Category Archives: God

Is a Calvinistic God a contradiction when compared with the God revealed in Scripture?

By Spencer D Gear

John Calvin 2.jpg

John Calvin (image courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

If you want to get a sample of orthodox, unorthodox or confused theology mixed in a challenging lump, head to one of the Christian forums on the Internet. The Calvinists are making their presence felt on some of these forums with their view of God Almighty who decrees all the evil in the world.

What is meant when they speak of God’s decrees or God’s decretive will? Theologian Wayne Grudem, a Calvinist, provides this definition:

The decrees of God are the eternal plas of God whereby, before the creation of the world, he determined to bring about everything that happens. This doctrine is similar to the doctrine of providence, but here we are thinking about God’s decisions before the world was created, rather than his providential actions in time. His providential actions are the outworking of the eternal decrees that he made long ago (Grudem 1994:332, emphasis in original).

However, Grudem wants it to be clear that God does not cause sin: ‘Unlike Adam, Scripture never blames God for sin. If we ever begin to think that God is to blame for sin, we have thought wrongly about God’s providence, for it is always the creature, not God who is to be blamed
. God has ordained that our actions do have effects. God has ordained that events will come about by our causing them (Grudem 1994:333-334).

As this article unfolds, we will observe that this is not how some Calvinists, at the popular level of Christian interaction on the Internet, interpret God’s decrees.

There was this new post on Christian Forums,

Hello need answer.

How can you possibly have a logical debate with a conclusion here?

You cannot have a debate without a foundation of truth.
We have only man made often opinionated theory as one premise.

We have Gods word as the other.

When you couch a debate and say that Gods word is in error, you might as well pea on a wall.

You will get your feet wet.

So one side can quote verses instead of suppositions, then the other says ain’t so the bible is wrong.

How and why did the study of salvation, turn into a Calvinists bully pulpit?

Good luck……I am glad I don’t need luck you can have it, I live by faith.[1]

A Calvinist responded:

“How and why did the study of salvation, turn into a Calvinists bully pulpit?”
It hasn’t. Calvinists just have more thorough biblical explanations, that’s all.[2]

The original poster made this response (given in part here):

I based my post on a circular logic by Calvinist.
They assume the bible contains errors, they assume their depth of understanding is more enlightened.
Anytime a debate is joined, their premises is you have accepted my truths, now on the current subject I must be right.
A works based belief, discounts the spiritual nature of God.
If I were to pick a Bible figure that resembles a Calvinist it would be Cain.[3]

A Calvinist’s reply was: ‘Calvinists assume the bible contains error? That’s a new one on me’.[4]

But it was not a new one on this fellow:

Is this correct?
Psalm 5:4, For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.
God eternal decrees that which He hath no pleasure in? Does God possess a split personality?

You won’t find a clearer case of a contradiction.[5]

How would this Calvinist respond? Here was his assertion, ‘It’s not a contradiction’.[6] Janx replied, ‘That isn’t helpful Hammster. Please explain it for all those would-be Calvinists out there’.[7] Janx’s further response to Hammster was:

‘Ps 5:5, The arrogant cannot stand in your presence. You hate all who do wrong;
God eternally decrees all the wrongs that men will do whilst also hating them for doing so?[8]

I entered the debate[9], replying to the opening post: ‘500 years later, Calvinism debate still simmers among Southern Baptists‘, Associated Press (The Tennessean). This is from that article:

When Lifeway polled Southern Baptist pastors about Calvinism last year, 30 percent said their churches were Calvinist….

The conflict could continue to grow as the next generation of pastors takes over. The Lifeway poll found 8 percent of pastors overall strongly agreed that they were Calvinists, but among those pastors aged 18 to 44, 18 percent identified strongly as Calvinists. Among those 65 and older the number was just 1 percent.

The Lifeway poll also found that 61 percent of pastors were concerned about the impact of Calvinism on the SBC.

Which means that 70% of their churches are non-Calvinist?

Again he replied, ‘Good News !’[10] However, a Calvinist’s response was, ‘Yep. 70% are wrong. Still a lot of work to do’.[11]

To the Calvinistic claim (as above) that ‘it’s not a contradiction’, I wrote:[12]

Johnpiper3.jpg

John S Piper (photo courtesy Wikipedia)

Yes it is and we see it on a practical level in this articulation between a Calvinist and an Arminian. John Piper, the Calvinist, wrote, ‘What Made It OK for God to Kill Women, Children in Old Testament?‘

Here’s a sample from Piper’s teaching:

“If I were to drop dead right now, or a suicide bomber downstairs were to blow this building up and I were blown into smithereens, God would have done me no wrong. He does no wrong to anybody when he takes their life, whether at 2 weeks or at age 92.”

Do you understand the horrific implications of this kind of statement by a Calvinist? Planned Parenthood is justified in what it does to unborn children through abortion because God would be doing no wrong to these unborn children by taking their lives in this way.

What was John Calvin’s view in his Institutes of the Christian religion?

The same men wrongly and rashly lay the happenings of past time to the naked providence of God. For since on it depends everything that happens, therefore, say they, neither thefts, nor adulteries, nor murders take place without God’s will intervening
. For we shall not say that one who is motivated by an evil inclination, by only obeying his own wicked desire, renders service to God at His bidding
.

I grant more: thieves and murderers and other evildoers are the instruments of divine providence, and the Lord himself uses these to carry out the judgments that he has determined with himself. Yet I deny that they can derive from this any excuse for their evil deeds. Why? Will they either involve God in the same iniquity with themselves, or will they cloak their own depravity with his justice? They can do neither. In their own conscience they are so convicted as to be unable to clear themselves; in themselves they so discover all evil, but in him only the lawful use of their evil intent, as to preclude laying the charge against God. Well and good, for he works through them. And whence, I ask you, comes the stench of a corpse, which is both putrefied and laid open by the heat of the sun? All men see that it is stirred up by the sun’s rays; yet no one for this reason says that the rays stink. Thus, since the matter and guilt of evil repose in a wicked man, what reason is there to think that God contracts any defilement, if he uses his service for his own purpose? Away, therefore, with this doglike impudence, which can indeed bark at God’s justice afar off but cannot touch it (Calvin 1960:1.17.5).

Therefore, Calvin did not place the blame for all the evil in the world with the decrees of God.

Here is an Arminian, Robert Anderson’s, ‘Response to Piper’s “What Made It OK for God to Kill Women, Children in Old Testament?”’

Robert Anderson (photo courtesy blogspot)

It is not only OK for God to kill women and children in the Old Testament according to the Calvinist, John Piper, but God ‘does no wrong to anybody when he takes their life, whether at 2 weeks or at age 92’ – says Piper. Calvin disagrees! Piper’s statement is in contradiction with what is affirmed in the Bible in passages such as Psalm 5:4 where it is stated that God does not delight in wickedness and evil does not dwell with him.

Is it Calvinism or Hyper-Calvinism

Phil Johnson has written, ‘A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism’. Take a read and see what you think about historic Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism.

James White is a Calvinist theologian and ardent promoter of Calvinism. He was in a debate/discussion with Hank Hanegraaff and George Bryson. Here is an excerpt from that debate on ‘The Bible Answer Man’:

George Bryson: Well, let me answer that with a question. Let me ask you this question – and this will put in perspective to show the difference. When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?
White: If he didn’t, then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose. What I’m trying to point out, by going to Scripture —
Hank Hanegraaff: So what is your answer there? Because I want to understand the answer to that question.
White: I’m trying to go to Scripture to answer it. The reason —
Hanegraaff: But what is the answer to the question he just asked, so that we can understand what the answer to the question is.
James White: I mentioned to him, yes, because if not then it’s meaningless and purposeless and though God knew it was going to happen He created it without a purpose. That means God brought the evil into existence, knowing it was going to exist, but for no purpose, no redemption, nothing positive, nothing good. I say —
Hanegraaff: So, he did decree and if he decreed it, then there’s meaning to it.
White: that he – it has meaning, it has purpose, suffering (all suffering) has purpose, everything in this world has purpose. There is no basis for despair. But if we believe that God created knowing all this was going to happen, but with no decree. He just created and there is all this evil out there, and there’s no purpose, then every rape, every situation like that is nothing but purposeless evil and God is responsible for the creation of despair. And that is not what I believe.
Bryson: For years, I’ve been trying to figure out why it is that in order for rape to exist – or – unless God caused it to happen – there can’t be any purpose in it. God can use evil and he does. But to blame God, which is what a decree does, to blame God for the rape of a child is a horrible attack on the very character and love of God.
White: How about to blame God for the destruction of the heart of a father, thinking his son has been killed for many years – the weeping that he underwent. Genesis 50:20 has not been answered yet. And Acts chapter 4 tells us that the early church believed that Pontius Pilate and Herod and the Romans and the Jews in the crucifixion of the sinless son of God (which I believe we would all agree is the greatest evil that man has ever committed) that that took place on the basis of the sovereign decree of God (Acts 4:27-28). If you could tell me both what you believe Acts 4:27-28 means and —
Bryson: Let me ask you if you think that rape is a sin.
White: I believe that — Can we use a biblical example, Acts 4:27-28?
Bryson: Rape is a biblical issue, is rape a sin?
White: Just as the crucifixion was a sin, yes.
Bryson: Ok. So, does God decree, and therefore is God the cause of, sin?
White: Again, as you well know, having read all of these things, let me just read this into everyone’s hearing, so they can see it. The early church said: “For truly in this city there were gathered against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod, Pontius Pilate, along with the gentiles and the peoples of Israel to do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur. And so here is an example where men committed evil and they did so at the predestining purpose of God. God is glorified. His intention is positive and good. The intention of Herod – the intention of the Jews – These were not innocent people and God’s standing behind them with a big gun, pushing them down the road, going “Be evil, be evil.” In fact, how many times did God restrain them![13]

James White is very clear from this interaction about the nature of his Calvinistic God:

  • God is responsible for a child’s rape; otherwise it is meaningless and purposeless evil.
  • Everything in this world has a purpose from God, including a child’s rape.
  • God is responsible for the creation of despair if he did not decree a child’s rape with purpose.
  • Genesis 50:20 and Acts 4:27-28 support this view of God being responsible for a child’s rape, according to White.
  • Rape is a sin just as Jesus’ crucifixion was a sin.
  • The intention of Herod and Pontius Pilate was evil but men committed evil and they did so at the predestining purpose of God. God is glorified.

George Bryson’s remark hit the mark: ‘To blame God, which is what a decree does, to blame God for the rape of a child is a horrible attack on the very character and love of God’.

I cannot conclude other than the Calvinistic view of God, as articulated by James White, makes God into an evil monster!

See James White’s response to this interview and some other issues in this presentation on Youtube, ‘The Absurdity’.

The Calvinistic God decrees evil – all evil

The implications are horrific. The Calvinistic God considers it is OK for Him to endorse (by decree) the horrible evils of

We need to remember that it was John Piper who stated (above), ‘He [God] does no wrong to anybody when he takes their life, whether at 2 weeks or at age 92’.

