Yearly Archives: 2011

Believer’s baptism or infant baptism?

Evangelical Protestant baptism by immersion (Wikipedia)

Baptism of a child by affusion, (Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

Should infants be baptised or is baptism only for believing adults? Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and some Protestant churches advocate and practise infant baptism. Baptists, many Pentecostals, Churches of Christ (Australia) and some other denominations consider baptism is only for Christians who have believed in Christ for salvation. Which is it?

But let me say at the outset that this is not core Christian doctrine. I will not use baptism as a divisive issue to separate Christians who love the Lord.

I was doing some posts on Christian Fellowship Forum and I stated: “Infant baptism is an addition from about the third century onwards”.[1] Tertullian was the first to mention infant baptism around AD 200 (see below).

Richard wrote:

“Unproven statement. Some evidence to the contrary exists, particularly the Biblical evidence that whole households were baptised, which would likely include infants. There is no evidence that a whole household excluded young children.

“You may want to maintain your position based on your doctrinal understanding, but you do not have a historically sound basis for it. Likewise, I may want to maintain my position, and I do have hints of a historical basis for it, although those hints do not rise to the level of historical proof”.[2]

Since he and his church (Roman Catholic) are advocates of and practise infant baptism, I expected this kind of response. I was baptised as an infant by my religious, but not born-again, parents in the Methodist church. When they came to faith in Christ in 1959, through the preaching ministry of Billy Graham, they investigated infant vs believer’s baptism. Why? The weight of evidence from the Scriptures supports believer’s baptism. When I came to faith in Christ alone for salvation, I investigated this issue and was baptised as a believer by immersion – even though I had been sprinkled as an infant.

This debate has been going on for centuries, so I am well aware of the baptism issues: infant baptism vs believer’s baptism. I’m aware of the “household” advocacy to include children in baptism that Richard was using (Reformed people will use the covenantal issue). Let’s look at the NT evidence.

A. New Testament precedent

The Book of Acts demonstrates by example that those who were believers, following a confession of faith, were baptised. In the early chapters of Acts we read:

“Those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41 ESV).[3]
“But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12).

B. Household baptisms

Do household baptisms indicate that infants are included? We have three confirmed cases of “household” baptisms in the NT and one where there is a strong inference that an entire household was included. The implied inference is that of Cornelius (Acts 10:47-48; 11:14). Those of definite household baptism are: Lydia (Acts 16:15), the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:33-34, and Stephanas in 1 Cor. 1:16. The argument has been going on for centuries as to whether these “households” included children.

Let’s examine these:

1. Cornelius (Acts 10:47-48; 11:14)

We know from Acts 11:14 that Peter “he will declare to you [Cornelius] a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household” (ESV). However, we know that infants could not have been included in the household because Acts 10:46 tells us that when Peter preached the Word and the Holy Spirit fell on them and they were speaking in tongues and extolling God (ESV). Then they were commanded to be baptised.

This could NOT have included infants because they could not speak in tongues and magnify the Lord by speaking. Peter commanded those who spoke in tongues and extolled the Lord to be baptised. This is impossible for infants. As I say, it is a strong inference from Acts 11:14 that those who spoke in tongues and praised the Lord were Cornelius and his household. If that inference is correct, there is no way that these believers could have been infants. Therefore, no infants could be baptised.

2. Lydia (Acts 16:15)

Lydia was a worshipper of God (16:14) and “after she was baptized and her household”, Timothy, Paul and Silas were invited into her house to stay “if you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord” (16:15). There is nothing here to indicate that infants were baptised. Besides, Jesus required baptism to be part of discipleship (Matt. 28:19-20). This is impossibility for infants.

Let’s check out a few people who support infant baptism for their views on the “household” baptism of Lydia.

Henry Alford: “It may be that no inference of infant baptism is hence deducible”;
Paton J. Gloag: “Evidently the passage in itself cannot be adduced as a proof either for or against baptism; there is in it no indication whether there were or were not infants in the household of Lydia”.
H. A. W. Meyer: “No trace is to be found in the New Testament, speaking of the baptism of the children of Christians”.

However, it would not be inconsistent to use another example from Acts 16 as a template for whether or not “household” baptism included infants. Let’s examine….

3. The Philippian jailer (Acts 16:33-34)

In the context, it states that “they spoke the Word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house” (Acts 16:32 ESV). Then 16:34 tells us that “he [the Philippian jailer] rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed”. It is impossible for infants to do this rejoicing over the jailer’s positive response to the speaking of the Word of the Lord. It is impossible for babies to have believed in the Lord. Therefore, this is another example of believer’s baptism.

4. Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16)

In the context of 1 Corinthians, we know that “the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints” (1 Cor. 16:15).

Imagine that coming from infants! The household of Stephanas later devoted themselves to ministry to the saints. No theology of children’s baptism can be found in this passage. If we are to be consistent interpreters of Scripture (and we need to be), the children who are part of household baptism must also be devoted to service to Christian saints. This is impossibility, so the example of Stephanas proves again that it did not include infant baptism but believer’s baptism.

5. Jesus’ view on baptism after His resurrection

Jesus gave a very clear understanding of the association of baptism with Christian believing in Matt. 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 (ESV).

Jesus is crystal clear that baptism is associated with making disciples of all nations. Discipleship is an impossible task for infants. The foundational requirement cannot be achieved by infants.

Therefore, the consistent picture of the NT is that “household” baptism does not include infants, but, based on the words of Jesus, baptism is an important dimension of Christian discipleship. Infants are incapable of becoming disciples of Christ.

C. Wayne Grudem on household baptism

Grudem’s view of household baptism is:

The examples of household baptisms in the New Testament are really not decisive for one position or another. When we look at the actual examples more closely, we see that in a number of them there are indications of saving faith on the part of all of those baptized. For example, it is true that the family of the Philippian jailer was baptized (Acts 16:33), but it is also true that Paul and Silas “spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house” (Acts 16:32). If the Word of the Lord was spoken to all in the house, there is an assumption that all were old enough to understand the word and believe it. Moreover, after the family had been baptized, we read that the Philippian jailer “rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God” (Acts 16:34). So we have not only a household baptism but also a household reception of the Word of God and a household rejoicing in faith in God. These facts suggest quite strongly that the entire household had individually come to faith in Christ.

With regard to the fact that Paul baptized “the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16), we must also note that Paul says at the end of 1 Corinthians that “the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints” (1 Cor. 16:15). So they were not only baptized; they were also converted and had worked at serving other believers. Once again the example of household baptism gives indication of household faith.

In fact, there are other instances where baptism is not mentioned but where we see explicit testimony to the fact that an entire household had come to faith. After Jesus healed the official’s son, we read that the father “himself believed, and all his household” (John 4:53). Similarly, when Paul preached at Corinth, “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household” (Acts 18:8).

This means that of all the examples of “household baptisms” in the New Testament, the only one that does not have some indication of household faith as well is Acts 16:14-15, speaking of Lydia: “The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul. And when she was baptized, with her household.” The text simply does not contain any information about whether there were infants in her household or not. It is ambiguous and certainly not weighty evidence for infant baptism. It must be considered inconclusive in itself.

With regard to Peter’s statement at Pentecost that “the promise is to you and to your children,” we should note that the sentence continues as follows: “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (Acts 2:39). Moreover, the same paragraph specifies not that believers and unbelieving children were baptized, but that “those who received his ward were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls”(Acts 2:41).[4]

For an extended discussion on baptism, see chapter 49 of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (1994), which is available HERE. He concludes in favour of believer’s baptism:

We have argued above that baptism symbolizes regeneration or spiritual rebirth. But does it only symbolize? Or is there some way in which it is also a “means of grace,” that is, a means that the Holy Spirit uses to bring blessing to people? We have already discussed this question in the previous chapter,23 so here it only is necessary to say that when baptism is properly carried out then of course it brings some spiritual benefit to believers as well. There is the blessing of God’s favor that comes with all obedience, as well as the joy that comes through public profession of one’s faith, and the reassurance of having a clear physical picture of dying and rising with Christ and of washing away sins. Certainly the Lord gave us baptism to strengthen and encourage our faith—and it should do so for everyone who is baptized and for every believer who witnesses a baptism.[5]

But Grudem also urges Christians not to make baptism a divisive issue:

Do Churches Need to Be Divided Over Baptism? In spite of many years of

division over this question among Protestants, is there a way in which Christians who differ on baptism can demonstrate greater unity of fellowship? And is there a way that progress can be made in bringing the church closer to unity on this question?

One way forward could be for paedobaptists and advocates of believers’ baptism both to come to a common admission that baptism is not a major doctrine of the faith, and that they are willing to live with each other’s views on this matter and not allow differences over baptism to be a cause for division within the body of Christ.29 Specifically, this would mean allowing both views of baptism to be taught and practiced in denominations on both sides of the question.[6]

D. Evidence from the early church fathers

What do the early church fathers have to say about infant baptism?

1. Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165):

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, … are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated [born-again] in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. . . And for this we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father, . . . the name of Jesus Christ, . . . and in the name of the Holy Ghost. . .”.[7]

2. Tertullian (ca. 130-230) speaks of baptism for children who believe:

“Consequently in view of the circumstances and will, even the age of each person, a postponement of Baptism is most advantageous, particularly, however, in the case of children. For what need is there, if it is not so urgent, that the sponsors also should be brought into danger, being as they are themselves also by reason of their mortality capable of falling short of their promises and being deceived by the development of an evil disposition? The Lord indeed says: ‘Forbid them not to come unto Me.’ Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are being taught whither to come; let them become Christians, when they have been able to know Christ. Why hurries the age of innocence to the remission of sins? Shall we act more cautiously in worldly matters? Shall one to whom earthly substance is not entrusted, be entrusted with heavenly? Let them know how to seek salvation, that you may be seen ‘to give to him that asketh'”.[8]

3. The Didache (ca. 95-150)

We don’t learn much about baptism and salvation from this document:

” CHAPTER 7

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;

7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;

7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before. . .

9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs”.[9]

4. Hippolytus of Rome (died ca. 235)

In his writing, ‘The Apostolic Tradition’, he wrote:

At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. ²When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. ³Then they shall take off all their clothes. ⁴The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. ⁵After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water.

” 6At the time determined for baptism, the bishop shall give thanks over some oil, which he puts in a vessel. It is called the Oil of Thanksgiving. 7He shall take some more oil and exorcise it. It is called the Oil of Exorcism. 8A deacon shall hold the Oil of Exorcism and stand on the left. Another deacon shall hold the Oil of Thanksgiving and stand on the right.

9When the elder takes hold of each of them who are to receive baptism, he shall tell each of them to renounce, saying, “I renounce you Satan, all your service, and all your works.” 10After he has said this, he shall anoint each with the Oil of Exorcism, saying, “Let every evil spirit depart from you.” 11Then, after these things, the bishop passes each of them on nude to the elder who stands at the water. They shall stand in the water naked. A deacon, likewise, will go down with them into the water. 12When each of them to be baptized has gone down into the water, the one baptizing shall lay hands on each of them, asking, “Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?” 13And the one being baptized shall answer, “I believe.” 14He shall then baptize each of them once, laying his hand upon each of their heads. 15Then he shall ask, “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the living and the dead?”

16When each has answered, “I believe,” he shall baptize a second time. 17Then he shall ask, “Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?” 18Then each being baptized shall answer, “I believe.” And thus let him baptize the third time.

19Afterward, when they have come up out of the water, they shall be anointed by the elder with the Oil of Thanksgiving, saying, “I anoint you with holy oil in the name of Jesus Christ.” 20Then, drying themselves, they shall dress and afterwards gather in the church.

