Category Archives: Jesus Christ

The Content of the Gospel . . . and some discipleship [1]

Gospel Feet
(courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear [2]

Two rather different experiences came out of the communist experiment with trying to create a classless society. Both examples point to a need for something in life that goes beyond what our senses interpret. Romanian pastor, Richard Wurmbrand, spent 14 years in a communist prison – three of these years were in solitary confinement. Later, he was able to say,

“We prisoners have experienced the power of God, the love of God which made us leap with joy. Prison has proved that love is as strong as death. We have conquered through Christ. Officers with rubber truncheons came to interrogate us; we interrogated them, and they became Christians. Other prisoners had been converted. . . The Communists believe that happiness comes from material satisfaction; but alone in my cell, cold, hungry and in rags, I danced for joy every night… Sometimes I was so filled with joy that I felt I would burst if I did not give it expression. . . I had discovered a beauty in Christ which I had not known before.”[3]

“I remember vividly a meeting with the editors of Pravda, formerly the official mouthpiece of the Community Party…. Pravda’‘s circulation was falling dramatically (from eleven million to 700,000) in concert with communism’s fall from grace. The editors of Pravda seemed earnest, sincere, searching–shaken to the core. So shaken that they were now asking advice from emissaries of a religion their founder had scorned as ‘the opiate of the people’.

“The editors remarked wistfully that Christianity and communism have many of the same ideals. “‘We don’t know how to motivate people to show compassion,’ said the editor-in-chief. ‘We tried raising money for the children of Chernobyl [who had suffered badly from radiation sickness when the nuclear reactor exploded], but the average Russian citizen would rather spend money on drink. How do you reform and motivate people? How do you get them to be good? “Seventy-four years of communism had proved beyond all doubt that goodness could not be legislated from the Kremlin and enforced at the point of a gun”. [4]How can we obtain joy and hope in the here and now, even when in prison? What will bring motivation to show compassion to the unlovely and suffering? It is the same inner change that brings eternal life. How can we experience this salvation that comes with an eternal guarantee? Here’s an outline of some of the essentials!

A.    You must understand God’s holiness.

“God’s holiness means that he is separated from sin and devoted to seeking his own honor.”[5] See Proverbs 9:10; Psalm 111:10; Job 28:28; Proverbs 1:7; 15:33; Micah 6:9.

1.    God is utterly holy and His law, therefore, demands perfect holiness. See Leviticus 11:44-45; Joshua 24:19; I Samuel 2:2; 6:20.

2.    Even the New Testament gospel requires this holiness. See I Peter 1:15-16; Hebrews 12:14.

3.    Because the Lord God Almighty is holy, He hates sin. Exodus 20:5.

4.    Sinners cannot stand before Him

  • What is sin? “Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. . . Sin is more than simply painful and destructive — it is also wrong in the deepest sense of the word. . . Sin is directly opposite to all that is good in the character of God.”[6]

See Psalm 1:5 B.    You must understand God’s righteousness/justice.
    In English, the terms “righteousness” and “justice” are different words. This is not so in the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. There is only one word group behind these two English terms.[7]

1.    What is God’s righteousness/justice?

  • “God always acts in accordance with what is right and is himself the final standard of what is right.”[8]
  • What is right or just? “Whatever conforms to God’s moral character is right.”[9]

Deuteronomy 32:4; Genesis 18:25; Psalm 19:8; Isaiah 45:19; Romans 9:20-21.

2.    Christ’s sacrifice was to show God’s righteousness

  • When God sent Christ as a sacrifice to bear the punishment for sin, it was to show God’s righteousness. See Romans 3:25-26.

C.  You must understand that you are a sinner who sins & God hates sin.

  • Gospel means “good news.”
  • What makes it truly “good news” is not only that heaven is free, but also God’s Son has conquered that sin.
  • Jesus said: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). What do you think Jesus meant by that?

