by many to the 78 year old Bishop.

I suspect its intensity has something to do with his determination to profess his allegiance to Jesus Christ despite challenging certain questionable beliefs, moral codes and institutional norms which have been dubiously confused with the essence of the Gospel.

Perhaps his detractors might opine: “If he could just stop pretending to be a disciple it would be easier to tolerate him!”

This is not an unusual story.

As some of your readers would recognise, attempts to be prophetic from within a religious tradition often bring forth a vehement reaction.

Didn’t it happen to Jesus of Nazareth?

Noel Preston
Auchenflower

3. The edited letter

If you have written letters to editors of newspapers and magazines, you will know that an original letter can be edited to eliminate some of the original material. This is what happened with my letter.

This is how my letter appeared in Journey, December 2007, p. 19.

Spong again

It is with sadness that I must disagree profoundly with Noel Preston’s assessment of Bishop Spong as having “the positive impact on behalf of Christian faith” (November Journey).

While Spong was Bishop of Newark, the Episcopalians voted with their feet. Membership dropped by more than 40%. That redefines “positive impact”.

Spong throws out core Christian beliefs such as the atonement, calling it an “offensive idea”.

He denies the bodily resurrection of Christ, yet still wants to say: “I am a Christian. I believe that God is real. I call Jesus my Lord. Yet I do not define God as a supernatural being” (A New Christianity for a New World).

Luke T. Johnson, a scholar of New Testament and Christian origins, states that “having a bishop [Spong] with opinions like these is a bit like hiring a plumber who wants to ‘rethink pipes’.

Spong imagines that he has escaped his own fundamentalist past, but he has not.

To call his ministry ‘prophetic’ is an abuse of the word.

Spong’s Jesus is no more than regurgitated 19th century liberalism.

“Didn’t it happen to Jesus of Nazareth?” Rev Preston asks.

Yes it did, but not for an anaemic Christ stripped of his essence by bishops like Spong.

Spongian ‘Christianity’ is deadly to church life.

Spencer Gear, Hervey Bay

a. Please note what was edited from my letter

blue-satin-arrow-small The page reference numbers for Spong’s A New Christianity for a New World (Spong 2001) were eliminated. Not including these prevents others from checking out my quotes with ease. But that is inconsequential compared with other more substantive issues that were edited out.

blue-satin-arrow-small  This is what I stated about Luke Johnson, ‘Luke T. Johnson, a scholar of NT & Christian origins, states that “having a bishop [Spong] with opinions like these is a bit like hiring a plumber who wants to ‘rethink pipes’.  Spong imagines that he has escaped his own fundamentalist past, but he has not.  He remains defined by the literalism he so doggedly battles’ (The Real Jesus, p. 33). How was it edited in my published letter?

Luke T. Johnson, a scholar of New Testament and Christian origins, states that “having a bishop [Spong] with opinions like these is a bit like hiring a plumber who wants to ‘rethink pipes’.

Spong imagines that he has escaped his own fundamentalist past, but he has not.

The Journey publication of my letter reads as though I wrote the last sentence. That sentence was not created by me. It is a quote from Luke T Johnson (1996:33). This is unacceptable editing when I am made to say something another author wrote. It makes it look like plagiarism when that is not the way I presented it in my letter.

blue-satin-arrow-small What I stated from Anglican scholar, N T Wright, was excised. I wrote: ‘Anglican Bishop of Durham, England, and former Oxford scholar, N. T. Wright, takes Spong’s view to task in, Who Was Jesus?

It was important to note that Wright provided a refutation of Spong in Wright’s book, Who Was Jesus? (1993). This is because both Spong and Wright are Anglicans but reach radically different conclusions concerning Jesus. Wright’s scholarship is regarded by many scholars as more substantive than Spong’s, and there are reasons for this.

Wright challenged Spong:

In particular, talk of ‘my Christ’ is the kind of thing that, as Spong must realize, leaves him wide open to the charge of sheer subjectivism – especially when it is combined with a continual downplaying of historical truth. How do we know that Spong’s ‘Christ’ is the real Christ?…

Spong has, in short, cut himself off from serious historical study. The world that he has opened up is a world which he himself calls midrash, however inaccurately. It is a world where the modern exegete can reconstruct a fantasy-history in the interests of a current ideology (Wright 1993:67, 91).

4.  A theologian’s critique of Spong

Gerald O’Collins, Professor of fundamental theology, Gregorian University, Rome, reviewed Spong’s book, Resurrection: Myth or reality (1994). In the first paragraph of his review, O’Collins stated that Spong ‘seems a caring, prayerful person. But a kindly heart and lots of fine rhetoric cannot make up for the lack of scholarship and critical judgement shown throughout this book’ (O’Collins 2000:112).

He wrote of Spong’s inaccuracy as a scholar:

What is said about a key verb St Paul uses in Gal. i:15f. shows that the bishop has forgotten any Greek he ever knew….

Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer are listed among those unfortunates who have “found themselves removed, silenced, harassed, or compromised in some way”. This is news to me. Fr Brown has been and Fr Fitzmyer is a member of the papal biblical commission. Is this a Machiavellian way of compromising them?

Later in the book both turn up again in company with 15 other “New Testament scholars”, who all allegedly join with the bishop in “rejecting

the literal narratives about the Resurrection” as no more than “Christian legends”.

They and some others on that list might well consider bringing a legal action against the bishop and/or his publishers for professional defamation.

Brown and Fitzmyer have repeatedly gone on record as accepting the historicity of the burial by Joseph of Arimathea, Jesus’s post-Resurrection appearances and the discovery of his empty tomb – all of which Spong rejects.

In a curious fashion the bishop talks of his seventeen “New Testament scholars” in the present tense: “we who are convinced”, “we who reject”, and so forth.

Half of them (like William Albright, Rudolf Bultmann, C. H . Dodd, E. C. Hoskyns and Karl Rahner) are long dead and have no chance of dissociating themselves from Spong and his views.

Some of them, such as Karl Rahner, Hans Kung and Edward Schillebeeckx, cannot be classified as New Testament scholars in the proper sense of the term. Does the bishop really care about accuracy and truth? Or is all this part of what he calls floating with him “on a sea of timelessness”? (O’Collins 2000:112).

So what is O’Collins estimate of Crossan’s scholarship?

His work simply does not belong to the world of international scholarship. No genuine scholars will be taken in by this book. But ordinary readers who are not too familiar with modern biblical studies could easily be impressed by Spong’s title of “bishop” and his pretended scholarship (O’Collins 2000:113).

5.  Spong’s shoddy Greek knowledge

Wphthe vs. apokalupsa

What was O’Collins’ complaint about Spong’s use of Greek in relation to Galatians 1:15? He did not present details in his review but it becomes obvious with an examination of what Spong wrote, if one has a introductory knowledge of NT Greek.

Galatians 1:15-16 states, ‘But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood’ (RSV). The RSV was the version used in Spong (1994).

Spong stated of Gal 1:15-16a,

The word for ‘reveal’ in this text is ?phth?, the same word used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures to describe the appearances of God (theophanies) or angels of God (angelophanies). The Septuagint uses ?phth? to describe a theophany to Abraham: ‘then the Lord appeared [?phth?] to Abram, and said, “To your descendants I will give this land”’ (Gen 12:7. What was the nature of the theophany? Was it really ‘physical’? What was the means of hearing God’s voice speak? Was it audible to any ear? Was it capable of being recorded or objectified?…

?phth? means to have one’s eyes opened to see dimensions beyond the physical. It means to have a revelatory encounter with the holy. It relates to the nature of visions, but not so much subjective hallucinations as seeing into that which is ultimately real, into God or God’s inbreaking future.

Luke used this same word when he had the disciples say Jesus ‘has appeared to Simon’ (Luke 24:34) [Spong 1994:53-54].

Spong’s shoddy understanding of Greek comes to the fore here. He is completely wrong with the verb he names and then expounds in Gal 1:16a. The word used in this verse is not ?phth?, but apokalupsai, which is the present tense, middle voice, subjunctive mood verb of apokalupt?.

Spong named the wrong Greek verb and set about expounding a wrong verb in Gal 1:16a that did not exist in that verse. This accounts for O’Collins’ sarcastic comment ‘that the bishop has forgotten any Greek he ever knew’. So what Spong said about the verb for ‘reveal’ in Gal 1:15-16a was wrong because that was not the verb used for ‘reveal’ in Gal 1:16a. How could an author, published with a major publisher, make such a basic error I his knowledge of NT Greek?

6.  Further objections to the edited letter

  • The letter that I sent to Journey, stated: ‘Another has described Spong as “Mr. I-am-a-bishop-who-believes-nothing-of-the-Gospel”’. This was eliminated from the published letter, but this is only a minor point of editorial deletion.
  • However, this statement by me was a signification deletion in my published letter: ‘Yet, Rev. Preston wants to link Spong to professing “his allegiance to Jesus Christ despite challenging certain questionable beliefs.”  Which Jesus?’ Why not publish this statement? I was challenging Rev Dr Noel Preston’s positive support for Spong’s unorthodox teaching. Spong’s Jesus is not the Jesus revealed in the New Testament. So to ask, ‘Which Jesus?’ is a valid inquiry. Spong’s view of Jesus versus that revealed in Scripture should be exposed, whether in a letter or in an article.

These articles discuss the demise of liberal Christianity:

7.  Conclusion

John Shelby Spong is promoting a radical agenda of ‘another Jesus’ who is not revealed in Scripture. Spong’s Jesus is that of liberal, historical-critical Christianity that has proceeded to empty churches for more than a century.

It is important to review the content of a letter-to-the-editor published when compared with the original. Take opportunities to write again to that newspaper or journal to take up the editorial censorship/deletions by the editor of letters. If this second letter is not published by way of correction, use online facilities to correct it – as I’ve attempted to do here.

For my other exposes of Spong’s unorthodox (heretical) teachings, see my articles:

Works consulted

Johnson, L T 1996. The real Jesus: The misguided quest for the historical Jesus and the truth of the traditional Gospels. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

O’Collins, G 2000. What of the Spong song? “Resurrection: Myth or reality”, A bishop’s search for the origins of Christianity; Review by Gerald O’Collins (online), [4]112-113. Apologia: The journal of the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society (Inc.), vol 7(2/3). Available at: http://www.christian-apologetics.org/pdf/SpongRev20Web.pdf (Accessed 21 November 2013).