It’s a massive contradiction when the Calvinistic God states that he does not delight in wickedness and evil does not dwell with him, but evil does dwell with him and all of the horrific things He has decreed throughout human history, according to some Calvinists – including

The God who does not delight in wickedness and evil does not dwell with him, is contradicted by the Calvinistic God who says it is OK through His decrees to agree with such slaughter and horror around the world and down through history.

This was response to, ‘Yep. 70% are wrong. Still a lot of work to do,’ was:[14]

There are 70% of Southern Baptists who do not endorse the God who engages in the kind of contradiction you are presenting for the Calvinistic God.
I praise the Lord that there are many Baptists who know the nature of their God and he is not the one who endorses evil around the world in contradiction of Psalm 5:4.

To the comment that it was ‘good news’ that 70% of Southern Baptist Churches are non-Calvinistic, I replied:[15]

It is good news because there are 70% represented by these churches at least should be getting a better understanding of the contradiction between the Calvinistic God who decrees all the evil in the world and the Lord God almighty who states: ‘to declare that the Lord is upright; he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him’ (Psalm 92:15 ESV)

The God who is absolutely righteous yet decrees all of the unrighteousness in the world is a god of contradiction, in my understanding.
And 70% of Southern Baptists seem to be in agreement with Psalm 92:15.

Who is the God revealed in the Bible?

This is the kind of God revealed in the Scriptures and he is not the deterministic, decretive God who decrees all kinds of evil, even horrific evil, throughout human history. This is the God revealed in Scripture:

Genesis 18:25, ‘Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (ESV)[16]

2 Chronicles 19:7, ‘Now then, let the fear of the Lord be upon you. Be careful what you do, for there is no injustice with the Lord our God, or partiality or taking bribes’.

Job 37:23, ‘The Almighty—we cannot find him; he is great in power; justice and abundant righteousness he will not violate’.

Psalm 5:4, ‘For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you’.

Psalm 9:8, ‘and he judges the world with righteousness; he judges the peoples with uprightness’.

Psalm 11:5, ‘The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence’.

Psalm 33:5, ‘He loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of the steadfast love of the Lord’.

Psalm 34:16, ‘The face of the Lord is against those who do evil, to cut off the memory of them from the earth’.

Psalm 92:15, ‘to declare that the Lord is upright; he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him’.

What about Isaiah 45:7? ‘I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things’ (ESV). The King James Version translates as, ‘I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things’.

So does the Lord God create evil or calamity? See my article, ‘Did God create evil?’ See also, ‘Doesn’t Isaiah say God made Evil?’

Jeremiah 44:11, ‘Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will set my face against you for harm, to cut off all Judah’.

Amos 9:4 describes how God did bring judgment on Israel with destruction, ‘And if they go into captivity before their enemies, there I will command the sword, and it shall kill them; and I will fix my eyes upon them for evil and not for good’.

Romans 2:11, ‘For God shows no partiality’.

Romans 9:14, ‘What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!’

This string of verses reveals two dimensions of the nature of God:

(1)The benevolent attributes of God, and

(2)The judgment of God.

(1) The benevolent attributes of God

What are these attributes of God that are revealed as the following verses unfold? He is this kind of God:

arrow-small Justice,

arrow-small Impartiality,

arrow-small Righteousness,

arrow-small Does not delight in wickedness;

arrow-small Evil does not dwell with Him;

arrow-small Against those who do evil;

arrow-small Upright,

(2) The judgment of God

These verses reveal God’s judgment as:

blue-satin-arrow-small Done with justice;

blue-satin-arrow-small Done with righteousness & uprightness;

blue-satin-arrow-small Creating calamity;

blue-satin-arrow-small Causing harm;

blue-satin-arrow-small Causing evil and not good;

This is not the God revealed in Calvinistic decrees where all the evil in the world is ordained by God. He approves it; he endorses it; it is achieving His purposes. This is not the God revealed in Scripture.

See my articles,

Conclusion: Which is a better solution to the problem of evil?

There is a very simple solution that those who believe in God’s free will to human beings, have been advocating throughout human history. We find it throughout the Scriptures. The Bible shows clearly that people have the ability to choose between two contrary views such as life and death. See Deuteronomy 30:15-19; Joshua 24:15; Isaiah 56:4; Ezekiel 33:11. The New Testament promotes the same view: Luke 22:32; John 3:16-17; Acts 17:30; Romans 6:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 4:10; 1 John 2:2; 4:14; 2 John 1:9 and Revelation 22:17.

Of course there are verses that affirm predestination in association with salvation, but that is not contradictory to God’s giving human beings responsibility through free will. Also see ‘Church Fathers on Foreknowledge and Free will’.

When it comes to the problem of evil, there is a simple solution. When God made human beings in the beginning, he gave Adam and Eve the choice to obey or disobey Him:

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Genesis 2:16-17).

Adam and Eve chose to disobey, beginning with Eve and the serpent’s tempting (Genesis 3). This tempter is generally accepted as the devil/Satan (see John 8:44; 2 Corinthians 11:3, 14; Revelation 12:9).

Since that time, all human beings inherit original sin, which means that all people have an hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that have been passed on from Adam and Eve to all of their descendants. Romans 5:12 gives a summary of this view from God’s perspective:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.

Some choose to be selfish, angry, steal or get angry (from mild to severe). Other people choose to do horrific things in their sinful actions. Human beings are responsible for horrendous, sinful deeds. It is human beings who commit the Holocaust, rape and murder. Each human being is responsible and will appear before the judgment of God to be judged.

The Judgment of the Dead (Revelation 20:11-15 NIV)

11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire (NIV).

The problem of evil, while inherited from birth, cannot be rebuffed with the claim that God gave it to me and caused me to sin. This is one that I’ve heard from some with a former church connection. The facts are that human beings choose to sin as Adam and Eve were their representatives. Adam was our federal head. If we had been there, we would have done exactly what Adam and Eve did. We see this emphasis in verses such as:

  • Romans 5:18, ‘Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people’.
  • 1 Corinthians 15:22, ‘For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive’.

That is the hope available to all people

clip_image001[4]

(image courtesy ChristArt)

‘For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive’. If you are interested in being made alive in Christ for abundant life NOW and eternal life that can begin NOW, I encourage you to read, ‘The content of the Gospel 
 and some discipleship’.

So, who is responsible for all of the evil in the world?

We are!

References

Calvin, J 1960. Institutes of the Christian religion. Tr by F L Battles, J T McNeill (ed), 2 vols. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

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

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, General Theology, Soteriology, ‘Hello need answer’, now faith#1, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7751293/ (Accessed 11 June 2013).

[2] Ibid., Hammster#2.

[3] Ibid., now faith#6.

[4] Ibid., Hammster#7.

[5] Ibid., janxharris#8.

[6] Ibid., Hammster#9.

[7] Ibid., janxharris#10.

[8] Ibid., janxharris#12.

[9] Ibid., OzSpen#11.

[10] Ibid., janxharris#13.

[11] Ibid., Hammster#14.

[12] Ibid., OzSpen#15.

[13] Available from ‘Reformed Apologetics & Polemics’ at: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/why-it-is-important-to-go-back-to.html (Accessed 11 June 2013).

[14] Ibid., OzSpen#16.

[15] Ibid., OzSpen#17.

[16] Unless otherwise stated, all translations are from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible.
Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 2 June 2016.

The fake and the genuine mixed in some churches: A dangerous concoction!

Landmine Doctrine

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

I’ve been interacting with a missionary friend in a foreign country who wrote of a person from the Bethel Church who feeds 10,000 children, has established churches, and has a humble ministry of bringing healing to the black children of Africa. A film has been made about this person raising people from the dead. This person gains no money from the actions and aches as she sits in the dust with African children, preaching Christ. But she is part of the Bethel Church, Redding, CA, USA.

The question the missionary asked of me: ‘How can this person be misguided and as far from Christ as the church leaders of Bethel church’?

What does the Bethel Church teach?

Bethel Church, Redding CA

Courtesy Wikipedia

The Bethel Church, Redding, California has this teaching on YouTube where there is alleged gold dust falling. See: ‘Gold dust rains during worship at Bethel!’

See also:

blue-satin-arrow-small‘Bethel testimonies’;

blue-satin-arrow-small‘Jeremy Riddle – Our Father PART 1/2 (Gold dust in the room)’;

blue-satin-arrow-small‘Glory Cloud & Gold Dust at Bethel Church’;

blue-satin-arrow-small‘Bethel’s ‘signs and wonders’ include angel feathers, gold dust and diamonds’.

Critiques of the Bethel Church movement

Empty Words

(image courtesy ChristArt )

What are the issues with Bethel Church, Redding, California, and its teachings? There are many links to assessment of the heresy of Bill Johnson of Bethel Church in Apostasy Watch:

blue-arrow-small‘Warning – Bill Johnson and Bethel Church’;

blue-arrow-small‘Sound advice for Bethel Church Pastor Bill Johnson’;

blue-arrow-small‘Bob Dewaay: Bill Johnson, IHOP [IHOP], & Ancient Heresy Reborn’;

blue-arrow-small‘The dangers of the International House of Prayer’, CARM;

blue-arrow-small‘Bill Johnson and Bethel – Report from Redding Record Searchlight’;

blue-arrow-small‘Bill Johnson / Bethel Church, Redding, California’ (links to other criticisms built into the article);

blue-arrow-small‘Birds of a Feather Flock Together: Strange Manifestations in ‘Christian’ Circles – from God or not? Feathers in Church? Bill Johnson of Bethel Church, Redding California’;

Let me say up front that we cannot discern a heart before God of any person, whether associated with a church teaching false doctrine or one teaching the truth. That discernment is in God’s hands. But the Scriptures give some strong indicators of what can happen.

What did Jesus say about the mixture of the fake with the genuine?

When I turn to Jesus, this is the truth that he proclaims:

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matt 7:21-23 NIV)

Only Jesus knows the truth of the human heart and the eternal destiny of people. It is evident from these Scriptures in Matthew 7 that Jesus did not regard good deeds and supernatural miracles to be guarantees that a person is a Christian who will enter the kingdom of heaven. It is evident that people can do many good works, perform miracles, and not do the will of the heavenly Father. It sounds strange to us, but God knows this is so. In fact, God calls these kinds of people, ‘evildoers’ (NIV) or ‘workers of lawlessness’ (ESV). So, these people are false prophets, even though they perform mighty works.

Evangelical commentator, William Hendriksen, wrote of this passage:

‘Does not all of this point to the possibility that also the demon expulsions and other mighty works of which the false prophets of Matt. 7:22 boast had been nothing but sham? Have not investigations proved again and again that among false prophets illusions, trickery, sleight of hand, etc., abound, and that what is presented as genuine is very often nothing but deception?’ (Hendriksen 1973:376).

Matthew 7:23 indicates a very high Christology. Jesus decides who will enter the Kingdom on the last day and he also decides who will be banished from his presence. That he never knew these people is because they falsely claimed him as Lord.

