Category Archives: God

How to interpret ‘appeared’ in Titus 2:11

Stars Universe

(image in public domain)

By Spencer D. Gear

Was Jesus’ death for the sins of all people or for only the elect – those who become Christians? Or, to put it in parallel language, was Jesus’ death for the whole world or only for some of them? You wouldn’t believe how these types of questions can get the theological juices going!

Titus 2:11 reads, ‘For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people’ (ESV). What is a plain reading of the text saying? When did God’s grace appear? What was it? How did it bring salvation to all people? Are all going to be saved? Is this a verse that promotes universalism (salvation for everyone)? Please read on.

When I raised this online, a Calvinist stated,

The Greek word behind ‘appeared’ is … epiphainw. Strong’s Concordance says the word literally means “to show forth, i.e., to appear” or “to shine upon” or “become visible”.[1]

This person didn’t know any more Greek than Strong’s Concordance (I have a BA in biblical literature & NT Greek and PhD in NT). I could not say this better than Gordon Fee, emeritus professor of New Testament at Regent College, Vancouver B C, Canada and editor of Eerdmans’ New International Commentary series on the New Testament. Fee, a extremely competent Greek exegete, wrote of Titus 2:11,

An explanatory for opens the paragraph and thus closely ties verses 11-14 to 2-10. It proceeds to explain why God’s people should live as exhorted in 2-10 (so that the message from God will not be maligned [v. 5] but instead will be attractive [v. 10]): because the grace of God that brings salvation to all people has appeared.

In the Greek text all of verses 11-14 form a single sentence, of which the grace of God stands as the grammatical subject. But contrary to the NIV (and KJV), Paul does not say that this grace appeared to all men; rather, as almost all other translations have it, and as both Paul’s word order and the usage in 1 Timothy 2:3-6 demand it, what has appeared (see disc. on 1 Tim. 6:14; epiphaneia) is grace from God that offers salvation to all people.

Paul does not indicate here the reference point for this revelation of God’s grace. Most likely he is thinking of the historical revelation effected in the saving event of Christ (v. 14; cf. 2 Tim. 1:9-10), but it could also refer existentially to the time in Crete when Paul and Titus preached the gospel and Cretans understood and accepted the message (cf. 1:3 and 3:3-4). That at least is when the educative dimension of grace, emphasized in verse 12, took place (Fee 1988:194, emphasis in original).

The Calvinist again:

So according to Titus 3:4, what happened when God “appeared”? Look at the next words… he saved us. How? By the washing of regeneration. We are saved by God’s grace appearing that washes us in regeneration. Why don’t you translate the verb as “offer” here?

So in Titus 2:11, same verb used
.

So grace “appears” again and what does it do? The same exact thing it does in Titus 3:4! It “brings salvation for all people” just like the grace in Titus 3:4 “saved us”. The grace that appears in Titus 2:11 also trains us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives. Nothing about an “offer” anywhere in the text. The word … can’t even mean “offer”. None of the definitions of the word even suggest such a thing. So either “all people” doesn’t mean 100% of humanity, or Universalism is true.[2]

My response [3] was that Titus 3:4 is in a single Greek sentence in the original that includes Titus 3:4-7.

The sentence in Titus 3:4 begins with ‘but when’ – a when-clause. The preceding verse (3:3) speaks the language that ‘we ourselves were once’. But then there came a time when God’s mercy took effect in their lives. We know from Titus 2:11 that God’s grace ‘appeared bringing  salvation’, which was ‘the doctrine of God our Savior’ (2:10). We know that this happened historically in Christ’s person and work and especially in his atoning sacrifice.

Back in Titus 2:11-14, the emphasis is as in Titus 3:5-7, that God’s mercy brought salvation through regeneration, renewal of the Holy Spirit, justification and their becoming heirs of hope. This was the readers’ own experience of salvation.

As for the verb, ‘appeared’, this word also is used in 1 Tim 6:14-15, ‘until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will display at the proper time’. Here ‘appear’ refers to the Parousia, the second coming of Christ. Do you want to import that meaning of ‘appear’ into Titus 2:11 and Titus 3:4?

The same word, ‘appear’, occurs in Acts 27:20, ‘When neither sun nor stars appeared for many days, and no small tempest lay on us
’ (ESV). Do you want this meaning of ‘appear’ to be given to Titus 2:11 and 3:4?

It is not unusual for a Greek word to be used in different contexts to mean different things. However, from Titus 2:11; 3:4, we know that that context is talking about salvation through Christ in which the grace of God appeared to all people and have a guess what? This grace of God offers salvation to all men (people) [Titus 2:11].

So what appeared in this epephane, which refers to something becoming visible or making an appearance? All human beings could not have reached a satisfactory understanding of God’s grace without the manifestation of Jesus Christ through his incarnation and atonement. Titus 2:11 shows the effects of this grace, ‘bringing salvation for all people’ (ESV). Thus the universality of the salvation offer is made available thanks to Christ’s epiphany.

Its saving effect depends on God’s election and a personal response of faith. The human will is freed for all people in regard to salvation. This is implied by all of the verses in Scripture that exhort people to turn to God (see Prov 1:23; Isa 31:6; Ezek 14:6; 18:32; Joel 2:13-14; Matt 18:3; Acts 3:19); to repent (1 Kings 8:47; Matt 3:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts2:38; 17:30), and to believe (2 Chron 20:20; Isa 43:10; John 6:29; 14:1; Acts 16:31; Phil 1:29; 1 John 3:23).

Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon (1957:304) gives the meaning of the verb, epiphainw (I appear), as ‘show oneself, make an appearance’ in relation to Titus 2:11. So God’s grace ‘appeared’ to all people in the person and work (life, crucifixion and resurrection) of Jesus Christ. It was made manifest through Him.

Varieties of Calvinists

Ron Rhodes is a 4-point Calvinist (Amyraldian) who does not believe in limited atonement. See: The Case for Unlimited Atonement (by Ron Rhodes).

See how John Piper misused a quote from Millard J Erickson‘s book, Christian theology, to try to indicate that Erickson supported limited atonement – which he does not.

Different meanings of ‘appeared’

On The Cross(image in public domain)

There is a difference between ‘appeared’ as referring to the parousia (second coming), the sun and stars appearing, and the grace of God appeared, bringing salvation for all people? I find it strange that this person did not understand the differences among the meanings of ‘appeared’ in these three different circumstances. The difference is among Christ’s appearing at his second coming (Titus 2:13), the appearing of the sun and stars (Acts 27:20), and the appearing of God’s grace bringing salvation for all (Titus 2:11).

The same Greek word can be used in different contexts to mean different things. It did not mean the same in those three different places. The second coming appearing, the appearing of the sun and clouds, and the appearing of the grace that leads to salvation are THREE DIFFERENT meanings of ‘appeared’.

There is a great difference in what they did. Surely this person can’t be trying to convince me that the appearing of the sun and clouds is identical to the appearing of the person and works of Jesus and will be identical to the Parousia (second coming) appearance of Jesus. That he could even be pressing towards that understanding beggars my imagination.

Noah Webster’s 1828 edition of his dictionary (online) has 10 different meanings for the English noun, ‘appearance’. They are:

Appearance
n.
1. The act of coming into sight; the act of becoming visible to the eye; as, his sudden appearance surprised me.
2. The thing seen; a phenomenon; as an appearance in the sky.
3. Semblance; apparent likeness.
There was upon the tabernacle as it were the appearance of fire. Num. 9.
4. External show; semblance assumed, in opposition to reality or substance; as, we are often deceived by appearances;
he has the appearance of virtue.
For man looketh on the outward appearance. 1Sam. 16.
5. Personal presence; exhibition of the person; as, he made his first appearance at court or on the stage.
6. Exhibition of the character; introduction of a person to the public in a particular character, as a person makes his
appearance in the world, as a historian, an artist, or an orator.
7. Probability; likelihood. This sense is rather an inference from the third or fourth; as probability is inferred from
external semblance or show.
8. Presence; mien; figure; as presented by the person, dress or manners; as, the lady made a noble appearance.
9. A being present in court; a defendant’s filing common or special bail to a process.
10. An apparition.

My 1977 hard copy of Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, unabridged, second edition, Jean L McKechnie general supervisor of editorial staff (William Collins-World Publishing Co., Inc.), provides seven meanings of the word, ‘appearance‘:

Appearance, n. 1. The act of coming into sight; the act of becoming visible to the eye; as, his sudden appearance surprised me.
2. the thing seen; an apparition; a phenomenon; as an appearance in the sky.
3. external semblance; outward aspect; hence, outward sign, indication, or evidence; as appearance of a place was altogether pleasing; the writing had every appearance of genuineness.
4. a pretense or show; as, the man gave the appearance of being busy.
5. a coming into notice; an appearing before the public; as the appearance of an actor, of a new book, etc.
6. probability; likelihood. [Oba.]
7. in law, a being present in court; a coming into court of either party; an appearing in person or by attorney.
to put in an appearance; to appear for a short time.
to save appearances; to maintain a good showing.
Syn. – air, aspect, look, manner, mien, semblance (Webster 1977:88).

My understanding of the various meanings of ‘appearance’ is based not only on NT Greek but also on Webster’s unabridged English dictionary.

One of the major difficulties with church folks in their understanding of Scripture is that they have little foundation in understanding exegesis vs. eisegesis of the text. They are not trained to discern. It is beneficial, but not compulsory, to have a knowledge of the original languages (Hebrew and Aramaic in the OT, Greek in the NT). If one does a comparison of, say, six different committee translations of the Bible (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NRSV, NLT, NIV) one should be able to come up with an understanding of the nuances of the original languages.

It’s Greek to me [3a]

Titus 2:11 (Greek NT) uses the Greek, epephane, that is translated as, ‘has appeared’ (NIV, ESV). The Greek is aorist passive, indicative of the verb, epiphaino.

The Greek tenses represent the kind of action as prominent, rather than the time of action. The Present and Imperfect tenses are linear tenses that can be represented by a line or a line or dots: __________________________________ or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Present is in the present time while Imperfect is in the past – but both represent continuous / continual action.)
However, the aorist is a punctiliar (or point action) tense which can be diagrammed as a single dot . The action of the aorist tense is that of something that simply happens. There is no thought of the continuing or frequency of action (Wenham 1965:96-97).

The passive voice indicates that the subject was acted upon. If the subject was doing the action, the active voice would be used.

Let’s apply that to Titus 2:11 and the aorist, passive, indicative, epephane.

  • Since epephane is the passive voice, something is acting on this and that something is ‘the grace of God’.
  • The mood of a verb indicates the mode or manner of the action of a verb. The indicative mood makes a statement or asks a question. Here, epephane is indicative mood, thus meaning it is making a statement.
  • Epephane is aorist tense, so it means that something appeared at a point in time. However, since it has no sigma (s) in its conjugation, that means it is the second aorist tense. That gets a bit technical with the conjugation (i.e. form) of the verb, but the meaning of the aorist is the same for the action of the second aorist.

In English, when we translate as ‘has appeared’ (NIV, ESV), it indicates it has appeared in the past but there is no indication of the kind of action. ‘Has appeared’ is meant to bring out the passive voice of action happening by someone/something, i.e. ‘the grace of God’. So the aorist could be translated as ‘did appear’ or ‘has appeared’, as long as one understands it is seen as a punctiliar action happening to someone/something, i.e. ‘to all people’.

What is the meaning of the verb, epiphaino? In the passive voice it means ‘show oneself, make an appearance’ and in Titus 2:11 refers to the grace of God that has appeared (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:304). Since the appearance of the grace of God happened (appeared), it seems that the interpretation is meant to refer to the Epiphany of Jesus, the Incarnation (Robertson 1931:604).

What is eisegesis?

Calvinist, Dr James White, provides this understanding:

Exegesis v. Eisegesis. A quote from Dr. James White’s forth-coming book “Pulpit Crimes” on eisegesis indicates that it means:

The reading into a text, in this case, an ancient text of the Bible, of a meaning that is not supported by the grammar, syntax, lexical meanings, and over-all context, of the original. It is the opposite of exegesis, where you read out of the text its original meaning by careful attention to the same things, grammar, syntax, the lexical meanings of the words used by the author (as they were used in his day and in his area), and the over-all context of the document. As common as it is, it should be something the Christian minister finds abhorrent, for when you stop and think about it, eisegesis muffles the voice of God. If the text of Scripture is in fact God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) and if God speaks in the entirety of the Bible (Matt. 22:31) then eisegesis would involve silencing that divine voice and replacing it with the thoughts, intents, and most often, traditions, of the one doing the interpretation. In fact, in my experience, eisegetical mishandling of the inspired text is the single most common source of heresy, division, disunity, and a lack of clarity in the proclamation of the gospel. The man of God is commended when he handles God’s truth aright (2 Tim. 2:15), and it should be his highest honor to be privileged to do so. Exegesis, then, apart from being a skill honed over years of practice, is an absolutely necessary means of honoring the Lord a minister claims to serve. For some today, exegesis and all the attendant study that goes into it robs one of the Spirit. The fact is, there is no greater spiritual service the minister can render to the Lord and to the flock entrusted to his care than to allow Gods voice to speak with the clarity that only sound exegetical practice can provide (in Reformation Theology, emphasis added).

Could there be a way forward?

There is a way forward, but I can’t see it when a person’s theological presuppositions seem to intrude and prevent that person from seeing what I did write (see above) that the difference in definitions of ‘appearance’ is clear from a plain reading of the biblical text.
But he does not want to accept it that Christ’s appearance in his epiphany (his coming, works, death & resurrection) IS NOT the same meaning as appearance of sun and clouds, and IS NOT the same meaning of appearance of Jesus at the Parousia – his second coming. His posts didn’t acknowledge this. He seems to have a presuppositional bias against accepting the obvious.

It is false to accuse me: ‘You have failed to explain the differences in definitions. All you’ve done is provide examples’.[4] This is absolutely false. He doesn’t want to acknowledge that the three Greek examples that I gave him demand three different understandings of the meaning of ‘appearance’.

It is a waste of time going over this AGAIN and AGAIN. He did not want to receive it. I will not do it again.

However, I thanked him for acknowledging the truth that he did engage in the use of a false approach to hermeneutics – eisegesis – by imposing his will on the biblical text.[5]

In fact, my first seminary hermeneutics text used was that by A Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (1963). Mickelsen gave this brief, but accurate, definition: ‘Eisegesis is the substitution of the authority of the interpreter for the authority of the original writer’ (Mickelsen 1963:158).