Spong, J S 1994. Resurrection: Myth or reality? A bishop’s search for the origins of Christianity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Spong, J. S. 2001. A new Christianity for a new world. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Wright, N T 1993. Who Was Jesus? Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.[5]

Notes:


[1] This letter was published in ‘Letters’, Journey, December 2007, p. 19, available at: http://www.journeyonline.com.au/download.php?pdfId=66.

[2] Amazon review by ‘matt’ of N T Wright’s, Who was Jesus? (1993, Eerdmans), available at: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Was-Jesus-Wright/product-reviews/0802806945 (Accessed 21 November 2013).

[3] The following letter is in “Letters,” Journey, November 2007, p. 15. Journey is published by the Uniting Church in Australia, Queensland Synod. This is available online at: http://www.journeyonline.com.au/download.php?pdfId=65 (Accessed 21 November 2013). However, on 1 December 2015 it was no longer available online.

[4] This republishing of the article stated that it was ‘First published in the Tablet (London) (10 September, 1994). Republished in Welcome (September 1994, No. 101)’ [O’Collins 2000:112].

[5] This was first published by SPCK, London, in 1992.

 

Copyright © 2007 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 14 October 2015..

John Shelby Spong and the Churches of Christ (Victoria, Australia)

John Shelby Spong 2006 (image courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

When I read Merrill Kitchen’s [2] favourable article towards ex-Bishop Spong, in “The Future Church and Bishop John Shelby Spong” [3], I wondered if Kitchen and I were reading the same author. This is only one view by a leader within the Churches of Christ in Australia, but she is in a position of influence — the principal of a theological college of influence in Melbourne, Australia.

I thought I had read an adequate sample of Spong’s views in Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, Born of a Woman, Resurrection Myth or Reality?, and his latest which he claims will be his last — Spong’s swan song — A New Christianity for a New World. [4] But I was not ready for the sanitised version of Spong in this article. [5]

This is the Spong who rejects fundamental doctrines of the faith, yet Kitchen gave him the honoured status of being “clearly a believer but one who refuses to toe the ecclesiastical line when doctrine and tradition inhibit spiritual growth.” She claims Spong is calling us back to “a New Testament Church style and proclamation.” [6] Really?

A. The nature of Spongian religion

Kitchen rightly asks, “So what does Spong believe?” Yes, he believes the things that Kitchen raised in the article, but he believes much more that tell us what kind of a believer he really is and what his new style of church will look like in the future.

Will it be like the New Testament church (e.g. the Book of Acts and the Epistles) or more like Spong’s own brand of religion? To arrive at her sympathetic understanding of Spong, Kitchen has forgotten to tell us about some of the fundamentals of the faith that have been rejected or redefined by Spong. He sees his “task of seeking to redefine Jesus” as something that he does not take “easily or lightly.” [7]

1.    How is the faith redefined?

He claims he is a Christian, believes God is real and calls Jesus his Lord. Yet he does not define God as a supernatural being. In fact, for him, “Theism is dead, I joyfully proclaim, but God is real.” [8] By theism, he means supernatural Christianity. He believes passionately in God, but this God is not identified with doctrines, creeds, and traditions. [9]

For prayer, he proposes “substitute words” that have been identified down through the centuries “with the mystical disciplines of spiritual development — words such as meditation and contemplation” that will include “centering prayer” and breathing exercises. [10]

He’s against evangelism and missionary enterprises, the latter being “base-born, rejecting, negative, and yes, I would even say evil.” [11] This shocking redefinition of missions as “evil” is associated with his universalism and theory that “we possess neither certainty nor eternal truth.” [12]

 

2. The characteristics of Spong’s new brand of Christianity

The fundamentals are gone. What would cause him to come to conclusions that are so contrary to historic, classical Christianity? He’s all for life and love because they “transcend all boundaries” but

“Exclusive religious propaganda can no longer be sustained. The idea that Jesus is the only way to God or that only those who have been washed in the blood of Christ are ever to be listed among the saved, has become anathema and even dangerous in our shrinking world.” [13]His assumptions are driving his theological agenda: God is not a personal being; he throws out Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. There is no literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead nor a literal star or virgin birth — that’s mythology! There’s no ascension of Jesus Christ and there will be no Second Coming of Christ.

Christ did not found a church. We are not born sinful. The fall into sin by Adam and Eve is mythical. Women are not less human and less holy than men (I agree!). Homosexuals are not morally depraved; the Bible is not the literal word of God and certainly is not inspired. Forget about absolute Christian ethics because “time makes ancient good uncouth.” [14] The colour of one’s skin or ethnic background does not constitute grounds for making one superior or inferior (I agree!).

He repudiates baptism and the commemoration of the Lord’s Supper. “Since the diagnosis (sinful human nature) was wrong, the prescribed cure (atonement) cannot be right.” Since the fall into sin is a wrong diagnosis, baptism “to wash away the effects of a fall into sin that never occurred is inappropriate.” As for the Eucharist, this “reenactment of a sacrifice . . . becomes theological nonsense.” [15]

The supernatural is out. There will be no singing of praises to a theistic deity: “I treat the language of worship like I treat the language of love. It is primitive, excessive, flowery, poetic, evocative. No one really believes it literally.” [16] There will be his ill-defined, mystical “God-experience”. We could do that in a mosque, temple, synagogue, holy place, or ecclesia (his preferred word). There will be no confessing our sins to a “parental judge.” [17] There will be no literalised faith story. It will “never claim that it already possesses truth by divine revelation.” [18]

3. The church of tomorrow

As for the church of tomorrow, will it be a return to the New Testament church style as Kitchen suggests? Hardly!

The ecclesia of the future will be a place for “Catholic and Protestant, orthodox and heretic, liberal and evangelical, Jew and Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu” and where worship of this “god” will not be “bounded by our formulas, our creeds, our doctrines, our liturgies, or even our Bible, but still real, infinitely real.” [19] God is not a personal being, not even the highest being but the one he experiences as “the Ground and Source of All Being and therefore the presence that calls me to step beyond every boundary.” [20] This is a rejuvenated liberalism of Paul Tillich.

This new community, the ecclesia, “must be able to allow God and Satan to come together in each of us. It must allow light and darkness to be united. It must bind good and evil into one. It must unite Christ with Anti-Christ, Jesus with Judas, male with female, heterosexual with homosexual.” [21]

This is a church built in cloud cuckoo land – out of the minds of Spong and his friends! It is beyond radical. It is blasphemous!

B. Spong and evangelicals

Spong has a particular aversion to evangelical, Bible-believing Christianity (he calls it fundamentalism). He is not interested in “confronting or challenging those conservative, fundamentalist elements of Christianity that are so prevalent today. Why? He believes they will “die of their own irrelevance” as they cling “to attitudes of the past that are simply withering on the vine.” [22]

He goes to great lengths in denigrating traditional, evangelical Christianity, even to the point of making blasphemous statements such as these: “I am free of the God who was deemed to be incomplete unless constantly receiving our endless praises; the God who required that we acknowledge ourselves as born in sin and therefore as helpless; the God who seemed to delight in punishing sinners; the God who, we were told, gloried in our childlike, groveling dependency. Worshiping that theistic God did not allow us to grow into the new humanity.” [23]

In spite of these blasphemous statements about the Almighty God, Kitchen wants to give him this kind of credit: “. . . He is far from being an atheist and is certainly more than a philosophical humanist. . . Spong’s faith is firmly bonded to the person of Jesus.” [24] But which Jesus? Paul, the Apostle, warned of the one who “comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received” (2 Cor. 11:4, English Standard Version). It is evident from the writings of Spong that he wants nothing to do with the New Testament picture of Jesus Christ, yet Kitchen lauds him as “clearly a believer.” [25] Both Kitchen and Spong have redefined believers, if this is the case.

Spong does not want to deal with conservative, fundamentalist Christianity, and believes that it has no application to life today. He comments that “nowhere is this better seen than when one observes how the word Christian is used in our contemporary world.” [26] This is the pot calling the kettle black! It is Spong who has demolished the Bible’s definition of a Christian.

Among Spong’s 205 items in the bibliography of his latest book, [27] it is not surprising that there is not one that refutes his views or presents a scholarly evangelical perspective. I looked for Don Carson, William Lane Craig, Ben Witherington III., N. T. Wright, J. P. Moreland, Ravi Zacharias, Australia’s Paul Barnett, and other leading defenders of the evangelical faith., but they were absent.

His theological supporters from the Jesus Seminar and other liberals are everywhere – John Crossan, Marcus Borg, Robert Funk, Michael Goulder, John Hick, John A. T. Robinson, Paul Tillich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Don Cupitt. Spongism is one-eyed religion that is intolerant of opposing views, especially those of the “fundamentalists” (evangelicals).

C.    Emptying or growing churches? Spongian religion has a killer instinct.

One of the most damning pieces of evidence against Spong’s views are that the facts do not stack up concerning the demise of supernatural Christianity. What’s the truth about the death of theism? Wherever theological liberalism has taken hold, church numbers have crashed. Based on The Episcopal Church Annual (USA), membership of that dominantly theological liberal denomination, fell from a high of 3.6 million baptised Episcopalians in 1965, to 2.3 million in 1997– a loss of fully one-third of its membership. [28] The average Sunday attendance in the year 1998 was 843,213. [29] Two years later (the year 2000), it had further declined to 839,760. [30] “Mainline [church] membership is down (by nearly 6 million members) since 1965” in the USA. [31]

It is no wonder that the Newark Diocese of the Episcopal Church is talking about the need for church growth. [31a]

Church growth around the world

According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (David Barrett), world-wide“around 17 million people become church members each year through conversion, and some 7 million leave the church.” This leaves an annual net growth of approximately 10 million people. We would love to see more, but this is hard evidence against Spong’s death of theism. [32]

There are some other strong indicators that Jesus is alive and well and the church is growing. In the Ukraine, in the past three years, some 70 new house churches have been planted in Crimea, most in places previously without a church. [33]

In the city of Xinjiang, China, there were 20-30 small churches with about 300 believers in 1994. Through courage, vision and the Lord’s direction, five couples have been used to enable rapid growth. Over a period of three years, the growth has been so strong that there are now almost 500 churches with about 100,000 members in four districts. This growth has so concerned the Government that it has infiltrated the churches, persecuted the believers, and gone on television, accusing the groups of being a cult. [34]

During the last 10 years of the “Decade of Harvest” among the Nigerian Assemblies of God in Africa, there has been extraordinary growth. The church has not only gained 1.2 million new members, but also ordained 5,026 new pastors and planted 4,044 new churches in Nigeria. The emphasis on reaching previously unreached people groups led to 75 churches being planted in areas previously untouched by Christianity. [35]

World-wide, the Pentecostal movement has grown from no adherents in 1906 to approximately 500 million today. Yet Spong has the audacity to say that “Christianity as we have known it increasingly displays signs of rigor mortis.” [36]

There certainly are areas where the Christian church is showing significant decline, especially in the Western world. About 100 years ago, Wales experienced a heaven-sent revival. The proportion of the total Welsh population attending church has declined from 14.6% in 1982 to 8.7% in 1995. [37]

God’s church is being persecuted around the world, but is showing growth internationally. Spong’s thesis is dead in the water. It is his ideology, a la John A. T. Robinson, radical theological liberalism, that kills churches.