I find it interesting how the writer of The Didache, after the close of the New Testament, puts it this way, ‘But not everyone who speaks in a spirit is a prophet, except he have the behavior of the Lord. From his behavior, then, the false prophet and the true prophet shall be known’ (Didache 11.8). This is a good summary. One can use the word, ‘Lord’, of Jesus, allege to be a prophet and perform mighty works, and still be a fraud before Christ.

Therefore, the application to the Bethel Church is that a person can perform miracles, do other good works, but engage in false teaching and still not be a Christian who will enter the Kingdom. This does not mean that there are no genuine Christians associated with this church. That discernment is in Jesus’ control. However, ‘I never knew you’ are tragic words when they think that they are doing it for Jesus. Let’s understand that who enters the kingdom will be decided by Jesus. But here in Matt 7 there are strong indicators that good works and miracles can be associated with those who claim Jesus as Lord, but he is not their Lord. These are the penetrating words of Jesus.

I understand that we would like to think that there are those who perform wonderful deeds towards the needy, are used in supernatural miracles, but proclaim false doctrine, are misled but are truly Christian. But that’s not how Jesus sees it according to Matt. 7. I have to be true to Jesus and his teaching. It will sound harsh, but I have to answer at the end of my life to the Lord for my accuracy or otherwise with my biblical teaching. I hope people understand this. There is an attack on the truth of Scripture in the contemporary world.

Mark 9:39 states, ‘But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me’ (ESV). Those who proclaim false doctrine are speaking evil of the Lord as what they proclaim is not true.

I do not believe that miracles ceased with the original 12 apostles. See my article, ‘Can cessationism be supported by Scripture and church history?’

Worm and Lace

(image courtesy ChristArt)

Which Jesus?

There is the problem we face in the twenty-first century that was also there in the first century: Which Jesus are they/we serving? Is He the one who mixes falsehood with truth, or is he the one who is ‘the way, the truth and the life’ ALWAYS?

Consider these sources of falsehood and truth. We have warnings and affirmations in Scripture:

matte-red-arrow-small ‘But test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil’ (1 Thess 5:21-22 ESV).

matte-red-arrow-small‘Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world’ (1 John 4:1 ESV).

They were there in the first century. They are here n the twenty-first century. There will be the fake performed alongside the genuine. To the human eye they may look similar, but to Jesus he is the one who discerns those who knew him and those who didn’t. This we know from his teaching: Genuine good works, genuine miracles, and false teaching do not go together. They are often mixed and Christians are to be people of biblical and spiritual discernment. Too often we are not!

Therefore, the Lord calls all true believers to be people committed to the ministry of discernment:

matte-red-arrow-small ‘But test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil’ (1 Thess 5:21-22 ESV).

matte-red-arrow-small‘Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world’ (1 John 4:1 ESV).

The challenge

Here is the challenge that you and I face, whether in an overseas country or here in my country of Australia. We are to be these kinds of Christians: ‘So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes’ (Eph 4:14 ESV). It is tempting to see those who are doing massive good deeds mixed with fake miracles, to be seen as genuine. But the false and the truth cannot be mixed and come out as genuine. That’s according to Jesus and the Scriptures.

Why don’t you take a read of this article about the teaching of Bill Johnson and the Bethel Church, ‘An Invasion of Error: A Review of Bill Johnson—When Heaven Invades Earth‘

Part of the problem we face in the contemporary church is that teaching the truth through sound doctrine from the pulpit and in small groups is on such a low level in many evangelical churches. Many are too interested in their contemporary worship, topical sermons, and Gospel light, to be pursuing the need to teach true doctrine and refute false doctrine.

My wife and I had an experience of that in the last 18 months when we moved to a new suburb in northern Brisbane and sought an evangelical church that proclaimed sound theology in both teaching and song. We visited 8 different churches before we found one that came close to sound teaching (expository preaching from books of the Bible) and solid lyrics in the songs they sang. Most were into rock ‘n roll Christianity in their music and songs, and light sermon content.

I emailed one pastor whom I had never met as he wasn’t there and preaching when my wife and I visited his church on one occasion. I had enquired about going to one of his cell groups locally. His response was that a cell group at his church would not be suitable for me as it was ‘more contemporary than the church service’. I had not mentioned a word to him about ‘contemporary’ anything. Obviously the one person we spoke to after the service conveyed to the pastor some of the comments we made about the service. As for solid teaching in the evangelical churches, we did not find it – except for one. But the problem with this one, which we currently attend, is that it is super-traditional in all that happens in the services. However, the pastor is a sound expositor of Scripture who is not afraid to exegete the Scriptures and provide careful interpretations of the meaning.

See my articles:

silver-arrow-small‘Five ingredients of a healthy church: Colossians 4:7-18‘;

silver-arrow-small‘Double faults and no aces: Margaret Court’;

silver-arrow-small‘Are the dead raised today?’

silver-arrow-small‘Seventh Day Adventist atonement doctrine’.

T

(image courtesy ChristArt)

References

Hendriksen, W 1973. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel according to Matthew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 15 April 2016.

Isaiah 45:7: Who or what is the origin of evil?

Humans Evil

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

A Calvinist asked, ‘Would you agree that God decrees some evil?’[1]

To this came a response:

Along that line of thought, may I interject some passages which may shed light on the discussion. It seems that we tend to elevate God’s love, from a human perspective, above God’s holiness and an imbalance develops. Consider these passages in the discussion.

“Who can command and have it done if the Lord has forbidden it? Do not both bad and good proceed from the mouth of the Most High? Why should any man living complain, any mortal who has sinned?” (Lam 3:37-39, REB)

“I make the light, I create the darkness; author alike of wellbeing and woe, I, the Lord, do all these things.” (Isa 45:7 REB)
(Notice, NOT author of sin, but of woes, disasters, plagues, etc.)

“If a trumpet sounds in the city, are not the people alarmed? If disaster strikes a city, is it not the work of the Lord?” (Amos 3:6, REB)

“When the Adversary left the Lord’s presence, he afflicted Job with running sores from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head, and Job took a piece of a broken pot to scratch himself as he sat among the ashes. His wife said to him, ‘Why do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God, and die!’ He answered, ‘You talk as any impious woman might talk. If we accept good from God, shall we not accept evil?’ Throughout all this, Job did not utter one sinful word.” (Job 2:7-10, REB) (Good grammar indicates it was the Adversary who did the afflicting, not God; yet, it was in God’s plan.)

“The Lord said, “Who will entice King Ahab of Israel to go up and attack Ramoth-gilead?” One said one thing and one said another, until a spirit came forward and, standing before the Lord, said, “I shall entice him.” “How?” said the Lord. “I shall go out”, he answered, “and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets.” “Entice him; you will succeed,” said the Lord. “Go and do it.” You see, then, how the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours, because he has decreed disaster for you.’” (2Chr 18:19-22, REB)
(This is indeed a startling statement we must be cautious with indeed.)

“For the Son of Man is going his appointed way; but alas for that man by whom he is betrayed!’” (Luke 22:22, REB)
and from the ASV

“For the Son of man indeed goeth, as it hath been determined: but woe unto that man through whom he is betrayed!” (Luke 22:21-22, ASV)

Then history’s greatest sin, as has been mentioned, is the ultimate decree of God involving man’s sin: Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:27,28.

“I speak God’s hidden wisdom, his secret purpose framed from the very beginning to bring us to our destined glory. None of the powers that rule the world has known that wisdom; if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1Cor 2:7-8, REB)

(Ponder that statement… Satan and his demons were ignorant!)

The REB I quote is the Revised English Bible, 1989 of the U.K.[2]

I asked the person in footnote #1, ‘Does your God decree the rape of children, the Sandy Hook massacre and the Holocaust?’[3] His blunt response was, ‘Yes’[4], to which my response was, ‘What an horrific God you serve who preordains pedophilia against children and the Sandy Hook massacre!’[5] What do you think his reply could be? Here it is: ‘It’s the same God you serve. You just think He’s impotent’.[6]

What evil does God decree?

My response to Chasewind (footnote #2) was as follows:[7]

Isaiah 45:7 reads: ‘I form the light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity. I am the LORD who does all these things’ (ESV).

I have found Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe’s response to this verse to be most helpful (Geisler & Howe 1992:271-272):

ISAIAH 45:7 – Is God the author of evil?
PROBLEM: According to this verse (Is. 45:7), God “creates good and evil” (kjv, cf. Jer. 18:11 and Lam. 3:38; Amos 3:6). But many other Scriptures inform us that God is not evil (1 John 1:5), cannot even look approvingly on evil (Hab. 1:13), and cannot even be tempted by evil (James 1:13).
SOLUTION: The Bible is clear that God is morally perfect (cf. Deut. 32:4; Matt. 5:48), and it is impossible for Him to sin (Heb. 6:18). At the same time, His absolute justice demands that He punish sin. This judgment takes both temporal and eternal forms (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 20:11–15). In its temporal form, the execution of God’s justice is sometimes called “evil” because it seems to be evil to those undergoing it (cf. Heb. 12:11). However, the Hebrew word for evil (ra) used here does not always mean moral evil. Indeed, the context indicates that it should be translated, as the nkjv and other modern translations do, as “calamity.” Thus, God is properly said to be the author of “evil” in this sense, but not in the moral sense—at least not directly.

Further, there is an indirect sense in which God is the author of moral evil. God created moral beings with free choice, and free choice is the origin of moral evil in the universe. So, ultimately God is responsible for making moral creatures who are responsible for moral evil. God made evil possible by creating free creatures, but the free creatures made evil actual. Of course, the possibility of evil (i.e., free choice) is itself a good thing. So, God created only good things, one of which was the power of free choice, and moral creatures produced the evil. However, God is the author of a moral universe and in this indirect and ultimate sense is the author of the possibility of evil. Of course, God only permitted evil, but does not promote it, and He will ultimately produce a greater good through it (cf. Gen. 50:20; Rev. 21–22).[8]

GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF EVIL GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF EVIL
In the sense of sin: Moral evil, Perversity, Directly, Actuality of evil In the sense of calamity,  Non-moral, evil Plagues, Indirectly, Possibility of evil

As indicated above and below, there is quite a controversy in Calvinistic vs Arminian circles as to whether or not God is the cause of all the evil in the world. As a Reformed Arminian, my responses are those of such an understanding of Scripture, some of which are articulated in this brief article.

What Calvin & some Calvinists teach on God’s decree of all evil

John Calvin 2.jpg

John Calvin (courtesy Wikipedia)

What do some Calvinists teach on this critical subject of God creating all evil. Take a read of the statements of leading Calvinists, including Calvin, in ‘A Theology in Tension‘.

Here are a few of the quotes of Calvinists from that site:[9]

John Calvin:

‘Hence we maintain that, by his providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined’.

James White:

Calvinist theologian James White, in a debate with Hank Hannegraaf and George Bryson, was asked, “When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?” To which Mr. White replied
 “Yes, because if not then it’s meaningless and purposeless and though God knew it was going to happen he created it without a purpose 
 and God is responsible for the creation of despair
. If He didn’t [decree child rape] then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose” (Bible Answer Man interview, ‘Why it is important to go back to the sources, illustrated’, Friday, August 19, 2011).