I thanked the person online for admitting that this is what he did in one of his posts to me when you inserted, ‘for a purpose’, that was not in the biblical text relating to the verses I cited regarding the appearance of Christ’s first coming with his epiphany, works, death and resurrection. This referred to the appearance of the sun and clouds and the appearance of Christ at his second coming.

I left it to this person to read Kittel & Friedrich’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament to discover the etymology and the various meanings of the Greek, epiphainw, epiphaneia, and epiphanes (vol 9, pp. 7-10, Eerdmans).

I recommend the article by Roger E Olson, ‘What’s wrong with Calvinism?‘ (Patheos, March 22, 2013).

Works consulted

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature.[6] Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

Fee, G D 1988. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. W Ward Gasque, New Testament (ed). Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

Mickelsen, A B 1963. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Robertson, A T 1931. Word pictures in the New Testament: The epistles of Paul, vol 4. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press.

Wenham, J W 1965. The elements of New Testament Greek (based on the earlier work by H P V Nunn). London / New York NY: Cambridge University Press.

Notes

[1] Christian Forums.com, General Theology, Soteriology, ‘Is rejecting Christ a sin’, griff #624, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755517-63/ (Accessed 12 July 2013).

[2] Ibid (emphasis in original).

[3] Ibid., OzSpen #644, my emphases.

[3a] I provided this Greek explanation at Christian Forums.net, Apologetics & Theology, ‘Salvation belongs to the Lord’, OzSpen#116. Available at: http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/salvation-belongs-to-the-lord.64623/page-6#post-1206560 (Accessed 31 May 2016). This explanation was at the request of one of the moderators, JohnDB.

[4] Christian Forums.com, General Theology, Soteriology…. Hammster #760, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755517-76/ (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[5] My response is as OzSpen #778 at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755517-78/ (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[6] This is ‘a translation and adaptation of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Wörtbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der ĂŒbrigen urchristlichen Literatur’ (4th rev & aug ed 1952) (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:iii).

Copyright © 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 21 August 2018.

Augustine’s last illness: A divine healing encounter


(Augustine, image courtesy Wikiart)		 clip_image001

(Saint Possidius, image courtesy Province of St Augustine)

By Spencer D Gear

The ministry of St Augustine of Hippo demonstrates the failure of cessationism in relation to the gifts of the Spirit. The gift of healing was alive and well through Augustine’s ministry. He lived ca. AD 354-430 [1]

Bishop Possidius (fifth century, died ca. 437), Bishop of Calama (in the Roman province of Numidia),[2] was a friend of Augustine of Hippo and wrote in the first biography about Augustine, Life of Augustine (Possidius 1919, ch XXIX), about ‘Augustine’s last illness’:

And it chanced at one time while we were seated with him at the table and were conversing together that he said to us: “I would have you know that in this time of our misfortune I ask this of God: either that He may be pleased to free this city which is surrounded by the foe, or if something else seems good in His sight, that He make His servants brave for enduring His will, or at least that He may take me from this world unto Himself.” And when he had taught us these words, together with him we all joined in a like petition to God Most High, for ourselves and for all our fellow bishops and for the others who were in this city. And lo, in the third month of the siege he succumbed to fever and began to suffer in his last illness. In truth the Lord did not deprive His servant of the reward of his prayer. For what he asked with tears and prayers for himself and the city he obtained in due time. I know also that both while he was presbyter and bishop, when asked to pray for certain demoniacs, he entreated God in prayer with many tears and the demons departed from the men. In like manner when he was sick and confined to his bed there came a certain man with a sick relative and asked him to lay his hand upon him that he might be healed. But Augustine answered that if he had any power in such things he would surely have applied it to himself first of all; to which the stranger replied that he had had a vision and that in his dream these words had been addressed to him: “Go to the bishop Augustine that he may lay his hand upon him, and he shall be whole.” Now when Augustine heard this he did not delay to do it and immediately God caused the sick man to depart from him healed (emphasis added).

This demonstration of the gift of the Spirit of healing is a further acknowledgment that a gift of the Spirit – the gift of healing – had not ceased in the 4th-5th centuries. Augustine was a leader of the Christian church and not some occult practitioner. Augustine, philosopher and theologian, ‘is looked upon by Protestants as one who was a forerunner of the Reformation ideas’ [3].

In the above citation, Augustine’s belief in the continuing gift of healing is demonstrated. For another example of this emphasis in the life and ministry of Augustine, see my article: St. Augustine: The leading Church Father who dared to change his mind about divine healing. In this article, I have shown Augustine’s change of theology in relation to divine healing.

Notes

[1] Donald X Burt 1996. Reflections on Augustine’s spirituality: Saint Augustine – His Life and Times. Villanova University. Available at: http://www41.homepage.villanova.edu/donald.burt/augustine.htm (Accessed 16 October 2015).

[2] Midwest Augustinians 2015. Saint Possidius, May 16 (online). Available at: http://midwestaugustinians.org/st-possidius/ (Accessed 8 September 2015). This article states that ‘he died in exile around the year 437’.

[3] Earl E Cairns 1981. Christianity through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, p. 149.

 

Copyright © 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 5 May 2016.

Belief in fate is false doctrine

Related image

(image courtesy living under high voltage)

By Spencer D Gear

I was flabbergasted to see the language of ‘fate’ being used by a Christian on an Internet Christian forum when he started a topic, ‘Fate vs Free Will’. For any Christian to use such language, he or she is making a statement about a lack of knowledge of biblical doctrine. Let’s investigate to examine if my statement is true.

This person wrote:

The seed has been planted in my heart! I believe that we have free will which in turn is our fate.

Do you believe one way or the other?

I believe in Fate so much so that it comes down to the very moment you wake up everyday to the very moment you go to bed. I believe our whole lives are predestined and everything that happens to us, the good the bad and the ugly, is all a package God wrote in his Book long ago.

“Is there anything of which can be said this is new? It has already been here in ancient times before us.”
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK.
Can you come up with bible verses?[1]

He clarified further:

‘To clarify why I believe in our free will becoming our fate, I give you this example:

You wake up in the morning and you sit in front of the stove and you are deciding whether or not to eat a banana. Should I eat the banana or not? I believe that God knows the “outcome”; this word is key! God knows the outcome!.. of either and both choices. Thus our free will becoming our fate’.[2]

A. Fate equated with predestination

The original poster clarified: ‘Very briefly, I believe that our every action (free will) is known and predestined by God 
 even though it is our free will’.[3]

B. Other Christian responses

This is a sample of responses to this post:

clip_image002 ‘I am interested how you can reconcile free will, with being fate? I never heard it quit (sic) mentioned like that before’.[4]

clip_image002[1] ‘Calvinists believe God creates those to be roasted in hell and God makes those who won’t have to roast in hell. Man has no free will. If they get sick, God already planned that. I am not so sure they go as far as to what color tooth brush you picked in 1984.

Arminianism believes man has a free will, but the Sovereignty of God is kept by God knowing what choices that man will make. Man has free will, but God knows what those choices will be.

Molinism believes God gives man free will, unless man is about to do something to alter a time line God does not want. God then intervenes so that the time line is the way he planned it, otherwise man is free to do what he wants as long as it does not cross over into God’s plan for the man and change the time lines. God knows the outcome of all alternate realities, and gets involved only if a reality is not what God wanted.

If you have come up with a new one, we should at least name it after you, right? Might as well get the credit and create that Wiki page with your name’.[5]

clip_image002[2] ‘People seem to make the word fate more then it really is. Some say it takes away will but, that couldn’t be any more wrong. Fate is just the predermination (sic) if our will, choices, ect (sic)’.[6]

clip_image002[3] Take a read of this kind of content from a Christian: ‘Most [of] the scriptures you posted are not related to fate, and God just knowing something is not fate. Fate would be more Election, Predestination. Foreknowledge or knowing opposes that doctrine.

How does God know what choice we are about to make? Would God know what choice we might make say 10 years from now?’[7]

clip_image002[4] ‘Keep in mind, God is not tracking everything. Lots of things happen, that the Lord is not aware of, or even cares to know. Things that get his attention, he check it out.
‘And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know’. (Gen 18:20-21).[8]

clip_image002[5] ‘How is it free will if it’s already predetermined, the two are mutually exclusive’.[9]

clip_image002[6] ‘God doesn’t plan everything, indeed Scripture even states such. ‘And have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind’ — Jeremiah 19:5 (ESV)
God states that the sacrificing of children by Baal worshipers did not even enter his mind, which seems to me a clear indication that God was not casually responsible for planning that it come to pass’.[10]

C. The challenge of Jeremiah 19:5

This verse is a particular challenge to the teaching on God’s sovereignty if it is true that the burning of children as offerings to Baal did not come into his mind, thus inferring that it was outside of God’s sovereign will.

Let’s check a few English translations of this verse:

checkmark fat 32 clip art ESV: ‘and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind’.

checkmark fat 32 clip art NASB: ‘and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My [11]mind’.

checkmark fat 32 clip art NIV: ‘They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal – something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind’.

checkmark fat 32 clip art NLT: ‘They have built pagan shrines to Baal, and there they burn their sons as sacrifices to Baal. I have never commanded such a horrible deed; it never even crossed my mind to command such a thing!’

checkmark fat 32 clip art NRSV: ‘and gone on building the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as burnt-offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it enter my mind’.

checkmark fat 32 clip art HCSB: ‘They have built high places to Baal on which to burn their children in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, something I have never commanded or mentioned; I never entertained the thought[12]’.

checkmark fat 32 clip artNET: ‘They have built places here[13] for worship of the god Baal so that they could sacrifice their children as burnt offerings to him in the fire. Such sacrifices[14] are something I never commanded them to make! They are something I never told them to do! Indeed, such a thing never even entered my mind!’

This verse raises a potential dispute. If God is absolutely sovereign over everything in the universe (see below), then how can something not ‘come into my [the Lord’s] mind’? What’s the meaning of this statement in relation to what the Lord says, ‘I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind’?

This same content is in Jeremiah 7:31 (ESV) and Jeremiah 32:35 (ESV).

The NET Bible translation of Jer 7:31 is, ‘They have also built places of worship in a place called Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom so that they can sacrifice their sons and daughters by fire. That is something I never commanded them to do! Indeed, it never even entered my mind to command such a thing!’[15]

The footnote in the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) gives us a clue. The statement in the text is, ‘I never entertained the thought’. The footnote at this point is, ‘‘Lit mentioned, and it did not arise on My heart’. So, the meaning of that sentence is that the Lord never mentioned it and it did not arise on his heart – his inner being.

Wayne Grudem’s explanation seems reasonable and consistent with the remainder of biblical revelation:

Another objection to the biblical teaching about God’s omniscience has been brought from Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; and 31:35, where God refers to the horrible practices of parents who burn to death their own children in the sacrificial fires of the pagan god Baal, and says, “which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind” (Jer. 7:31). Does this mean that before the time of Jeremiah God had never thought of the possibility that parents would sacrifice their own children? Certainly not, for that very practice had occurred a century earlier in the reigns of Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Hoshea (2 Kings 17:17), and God himself had forbidden the practice eight hundred years earlier under Moses (Lev. 18:21). The verses in Jeremiah are probably better translated quite literally, “nor did it enter into my heart “ (so KJV at Jer. 7:31, and the literal translation in the NASB mg.—the Hebrew word is l?b, most frequently translated “heart”), giving the sense, “nor did I wish for it, desire it, think of it in a positive way” (Grudem 1994:192, emphasis in original).[16]

Grudem explained further about the relationship of God’s sovereignty, omniscience and providence to a human beings ‘freedom’:

Another difficulty that arises in this connection is the question of the relationship between God’s knowledge of everything that will happen in the future and the reality and degree of freedom we have in our actions. If God knows everything that will happen, how can our choices be at all “free”? In fact, this difficulty has loomed so large that some theologians have concluded that God does not know all of the future. They have said that God does not know things that cannot (in their opinion) be known, such as the free acts of people that have not yet occurred (sometimes the phrase used is the “contingent acts of free moral agents,” where “contingent” means “possible but not certain”). But such a position is unsatisfactory because it essentially denies God’s knowledge of the future of human history at any point in time and thus is inconsistent with the passages cited above about God’s knowledge of the future and with dozens of other Old Testament prophetic passages where God predicts the future far in advance and in great detail.[17]

How then are we to resolve this difficulty?… Note the suggestion of Augustine, who said that God has given us “reasonable self- determination.”[18] His statement does not involve the terms free or freedom for these terms are exceptionally difficult to define in any way that satisfactorily accounts for God’s complete knowledge of future events. But this statement does affirm what is important to us and what we sense to be true in our own experience, that our choices and decisions are “reasonable.” That is, we think about what to do, consciously decide what we will do, and then we follow the course of action that we have chosen.

Augustine’s statement also says that we have “self-determination.” This is simply affirming that our choices really do determine what will happen. It is not as if events occur regardless of what we decide or do, but rather that they occur because of what we decide and do. No attempt is made in this statement to define the sense in which we are “free” or “not free,” but that is not the really important issue: for us, it is important that we think, choose, and act, and that these thoughts, choices, and actions are real and actually have eternal significance. If God knows all our thoughts, words, and actions long before they occur, then there must be some sense in which our choices are not absolutely free (Grudem 1994:192-194).

D. Fate is not biblical teaching

I do not find ‘fate’ to be a biblical doctrine. Nowhere in Scripture do I find such language as God’s doctrine of fate. So, my response was:[19]

The idea of ‘fate’ is not a biblical doctrine. However, the teaching on God’s sovereignty of the universe is core Christian teaching as the following verses demonstrate:

  • In the parable of the labourers in the vineyard, Jesus said: ‘Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ (Matt 20:15 ESV).
  • To the Romans, Paul wrote: ‘But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?’ (Rom 9:20-21 ESV)
  • Could anything be clearer than Eph 1:11 (ESV)? ‘In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will’.
  • This verse from the OT makes it clear that not fate, but God’s sovereignty, rules the universe: ‘Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all’ (1 Chronicles 29:11).

E. Conclusion

I conclude that the biblical teaching is that God, as Creator of the visible and invisible world, is the owner of all there is and he has an absolute right to rule the universe according to his holy and wise counsel. This includes God’s designated use and affirmation of government. Romans 13:1 (ESV) states of government: ‘Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God’.