The Episcopalians of Spong’s diocese voted with their feet while he was bishop. One report said that

“Spong [had] been the Episcopal Bishop of Newark [New Jersey] since 1976. He has presided over one of the most rapid witherings of any diocese in the Episcopal Church [USA]. The most charitable assessment shows that Newark’s parish membership rolls have evaporated by more than 42 percent. Less charitable accounts put the rate at over 50 percent.” [38]

When we throw out the Scriptures as the standard for theology, where do we go for answers? Here we have a new kind of religion, out of the minds of Spong himself and his friends. Yet Spong thinks his views are the future of faith, a new Christianity for a new world! Welcome to Spongism, “Christianity” with a killer instinct. He is searching “for that elusive truth of God that lies beneath the literal words of that sacred text.” [39] When the up-front words are too offensive to the human mind, instead of reading and interpreting them as any other piece of literature, you invent your own approach. Here, Spong wants to find the meaning behind the text. We shall see that this type of interpretation leads him to accept many things that are politically correct in our secular society — out with the supernatural, no heaven or hell in the afterlife, acceptance of homosexuality, etc.

Yet, Spong is so blind that he cannot admit what his brand of Christianity does to churches:

“Only those whom the traditionalists mistakenly call liberals carry within themselves the seeds of renewal and future life for the religious traditions of yesterday. A title more proper than ‘liberal’ might well be ‘open’ or ‘realist.'” [40]

D.    Is Spongian religion the future of the church?

I have written at length providing some of the evidence, because Kitchen’s article does not give an accurate picture of John Shelby Spong’s world-view. He is not “the future of the church” as the article’s title indicates. His brand of Christianity has a track record – the death of congregations. On Spong’s recent visit to Australia, the then Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane, Peter Hollingworth (who at the time of writing this article was Australia’s Governor-General), prevented his speaking in Brisbane Anglican Churches. Instead, the Uniting Church (a merger of Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational churches) accepted him as a speaker.

Paul warned the Corinthians: “But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). Spong is preaching another Jesus to that of the Scriptures. His writings tell us what kind of a believer he is and what kind of a church he wants to see developed in the future. He is not a believer in the Jesus of the Scriptures, nor is his church one aligned with the New Testament.

The Spongian Jesus is not the real Jesus of the New Testament.

1.    Theology does matter

Based on her article, what are the elements of Spongian theology that are part of this new style of church? “Spong is calling people back to a New Testament style of proclamation, which is not a new idea for the movement we call Churches of Christ.” [41] What is a new idea, however, is a prominent representative of a formerly evangelical denomination in Victoria, supporting the heretical teachings of John Shelby Spong.

This is the principal of the Churches of Christ theological college in the state of Victoria, Australia, identifying Spong’s “New Testament style of proclamation” with the Churches of Christ movement. “Is [Spong] a “contemporary heretic who must be silenced” or “does he offer hope to a struggling Church in a post-Christian age?” [42] The tone of Kitchen’s article infers that Spong is offering hope to the church, even the Churches of Christ in Victoria.

    What kind of hope is this?

2.    Spong’s theology and the Churches of Christ

Spong’s theology offers the Churches of Christ (Australia) and any person or denomination the following views: [43]

  • Re-envisioning our concepts of God:
  • God is “a presence at the heart of life, available to everyone and not as the special possession of a religious institution”;
  • God is not an ancient deity who is “distant, apart and above the lives of a sinful humanity”;
  • God is not “the kind of supernatural being who engages in instant gratification, magical wizardry and capricious favouritism”;
  • God is “to be seen and experienced as intimately present in all creation” [Note: This sounds more like monism/Hinduism, than Christianity, to me!]; God’s identity “is revealed when barriers are broken and community is formed”;
  • God’s identity “is revealed when barriers are broken and community is formed”;
  • God is not “a record keeping deity before whom I will appear at the day of judgment to have my eternal destination announced. . . My heart will never worship what my mind has rejected.”
  • Spong has “his doubts about the process of resurrection [of Jesus],” according to Kitchen. Doubts? Hardly!

Spong is straight forward about his views on resurrection. Speaking of the resurrection of Jesus, he wrote:

“It is easy to identify the legendary elements of the resurrection narratives. Angels who descend in earthquakes, speak, and roll back stones; tombs that are empty; apparitions that appear and disappear; rich men who make graves available; thieves who comment from their crosses of pain — these are legends all. Sacred legends, I might add, but legends nonetheless. . . What happened that gave birth to the legendary details [in the New Testament records] that gathered around the moment of Easter? Why did they gather? Hundreds of millions of people have lived and died on this earth — some of them famous, powerful people — and no similar legends gathered around them. Why this one man, at this time, in this place? . . .“The primacy of Galilee [and not Jerusalem for the crucifixion and resurrection] means that all of the appearance narratives that purport to be the physical manifestations of the dead body that somehow was enabled to be revivified and to walk out of a tomb are also legends and myths that cannot be literalized. The risen Jesus did not literally eat fish in Jerusalem. Thomas did not touch the physical wounds. Resurrection may mean many things, but these details are not literally a part of that reality. To affirm Galilee as the primary locale in the experience of Easter is a radical step, but it is nonetheless a step that the Bible itself seems to acknowledge” [44]

This new style of church will mean a re-evaluation of what it means to be the Church. It will

  • not be hierarchical;
  • be honest in its worship;
  • be focussed on real life and not an escape from reality;
  • recognise God’s journeying presence;
  • have a commitment to communality;
  • acknowledge that all who gather at the Lord’s table are ministers and need to function as such [Note: I agree. But why should it be limited to those who gather for the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper? “All are ministers” should apply to all Christian believers. See I Cor. 14:26.];
  • “be a celebration of life in all its complexity.”
  • “rejoice in Scripture, but not be bound by ancient ‘cultic or cultural limitations'”

[Note: How can this church follow Spong in its rejoicing in Scripture when “the biblical texts themselves” have “proved to be quite untrustworthy”? [45]  This must be the mystical God-experience of Spong’s invention that is unrelated to what the text says directly. To understand what Spong is getting at, he speaks of John’s Gospel as “the least literal and the most accurate. . . Literalize John and you will lose this Gospel. For that which is literalized becomes nonsense, while truth that is approached through sign and symbol becomes the very doorway into God.” [46] It’s amazing what conclusions are reached when one throws out the Bible and makes up his own “sign and symbol” religion! What are the limits?].

  • There will be “a mystery and wonder that exceeds the dogmatic assertions of religious formulations.”
  • But “Spong’s faith is firmly bonded to the person of Jesus,” says Kitchen. This Jesus “was a God experience of the reality of that Ground of Being.” Spong claims that “Christpower, written as one word, has become for me a way to describe the Christ life that is the gift of the Spirit, the mark of membership in the Christian community.” [47]

Spong’s own words tell us how deeply he is committed to the value of experience, rather than to the content of the propositional revelation of the Word of God:

“Behind the narrative [of Scripture] is an unnarrated proclamation. Behind the proclamation is an intense life-giving experience. The task of Bible study is to lead believers into truth, a truth that is never captured in mere words but a truth that is real, a truth that when experienced erupts within us in expanding ways, calling us simultaneously deeper and deeper into life, and not coincidentally, deeper and deeper into God. . .“Human life alone could not produce that which we have experienced in Jesus Christ. He is of God, so the Christmas story points to truth, but the words used to describe or capture that truth are not themselves true in any literal sense.” [48]

[Note: This is the existential Christ of theological liberals such as Paul Tillich, John A. T. Robinson, Rudolf Bultmann, etc. It is a redefined Jesus who is radically different to the Jesus of the New Testament.]

  • This new kind of church includes a belief in life after death, but it is an eternity “that lies beyond the limits of my human finitude and in which I can participate.” Elsewhere, Spong is more specific. After five years of study on life after death, this study:
  • “seemed to lead me to no final conclusions. . . I still do not know what to say or how to express my convictions on this subject except with a consuming vagueness.” [49]
  • “I dismiss heaven as a place of reward, and I dismiss hell as a place of punishment. I find neither definition either believable or appealing.” [50]
  • If this kind of theology still makes Spong “clearly a believer,” according to Kitchen, what kind of a believer is he? What will believers in this new style church be like?;
  • Spong “refuses to toe the ecclesiastical line when doctrine and tradition inhibit spiritual growth, or deny the reality of human experience, or discriminate against any person.” [51]

E.    Conclusion

Spongian religion is out of the mind of Spong and his theological ilk. His statements about heaven and hell, in rejecting the orthodox doctrines, are testimony to this fact: “I find neither definition either believable or appealing.” [52] It does not matter what the authoritative Word of God states, it must be “believable and appealing” to Spong for him to accept it. In this writer’s view, this represents theological arrogance and autonomy.

When you invent your own religion, there is no need to listen to the text of Scripture. Therefore, Spongian theology and its counterparts (Tillich, J.A.T. Robinson, Bonhoeffer) can assert:

    1.    “There was no biologically literal virgin birth, no miraculous overcoming of barrenness in the birth of John the Baptist, no angel Gabriel who appeared to Mary, no deaf muteness, no angelic chorus that peopled the heavens to announce Jesus’ birth to hillside shepherds, no journey to Bethlehem, no presentation or purification in Jerusalem, and no childhood temple story.” [53]

2.    Paul, the man from Tarsus, was “a rigidly controlled gay male, I believe, [who] taught the Christian church what the love of God means and what, therefore, Christ means as God’s agent.” [54]

3.    Rationalistic, humanistic, existential views are promoted. The Bible is myth. [55] The mythology of Mark’s Gospel is superseded by today’s knowledge. “We understand what causes wind and wave, epilepsy and deaf muteness in ways that involve no appeal to supernatural forces.” [56]

4.    There’s no need for the supernatural in our modern world. Spong’s language is, “Theism is dead.” [57] But this kind of statement is not original with Spong; it is found in his mentor and friend, John A. T. Robinson [58], who wrote about “the end of theism.” [59] Paul Tillich had spoken of three kinds of theism, one [60] of which “must be transcended because it is irrelevant” and another kind [61] “must be transcended because it is wrong. It is bad theology.” [62]

5.    Autonomous humanistic godlessness reigns. In the preface to his latest book, Spong highlights, thus supporting, the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “God would have us know that we must live as those who manage our lives without God. . . Go is weak and powerless in the world.” [63]

6.    The Bible’s authors are out of date: “They are not in touch with emerging contemporary knowledge.” [64]

7.    If you don’t like what the literal words are saying, make up your own and than claim they are the truth. That’s what Spong has done with the birth narratives of Jesus: “My purpose here [with the birth story] is to see the truth to which these narratives point. Birth narratives tell us nothing about the birth of the person who is featured in those narratives. They do tell us a great deal, however, about the adult life of the one whose birth is being narrated.” [65]

Who said so? Spong did. Reinterpretation according to Spong’s own meaning is the order of the day for his theological inventions. Pity help me if I read his book with the same disdain for literal interpretation.