W.G.T. Shedd:

“Sin is one of the ‘whatsoevers’ that have ‘come to pass’, all of which are ‘ordained’
. Nothing comes to pass contrary to His decree. Nothing happens by chance. Even moral evil, which He abhors and forbids, occurs by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God
 man’s inability to explain how God can make things certain, but not compulsory
 is no reason to deny that [God] can do it or that he has done it.”

Gordan H. Clark:

‘I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do it
” He goes on to assert, “Let it be unequivocally said that this view certainly makes God the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything. There is absolutely nothing independent of him. He alone is the eternal being. He alone is omnipotent. He alone is sovereign.[ Some people who do not wish to extend God’s power over evil things, and particularly over moral evils
The Bible therefore explicitly teaches that God creates sin’.

John Frame:

“The Reformed [Calvinists] agree that God knows what would happen under all conditions, but they reject the notion that this knowledge is ever ultimately based on man’s autonomous decisions. Human decisions, they argue, are themselves the effects of God’s eternal decrees.”

Jews on selection ramp at Auschwitz, May 1944

The Holocaust (image courtesy Wikipedia)

Conclusions

So these Calvinists agree that God has decreed all sin and the ultimate cause of everything, including moral evil, is God. It started with Calvin’s teaching that ‘the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined’ (cited above).

I find this to be an obnoxious view of God, the evil one. It is so contrary to the God of light who is also the God of judgment (through disaster and at the Last Judgment). The explanation above by Geisler & Howe (1992:271-272) is much more compatible with the whole tenor of Scripture – God is not the cause of moral evil, but does bring disaster/calamity. There are secondary causes of evil in association with the devil, human beings and other agents.

See also my article, Does God create all of the evil in the world?

References

Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. 1992. When critics ask:A popular handbook on Bible difficulties. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Baptists, ‘The foreknowledge of God’, Hammster #103. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7741951-11/#post63052072 (Accessed 13 May 2013).

[2] Ibid., Chasewind #104.

[3] Ibid., OzSpen #110.

[4] Ibid., Hammster #111.

[5] Ibid., OzSpen #112.

[6] Ibid., Hammster #113.

[7] Ibid., OzSpen #107.

[8] Although I have a copy of Geisler & Howe (1992), I copied the above information of Geisler and Howe from Frank Turek’s post of August 23, 2009, available at: http://crossexamined.org/turek-vs-hitchens-ii-debate-video/ (Accessed 13 May 2013). I have added the information in the table below (which is a summary of their position), that is in the Geisler & Howe publication (1992:272).

[9] All of these citations from this article are referenced from the writings or debates of these Calvinistic promoters. Check out the website for documentation. Emphases in bold are original to the article, ‘’A Theology in Tension‘.

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 14 May 2016.

Was Jesus omniscient while on earth?

Jesus Key Treasure Chest

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

Did Jesus, as God, know everything? This is often doubted because of Jesus’ statement in Mark 13:32, ‘But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father’ (ESV).[1] In the context of Mark 13:24-27, we know that Jesus was referring to his second coming.

We know from verses such as 1 John 3:20 that God is omniscient: ‘For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything’. So the trinitarian God, of whom Jesus is the deity and the second person of the Trinity, ‘knows everything’. How do we match this with ‘only the Father’ knowing the day or hour of Christ’s second coming?

With some people, it is not unusual to hear this kind of statement about Jesus not being or having the attribute of omniscience:

“He knows everything” is not meant as all absolute everything.
Jesus did not know the day of his second coming. Not knowing one things make (sic) him NOT knowing everything.[2]

The Forum thread that led to this comment began with this post: ‘I’m just curious because Jesus learns and finds things out in the Gospels, which doesn’t seem like a conditional possibility for an omniscient [being]’.[3]

1. What is omniscience?

Theologian, Wayne Grudem, has defined omniscience as ‘the attribute of God whereby he fully knows himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act’ (Grudem 1999:490). R C Sproul makes these accurate observations: Because omniscience means ‘all knowledge’, such could only be true of an infinite being like God himself who possesses infinite knowledge. ‘God’s omniscience is grounded in His infinity and His omnipotence. God’s omniscience is crucial to His role as the Judge of the world’ (Sproul 1992:46). Sproul refers to this teaching in Psalm 147:5; Ezekiel 11:5; Acts 15:18; Romans 11:33-36 and Hebrews 4:13.

2. Did Jesus have omniscience while on earth?

This is often questioned because of his lack of knowledge of his second coming. How should we respond? Is it a contradiction to state that the trinitarian God has omniscience yet Jesus did not have omniscience in his incarnation? Is that the truth. Let’s take a look at biblical evidence:

(a) Jesus did demonstrate aspects of omniscience

A summary of Jesus’ omniscience is given under the heading of ‘the Son is recognized as God’ and ‘the attributes of Deity’ by theologian Henry C. Thiessen. He wrote:

As for his omniscience, we read that He knows all things (John 16:30; 21:17). He knew what was in man (John 2:24, 25). He saw Nathanael under the fig tree (John 1:49); He knew the history of the Samaritan woman (John 4:29), the thoughts of men (Luke 6:8, cf. 11:17), the time and manner of His exit out of this world (Matt. 16:21; John 12:33; 13;1), who would betray Him (John 6:66), the character and certain termination of the present age (Matt. 24:25), the Father (Matt. 11:27); and “in him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden” (Col. 2:3). In Mark 13;32 He is said to be ignorant of the day of His return. On the basis of this statement some would have us believe that He was ignorant of many other points also. But we must remember that while He had the attributes of deity, He had surrendered the independent exercise of them. He went to a fig tree, “if haply he might find anything thereon” (Mark 11:13); He marvelled at their unbelief (Mark 6:6). All due to the fact that the Father did not allow Him to exercise His divine attributes in these instances. But He, no doubt, now knows the time of His coming (Thiessen 1949:139).

So Thiessen was convinced from the biblical evidence that Jesus did have the atrribute of omniscience but was not allowed to exercise it by the Father on some occasions during his incarnation.

(b) A view of Daniel Wallace

Daniel Wallace has written an excellent article about Jesus’ omniscience that I would recommend, “When did Jesus know?” Wallace concludes his article with this summary:

Briefly, here’s my take on things. We need to think of the divine attributes in two categories: moral attributes and amoral attributes. The moral attributes are those attributes that speak of God’s morality – justice, mercy, love, goodness, kindness, etc. The amoral attributes are those that speak of God’s sovereignty – omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, infinity, eternity, immutability, etc. What is interesting to observe in the Gospels is that a clear line of demarcation can be seen with reference to Jesus: he never fails to function on the level of the moral attributes, but frequently does not display the amoral attributes. In other words, the moral attributes seem to be “hard-wired” to his human consciousness, while the amoral attributes seem to be subject to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and come to the human conscious level at the Spirit’s choosing. At the same time, since he does occasionally demonstrate the amoral attributes, there is no denying his deity. Although Jesus Christ has both a human and divine nature, he is not two persons. He has one consciousness. It is not enough to say that his divine nature does not always operate at the level of his human consciousness. Why? Because it is only the amoral attributes that fit this description. It is partially because of this distinction that I hold to the impeccability of Christ—that is, that he was not able to sin (which is saying more than that he was able not to sin). Further, it is partially because of my christology that I view God’s attributes as amoral and moral instead of as communicable and incommunicable. In any event, if we recognize that Jesus functioned as a mere man in the amoral realm much if not most of the time, we can begin to understand why the scriptures can speak of him as able to relate to us. As man, he represents us to God; as God, he represents the Father to us. He is the perfect mediator, the perfect high priest, and the perfect sacrifice.

So Daniel Wallace’s view is that when Jesus was functioning as a man, he was not omniscient. However, did Jesus function with the attribute of omniscience while he was on earth? We’ll need to check the biblical evidence.

(c) Was Jesus’ incarnational omniscience laid aside?

‘The crowning jewel of incarnational texts is Philippians 2:6-11, an early Christian hymn in praise of Christ’ (Lewis & Demarest 1990:267). For an understanding of Jesus’ incarnation and omniscience, Phil 2:6-7 may have some application:

Though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

What does it mean to say that, in the incarnation, Jesus ‘made himself nothing’? The New American Standard Bible translates this phrase as, ‘emptied himself’ for the Greek, ekenwsen. The essence of the meaning is that

the eternal Christ chose not to regard existence-in-a-manner-of-equality-with-God a treasure to be greedily hearded. Instead, he voluntarily stripped himself (ekenwsen) of his prerogatives as the divine Son (his God-equal position) by “taking the very nature of a servant” [v. 7]
. Namely, by assuming the form and exhibiting the condition of a common slave. The text indicates that while renouncing participation in the heavenly glory, Christ retained the divine form or morphe
. The One who from eternity possessed the essence and glory of God, and who in an act of supreme self-renunciation assumed the existence of a lowly servant was in truth an authentic man among men (Lewis & Demarest 1990:267).

However, when applied to Jesus’ omniscience, we know that while the time of his second coming was the prerogative of the Father and was not known to the Son while on earth, we do know that Jesus demonstrated his attribute of omniscience during his earthly ministry. This is what the Gospels affirm about 


3. Jesus’ omniscience while on earth

matte-red-arrow-small[4]Matthew 26:21-25, ‘And as they were eating, he said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” 22 And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, “Is it I, Lord?” 23 He answered, “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me. 24 The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” 25 Judas, who would betray him, answered, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You have said so”’. These verses demonstrate Jesus’ omniscience.

matte-red-arrow-small Matthew 26: 31-35, ‘Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ 32 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” 33 Peter answered him, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.” 34 Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” 35 Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!” And all the disciples said the same’. These verses demonstrate Jesus’ omniscience.

matte-red-arrow-small Luke 5:21-22, ‘And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 22 When Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answered them, “Why do you question in your hearts?”’ These verses demonstrate Jesus’ omniscience.

matte-red-arrow-small Luke 6:7-8, ‘And the scribes and the Pharisees watched him, to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse him. 8 But he knew their thoughts, and he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come and stand here.” And he rose and stood there’. These verses demonstrate Jesus’ omniscience.

matte-red-arrow-smallLuke 9:46-47, ‘An argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. 47 But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side’. These verses demonstrate Jesus’ omniscience.

matte-red-arrow-small Luke 11:17, ‘But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls’. This verse demonstrates Jesus’ omniscience.