And that includes the evil governments of the Roman emperors in the early Christian centuries AD, Hitler, Eichmann, Stalin, Pol Pot , Idi Amin, and corrupt governments around the world. God has not told us why he has allowed this evil to reign in world governments. But this we know:

(1) God is sovereign. He ‘works all things according to the counsel of his will (Eph 1:11),

(2) God will be glorified in all that happens in our world. ‘To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever’ (1 Peter 4:11), and

(3) All nations of the world will stand before God’s judgment (Matthew 25:31-46). All evil will be judged by the absolutely pure and holy God.

Works consulted

Augustine 1887. On grace and free will (online). Tr by P Holmes & R E Wallis, rev B B Warfield. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 5. P Schaff (ed). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co. Rev & ed for New Advent by K Knight. Available at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm (Accessed 8 July 2015).

Grudem, W 1994. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. An online copy is available at: http://storage.cloversites.com/firstbaptistchurchoffairburn/documents/Systematic_Theology_-_Wayne_Grudem.pdf (Accessed 9 July 2015).

Notes

[1] JesusBoy86#1, Christian Forums.net, ‘Fate vs Free Will’, June 20, 2015. Available at: http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/fate-vs-free-will.60076/ (Accessed 8 July 2015).

[2] Ibid., JesusBoy86#18.

[3] Ibid., JesusBoy#3.

[4] Ibid., Brother Mike#2.

[5] Ibid., Brother Mike#4.

[6] Ibid., JoJoe#11.

[7] Ibid., Brother Mike#12.

[8] Ibid., Brother Mike#14. This poster had lots of other Scripture with which he interacted briefly. I recommend a read of his post online.

[9] Ibid., Butch5#22.

[10] Ibid., Doulos Iesou#25.

[11] A footnote stated, ‘Lit heart’.

[12] The footnote here was, ‘Lit mentioned, and it did not arise on My heart’.

[13] The footnote was: ‘The word “here” is not in the text. However, it is implicit from the rest of the context. It is supplied in the translation for clarity’.

[14] The footnote here stated: ‘The words “such sacrifices” are not in the text. The text merely says “to burn their children in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal which I did not command.” The command obviously refers not to the qualification “to Baal” but to burning the children in the fire as burnt offerings. The words are supplied in the translation to avoid a possible confusion that the reference is to sacrifices to Baal. Likewise the words should not be translated so literally that they leave the impression that God never said anything about sacrificing their children to other gods. The fact is he did. See Lev 18:21; Deut 12:30; 18:10’.

[15] The footnote at this point was, ‘Heb “It never entered my heart.” The words “to command such a thing” do not appear in the Hebrew but are added for the sake of clarity’.

[16] Grudem’s footnote at this point was: ‘The same phrase (“to have a thought enter into the heart”) seems to have the sense “desire, wish for, long for” in all five of its occurrences in the Hebrew Old Testament: Isa. 65:17; Jer. 3:16 (where it cannot mean simply “have a factual knowledge of” ); 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; as well as in the equivalent Greek phrase  in Acts 7:23.

[17] Grudem discusses this question further in his chapter on God’s providence (chapter 16, in Grudem 1994:347–349).

[18] Grudem did not at this point provide a bibliographic reference for this citation (Grudem 1994;192). However, Augustine does use the language of human beings having ‘free choice’ with this statement: ‘Now He has revealed to us, through His Holy Scriptures, that there is in a man a free choice of will. But how He has revealed this I do not recount in human language, but in divine. There is, to begin with, the fact that God’s precepts themselves would be of no use to a man unless he had free choice of will, so that by performing them he might obtain the promised rewards’ (Augustine 1887:2)

[19] Christian Forums.net, OzSpen#35.

Copyright © 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date:  8 January 2019.

Does God have a physical body?

Hands by inky2010

inky2010 (courtesy openclipart)

By Spencer D Gear

It is unusual to find a person on a Christian forum online who is promoting the view that God has a physical body. I found such a person on a smallish Christian forum. He wrote:

To be made in God’s image is to be formed in a body like God’s. It is not related to being spiritually or morally like God
. God the Father and God the Son have physical bodies according to multiple scripture. The only part of the Trinity that is bodiless spirit is the Holy Spirit.[1]

A. Responding to God having a body

My initial response was, ‘This is an error of fact because ‘God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth’ (John 4:24 ESV)’.[2]

In reply to his second post,[3] I wrote the following:[4]

You have committed the question begging logical fallacy. You have started with your own belief, ‘God the Father and God the Son have physical bodies’ and then you set out to prove your presupposition by providing a list of Scriptures. That’s what a question begging fallacy does. Your conclusion is in your premise and that is what you have created here.

I notice that you conveniently left out John 4:24 (NIV), ‘God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth’. This verse DOES NOT say, ‘The Holy Spirit is spirit’. It says God (the Trinitarian God revealed in the NT) is spirit.

The verses you use to try to prove that God has a body do not prove that at all. Let us look at the first two verses you gave to try to support your view:

Gen 1:26-27 (ESV) and man being made in God’s image. There is little in that text to tell us exactly what it means for the first man to be made in God’s image. There is nothing here to demonstrate that it means that human beings have a body, just like God has a body. That is not stated here. It can’t be, because ‘God is spirit’ (John 4:24). Note the beginning of Gen 1:26, ‘And God said, “Let US make….”‘ Since God is a plurality here with the use of ‘us’, it must refer to the Trinity. It is simply stated. It is not fully explained. That happens further in the Bible.

File:Hermaphrodite.png

Hermaphrodite.png (Wikimedia Commons)

In Gen 1:26-27 we have the double description that the man will be made by God ‘in our image, after our likeness’. These terms ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ of God do state that human beings are patterned after God, but that does not state that God is a physical being, just as a human being is physical. HOWEVER, verse 27 affirms that ‘man’ made in the image of God included ‘male and female’. To require that human features  be attributed to God, which will they be, male or female? Is God a hermaphrodite, having both male and female sex organs (Oxford dictionaries)? This is a ridiculous and blasphemous conclusion.

We get some further insight into what they mean in Eph 4:24 (ESV): ‘Put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness’. Ah, there we have a glimpse of what the ‘likeness of God’ means. It refers to righteousness and holiness. Col 3:10 (ESV) explains further: ‘And have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator’. So the image of the Creator includes knowledge, renewed knowledge.

Martin Luther  wrote, ‘I understand this image of God to be … that Adam not only knew God and believed in Him that He was gracious; but that he also led an entirely godly life’ (in Leupold 1942:89). Don Stewart has refuted your view that God has a body in ‘Does God have a body?‘

So, your interpretation of God having a physical body is NOT supported by your use of Gen 1:26-27.

In other verses, you seem to be confused by the use of anthropomorphisms in Scripture. What are they?

‘Anthropomorphisms [from Greek (anthrwpos) = man/human + (morph?) = form] are figures of speech which represent God as having human characteristics, form or personality. They are symbolic descriptions, which help to make God’s attributes, powers and activities real to us’ (‘Does God have body parts?‘).

They are figures of speech used in Scripture and are not descriptions of God having physical attributes.

I encountered ewq1938 in another thread where I said to him, ‘Your view of God having a body does not come from the Scriptures, no matter how much you protest’.[5] His reply was:

Yes it does. You simply misinterpret it through the dark glass of the doctrines of your denomination.

God had a face that Moses could not see, but he could see God’s hand and back. That cannot be disputed. Claiming they are figurative contradicts the obvious and plain context of the event that transpired. If God has no actual face then Moses could not have seen it and not died but the truth is God has a literal face and if Moses saw it he would have literally died. Not a figurative face, not a figurative death.[6]

How do we know this language uses anthropomorphisms and not literal language? John 1:18 (NIV) states: ‘No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known’.

My response at that time was:[7]

When will you ever get it that John 1:18 (ESV) is true: ‘No one has ever seen God…’, and your interpretation is wrong. The fact of the matter is that when it speaks of God’s face, hand and back in relation to Moses, it is a theophany, using anthropomorphic language, i.e. ‘The attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object’ (Oxford dictionaries).

When will you ever admit you are wrong? ‘No one has ever seen God’, full stop, period, end of story, but ewq1938 wants to go on and on about God being ‘seen’ and having a body. Your failure to understand the hermeneutics of Scripture is causing you to come to a false understanding of the essence of who God is. He DOES NOT have a body with face, hands and back. Yes, he is described as having face, hands and back, but that is the use of an anthropomorphism (figure of speech). Or is that too big of a word for you to understand?

I presented more details to refute the view that God has a body:[8]

In Walter Kaiser Jr’s commentary on Exodus 24:9-10, he wrote:

That Moses and his company see “the God of Israel” at first appears to contradict 33:20; John 1:18; and 1 Timothy 6:16; but what they see is a “form [‘similitude’] of the Lord” (Nu 12:8), just as Ezekiel (Eze 1:26) and Isaiah (Isa 6:1) saw an approximation, a faint resemblance and a sensible adumbration [foreshadowing] of the incarnate Christ who was to come. There is a deliberate obscurity in the form and details of the one who produced such a splendid, dazzling effect on these observers (Kaiser 1990:449).

In Scripture, we will meet passages that speak of God being ‘seen’ by people such as Abraham, Moses, one of the prophets, or others. We are to understand this as these people seeing either a theophany (a visible manifestation of God), or that they did see God but it was not and could not be the full glory of God. We know that Moses asked for this according to Exodus 33:18 (ESV), ‘Please show me your glory’.  What was God’s reply? ‘You cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live’ (Ex 33:20 ESV). So, nobody can see the full glory of God. God denied this to Moses and he denies it to everyone else.

We have examples in Scripture of how God made himself known to people in various forms:

(1) For Abraham and Lot it was from passing visitors;

(2) For Moses it was through a burning bush;

(3) The people of Israel encountered a pillar of fire and a cloud.

However, God has made it clear in Scripture that NOBODY can see the pure essence of God and live. God made this blatantly clear to Timothy: ‘… he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen’ (1 Tim 6:15-16 ESV).

This agrees with John 1:18 (ESV), ‘No one has ever seen God’. That is, nobody has ever see the pure essence, the full glory of God – ever!

Tim Challies explained that to see God in his pure essence or radiant holiness, is ‘like trying to stare at the sun—it cannot be done without destroying your eyes’.

B. His view is unorthodox – heretical

Image result for heresy public domain

(image courtesy public domain) Answers to the question are at this link.

I told him[9] that his position is outside that of orthodox Christianity. What is your theological persuasion? From where do you gain these unorthodox views of the nature of God?

You are promoting a Mormon view of God having a body of flesh and bones. See HERE.

Your doctrine of God conforms with that of Mormonism. Here they defend your view of God in, ‘The Nature of God / Corporeality of God‘. This is a Mormon source and it aligns with what you have been stating in this thread about the corporeality of God – God having a body. Thus, your view of God harmonises with that of the cult of Mormonism.

To refute the idea that God has a physical body, see, ‘Does God have a physical body?‘

I asked sincerely: Are you a Mormon or Mormon sympathiser? His reply was:

It doesn’t matter if it’s non-orthodox as being orthodox is completely meaningless. The fact that the Father has a physical body comes directly from scripture. I don’t make lame excuses to explain the verses away
.

No, I am promoting a biblical view of God having a body. I am not Mormon and do not agree with a great deal of their beliefs because they aren’t biblically based. They simply happen to be correct about him having a body
.

[In answer to whether he was a Mormon or Mormon sympathiser] Not in the slightest. I am a person whose beliefs come solely from scripture, regardless of what orthodoxy says about those scriptural things and regardless of what various cults agree with or not agree with.

This is a typical used fallacy when you can’t dispute the scriptural facts you try to claim it must be false if a cult promotes it. It just happens this is one of the rare things a cult happens to get right which is amazing given the same people think they will become God’s and live on other planets lol.   It reminds of the old saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day.[10]

That could not go unchallenged so I responded:[11]

If being orthodox in theology is meaningless to you, then you are promoting unorthodox theology, which you are with your requirement for God having a physical body. That is a Mormon view of God. I’ve demonstrated that to you. No matter how much you try to demonstrate that God has a body, you happen to be dead wrong. How do I know? Scripture tells us so in John 4:24: ‘God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth’.

No matter how much you try to mount a case for God having a body, you fail because the Scriptures are adamant: ‘God is spirit’. End of story!

You are promoting a Mormon God whose theology of God comes straight from Joseph Smith and not from the Bible. Your view, ‘It just happens this is one of the rare things a cult happens to get right which is amazing given the same people think they will become God’s and live on other planets lol’, demonstrates how wrong you are when I’ve already given you the link to where Joseph Smith taught your view of God in Doctrine and Covenants 130:22. The Bible teaches ‘God is spirit’, therefore, he cannot have a body. We are not talking about the incarnation of Jesus here.

So what is the fallacy I’m using? You didn’t name it. I am not using a fallacy because what you are doing is twisting Scripture to make it agree with your presuppositional view of God. I’ve already demonstrated to you that you have used a question begging fallacy. It is you who is engaged in a circular reasoning fallacy.

Is Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, telling the truth when he wrote: ‘The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us’ (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22).

Is Scripture telling the truth when it says, ‘God is spirit’ (Jn 4:24)?

C. What does John 4:24 mean?

Concerning John 4:24, he wrote: ‘You don’t understand what that verse is saying. It doesn’t say “God the Father is spirit” does it?’[12]

How should I respond? Here goes:

1. I DO understand what John 4:24 states: ‘God is spirit’. It is speaking about God’s essence. He is completely spiritual – spirit! Ho theos (the God) is not a deity of stone, tree, or mountain where he has to be worshipped on a mountain like Mt Gerizim. Ho theos is the one and only true God and the context of John 4:23 tells us John is talking of the Father. The Father God is the God of spirit – not the God of flesh that you are trying to make of him.

2. God CANNOT be the God with a body when John 4:24 clearly states the essence is: ‘The God is spirit’.

3. I’m not lying about your view. The view that God has a body is a Mormon view of God (and of Audianism). You have already acknowledged to me in a post that this is one area when the Mormon cult got it right. Do you remember your saying that? I asked you if you were a Mormon or Mormon sympathiser and you said you were not. I accept that. However, your view of God having a body coincides with the Mormon doctrine of God and you’ve already stated to me that this is one area where the cult got it correct.

4. I’m not in any way suggesting that all of your theology agrees with Mormonism. I never said that, so to go into the Mormon view of Messiah is irrelevant. I was simply comparing your view of God with that of Mormonism. They synchronise.