Since theology matters, Kitchen’s views in support of Spong, if promoted and accepted, will spell the demise of the Churches of Christ if her views are widely accepted. We know it from Spong’s own track record and the record of theological liberalism world-wide.

Pray for the Churches of Christ, Victoria, to return to biblical Christianity!

Endnotes:

2. Merrill Kitchen is the principal of the Churches of Christ Theological College, Mulgrave, Vic., Australia.

3. Merrill Kitchen, “The Future Church and Bishop John Shelby Spong,” The Australian Christian, 28 November 2001, p. 17. This article appeared in the “Theology Matters” feature of the magazine. The Australian Christian is an official Churches of Christ magazine in Australia.

4. John Shelby Spong, A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith Is Dying and How a New Faith Is Being Born. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001.

5. For ease of reference, I will refer only to his latest book (ibid.), but similar beliefs are documented in his other books that I have read.

6. Kitchen, “The Future Church and Bishop John Shelby Spong,” p. 17.

7. Spong, A New Christianity for a New World, p. 130.

8. Ibid., p. 77.

9. See ibid., pp. 3, 64, 74.

10. Ibid., p. 193.

11. Ibid., p. 178.

12. Ibid., p. 179.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid., pp. 2, 6. Elsewhere, Spong writes: “In time the virgin birth account will join Adam and Eve and the story of the cosmic ascension as clearly recognized mythological elements in our faith tradition whose purpose was not to describe a literal event but to capture the transcendent dimensions of God in the earthbound words and concepts of first-century human beings” (John Shelby Spong, Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, p. 45).

15. Ibid., p. 124.

16. Ibid., p. 204.

17. Ibid., p. 206.

18. Ibid., p. 214.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid., pp. 59-60.

21. Ibid., p. 167.

22. Ibid., p. 12.

23. Ibid., p. 75.

24. Kitchen, “The Future Church and Bishop John Shelby Spong,” p. 17.

25. Ibid.

26. Spong, A New Christianity for a New World, p. 12.

27. A New Christianity for a New World.

28. These figures of decline are based on Louie Crew, “Charting the Episcopal Church. Retrieved on November 4, 2001, from http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/chartecusa.html, p. 9 (A4 size, printed).

29. Rev. Dr. Leslie P. Fairfield, “Modernist Decline and Biblical Renewal: The Episcopal Church from 1870-2000,” American Anglican Council website, posted January 24, 2001. Retrieved on October 15, 2001, from http://www.americananglican.org/Issues/Issues.dfm?ID-91.  On 6 May 2007, it was available from: http://www.strategicnetwork.org/index.php?loc=kb&view=v&id=3486&fto=1081&

30. Louie Crew, “Growth and Decline in ECUSA Attendance, 1991-2000.” Retrieved on 6 May 2007, from:http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/growthdecline90-00.html. The Episcopalian Church USA has shown “30 years of membership decline and over a million members lost” [The Institute on Religion and Democracy, “Episcopal Action.” Retrieved on 6 May 2007 from: http://www.ird-renew.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&b=308889.  See also, “Charting the Episcopal Church,” Louie Crew. Retrieved on June 6, 2004, from http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/chartecusa.html.

31. Robert Wuthnow, “Still Toeing the Mainline,” retrieved on November 4, 2001, from http://www.beliefnet.com/story/31/story_3171_1.html. This article states that, “More than 20 million Americans still hold membership in mainline churches. The largest mainline denominations are the United Methodist Church, with 8.7 million members; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, with 5.2 million members; the Presbyterian Church (USA), with 2.6 million members; the Episcopal Church, with 2.5 million members; and the American Baptist Churches USA and the United Church of Christ, each with 1.5 million members.”

31a. The 2003 Diocesan Conference on Church Growth, October 24-25, 2003 – Xavier Center, Convent Station, NJ, retrieved from: http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/churchgrowth/  [26th December 2003]

32. “10M new converts, 32M Christian children per year,” [Source: Justin Long, Assoc. Editor of World Christian Encyclopedia (David Barrett)]. World-wide statistics plus news from Bulgaria, Chile, Brazil, DAWN Fridayfax 1998 #04. Retrieved on November 4, 2001, from http://www.jesus.org.uk/dawn/1998/dawn9804.html.

33. “Ukraine: 70 new house churches in the Crimea,” DAWN Fridayfax 2001 #24, News from Germany, Ukraine and China. Retrieved on November 4, 2001, from http://www.jesus.org.uk/dawn/2001/dawn24.html.

34. “China: 100,000 new believers in Xinjiang in 3 years,” DAWN Fridayfax 2001 #24, News from Germany, Ukraine and China. Retrieved on November 4, 2001, from http://www.jesus.org.uk/dawn/2001/dawn24.html.

35. “Nigeria: Assemblies of God plant 4,044 new churches in 10 years,” DAWN Fridayfax 2001#3. Retrieved on November 14, 2001, from http://www.jesus.org.uk/dawn/2001/dawn03.html. The source is the AoG news, 3 January 2001.

36. Spong, A New Christianity for a New World, p. 8.

37. “Wales: Church decline generally but slight increase for Anglicans,” Anglican Communion News Service (ACNS), 7 March 1997. Retrieved on November 3, 2001, from www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnsarchive/acns1100/acns1153.html. The report went on to say that “the Church in Wales congregations (Anglicans) report that there has been a slight increase in the size of their congregations in the last five years [i.e.. prior to 1997]. The report also found that Churches identifying themselves as Anglo-Catholic or Broad, or Charismatic were growing the most.”

38. “Rescuing Christianity from Bishop Kevorkian,” D. Marty Lasley, review of John Shelby Spong’s, Why Christianity Must Change or Die, for Anglican Voice, posted June 2 1999. Retrieved on 6 May 2007 from: http://listserv.episcopalian.org/wa.exe?A2=ind9906&L=virtuosity&H=1&P=272 (this link was no longer available in Oct 2013, but it is available at: http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/1999-June/000415.html  (Accessed 15 October 2013).

39. Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, pp. x, xi.

40. Spong, Born of a Woman, p. 176.

41. Kitchen, “The Future Church and Bishop John Shelby Spong,” p. 17 (emphasis added).

42. Ibid.

43. These are based on Kitchen, “The Future Church and Bishop John Shelby Spong,” p. 17.

44. John Shelby Spong, Resurrection Myth or Reality? A Bishop’s Search for the Origins of Christianity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994, pp. 233, 235-236.

45. Ibid., p. 235.

46. John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991, p. 207.

47. Ibid., ch. 13, n4, p. 253.

48. Ibid., p. 225.

49. Spong, Resurrection Myth or Reality, p. 287.

50. Ibid., p. 288.

51. Unless otherwise indicated, all quotes in the bullet points above are from Kitchen, “The Future Church and Bishop John Shelby Spong,” p. 17.

52. Spong, Resurrection Myth or Reality?, p. 288.

53. Spong, Born of a Woman, pp. 157-158.

54. Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 125.

55. John A. T. Robinson speaks the same kind of language about “the Genesis stories of the Creation and Fall were representations of the deepest truths about man and the universe in the form of myth rather than history, and were non the less valid for that” (Honest to God. London: SCM Press Ltd, 1963, p. 33). Rudolf Bultmann, the demythologiser of the Bible, took a similar line: “There is nothing specifically Christian in the mythical view of the world as such. It is simply the cosmology of a pre-scientific age” (Kerygma and Myth, vol. 1, p. 3, in Robinson, ibid., p. 34).

56. Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 143.

57. Spong, A New Christianity for a New World, p. 77.

58. Spong writes that one of the tasks of his book “is to move forward the work begun in the last century by a man who was my mentor and my friend. His name was John Arthur Thomas Robinson” (ibid., p. x).

59. Robinson, Honest to God, p. 39.

60. This is the theism of “the unspecified affirmation of God” (Paul Tillich, The Courage to Be. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1952, p. 182).

61. This is “theological theism. . . It usually develops the so-called arguments for the ‘existence’ of God” (ibid., p. 184). Elsewhere, Tillich rejects the existence of the God proclaimed by orthodoxy: “Ordinary theism has made God a heavenly, completely perfect person who resides above the world and mankind. The protest of atheism against such a highest person is correct. There is no evidence for his existence, nor is he a matter of ultimate concern. . .” (Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 1. Digswell Place: James Nisbet & Co Ltd, 1968, p. 271).

62. Paul Tillich, The Courage to Be, p. 184.

63. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, dated July 16, 1944. A fuller quote reads: “God would have us know that we must live as those who manage our lives without God. The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us. . . Before God and with God we live without God. . . Go is weak and powerless in the world and that is precisely the way, the only way in which he is with us to help us.” (in Spong, A New Christianity for a New World, p. ix).

64. Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 9.

65. Ibid., p. 215.

Do you want life or death in the church?

The image “https://i0.wp.com/www.dioceseofnewark.org/nwkseal.jpg?w=625” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Copyright © 2007 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 20 May 2016.

6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small

The Gospel Distortion: A reply to John Shelby Spong [1]

By Spencer D Gear

Spong during CrossWalk America 2006 (photo courtesy Wikipedia)

Does the Bible need to be rescued from fundamentalism? Does “old time religion” disenfranchise the homosexuals, women and others in the church? Or is Bishop Spong promoting another agenda?

In building his case to support Bishop Spong’s opposition to fundamentalism, (“The Gospel Truth?” The Canberra Times, August 4, 1991), Robert Macklin used a number of unfair methods to distort the views of Bible-believing Christians.