21The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, saying, “Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the Holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen”.[10]

Verse 4 notes: ‘The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family‘. This statement alone does not indicate that children who were baptised were not believers. In fact, defacto people (parents or relatives) could speak for those children who could not speak for themselves. This verse does not state that these children were infants who could not believe.

If we want to emulate Hippolytus exactly, then one would need to do all baptisms in pure running water and not in some baptismal font in a church building. In addition, with all baptisms, adults and children shall take off all of their clothes. I could not imagine that being acceptable in twenty-first century Western society. A fellow on a Christian forum (in a private message) challenged me with using Hippolytus to support believers’ baptism when Hippolytus was alleged to have included infant baptism. I could imagine that that fellow would create quite a ruckus if he were to go onto this public forum and be a full advocate of what Hippolytus recommended. As you know from what I’ve written above, I’m committed to what the Scriptures state about the nature of baptism.

I take up the challenge of this fellow in my inclusion of Hippolytus in support of believers’ baptism. However, from this passage in Hippolytus, there is no guarantee that he is supporting paedobaptism as practised by the infant baptism promoters in contemporary society. If we accept what Hippolytus wrote in relation to baptism, we would need to conclude:

(a) He was confused in his understanding of baptism (thus making Hippolytus just another author, but with no scriptural authority).

(b) He recommended baptism in the nuddy, and

(c) There shall be no baptism of anyone using a baptismal font in a church; the water MUST be pure and flowing.

I am convinced from the biblical evidence that a strong case can be made for believer’s baptism, but there are many Christians who love the Lord who support infant baptism. I will not use the mode of baptism as a means to cause division in the body of Christ.

Notes

[1] Fellowship Forum, The Fellowship Hall, “David Wilkerson killed”, #170, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=162&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=120662 (Accessed 15 May 2011).

[2] Ibid., #172, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=ws-fellowship&nav=messages&msg=120662.172 (Accessed 15 May 2011). On 7 August 2019 this link was not working. The website has been closed down.

[3] Unless otherwise stated, all Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version of the Bible, available from Biblegateway.

[4] Wayne Grudem 1994. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Bible Doctrine. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, p. 978.

[5] Ibid., pp. 980-981.

[6] Ibid., p. 982.

[7] First Apology, Chapter LXI, available from: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/anf01/htm/viii.ii.lxi.htm (Accessed 15 May 2011).

[8] Concerning Baptism, para 18, available at: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/souter_orat_bapt/souter_orat_bapt_04baptism.htm (Accessed 15 May 2011).

[9] Available at: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/Liturgical/didache.html (Accessed 15 May 2011).

[10] Available at: http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html, emphasis added (Accessed 15 May 2011).

Compare Charles Wesley’s hymn with a Hillsong song

By Spencer D Gear

Have you compared the biblical content of the hymns/songs of Charles Wesley with the hymns/songs of Hillsong? Here is but one example.

Charles Wesley

And Can It Be

And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

Refrain:

Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

‘Tis mystery all: th’Immortal dies:
Who can explore His strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine.
‘Tis mercy all! Let earth adore,
Let angel minds inquire no more.

RefrainHe left His Father’s throne above
So free, so infinite His grace
Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam’s helpless race:
‘Tis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!

RefrainLong my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray,
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free;
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

RefrainStill the small inward voice I hear,
That whispers all my sins forgiven;
Still the atoning blood is near,
That quenched the wrath of hostile Heaven.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.

RefrainNo condemnation now I dread;
Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;
Alive in Him, my living Head,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

Refrain

Hillsong

All I Do

I wanted to find
Where I was going
Everything I tried
It took me nowhere
I was so tired of just living my life
Waiting for a sign
You came to my side
Gave me direction
Strong on the inside
I shine for You Lord
Now it’s my time
Now I’ve made up my mind
To be all You want for me
All I do
Is live my life for You
I know it’s true
I’ll never let You go
All I do
I’d anything for You
Everything is in Your Hands
So I get up
Get up and praise You
And I know where I’m going
I know where I’m going

I posted this comparison to Christian Fellowship Forum, “Charles Wesley vs Hillsong”. Janet (#2) replied:

>>I wanted to find
Where I was going
Everything I tried
It took me nowhere
I was so tired of just living my life
……
And I know where I’m going
I know where I’m going.<<

Oh, the depth, the profundity! What marks modern church music (I can’t bring myself to call it sacred music) is the shallowness of lyrics, the general tunelessness, and the incessant returns to I, me, my, and mine.

Of the nearly three hundred words in Wesley’s hymn, 24 refer to I, me, my, or mine, and 23 refer directly to deity. The second piece of fluff manages to mention self 24 times in only 111 words, plus another one in the title; of its 24 lines, memorable only because there is nothing one would care to remember about them, only two do not contain a reference to self. In contrast, God is referenced only 8 times. I find this emphasis on self to be a common feature of modern so-called church music.

Do you remember this hymn? What about the parody which follows it?

DEAR LORD AND FATHER OF MANKIND

By John Greenleaf Whittier

Dear Lord and Father of mankind,
Forgive our foolish ways;
Reclothe us in our rightful mind,
In purer lives Thy service find,
In deeper reverence, praise.

In simple trust like theirs who heard,
Beside the Syrian sea,
The gracious calling of the Lord,
Let us, like them, without a word,
Rise up and follow Thee.

O Sabbath rest by Galilee,
O calm of hills above,
Where Jesus knelt to share with Thee
The silence of eternity,
Interpreted by love!

With that deep hush subduing all
Our words and works that drown
The tender whisper of Thy call,
As noiseless let Thy blessing fall
As fell Thy manna down.

Drop Thy still dews of quietness,
Till all our strivings cease;
Take from our souls the strain and stress,
And let our ordered lives confess
The beauty of Thy peace.

Breathe through the heats of our desire
Thy coolness and Thy balm;
Let sense be dumb, let flesh retire;
Speak through the earthquake, wind, and fire,
O still, small voice of calm.

This parody of the hymn appeared in the Anglican Advocate (July 2000):

DEAR LORD AND FATHER OF MANKIND (a parody)

To be sung to the tune Repton:
Dear Lord and Father of mankind, forgive our foolish ways;
For most of us, when asked our mind,
admit we still most pleasure find
In hymns of ancient days, in hymns of ancient days.

The simple lyrics, for a start, of many a modern song
Are far too trite to touch the heart;
enshrine no poetry, no art;
And go on much too long, and go on much too long.

O, for a rest from jollity and syncopated praise!
What happened to tranquillity?
The silence of eternity
Is hard to hear these days, is hard to hear these days.

Send Thy deep hush, subduing all those happy claps that drown
The tender whisper of Thy call;
triumphalism is not all,
For sometimes we feel down, for sometimes we feel down.

Drop Thy still dews of quietness till all our strummings cease;
Take from our souls the strain and stress
of always having to be blessed;
Give us a bit of peace, give us a bit of peace.

Breathe through the beats of praise-guitar Thy coolness and Thy balm;
Let drum be dumb, bring back the lyre,
enough of earthquake, wind and fire,
Let’s hear it for some calm, let’s hear it for some calm.

Sudden death of David Wilkerson

David Wilkerson Tribute

(courtesy World Challenge)

By Spencer D Gear

My friend and Christian colleague, Aeron Morgan, posted this information on his website: [1]

Today, Thursday 28 April 2011, here in Australia we have received the sad news of the sudden and tragic death of our dear Brother David Wilkerson, a beloved, humble and faithful servant of our Lord Jesus Christ. The following web-link will take you to a fuller report, put out so promptly by Charisma magazine, of the fatal accident.

This will be a tremendous shock and loss to our fellow believers at Times Square, but believe that God will graciously undertake for Pastor Carter Conlan as he now has the task of guiding the saints there through this hour of sorrow and immense loss. The added painful news is that Brother Wilkerson’s wife, Gwendolyn, was with him in the car and is in hospital with injuries which are reported to be critical.

I am sure that YOU will join the many thousands around the world in prayer for Sister Wilkerson and the family in their bereavement and that she will be fully recovered from her injuries. Pray also for the dear saints at Times Square Church, that God will comfort their saddened hearts, losing an outstanding champion for truth and holiness. We salute the memory of such a dedicated servant of Christ. We are the poorer for his passing, but we cannot question God’s goodness and wisdom, committing the things we don’t understand to HIM “who doeth all things well.” Many of us have been privileged to visit Times Square Church, tremendously impressed with what God has wrought there. TO GOD BE THE GLORY!

The Pentecostal world in particular will miss such a needed voice for God in these days of compromise and worldliness, and that faithful prophetic call back to the “old paths” our brother was known for. May God visit us in this late hour prior to the coming of our Lord Jesus. David Wilkerson longed for such a move of God’s Holy Spirit, not only across his beloved America, but in the nations of our world at this troublesome time. Let’s be part of the remnant that will manifest something of the same godliness and passion as our dear brother, together bear something of the burden he shouldered for so long – for without question: IT IS TIME TO SEEK THE LORD.

David Wilkerson, Times Square Church, New York

You can read further details on the Charisma magazine website, “David Wilkerson killed in car crash“. The Christian Broadcasting Network has also reported the tragedy in, “Rev. David Wilkerson killed in TX car crash”. Christianity Today reported the sad news in, “David Wilkerson killed in car crash“. Beliefnet reported that “Famed New York City street preacher, author David Wilkerson killed in car crash“.

This Associated Press (USA Today) news item, “Times Square church founder dies in Texas crash”, stated that David Wilkerson was not wearing a seat belt in the car that crashed, when the USA requires the wearing of seat belts:

Wilkerson was not wearing a seat-belt at the time of the crash, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety. His wife, Gwendolyn, was also in the car and was wearing a seat-belt, Mange said. She was taken to a hospital, where she was in stable condition with cuts and bruises, Mange said.

I have a particular affinity with Teen Challenge as I was part of its training ministry in drug rehabilitation in Canberra, Australia, for a couple of years in the early 1990s and in the early 1970s I engaged in ministry from a Teen Challenge coffee shop with the needy on the streets of The Valley, Brisbane.

David Wilkerson will be remembered for his pioneering work in Christian drug rehabilitation that was described in his seminal publication, The Cross and the Switchblade. Its story became the film, The Cross and the Switchblade that starred Pat Boone as David Wilkerson.

Image may contain: one or more people, night, suit and close-up
(Courtesy David Wilkerson, Facebook)

Here is what he wrote in his very last blog, “David Wilkerson Today” of 27 April 2011, the very day he died:

To believe when all means fail is exceedingly pleasing to God and is most acceptable. Jesus said to Thomas, “You have believed because you have seen, but blessed are those that do believe and have not seen” (John 20:29).

Blessed are those who believe when there is no evidence of an answer to prayer—who trust beyond hope when all means have failed.

Someone has come to the place of hopelessness—the end of hope—the end of all means. A loved one is facing death and doctors give no hope. Death seems inevitable. Hope is gone. The miracle prayed for is not happening.

That is when Satan’s hordes come to attack your mind with fear, anger, overwhelming questions: “Where is your God now? You prayed until you had no tears left. You fasted. You stood on promises. You trusted.”

Blasphemous thoughts will be injected into your mind: “Prayer failed. Faith failed. Don’t quit on God—just do not trust him anymore. It doesn’t pay!”

Even questioning God’s existence will be injected into your mind. These have been the devices of Satan for centuries. Some of the godliest men and women who ever lived were under such demonic attacks.

To those going through the valley and shadow of death, hear this word: Weeping will last through some dark, awful nights—and in that darkness you will soon hear the Father whisper, “I am with you. I cannot tell you why right now, but one day it will all make sense. You will see it was all part of my plan. It was no accident. It was no failure on your part. Hold fast. Let me embrace you in your hour of pain.”

Beloved, God has never failed to act but in goodness and love. When all means fail—his love prevails. Hold fast to your faith. Stand fast in his Word. There is no other hope in this world (my emphasis).