5. I do NOT insert my own belief into ‘God is spirit’. I try to exegete the text.

6. You say, ‘in Genesis when Adam could hear God walking. That alone proves God had a physical form because walking requires a body’. No it doesn’t! Gen 3:8 (ESV) states that Adam and his wife ‘heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden’. Since we know that ‘God is spirit’ and here Scripture states that they heard the sound/voice of Yahweh God walking about in the garden, ‘there is extreme likelihood that the Almighty assumed some form analogous to the human form which was made in His image. Nor is there anything farfetched about the further supposition that previously our first parents had freely met with and conversed with their heavenly Father’ (Leupold 1942:155). This could have been a theophany – a manifestation or appearance of Yahweh to a human being. However, it does not demonstrate that God has a permanent physical body since ‘God is spirit’ by essence.

7. God appearing to Adam & Eve in a theophany must not be confused with anthropomorphism, which is ascribing human attributes in describing God and his activities – by use of figures of speech.

D. It’s a heresy from the early church

The view promoted by ewq1938 on this Christian forum that God has a physical body is not new. This is a heresy from the fourth century known as Audianism, popularised by Audius (or Audaeus). You can read the nature of this heresy in ‘Audianism Explained‘.
See an explanation of the heresy in Ecclesiastical History (Theodoret), Book IV, Chapter 9, ‘Of the heresy of the Audiani‘. It explains that

AudĂŠus, a Syrian alike in race and in speech, appeared at that time as an inventor of new decrees. He had long ago begun to incubate iniquities and now appeared in his true character. At first he understood in an absurd sense the passage Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. From want of apprehension of the meaning of the divine Scripture he understood the Divine Being to have a human form, and conjectured it to be enveloped in bodily parts; for Holy Scripture frequently describes the divine operations under the names of human parts, since by these means the providence of God is made more easily intelligible to minds incapable of perceiving any immaterial ideas. To this impiety AudĂŠus added others of a similar kind. By an eclectic process he adopted some of the doctrines of Manes and denied that the God of the universe is creator of either fire or darkness. But these and all similar errors are concealed by the adherents of his faction.

Audaeus used Genesis 1:26-27 to support his view. These are two verses used as the first to support this view by the person on this forum.

E. It’s a heresy endorsed by Mormonism

The Mormon’s believe ‘God has a body’ (Mormon Handbook). It’s a false doctrine of Mormonism. This article states that Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, taught, ‘The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us’ (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). The Mormons claim that ‘’his unique Mormon doctrine is an extension of the belief that God was formerly a mortal man’ (Mormon Handbook).

F. Examples of Anthropomorphisms

The Creation of Man, Sistine Chapel ceiling, Michelangelo (‘Gender of God’, Wikipedia)

There is biblical language where God’s actions are associated with his feet, hands, arms, ears, eyes, and face. Are these to be understood literally or in some other way?

1. Feet

There are passages that refer to God’s feet. Examples include Isaiah 66:1 (NIV), ‘This is what the Lord says, “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool”’; 1 Cor 15:25 (ESV), ‘For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet’; I Cor 15:27 (ESV), ‘For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet”’.

2. Hands

God is said to have ‘hands on occasions: ‘And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt’ (Ex 7:5 NIV). Psalm 110:1 (ESV) states, ‘The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool”. There is this statement in Isa 23:11 (NIV), ‘The LORD has stretched out his hand over the sea and made its kingdoms tremble’. Similar statements can be found in the New Testament: ‘Who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him ‘ (1 Peter 3:22 ESV); ‘Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God’ (1 Peter 5:6 ESV); ‘My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand’ (John 10:29 ESV).

This website lists 61 verses that refer to the ‘hand of God’ in both Old and New Testaments.

3. Arms

Both Old and New Testaments speak of some dimension of ‘arms’ in association with God. These are but a few samples, firstly from the Old Testament: ‘By a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes’ (Deut 4:34 NIV); ‘Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm’ (Deut 5:15 NIV); ‘You crushed the great sea monster. You scattered your enemies with your mighty arm.’ (Ps 89:10 NLT).

The New Testament gives these examples: ‘He has performed mighty deeds with his arm’ (Lk 1:51 NIV); ‘To whom has the LORD revealed his powerful arm?’ (John 12:28 NLT); ‘The God of this people Israel chose our fathers and made the people great during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with uplifted arm he led them out of it’ (Ac 13:17 ESV).

4. Ears / he hears

When speaking of prayer, Scripture can refer to God’s ears and God hearing. ‘Give ear, LORD, and hear; open your eyes, LORD, and see; listen to the words Sennacherib has sent to ridicule the living God’ (2 Kings 19:16 NIV); ‘let your ear be attentive and your eyes open to hear the prayer your servant is praying before you day and night for your servants, the people of Israel’ (Neh 1:6 NIV); ‘God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there”’ (Gen 21:17 NIV); ‘Therefore, say to the Israelites: “I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment”’ (Ex 6:6 NIV). See also Exodus 24:10-11 (NIV).

Does the New Testament give this emphasis as well? This is one of the most profound verses to encourage Christians to pray: ‘This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him’ (1 John 5:14-15 NIV). Other NT verses include: John 9:31 (ESV), ‘We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him’. James 5:4 (NIV), ‘The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty’; and, ‘For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil’ (1 Pet 3:12 NIV).

5. Eyes

The Old Testament affirms: Deut 11:12 (NIV), ‘It is a land the LORD your God cares for; the eyes of the LORD your God are continually on it from the beginning of the year to its end’; Job 34:21 ‘His eyes are on the ways of mortals; he sees their every step’ (NIV); Psalm 33:18, ‘But the eyes of the LORD are on those who fear him, on those whose hope is in his unfailing love,’ (NIV), and Prov 15:3, ‘The LORD is watching everywhere, keeping his eye on both the evil and the good’ (NLT).

The New Testament is also as clear with its anthropomorphisms: 2 Cor 8:21, ‘For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of man’ (NIV); Heb 4:13 (NASB), ‘And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do’; 1 Pet 3:12 (ESV), ‘For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil’, and Rev 1:14 (NIV), ‘The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire’.

See the article on bible.org, ‘The Pupil Of Your Eye”: God’s Eye And Our Perception’ (bible.org).

6. Mouth / he speaks

At the start of the Bible we have God speaking, according to Genesis 1:3 (NIV): ‘And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light’; Psalm 33:6 (ESV), ‘By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host’; Heb 11:3 (NASB), ‘By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible’; 2 Pet 3:5 (ESV), ‘For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God’;

7. Face

What about the concept/theology of God having a ‘face’? Leviticus 20:6 (NIV) states, ‘I will set my face against anyone who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute themselves by following them’; Numbers 6:25 (NIV) confirms that God has a ‘face’: ‘The LORD make his face shine on you and be gracious to you’. Psalm 31:16, ‘Let your face shine on your servant; save me in your unfailing love’ (NIV); Ps 67:1, ‘May God be merciful and bless us. May his face smile with favor on us.’ (NLT); Jer 18:17 describes God as showing ‘them’ his back and not his face, ‘Like a wind from the east, I will scatter them before their enemies; I will show them my back and not my face in the day of their disaster’ (NIV). Ezek 39:29, ‘I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the people of Israel, declares the Sovereign LORD’ (NIV).

In the New Testament, we have these details: Matt 18:10 (NIV) refers to children, ‘See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven’. When will the believer see God face to face? First Cor 13:12 reveals that: ‘For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.’ (NIV); 1 Pet 3:12, ‘The eyes of the Lord watch over those who do right, and his ears are open to their prayers. But the Lord turns his face against those who do evil’ (NLT); See also Rev 6:16, ‘And they cried to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb’ (NLT), and Rev 22:3-4, ‘There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him; they will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads’ (NIV).

The Dictionary of Bible Themes records this information about the face of God:

The face of God as a sign of blessing

Nu 6:25-26 See also 2Sa 21:1; 1Ch 16:11; Ps 4:6; Ps 31:16; Ps 67:1; Ps 80:19; Ps 105:4; Ps 119:135; Eze 39:29
.

His face cannot be seen Ex 33:20-23 “The face of God” may mean here God’s real and true self, the inference being that no-one can look on God as he is in his total purity and majesty.

Apparent exceptions where God is seen face to face Ge 32:30 After Jacob’s wrestling with a figure whose exact identity is not explicit in the preceding verses. Jacob did experience a real encounter with God but God was in a real and approachable form, not in his transcendent and visible glory. See also Ex 33:11; Nu 12:8; Dt 5:4; Dt 34:10; Eze 20:35

The angels in heaven look upon the face of God Mt 18:10

God must reveal himself if people are to see his face Job 34:29 The Greek word for “revelation” literally means “removing a veil from one’s face”.

The righteous will see God’s face in the life to come 1Co 13:12; Rev 22:4

When God hides his face, blessing is withheld

Complaints at God hiding his face Ps 44:24 See also Ps 13:1; Ps 88:14

Cries for help Ps 27:9 See also Ps 69:17; Ps 102:2; Ps 143:7

Statements concerning God’s anger and judgment Isa 54:8 See also Dt 31:17-18; Ps 22:24; Ps 30:7; Ps 51:9; Ps 104:29; Isa 8:17; Isa 64:7; Jer 33:5; Eze 39:23-24; Mic 3:4; Rev 6:16

Other phrases synonymous with God hiding his face 2Ch 30:9; Jer 18:17; Eze 7:22

God sets his face against sinners Lev 17:10; Lev 20:3; Lev 26:17; Ps 34:16; Eze 14:8; 1Pe 3:12; Eze 15:7

God’s face as a symbol of his favour

Seeking the face of God in prayer 2Ch 7:14 See also 2Sa 21:1; 1Ch 16:11; Ps 24:6; Ps 105:4; Ps 119:58; Hos 5:15

Seeking the favour of God Ex 32:11 See also 1Sa 13:12; 2Ki 13:4; 2Ch 33:12; Jer 26:19; Da 9:13; Zec 7:2; Zec 8:21; Mal 1:9

Appearing before God in worship Ex 23:15 The phrase seems to recall the fact that in ancient religions worshippers came before carved faces of their idols. In Israel such physical representations of God were forbidden but the phrase was still used underlining the belief that Israel’s God was present in his sanctuary. See also Ex 23:17; Ex 34:20; Dt 16:16; Dt 31:11; Ps 42:2; Isa 1:12

The shining of God’s face upon his people indicates his blessing Nu 6:25-26 See also Ps 4:6; Ps 31:16; Ps 44:3; Ps 67:1; Ps 80:3,19; Ps 119:135

God’s face accompanies Israel as a symbol of his presence

Ex 33:14 Literally “my face will go …” Here this phrase may allude not only to God’s presence but also to the manifestations of his presence (e.g., the cloud in verse 9). See also Dt 4:37; Isa 63:9.[13]

8. Smells

‘The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done’ (Gen 8:21 NIV). See also Lev 1:9; Ezek 16:19 (ESV); 2 Cor 2:15; Eph 5:2, and Phil 4:18.

9. Wings

Here is an unusual anthromorphism, ‘Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy! I look to you for protection. I will hide beneath the shadow of your wings until the danger passes by’ (Psalm 57:1 NLT). The psalmist continues this theme, ‘He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart’ (Ps 91:4 NIV).

10. Anthropopathisms – God’s emotions in human terms

Image result for mercy public domain

In addition to anthropomorphisms that use physical traits, God is often described as having emotions that sound like human emotions. These are known as anthropopathisms, which the dictionary describes as ‘the ascription of human feelings to something not human’ (Merriam-Webster 2015. s.v. anthropopathism).

Among these are included God’s regret or sorrow (Genesis 6:6), jealousy (Exodus 20:5), grief (Isaiah 54:6), anger/wrath (Psalm 7:11; Jer 7:20); he hates (Prov 6:16; Amos 5:21; Rom 9:13); rich in mercy (Eph 2:4); loves (Ex 20:6; Ps 86:15; Jn 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:37-39) and God’s favour or blessings (Ex 23:25; Num 6:24-26; Prov 10:22; Matt 25:34; Mark 10:16; Eph 1:3; Heb 6:13-14; 1 Pet 2:19).

G. Conclusion

The Audian heresy of the fourth century and the Mormon, cultic false doctrine of God having a body are alive and well on an evangelical forum on the Internet.

Does God have a physical body? No, because he is spirit (John 4:24) and whenever language of hands, feet, and other aspects of the body are used to describe God in Scripture, the writers are using figures of speech known as anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms, which include ‘the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object (Oxford dictionaries 2015. S v anthropomorphism).

I don’t expect the person on the Christian forum to be changing his mind too soon as he is resistant to the idea that God is spirit and that does not mean God has a body.

See the excellent brief article, ‘Does God have a body?’ (Paul Kroll, Grace Communion International) that refutes the idea that God has a physical body.

Works consulted

Kaiser, Jr., W C 1990. Exodus. In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol 2, 285-498. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library (Zondervan Publishing House).

Leupold, H C 1942. Exposition of Genesis, vol 1. London: Evangelical Press.

Notes

[1] ewq1938#2, #8, 20 September 2015, Christianity Board, ‘God’s likeness’, available at: http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21930-gods-likeness/#entry261628 (Accessed 21 September 201).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen#3.

[3] Ibid., ewq1938#8.

[4] Ibid., OzSpen#15.

[5] ewq1938#554, 1 September 2015, Christianity Board, ‘The Nicene Creed is not Christian’. Available at: http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21727-the-nicene-creed-is-not-christian/page-19 (Accessed 21 September 2015).

[6] Ibid.,

[7] Ibid., OzSpen#559.

[8] Ibid., OzSpen#563.

[9] Ibid., OzSpen#528.

[10] Ibid., ewq1938#541.

[11] Ibid., OzSpen#543.

[12] Ibid., ewq1938#544.

[13] This is available at BibleGateway, ‘1255 Face of God’, at: https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/dictionary-of-bible-themes/1255-face-God (Accessed 22 September 2015).

Copyright © 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 07 March 2020.

Spiritual gifts sign of Christian maturity

Image result for question marks public domain

By Spencer D Gear

Have you ever heard Christians say things like: (1) I’m not interested in those Pentecostal-charismatics because all I hear when I enter their meetings is that hokus pokus of raving on in that tongues nonsense. (2) Those Pentecostals are into gibberish and I want nothing to do with that subjective garbage. (3) I’ve moved beyond that immature stuff to grown-up Christianity.