It is erroneous to argue from the basis of such a logical fallacy as name-calling. Labelling certain church groups, with which one disagrees, as “fundamentalists” and associating them with the names of people like Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell & Jimmy Swaggart is an unhelpful way of dealing with these Christians because it fails to confront the facts of their beliefs.

Flower7 However, one of the main themes that pervades this article is the writer’s and Bishop Spong’s opposition to the literal interpretation of the Bible, which they associate with fundamentalism. No definition of “literalism” is given. I am left to assume that this is the standard approach of theological liberalism, which does not want to take the Bible at face value. They find supernaturalism difficult to accommodate in a rationalistic, naturalistic, materialistic world-view.

The literal interpretation of any piece of literature means that narrative, poetry, prophecy, and figures of speech are read as such. If I were to read The Canberra Times the way Bishop Spong wants me to read the Bible, it would lose all comprehension because I would always be looking for the deeper meaning behind the actual words.

Just imagine the imaginative dreams (deeper meaning!) one could create by looking for the hidden, secret meaning behind a Canberra Times statement such as, “Meninga smashes record” (CT, August 1, 1991). There is no warrant for reading this newspaper in such a manner. Neither is there any justification for such an approach to New Testament interpretation. Literalism is nothing more than the natural way of reading books, magazines and newspapers. It is not the “beast” to be expunged from fundamentalism. Rather than “destroying Christianity by their literalistic claims,” fundamentalists are using the common sense way of reading any piece of literature.

The difficulty Bishop Spong seems to have, is accepting the supernaturalism he reads when he comes to the Scripture. That, however, is not a struggle with literalism, but presuppositional bias.

There is inaccurate stereotyping of these Christians throughout the article. Macklin claims fundamentalist churches are the fastest growing in Australian Christianity because they often appeal “to men, especially those in social crisis, either from divorce, alcohol, gambling, or spiritual despair.” My 30 years of experience in Bible-believing churches has not revealed this emphasis. Yes, there have been males and females whose lives have been radically changed through an encounter with the living Christ. But to say that conservative Christianity focuses on socially displaced males is distortion.

Abominable claims are made about fundamentalists: the earth is the centre of the universe and the world is flat. Such allegations should be treated with jocular disdain. Surely, the readers are not so naive as to believe that “evolution is a fact of life.” Molecular biologist, Michael Denton of the Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, in his seminal book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis [2], helped put an end to that myth. Evolution is a theory, not fact, and a very shaky theory at that.

Several invalid assumptions need to be addressed. “The rejection of reason for faith” is not part of biblical Christianity. The apostle Paul is a staunch example. He reasoned, persuaded, and powerfully refuted both the religious and irreligious. For him it was faith founded on fact, not a mindless leap of faith into the dark.

To conclude that after the scientific method was developed in the 18th century, “faith and science were largely regarded as incompatible,” is refuted by the evidence. The scientific method requires repeated observations in the present time and recording of data to support or falsify an hypothesis. Such an approach is impossible for any historical document, whether it be Captain Arthur Phillip’s writings or the Bible.

Scholar, theologian and apologist, Dr. John Montgomery says that for any historical writing, one must “go directly to the documents themselves and subject them to the tests of reliability employed in general historiography and literary criticism.” [3] These tests are bibliographical (an analysis of the textual tradition), the internal evidence, and external evidence.

After subjecting the Bible to this type of scrutiny, Professor Clark Pinnock concluded:

There exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies, and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision may be made. An honest [person] cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Scepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias. [4]To call Bishop Spong’s book “revolutionary scholarship” fails to come to terms with some of the comments Spong made in the article. He says, “I know of no reputable biblical scholar in the world today who takes these birth narratives [in the Gospels] literally. Telephone calls to three Australian scholars, Dr. Clifford Wilson (Pacific College of Graduate Studies, Melbourne), Dr. David Williams (Ridley College, University of Melbourne), and world-renowned New Testament scholar, Dr. Leon Morris (formerly, Principal, Ridley College, University of Melbourne) revealed that all three accept the birth narratives in the Gospel as literally true. As do Dr. F.F. Bruce (England), Dr. Donald Carson (USA) and a host of other New Testament scholars Dr. Spong chooses to ignore.

Dr. Leon Morris’s commentary on the Gospel of John is one of the most substantial and scholarly in the English language. He says “the basic reason for holding that the author was John the Apostle is that this appears to be what the Gospel itself teaches… It is also the case that there are some claims to eyewitness testimony” (by John, Christ’s personal disciple). [5] Yet Bishop Spong claims that “the words of Jesus (in John’s Gospel) … cannot possibl[y] have been the literal words of the historic Jesus.” Other scholars disagree, yet Spong’s writing is called “revolutionary scholarship.” Hardly! It is warmed up theological liberalism with its anti-supernatural bias.

Bishop Spong attributes “the tone, the feat, the passion, and the behaviour” of the apostle Paul to “the realisation that he was a homosexual male.” When I mentioned this to Melbourne scholar, Dr. David Williams, he asked, “What’s the ground for this? Paul condemns homosexuality.”

It seems that Spong’s rejection of the literal interpretation of the Bible forces him to insert the wanderings of his own imagination. If he accepted the Scripture at face value, he would find the simple answer to Paul’s motivation: “The love of Christ controls us” — not a gay relationship. Paul’s conversion to Christ on the Damascus Road was the sole reason for his zeal to promote Christ’s gospel. To attribute it to epilepsy, as Spong does, is fanciful speculation without a basis in fact. With his weak view of Scripture and anti-supernatural bias, it is not surprising that he also rejects the virgin birth of Christ.

While Bishop Spong has aimed his theological canons at fundamentalism in 1991, his hypotheses are old-time theological liberalism in a new garb. These hypotheses have been successfully refuted in books such as George Eldon Ladd’s The New Testament and Criticism. Ladd concludes that

An evangelical (fundamentalist) understanding of the Bible as the Word of God is not per se hostile to a sober criticism; rather, an evangelical faith demands a critical methodology in the reconstruction of the historical side of the process of revelation. [5]

Rather than rescuing the Bible from fundamentalism, Spong would be better advised to rescue himself from the view of Scripture that distorts the natural meaning of the text. Clergy with his view are helping to empty the mainline churches. Fundamentalism is growing because it takes God at his literal word, proclaims the Gospel of freedom from bondage and oppression through a relationship with Jesus Christ. Anything less is a distortion of the Gospel truth.

Notes:

1. This manuscript was submitted to The Canberra Times, Canberra, ACT, Australia, for consideration for publication as a response to Robert Macklin’s article, “The Gospel Truth?”, The Canberra Times (Sunday, August 4, 1991, p. 17). It was published as “Distorting the Gospel Truth,” The Canberra Times, August 11, 1991, p. 10. At that time I was Senior Minister of Woden Valley (Waramanga) and Tuggeranong Alliance Churches, ACT (Canberra), Australia.

2. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett Books, 1985. (The USA edition was published by Adler & Adler).

3. John Warwick Montgomery, History & Christianity: A Vigorous, convincing Presentation of the Evidence for a Historical Jesus. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1965, p. 26. Military historian, C. Sanders, said that these tests were bibliographical, internal, and external (see C. Sanders, Introduction to Research in English Literary History. NewYork: Macmillan, 1952, pp. 143 ff. In Montgomery, pp. 26ff)

4. Clark Pinnock, Set Forth Your Case. New Jersey: The Craig Press, 1968, p. 58, in Josh McDowell, More Than A Carpenter. Eastbourne, E. Sussex (England): Kingsway Publications, 1977, p. 56. [The USA edition was published by Tyndale House Publishers, 1977.]

5. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament (F. F. Bruce, Gen. Ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971, pp. 9, 15.

6. George Eldon Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967, p. 215.


Copyright (c) 2007 Spencer D. Gear.  This document last updated at Date: 11 October 2015.

Spong’s swan song — at last! [1]

By Spencer D Gear

John Shelby Spong (public domain)

blue-corrosion-arrow-smallReview & Analysis: John Shelby Spong, A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith Is Dying and How a New Faith Is Being Born. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001

This is a shocker! It is vintage Spong – extremely readable but heretical at its heart! He throws out core Christian beliefs such as the atonement (an “offensive idea”, p. 10) and the bodily resurrection of Christ, yet still wants to say: “I am a Christian. I believe that God is real. I call Jesus my Lord. Yet I do not define God as a supernatural being. I believe passionately in God. This God is not identified with doctrines, creeds, and traditions” (pp. 3, 64, 74).

blue-corrosion-arrow-smallHe rejoices that “the blinding idolatry of traditional theism [read, supernatural Christianity] has finally departed from my life” (p. 74). More than that, he proclaims, “Theism is dead, I joyfully proclaim, but God is real” (p.77).

Spong’s version of God

But what kind of God is he or it? He admits that his God-experience is a “God-concept that I grope to find words to convey” (p. 76). He’s not the only one groping. Throughout the book’s 276 pages, I tried to understand what Spong’s God was like, but all I could conclude was that this mystical “God-experience” is filled with unique Spongian content.

For prayer, he proposes “substitute words” that have been identified down through the centuries “with the mystical disciplines of spiritual development—words such as meditation and contemplation” that will include “centering prayer” and breathing exercises (p. 193).

He’s against evangelism and missionary enterprises, the latter being “base-born, rejecting, negative, and yes, I would even say evil” (p. 178). This shocking redefinition of missions as “evil” is associated with his universalism and theory that “we possess neither certainty nor eternal truth” (p. 179).

What would cause him to come to conclusions that are so contrary to classical Christianity? He’s all for life and love because they “transcend all boundaries” but “exclusive religious propaganda can no longer be sustained. The idea that Jesus is the only way to God or that only those who have been washed in the blood of Christ are ever to be listed among the saved, has become anathema [a curse] and even dangerous in our shrinking world” (p. 179).

Beginning at the conclusion

When we throw out the Scriptures as the standard for theology, where do we go for answers? Here we have a new kind of religion, out of the minds of Spong himself and his friends. Their goal is to try to tell the world through the mass media and extensive publications that conservative, Bible-believing (“fundamentalist” is his term) Christians are out of touch for a postmodern, scientific world. When a religion comes out of the mind of Spong, it means that almost anything goes, religiously.

Spong claims that theism is dead. Is this true? He has not provided concrete evidence of churches supporting supernatural Christianity that are dying and his breed are growing. As we shall see, the facts do not support the death of theism. It’s the other way round. Spongism is killing faith and churches.