1.    Sin is what it is that makes true peace impossible for unbelievers.

    Isaiah 57:20-21

2.    All have sinned.

    Romans 3:10-18

3.    Sin makes the sinner worthy of death.

    James 1:5; Romans 6:23

4.    Sinners can do nothing to earn salvation.

    Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16; Revelation 21:8

D.  You must understand the wrath of God.

    “If God loves all that is right and good, and all that conforms to his moral character, then it should not be surprising that he would hate everything that is opposed to his moral character. God’s wrath directed against sin is therefore closely related to God’s holiness and justice.”[10]

1.  What is the wrath of God?

    “God’s wrath means that he intensely hates all sin.”[11]
    Exodus 32:9-10; Deuteronomy 9:7-8; 29:23; 2 Kings 22:13; John 3:36; Romans 1:18; 2:5, 8; 5:9; 9:22; Colossians 3:6; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 2:16; 5:9; Hebrews 3:11; Revelation 6:16-17; 19:15.

2.  God is slow to inflict his wrath on people. Why?

    See Psalm 103:8-9; Romans 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9-10.

E. How can God’s wrath be pacified/appeased?

1. God has provided a way through blood-sacrifice.

Leviticus 8:15; 17:11 2.  By Christ’s death (blood-sacrifice), he appeased the wrath of God.

Hebrews 9:7, 12, 20, 22, 24. 3.  God calls this “propitiation” and it makes God favourable towards sinners.

Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; I John 2:2; 5:10 (atoning sacrifice/sacrifice of atonement = propitiation)
  • Propitiation is important “because it is the heart of the doctrine of the atonement. It means that there is an eternal, unchangeable requirement in the holiness and justice of God that sin be paid for. Furthermore, before the atonement ever could have an effect on our subjective consciousness, it first had an effect on God and his relation to the sinners he planned to redeem. Apart from this central truth, the death of Christ really cannot be adequately understood.”[12]
  • “The atonement is the work Christ did in his life and death to earn our salvation.”[13]

F. Who is Christ and what has He done for you?

    The solution for the sinner is found in the

Lord Jesus Christ.

1.    Christ is eternally God John 1:1-3, 14; Colossians 2:9

2.    Christ is Lord of all

    Revelation 17:14; Philippians 2:9-11; Acts 10:36

3.    Christ became man Philippians 2:6-7

4.    Christ is utterly pure and sinless

    Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22-23; 1 John 3:5

5.    The sinless one became a sacrifice for YOUR sin

    2 Corinthians 5:21; Titus 2:14

6.    He shed His own blood as an atonement for sin

    Ephesians 1:7-8; Revelation 1:5

7.    He died on the cross to provide a way of salvation for sinners

    1 Peter 2:24; Colossians 1:20

8.     Christ rose triumphantly from the dead

    Romans 1:4; 4:25; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4

G. What does God demand of you? “Repentant faith is the requirement. It is NOT merely a ‘decision’ to trust Christ for eternal life, but a wholesale forsaking of everything else we trust, and a turning to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.”[14]

1. Repent

What is repentance? “Repentance is a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ.”[15]

Ezekiel 18:30, 32; Acts 17:30; 26:2; Luke 13:3

2.  Turn your heart from all that you know dishonours God Thessalonians 1:9

3. Follow Jesus Luke 9:23, 62; John 12:26

4. Trust Jesus as your Lord and Saviour Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9

5.  Repentance and faith continue throughout your life

Repentance and faith must start together at the beginning of the Christian life. See Acts 20:21. Repentance and faith must be lived by Christians throughout their lives.
  •    Concerning faith, see Galatians 2:20; I Corinthians 13:13.
  •    Concerning repentance, see Revelation 3:19; 2 Corinthians 7:10

“Conversion is a single action of turning from sin in repentance and turning to Christ in faith. “Therefore, it is clearly contrary to the New Testament evidence to speak about the possibility of having true saving faith without having any repentance for sin.  It is also contrary to the New Testament to speak about the possibility of someone accepting Christ ‘as Savior’ but not ‘as Lord,’ if that means simply depending on him for salvation but not committing oneself to forsake sin and to be obedient to Christ from that point on. . . “Some prominent voices within evangelicalism have differed with this point, arguing that a gospel presentation that requires repentance as well as faith is really preaching salvation by works.  They argue that the view advocated [here] that repentance and faith must go together, is a false gospel of ‘lordship salvation.’  They would say that saving faith only involves trusting Christ as Savior, and that submitting to him as Lord is an optional later step that is unnecessary for salvation.  For many who teach this view, saving faith only requires an intellectual agreement with the facts of the gospel. . . “The source of this view of the gospel is apparently Lewis Sperry Chafer. . . [who says], ‘the New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a condition of salvation. . .’  Chafer recognizes that many verses call upon people to repent, but he simply defines repentance away as a ‘change of mind’ that does not include sorrow for sin or turning from sin”[16].