As John MacArthur began his exposition of 1 Corinthians 14, he stated:

I was listening to a well-known charismatic preacher this week who was saying that to receive the Spirit of God, you must receive, you must receive tongues. And he was saying, “It isn’t like you’re seeking tongues. It’s that you’re seeking this fullness of the Spirit, and tongues comes with it.” And he said, “The way to illustrate this,” and it was interesting because he didn’t really use Scripture, but he said is, “When you go to a shoe store, and you look in the window, you don’t say, ‘I’d like to buy those tongues.’ You just want to buy those shoes, and the tongues come with them.” And so he was saying that, “What you really want is to buy or to purchase or to gain the power of the Spirit of God, your spiritual walking shoes, and tongues come along with them” (MacArthur 1977).

John MacArthur (public domain)

MacArthur then gets into what he thinks is an elevation of spiritual superiority among charismatics. He wrote (remember that this is back in 1977 when he preached on this):

‘Well, what happens in this thing is you divide the church into the spiritual haves and the spiritual have-nots.  And this is the tragedy of the thing; the haves cannot help but feel a sense of superiority over the have-nots.  It’s just kind of built in.  And even though they may resist it and fight it and some may succeed, the vast majority of folks cannot help but feel that everybody else is missing something that they’re not missing.  I guess I would have to say that I’m among the have-nots, and even once in a while, I get a little intimidated about that.  But I’ve wondered if the intimidation doesn’t even reach right into the charismatic ranks.  I’m afraid that maybe some of them are intimidated.  Some of them perhaps tempted to exaggerate or dramatize or fabricate miracles because of peer pressure or the desire to also belong in the group that’s sharing rather strange and bizarre things’ (MacArthur 1977).

Miracles, tongues and spiritual maturity

Image result for charismatic worship public domain

Rev Frank Hughes Jr (public domain)

I met some of MacArthur’s kind of sentiments on a Christian forum in 2015. I had been defending a continuation of gifts of the Spirit for today and stated that in church gatherings I have heard the genuine gift of tongues with the required accompanying gift of interpretation. I have been edified and to call it ‘mad raving babbling’ is insulting to those whom God uses to manifest the genuine gifts of tongues and interpretation.

The biblical mandate is: (1) ‘Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy’ (1 Cor 14:5 ESV). (2) ‘So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But all things should be done decently and in order’ (1 Cor 14:39-49 ESV).[1]

I asked another person, ‘So was Paul contradicting himself because he also said: ‘Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy’ (1 Cor 14:5 ESV)?’[2] His response was, ‘Not at all. He was speaking to the Corinthians. He said, “I want you all’.[3] Then he went on to say that ‘Not at all. He was speaking to the Corinthians. He said, “I want you all”’.[4]

After this kind of interaction I encountered the reaction regarding

The test of spiritual maturity

He wrote:

It was not my intention to say that miracles indicate poor spiritual maturity.  It is my intention to say that miracles or tongues are not a test of strong spiritual maturity.  My point is that there is nothing in the Scriptures that indicate these gifts have anything to do with maturity.  If anything, Paul says these gifts do not aid in the maturity or building up of others.  This is why he encouraged prophesy.  So again, I am not saying these gifts are a sign of immaturity (if they are legitimately taking place today), but I just don’t see any evidence that they have anything to do with maturity.  That is the claim many Charismatics often make and I find it to be entirely baseless.  This brings me to a couple thoughts about these gifts:[5]

My retort[6] was that I did not know why he placed this emphasis on maturity vs immaturity when God has clearly told us this about the spiritual gifts: ‘All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills’ (1 Cor 12:11 ESV). Are we open to the Holy Spirit giving us the full range of charismata that the Spirit gives? His general emphasis in his post indicates that he is not interested in the gift of tongues being manifest by the Spirit in his life. Have I gained a correct understanding of your view?

It’s not a matter of maturity vs immaturity. It’s based on a biblical, spiritual answer to this question: Am I open to the Holy Spirit apportioning to me whatever gifts he chooses, including tongues and interpretation? I’m not hearing that he is open to the latter. He continued:

There is no indication in the NT that miracles or tongues were gifts that were given for those who sought them passionately enough.  In fact, we see tongues simply falling on people without any coaching, expectation or desire for this gift.  To say that someone does not have the gift because they don’t seek it enough tor because they do not have enough faith (which is a constant theme in charismatic circles I am aware of) finds no validation in Scripture whatsoever.  Yes, Paul wished that they all spoke in tongues, but he preferred they all prophesy.  So why are we so focused on tongues as such a meaningful gift when Paul not only indicates that not all would have this gift, but that there are other gifts to be much preferred.  Again, Paul makes it clear that not all have the gift of tongues.  And we see from the issues in the Corinthian church, that tongues is certainly not a barometer for  one’s spiritual maturity.  If anything, it has nothing to do whatsoever with maturity or faith.  I find no basis in the argument that all Christians should have a “prayer language” or should seek to speak in tongues.[7]

This is not so.[8] First Corinthians 14:1 (ESV) makes it very clear that spiritual gifts (a range has been given in 1 Cor 12-14) must be desired: ‘Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophecy’.

I am not here to validate what he considers is ‘a constant theme in charismatic circles’. When does he visit charismatic churches? How many has he attended in the last 12 months?

I’m here to discuss what the Scriptures state and I’m hearing from him a denigration of the scriptural gifts, especially of tongues. Tongues fell on people on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) but we have a different manner of manifestation given in 1 Cor 12-14 where there ‘are varieties of gifts’ (1 Cor 12:4 ESV) manifest in the local church. Speaking of the range of the gifts of the Spirit (including tongues and interpretation), Paul stated, ‘All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills’ (1 Cor 12:11 ESV). Someone does not have the gift because God has not given it to that person. However, his opposition to these supernatural gifts is a fair indication that he is providing a block in his own life that prevents such manifestations coming through him. Paul’s command to us is: ‘Earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues‘ (1 Cor 14:39 ESV).

There is no such coaching for spiritual gifts but I tell you what is needed more and that is careful exegesis of the text and exposition of passages such as 1 Cor 12-14.

He says, ‘So why are we so focused on tongues as such a meaningful gift when Paul not only indicates that not all would have this gift, but that there are other gifts to be much preferred’. Simply put, ‘One who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God’, uttering ‘mysteries in the Spirit’ (1 Cor 14:2 ESV). Surely everyone should want to speak to God in the Spirit? Well, I do. I praise God using the gift of tongues when he gives it to me. Non-charismatic churches will not allow me to do that, so I do it in my prayer time at home. ‘The one who prophecies [another spiritual gift given by the Spirit] speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation’ (1 Cor 14:3 ESV). So the gift of prophecy is clearly a manifestation among the people of God for spiritual edification. This is surely not to call such people immature but is to ‘build up the church’ (1 Cor 14:4 ESV). What does the person do who speaks in tongues? He or she ‘builds up himself/herself’ (1 Cor 14:4), which is not an egotistical ministry but one that is perfectly legitimate according to Paul.

He states, ‘And we see from the issues in the Corinthian church, that tongues is certainly not a barometer for  one’s spiritual maturity.  If anything, it has nothing to do whatsoever with maturity or faith.’ That’s his perspective. It’s not what 1 Corinthians teaches. It teaches that what was happening in Corinth was disorder (which is also in some charismatic-Pentecostal churches in my region) and they needed to get back to this emphasis: ‘But all things should be done decently and in order’ (1 Cor 14:40 ESV). That emphasis is one that should be taught to many in the charismatic-Pentecostal ranks. But the problem is not with the nature of tongues and interpretation, but with how they are being exercised in the church. Extreme examples should not deter us from biblical emphases. I don’t allow the Mormon view of prophecy to interfere with a biblical understanding of prophecy.

He said of the gift of tongues: ‘If anything, it has nothing to do whatsoever with maturity or faith.  I find no basis in the argument that all Christians should have a “prayer language” or should seek to speak in tongues’. His is not a biblical emphasis. Speaking in tongues has everything to do with maturity or faith because when a person has the genuine gift of tongues, he or she ‘speaks not to men but to God’ (1 Cor 14:2 ESV). Is that what he wants to do – speak to God?

He could possibly respond, ‘But I can do that in English’. He can, but the Holy Spirit comes upon people with the gift of tongues so that they speak to God through ‘mysteries in the Spirit’ (1 Cor 14:2). I never knew anything about such an understanding when I was a cessationist Baptist who did not believe in the charismata, including tongues and interpretation. That changed drastically for me in the early 1970s when God came upon me through a genuine manifestation of the gift of tongues where I was able to speak to God in a way that brought edification that I previously did not know.

Why are tongues and miracles not in every church?

He continues:

You still did not answer the question about your view on tongues and miracles.  If these gifts exist for the purpose of building up the local body, as you assert, why do we not see them in every local body?  Does God not want most churches to be edified?  Isn’t it the Spirit who gives these gifts freely?  Why is it that only those congregations that are coached to expect and desire these manifestations have them when this is not what we see in the NT?  Again, I am not going to try to discount any supposed prophet and his miracles.  I don’t know the man and I am not in a position to claim you or this prophet are being false.  I just simply think that if these gifts are for the purpose of the body being built up and not functional (they have a very specific function and should not be expected as a regular part of the Christian experience) then we should see them in most churches…and not just hear about them in remote places as very unusual circumstances.[9]

I think he should now have some understanding of my view on tongues. However, why are these gifts not in every local body? Simply put, if tongues were to be manifest in the evangelical Presbyterian Church my wife and I currently attend, the person would be quickly ushered out of this cessationist church by the elders. It would cause such a ruckus that the person would be told never ever to engage in that kind of thing again. Frankly, it is NOT WANTED so it is never likely to happen in that church. I’m of the view that the Holy Spirit’s ministry is frustrated, even grieved or blasphemed, when something like this happens. So, people who are open to the full range of gifts of the Spirit go to charismatic-Pentecostal churches where they will have the opportunity for the Spirit’s manifestation through the gifts.

(public domain)

I think he is excessively harsh with his statement: ‘Why is it that only those congregations that are coached to expect and desire these manifestations have them when this is not what we see in the NT’? That might be what he has seen or heard about in his region, but I have never ever been part of a charismatic-Pentecostal church that has engaged in ‘coaching’ (I find that to be pejorative language). I have been part of churches that have pursued the biblical mandate, ‘Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts…. Do not forbid speaking in tongues’ (1 Cor 14:1, 40 ESV).

He will not see the gifts in churches that are denying that these supernatural charismata should be happening. I know from personal experience that cessationist churches would censor a person who wants the supernatural gifts to function. I attend a mid-week Bible study of another denomination and the pastor has come from a South African Pentecostal denomination. He has been told by the denominational leaders here in Australia that he MUST NOT ALLOW THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS – especially tongues – TO HAPPEN IN THAT CHURCH.

Tongues as ‘ecstatic utterances’

This forum poster wanted to place tongues with ‘ecstatic utterances’.

You also did not answer my question as to your Scriptural validation that tongues is merely an ecstatic utterance and not a miraculous speaking in another human language. If tongues does exist today, I am still not convinced that what is happening in most charismatic circles meets the NT definition of this gift.[10]

I’ll start with his last comment. What I have seen in some charismatic-Pentecostal churches (not all of them that I have attended) is not consistent with the biblical manifestation of tongues and interpretation. For example, if tongues are manifest (aloud so all can hear) in a congregation, there MUST BE the accompanying gift of interpretation. Otherwise, ‘I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me’ (1 Cor 14:11 ESV). The biblical emphasis with the gifts is to ‘strive to excel in building up the church’ (1 Cor 14:12 ESV). That means there must be intelligibility – English in Australia, Spanish in Spain, Arabic in Saudi Arabia, etc. ‘Building up the church’ is a ministry of edification. Surely that cannot be described as an immature ministry!!!

I would not use the language that tongues is ‘an ecstatic utterance’ because that is not a biblical emphasis. Tongues is a divine gift of the Spirit that needs the accompanying gift of interpretation.

Tongues may be a miraculous gift in another human language, but who am I to tell God what he should do when he gives the gift of tongues? He has told us what he does: The one speaking with the Spirit’s gift of tongues – given in love – ‘utters mysteries in the Spirit’. I would never ever be so brazen as to tell God that he MUST DO IT with human languages that are spoken on this earth? I would be foolish to tell the omnipotent Trinitarian God what he must do to satisfy my inability to understand all he does through ‘mysteries in the Spirit’.

For this I pray that it will happen in more and more churches: ‘When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up’ (I Cor 14:26 ESV). One of the great tragedies of the contemporary church is that the people of God are convinced that only a handful of people – pastors, elders, teachers, etc – have gifts and most of God’s people are not allowed to function when the church gathers.

‘Crazy dog’ behaviour

I can understand some of the objections to charismatic excesses. See an example of the ‘Crazy dog man’ behaviour of the Toronto Blessing on YouTube. This pandemonium is not only shameful, but in direct conflict with the exhortation of Scripture – in the context of teaching on the gifts: ‘But be sure that everything is done properly and in order’ (1 Cor 14:40 NLT).

Further assistance

designQuiltsmall You might be interested in my explanation of a bad experience I had in a charismatic house church. See: Charismatic chaos in a Brisbane house church.

designQuiltsmall Gift of tongues is gibberish?

designQuiltsmall Does the superiority of New Testament revelation exclude the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit? Is cessationism biblical?

designQuiltsmall Can cessationism be supported by Scripture and church history?

 

Works consulted

MacArthur, J 1977. Where does the Bible end? Part 1, February 13. Grace to You. Available at: http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/1364/where-does-the-bible-end-part-1 (Accessed 1 July 2015).

Notes

[1] OzSpen#9, Christianity Board, Christian Theology Forum, ‘The Administration of Tongues’, 19 June 2015. Available at: http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21597-the-administration-of-tongues/ (Accessed 1 July 2015).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen#10.

[3] Ibid., Butch5#12

[4] Ibid., Butch5#13.

[5] Ibid., Wormwood#59.

[6] Ibid., OzSpen#61.

[7] Ibid., Wormwood #59.

[8] Ibid., OzSpen#61.

[9] Ibid., Wormwood#59.

[10] Ibid., Wormwood#59.

 

Copyright © 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 8 June 2016.

Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?