Spong’s first chapter is titled, “A Place to Begin”, but he begins with his conclusions. That’s cheating! His assumptions are: God is not a being; there is no literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead or a literal star at the birth of Jesus or a virgin birth — that’s mythology! There’s no ascension of Jesus Christ and Christ did not found a church. We are not born sinful. The fall into sin by Adam and Eve is mythical. Women are not less human and less holy than men (I agree!). Homosexuals are not morally depraved; the Bible is not the literal word of God and certainly is not inspired. Forget about absolute Christian ethics because “time makes ancient good uncouth” (p. 6). The colour of one’s skin or ethnic background does not constitute grounds for making one superior or inferior (I agree!). This kind of teaching amounts to Spong’s conclusions, but he claims it is where he begins.

The heresy continues with his repudiation of baptism and the commemoration of the Lord’s Supper. “Since the diagnosis (sinful human nature) was wrong, the prescribed cure (atonement) cannot be right.” Since the fall into sin is a wrong diagnosis, baptism “to wash away the effects of a fall into sin that never occurred is inappropriate.” As for the eucharist, this “reenactment of a sacrifice . . . becomes theological nonsense” (p. 124).

Jesus redefined

Spong’s primary question to answer in this book is: “Can a person claim with integrity to be a Christian and at the same time dismiss, as I have done, so much of what has traditionally defined the content of the Christian faith?” (p. 7) He sees his “task of seeking to redefine Jesus” as something that he does not take “easily or lightly” (p. 130).

Spong raises the question of whether he can be a person of integrity in his answer to Jesus’ question, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the son of the living God” (Matt. 16:15-16).

Spong answers with further questions, “Is it still possible for me to use these same words? How flexible are they? How open to new meanings? Is it honest to wrench these words out of that past and to open them to new meanings?” His reply is, “I believe that it is. Words change” (p. 130). But he also is aware that he might be open to the charge that the “genuine reformation of Christianity” that he is seeling may be understood that he is “deluded and in my suppressed fear attempting to hid from or to cover up the death of Christianity” (p. 130).

In the early history of the church when it was fighting for doctrinal survival and the promotion of orthodoxy, it took a hard line on false doctrine. If Spong had been Arius, Apollinarius, Eutyches or Nestorius in the early centuries of the Christian church, his views on the nature of Christ and other doctrines, would have been condemned at a General Council of the Church such as at Nicea, Ephesus, Constantinople or Chalcedon.

But not so with Spong! Even though the Episcopal Church USA did not denounce his views as heretical, the former Archbishop of Brisbane, Peter Hollingworth (now Governor General of Australia), prevented his preaching in Brisbane Anglican churches on Spong’s visit to Australia in 2001. Instead, he spoke in Uniting Churches.

Space limitations prevent a refutation of Spong’s view in support of the genetic cause of homosexuality, that it is “more like left-handedness”. He considers those evangelical organisations that advertise that “they can cure homosexuality” are “not just ignorant, but actually fraudulent” (p. 14). Sexual orientations are “morally neutral” and he “cannot imagine being part of a church that discriminates against gay and lesbian people on the basis of their being” (p. 6). There is contrary scientific and biblical evidence to this view.

What is Spong’s biggest beef with the church? He can’t stand “the literal way that human beings have chosen to articulate that faith” (p. 7). Instead, he wants to continue as part of the church as “I seek the God-experience” (p. 8). Pity help me if I read his book with the same disdain for literal interpretation as he gives to the Bible.

Why would Spong believe that theism is dead? He wraps it in a package with his commitment to Darwinian evolution. The survival of the fittest means that we must move beyond supernatural Christianity to a more modern view – his view. Spongism enlarges on the ideas of people like his mentor and theological liberal, the late John A. T. Robinson, who wrote an assault on biblical Christianity in 1963, Honest to God. What was the bud in Robinson is in full bloom in Spong.

He says that it will “probably be the final theological book of my life and career” (p. xxi) – his swan song at last! I almost shouted, Praise the Lord, except that I know that his kind of “radically reformed Christianity” (p. 18) will continue with others and get continuing mass media coverage.

What are the characteristics of Spong’s new Christianity? The fundamentals are gone. He throws out the inspired and literal Scripture, the miraculous virgin birth, Christ as the substitutionary sacrifice for our sins, the physical bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the Second Coming of Christ (p. 2).

The church of tomorrow

What will his “ecclesia (church) of tomorrow” look like? The supernatural is out. There will be no singing praises to a theistic deity. “I treat the language of worship like I treat the language of love. It is primitive, excessive, flowery, poetic, evocative. No one really believes it literally” (p. 204). There will be his ill-defined, mystical “God-experience”. We could do that in a mosque, temple, synagogue, holy place, or ecclesia (his preferred word). There will be no confessing our sins to a “parental judge” (p. 206). There will be no literalised faith story. It will “never claim that it already possesses truth by divine revelation” (p. 214).

The ecclesia of the future will be a place for “Catholic and Protestant, orthodox and heretic, liberal and evangelical, Jew and Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu” and where worship of this “god” will not be “bounded by our formulas, our creeds, our doctrines, our liturgies, or even our Bible, but still real, infinitely real” (p. 214). God is not a personal being, not even the highest being but the one he experiences as “the Ground and Source of All Being and therefore the presence that calls me to step beyond every boundary” (pp. 59-60). This is the rejuvenated liberalism of Paul Tillich.

This new community, the ecclesia, “must be able to allow God and Satan to come together in each of us. It must allow light and darkness to be united. It must bind good and evil into one. It must unite Christ with Anti-Christ, Jesus with Judas, male with female, heterosexual with homosexual” (p. 167).

This is a church built in cloud cuckoo land – out of the minds of Spong and his friends! It is beyond radical. It is blasphemous!

Is theism dead?

What’s the truth about the death of theism? Wherever theological liberalism has taken hold, church numbers have crashed. Based on The Episcopal Church Annual (USA), membership fell from a high of 3.6 million baptised Episcopalians in 1965, to 2.3 million in 1997– a loss of fully one-third of its membership (based on Crew, 2001). The average Sunday attendance in the year 1998 was 843,213 (Fairfield, 2001). Two years later (the year 2000), it had further declined to 839,760 (Crew, 2001a). The Episcopal Church USA has shown “30 years of membership decline and over a million members lost” (Episcopal Action, 2001; see also Crew, 2001). “Mainline [church] membership is down (by nearly 6 million members) since 1965” in the USA. “More than 20 million Americans still hold membership in mainline churches. The largest mainline denominations are the United Methodist Church, with 8.7 million members; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, with 5.2 million members; the Presbyterian Church (USA), with 2.6 million members; the Episcopal Church, with 2.5 million members; and the American Baptist Churches USA and the United Church of Christ, each with 1.5 million members” (Wuthnow, 2001).

Jeffrey Walton’s assessment of the decline in the USA Episcopal Church was:

The 2013 reporting year saw a continuation of the downward trend, with a membership drop of 27,423 to 1,866,758 (1.4 percent) while attendance dropped 16,451 to 623,691 (2.6 percent). A net 45 parishes were closed, and the denomination has largely ceased to plant new congregations.

The new numbers do not factor in the departure of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, of which the church continues to report over 28,000 members and over 12,000 attendees, despite the majority of South Carolina congregations severing their relationship with the Episcopal Church at the end of 2012. If South Carolina departures were factored in, the membership loss would be closer to 50,000 persons’ (Walton 2014).

According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (David Barrett), worldwide “around 17 million people become church members each year through conversion, and some 7 million leave the church.” This leaves an annual net growth of approx. 10 million people. We would love to see more, but this is hard evidence against Spong’s death of theism (Long, 1998).

There are some other strong indicators that Jesus is alive and well and the church is growing. In the Ukraine, in the past three years, some 70 new house churches have been planted in Crimea, most in places previously without a church (Ukraine, 2001).

In the city of Xinjiang, China, there were 20-30 small churches with about 300 believers in 1994. Through courage, vision and the Lord’s direction, five couples have been used to enable rapid growth. Over a period of three years, the growth has been so strong that there are now almost 500 churches with about 100,000 members in four districts. This growth has so concerned the Government that it has infiltrated the churches, persecuted the believers, and gone on television, accusing the groups of being a cult (China, 2001).

During the last 10 years of the “Decade of Harvest” among the Nigerian Assemblies of God in Africa, there has been extraordinary growth. The church has not only gained 1.2 million new members, but also ordained 5,026 new pastors and planted 4,044 new churches in Nigeria. The emphasis on reaching previously unreached people groups led to 75 churches being planted in areas previously untouched by Christianity (Nigeria, 2001).

The Pew Research Center has found this about Pentecostal and charismatic church growth in Nigeria:

The Forum’s 2006 pentecostal survey suggests that renewalists – including charismatics and pentecostals – account for approximately three-in-ten Nigerians. The survey also finds that roughly six-in-ten Protestants in Nigeria are either pentecostal or charismatic, and three-in-ten Nigerian Catholics surveyed can be classified as charismatic (Pew Research Center 2006).

Worldwide, the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement has grown from no adherents in 1901 to “well over 420,000,000 persons in 1993” (Synan, 2006). Yet Spong has the audacity to say that “Christianity as we have known it increasingly displays signs of rigor mortis [the stiffness of death]” (p. 8).

Lee Grady wrote that:

Third-World Christianity kept growing. There are now about 600 million Christians in Africa. Protestant Christianity grew 600 percent in Vietnam in the last decade. In China, where a 50,000-member megachurch was raided in Shanxi province a few weeks ago, there are now an estimated 130 million churchgoers.

“We have no reason to fear the future. Whatever challenges loom ahead, the same God who carried us through this past decade will give us sucess in the next one.”

Astounding church growth has occurred in Guatemala, Brazil, India and Ethiopia. In Nepal, which had no Christians in 1960, there are now a half-million believers. The Christian population of Indonesia has mushroomed from 1.3 million to 11 million in 40 years.

Smug scholars in Europe and the United States love to cite Islam as the world’s fastest-growing religion, but observers know the facts: Christianity, while waning especially in Europe, is growing faster than ever in the Southern hemisphere. Philip Jenkins, who wrote The Next Christendom in 2002, declared: “The center of gravity has moved to the global south. So if we’re looking for the religion that is going to affect the largest number of lives in the 21st century, it is almost certainly going to be Christianity (Grady 2015).

There certainly are areas where the Christian church is showing significant decline, especially in the Western world. About 100 years ago, Wales experienced a heaven-sent revival. The proportion of the total Welsh population attending church has declined from 14.6% in 1982 to 8.7% in 1995. This report went on to say that “the Church in Wales congregations (Anglicans) report that there has been a slight increase in the size of their congregations in the last five years [i.e. prior to 1997]. The report also found that Churches identifying themselves as Anglo-Catholic or Broad, or Charismatic were growing the most” (Wales, 1997).