Australian Christian cultural apologist, Bill Muehlenberg, has written this fitting tribute to David Wilkerson, “David Wilkerson RIP”.

Messages from David Wilkerson

1. A Call to Anguish, by David Wilkerson

23 August 2009

This message is a partially transcribed excerpt from an original message spoken by David Wilkerson. The full message is titled: “A Call to Anguish.” and can be downloaded from “www.sermonindex.net.”

And I look at the whole religious scene today and all I see are the inventions and ministries of man and flesh. It’s mostly powerless. It has no impact on the world. And I see more of the world coming into the church and impacting the church, rather than the church impacting the world. I see the music taking over the house of God. I see entertainment taking over the house of God. An obsession with entertainment in God’s house. A hatred of correction and a hatred of reproof. Nobody wants to hear it any more. Whatever happened to anguish in the house of God?

Whatever happened to anguish in the ministry? It’s a word you don’t hear in this pampered age. You don’t hear it. Anguish means extreme pain and distress. The emotions so stirred that it becomes painful. Acute deeply felt inner pain because of conditions about you, in you, or around you. Anguish. Deep pain. Deep sorrow. The agony of God’s heart.

We’ve held on to our religious rhetoric and our revival talk but we’ve become so passive. All true passion is born out of anguish. All true passion for Christ comes out of a baptism of anguish. You search the scripture and you’ll find that when God determined to recover a ruined situation… He would share His own anguish for what God saw happening to His church and to His people. And He would find a praying man and take that man and literally baptize him in anguish. You find it in the book of Nehemiah. Jerusalem is in ruins. How is God going to deal with this? How is God going to restore the ruin? Now folks, look at me… Nehemiah was not a preacher, he was a career man. But this was a praying man.

And God found a man who would not just have a flash of emotion. Not just some great sudden burst of concern and then let it die. He said: “No. I broke down and I wept and I mourned and I fasted. And then I began to pray night and day. Why didn’t these other men… why didn’t they have an answer? Why didn’t God use them in restoration? Why didn’t they have a word? Because there was no sign of anguish. No weeping. Not a word of prayer. It’s all ruin.

Does it matter to you today? Does it matter to you at all that God’s spiritual Jerusalem, the church, is now married to the world? That there is such a coldness sweeping the land? Closer than that… does it matter about the Jerusalem that is in our own hearts? The sign of ruin that’s slowly draining spiritual power and passion. Blind to lukewarmness, blind to the mixture that’s creeping in. That’s all the devil wants to do is to get the fight out of you and kill it. So you won’t labor in prayers anymore, you won’t weep before God anymore. You can sit and watch television and your family go to hell.

Let me ask you… is what I just said convicting to you at all? There is a great difference between anguish and concern. Concern is something that begins to interest you. You take an interest in a project or a cause or a concern or a need. And I want to tell you something. I’ve learned over all my years… of 50 years of preaching. If it is not born in anguish, if it had not been born of the Holy Spirit. Where what you saw and heard of the ruin that drove you to your knees, took you down into a baptism of anguish where you began to pray and seek God. I know now. Oh my God do I know it. Until I am in agony. Until I have been anguished over it… And all our projects, all our ministries, everything we do… Where are the Sunday school teachers that weep over kids they know are not hearing and are going to hell?

You see, a true prayer life begins at the place of anguish. You see, if you set your heart to pray, God’s going to come and start sharing His heart with you. Your heart begins to cry out: “Oh God, Your name is being blasphemed. The Holy Spirit is being mocked. The enemy is out trying to destroy the testimony of the Lord’s faithfulness and something has to be done.”

There is going to be no renewal, no revival, no awakening, until we are willing to let Him once again break us. Folks, it’s getting late, and it’s getting serious. Please don’t tell me… don’t tell me you’re concerned when you’re spending ours in front of internet or television. Come on. Lord, there are some that need to get to this alter and confess: “I am not what I was, I am not where I am supposed to be. God I don’t have Your heart or Your burden. I wanted it easy. I just wanted to be happy. But Lord, true joy comes out of anguish.” There’s nothing of the flesh that will give you joy. I don’t care how much money, I don’t care what kind of new house, there is absolutely nothing physical that can give you joy. It’s only what is accomplished by the Holy Spirit when you obey and take on His heart.

Build the walls around your family. Build the walls around your own heart. It will make you strong and impregnable against the enemy. God, that’s what we desire.

This kind of statement gets near the heart of the passion of our late brother in Christ, David. May God so move upon us that His Holy Spirit so ignites our passion for the lost and unlovely that we will move in a ministry of compassion, but with the boldness of a Christ-infused passion.

2. An Urgent Message

Saturday, March 7, 2009

AN URGENT MESSAGE

I am compelled by the Holy Spirit to send out an urgent message to all on our mailing list, and to friends and to bishops we have met all over the world.

AN EARTH-SHATTERING CALAMITY IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IT IS GOING TO BE SO FRIGHTENING, WE ARE ALL GOING TO TREMBLE – EVEN THE GODLIEST AMONG US.

For ten years I have been warning about a thousand fires coming to New York City. It will engulf the whole megaplex, including areas of New Jersey and Connecticut. Major cities all across America will experience riots and blazing fires—such as we saw in Watts, Los Angeles, years ago.

There will be riots and fires in cities worldwide. There will be looting—including Times Square, New York City. What we are experiencing now is not a recession, not even a depression. We are under God’s wrath. In Psalm 11 it is written,

“If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (v. 3).

God is judging the raging sins of America and the nations. He is destroying the secular foundations.

The prophet Jeremiah pleaded with wicked Israel, “God is fashioning a calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh, turn back each of you from your evil way, and reform your ways and deeds. But they will say, It’s hopeless! For we are going to follow our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart” (Jeremiah 18:11-12).

In Psalm 11:6, David warns, “Upon the wicked he will rain snares (coals of fire)…fire…burning wind…will be the portion of their cup.” Why? David answered, “Because the Lord is righteous” (v. 7). This is a righteous judgment—just as in the judgments of Sodom and in Noah’s generation.
WHAT SHALL THE RIGHTEOUS DO? WHAT ABOUT GOD’S PEOPLE?

First, I give you a practical word I received for my own direction. If possible lay in store a thirty-day supply of non-perishable food, toiletries and other essentials. In major cities, grocery stores are emptied in an hour at the sign of an impending disaster.

As for our spiritual reaction, we have but two options. This is outlined in Psalm 11. We “flee like a bird to a mountain.” Or, as David says, “He fixed his eyes on the Lord on his throne in heaven—his eyes beholding, his eyelids testing the sons of men” (v. 4). “In the Lord I take refuge” (v. 1).

I will say to my soul: No need to run…no need to hide. This is God’s righteous work. I will behold our Lord on his throne, with his eye of tender, loving kindness watching over every step I take—trusting that he will deliver his people even through floods, fires, calamities, tests, trials of all kinds.

Note: I do not know when these things will come to pass, but I know it is not far off. I have unburdened my soul to you. Do with the message as you choose.

God bless and keep you,

In Christ,

DAVID WILKERSON

The amazing thing about David Wilkerson and the people he inspired (I am one of them) was that he loved the unlovely and ministered at street level with them.

In the 1970s, I was on the streets of downtown Brisbane, running a coffee shop with some other workers, and ministering to the junkies and prostitutes. Why? David alerted me to the need and God moved upon my heart.

That’s an amazing statement he made on his blog, “David Wilkerson Today”, on the very day he entered the presence of the Lord.

Yes, like me, he was a frail man with failings. I wish he had not made that false prophesy about New York City in 2009. But have a guess what? Even with God’s Word before me in written form, I can make errors of interpretation as a fallible human being. The redeemed on this earth are not perfect. That time is still ahead of us in our elevation to glory.

Overall, I judge David Wilkerson to be a humble man of God with a vision that took effect in the lives of those who needed the Saviour.

3. Message to the USA after September 11 attack

After the September 11, 2001 attack on New York City, David Wilkerson wrote, “The towers have fallen but we missed the message“.

Part of that message reads:

Here Is the Message I Believe God Is Trumpeting in Our Calamities.

Deep in my spirit, I hear the Lord saying, “I’ve prospered you above all nations. Yet, for years you’ve persisted in worshipping idols of gold and silver. I’ve endured your shameless sensuality, your mockery of holy things, your shedding of innocent blood, your tireless efforts to remove me from your society. Now time is running out for you.

“I’ve sent you prophet after prophet, watchman after watchman. You’ve been warned again and again. Yet still you won’t open your eyes to your wicked ways. Now I’ve stricken you, in hopes of saving you. I want to heal your land, to destroy your enemies, to bring you back into my blessing. But you don’t have eyes to see it.”

If God wouldn’t spare other nations that have outlawed him, why would he spare America? He’ll judge us even as he judged Sodom, Rome, Greece and every other culture that has turned its back on him.

On “David Wilkerson Today”, David’s son, Gary Wilkerson, has written this tribute to his Dad:

Friday, April 29, 2011

by Gary Wilkerson

“David served the purposes of God in his generation, then he died” (Acts 13:36).
On Wednesday afternoon my father, David Wilkerson, passed away in a car accident. We grieve the loss of a beloved father, a faithful husband and a holy man of God. My mother, Gwen, his wife of 57 years, was in the car also, but we are told she will recover fully.

Dad’s 60-plus years of ministry have impacted the lives of those closest to him and extended to millions around the world. Today we feel a personal loss, but at the same time we rejoice knowing Dad lived life to the fullest, obeying God with devotion and loving Jesus radically.
He was known for his unlimited faith. He believed God could change the lives of gang members and transform the most desperate drug addicts. He believed that a dynamic church could be launched in the heart of Times Square, New York City. He believed he could be a man who loved his wife and children well. And he did.

Dad was not one for fanfare, acclaim or ceremony. He turned down invitations to meet with world leaders yet would give everything he owned to support a poor orphan or a widow in distress.

Like King David of old, Dad served God’s purposes in his generation. He preached with uncompromising passion and relentless grace. He wrote with amazing insight, clarity and conviction. He ran his race well and when his work was done, he was called home.

I don’t think my father would have retired well. I don’t think he was one to sit in a rocking chair and reminisce about times past. I believe that Jesus, knowing this, graciously called him home.

Dad’s last mission on earth was to be an advocate for the poorest of the poor—to provide relief and support for hungry children and widows and orphans. After founding Teen Challenge, World Challenge and Times Square Church, he sought to feed starving children in the most impoverished countries in the world. Today, Please Pass the Bread is saving the lives of thousands of children, through 56 outreaches in 8 countries.

Like King David of old, after having served God’s purpose, he died. I know if my father were able to encourage you with his words today, he would invite you to give your all to Jesus, to love God deeply and to give yourself away to the needs of others.

The works he began outlive him. We can all attest to his impacting us—not only in his preaching, writing and founding of world-changing ministries, but in his love, devotion, compassion and ability to stir our faith for greater works.

David Wilkerson, you have run the race with exceptional faithfulness to your Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. You are now blessed to be in His presence. To those who mourn, there is this message of hope: “Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints” (Psalm 116:15 ESV). Life and death depend on the sovereignty of God. There is no sudden, accidental death with God. “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 was none of them” (Psalm 139:16).

For David’s wife, Gwen, and the family, they have this assurance from Jesus: “”Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Matthew 5:4).

(David Wilkerson photo, courtesy, ‘David Wilkerson Today

Notes

[1] Since uploading this article in 2013, my friend, the godly Aeron Morgan, has entered his rest in Paradise & the citation is no longer available online at his homepage.