Eastern Orthodox icon depicting the First Council of Nicaea (courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

It’s interesting to note how tricky people can be in avoiding declaring that they do not believe in the fundamental Christian doctrine of the Trinity of God. This is how one fellow was elusive on a Christian forum. He wrote that there is no Scripture which refers to the Triune God:

Anti-trinitarian in action

This is how one anti-Trinitarian (a unitarian) explained his/her rejection of the Trinity:

1 Corinthians 8:6, ‘But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him’.

Ephesians 4:5-6King James Version (KJV), ‘5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all’.

There is no scripture saying Triune God…the scripture says continue in the Father and the Son

1 John 2:22-24King James Version (KJV), ‘22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father’.[1]

So, according to this person, Scripture does not say Triune God. He[2] continued:

Image result for clipart single parallel arrows public domain

‘by your own admission ….if the HS [Holy Spirit] is God’s Spirit… then the HS is God and therefore not a third person…which means there is no trinity.’[3]

Image result for clipart single parallel arrows public domain

‘The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God… Do you not believe the scripture??? Ephesians 4:5-6 (KJV) ‘5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all’.[4]

Image result for clipart single parallel arrows public domain

‘‘The Spirit of God is God… and NOT something other than God…and thereore (sic) NOT another person or entity. John 4:24 “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth”. John 14:23, ‘Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.’[5]

Image result for clipart single parallel arrows public domain

‘The scripture does not teach…..the Holy Ghost is  a person of a Trinity….scripture teaches the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God… Paul said   “And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” (Eph 4:30 KJV)’[6]

Image result for clipart single parallel arrows public domain

‘You have not been reading scripture …have you?…scripture sats (sic) nothing about a triune nature….it says God is ONE……what are the three natures you are talking about??? show scripture saying there are three natures… Jesus said I and my Father are one….Jesus and  the Father makes their abode with us….One  Spirit’. [7]

Image result for clipart single parallel arrows public domain

‘OK here is the person…..: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”  who was HE that the disciples Knew???….who was he that dwelleth with the disciples???…and who was the HE that shall be in us????’[8]

Image result for clipart single parallel arrows public domain

‘where does scripture say one God in three persons….???? you have no scripture to back up that claim.’[9]

Image result for clipart single parallel arrows public domain

‘none of those say or imply in any way…”one God in three persons.”….. you are reading that into the scripture friend’.[10]

The challenge

After seeing this kind of back and forth from a non-Trinitarian person, I asked him directly, ‘Don’t you believe in the Trinity?’[11] His response was predictably, ‘Where does the scripture command anyone to believe in the trinitarian God???’[12] I replied, ‘You are not answering my question. I asked: Do you believe in the Trinitarian God or not?’[13]

He eventually confessed: ‘I do not believe in the trinitarian god… it is a false doctrine… can you now answer my question??… where does the scripture command anyone to believe in the trinitarian god???[14]

It was at this point I gave him
.

A beginning answer [15]

Please note that I do not deal here with the unity of God, that there is one God.

Where does the Scripture command us to believe in the Trinitarian God?

Let’s answer the first issue associated with this question. Where does Scripture command us to believe in God? There are many Scriptures we could choose. Let’s deal with just a couple:

a. ‘And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.’ (Heb 11:6 ESV). ‘And you, Solomon my son, know the God of your father and serve him with a whole heart and with a willing mind, for the Lord searches all hearts and understands every plan and thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will cast you off for ever’ (1 Chron 28:9 ESV). We could go to other verses as well to affirm the need to believe in God.

b. The second question is: What is the nature of this God? Is he Trinitarian or non-trinitarian? Let’s investigate further.

In a response, this is what happens when a person only gives the biblical verses that support the anti-trinitarian view of god, which is a heretical view of God as was declared at the Council of Nicea in AD 325 (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2015). See the Nicene Creed below. Why? Because he has chosen to exclude the verses that demonstrate that God consists of three persons who are deity – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The definition of the Trinity which has biblical support is: ‘God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God’ (Grudem 1999:104).

What’s the evidence that God, the Father, is fully God? It is progressively revealed throughout Scripture. As early as Genesis 1:26 (ESV), God is revealed as a plurality: ‘Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’. Here we have the plural pronouns ‘us’ and ‘our’ used. Are they plurals of majesty or do they indicate that there is plurality in the Godhead? ‘In Old Testament Hebrew there are no other examples of a monarch using plural verbs or plural pronouns of himself in such a “plural of majesty,” so this suggestion has no evidence to support it’ (Grudem 1999:104). The God who is plurality made a human being (man) in their (plural) image.

The persons and deity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit

The “Shield of the Trinity” or Scutum Fidei diagram of traditional Western Christian symbolism (courtesy Wikipedia)

The more complete revelation is in the New Testament where we find that

Image result for clipart single parallel arrows public domain

God, the Father, is regarded as God. ‘For on him God the Father has set his seal’ (Jn 6:27 ESV); ‘God our Father’ (Rm 1:7 ESV); ‘God the Father’ and ‘God the Father’ (Gal 1:1, 3). Isn’t that clear enough? The Father is God.

Image result for clipart single parallel arrows public domain

God, the Son, is regarded as God. He has the attributes of deity: (1) Eternity (Jn 1:15; 8:58; 17:5, 24); (2) Omniscience (Jn 4:24; 16:30; 21:17); (3) Omnipresence (Mt 18:20; 28:20; Jn 3:13); (4) Omnipotence. ‘I am the Almighty’ (Rev 1:8); Heb 1:3; Mt 28:18; (5) Immutable (Heb 1:12; 13:8); (6) He does the actions of deity: creator (Jn 1:3; Heb 1:10; Col 1:16); holds things together (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3); forgives sin (Mt 9:2, 6); raises the dead (Jn 6:39-40, 54; 11:25; 20:25, 28); he will be the Judge (Jn 5:22) of believers (2 Cor 5:10), of Antichrist and his followers (Rev 19:15), the nations (Ac 17:31), Satan (Gen 3:15) and the living and the dead (Ac 10:42).

Image result for clipart single parallel arrows public domain

God, the Holy Spirit, is regarded as God. The Holy Spirit is a person. Take John 16:13 as an example. the neuter substantive pneuma [Spirit] is referred to by the masculine pronoun ekeinos [he], thus recognising the Holy Spirit not as a neuter ‘it’ but as a person, ‘he’. He is the Comforter/Helper (Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). No ‘it’ can do this. The Holy Spirit has the attributes of Deity. He is eternal (Heb 9:14), omniscient (1 Cor 2:10-11; Jn 14:26; 16:12-13), omnipotent (Lk 1:35), omnipresent (Ps 139:7-10). And have a guess what? He does the works of deity in creation (Ps 104:30), regeneration (Jn 3:5), giving us Scripture (2 Pt 1:21; and raising the dead (Rm 8:11).

In preparing these Scriptures I have been assisted by Henry Thiessen (1949:134-146). Thiessen notes that ‘the doctrine of the tripersonality of God is not in conflict with the doctrine of the unity of God. There are three persons in the one essence…. These distinctions are eternal. This is evident from the passages which imply Christ’s existence with the Father from eternity (John 1:1, 2; Phil. 2:6; John 17:5, 24) and from those which assert or imply the eternity of the Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:2; Heb. 9:14)’ (Thiessen 1949:145).

Although the words Trinity, Triunity or tripersonality do not appear in Scripture, the teachings do, as I’ve attempted to show. Exact wording should not put us off. Try finding these words in the Bible: Rapture, inerrancy, infallibility, Bible, literal interpretation, Sunday, Christmas, Easter, ‘Jesus is God’, etc. However, all these teachings can be demonstrated from the Bible.

The above exposition begins to answer the question: Where does the Scripture command anyone to believe in the Trinitarian God? The God revealed in Scripture and who acted in history as described in Old and New Testaments is the Trinitarian God. The God I worship is no Unitarian or Deist God. He is the Trinitarian Lord God Almighty.

Excuses

clip_image002Tanuki cartoon (openclipart)

How do you think a person would reply to the above explanation? He gave me his avoidance: ‘Sorry I have not read your post because you misrepresent me in the beginning…I asked …where does the scripture command anyone to believe in the trinitarian god??? so you are not answering what I asked….plain and simple…you started wrong.’[16]

My reply was:[17]

When you don’t read my post, you demonstrate ignorance of having a reasonable conversation. I dealt with your Unitarian god by addressing two questions that are coherent with one another.

  1. Are we commanded to believe in God? Yes!
  2. What is the nature of God we are commanded to believe in? The Trinitarian God of Unity and Trinity.

I directly answered your question but what have you done? You have given me a flick pass by your use of a red herring logical fallacy. This fallacy is when you decide not to deal with the issue I raised but to take the conversation in another direction. What you have done is engaged in avoidance of the fact that I DID ANSWER YOUR QUESTION but you DID NOT EXTEND TO ME THE COURTESY OF READING MY POST.

You have essentially told me: Don’t waste your time in spending effort on a response to newbirth because he can’t be bothered with answering the issues I raise. He doesn’t even both to read what I write to answer his issues.

Newbirth, there is a place on CB [Christianity Board] where you can discuss your heretical view of God. It’s called the Unorthodox forum. That’s where you should be promoting your Unitarianism and not here on an orthodox Christian thread.

This person is a Unitarian in his/her beliefs

I need to label this heresy for what it is. It is Unitarianism that is supported by, yes, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, United Pentecostal Church, and others of like minds.

First Unitarian Meeting House in Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, designed by Unitarian Frank Lloyd Wright (courtesy Wikipedia)

What do they believe?

Unitarians believe that God is one—one being, one mind, one person, one intelligent agent, and one only, who is supremely wise, powerful, holy, and good, and whose highest attribute is love. This is the one called “Father” by Jesus and his disciples
.

As regards God’s indivisible unity. Jesus answered, “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord” (Mark 12:29); “We know . . . there is no God but one” (1 Cor. 8:4); “God is one” (Gal. 3:20)
.

Because there are many texts in the Bible plainly opposed to the Church doctrine of the Trinity. Such are the texts in which the Father is called the one or only God, which could not be said if the Son is also God and the Holy Spirit God: “For though there are many that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, (as there are many gods and many lords), to us there is one God, the Father” (1 Cor. 8:5,6); “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5)
.

Unitarians object to the doctrine of the Trinity, because, while acknowledging the unity of God in words, it subverts that unity in effect. The doctrine divides and distracts the mind in its devotion to God. It defeats the effectiveness of true monotheism, which is to offer us one object of worship, one supreme figure, one person to whom we may ascribe all goodness, in whom is concentrated all our love and vitality, and whose beautiful and venerable nature may pervade all our thoughts (Miano 2003).

That is an heretical view that is not supported by Scripture. To refute some of these claims, refer to the material presented above and also,

See these other articles

clip_image003Sue Bohlin, ‘Jesus claims to be God’;

clip_image003[1]Norman Geisler, ‘The uniqueness of Jesus Christ’;

clip_image003[2]Spencer Gear: Is Jesus a God and not the God?

clip_image003[3]Spencer Gear, ‘Was Jesus omniscient while on earth?’

clip_image003[4]Spencer Gear, Is the Holy Spirit God?

clip_image003[5]Spencer Gear, Is the God of Islam the same God as Elohim of the Christian Scriptures?

Appendix

The nature of God in the persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit were summarised in the

Nicene Creed[18]

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Works consulted

Encyclopaedia Britannica 2015. Council of Nicaea. Available at: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/413817/Council-of-Nicaea (Accessed 31 May 2015).

Grudem, W 1999. Bible doctrine: Essential teachings of the Christian faith. J Purswell (ed). Leister, England: Inter-Varsity Press (published by arrangement with Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan).

Miano, D R 2003. An explanation of Unitarian Christianity. American Unitarian Conference (online). Available at: http://www.americanunitarian.org/explanation.htm (Accessed 1 June 2015).

Thiessen, H C 1949. Introductory lectures in systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Notes

[1] Christianity Board, ‘Prove practise of worship of the Holy Spirit is biblical’, newbirth#27. Available at: http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21183-prove-practise-of-worship-of-the-holy-spirit-is-biblical/ (Accessed 31 May 2015).

[2] I will use ‘he’ but this person will not reveal his/her sex.

[3] Ibid., newbirth#28.

[4] Ibid., newbirth#30.

[5] Ibid., newbirth#32.

[6] Ibid., newbirth#33.

[7] Ibid., newbirth#35.

[8] Ibid., newbirth#38.

[9] Ibid., newbirth#45.

[10] Ibid., newbirth#47.

[11] Ibid., OzSpen#52.

[12] Ibid., newbirth#62.

[13] Ibid., OzSpen#64.

[14] Ibid., newbirth#66.

[15] Ibid., OzSpen#69.

[16] Ibid., newbirth#72.

[17] Ibid., OzSpen#76.

[18] For scriptural support for the Nicene Creed, see ‘Great stuff – The Nicene Creed according to Scripture’. The Brothers of John the Steadfast (online). Available at: http://steadfastlutherans.org/2012/06/great-stuff-the-nicene-creed-according-to-scripture/ (Accessed 1 June 2015).

Copyright © 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 21 November 2015.
    

God and time

Clock

(Clock by Petr Kratochvil, public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

I don’t know if this article will be of interest to those of you who read my writing. It does get a bit philosophically, theologically, and technically challenging in places, ‘A Critique of Grudem’s Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of Divine Eternity‘, by Christian apologist and philosopher, William Lane Craig (1996).

However, there is a diagram here of Grudem’s understanding of God’s relationship to time that Craig describes as a ‘more adequate account’ of a view of God and time than Grudem (1994) presents in his systematic theology. Here is Grudem’s diagrammatic summary:

clip_image001

While this image is from Craig (1996), he copied it from Grudem (1994:171). It also is in Grudem (1999:77).

Works consulted

Grudem, W 1994. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Grudem, W 1999. Bible doctrine: Essential teachings of the Christian faith. J Purswell (ed). Leister, England: Inter-Varsity Press (published by arrangement with Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan).

 

Copyright © 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 21 November 2015.

Does God send cyclones?

Satellite image of Cyclone Yasi (off north Queensland intensifying on 1 February 2011 (image courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

On the evening of 3 February 2011, I sat and watched the extended TV news coverage of the devastation caused by cyclone Yasi as it crossed the North Queensland (Australia) coast in the very early morning of 3rd Feb, and devastated that region.