Many of these statistics on church growth were obtained from the DAWN website.

Spong’s dislike of evangelicals

Spong is not interested in “confronting or challenging those conservative, fundamentalist elements of Christianity that are so prevalent today.”  Why? He believes they will “die of their own irrelevance” as they cling “to attitudes of the past that are simply withering on the vine” (p. 12).

He goes to great lengths in denigrating traditional, evangelical Christianity, even to the point of making blasphemous statements such as these: “I am free of the God who was deemed to be incomplete unless constantly receiving our endless praises; the God who required that we acknowledge ourselves as born in sin and therefore as helpless; the God who seemed to delight in punishing sinners; the God who, we were told, gloried in our childlike, groveling dependency. Worshiping that theistic God did not allow us to grow into the new humanity” (p. 75).

Among Spong’s 205 items in his bibliography, there is not one that refutes his views or presents a scholarly evangelical perspective. I looked for Don Carson, William Lane Craig, Ben Witherington III., N. T. Wright, J. P. Moreland, Ravi Zacharias, Australia’s Paul Barnett, and other leading defenders of the evangelical faith., but they were absent. Dixon and Torrey’s, The Fundamentals, is included but Spong’s overall thrust is to denigrate these essentials of Bible-believing faith.

Early church leader of the fourth century, Augustine of Hippo, gets a mention because Spong believes he is seeking “some experience inside my life” that “is that restlessness about which Augustine spoke that remains unresolved until we rest in God” (p. 193). I think Augustine would turn over in his grave if he considered his restlessness was anything akin to Spong’s mystical inner experience.

His partners in postmodern theological liberalism from the “Jesus Seminar” and other liberals are everywhere – John Crossan, Marcus Borg, Robert Funk, Michael Goulder, John Hick, John A. T. Robinson, Paul Tillich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Don Cupitt. Spongism is one-eyed religion that is intolerant of opposing views, especially those of the “fundamentalists”.

Spong’s religion linked to death

God’s church is being persecuted around the world, but is showing growth internationally. Spong’s thesis is dead in the water. It is his ideology, a la John A. T. Robinson, radical theological liberalism, that kills churches.

The Episcopalians of Spong’s diocese voted with their feet while he was bishop there. One report said that

Spong [had] been the Episcopal Bishop of Newark [New Jersey] since 1976. He has presided over one of the most rapid witherings of any diocese in the Episcopal Church [USA]. The most charitable assessment shows that Newark’s parish membership rolls have evaporated by more than 42 percent. Less charitable accounts put the rate at over 50 percent. (Lasley, 1999).

What can we learn from Spong?

Is there anything of value for evangelicals in reading Spong? I exhort leaders to be familiar with his views for several reasons:

1.    These kinds of perspectives will continue to command mass media coverage. On his recent Australian visit, there were articles by Spong in The Agenewspaper, Melbourne (eg., Spong, 2001), The Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney. There also was significant television and radio coverage. You must know the enemy.

2.    For the sake of all Christians committed to the Gospel, but especially for the young, we need a strong apologetic against his views — from the pulpit and in other teaching ministries. Spong sees “a new portrait of Jesus” (p. 131). It’s an heretical view against which there is a substantial refutation in the Almighty Lord God, the Christ of the cross, the God-breathed and inspired Bible, and the living Christ (through the Spirit), who lives in every true believer and among the people of God. The ministry of apologetics has fallen on hard times in many churches and Bible-training institutions in Australia. This must change with this new breed of Bible-bashers from the liberal theological establishment.

3.    What’s the truth? Evangelical, Bible-believing Christianity is growing throughout the world, not Spong’s brand of “Christianity”.  Spong’s views need to be refuted with solid evidence.

4.    Spong has a point when he says that “most churches will die of boredom long before they die of controversy” (p. 125). Solid biblical teaching must communicate with today’s generation. I observe that some of today’s preaching is boring. This is a call to vigilance in the training of pastor-teachers and the practice of preaching that connects with people.

5.    Christ always is relevant to any people, but sometimes the dirge of the church service turns people off. I believe Spong is correct in observing, “For vast numbers of modern people, including modern religious people, the church is less and less an option” (p. 126). We must investigate why this is so, especially in the West, and begin to address it — immediately. Examining what we do is often difficult for the church. This must change. Does Spong have a point when he says that “premodern symbols do not work in a postmodern world. To do nothing is to vote for death” (p. 126)?

6.    The time is long overdue for the church to become more proactive in addressing some of the big questions of today. Spong does this from his liberal theological view. Some of the big questions include: Why is suicide becoming an option for more people, especially the young? Why is divorce on the rise? How can the church help with better parenting in families? Is the Bible trustworthy for a modern world? How can I be genuinely Christian in a multicultural Australia? What does it mean to proclaim “Jesus is Lord”? Why are evangelicals not as strong as the liberals in the areas of social responsibility? Is the CEO pastor biblical? When we gather as a church, why are most Christians mute? What can we do about teenage rebellion? Is there a biblical perspective on the use of drugs? Is the Holy Spirit too often just a force to be noticed for some Christians? How can relevant Christianity be communicated without froth and bubble or dry irrelevance?

Spong does not want to deal with conservative, fundamentalist Christianity, and believes that it has no application to life today. He comments that “nowhere is this better seen than when one observes how the word Christianis used in our contemporary world” (p. 12). This is the pot calling the kettle black! It is Spong who has demolished the Bible’s definition of a Christian.

Yet he thinks his views are the future of faith, a new Christianity for a new world! Welcome to Spongism, “Christianity” with a killer instinct.

Endnotes:

1.  A version of this article was published in the British magazine, Vanguard, June 2002.

Works consulted

China 2001. 100,000 new believers in Xinjiang in 3 years, Pulpit Helps, September.Available at: http://www.pulpithelps.com/www/docs/988-5476 (Accessed 31 March 2015)

Crew, L 2001. Charting the Episcopal Church (online). Available at: http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/chartecusa.html (Accessed 4 November 2001). This URL unavailable online, 31 March 2015.

Crew, L 2001a Growth and decline in ECUSA [Episcopalian Church USA] attendance, 1991-2000 (online). .Available at: http://www.andromeda/rutgers.edu/~/lcrew/growthdecline90-00.html (Accessed November 17, 2001). URL unavailable online, 31 March 2015.

Episcopal Action [The Institute on Religion and Democracy] 2001. Available at: http://www.ird-renew.org/Episcopal/Episcopalmain.cfm (Accessed November 14, 2001). URL unavailable, 31 March 2015.

Fairfield, L. P. 2001. Modernist decline and biblical renewal: The Episcopal Church from 1870-2000,” American Anglican Council. January 24. Available at: http://www.americananglican.org/Issues/Issues.dfm?ID-91 (Accessed October 15, 2001). URL unavailable, 31 March 2015.

Grady, J L 2009. Where is God going? Seven spiritual trends of the ‘00 decade. Charisma magazine (online), 29 December. Available at: http://www.charismamag.com/blogs/fire-in-my-bones/8433-where-is-god-going-seven-spiritual-trends-of-the-00-decade (Accessed 31 March 2015).

Lasley, D. M. 1999. Rescuing Christianity from Bishop Kevorkian, review of John Shelby Spong’s, Why Christianity Must Change or Die, for Anglican Voice (online) , posted June 2 1999. Available at: http://www.anglicanvoice.org/voice/spong0699.htm (Accessed November 4, 2001). On 31 March 2015 it was available as, ‘Rescuing Christianity from Bishop Kevorkian – A Baptist looks at Spong’, David Virtue (June 2, 1999). Available at: http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/1999-June/000415.html (Accessed 31 March 2015).

Long, J. 1998. World Christian Encyclopedia:David Barrett (Assoc. Ed.). Worldwide statistics plus news from Bulgaria, Chile, Brazil, DAWN Fridayfax 1998 #04. Available at: http://www.jesus.org.uk/dawn/1998/dawn9804.html (Accessed November 4, 2001). URL unavailable, 31 March 2015.

Nigeria 2001. Assemblies of God plant 4,044 new churches in 10 years, DAWN Fridayfax 2001#3 (online). Available at: http://www.jesus.org.uk/dawn/2001/dawn03.html (Source: AoG news, January 3, 2001) (Accessed November 14, 2001). URL unavailable, 31 March 2015.

Pew Research Center 2006. Historical overview of Pentecostalism in Nigeria (online), October 5. Available at: http://www.pewforum.org/2006/10/05/historical-overview-of-pentecostalism-in-nigeria/ (Accessed 31 March 2015).

Spong, J. S. 2001. Meditation on the reason for prayer. The Age, October 6. Available at: http://theage.com.au/news/state/2001/10/06/FFXAEOBCFSC.html (Accessed October 11, 2001). The URL was unavailable, 31 March 2015.

Synan, V. 2006. The origins of the Pentecostal movement. Holy Spirit Research Center (Oral Roberts University). Available at: http://www.oru.edu/library/special_collections/holy_spirit_research_center/pentecostal_history.php (Accessed 31 March 2015).

Ukraine 2001. 70 new house churches in the Crimea. National Pastors’ Prayer Network: Global Update (online), 13 July. Available at: http://www.nppn.org/images/GlobalNews/Global07132001.htm#a21 (Accessed 31 March 2015).

Wales 1997. Church decline generally but slight increase for Anglicans, Anglican Communion News Service (ACNS), 7 March. Available at: www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnsarchive/acns1100/acns1153.html (Accessed 3 November 2001).

Walton, J 2014. Episcopal church continues shedding members. Juicy Ecumenism: The Institute on Religion & Democracy’s Blog (online), October 14. Available at: http://juicyecumenism.com/2014/10/14/episcopal-church-continues-shedding-members/ (Accessed 31 March 2015).

Wuthnow, R 2001). Still toeing the mainline.  Available at: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/31/story_3171_1.html (Accessed November 14, 2001).


Copyright (c) 2007 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated, 7 October 2015.

6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small

God’s view of sex

Free From Jail ChristArt

1.  Freedom

There’s a lot of talk these days about sexual freedom. What is freedom? Freedom to do anything? The apostle Paul to the Corinthians explains in I Corinthians 6:12-13 (New English Bible):

‘I am free to do anything’, you say. Yes, but not everything is for my good. No doubt I am free to do anything, but I for one will not let anything make free with me. “Food is for the belly and the belly for food”, you say. True; and one day God will put an end to both. But it is not true that the body is for lust; it is for the Lord‘ (emphasis added).