Should the Apocrypha be in the Bible?[1]

Tobit

By Spencer D Gear

What is the Apocrypha? The Apocrypha (the deutero-canonical books) refers to the extra books in the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, that are not in the Hebrew canon of Scripture. Bruce Metzger wrote of the Apocrypha:

‘With the exception of 2 Esdras these books appear in the Greek version of the Old Testament which is known as the Septuagint, but they are not included in the Hebrew Canon of Holy Scripture’ (Metzger 1965:vii).

The books listed in the RSV edition of the Apocrypha (Metzger 1965:iii) are:

The First Book of Esdras[2]
The Second Book of Esdras[3]
Tobit
Judith
The Additions to the Book of Esther
The Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch
The Letter of Jeremiah
The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasseh
The First Book of the Maccabees
The Second Book of the Maccabees

In all of this discussion about the Apocrypha, it is important to understand why there is some confusion among Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christianity in discussing this topic.
Some of the confusion surrounds two traditions for the Old Testament canon:[4]

The Palestinian Canon contains 22 books in the Hebrew (39 in English);
The Alexandrian Canon contains 14 additional books (or 15).

The Palestinian Canon was the Hebrew canon that arose in Palestine and was acknowledged by the Jews. The Alexandrian Canon is the Greek list of OT books and is supposed to have arisen in Alexandria, Egypt, where the Hebrew OT Scriptures were translated into the Greek Septuagint (LXX) about 250 BC and following years.

It is considered by some that there were really two Old Testament canons.[5] There was the broader one that included the Apocrypha and the other was the more narrow one without the Apocrypha. This two-canon hypothesis is built around the fact that the earliest extant copies of the Greek Septuagint that we have are from about the fourth century AD and they contain some of the apocryphal books. On the other hand, the Hebrew Bible has only the 39 books that we now have in the Protestant English Bible.
This latter canon seems to have been the canon of Jesus, Josephus and Jerome. There is no quote from Jesus, to my knowledge, that is from the Apocrypha.

Added confusion: The Apocrypha in and out of the Bible

To add to the confusion, the Geneva Bible of 1560, produced by English Protestants taking refuge in Geneva, contained apocryphal books but there was an introduction that stated that these ‘bokes, which were not receiued by a commune consent to be red and expounded publikely in the Church’[6]. Note the spelling of antiquity!

F. F. Bruce states that this is a repetition and expansion of Jerome’s position that apocryphal books were not for the confirmation of doctrine, unless based on the canonical books, and were for the instruction of godly manners. Some who used the Geneva Bible did not appreciate the Apocrypha, so some copies of the 1599 edition printed on the Continent and in London ‘were bound up without the section containing the Apocrypha’. In 1640, an edition of the Geneva Bible was published in Amsterdam that eliminated the Apocrypha, with an explanation between the Old and New Testaments, giving the reason for its deletion. However, the Prayer of Manasseh was appended to 2 Chronicles. The Bishop’s Bible, published in London in 1568, also contained the Apocrypha, but unlike the Geneva Bible, it had no comment about distinguishing between the canonical books and the Apocrypha (Bruce 1988:107-108).

The English Bible that became the standard English translation was the King James (Authorised) Version, published in 1611, and it contained the Apocrypha. However, in 1615 the Archbishop of Canterbury who was a convinced Calvinist in theology, George Abbot, demanded that all Bibles must contain the Apocrypha. To refuse to include the Apocrypha would earn a year’s imprisonment. Why was this a necessary move? It seemed to be a measure to silence the growing influence of the Puritans who objected to the Apocrypha. In spite of this penalty, copies of the KJV without the Apocrypha started appearing as early as 1626. Since the Puritans were gaining influence, the Long Parliament in England in 1644 gave permission for the Apocrypha to cease to be read in Church of England services (Bruce 1988:108-109).

The Westminster Confession of Faith, drawn up in 1646 by the Westminster Assembly, consisting mainly of Church of England ministers, contained this statement in the chapter I.3, ‘Of the holy Scripture’,

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.

When was the Apocrypha written?

A variety of dates has been given. Matt Slick states, ‘The Apocrypha consists of a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ. The word “apocrypha” means “Hidden”‘. R. Laird Harris is of the view that ‘the Apocryphal books were written in Hebrew during the period from 200-50 B.C., and yet they were not revered by the Jews of Palestine, who did revere the others’ (1969:138). F. F. Bruce calls the Apocrypha a ‘really varied assortment of Jewish literature of the period 300 B.C.—A.D. 100…. While none of these books is included in the Hebrew Old Testament, they do (with one exception) form part of the Greek Old Testament’ (1963:164).[7]

As for Josephus, in his Complete Works (1867) in the writing Against Apion (1867:607-638), he defines the Jewish canon as 22 books in Hebrew that correspond to our 39 books in the English Old Testament. He did not include the Apocrypha. This is what he wrote in Against Apion 1.8:

8. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws and the records that contain them; whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that account, no, nor in case all the writings that are among them were to be destroyed; for they take them to be such discourses as are framed agreeably to the inclinations of those that write them; and they have justly the same opinion of the ancient writers, since they see some of the present generation bold enough to write about such affairs, wherein they were not present, nor had concern enough to inform themselves about them from those that knew them; examples of which may be had in this late war of ours, where some persons have written histories, and published them, without having been in the places concerned, or having been near them when the actions were done; but these men put a few things together by hearsay, and insolently abuse the world, and call these writings by the name of Histories.

The canon of Scripture

There are a significant number of reasons for accepting the Palestinian canon of the OT (without the Apocrypha). Here are a few:

Some of the Apocryphal books have teachings that contradict the NT. Two of these teachings that were raised at the time of the Reformation are promoted in the Apocrypha but denied in the NT. The Apocrypha promotes praying for the dead (2 Macc 12:45-46) and salvation by works (Tobit 12:9). The Bible is against praying for the dead. See 2 Sam. 12:19; Luke 16:25; Heb. 9:27. The Bible is strongly opposed to salvation by works (see Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:5; Gal 3:11).[8]
Some of the apocryphal narratives promote non-biblical, fanciful stories. Take a read of Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, and Judith.[9]
Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, who lived from about 20 BC – AD 40, quotes extensively from the OT and even recognised the three-fold classification of the OT books, but not once did he quote from the Apocrypha as containing inspired books.[10]

There has been quite a battle among the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christians over whether the 14/15 books of the Apocrypha should be included in the Old Testament. The Roman Catholic Church canonised the Apocrypha with the other books of the Bible at the Council of Trent, 1545-1563. The Anglican Church and the Eastern Orthodox have given the Apocrypha a status between that of the Roman Catholics and the remainder of Protestants.

In the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Jerome, it states,

“He never either categorically acknowledged or rejected the deuterocanonical books as part of the Canon of Scripture, and he repeatedly made use of them”.

That is not the view of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Jerome and the Apocrypha (only the introduction to the article is available to me online) which states,

“The Septuagint was an important basis for St. Jerome’s translation of the Old Testament into Latin for the Vulgate Bible; and, although he had doubts about the authenticity of some of the apocryphal works that it contained (he was the first to employ the word apocrypha in the sense of “noncanonical”), he was overruled, and most of them were included in the Vulgate”.

My research indicates that Jerome argued against including the Apocrypha (he coined that term), deuteron-canonical books in the Bible. He denied the inspiration of the Apocrypha. Why? When he studied Hebrew with the Palestinian rabbis, they influenced his rejection of the Apocrypha BECAUSE they were not in the original Hebrew canon of OT Scripture. Yes, there were Jews in other parts of the world who accepted the longer canon with the Apocrypha. However, because of the decree by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome in AD 382 that favoured the longer canon, Jerome began to translate the Apocrypha, based on the Greek Septuagint text.

However, Jerome regarded the Apocrypha only “for example of life and instruction in manners” but he did not use the Apocrypha to “apply them to establish any doctrine”. In fact, he argued across the Mediterranean Sea with St. Augustine of Hippo on this very point. To begin with, Jerome refused to translate the Apocrypha for the Latin Vulgate, but he eventually did translate a few. After his death, the apocryphal books were all brought into the Latin Vulgate from the Old Latin Version.

The Roman Catholic Church did not officially admit the Apocrypha into the RCC canon of Scripture until the Council of Trent in 1546. This article from Roman Catholic resources states: “1546: Council of Trent: Apocrypha added to the canon, tradition, states the same authority with the Bible”.

In justforcatholics.org there is this brief response:

Jerome and the Apocrypha

Question: St Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures. What are your comments?

Answer: True, yet he classed the Apocrypha in a separated category. He differentiated between the canonical books and ecclesiastical books, which he did not recognize as authoritative Scripture. This is admitted by the modern Catholic church:

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

The practice of the Church up to the time of the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome who rejected the Old Testament apocrypha on the grounds that these books were never part of the Jewish canon. These were permissible to be read in the churches for the purposes of edification but were never considered authoritative for establishing doctrine. The Protestants did nothing new when they rejected the apocrypha as authoritative Scripture. It was the Roman church that rejected this tradition and ‘canonized’ the ecclesiastical books.

Please read the following explanation from the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary of Martin Luther:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” (Cardinal Cajetan, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

The apocrypha are useful for edification, but canonical in the sense that they are the rule for confirming matters of faith, no!

Copyright Dr Joe Mizzi. Permission to copy and distribute this article without textual changes.

Here are “Some reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible“. Here are examples of theological and historical “Errors in the Apocrypha“.

The Apocrypha and Scripture?

Geisler and Nix (1986:274-275) conclude with a responsible summary:

Whereas there is no doubt a devotional and even homiletical and historical value in them [the apocryphal books], yet they are not part of the theological canon to which the other thirty-nine books of the Old Testament belong because:

1. Some of their teaching is unbiblical or heretical.

2. Some of their stories are extra-biblical or fanciful.

3. Much of their teaching is sub-biblical, at times even immoral.

4. Most of the Apocrypha was written in the post-biblical or intertestamental period.[11]

5. Finally, all of the Apocrypha is non-biblical or uncanonical, because it was not received by the people of God.

Works consulted

Bruce, F F 1963. The Books and the Parchments: Some Chapters on the Transmission of the Bible, rev. ed. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company.

Bruce, F F 1988. The Canon of Scripture. Glasgow: Chapter House.

Geisler, N L and Nix, W E 1986. A General Introduction to the Bible (rev & exp). Chicago: Moody Press.

Harris, R L 1969. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Josephus F 1867. Josephus: Complete Works. Tr by W Whiston. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications.

Metzger, B (ed) 1973. The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press.

Surburg, R F 1975. Introduction to the Intertestamental Period. St. Louis / London: Concordia Publishing House.

Notes:

[1] For this brief article, I have gained considerable information from Geisler and Nix (1986). When I attended Summit Pacific College in 1975-1976, this was the text used for a subject on bibliology and I have gained great benefit from it since then.

[2] This was previously known as The Third Book of Esdras (Bruce 1963:163).

[3] This was previously known as The Fourth Book of Esdras (Bruce 1963:163).

[4] Geisler and Nix (1986:264).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Note the early English spelling. Today the quote would be: ‘books, which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church’.

[7] Surburg (1975:92) almost quotes F. F. Bruce (1963:164) word-for-word, but without bibliographical acknowledgement, affirming the Apocrypha’s writing over the period, 300 B.C. to A.D. 100. It reads like plagiarism to me as F. F. Bruce’s book was published in 1963 and Surburg’s in 1975.

[8] Geisler and Nix (1986:270).

[9] Ibid.

[10] Geisler and Nix (1986:272).

[11] The intertestamental period is considered to be the time between the close of the Hebrew Old Testament and the beginning of writing of the Christian New Testament.. This is the period from the writing of Malachi (ca. 420 BC) and the early first century AD. It’s a period of about 400 years. Surburg (1975:9).placed the intertestamental period between Malachi and the appearance of John the Baptist, a period of 400 years that some have called the ‘silent centuries’.

Is the Bible to be interpreted as literal or metaphorical?