Tears came to my eyes as as I saw on film how house roofs were ripped off like rubble. Large trees were torn up by their roots and thrust across houses, cars, streets and whatever else was in its path by the force of the 300km per hour winds at the core of the cyclone. The main streets of Mission Beach (where the cyclone first reached land), Tully, Tully Heads, Cardwell and Innisfail looked like a napalm bomb had hit them. It was like a war zone. Only one person was reported as dying from generator fumes and not directly from the cyclonic destruction. Three babies were born to mothers who were affected by Yasi.

Why, oh why, Lord do you send or allow such horrendous winds, torrential rain to cause such destruction were among the thoughts that came to my mind? A better question would be: Do you, Lord God, send cyclones like this? It is you who sends the rain on the just and the unjust (Matt. 5:45). Therefore, is it You, God, who creates and delivers cyclones?

A Christian friend said that my statement is a non sequitur (it does not logically follow) to state that God sends the rain, therefore God sends the cyclone. I agree with his judgment. However, is there other evidence that it is the Lord Almighty who creates disasters like cyclones?

What happened in North Queensland looked like a very angry God unleashing his wrath on that region. I ask of you, Lord: Please help me to understand it. I know of the link between the fall into sin and the devastation unleashed on human beings (sin) and the curse on nature that followed (see Genesis 3; Romans 5, 8).

But I’m finding it hard to comprehend the horrific nature of what has happened in north Qld. How does the goodness of God integrate with what looks like such evil? I’m not being blasphemous, Lord, but this horror is beyond my feeble mind to understand.

1.  This was the projected path of cyclone Yasi, as indicated by the US Navy.

2. Here is some film of the destruction: (a) Tully residents reveal horror of cyclone’s wrath; (b) Cyclone Yasi; (c ) Record disaster strikes Queensland; (d)  Devastated by cyclone Yasi.

Christian friends, how do you understand and justify the horrors of cyclones, hurricanes and tornadoes? About ninety percent of Australia’s banana crop was annihilated by this cataclysm near Tully.

(Houses after the destruction caused by Cyclone Tracy in Darwin NT, Australia, in 1974. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia)

When we think of the horrific tsunami in the Indian Ocean at the end of 2004, Australia’s Yasi cyclone caused a pittance of damage. This tsunami was precipitated by a gigantic earthquake under the Indian Ocean on 26 December 2004.  The United States Geological Survey stated that

“in total, 227,898 people were killed or were missing and presumed dead and about 1.7 million people were displaced by the earthquake and subsequent tsunami in 14 countries in South Asia and East Africa”.

Cyclone Yasi’s devastation is only a glitch when compared with this catastrophic destruction of the tsunami.

There were devastating floods in Pakistan in 2010. One report stated that there were 1700 people dead. This same report indicated that the damage was estimated as US$43 billion. Australian ABC radio reported that the number who died in the floods was about 1500. The floods affected 20 million people and damaged 1.7 million houses. This item stated that 6 months after the floods there were still 170,000 people living in makeshift camps. Here are some pictures of these Pakistani floods.

Cyclone Yasi is small in comparison with the devastation of these other two major events. But it still requires an answer to the question: Does God cause or allow this?

The Christian view of Providence

For an explanation, we need to go to the Christian view of God as creating the universe with all of the powers accompanying the running of that universe. God is preserving his creation with his holy, benevolent (wanting to help others), wise and powerful Person. Over this universe, God exercises sovereign control through what is known as His Providence. The basic etymology of “providence” is foresight and from this understanding we know that God provides for the future.

“Providence means that continuous activity of God whereby He makes all the events of the physical, mental, and moral phenomena work out His purposes;  and that this purpose is nothing short of the original design of God in creation. To be sure, evil has entered the universe: but it is not allowed to thwart God’s original, benevolent, wise, and holy purpose” (Thiessen 1949:177).

When we look at the horrors of the Indian Ocean tsunami, the Pakistani floods, and the Queensland cyclone, Yasi, how are we to understand the providence of the good and benevolent God and the presence of such devastation? Let’s look to the insight provided by God’s revelation in the Scripture.

God did not create the world the way it is today. His original world was perfect (Gen. 1:31; Eccl. 7:29). The repulsive evil in our world came about by the fall of Adam into sin (Gen. 3). We cannot blame God for the ugly sin in our world. That is the outcome of Adam’s disobedience (see Romans, chs. 5 and 8). Other Scriptures provide further insight:

Job 1:12, ’The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.” Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD” (NIV).[1]

Job 9:5-7, “He moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns them in his anger. He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. He speaks to the sun and it does not shine; he seals off the light of the stars”.

Psalm 22:28, “For dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations”.

Psalm 103:19, “The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all”.

“Proverbs 16:1, “To humans belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the proper answer of the tongue”.

Matthew 5:45, “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous”.

Acts 14:17, “Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy”.

2 Thessalonians 2:7, “For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way”.

Please also note what Jesus said about the Galileans and the people who died when the tower of Siloam fell:

“Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish” (Luke 13:1-5).

These verses indicate that the Lord God is in sovereign control of what is happening in our world, at the human level (e.g. Job), the nations (Ps. 22:8), providence over all people (Acts 14:17), and the end of the world (2 Thess. 2:7).

These disasters, whether they be the tsunami, floods, cyclones, tornadoes and earthquakes, are all designed to get the attention of the people of the world so that they will repent (Luke 13:1-5). They should be asking, “Am I ready to meet God when I die? I need to repent or I will perish”. Is that what will happen as a result of cyclone Yasi? It should.

When we examine these verses, we conclude that the good, benevolent, holy Lord God Almighty has all of the evil acts of creatures under his control and that nothing can occur without His permission and sovereign superintendency. Thus, God overrules the evil acts of human beings to for His ultimate good purpose.

God works all things in the universe, whether they be designated as disasters or good acts, for his ultimate good outcome. Remember these Old Testament events: the wickedness of Joseph’s brothers towards Joseph, the resistance of Pharaoh, the action of the heathen nations in invasion of Israel, and then there was the sinless Christ’s death on the cross. Since then, there has been horrific persecution of the church, wars and rumours of wars.

For the people of God, we know God’s purpose is achieved this way: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28). God’s ultimate aim is for His glory through whatever he does in our world: “For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another” (Isaiah 48:11).

What else can God do to get our attention, if it doesn’t happen through floods, tsunamis, cyclones, earthquakes, etc?

I consider that evangelical systematic theologian, Wayne Grudem, made a sound, concluding assessment:

“Every believer who meditates on God’s providence will sooner or later come to a point where he or she will have to say, ‘I cannot understand this doctrine fully.’ In some ways that must be said about every doctrine, since our understanding is finite, and God is infinite. But particularly is this so with the doctrine of providence: we should believe it because Scripture teaches it, even when we do not understand fully how it fits in with other teachings of Scripture (1994:336).

Does God create evil?

When we examine the damage done by the cyclones, hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes and earthquakes, some are tempted to refer to God as an evil being for doing or allowing these things. Is it possible for God to create moral evil?

How do we respond to what God said in Isaiah 45:7? “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things” (KJV, emphasis added). So, God does create evil according to the KJV translation. How do we explain this when God is said to be good and righteous?

The Hebrew word for “create” is bara, the same word used in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (NIV). The Hebrew ra, translated as “evil” (Isa. 45:7 KJV), can have a breadth of meaning as demonstrated by these various Bible translations:

Evangelical theologian, Wayne Grudem, wrote concerning ra:

“The word can be used to apply to natural disasters such as these words imply. But there is no compelling reason to restrict it to natural disasters, for the word is an extremely common word used of evil generally: It is used of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:9), of the evil among mankind that brought the judgment of the flood (Gen. 6:5), and of the evil of the men of Sodom (Gen. 13:13). It is used to say, ‘Depart from evil and do good’ (Ps. 34:14), and to speak of the wrong of those who call evil good and good evil (Isa. 5:20), and of the sin of those whose ‘feet run to evil’ (Isa. 59:7; see also Isa. 47:10, 11; 56:2; 57:1; 59:15; 65:12; 66:4). Dozens of other times throughout the Old Testament it refers to moral evil or sin. The contrast with “peace” (shãlîm) in the same phrase in Isa. 45:7 might argue that only “calamity” is in view, but not necessarily so, for moral evil and wickedness is (sic) certainly also the opposite of the wholeness of God’s “shalom” or peace. (In Amos 3:6, rã’ ãh is a different but related word and has a similar range of meanings.) But Isa. 45:7 does not say that God does evil (Grudem 1994:326 n7, emphasis added).

There are a couple of parallel verses to Isa. 45:7. Amos 3:6 states:

When a trumpet sounds in a city,
do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city,
has not the LORD caused it?

Lamentations 3:38 reads:

“Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?

The Hebrew for “calamities” in these latter two verse is rã’ ãh and it has similar meanings to ra. The NIV has translated rã’ ãh in these two verses as “disaster” and “calamity”. So, God creates disasters and calamities! Can this be applied to cyclones Yasi, Larry and Tracy in Australia, the Indian Ocean tsunami, hurricane Katrina and other disasters? Isa. 45:7, Amos 3:6 and Lam. 3:38 confirm this.

We know that God performed one massive disaster in sending the flood in Noah’s day that wiped out the entire human race except Noah and his family (Genesis 6) because of the earth was corrupt before God and filled with violence (Gen. 6:11). God did it again by destroying Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19). God has demonstrated that He can bring disaster through judgment.

But is God responsible for creating sin – moral evil? We turn to the Scriptures and hear from James 1:13-14:

When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.

It is clear from these two verses in James that God never causes evil temptation. Human beings are personal agents who are responsible for yielding to temptation. But how do we apply this to Isa. 45:7? The KJV translation could send a wrong message about the Lord God: “I make peace and create evil”. “Evil” is a legitimate translation but there are other options. We cannot assign what is morally evil to God. H. C. Leupold notes on Isa. 45:7:

“It is not the morally good and the morally evil that are being attributed to Yahweh, but things good and bad are said to lie totally in his power, as far as their physical aspects and consequences are concerned. The RSV version does full justice to the issues involved when it says: ‘I make weal and create woe.’ Note similar statements in Amos 3:6b; and Isa. 14:24-27. ‘I am the Lord who does all these things’ aptly sums it all up” (1971:122).

We cannot conclude that God does evil because that would mitigate against who God is – the good, righteous God. To say that God does evil would be to create another kind of god. Of Yahweh, the only true God, we know:

The goodness of God is revealed in Scripture: “No one is good except God alone” (Luke 18:19); the Psalms proclaim “He [the Lord] is good” (Ps. 100:5; 106:1; 107:1). David exhorts us: “Taste and see that the LORD is good” (Ps. 34:8).

The righteousness or justice of God is made clear in passages such as Deut. 32:4, “He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he”. Even King Nebuchadnezzar got it correct: “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just” (Daniel 4:37).

When we say that God is righteous or just, we mean that God’s actions are always right and His nature is the final standard of what is right and just. Wayne Grudem explains from the life of Job and God’s bringing calamity to Job:

In answer to Job’s questioning about whether God has been righteous in his dealings with him, God answers Job, “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be justified?” (Job 40:2, 8). Then God answers not in terms of an explanation that would allow Job to understand why God’s actions were right, but rather in terms of a statement of God’s own majesty and power! God does not need to explain the rightness of his actions to Job, for God is the Creator and Job is the creature. “Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9). “Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place
?” (Job 38:12). “Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, that a flood of waters may cover you? Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go and say to you, “Here we are’?” (Job 38:34–35). “Do you give the horse his might?” (Job 39:19). “Is it by your wisdom that the hawk soars, and spreads his wings toward the south?” (Job 39:26). Job answers, “Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth” (Job 40:4).

Nevertheless, it should be a cause for thanksgiving and gratitude when we realize that righteousness and omnipotence are both possessed by God. If he were a God of perfect righteousness without power to carry out that righteousness, he would not be worthy of worship and we would have no guarantee that justice will ultimately prevail in the universe. But if he were a God of unlimited power, yet without righteousness in his character, how unthinkably horrible the universe would be! There would be unrighteousness at the center of all existence and there would be nothing anyone could do to change it. Existence would become meaningless, and we would be driven to the most utter despair. We ought therefore continually to thank and praise God for who he is, “for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is he” (Deut. 32:4) [Grudem 1994:204-205].

Disasters and God’s judgment

I received an email with the content of this blog (below) under the heading, “Japan denounced Israel exactly 1 year before earthquake and tsunami”. This blog appeared at Armageddononline.com #257:

Ron Reese from 5 Doves has discovered that ON MARCH 11TH, EXACTLY ONE YEAR AGO, JAPAN DENOUNCES ISRAEL!!! http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/annou
3/0311_01.html

Exactly 1 year ago March 11, 2010
The exact day of the 9.0 earthquake in Japan hit a year later in 2011.
Genesis 12:3 “I will Bless those who Bless (Israel), and Curse Those Who Curse you.”

Remember, America forced Israel to remove 8,000 Israeli’s from their homes in Gaza, then came Katrina where America lost 800,000 houses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama.

Japan demanded that Israel not build 1,600 housing units in east Jerusalem. After the 9.0 earthquake Japan may have to rebuild 1.6 million homes.

God is not mocked! Pay attention America!

A more detailed comment by Ron Reese is in, ‘Ron Reese (15 March 2011) “On March 11th, exactly one year ago, Japan denounces Israel!!!’

What are we to make of those who want to link Japan’s actions (sins?) against Israel with the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan on 11th March 2011?

Jesus will not allow us to draw the conclusion that the Japanese, because of their response to Israel, are any more sinful than we are. This is clearly stated in Luke 13:1-5:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them,  “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (ESV).

To paraphrase Jesus for Aussies today, based on Luke 13:1-5: There are people present today who speak about the Japanese who denounced Israel one year before the tsunami. Jesus answers these who see this as judgment against Japan: “Do you think that these Japanese are worse sinners than all Australians because they acted in this way? No, says Jesus. I tell you: but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish”.

We do not have the right to pronounce that the earthquake, tsunami and the nuclear meltdown are God’s judgment on Japan – based on Luke 13:1-5. Providing judgment is God’s job and he will do it in our time. God has told us (Luke 14) that we all are sinners who need to repent and the Japanese crisis should be a reminder that all sinners need to repent.

Use your mind in discerning where to live.

To understand the impact of floods and cyclones, God has given us minds to discern which areas of Australia are the most prone to floods and cyclones. If we want to avoid being victims of floods and cyclones, we can choose to avoid living in those areas.

The Australian government’s, Attorney-General’s Department, Emergency Management for Schools, has compiled this graph of the most cyclone prone areas in Australia as Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland.

www.crikey.com.au has located this range of maps to show the flood prone areas of Brisbane and District after the January 2011 floods.