  The Bible is clear:

  • ‘You shall not commit adultery’ (Ex 20:14;  Mt 5:27; Rom 13:9);
  • ‘Flee from sexual immorality’ (1 Cor 6:18);
  • Romans 1:26-27 speaks of homosexuality as involving ‘dishonorable passions’ and ‘shameful acts’; the sexual relations between a man and a woman are called ‘natural relations’ (ESV).

6pointblue-small God, being God, does not have to explain his commands, yet he chose to do so. In I Corinthians 6:13 he tells us why premarital and extramarital heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are wrong: “But it is not true that the body is for lust [i.e. fornication/sexual immorality]; it is for the Lord.”

2.  Purpose

God defines freedom according to the purpose for which something is designed or made: “The body is not meant for sexual immorality” (I Cor. 6:13 NIV). The world in which we live is one where everything has a design and function. John White’s explanation helped me:

You don’t set a fish free from the ocean (poor fish! so confined and restricted!) or birds from the necessity of flight. Birds were designed to fly and fish to swim. They are freest when they are doing what they were designed to do. In the same way your body was not designed for premarital sex [or extramarital sex or homosexual sex] and will never be truly free when you engage in it. . .

The experience of freedom has to do with being loved and loving. God designed you because he loved you. His purposes for you are an expression of his love to you. And as you respond in love to his commands (about sex or anything else) you are set free, free to be and to do what both you and God want. The more completely you are enslaved to his blessed will, the freer you will discover yourself to be (White 1997: 46-47).

I don’t think the best question to ask is: When are sexual relations wrong? But, when are they right? God is very clear, and we are told our purpose, sexually, from the beginning of creation. From creation, God said and we need to understand it for a God-honouring sexual relationship. We can conclude this from God’s description of creation in the early chapters of Genesis:

1. Gen 1:27: Human beings are created spiritual beings, “in the image of God”. God is spirit.

2. Gen 1:27: “Male and female he created them”. God’s revealed will is heterosexuality, from the beginning of creation.

3. Gen 1:28: “God blessed them [male and female] and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth.” Sexual intercourse is a gift of God and God’s purpose is that it involves male and female.” One purpose of sexual intercourse is to have children.

4. Gen 1:31: “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” Sex (between male and female) is very good in God’s sight.

5. Gen 2:18: “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.'” God brought the animals and birds to Adam to name, “but for Adam no suitable helper was found” (Gen 2:20). So “the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and brought her to the man.” (2:22). And what was the man’s response? “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’, for she was taken out of man” (2:23). That phrase “this is now” could be paraphrased “Wolf whistle”. Man was alone; he needed completion, but that did not come with an animal, nor with another man, but with a woman. Sexuality involves more than behaviour. “It is not good for the man to be alone.” There is a deep yearning for intimacy, connection with another–not a lustful, seductive encounter.

As a former homosexual, Andrew Comiskey explains that this yearning

grows from that God-inspired desire within each of us to break out of the walls of the lone self and merge with another human being. Intercourse is only one expression of this merging…

Sexuality involves longing and desire. The body longs for human touch; the soul desires a companion to ease its aloneness. Such yearning is not a concession to our fallenness. According to the Bible, God deemed Adam–prior to the fall–as not suited to being alone (see Gen. 2:18). The Creator shaped a complement for Adam to provide for his unique emotional and physical needs, as well as for hers… Although Adam and Eve had clear access to God, He realized they needed something more. So He provided for each the gift of the other” (Comiskey (1989:37).

3.  Genesis 2:24 and sexual bonding

This topic has the potential of being controversial. I know from the last 17 years as a full time counsellor and counselling manager (recently retired). When I’ve raised the topic with secular counsellors, they don’t know how to respond as they don’t experience some of these dimensions in counselling.

Why? Their world and life view does not even allow them to get close to asking some of the questions to draw a couple out on this issue. Only occasionally would a couple raise this matter voluntarily with me, but they sure knew how to put one another down if sex wasn’t fulfilling in their relationship (someone, it was alleged, wasn’t performing as he/she ought).

However, I would approach the topic for couples in a rocky relationship with some specific open-ended questions. With the right questions, people have opened up lots for me over the years in therapy.

But very few therapists I have worked with deal with this issue.Let’s get to some biblical basics to help us see what happens in sexual relationships and bonding,

There is more to the creation account in Genesis that has contemporary relevance in a secular society.

Genesis 2:24 states, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’ (ESV).

“One flesh” is a powerful symbol of this heterosexual coming together between a man and a woman in marriage. In the act of sexual intercourse, the male and female merge bodies and souls with a bonding that is difficult to describe. However, when this sexual union is ruined through promiscuity, people know it and they’ve told it to me in counselling in various ways down through the years.

Here, one husband unites with one wife to become one flesh. This is monogamous heterosexual marriage which is God’s design for ultimate satisfaction and benefit in marriage. What does it mean for a man and a woman in the sexual relationship to ‘become one flesh’?

Let’s hear from a couple of Hebrew exegetes and how they explain it:

  • H C Leupold: ‘”Becoming one flesh” involves the complete identification of one personality with the other in a community of interests and pursuits, a union consummated in intercourse’ (Leupold 1942:137).
  • C F Keil & F Delitzsch: Genesis 2:24 is

to exhibit marriage as the deepest corporeal and spiritual unity of man and woman, and to hold up monogamy before the eyes of the people of Israel as the form of marriage ordained by God. But as the words of Moses, they are the utterance of divine revelation; and Christ could quote them, therefore, as the word of God (Matt. xix.5). By the leaving of mother and father, which applies to the woman as well as the man, the conjugal union is shown to be a spiritual oneness, a vital communion of heart as well as of body, in which it finds its consummation. This union is of a totally different nature from that of parents and children…. Marriage itself, notwithstanding the fact that it demands the leaving of father and mother, is a holy appointment of God (Keil & Delitzsch n d:90-91).

So important is this ‘one flesh’ union (bonding) of a man and a woman in sexual intercourse of one man for one woman that Jesus repeats it in Matthew 19:5. This sexual consummation is critical to an understanding of God’s view of marriage. In this biblical aspect of marriage, the only thing that should fracture this union and longevity is sexual infidelity (see Matt 5;31-32; 19:3-12; Mark 10:7-9). Sexual unfaithfulness is one of the reasons for divorce according to Matthew. First Corinthians 7 gives another.

3.  My observations as a counsellor

I obviously will not be giving confidential information from my 34 years of counselling. But I will note some trends that I noticed in counselling with people who have been in multiple sexual relationships:

  • For many men it is not difficult to have an orgasm. However, many men want the woman to have an orgasmic experience to identify with pleasure and for him to feel fulfilled;
  • After multiple sex partners, there is often a lack of sexual responses in both male and female, but especially with the female; orgasmic experiences are difficult to have.
  • This is because God designed sexual intercourse with a purpose: It should be one man for one woman in sexual union as a bonding, one flesh, experience. One flesh is a deeper union than being a sexual mate.  When that is violated time after time through sexual union with many partners, there is an inner ‘tearing’ of the human being – the soul – that takes place.
  • Practically speaking, this makes it difficult to maintain a healthy sex life and leads to the break down in relationships between a man and a woman. So there is break up after break up in relationships. Multiple sex partners will lead to fragile relationships. They cannot last. That’s because God’s purpose is a ‘one flesh’ relationship between a man and a woman in marriage. I’ve had to deal with men and women weeping bitterly because they cannot get deep satisfaction in the sexual relationship and that flows into the cohabitation/defacto relationship they are having. Break ups then happen. And sometimes there are children who suffer in this trauma.
  • When a secular society promotes freedom to the extent of anything goes in sex – and there is no understanding of the intimate bonding between a man and a woman – there is a natural progression that happens. Sexual relationships break up and the promiscuous cycle goes on and on.
  • Is there a solution? God’s salvation through repentance and forgiveness in Christ brings healing? But too often there are residual thought patterns and hurt that can influence future relationships. Continuous healing is necessary.
  • I pray that this kind of message can get through to youth before their first sexual encounter. The bonding in the sexual relationship is a God-given union that should take place between one man and one woman in marriage. Warn our youth about the consequences of promiscuity. Sexual freedom leads to sexual bondage when fuelled by a secular worldview.
  • And I haven’t discussed the tragedy of contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD), including HIV.
  • Therefore, ‘necking’ is a dangerous sexual ‘sport’ to play as our emotions lead from one thing to another and before long an illicit sexual relationship is formed. It is extremely difficult to convince youth of the dangers of necking and illicit sex – especially with the availability of condoms and contraceptives.
  • However, illicit sex is dangerous to long-term sexual satisfaction in marriage.
  • Please understand that what I have written above will be challenged by secular psychologists and counsellors who do not understand the deep nature of God’s purpose in sexual intercourse, of bonding through one man for one woman. I have tried to share this with some counsellors and it zooms past them.

God upholds healthy, heterosexual, monogamous relationships as His intention for us. But Genesis 3 tells how the male-female relationship fell from innocence. The entry of sin into the human race caused sexuality to become depraved. All of us are sexually vulnerable. As a result, the heterosexual relationships are just as fallen as homosexual tendencies. So we have a world invaded by fornication (premarital sex), adultery, incest, bestiality, homosexuality, polygamy, polyamory, etc. Andrew Comiskey explains:

God never intended for man or woman to seek completion in the same sex. Thus, homosexual pursuit of erotic and emotional bonding violates something basic to our humanity. The Creator, in His inspired Scriptures, has shown that homosexual feelings and behaviors must be identified as resulting from the fall. Homosexuality is one of the many sexual disorders that have become woven into the fabric of sinful humanity (1989:43).This is one example of sexual brokenness. Our only hope for wholeness (to truly love others) is a restored relationship with the Almighty Creator God, through Jesus Christ. When united to Christ, “we grasp our true sexual identity. Our sexual desires must encounter the greater reality of [God] Himself” (Comiskey 1989:13). The God-inspired “longing to connect and ultimately merge with another defines our sexuality” (Comiskey 1989:13). But the whole human race living in sin confuses it.

 

Works consulted

Comiskey, A 1989. Pursuing sexual wholeness. Lake Mary, Florida: Creation House.

Keil, C F & Delitzsch, F n d. Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch, vol 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Leupold, H C 1942. Exposition of Genesis, vol 1. London: Evangelical Press.

White, J  1977. Eros defiled. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

 

Copyright (c) 2007 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at 14 October 2015.

6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small6pointblue-small