By Spencer D Gear

(image courtesy cliparts.co)

One of the ways to put down those who interpret the Bible literally, the fundamentalists, and Bible-believing Christians is to say that we don’t interpret the Bible literally but metaphorically, allegorically or through some other deconstruction. Some add that it is the uneducated or uninformed who take the Bible literally and are perpetrating false views of the Bible.

This is how Robert Funk debunks such Christians:

As I look around me, I am distressed by those who are enslaved by a Christ imposed upon them by a narrow and rigid legacy. There are millions of Americans who are the victims of a mythical Jesus conjured up by modern evangelists to whip their followers into a frenzy of guilt and remorse—and cash contributions. I agonize over their slavery in contrast to my freedom. I have a residual hankering to free my fellow human beings from this bondage, which can be as abusive as any form of slavery known to humankind. I believe that such a hankering is inspired by Jesus himself, who seems to be untouched by religious bigotry and tyranny and unacquainted with the straightjacket of literalism and dogmatism. Liberation from fear and ignorance is always a worthy cause. In the last analysis, however, it is because I occasionally glimpse an unknown Jesus lurking in and behind Christian legend and piety that I persist in my efforts to find my way through the mythical and legendary debris of the Christian tradition. And it is the lure of this glimpse that I detect in other questers [quests for the historical Jesus] and that I share with them (Funk 1996:19, emphasis added).

Robert M. Price is just as adamant in castigating fundamentalists and Christian supernaturalists for their foolish, inaccurate understanding of the Scriptures:

We are viewed as insidious villains seeking to undermine the belief of the faithful, trying to push them off the heavenly path and into Satan’s arms. But this is not how we view ourselves at all. We find ourselves entering the field as the champions and zealots for a straightforward and accurate understanding of the Bible as an ancient text. In our opinion, it is the fundamentalist, the apologist for Christian supernaturalism, who is propagating false and misleading views of the Bible among the general populace. We are not content to know better and to shake our heads at the foolishness of the untutored masses. We want the Bible to be appreciated for what it is, not for what it is not. And it is not a supernatural oracle book filled with infallible dogmas and wild tales that must be believed at the risk of eternal peril (Price 2005:15, emphasis added).

I came across this kind of issue in my blogging on Christian Forums, with this perceptive question from one person: [1]

How do we know if certain passages [of the Bible] are metaphorical?

I’m wondering how can we know if certain biblical stories are literal or metaphorical? For example, the story of creation, exodus, the big flood, etc. I’ve always wondered that cause it seems to me there is a lot of disagreement in Christianity concerning this question. And recently I heard that there are some indications in original texts…different writing style or something? Thanks in advance and excuse me for my ignorance

Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar took this line:

‘A classic example in both church and culture today is thinking that the truth of the Genesis stories of creation depends upon their factuality. This has led to disputes about “creation” versus “evolution,” “intelligent design” versus “random evolution,” and so forth. These disputes would not have occurred without the modern (Enlightenment) conviction that truth equals factuality. For many defenders of the “truth of Genesis,” the truth of these stories is dependent upon their factuality and evolution is a competing factuality. A parabolic reading of these stories would eliminate this conflict and place the issue where it belongs. To whom does the earth belong? Is it the creation of God and the gift of God, wondrous and calling forth awe, plenteous and calling forth gratitude and adoration, and intended for the whole of creation? or is it ours?” (Borg & Crossan 2006:219, note 19).

My response to the poster was: [2]

What is your understanding of the meaning of “history”?

This will be a starter from me. Often, “history” is understood two ways: (1) “Actual happenings in the real world”, and (2) “What people write about actual happenings in the real world” (Wright 1992:81). Wright notes that the second definition technically is the correct one and is the only meaning given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary.

In this understanding, which I accept, history is writing about events that happened. Wright goes on to say that history is not “bare facts” or “subjective interpretations” but is “the meaningful narrative of events and intentions” (Wright 1992:82). I agree.

The questions relating to your post include: Is Genesis 1 written about a meaningful narrative and intentions about what happened at the beginning of the world?

On the other hand, what is metaphor? My Australian Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘metaphor’ as ‘a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable, in order to suggest a resemblance, as A mighty fortress is our God’.

However, if we talk about a “literal” creation in contrast to a “metaphorical” creation, it does not help us to determine what went on at creation. Why? Because “literal” and “metaphorical” refer to the way words refer to things, but we are still left with what the metaphor refers to. It has not been defined.

Perhaps better language would be to use “concrete” and “abstract” instead of “literal” and “metaphorical”. When the OT and NT use the metaphor of “sleep” to indicate death, it is still referring to a concrete situation – death.

So, do Genesis 1 and 2 refer to what a person (Moses) has written about what happened in the real world (history), or has Moses written in the abstract, using a metaphor?

Another replied: [3]

Everything in the Bible is for your edification and even the metaphors are to be used to understand what God wants you to know.

My response was: [4]

The issue has many more serious ramifications. Let me explain:

This is what some have written in regard to Genesis 1 being metaphorical and not literal in what is known as the Framework Hypothesis of Genesis 1:

“The evidence that the Genesis cosmogony has been shaped by the employment of the Bible’s two-register cosmology thus demonstrating that the picture of the week of days is one element of a broader pattern in which upper-register realties are described through the metaphorical use of lower-register terminology” (The Great Debate, 185).

“The creation narrative is not to be taken literally but is kerygma-theological, and redemptive” (TGB, 218).

“The Framework Hypothesis regards the seven day scheme as a figurative framework” (JGD, 219). “While the six days of creation are presented as normal solar days, according to the Framework interpretation, the total picture of God completing his creative work in a week of days is not to be taken literally” JGD, 219).

Another has written:

Literal or Metaphorical: Even today there are very few biblical literalists who read Genesis 2 and 3 absolutely literally. They do not believe that God was literally “walking in the garden in the cool of the evening,” for instance. It is certainly good theology to distinguish between God and our metaphorical descriptions of God, but we don’t want to lose the beauty and drama of the biblical story. God is very much a participant in the drama of Adam and Eve. One of the reasons we know and love this story is because God is portrayed in such human terms. But once you acknowledge that the portrayal of God in this story is a metaphor, then there is no reason not to view the whole story as a metaphor. When we do so we find that this is a very rich and profound discussion about human life and happiness.

We lose much of the meaning of the story when we try to make it a historical account of the origin of the species. Remember that this was originally written for a bronze-age culture. If we get hung up on the question of whether Genesis 2 is a factual account, then we will lose the truths the story is trying to communicate, just like we could get a misleading understanding of God if we used these verses to declare that God has hands and feet.

This is how metaphorical / allegorical interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis is explained:

The literalness of the garden is questioned. Although ‘the tree of life and the knowledge of good and evil could have been literal’ and although ‘man faced a real historical choice between life and the knowledge of good and evil’, in fact ‘the language used to describe this choice … is metaphorical. The ‘paradise of Eden’ was taken by pre-Reformation commentators partly as literal and partly metaphorical.’

As for ‘the tree of life’, the ‘serpent’ and other imagery (in Gen.2), Forster and Marston see them as ‘pure symbolism (and not literally as well) in Revelation 20-22 and Gen.2-3’

Here’s another acceptance of metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1-3:

If we all agree that the serpent is metaphorical, why push for literalism elsewhere in the Creation account? The story of the serpent is part of a larger apocalyptic (or, revelatory) tale — the story of the beginning. Thus, a consistent view of this Creation story is consistently metaphorical. The Creation-Days and their unusual numerology represent something. The Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge represent something. The consumption of the forbidden fruit represents something.

As long as we retain the essentials of the story — the meaningful images that convey to us God’s goodness, our fault, our dilemma, and our hope — there’s no reason to resist reading Creation metaphorically, and every reason to embrace what it appears was intended.

So did God create actual days or were they only metaphorical ways of expression of creation?

I take the view that this is factual history dealing with the reality of the creation of the universe.

Notes

[1] Wolf911 (#1)

[2] ozspen #2

[3] papaJP (#4)

[4] ozspen #5

Works consulted

Borg, M and Crossan J D 2006. The last week: The day-by-day account of Jesus’s final week in Jerusalem. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Funk, R W 1996. Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a new millennium. Rydalmere, NSW: Hodder & Stoughton (A Polebridge Press book).

Price, R M 2005. The empty tomb: Jesus beyond the grave. New York: Prometheus Press.

Wright, N T 1992. The New Testament and the people of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press

Baptism of the Holy Spirit: When does it happen?

By Spencer D Gear

There is continuing controversy over the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The classic Pentecostal teaching is that the initial physical evidence is speaking in tongues. As examples of this emphasis, here are some statements from various Pentecostal denominations:

“WE BELIEVE in the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues as promised to all believers” (Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa).
“The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance” (Assemblies of God USA).
“We believe that those who experience Holy Spirit baptism today will experience it in the same manner that believers experienced it in the early church; in other words, we believe that they will speak in tongues—languages that are not known to them (Acts 1: 5, 8; 2:4)“ (International Church of the Foursquare Gospel).

Other evangelicals disagree, saying that it happens at salvation. Examples of these would be:

Calvary Baptist Church, Simi Valley, California, an independent Baptist church, believes: “The baptism of the Holy Spirit [is] at salvation, making each believer a priest”.
Larry Wood attends a house church in Florida and he believes that “in order to get home to Heaven after a person dies, the person must have believed in Jesus Christ and received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit at Salvation”.
Southern Baptist, Jimmy Draper, published this statement in Baptist Press, on the subject: “Doctrine: Baptism by the Holy Spirit”: “This means that you don’t get a piece of Spirit baptism when you get saved and then more later. God does not baptize on an installment plan. All of the Holy Spirit you are ever going to get as a believer you got when Jesus baptized you by means of the Holy Spirit into His body at your salvation. The question is not, “How much of the Holy Spirit do you have?” Instead, you should be asking, “How much of me does the Holy Spirit have?”
John MacArthur, eminent Bible teacher of Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California, stated in, “Is Spirit baptism a one-time event?”:

Despite the claims of many, the apostles’ and early disciples’ experience is not the norm for believers today. They were given unique enabling of the Holy Spirit for their special duties. They also received the general and common baptism with the Holy Spirit in an uncommon way, subsequent to conversion. All believers since the church began are commanded to be filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18) and to walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). Yet these early apostles and believers were told to wait, showing the change that came in the church age. They were in the transitional period associated with the birth of the church. In the present age, baptism by Christ through the agency of the Holy Spirit takes place for all believers at conversion. At that moment, every believer is placed into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). At that point the Spirit also takes up His permanent residency in the converted person’s soul, so there is no such thing as a Christian who does not yet have the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9; cf. 1 Cor. 6:19–20).

The baptism with the Holy Spirit is not a special privilege for some believers, nor are believers challenged and exhorted in Scripture to seek it. It is not even their responsibility to prepare for it by praying, pleading, tarrying, or any other means. The passive voice of the verb translated be baptized indicates the baptism by Jesus Christ with the Spirit is entirely a divine activity. It comes, like salvation itself, through grace, not human effort. Titus 3:5–6 says, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.” God sovereignly pours out the Holy Spirit on those He saves.

Others contend that it happens after salvation but there is no necessity of speaking in other tongues.

D Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote in, “What is the baptism of the Holy Spirit?”:

Now there are some, as we have seen, who say that there is really no difficulty about this at all. They say it is simply a reference to regeneration and nothing else. It is what happens to people when they are regenerated and incorporated into Christ, as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 12:13: “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” … Therefore, they say, this baptism of the Holy Spirit is simply regeneration.

But for myself, I simply cannot accept that explanation, and this is where we come directly to grips with the difficulty. I cannot accept that because if I were to believe that, I should have to believe that the disciples and the apostles were not regenerate until the Day of Pentecost—a supposition which seems to me to be quite untenable. In the same way, of course, you would have to say that not a single Old Testament saint had eternal life or was a child of God….