4. A dominant question about Jesus not being omniscient

This is a fairly standard objection to Jesus having omniscience:

What do you do with,
32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. (Mar 13:32 KJV)[5]

Some of how to respond is expounded above, but here are some further pointers (there may be some overlap with what is above):[6]

a) Since Jesus is fully God (and fully man) as a member of the Triune God, he has to be omniscient (all-knowing) as that is one of the essential attributes of God himself. Since Jesus is God himself, he is omniscient.

b) There are many times when Jesus based what he said and did on his divine nature (see examples above). But there are other times when Jesus states something about himself that is based on his human nature (Mk 13:32 is one example). Scripture clearly demonstrates that Jesus may be identified according to both human and divine natures.

c) Take 1 Cor. 2:8 as an example of this apparent paradox where the rulers of this age ‘crucified the Lord of glory’. How could the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Lord God of glory be crucified? It’s an oxymoron unless we understand that this is a statement from the perspective of Jesus’ human nature.

d) I, as an orthodox evangelical who has a high view of Scripture, understand the oneness of the three persons of the Trinity. In this oneness, they know all things (are omniscient). In his humiliation as a human being (see Philippians 2:6-7), God the Son did not use his divine attributes except when they were needed for his mediatorial work.

e) Therefore, Jesus’ omniscience while on earth was used in a very restricted way. That is what is happening with Mk 13:32 when Jesus’ human nature does not know the day or the hour of his second coming.

f) This is a mystery to us as human beings. How could the omniscient second person of the Trinity, while on earth, restrict the use of his divine attributes in such a way? Mystery it is, but it is a fact beyond dispute according to the biblical revelation, that Jesus is fully God but when speaking from his human nature, his omniscience is very restricted.

g) Understanding Mark 13:32 is on a parallel with understanding 1 Cor 2:8. The human Lord of glory, who was fully God, was crucified. The human Jesus, who was fully God, did not know the time and hour of his second coming.

h) We must not strip Jesus of his deity and omniscience when we don’t understand how the human Jesus did not know the specifics about his return.

i) However, those of a theological liberal persuasion, with a low view of Scripture, can easily conclude that here is a gross contradiction of Scripture in Mk 13:32. However, such a conclusion is based on a false understanding of the nature of the Trinitarian Lord God Almighty.

But I will say that our view of God has a massive impact on our understanding of Mark 13:32. It was A. W. Tozer who wrote,

What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us
. For this reason the gravest question before the Church is always God Himself (Tozer 1961:1).

5. Conclusion

There are three possible interpretations[7] of Jesus not knowing the time of his second coming:

  1. Jesus continued to exercise some dimensions of omniscience while on earth and the full exercise of his omniscience was subject to God the Father’s parameters;
  2. Jesus never failed to function on the level of the moral attributes, but frequently does not display the amoral attributes such as omniscience as these seemed to be subject to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and come to the human conscious level at the Spirit’s choosing (Dan Wallace’s view).
  3. In his incarnation, Jesus laid aside the use of his attribute of omniscience.

I hold to number 1 until further information is received and further understanding is achieved. Why? That there were times when Jesus’ omniscience was deferred to another member of the Godhead is obvious from Jesus not knowing the time of his second coming. However, my understanding is that this is a function of omniscience in the Godhead. It is not meant to deny Jesus’ omniscience while on earth.

I will not have fullest understanding of how the Trinitarian God’s omniscience functions until I’m in his presence. I wonder if that will be an issue then.

Works consulted

Grudem, W 1999. Bible doctrine: Essential teachings of the Christian faith, J Purswell (ed). Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

Lewis, G R & Demarest, B A 1990. Integrative theology, vol 2. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie Books (Zondervan Publishing House).

Sproul, R C 1992. Essential truths of the Christian faith. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

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

Tozer, A W 1961. The knowledge of the Holy.  San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Notes:

[1] Unless otherwise stated all biblical quotes are from the English Standard Version (ESV).

[2] Christian Forums, Theology, Christian History, The Historical Jesus, ‘Was Jesus omniscient?’ Maite Els#303. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7474786-31/ (Accessed 20 April 2013).

[3] Ibid., cubinity#1.

[4] I posted these references in ibid., OzSpen #310.

[5] Christian Forums, General Theology, Soteriology, ‘Questions for Synergists’, Butch5#328, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7742165-33/ (Accessed 6 May 2013).

[6] Ibid. This is from my response, OzSpen #327.

[7] Sceptics will want to introduce a fourth ‘interpretation’: ‘The Bible promotes a contradiction when dealing with Jesus’ omniscience vs. his limited knowledge’. However, the biblical evidence provides an antidote to the sceptics.

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 3 February 2018.

designBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-smadesignBlue-sma

Is the Holy Spirit God?

Hovering Dove

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

There are some who have doubts about the Holy Spirit being God, expressed in some of the blogs I visit on Christian Forums on the Internet. Here is but one example:

Also how come the Holy Spirit is never called God in any scripture? Look at John 10:30–“I and the father are one”.[1]

The following is my response.[2]

You don’t seem to want to believe that the Holy Spirit is God. Take your example:

‘Also how come the Holy Spirit is never called God in any scripture? Look at John 10:30–“I and the father are one”.

Yours is false teaching that “the Holy Spirit is never called God in any scripture”. Don’t you read the Book of Acts? This is what Acts 5:3-5 states:

3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it (ESV).

Who did Ananias lie to? The Holy Spirit and that means that Ananias lied to God. That’s Bible, but you don’t want to believe it!

I obtained the following summary of the deity of the Holy Spirit from Norman Geisler 2003. Systematic Theology: God, Creation, vol 2. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse, pp. 675-676.

The Holy Spirit is given the names of Deity
The Holy Spirit is referred to as “God” or “Lord” (Acts 5:3-4), “God’s Spirit” (1 Cor. 3:16), “Lord” (1 Cor. 12:4-6), and “eternal Spirit” (Heb. 9:14).

The Holy Spirit possesses the attributes of Deity
The Holy Spirit has attributes of God such as life (Rom. 8:2), truth (John 16:13), love (Rom. 15:30), holiness (Eph. 4:30), eternality (Heb. 9:14), omnipresence (Ps. 139:7), and omniscience (1 Cor. 2:11).

The Holy Spirit performs acts of deity
The divine works of the Holy Spirit include the act of Creation (Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4; Ps. 104:30), the acts of redemption (Isa. 63:10-11; Eph. 4:30; 1 Cor. 12:13), the performance of miracles (Gal. 3:2-5; Heb. 2:4), and the bestowal of supernatural gifts (Acts 2:4; 1 Cor. 12:11).

The Holy Spirit is associated with God in prayers and benedictions
Jude 1:20 exhorts readers to “build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.” The benediction of 2 Corinthians 13:14 contains all three members of the Godhead: “May the brace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God [the Father], and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (emphasis added). The baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 also contains the Holy Spirit, along with the other members of the Trinity, all under one “name” (essence).

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Baptists, ‘Is Jesus God’, yogosans14 #242, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7648044-25/ (Accessed 11 March 2013).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen #255.

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 1 May 2016.

Blue Greek Key With Lines Border by GR8DAN - A blue greek key based border.

Hell in the Bible

Read the Bible

(image courtesy ChristArt)

Spencer D Gear

In this book by Christopher Morgan & Robert Peterson (gen eds) 2007. Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment (Zondervan), you will read how people within the church, some of whom know Greek, are reinventing the doctrine of hell with alternatives such as universalism and annihilationism. I found it to be a commentary on how presuppositions impose on the Greek text (I read and have taught NT Greek) and the text is not allowed to speak for itself.

Morgan & Peterson begin with this story:

A business was opening a new store, and a friend of the owner sent flowers for the occasion. The flowers arrived at the new business site, and the owner read the card, inscribed, “Rest in Peace.”
The angry owner called the florist to complain. After he told the florist of the obvious mistake and how angry he was, the florist said, “Sir, I’m really sorry for the mistake, but rather than getting angry, you should imagine this: Somewhere there is a funeral taking place today, and they have flowers with a note that reads, “Congratulations on your new location” (Introduction)

We are in a time when there are major attempts at scholarly and lay levels to redefine hell. Here are a few examples:

clip_image002[1] John Dominic Crossan, historical Jesus’ scholar of the Jesus Seminar: ‘‘What about heaven and hell, what about terminal rewards and punishments, what about eternity and the afterlife?… Let me be very blunt: I refuse to accept heaven from a God who could invent hell’. He continues, ‘The God of hell is a divinity to fear but not to love, to dread but not to worship, and it is morally necessary to say that loudly and clearly’. He is emphatic: ‘Hell is an obscenity
. For such a Supreme Being, Mrs Job had the only proper answer: Curse God, and die’ (Crossan 2000:201).

clip_image002[1] Layman: ‘I don’t believe God has condemned the majority of man to hell. Hell in the bible is described as eternal fire, bottomless pit, outer darkness, but for the most part simply as death’.[1]

clip_image002[1] John Stott, the late evangelical scholar, ‘In Evangelical Essentials, I described as “tentative” my suggestion that “eternal punishment” may mean the ultimate annihilation of the wicked rather than their eternal conscious torment. I would prefer to call myself agnostic on this issue, as are a number of New Testament scholars I know. In my view, the biblical teaching is not plain enough to warrant dogmatism. There are awkward texts on both sides of the debate’ (McCloughry 2006).

clip_image002[3] Mormon view: ‘LDS[2] do not believe in Hell as a place. The reason why is that revelation through Latter-Day prophets have revealed that there exists three levels of glory and then Outer Darkness. Hope that helps’.[3]

clip_image002[4] Layman: ‘Personally, I don’t believe in traditional concepts of either heaven or hell. I believe God is in all and all are in God. We are from God, and to God we will return. What this means, whether we are conscious of it, and what it is like, I don’t know. I honestly think that how we live here and now is more important than how we will live in an afterlife. My philosophy is “God has that covered, so I’m gonna focus on being the best me I can be here and now”’.[4]

clip_image002[4] Liberal theologian, the late Paul Tillich: ‘”Heaven” and “hell” are symbols of ultimate meaning and unconditional significance’ (1968 III:327).

So there are samples of doubt about hell among liberal and evangelical people with some association with the Christian perspective on life.

We run into a problem when it comes to understanding ‘hell’, especially if we have been raised on the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible.

The KJV translation of hell

We have a major problem with the King James Version and its translation of various Greek words with the same English word. I was preparing to provide teaching on this to expose the KJV translation weaknesses on this topic when I came across this article by J. Gibbons.

Gibbons has summarised this problem:

ALTHOUGH MANY translations of the Bible have been made into English (some good and some not as good), the King James Version (initially translated in 1611) is still widely used by many people (among them being this writer). When there are possible question marks about words that seem archaic, we try to supply parallel words that would be helpful in getting the meaning across. This term “hell” is one that needs our attention. The KJV scholars used the one word “hell” to represent several different words in the original Scriptures. This can be confusing unless one makes a background study as to which word is behind the word “hell” appearing in our KJV (or check out other translations). Consequently, some have misrepresented the Scriptures and have tried to teach that the grave is the only hell (and that there is no place of fire). What about this? What are the words in the original Scriptures, what do they mean, and why did the KJV translators represent these words by only one word in English? Following are gleanings, impressions and conclusions from our study on this.[5]

Greek words for the KJV’s ‘hell’ in the New Testament

Again, Gibbons provides the summary:

Three Words as “Hell”.

In the New Testament, the KJV translators used the word “hell” somewhat generically to represent three different Greek words. The Greek words are (1) gehenna, (2) hades and (3) tartaros (sic). Gehenna is found 12 times in the New Testament (Matthew 5:22,29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mark 9:43,45, 47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6). Hades is found 11 times (Matthew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27, 31; Revelation 1:18; 6:8; 20:13,14) and tartaros (sic) 1 time (2 Peter 2:4).