May the Lord help us to be wise in making decisions about where we live in Australia.

Conclusion

  • Does God send cyclones, tsunamis and tornadoes? Yes, he does create disasters and these acts of “mother Nature” must be put down as acts of God.
  • We cannot state that certain acts of God – calamities – are specific judgments against certain sins in contemporary society. God does not reveal that to us so Christians dare not pronounce such judgments when disasters happen.
  • God, by his very nature (good, just, righteous), cannot create moral evil.
  • Human beings cannot make the judgment of associating catastrophe with God’s judgment (see Luke 13:1-5).
  • God’s actions in sending woes should be a wake-up call to the world of sinners to repent or perish. Human life is temporal.

For further consideration, see my articles:

Also see John Piper’s articles: “Don’t waste your cancer”; “Where is God? The supremacy of God in an age of terror“.

Works consulted

Grudem, W 1994. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Leupold, H. C. 1971. Exposition of Isaiah (vol 1, chapters 1-39). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Thiessen, H C 1949. Introductory lectures in systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

The first edition of this article was on Friday, February 4, 2011.

Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 5 July 2019.

Is God absolutely sovereign?

(image courtesy clker.com)

By Spencer D Gear

When we see the wickedness in our world, we could be tempted to say that God, the Almighty One, is not in absolute, sovereign control of our world. I’m thinking of:

How do we deal with God’s sovereignty and these kinds of atrocities? One way to process these abhorrent events is to state that
.

A.  God is not absolutely sovereign

I met a fellow on a Christian forum who stated, ‘God is NOT absolutely sovereign’.[1]

His comments were made in a theological context in which his context was that

all of the five points of Calvinism were deduced from the concept that God became absolutely sovereign when Adam sinned in the garden and man lost his free will.

God is NOT absolutely sovereign.

All five points of Calvinism are based on a false premise.

Indeed, in previous 
 posts I have used the example of Joshua 24:15 to document that man retained his free will after the fall.[2]

Joshua 24:15 states, ‘And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord’ (ESV).

In my view, there is a better alternative:

B.  God’s sovereignty and free will

I disagree with this fellow’s perspective.[3] I consider that the biblical teaching is that God is absolutely sovereign and that sovereignty includes the free will decisions of human beings. This is a brief overview of God’s sovereign attributes:
clip_image002God is before all things (Ps 90:2; Col 1:17);
clip_image002[1]All things were created by God (Jn 1:3);
clip_image002[2]God sustains all things (Heb 1:3);
clip_image002[3]God is above and over all things ( Eph 4:6);
clip_image002[4]God is all knowing (Ps 139:4-6; Heb 4:13);
clip_image002[5]God is all-powerful (Gen 18:4);
clip_image002[6]God’s sovereignty implies that He does what He wills (Isa 14:24, 27).
This sovereignty means that
clip_image002[7]God is the ruler over all things (1 Chron 29:11-12);
clip_image002[8]God does whatever He pleases (i.e. is in control of everything) (Ps 115:3);
clip_image002[9]Earthly kings are controlled by God (Prov 21:1);
clip_image002[10]God’s control extends to human events (Isa 55:11);
clip_image002[11]Good and evil angels are under God’s control (Col 1:15-16; Eph 1:21; 1 Ki 22:19-22);
clip_image002[12]God controls Satan (Job 1:6; 2:1; Rev 20:10).

C.  The most difficult concept to grasp

This is the one we find most difficult to understand:

clip_image004God sovereignly controls our free choices, including our salvation (Eph 1:4, 11; 1 Pt 2:8). Yes, he is sovereign, but that does not eliminate human free will decisions.

God’s sovereignty does not make free choice and human responsibility to be fakes. God is not a sovereign Puppet Master who pulls the strings of life for all people and nations. One of the great mysteries of God’s sovereignty is that He is absolutely sovereign but human responsibility is genuine in the midst of this mystery.

The apostle Paul affirms the depth of the riches in God’s wisdom and knowledge in Romans 11:33. Long before Paul, Moses stated it profoundly,

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of the law (Deut 29:29 ESV).

Therefore the person who stated that he does not believe in God’s absolute sovereignty sounds like a promoter of open theism. Open theism is defined by one of its promoters, Clark Pinnock, as,

a relational view of God. [pause] Because the thing is that, in the past, with a high doctrine of predestination and timelessness and changeability, it’s hard to see how God was relational
.

So our view is not that God knows everything that can be known and is therefore omniscient without qualification, but that some aspects of the future are settled and other aspects are not settled. The world is such that certain things are still being settled by the agents in the world, by us and by God, so God knows things as possible as well as certain.

Traditionally, God knows everything that will ever happen certainly, so it must happen exactly that way. Whereas we’re saying that God appears in the Bible to know some things for certain because he planned them or because they’re going to happen definitely, but aspects of the future may surprise him.

I think that’s a point that’s gotten people scared, the idea that God takes risks and is vulnerable. The same thing with the impassibility of God
.

We’re saying that omniscience doesn’t mean that the future is exhaustively foreknown because God’s made a world the future of which would be decided by himself and human agents. So it’s really the reality of the human agents as to whether they make any difference for the future. If they do, then it means that certain things are not yet settled, because they haven’t made their choices, or done their thing (from Clark Pinnock’s interview with Homiletics online, ‘Does Prayer Change Things? Yes, if you’re an Open Theist’).

D.  Conclusion

I can conclude that some people can and do refuse to do God’s will. However, that is to be understood as included in a biblical understanding of the sovereignty of God.

Therefore, I cannot accept this person’s statement that ‘God is NOT absolutely sovereign’. God is absolutely sovereign and in that sovereignty human beings take responsibility for various issues in their lives.

Suggested for further reading

Notes

[1] PrincetonGuy#12, 8 October 2014. Christian Forums, Baptists, ‘Question arising from the Calvinism/predestined threads’. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7843483-2/#post66437993 (Accessed 8 October 2014).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., OzSpen#13.

Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 03 May 2020.

A Victoria Osteen big-time blooper

clip_image001
Victoria Osteen (patheos.com, public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

There are some things happening in the Christian world that have to be heard to be believed. What does it take to launch an uproar in the Christian community? Victoria Osteen, wife of pastor Joel Osteen, Lakewood Church, Houston, Texas, made one of the greatest clangers of theological ignorance that I’ve heard in a long while.

Take a strong grip on your theological seats. clip_image003

She told a large public gathering at that their mega-Lakewood Church:

I just want to encourage every one of us to realize when we obey God, we’re not doing it for God–I mean, that’s one way to look at it–we’re doing it for ourselves, because God takes pleasure when we are happy…. That’s the thing that gives Him the greatest joy….

She continued: “So, I want you to know this morning — Just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy
. When you come to church, when you worship him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy. Amen?”

And the congregational response was, ‘Amen’ (in Mohler 2014).

clip_image005Take a listen to the Victoria Osteen clip HERE, followed by Bill Cosby’s confrontational comment, ‘That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard in my life’.

clip_image007 What a blooper by Victoria Osteen! It has the Christian bloggers and writers at their keyboards (including me) pumping out some provocative negative and supportive responses. Take a read of a few of them:

Osteen against the Scripture

Let’s check out the Scriptures to find how close Victoria Osteen came to declaring what God says about the highest responsibility of the individual and of the church?

clip_image009 Romans 15:5-6: ‘May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had, 6 so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (NIV).

clip_image009[1] Ephesians 1:5-6: ‘he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves’.

clip_image009[2] Ephesians 1:12-14: ‘in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory’.

clip_image009[3] Ephesians 1:18: ‘I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people’.

clip_image009[4] Ephesians 3:21: ‘to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen’.

clip_image009[5] 2 Thessalonians 1:12: ‘We pray this so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ’.

clip_image009[6] 1 Peter 4:11, ‘If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen’.

clip_image007[1] Osteen says, ‘When we obey God, we’re not doing it for God
. When you come to church, when you worship him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy’.

What anti-biblical baloney!

   sausage,food,media,clip art,public domain,image,png,svg

How does Osteen’s teaching compare with Scripture? According to the above Scriptures, we are to glorify the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. We are to give him praise for his glory. To God be glory in the church. The person (name) of the Lord Jesus Christ is glorified in believers and we in him.

Now that is a radically different message to what Victoria Osteen proclaimed. She’s into pick-me-up, me-centred, positive thinking psychology and not God-glorifying worship. People should run a country mile from such self-centred opposition to what Scripture teaches.

Two scriptural clinchers are:

clip_image013 Romans 11:36: ‘For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen’.

clip_image013[1]1 Corinthians 10:31: ‘So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God’.

The summary of what the Bible teaches is in the first question of the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q. 1. What is the chief and highest end of man?

A. Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God,[1] and fully to enjoy him forever.[2]

The biblical teaching is crystal clear. In whatever you do, including obedience to God, you are to do it for the glory of God. But for Victoria Osteen, her teaching is radically opposed to that. She’s declaring on a TV and Internet program that which is opposed to what God says. Osteen’s sprouting, ‘When you worship him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy’, is junk theology. I declare it as such, with solid Scriptural support.

What does that make Victoria Osteen?

clip_image015Out of Victoria Osteen’s mouth has come false teaching that is humanistic and contrary to Scripture. What does Scripture say we are to do with false teachers? Take a read of Galatians 5:7-12 (NIV):

7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

My application to Victoria Osteen (based on this passage) is:

clip_image017 Osteen is keeping Christians from obeying the truth.

clip_image017[1] Therefore, Osteen is not teaching the truth. She does not promote God’s truth when she promotes self-benefit from obeying and worshipping God.

clip_image017[2] Osteen’s kind of persuasion that gets an ‘Amen’ from her and the large congregation, is not from God, the one who calls people to himself and they become Christians.

clip_image017[3] Osteen’s false teaching is like yeast that contaminates the Christian community. It is sewing weeds among the good seed (see Matt 13:36-43).

clip_image017[4] With the exposure of Osteen’s false teaching by discerning believers, I am confident that evangelical Christians will see her promotion of a false view of God and cling to the orthodox teaching of glorifying God in all things they do.

clip_image017[5] Victoria Osteen will have to pay the penalty of throwing Christians into confusion with her false teaching.

clip_image017[6] Those who oppose Osteen’s positive thinking message are likely to be persecuted by the health-wealth promoters.

clip_image017[7] The offense of the cross is abolished when one worships God for selfish gain.

clip_image017[8] Victoria Osteen, in my view, has extended the meaning of ‘selfie’. I wish she would go the whole hog, leave the church, and take her message into the self-help psychology classroom. It does not belong in the church or on Christian media.

Victoria Osteen responds

The Blaze has reported Victoria Osteen’s response to her controversial remarks:

Victoria Osteen, wife of megachurch pastor Joel Osteen, responded late Friday afternoon to furor and debate circulating in evangelical circles following a controversial sermon she delivered last month about church attendance and worshipping God.

Osteen said that she could have chosen her words more carefully, but that she did not mean to imply that parishioners shouldn’t worship the Lord, calling such a critique and interpretation “ridiculous” in a statement exclusively issued to The Blaze.

“While I admit that I could have been more articulate in my remarks, I stand by my point that when we worship God and are obedient to Him we will be better for it,” she said. “I did not mean to imply that we don’t worship God; that’s ridiculous, and only the critics and cynics are interpreting my remarks that way.”

Osteen continued, “Every Lakewood member knows what I was talking about because they have experienced first hand the joy and victory of a Lakewood Church worship service, and the honor, reverence and gratitude we show God.”

In the short, 37-second clip that has gone viral and led to intense criticism in recent days, Osteen, who co-pastors Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas, along with her husband, Joel, is seen telling congregants that, when people obey the Lord and go to church, they’re not necessarily “doing it for God.”

“I just want to encourage every one of us to realize when we obey God we’re not doing it for God — I mean that’s one way to look at it,” she said from the pulpit. “We’re doing it for yourself, because God takes pleasure when were happy. That’s the thing that gives him the greatest joy this morning 
 just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy.”

She added, “When you come to church when you worship him, you’re not doing it for God, really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy.”

The controversial clip has been viewed and shared hundreds of thousands of times on social media since late August, with some Christians decrying Osteen‘s message — but with others supporting and explaining her commentary.

Consider Steve Camp, pastor of the Cross Church in Palm City, Florida, who said that Osteen ”honestly believes that God exists to make us happy rather than holy.”

“It’s the age old sin of idolatry — that it’s not about God, it’s about us,” Camp told Christian News Network last week. “True worship for the humanist is about how we feel at the end of the day and what gives us meaning, as opposed to what gives God glory” (Hallowell 2014).

Bees

(image courtesy PublicDomainPictures.net)

Conclusion

Victoria Osteen’s me-centred, worship is for me, is theological junk. ‘When you come to church, when you worship him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy’ is Osteen generated false teaching. I do not find Osteen’s response to be satisfactory in correcting her humanistic view of worship.

Albert Mohler put it precisely: ‘If our message cannot be preached with credibility in Mosul, it should not be preached in Houston. That is the Osteen Predicament’ (Mohler 2014).

The Scriptural view is: ‘So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God’ (1 Cor 10:31).

Recommended resources

There is some excellent teaching on the content of false teaching in this article from IVP New Testament Commentaries on Galatians 5: ‘Exposing the false teachers’.

Why don’t you take a read of this assessment of Victoria Osteen’s teaching by Albert Mohler, ‘The Osteen Predicament — Mere Happiness Cannot Bear the Weight of the Gospel‘.

Works consulted

Hallowell, B 2014. Pastor Joel Osteen’s Wife Hits Back at ‘Critics and Cynics’ and Addresses Furor Over Her Viral Sermon About Worshipping God. The Blaze, 5 September. Available at: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/05/exclusive-victoria-osteen-responds-to-evangelical-furor-over-viral-youre-not-doing-it-for-god-clip/ (Accessed 15 April 2016).

Mohler Jr, R A 2014. The Osteen Predicament — Mere Happiness Cannot Bear the Weight of the Gospel (online), September 3. Available at: http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/09/03/the-osteen-predicament-mere-happiness-cannot-bear-the-weight-of-the-gospel/ (Accessed 4 September 2014).

Notes

[1] The Scriptural references given were Romans 11:36 and 1 Corinthians 10:31.

[2] Scriptural support given was in Psalm 73:24-28; John 17:21-13.

Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 15 April 2016.