This is an experience, as I understand the teaching, which is the birthright of every Christian. “For the promise,’ says the apostle Peter, ‘is unto you’ — and not only unto you but — ‘to your children, and to all that are afar off (Acts 2:39. It is not confined just to these people on the Day of Pentecost, but is offered to and promised to all Christian people. And in its essence it means that we are conscious of the incoming, as it were, of the Spirit of God and are given a sense of the glory of God and the reality of His being, the reality of the Lord Jesus Christ, and we love him. That is why these New Testament writers can say a thing like this about the Christians: ‘Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory’….

A definition, therefore, which I would put to your consideration is something like this: The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the initial experience of glory and the reality and the love of the Father and of the Son. Yes, you may have many further experiences of that, but the first experience, I would suggest, is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The saintly John Fletcher of Madley put it like this: ‘Every Christian should have his Pentecost.”

So for Lloyd-Jones, the baptism of the Holy Spirit was an experience after salvation. He explained further:

The baptism of the Holy Spirit, then, is the difference between believing these things, accepting the teaching, exercising faith—that is something that we all know, and without the Holy Spirit we cannot even do that, as we have seen—and having a consciousness and experience of these truths in a striking and signal manner. The first experience of that, I am suggesting, is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, or the Holly Spirit falling on you, or receiving the Spirit. It is this remarkable and unusual experience which is described so frequently in the book of Acts and which, as we see clearly from the epistles, must have been the possession of the members of the early Christian Church.

LLoyd-Jones does not emphasise speaking in tongues as the initial physical evidence of this baptism in the Spirit. He stated in 1977:

“The trouble with the charismatic movement is that there is virtually no talk at all of the Spirit ‘coming down’. It is more something they do or receive: they talk now about ‘renewal’ not revival. The tendency of the modern movement is to lead people to seek experiences. True revivals humble men before God and emphasize the person of Christ. If all the talk is about experiences and gifts it does not conform to the classic instances of revival”.

Another who believed that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was after salvation was Andrew Murray who had 60 years of ministry in the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa. He put it this way in his sermon, “Baptism of the Spirit”:

What we see in Jesus teaches us what the baptism of the Spirit is. It is not. that grace by which we turn to God, become regenerate, and seek to live as God’s children. When Jesus reminded His disciples (Acts 1:4) of John’s prophecy, they were already partakers of this grace. Their baptism with the Spirit meant something more. It was to be to them the conscious presence of their glorified Lord, come back from heaven to dwell in their hearts, their participation in the power of His new Life. It was to them a baptism of joy and power in their living fellowship with Jesus on the Throne of Glory. All that they were further
to receive of wisdom, and courage, and holiness, had its root in this: what the Spirit had been to Jesus, when He was baptized, as the living bond with the Father’s Power and Presence, He was to be to them: through Him, the Son was to manifest Himself, and Father and Son were to make their abode with them.

‘Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon Him, the same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.’ This word comes to us as well as to John. To know what the baptism of the Spirit means, how and from whom we are to receive it we must see the One upon whom the Spirit descended and abode. We must see Jesus baptized with the Holy Ghost. We must try to understand how He needed it, how He was prepared for it, how He yielded to it, how in its power He died His death, and was raised again. What Jesus has to give us, He first received and personally appropriated for Himself ; what He received and won for Himself is all for us: He will make it our very own. Upon whom we see the Spirit abiding, He baptizeth with the Spirit.

On Christian Forums, not4you2know posted:

My problem with tongues is that so many followers of Christ have not experienced it. If it was the natural outcome of saving faith then every altar call and every confession of faith would be followed by speaking in tongues. Yet there are millions of believers who have never done this; are we then to assume that their faith is not genuine? (#167)

I (ozspen, #172) responded:

For me this problem is overcome if the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not linked with the second blessing of tongues. I do not agree that the second blessing doctrine is scriptural. See my exposition HERE.

When this second blessing doctrine is excluded, it then enables us to see all of the gifts as from God (I Cor. 12-14) and that God gives gifts according to His sovereignty. The biblical language is that the ‘varieties of gifts… varieties of service … varieties of activities’ (1 Cor. 12:4) are given with this proviso:

“All these [gifts] are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills “(1 Cor. 12:11 ESV).

This means that ALL of God’s people have gifts that have been given by the sovereign Spirit, according to the Spirit’s will.

We say, thank you, Lord for the gift(s) that you have given the body and me!

This is my understanding of the giving of gifts and there is no second blessing of the baptism with the Holy Spirit with the initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues.

JEBrady (#174) responded to my post:

One thing that nettles me about your stance (and I did read your link) is, how does a person know if they have been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and how does anyone else know if someone has been baptized in the Holy Spirit?

The scripture says not one of the Samaritans had been, but they obviously had become believers, otherwise the brothers ministering to them would not have baptized them. And if they had the Holy Spirit, why did they call for Peter and John? Same thing in Acts 19. I mean, Paul had to ask them if they got the Holy Spirit.
Thoughts?

I replied (ozspen #175):

There is not agreement in theology of the meaning of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. See these three examples.

“What is the baptism in the Holy Spirit?”

“Baptism in the Holy Spirit. What is it?”

“What is the baptism of the Holy Spirit? How does a person receive it?”

I am more persuaded to believe that the baptism with the Holy Spirit happens at salvation, based on 1 Cor. 12: 13, “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (ESV).

However, there may be a time subsequent to salvation when we receive a special “touch” from the Holy Spirit, but I would not describe this as a baptism in/with the Holy Spirit.

I am satisfied with the conclusion of the second article above that reads:

Baptism in the Holy Spirit – What Does It Mean To You?
To summarize, baptism in the Holy Spirit does two things. First, it identifies us spiritually with the death and resurrection of Christ, uniting us with Him. Second, baptism in the Holy Spirit joins us to the body of Christ, and identifies us as united with other believers. Practically, baptism in the Holy Spirit means we are risen with Him to newness of life (Romans 6:4), and that we should exercise our spiritual gifts to keep the body of Christ functioning properly as stated in 1 Corinthians 12:13. Experiencing baptism in the Holy Spirit serves as an exhortation to keep unity of the church (Ephesians 4:5). Being identified with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection-through baptism in the Holy Spirit-establishes the basis for realizing our separation from the power of indwelling sin and our walk in newness of life (Romans 6:1-10, Colossians 2:12).
“You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ” (Romans 8:9).

Your language seems to indicate that you expect people to experience something so that you know they have been baptised in the Holy Spirit (after salvation): “How does a person know if they have been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and how does anyone else know if someone has been baptized in the Holy Spirit?”

This is how I thought as a classic Pentecostal, but there is no need to think like that when I accept that the baptism of the Holy Spirit it received at salvation. The only evidence should be a changed life and desire to fellowship with the people of God.

See my article, “Tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit“.

Whytehouse designs

Does regeneration precede faith in Christian salvation?

By Spencer D Gear

When the Gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed to unbelievers and they respond to salvation, what happens first in the new convert – faith, repentance, regeneration or something else? When growing up in the evangelical church, I understood that regeneration referred to God’s work of causing me to be born again by the Spirit when I was saved. Was this correct or not?

Let’s read some prominent Calvinists.

Views of some leading Calvinists

R C Sproul states: “In regeneration, God changes our hearts. He gives us a new disposition, a new inclination. He plants a desire for Christ in our hearts. We can never trust Christ for our salvation unless we first desire Him. This is why we said earlier that regeneration precedes faith” (1985, p. 186, emphasis added). Elsewhere, Sproul wrote. “Repentance is not the cause of new birth or regeneration; it is the result or fruit of regeneration” (1992, p. 193).

J I Packer’s view is that “regeneration is monergistic: that is, entirely the work of God the Holy Spirit. It raises the elect among the spiritually dead to new life in Christ (Eph. 2:1-10). Regeneration is a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life, and conscious, intentional, active faith in Christ is its immediate fruit, not its immediate cause” (1993, p. 158). This is a gentle theological way of saying that regeneration precedes faith.

Charles Hodge considers that “regeneration does not consist in any act or acts of the soul…. Regeneration is an act of God…. It is God who regenerates. The soul is regenerated. In this sense the soul is passive in regeneration, which (subjectively considered) is a change wrought in us…. Regeneration subjectively considered, or viewed as an effect or change wrought in the soul, is not an act…. Regeneration is declared to be a new birth…. The first conscious exercise of the renewed soul is faith; as the first conscious act of a man born blind whose eyes have been opened, is seeing” (1975, pp. 7, 31, 32, 35, 41). So, the renewed, born again, soul receives regeneration and then exercises faith – regeneration precedes faith.

Wayne Grudem maintains that “Scripture indicates that regeneration must come before we can respond to effective calling with saving faith. Therefore we can say that regeneration comes before the result of effective calling (our faith). But it is more difficult to specify the exact relationship in time between regeneration and the human proclamation of the gospel through which God works in effective calling. At least two passages suggest that God regenerates us at the same time as he speaks to us in effective calling [1 Peter 1:23, 25 and James 1:18 NIV]” (1994, p. 700).

With this kind of thinking among leading Reformed thinkers, it is not surprising that it is conveyed to the people in contemporary Calvinistic churches.

The online Calvinists’ views

I’ve been doing some blogging (I’m ozspen) on Christian Forums and came across some Reformed Baptists who claim that regeneration precedes faith. Here are some of their statements:

“With all due respect if there’s no scriptural support for it [regeneration preceding faith] why are there truckloads of articles and sermons and books and church councils and creeds and confessions and statements of faith that use scripture to support it?… For example, here’s a giant article with links to at least 2 1-hour sermons on the topic and scripture is used the entire time.
Jesus Teaches Monergistic Regeneration by John Hendryx ” (Skala #23)

“Not “whosoever believes will be born of God,” but has been. You believe because you have been born of God. You are not born of God because you believe” (faceofbear #60).

“And regeneration happens temporally at the same time as faith. It’s not as if you are regenerated and then at a later point in time you have faith. It’s simultaneous. What we mean by regeneration precedes faith is that regeneration is necessary for a man to exercise faith. As prior to regeneration he is spiritually dead and hostile to God and cannot understand the spiritual things of God” (Skala #69);

But wait a minute: What is regeneration?

Let’s check a few theological definitions of the meaning of regeneration:

Charles Hodge, the Calvinist, claims there is “a consent almost universal” that the word regeneration “is now used to designate, not the whole work of sanctification, nor the first stages of that work comprehended in [Christian] conversion, much less justification or any mere external change of state, but the instantaneous change from spiritual death to spiritual life. Regeneration, therefore, is a spiritual resurrection: the beginning of a new life” (1975, p. 5).

Henry Thiessen, a non-Calvinist, states that “from the divine side, the change of heart is called regeneration, the new birth; from the human side it is called conversion. In regeneration the soul is passive; in conversion … it is active. We may define regeneration as the communication of divine life to the soul (John 3:5; 10:10, 28; 1 John 5:11, 12), as the impartation of a new nature (2 Pet. 1:4) or heart (Jer. 24:7; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26), and the production of a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10; 4:24)” (Thiessen 1949, p. 367).

Wayne Grudem, a Calvinist, defines regeneration as follows: “Regeneration is a secret act of God in which he imparts new spiritual life to us. This is sometimes called ‘being born again’ (using language from John 3:3-8)” (Grudem 1994, p. 699).

John Miley, an Arminian, states briefly that “to be born of God is to be born into his family, and to become his child. Sonship is thus immediately from regeneration. This is the clear meaning of the Scriptures” such as John 1:12-13 and Galatians 3:26-27 (1989, p. 397).