Gehenna, Hell Proper.

(1) Gehenna had its origin in association with the valley of Hinnom, actually meaning this. In the Old Testament times, when Israel went into idolatry, human sacrifices took place in this valley next to Jerusalem in the worship of Molech as they would “burn their sons and daughters in the fire” (2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chronicles 28:3; Jeremiah 7:31). The valley was looked upon as being polluted and unclean, and in New Testament times was used somewhat as a city dump with continual burning, we understand. It was with that backdrop the term gehenna was adopted and applied to the place of eternal punishment. Such is its coinage and use. This is hell in what the modern usage of the term “hell” conveys.

Hades, The Unseen World.

(2) We are told that Hades, in its etymology, properly means unseen. The basic stem of the word means seen, but it has the little a privative before it, thus making it signify unseen. All behind and beyond the veil of death is unseen. Thus, it is fittingly called Hades. At death the spirit enters into the unseen world of the dead. The word itself does not necessarily specify whether this state is bad or good. By itself it is generic, but it can be more specific, according to the context and other Scripture. Interestingly, in the account of the rich man and Lazarus, it is said that in “hell” (Hades, KJV) the rich man lifted up his eyes being in torment. With his death, Jesus is said to have gone to Hades (Acts 2:27,31). (This is the word behind the KJV’s translation of “hell” here). Jesus had earlier said to the thief on the cross, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Evidently, the story of the rich man and Lazarus unveils the situation as it was (and perhaps is). The good and the bad are partitioned by a great gulf, it would seem, one being in comfort and the other in discomfort. All of this anticipates the Day of Judgment when eternal heaven and hell will begin.

Tartarus, The Abyss.

(3) Tartarus is only referred to in one place in the New Testament, 2 Peter 2:4. It is found in the words “cast them down to hell” (to send into Tartarus). It is the bottomless abyss, the confinement place of the wicked, fallen angels.

The English Word “Hell”

But what is the actual and literal meaning of the English word “hell” used repeatedly in the KJV of the Bible? This may come as a surprise to many, but the English word “hell” back in 1611 meant about the same as hades, that being covered or unseen. The Cyclopedia of Biblical Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (John McClintock and James Strong) that first came out in 1867, says this of the term, “Hell, a term which originally corresponded more exactly to Hades, being derived from the Saxon helan, to cover, and signifying merely the covered, or invisible place—the habitation of those who have gone from the visible terrestrial region to the world of spirits. But it has been so long appropriated in common usage to the place of future punishment for the wicked, that its earlier meaning has been lost sight of.” This does not negate the teaching of a place of future punishment and fire as seen in the word Gehenna and the umbrella word, Hades. It just throws more light on the use of the word “hell” in the King James Version.[6]

I’m grateful for this excellent summary and refer you to Gibbons’ article.

These brief definitions

Here is a brief summary of the meaning of these Greek words.

  • Sheol. OT believers knew that Sheol was visible to God (Job 26:6) and that they were in the presence and protection of God at death (Psalm 139:8).
  • Hades (Morey 1984:81-87). It is the Greek equivalent of Sheol, although it translates other Hebrew words as well. We run into problems with the mistranslation by the KJV of Hades and Sheol. The post-resurrection teaching in the NT is that the believer goes to heaven at death (present with the Lord) to await the resurrection and the final eternal state. But for unbelievers they go to Hades, a temporary place of torment, awaiting their resurrection and the eternal punishment. Regarding 2 Peter 2:9, ‘the grammar of the text irrefutably establishes that the wicked are in torment while they await their final judgment. When the day of judgment arrives, Hades will be emptied of its inhabitants, and the wicked will stand before God for their final sentence (Rev. 20:13-15). Thus, we conclude that Hades will be emptied at the resurrection, and then the wicked will be cast into “hell” (Gehenna)’ (Morey 1984:87).
  • Valley of Hinnom. It is mentioned in Josh 15:8; 18:16 and Neh. 11:30. It was the place where idolatrous Jews gave human sacrifices to pagan deities. In Christ’s day it became Jerusalem’s garbage dump. So, this garbage dump became a Jewish picture of the ultimate fate of idol worshippers (Morey 1984:87).
  • Tartarus. This is used in 2 Peter 2:4 to refer to angels and where they were cast. He was using a word that in Greek literature meant a place of conscious torment in the netherworld. It did not mean non-existence, but referred to their being reserved in the place of mental anguish and terror until the day of judgment (Morey 1984:135).
  • Gehenna. It’s the Greek equivalent of the Valley of Hinnom, so Gehenna is an appropriate description of the final, eternal garbage dump where idolators go after the resurrection. The wicked would suffer there forever. Even Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon concluded that it means ‘the place of eternal punishment’. Coon and Mills define Gehenna as ‘the place of  eternal punishment’. So Gehenna is the final place of punishment, the ultimate place of torment for the wicked. It will be eternal, conscious torment (Morey 1984:87-90).

Conclusion

The Christian believers go to be with the Lord at death, ‘Away from the body and at home with the Lord’ (2 Cor. 5:8 ESV). They await the resurrection and the final state in heaven.

By contrast, all unbelievers at death go to Hades, a temporary place of torment, and await the resurrection, at which time they will be cast by God permanently into Gehenna, the place of eternal, conscious torment.

This is the biblical teaching on hell, in spite of others wanting to change it.

Other articles

See my other articles on this topic:

clip_image004[1] Are there degrees of punishment in hell?

clip_image004[1] What is the nature of death according to the Bible?

clip_image004[1] Hell & Judgment;

clip_image004[2] Should we be punished for our sins?

clip_image004[1] Paul on eternal punishment;

clip_image004[1] Where will unbelievers go at death?

clip_image004[5]Torment in Old Testament hell? The meaning of Sheol in the OT;

clip_image004[6]Eternal torment for unbelievers when they die;

clip_image004[7]Will you be ready when your death comes?

clip_image004[1] What happens at death for believer and unbeliever?

clip_image004[1] Does eternal destruction mean annihilation for unbelievers at death?

clip_image004[10] Refutation of Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine of what happens at death;

clip_image004[11] Near-death experiences are not all light: What about the dark experiences?

References

Crossan, J D 2000. A long way from Tipperary: A memoir. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

McCloughry, R. 2006, ‘Basic Stott as a precursor to my piece’, Kenyananalyst, 2 May, available at: http://kenyananalyst.blogspot.com/2006/05/basic-stott-as-precursor-to-my-piece.html (Accessed 10 June 2007).

Morey, R A 1984. Death and the afterlife. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

Morgan, C & Peterson, R (gen eds) 2007. Hell under fire: Modern scholarship reinvents eternal punishment. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Tillich, P 1968. Systematic theology, 3 vols in 1 vol. Welwyn, Herts: James Nisbet & Co Ltd.

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, ‘Why is hell designed with fire?’ elman #18. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7689415-2/ (Accessed 11 October 2012).

[2] LDS = The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints = The Mormon Church.

[3] Christian Forums, Unorthodox Theology, ‘Why do some people think Hell isn’t real? Ran77#2. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7684573/ (Accessed 11 October 2012).

[4] Christian Forums, Faith groups, Whosoever will may come – liberal, ‘Liberal Hell’, Episcoboi#2. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7692297/ (Accessed 11 October 2012).

[5] J. Gibbons, ‘”Hell” in the King James Version’, available at: http://jgibbons.8m.com/HELL-in-King-James-Version.html (Accessed 11 October 2012).

[6] Ibid.

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 25 January 2017.

Shouldn’t we be punished for our own sins?

clip_image002

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

It is not uncommon to get this kind of interaction in person or on a Christian forum on the Internet:

Question is simple and I will use the Amalekite infants as an example [1 Sam 15:1-35 ESV]. Did they truely (sic) deserve to die considering they were only guilty by association? Granted some of the Amalekites deserved to die, but it seems rather cruel to kill off even the infants who were not responsible for anything. With that in mind, if infants are born with a sinful nature like all humans are, do they deserve to be thrown into hell like the rest of us according to the bible?[1]

Another replied:

The bible is not consistent. Ezekiel 18 indicates we are not responsible for our father’s sin or anyone’s sin but our own. No. Infants are not born guilty of anything and no body is thown (sic) into a place of torture by a loving God. The wages or consequences of sin is death–not life everlasting being tortured.[2]

My response was as follows:[3]

This is nothing more than your opinion. The Bible is very consistent, but our interpretations represent our major problems and your statement here is representative.
Yours is a rather short-sighted view.

Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch address this matter in Hard Sayings of the Bible (1996. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, pp. 177-179). I highly recommend this source as one of the finest in dealing with tough verses in Scripture. They address this issue when responding to,

clip_image003

InterVarsity Press

Deuteronomy 24:16: Should Children Be Punished for Their Parents’ Sins?

The principle governing Israelite courts was that human governments must not impute to children or grandchildren the guilt that their fathers or forebears accumulated. In Scripture each person stands before God as accountable for his or her own sin.

While this principle is acknowledged in Deuteronomy 24:16, there seem to be cases where it was not put in practice. For example, the child born to David and Bathsheba died because of their sin (2 Sam 12:14-18). And Saul’s seven grandchildren were put to death because of Saul’s sin (2 Sam 21:5-9). How are we to reconcile these contradictory sets of facts?

Some will also bring up the fact that the sins of the fathers have an ill effect on the children to the third and fourth generations (Ex 20:5; Deut 5:9). Surely this is a direct contradiction of the principle in Deuteronomy 24:16.

But Deuteronomy 24:16 is dealing with normal criminal law. It explicitly forbids blaming the children for the sin and guilt earned by the parent. If the son deserves the death penalty, the father must not be put to death in his place, or vice versa. This point is repeated in a number of texts, such as 2 Kings 14:6, 2 Chronicles 25:4, Jeremiah 31:30 and Ezekiel 18:20.

The legal principle of dealing with each individual according to individual guilt is one side of the equation. The other side is that God has reserved for himself the right to render all final decisions. Not all situations can, or are, resolved in human courts. Some must await the verdict that God will give.

There is a third element that must be accounted for as well. This notion is difficult for Westerners to appreciate, since we place such a high premium on the individual. But Scripture warns us that there is such a thing as corporate responsibility. None of us functions in complete isolation from the society and neighborhood to which we are attached. Lines of affinity reach beyond our home and church groups to whole communities and eventually to our nation and the world in which we live.

There are three factors involved in communal responsibility in the Old Testament. First is unity. Often the whole group is treated as a single unit. In 1 Samuel 5:10-11, for example, the ark of God came to Ekron of the Philistines. Because the bubonic plague had broken out in the previous Philistine cities where the ark had been taken, the Ekronites cried out, “They have brought the ark of the god of Israel around to us to kill us and our people.” The whole group sensed that they would share in the guilt of what their leaders had done in capturing the ark of God.

Second, sometimes a single figure represents the whole group. Rather than someone who embodies the psychology of the group, this is a case of one, such as the suffering Servant of the Lord, standing in for many others.