Let’s check out a couple of leading exponents of Reformed theology to see what they think of the idea of regeneration preceding faith.

What was John Calvin’s view?

I was reading in Calvin’s Institutes where he equates repentance with regeneration. John Calvin in Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.3.9-10, wrote:

9. Both of these we obtain by union with Christ. For if we have true fellowship in his death, our old man is crucified by his power, and the body of sin becomes dead, so that the corruption of our original nature is never again in full vigor (Rom. 6:5, 6). If we are partakers in his resurrection, we are raised up by means of it to newness of life, which conforms us to the righteousness of God. In one word, then, by repentance I understand regeneration, French, “une regeneration spirituelle;”—a spiritual regeneration. the only aim of which is to form in us anew the image of God, which was sullied, and all but effaced by the transgression of Adam. So the Apostle teaches when he says, “We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.” Again, “Be renewed in the spirit of your minds” and “put ye on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” Again, “Put ye on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.” 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:23, 24; Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 4:16. Accordingly through the blessing of Christ we are renewed by that regeneration into the righteousness of God from which we had fallen through Adam, the Lord being pleased in this manner to restore the integrity of all whom he appoints to the inheritance of life. This renewal, indeed, is not accomplished in a moment, a day, or a year, but by uninterrupted, sometimes even by slow progress God abolishes the remains of carnal corruption in his elect, cleanses them from pollution, and consecrates them as his temples, restoring all their inclinations to real purity, so that during their whole lives they may practice repentance, and know that death is the only termination to this warfare. The greater is the effrontery of an impure raver and apostate, named Staphylus, who pretends that I confound the condition of the present life with the celestial glory, when, after Paul, I make the image of God to consist in righteousness and true holiness; as if in every definition it were not necessary to take the thing defined in its integrity and perfection. It is not denied that there is room for improvement; but what I maintain is, that the nearer any one approaches in resemblance to God, the more does the image of God appear in him. That believers may attain to it, God assigns repentance as the goal towards which they must keep running during the whole course of their lives.

10. By regeneration the children of God are delivered from the bondage of sin, but not as if they had already obtained full possession of freedom, and no longer felt any annoyance from the flesh. Materials for an unremitting contest remain, that they may be exercised, and not only exercised, but may better understand their weakness. All writers of sound judgment agree in this, that, in the regenerate man, there is still a spring of evil which is perpetually sending forth desires that allure and stimulate him to sin… (my emphasis).

There is no mention here of regeneration/repentance prior to faith.

What about that Calvinistic stalwart, C H Spurgeon?

C. H. Spurgeon (image courtesy The Spurgeon Archive)

If the theology of regeneration prior to faith is alleged to be true, it is a “ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him”, says C H Spurgeon. It is ridiculous because Spurgeon would be preaching faith to a person who was already saved. It would be preaching Christ to one who is already regenerated.

C H Spurgeon, in his sermon, “The Warrant of Faith”, seems to write against the idea that regeneration precedes faith:

Others say that the warrant for a sinner to believe in Christ is his election. Now, as his election cannot possibly be known by any man until he has believed, this is virtually preaching that nobody has any known warrant for believing at all. If I cannot possibly know my election before I believe—and yet the minister tells me that I may only believe upon the ground of my election—how am I ever to believe at all? Election brings me faith, and faith is the evidence of my election; but to say that my faith is to depend upon my knowledge of my election, which I cannot get without faith. is to talk egregious nonsense.
I lay down this morning with great boldness—because I know and am well persuaded that what I speak is the mind of the Spirit—this doctrine that the sole and only warrant for a sinner to believe in Jesus is found in the gospel itself and in the command which accompanies that gospel, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” I shall deal with that matter first of all, negatively, and then, positively.
1. First, NEGATIVELY; and here my first observation is that any other way of preaching the gospel-warrant is absurd. If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. But you will tell me that I ought to preach it only to those who repent of their sins. Very well; but since true repentance of sin is the work of the Spirit, any man who has repentance is most certainly saved, because evangelical repentance never can exist in an unrenewed soul. Where there is repentance there is faith already, for they never can be separated. So, then, I am only to preach faith to those who have it. Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners. “Nay,” saith one, “but we mean that a man must have some good desires towards Christ before he has any warrant to believe in Jesus.” Friend, do you not know what all good desires have some degree of holiness in them? But if a sinner hath any degree of true holiness in him it must be the work of the Spirit, for true holiness never exists in the carnal mind, therefore, that man is already renewed, and therefore saved. Are we to go running up and down the world, proclaiming life to the living, casting bread to those who are fed already, and holding up Christ on the pole of the gospel to those who are already healed? My brethren, where is our inducement to labour where our efforts are so little needed? If I am to preach Christ to those who have no goodness, who have nothing in them that qualifies them for mercy, then I feel I have a gospel so divine that I would proclaim it with my last breath, crying aloud, that “Jesus came into the world to save sinners“—sinners as sinners, not as penitent sinners or as awakened sinners, but sinners as sinners, sinners “of whom I am chief.”
Secondly, to tell the sinner that he is to believe on Christ because of some warrant in himself, is legal, I dare to say it—legal. Though this method is generally adopted by the higher school of Calvinists, they are herein unsound, uncalvinistic, and legal; it is strange that they who are so bold defenders of free grace should make common cause with Baxterians and Pelagians.

Spurgeon rightly states that it is an “unnecessary and ridiculous thing” to preach Christ to a person who is already regenerate. If regeneration happens first, then he is preaching Christ to people who already have it. Regeneration prior to faith is unbiblical theology and Spurgeon admits it up front.

But elsewhere he makes statements of regeneration prior to faith.

We see this particularly in his sermon, “Faith and Regeneration“, where he states:

“We must now pass on to show that WHEREVER IT [FAITH] EXISTS IT IS THE PROOF OF REGENERATION” in his sermon on.

“Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. Whoever has faith is a saved man”.

“Many men refuse to see more than one side of a doctrine, and persistently fight against anything which is not on its very surface consistent with their own idea. In the present case I do not find it difficult to believe faith to be at the same time the duty of man and the gift of God.”

So, he is making two apparently contradictory statements: (1) Regeneration precedes faith (this is the equivalent of irresistible grace), and (2) “If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate” (reference above).

Which is it to be? Regeneration prior to faith OR regeneration is NOT prior to faith?

What do the Scriptures state?

Surely this is the key factor. There are verses in Scripture, when understood in context, that teach that faith is logically prior to salvation/regeneration. Check out Luke 13:3; John 3:6-7, 16; Acts 16:31; Romans 3:24-25; 5:1; Titus 3:5-7; and 2 Peter 3:9.

Let’s examine these Scriptures individually.

Luke 13:3: “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (ESV).[1]

To avoid judgment (perishing), this verse says that the condition is NOT regeneration first, but repentance. So, for anyone to experience salvation, repentance is required. This is a consistent message of Scripture (eg Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30; 26:20). These verses do not enforce the theology that regeneration must precede faith.

John 3:6-7, 16: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again'” (John 3:6-7). “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

New birth occurs at regeneration. Who is the creator of this new spiritual life? God Himself! In this chapter of John 3, Jesus makes it clear that faith is the condition for being born again, receiving the new birth, or being saved to experience eternal life. He states that “whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (3:15) and “whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (3:16).
What is the means to the end of somebody obtaining salvation or becoming regenerate? Faith! The one who BELIEVES (has faith). That’s a conclusion reached by contextual hermeneutics (interpretation).

Acts 16:31: ‘And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you^(B) and your household”‘.

“[You] Believe in the Lord Jesus” and the person will be saved along with his household. The order is the same as for the verses in John 3; “belief” comes before salvation; thus faith is the condition on which a person receives God’s salvation through the Lord Jesus.

Romans 3:24-25: “And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins”

This incredible passage on justification mentions that justification and propitiation are “received by faith”. Yes, God planned this eternal life from before the world came into being (2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2) and, thus, before anyone could receive this justification and propitiation, God planned that justification would be “received by faith”. This pattern is consistent in the NT that faith is first (eg John 17:20; Acts 16:31; Rom. 3:22; 10:9, 14; 1 Cor 1:21; Gal 3:22; etc, etc).

These verses are very clear that justification and propitiation for believers are received “by faith”. This is not eisegesis, but solid exegesis with contextual interpretation.[2]

Romans 5:1: “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”.

The text is very clear that justification is received “by faith”. While God is the source through our Lord Jesus Christ, there is no statement here that justification (or regeneration) is the means by which we receive salvation. Justification comes “by faith”. Faith logically precedes justification.

Titus 3:5-7: “He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, butaccording to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life”.

It is true that these three verses do not use the word “faith” but that regeneration and justification came to us “by his grace”. However this is not a statement to support the view that regeneration precedes faith.
Please note the very next verse where faith (believe) demonstrates faith’s necessity according to Titus 3:8: “The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people” (ESV). FAITH, those who believe, comes before good works. Faith is the means to salvation as v. 8 demonstrates and this leads to believers devoting themselves to the ministry of good works.

Eph. 2:8-9 is an explicit parallel to these verses in Titus, also written by Paul, where it is very definite that believers are “saved through faith“: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (ESV).

2 Peter 3:9 states, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance“.

The order here is that repentance comes before salvation/rescuing from perishing. The context is the day of the Lord coming (3:1-13) and scoffers coming in the last days (3:3) and challenging, “Where is the promise of his coming?” (3:4). Then there is a description of the heavens and the earth existing and being formed “by the word of God” (3:5). Then the deluge (great flood). By that same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire by the same word of God when judgment and destruction are coming on the ungodly(3:7).

How will people avoid this judgment and destruction? Contextual interpretation indicates that God is patient, not wanting any to perish and all to come to repentance (3:9). This is a core verse in the passage because it gives God’s remedy for escaping the judgment and destruction: “All should reach repentance”.

What about this verse?

Romans 10:17, in the ESV, states the order of salvation clearly: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ”.

It does not say that faith comes from a preceding regeneration. The initial reading of the verse indicates that faith is produced by hearing the word of Christ and the word of Christ comes before faith. Here, the order that leads to salvation, by inference, is that someone is sent; there is preaching or evangelism; there is hearing of the word of Christ, and there is believing.

Conclusion

I have provided biblical support for the view that God is the source of salvation / regeneration and that a person’s faith/repentance is the means to receive that salvation.

The monergism[3] (that accompanies a view of irresistible grace) that Calvinists support (and reject synergism[4]) does not have biblical support in my understanding of Scripture (some details are above).

The scriptures are clear that human beings can resist the grace of God and some do that (Matt. 23:37) but God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to salvation/repentance (1 Tim. 2:3-5; 2 Peter 3:9). That’s what one would expect from the loving God (1 John 4:16) who loves everyone (John 3:16) and wants all to come to salvation/repentance (1 Tim. 2:3).

Synergism (God’s grace working with human free will) is God’s way for human beings to be saved. God’s gift must be received for regeneration, justification, propitiation, salvation to be experienced by any person. God acts and people receive. That’s Bible.

It is evident from the Scriptures that the Calvinistic doctrine on regeneration preceding faith is short on biblical evidence – it is in error. In addition, as Spurgeon has stated so well, it is ridiculous to preach the Gospel of Christ to someone who is already regenerated. Why preach faith in Christ for salvation to somebody who is already born again by the Spirit?

Regeneration preceding faith is described by Spurgeon as ridiculous, unsound, uncalvinistic, and legal. Sure sounds like he doesn’t believe in this error that is promoted by other Calvinists! But he is inconsistent, as quoted above. He does believe that “wherever [faith] exists it is the proof of regeneration”.

Notes:

[1] Unless otherwise stated, all Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles, 2001).

[2] When I presented these verses that I’m discussing here, on Christian Forums, I was told that “it seems to me that not a single verse you asserted teaches that regeneration precedes faith actually has anything to do with it at all. I am scared that you have read into these passages something that is not there. That’s called eisegesis” (Christian Forums –>Congregation–>Christian Communities–>Baptists, “John 1:11-13, Receiving Christ”, 2 April 2011, Skala # 112, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7545666-12/#post57130679 , accessed 2 April 2011).

[3] The “Monergism” website provides this definition of monergism: “The view that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians. It is in contrast with synergism, the view that there is a cooperation between the divine and the human in the regeneration process. Monergism is a redemptive blessing purchased by Christ for those the Father has given Him (1 Pet 1:3, John 3:5,6, 6:37, 39). This grace works independently of any human cooperation and conveys that power into the fallen soul whereby the person who is to be saved is effectually enabled to respond to the gospel call (John 1:13; Acts 2:39, 13:48; Rom 9:16)” (available at: http://www.monergism.com/ , accessed 3 April 2011).

[4] What is synergism? The evangelical Arminians state: ‘I believe the term “synergism” is not always accurately applied to the Arminian position. The word comes from the Greek synergos, which essentially means “working together”. While monergism (to work alone) may be an acceptable label for what Calvinists believe (God does all the work in salvation), synergism does not always rightly portray what Arminians have historically believed.

‘’The word itself, when taken in a grammatically strict sense, is not a very good description of what Arminians believe regarding salvation. Arminians do not believe that both God and man “work” together in salvation. We believe that we are saved “by faith from first to last” (Rom. 1:17). Since faith is antithetical to works (Rom. 3:20-28; 4:2-5; 9:32; 10:5, 6; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5; Eph. 2:8, 9; Phil. 3:9), it is a misnomer to label Arminian soteriology as synergistic in the strictest sense of the word.

‘Arminian theology, when rightly understood, teaches that salvation is monergistic. God alone does the saving. God alone regenerates the soul that is dead in sin. God alone forgives and justifies on the merits of Christ’s blood. God alone makes us holy and righteous. In all of these ways salvation is entirely monergistic. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is whether or not God’s saving work is conditional or unconditional. Arminians believe that God will not save until we meet the God ordained condition of faith. Faith may be understood as synergistic only in the sense that God graciously enables us to believe, but we are the ones who must decide whether or not we will believe” (Society of Evangelical Arminians, “Is Arminian theology synergistic?”, available at: http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/27, accessed 3 April 2011).

Links between breast cancer and abortion

Ilustration Of Breast Biopsy

(Breast biopsy, courtesy WebMD)

By Spencer D Gear

Also see: Suction and Curettage Abortion of a 9 week Old Fetus

The New York Times is misrepresenting the research with this statement: “… using inaccurate information, like the medically refuted assertion that abortions cause higher rates of breast cancer” (‘Truth in counseling’, 1 March 2011).

The facts are that there were research studies in China, Iran, Turkey and the USA in 2009 that demonstrated the link between induced abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer.

One 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center found that the increased risks of breast cancer were among those who used oral contraceptives and had had abortions.

Contrary to The New York Times’ biased opinion, even a person who formerly denied the link, Dr. Louise Brinton, has reversed her position on the abortion-breast cancer link because of the evidence. She said that there was a 40% increased risk of breast cancer after induced abortions. Dr. Brinton was involved in 2003 research that denied this link, but she has changed her opinion, based on the 2009 research.

It is time that The New York Times came up to speed with the recent research, instead of denying the research information of the link between abortion and breast cancer.

Dealing with male domestic violence

(image courtesy openclipart)

By Spencer D Gear

When sporting icons hound women in pubs, abuse them with obscene phone calls, or have sex with prostitutes, they are acting like thousands of other young Aussie men. This behaviour is not restricted to professional sportsmen.

According to a national survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, since the age of 15, “25% . . .of women experienced unwanted sexual touching compared to 9.9% . . .of men.”[1]

This means that approx. 1 in 4 women has experienced domestic violence (DV), compared to 1 in 10 men.
DV ranks in the top 5 risks to women’s health in Australia;
1 in 3 children has witnessed DV;
DV costs the Australian economy over $8 billion per year;
An Access Economics report in 2004, found that 87% of DV is committed by men against women.[2]

That’s why 87% is 100% too many for DV perpetrated by men against women.[3]

What is meant by domestic violence?

Australia’s CEO Challenge, which attempts to address the issues of domestic violence, gives this definition: “Domestic violence is the use of violence by one person to control and dominate another. The term is used to describe any form of abuse that occurs in intimate personal relationships,”[4]

DV can include the physical, sexual, psychological, social isolation, financial, intimidation and controlling abuse of men against women and women against men.

In addressing this troublesome, provocative and sometimes controversial topic of targeting male DV abusers, I have been greatly helped by the seminal work of Dr. Michael Flood of La Trobe University and Chris Laming’s development of “The SHED” project.[5]

Causes of high incidence of male domestic violence

The Better Health Channel reports that these are the common factors:

There is no such thing as a ‘typical’ perpetrator of domestic violence. However, researchers have found that men who abuse family members often:

Use violence and emotional abuse to control their families.
Believe that they have the right to behave in whatever way they choose while in their own home.
Think that a ‘real’ man should be tough, powerful and the head of the household. They may believe that they should make most of the decisions, including about how money is spent.
Believe that men are entitled to sex from their partners.
Don’t take responsibility for their behaviour and prefer to think that loved ones or circumstances provoked their behaviour.
Make excuses for their violence: for example, they will blame alcohol or stress.
Report ‘losing control’ when angry around their families, but can control their anger around other people. They don’t tend to use violence in other situations: for example, around friends, bosses, work colleagues or the police.
Try to minimise, blame others for, justify or deny their use of violence, or the impact of their violence towards women and children.[6]

What can we do to prevent men’s abuse of women? We need to tackle this on several fronts because this intimate partner violence is caused by a variety of factors.

We face a significant hurdle. Evaluations of primary prevention strategies have been minimal. We have indications that some prevention approaches work but there are many that may be promising but not tested.

We should do all we can to

1. Increase individual knowledge and skills.

Healthy families, strong socio-economic support, and better parenting skills do help to reduce violence. This message needs spreading while support is offered to help such people.

2. Engage in community education regarding DV.

Obtaining access to children and youth in schools may have a positive impact if the education is well-designed for the age group. In my region, many parents do not know how to curb youth abuse in the home. We need creative people in the mass media who will come on board in what Michael Flood calls, “social marketing campaigns,” against male intimate violence.

3. Develop networks of men in the community?

I call on men to step forward to help in targeting groups and sub-cultures that support violence in peer groups. I challenge young men to join me in reaching the sporting sub-cultures and the youth culture where abuse may be tolerated.

4. Educate providers

There seems to be a reticence to work with male perpetrators. I would like to see a change in professional responses in the welfare community not only to deal with victims of domestic violence, but also to offer interventions for perpetrators to change their behaviour. We also need to

5. Influence policies and legislation.

Legal and policy reform is needed to deal with this horrendous problem of male violence against women. We need funding to match the need to help those of us working at the coalface.

What will men do to help prevent DV predators from exerting their power and control over women in our communities?

6. Get to understand the core of what causes domestic violence?

You won’t read this in the government’s reports, the community agencies writings, but it is at the nucleus of this problem. The secular gurus will run a country mile from this kind of explanation.

The prophet Jeremiah put it this way, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9 ESV). The greatest early promoter of the Christian message, the apostle Paul, nailed it: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

The God-man who changed human history and human hearts, Jesus Christ, stated the core issue with clarity:

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. These are what defile a person (Matthew 15:18-20).

Because the sinful human heart is at the core of the problem of evil in our society, no matter how many secular DV solutions are attempted, they will not get to solving the core DV problem. That’s because only the committed Christian can help a DV perpetrator get to the core of his problem.

For a fuller explanation, see Ron Hamman’s assessment: “A biblical view of domestic violence“.

In summary, the core problem is sin and the core solution is a changed heart through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

Endnotes:

[1] Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005, “Personal Safety, Australia , 2005 (Reissue), available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/cat/4906.0 [6 June 2009].

[2] Australia’s CEO Challenge, “What is domestic violence?” available from: http://www.ceochallengeaustralia.org/01_cms/details.asp?ID=18 [6 June 2009].

[3] The above details are from QCA Contact (Queensland Counsellors’ Association), June 2007, available from: http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:dtR7cKzf9wMJ:www.qca.asn.au/index.php/Download-document/17-Contact-2007-June.html+%22%E2%80%A2+DV+ranks+in+the+top+5+risks+to+women%27s+health+in+Australia%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au [6 June 2009].

[4] Australia’s CEO Challenge, loc. cit..

[5] The SHED Group manual is available online at: http://www.networklearning.org/books/shedding-abuse.html [12 May 2007].

[6] “Domestic Violence – why men abuse women,” The Better Health Channel, available from: http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Domestic_violence_why_men_abuse_women?OpenDocument [6 June 2009].

Cooch grass and a biblical view of sex

(cooch grass, public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

There is a pathetically inaccurate article in Newsweek, 6 February 2011, “What the Bible Really Says About Sex: New scholarship on the Good Book’s naughty bits and how it deals with adultery, divorce, and same-sex love”. As Christians, we cannot let this journalist, Lisa Millar, get away with such theologically liberal interpretations regarding the Bible’s view of sex.

Part of the article read:

The Bible is an ancient text, inapplicable in its particulars to the modern world.

In the Bible, “traditional marriage” doesn’t exist. Abraham fathers children with Sarah and his servant Hagar. Jacob marries Rachel and her sister Leah, as well as their servants Bilhah and Zilpah. Jesus was celibate, as was Paul.

Husbands, in essence, owned their wives, and fathers owned their daughters, too. A girl’s virginity was her father’s to protect—and to relinquish at any whim. Thus Lot offers his two virgin daughters to the angry mob that surrounds his house in Sodom. Deuteronomy proposes death for female adulterers, and Paul suggests “women should be silent in churches” (a rationale among some conservative denominations for barring women from the pulpit).

The Bible contains a “pervasive patriarchal bias,” Coogan writes. Better to elide the specifics and read the Bible for its teachings on love, compassion, and forgiveness. Taken as a whole, “the Bible can be understood as the record of the beginning of a continuous movement toward the goal of full freedom and equality for all persons”.

My response to Newsweek is Comment #64 (ozspen). I stated:

If I am looking for a manual on how to raise the best cooch grass for my Aussie front lawn, I don’t choose a guide for an alternative source, kikuyu grass. Lisa Millar wants to present the Bible’s view on sex, but she chooses another alternative – theological liberalism. Miller’s choice of books by Jennifer Wright Knust and Michael Coogan on the Bible’s view of sex, is like choosing ‘Christians’ who want to demolish Christianity and yet retain a Christian gloss.

If Millar knew the Bible, which she doesn’t, she would know the differences caused to the whole of the universe, including sexuality, by the fall into sin recorded in Genesis 3. The curse of sin has affected humanity and we see the aberrations of marriage throughout the Old Testament. Quoting Abraham does not denigrate the effects of sin on marriage.

Jesus Christ spoke on this subject when he was addressing the topic of divorce. ‘”Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matthew 19:4-6 NIV). Monogamy of a man and a woman is God’s design. All other marriage alternatives are deviations.

The curse of sin has screwed up the universe, including God’s original intention for sex and marriage. Therefore, Millar’s effort to use theological liberalism to affirm a normative view of the Bible’s teaching on sex, is like choosing a kikuyu manual when a cooch handbook is needed.

Dr. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has written a challenging response to Lisa Millar’s article in, “What the Bible really says about sex … really?” I highly recommend that you read it to see the bias of Millar’s views. On this blog site you can subscribe to email updates from Dr. Mohler. One of his special gifts is in cultural apologetics – addressing the issues of the day from a biblical perspective.