The third factor is oscillation from the individual to the group, and vice versa. The classic example appears in Joshua 7:11, where the Lord affirms, “Israel has sinned,” even though Achan confesses, “I have sinned” (Josh 7:20).

Each situation must be evaluated to see whether it is a principle of a human court that is involved, a divine prerogative of final judgment or a case of corporate solidarity. We in the West still understand that one traitor can imperil a whole army, but we do not always understand how individual actions carry over into the divine arena or have widespread implications. Scripture works with all three simultaneously.

In the case of David and Bathsheba, it is clear that the loss of the baby was linked to the fact that David committed adultery with Uriah’s wife, though Uriah remained determined to serve David faithfully in battle. This did not involve a human court but was a matter of divine prerogative.

The story about Saul’s seven grandchildren takes us into the area of national guilt. Saul violated a treaty made with the Gibeonites in the name of the Lord (Josh 9:3-15). The whole nation was bound by this treaty made in Joshua’s day. Thus when Saul, as head of the nation, committed this atrocity against the Gibeonites, it was an act against God and an act that involved the whole nation. A divinely initiated famine devastated the land until the demands of justice were met. When David inquired into the reason for the famine, God answered, “It is on account of Saul and his blood-stained house; it is because he put the Gibeonites to death” (2 Sam 21:1).

Saul and his sons had already fallen in the battle at Mount Gilboa, but his household shared in the stigma. Only God knew why the seven grandchildren shared in the guilt; it is not spelled out in the text. Apparently they had had some degree of complicity in the matter. Because only God knew, it was up to God, not a human court, to settle such cases.

As for the commandment that has the sins of the fathers visiting the children to the third and fourth generations, we can only observe that the text clearly teaches that this happens when the children repeat the motivating cause of their parents’ sin—that is, they too hate God. But when the children love God, the effect is lovingkindness for thousands of generations!

Both individual responsibility and group or communal responsibility are taught in Scripture. We must carefully define and distinguish these types of responsibility. But in no case should the principle of courts be to blame children for the wrongful deeds of their forebears. And if God demanded that principle as a basis for fairness in human governments, should we think he would do any less in the running of his own government?

No one will ever be denied eternal life because of what his or her forebears did or did not do. Each will live eternally or suffer everlasting judgment for his or her own actions (Ezek 18). Our standard of what constitutes fairness and justice, after all, is rooted in the character of God himself.

The graciousness of God and his swift move to forgive and to forget every sin that we call upon him to cleanse is seen in Exodus 34:6?7. The theme of these verses is essentially repeated in Numbers 14:18, 2 Chronicles 30:9, Nehemiah 9:17, Psalm 86:15, 103:8, 111:4, 116:5, 145:8, Joel 2:13, Jonah 4:2 and Nahum 1:3.

But God’s grace is balanced by the last part of Exodus 34:7, which warns that “[God] does not leave the guilty unpunished.” The reverse side of the same coin that declares God’s mercy and his love speaks of his justice and righteousness. For the wicked persons who by their actions tend to second their father’s previous motions by continuing to sin boldly against God as their fathers did, with no repentance, this text again warns that the chastisement of God will be felt down to the “third and fourth generation.” However, note carefully that the full formula includes the important qualifier “of those who hate me.” But wherever there is love, the effect is extended to thousands of generations!

In this connection, it is important to note that 2 Samuel 12:14 likewise declares about David’s sin with Bathsheba, “But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die.” While it true that David was thoroughly forgiven of his sin of adultery and complicity in murder (see Psalms 32 and 51), there were consequences to his sin that could not be halted, for they followed as inexorably as day follows night. To put it in another way, just because God knows that a mugger will accept him as Savior a number of years after a mugging, God does not, thereby, turn the molecular structure of the bat used in the mugging, and which is now descending on the head of an innocent victim, into limp spaghetti; it leaves permanent damage on the skull of its poor unsuspecting target. The case of David and Bathsheba is similar: the consequences of sin are as real as the creation of a new life that comes out of a sexual affair. This in turn gave occasion for the enemies of God to vaunt themselves and demonstrate even further contempt for God, his people, and their alleged different style of life. It was for this reason that God brought immediate judgment on David: “the son born to [him would] die.”

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, ‘Do infants deserve hell since they are born in a sinful nature?’ Ultima4257 #1, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7689287/ (accessed 22 September 2012).

[2] Ibid., Elman #2.

[3] Ibid., OzSpen #14.

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 29 October 2015.

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

Whytehouse designs

Differences between orthodox theism and panentheism

One God

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

Within liberal Christianity, there is a false theology of panentheism that is practised. On the scholarly level, there are books such as that by Episcopalian Marcus Borg (1997) that support this redefinition of God. He stated that this is his view of God:

Panentheism as a way of thinking about God affirms both the transcendence of God and the immanence of God. For panentheism, God is not a being “out there.” The Greek roots of the word point to its meaning: pan means “everything,” en means “in,” and theos means “God.” Panentheism thus means “everything is in God.” God is more than everything (and thus transcendent), yet everything is in God (hence God is immanent). For panentheism, God is “right here,” even as God is also more than “right here”[1] (Borg 1997:32).

(Marcus Borg, courtesy Wikipedia)

The New York Times (26 January 2015) reported the death of liberal historical Jesus scholar at the age of 72.  He had suffered from pulmonary fibrosis.

Anglicans Down Under ask:

May Anglicans be panentheists?

Many Episcopalians are panentheists, at least according to no lesser an authority than Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori (on an interview on Lutheran radio, with transcript via Virtue Online):

“WILKEN: On that issue of “people-of-faith” the subtitle of the book is “Finding the Sacred in the Middle of Everything.” so it might sound to some like pantheism. Do you believe that the “sacred”, as you define it, is found in all religions?
JEFFERTS SCHORI: Yes, I think it probably is. We’re not pantheists, many Episcopalians might be understood to as “panentheists”. The difference being that pantheists see everything as God and panentheists see God reflected in all of God’s creation. When we talk about human beings being made in the image of God that’s a piece of what we are talking about and we would extend that to all of creation. “

But being part of a ‘diversity-in-unity’ Communion, if it is okay for Episcopalians to be panentheists, it is okay for any Anglicans to be panentheists.

On the popular level, there are comments like these to support panentheism:

I believe that all are in God and God is in all. There is nowhere that God is not. No place, no moment, no thing where God is not present. Thus, in the end, we are in God and we return to God (though, to be honest, our separateness from God is illusion)
.[2]

I believe that all are in God and God is in all and to God we all return. I don’t know the details. It is not given for me to know the details. So, I can explain no further. I have never been to the afterlife. Thus, I cannot say what it is, where it is, what it is like, or furnish any other detail.[3]

I’m not “saved” through the redemptive work of the Christ. I don’t believe in substitutionary atonement or many other theories of atonement. Jesus was Savior and Christ for me because his life was truly a “with God life.” He exemplifies a life lived completely an fully in the transformative-relational power of God. As, such he is my exemplar.[4]

The approach to salvation I take (that I live and move and have my being in God, and thus can never be separate from God and to God I will return…whatever that may mean in the end of my life.) does come from scripture, as interpreted by process theology and my own experience. I’m not very concerned about the afterlife. Like Reform Judaism (which has profoundly influenced both my theology and view of end of life things), I think that our lives as lived now are far more important than what will happen when we die. Whether I cease to exist or there is a conscious afterlife existence, I will love God, work with God, and serve my fellow human beings, other creatures, and the earth that God created and continues to create in every moment of existence. I trust in God that “all that can be saved will be saved (myself included).”[5]

He explained further: ‘Christianity is the language, the symbolism, the lens through which I am able to approach divinity, because it’s symbols and language are what I know and what speak to me’.[6]

Panentheism, not to be confused with pantheism, has the literal meaning, ‘all in God’. It is also known as process theology, ‘since it views God as a changing Being’. It is sometimes called bipolar theism as ‘it believes God has two poles’ (Geisler 1999:576). By contrast, pantheism means ‘all is God’.

Panentheists agree that God has two poles: (1) an actual pole, which is the world; and (2) a potential pole – beyond the world. This is not the view of Almighty Yahweh God revealed in Scripture. It is a liberal invention of God that does not line up with Scripture as the article by Geisler demonstrates.

What is theism? Briefly, ‘theism is the worldview that an infinite personal God created the universe and miraculously intervenes in it from time to time. God is both transcendent over the universe and imminent in it’ (Geisler 1999:722). However, that kind of description could apply to the three dominant theistic religions Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

What is the difference between theism and panentheism?

Norman Geisler has provided this helpful summary of the main contrast with the orthodox doctrine of God:

Theism Panentheism
God is Creator. God is director.
Creation is ex nihilo. Creation is ex materia.
God is sovereign over world. God is working with world
God is independent of world God is dependent on world.
God is unchanging. God is changing.
God is absolutely prefect. God is growing more perfect.
God is mono-polar. God is bi-polar.
God is actually infinite. God is actually finite.

From Norman L. Geisler 1999. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, p. 576. Geisler’s article can be found at: Panentheism – Part One; Panentheism – Part Two.

Panentheists agree that God has two poles: (1) an actual pole, which is the world; and (2) a potential pole – beyond the world (Geisler 1999:576).

(Photo courtesy Southern Evangelical Seminary)

 

Pantheism: The god of syncretism [7]

When Episcoboi supports panentheism, he is picking and choosing from the Bible and he is really a syncretist with regard to God. His God is not the God revealed in Scripture and made manifest through Christ’s life and death. He admitted his syncretism:

I guess my way is syncretic. I come from a background that includes significant time in Reform Judaism. In Reform Judaism, God is affirmed as being One, but what is meant by “God” is different to different Jews in the Reform movement. Also, in Reform Judaism, afterlife beliefs are of secondary importance to this life and the way it is lived. Actually, my definition of God, defined as panentheism, is definitely found in Scripture. Or else, where did the early Chassidic Jews get it. Or, where do many modern and historic Rabbi’s get it from. Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson of Conservative Judaism, Abraham Joshua Heschel’s theology was deeply grounded in Torah and his Deep Theology shares many aspects with process theism. Rabbi Michael Lerner. I’m using these examples as proof that there is biblical (at least in the Hebrew Bible and Tradition) for my theology, agnosticism about the afterlife, etc. It may not be apparent in the NT, but it is definitely scriptural.

Again, my way is syncretic. But, that also stems from my belief that all religions have truth and the divine in them.
You can learn more about the God I’m talking about by talking with Rabbi’s, especially of the Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Movements in Judaism. And, from biblical scholars, theologians, and teachers from the Christian tradition such as John Cobb, Catherine Keller, Bruce Epperly, David Ray Griffin, Marjorie Suchocki, Rita Nakashima Brock, and Charles Hartshorne.[8]

If he is not interested in what happens when he dies, he again affirms that he is not a supporter of biblical Christianity. His definition of god is from a different source than the Scriptures of the OT and NT. This is his agnosticism about what happens at death:

I’m not a total agnostic. Only about the afterlife. I never say that I’m the ultimate authority. I’m only saying that I leave afterlife to God who knows. I think that how we live in this life is of much more importance than spending time speculating about what the afterlife is or what it may be like. From God we come and to God we return. The Hebrew Bible is not very clear and really doesn’t deal overmuch with the afterlife. The new testament also does not deal a lot with what the afterlife may or may not be like. In the NT there is much talk about redemption and salvation, but not much detail about the afterlife.

A study of Jewish theological development shows that the idea of an afterlife of reward and punishment only began to develop after the Babylonia Captivity and only came to be truly developed in the Hellenistic period and the early Rabinnic (sic) period. To this day even Orthodox Jews will tell you that they believe in Olam Haba, but cannot go into great detail about what it is.

I don’t seek honor by being agnostic about the afterlife. I only seek to say, “I don’t know.” That is not a matter of pride, just a simple statement of fact about my life experience.[9]

This is false! The NT does speak considerably about life after death. See the exposition by Robert A. Morey 1984. Death and the Afterlife. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers. See the article by Robert Morey, ‘Sheol, Hades and Gehenna’. See also Death and the Afterlife, Terence Nichols. I also refer you to my articles on this homepage, Truth Challenge:

Episcoboi says he loves God? Which God is he talking about? What are this God’s attributes and how can we learn about his God? Where do I go to find this God’s attributes? The summary by Geisler above is an adequate overview to know that this is not the God of Scripture who was manifest in Jesus Christ. He’s another god. This is not the view of Almighty Yahweh God revealed in Scripture. It is a liberal invention of god, derived from theism, that does not line up with Scripture as the articles by Geisler demonstrate.

What is biblical theism?

Henry Thiessen has provided a brief definition of biblical theism as

the belief in one personal God, both immanent and transcendent, Who exists in three personal distinctions, known respectively as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the position of Christian Theism
. It is a form of monotheism, yet not of the Unitarian, but of the Trinitarian type. The Christian holds that since all the other [theistic] beliefs 
 have a false conception of God, his view is the only truly theistic view (Thiessen 1949:49).

References

Borg, M 1997. The God we never knew. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Carson, D A 1996. The gagging of God: Christianity confronts pluralism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

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

Notes

[1] At this point he had the endnote,

I sometimes seek to explain the difference between supernatural theism and panentheism by inviting my students to imagine how one might diagram God in relationship to the universe. I suggest representing the universe as an oval. Where is God in relationship to the universe? Supernatural theism thinks of God as being outside the oval; God and the universe are spatially separate. Panentheism would represent God as a larger oval that includes the oval of the universe; God encompasses the universe, and the universe is in God. Of course, these diagrams cannot be taken literally. It does not make sense to think of either the universe or God has having borders, as the ovals suggest (Borg 1997:51, n.2).

[2] Christian Forums, Theology, Soteriology, ‘What is your view of salvation?’, Episcoboi #44, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7685449-5/ (Accessed 14 September 2012). I have interacted with him as OzSpen.

[3] Episcoboi, ibid., #58

[4] Ibid., #68.

[5] Ibid., #70.

[6] Ibid., #46.

[7] Syncretism is used here to mean ‘attempts to merge alien or opposing practices or beliefs from diverse religious systems’ (Carson 1996:249, n.109).

[8] Episcopboi, #72.

[9] Ibid., #74.

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 18 June 2016.

clip_image001clip_image001[1]clip_image001[2]clip_image001[3]

 

Paul on eternal punishment

H

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

It is not uncommon to hear statements from uninformed or agenda—promoting ‘Christians’ that the apostle Paul did not preach on eternal punishment or hell? Here are a few examples:

  • ‘It’s an overstatement to say that the christian church has been preaching the doctrine of hell for two millennia. Paul, for one, did not preach it’ (holo).[1]
  • ‘Why not enjoy the true freedom of believing the Scriptures over traditional teaching? Why not follow Paul in a pure Grace Gospel that has no place for, nor need of a religious hell?’[2]
  • ‘This is a very curious thing. Paul, the man specifically commissioned to carry the gospel to the Gentiles, who is universally credited as the most important figure ever to interpret and expound on the gospel, never says a thing about Ghenna or Hades’.[3]

My response to ‘holo’[4]

There is little need for Paul to write on hell as he has given us enough on the “wrath of God’”. The message on hell comes from others, including Jesus. However, what Paul did write on this topic agrees with the Gospels and the Book of Revelation. Pauline verses that demonstrate the wrath of God against unbelievers include:

Romans 1:18;

Ephesians 5:6;

Colossians 3:6.

James Rosscup wrote in ‘Paul’s Concept of Eternal Punishment’,

PAUL’S CONCEPT OF ETERNAL PUNISHMENT
James E. Rosscup
Professor of Bible Exposition

Paul did not deal in as much detail with eternal punishment as did Jesus in the gospels and John in Revelation, but what he did write matches with their fuller descriptions in many points. This is to be expected because of Paul’s strong commitment to Jesus Christ. In Rom 2:6-10 he wrote about God’s anger in punishing the lost and the anguish they will suffer as a result. In Rom 9:22-23 he spoke of vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, a destruction that consists of an ongoing grief brought on as a consequence of God’s wrath. Second Thess 1:8-9 is a third passage that reflects his teaching on eternal punishment. There eternal destruction represents a different Greek expression, one that depicts a ruin that lost people continue to suffer forever as they are denied opportunity to be with Christ. Paul’s failure to use a number of other words in expressions that could have expressed annihilation of the unsaved is further indication of his harmony with Jesus and John in teaching an unending punishment that the unsaved will consciously experience.

Holo has a presuppositional agenda and he doesn’t want the teaching on eternal punishment to be in the NT. It is there and that’s an embarrassment to him. So what does he do? He attempts to deny that Paul taught it. But he is wrong. Paul supports Jesus in the teaching on eternal punishment.

Holo has four major issues that come out in some of his posts, including these:

(1) He does not know his Bible very well, including the Pauline epistles;

(2) He has a low view of the Scripture when he uses his improper interpretation of the Pauline epistles to arrive at a false conclusion about Paul not teaching on hell.

(3) He engages in a hermeneutic of eisegesis. He imposes his will on the texts instead of letting the texts speak for themselves (exegesis).

(4) We gain a meaning of what happens at death for believers and unbelievers from the totality of Scripture, not only from the Pauline epistles. Even if Paul’s epistles said nothing about eternal punishment or destruction, we don’t need it as it is taught throughout OT and NT, although more specifically in the NT.

Paul on hell

For an excellent chapter on the biblical basis for hell from the Pauline epistles, see Douglas J. Moo, ‘Paul on Hell‘[5]. His conclusion is:

As we noted at the outset of this essay, Paul never uses the Greek words that are normally translated as “hell,” nor does he teach as explicitly about the concept of hell as do some other New Testament writers. To some extent, then, our purpose has been a negative one: to show that Paul teaches nothing to contradict the picture of hell that emerges more clearly from other portions of the New Testament. But the evidence we do have from Paul suggests that he agrees with that larger New Testament witness in portraying hell as an unending state of punishment and exclusion from the presence of the Lord. Such a fate is entirely “just,” Paul repeatedly stresses (e.g., Rom. 1:18-2:11; 2 Thess. 1:8-9), because human beings have spurned God and merited his wrath and condemnation.

Paul, therefore, presents the judgment that comes on the wicked as the necessary response of a holy and entirely just God. For Paul, the doctrine of hell is a necessary corollary of the divine nature. Negatively, Paul never in his letters explicitly uses hell as a means of stimulating unbelievers to repent. But he does—a sobering consideration!—use it as a warning to believers to stimulate us to respond to the grace of God manifested in our lives (e.g., Rom. 8:12-13).[6]

Other articles

For more of my articles on hell and eternal punishment, see:

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Christian Philosophy & Ethics, ‘Why an eternal hell?’, holo #914, 23 August 2012. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7671002-92/ (Accessed 23 August 2012).

[2] Clyde L. Pilkington Jr 2004-2007, ‘Paul’s teaching on hell’. Available at: http://www.studyshelf.com/hellfactor/art_paulsteachingonhell.htm (Accessed 23 August 2012).

[3] ‘Paul, Hell & Universalism’, Running with the Lion, available at: http://mattritchie.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/paul-hell-and-universalism/ (Accessed 23 August 2012).

[4] OzSpen, #922, 23 August 2012. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7671002-93/ (Accessed 23 August 2012).

[5] This is an updated reference, accessed 15 December 2014. Originally, the reference was, Douglas J Moo, ‘Paul on hell’, in C W Morgan & R A Peterson, R A (eds) 2007. Hell under Fire. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, ch 4. Available at: http://www.djmoo.com/articles/paulonhell.pdf (Accessed 23 August 2012). Portions of this book are also available through Google Books.

[6] Moo 2007:109.

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 17 April 2018.

clip_image001clip_image001[1]clip_image001[2]clip_image001[3]

God-shrinkers in the pulpit lead to God-shrinkers in the pew

Courtesy Google

If you want to get a picture of what is happening to God’s truth in our churches, take a read of the “Christian-only” section of threads on the largest Christian forum on the www – Christian Forums. Here is one example and the subject is, ‘What an eternal hell?’

And a god, or anybody else, acting 239486709485209873245 times worse than Hitler, for 209348759287358972304587 millennia, and then another 204587032985703485 millennia just to get you warmed up, burning you forever and ever, isn’t what I’d call a “holy” god, not in any positive, non-evil sense of the word anyway.[1]

This was my response to this person:

You are a God inventor. You are presenting your obscure, humanly depraved understanding of God. You are a God-shrinker.

Who are you to decide what eternal damnation looks like. That is the domain of the absolutely pure, holy, infinite God of love. When you begin to understand God’s almighty, holy, perfect and absolutely truthful nature, you might not run off at the mouth like this.

Not one person in this world, including you and me, will get more or less than they deserve from the absolutely pure Lord God Almighty. His justice is absolute and we ALL will get it.

“It is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18 ESV).[2]

Jim Packer summed it up in 1996:[3]

For more than three hundred years God-shrinkers have been at work in the churches of the Reformation, scaling down our Maker to the measure of man’s mind and dissolving the biblical view of him as the Lord who reigns and speaks (1996:127, emphasis added).

Packer has hit the theological nail on the head. When there are God-shrinkers in theological colleges, in the pulpits and on the printed and electronic pages, we’ll get them in the pew and in the public, and they’ll flow through to places like Christian Forums.

I’m about to give up on Christian Forums as the God-shrinkers are seen in too many threads here (including this thread). Those who take God at His word and want to listen to what the Scriptures say, instead of making the Scriptures mean what a human mind invents, are decreasing.

Reference:

Packer, J I 1996. Truth & power: The place of Scripture in the Christian life. Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers.

Notes:

[1] holo, Christian Forums, Christian Philosophy & Ethics, ‘Why an eternal hell?’, #712, 21 August 2012. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7671002-72/ (Accessed 21 August 2012).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen #740, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7671002-74/ (Accessed 21 August 2012).

[3] What follows is my reply to Blessedj01 #738, ibid.

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 29 October 2015.

hlinetn_.jpg 0.9Khlinetn_.jpg 0.9Khlinetn_.jpg 0.9K