H.  You must count the cost of following Jesus with much thought.

  • Salvation is absolutely free.
  • So is joining the army; you don’t have to pay to get into it. Everything you need is provided.[17]
  • Following Christ is like joining the army. It will cost you daily. It will cost you freedom, family, friends, doing things your own way (autonomy), and possibly even your life.[18]
  • I must tell you, a prospective believer, the full truth and nothing but the truth.
  • Read what Jesus said about this in Luke 14:26-33; Matthew 10:34-38; Romans 6:6.

A.W. Tozer wrote:

“The cross is the most revolutionary thing ever to appear among men. The cross of Roman times knew no compromise; it never made concessions. It won all its arguments by killing its opponent and silencing him for good. It spared not Christ, but slew Him the same as the rest. He was alive when they hung Him on that cross and completely dead when they took Him down six hours later. That was the cross the first time it appeared in Christian history. . . The cross effects [i.e. brings about] its ends by destroying one established pattern, the victim’s, and creating another pattern, its own. Thus it always has its way. It wins by defeating its opponent and imposing its will upon him. It always dominates. It never compromises, never dickers nor confers, never surrenders a point for the sake of peace. It cares not for peace; it cares only to end its opposition as fast as possible.     With perfect knowledge of all this, Christ said, ‘If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.’ So the cross not only brings Christ’s life to an end, it ends also the first life, the old life, of every one of His true followers. It destroys the old pattern, the Adam pattern, in the believer’s life, and brings it to an end. Then the God who raised Christ from the dead raises the believer and a new life begins. This, and nothing less, is true Christianity. . .     We must do something about the cross, and one of two things only we can do – flee it or die upon it.”[19]

  • Read Mark 8:35-37.

I.  I urge you to trust (have faith in) Christ alone for your salvation.

  • 2 Corinthians 5:11, 20; Isaiah 55:7; Romans 10:9-10;

What will you do with Jesus?

J.  After you trust Christ alone, what should you do? Where do good works fit in?

  • Good works: See Hebrews 5:9; Titus 2:14; Ephesians 2:10;
  • Baptism: See Acts 2:28; 8:36-39; Mark 16:16; Romans 4:10-11;
  • Join with a local church. See Hebrews 10:25.

K. What was the first creed of the early church?

    See Romans 10:9-10; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Corinthians 4:5.

L.  How will you know that you are a Christian?

1.    You presently continue to trust Christ for salvation

Colossians 1:23; Hebrews 3:14; 6:12; John 3:16 (“believes” means “continues believing in him.”[20])

2.    There will be evidence in your heart of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit[21]

  • Through the subjective testimony of the Holy Spirit within your hearts. Romans 8:14-16; 1 John 4:13.
  • Your life will produce the fruit of the Spirit. Galatians 5:22-23
  • You continue to believe and accept the sound teaching of the church. 1 John 2:23-24
  • You will have a continuing relationship with Jesus Christ. John 15:4, 7
  • You will have a life of obedience to God’s commands. 1 John 2:4-6, 10, 19; 3:9-10, 14, 17, 24; 4:7; 5:18; James 2:17-18.
  • You will give to needy people. Matthew 25:31-46

3.    You will have a long-term pattern of growth and obedience in your Christian life 2 Peter 1:5-7, 10; John 6:40

M.  How will other people know that you are a Christian? By the fruit in your life

        Galatians 5:22-23; Matthew 7:16-20; 25:31-46; James 2:17-18

N.  Do you want to repent and trust Christ alone for your salvation and live eternally for and with him?

O.  What happens to those who reject God’s offer of salvation? Because God is an absolutely just God, if you reject his offer of salvation you will receive the consequences that God, the Maker, Sustainer, and Ruler of the world, has decided. At death, God sends you to hell.

1.    Hell forever

    “Hell is a place of eternal conscious punishment for the wicked.”[22] David Kingdon writes: “Sin against the Creator is heinous to a degree utterly beyond our sin-warped imaginations’ [ability] to conceive of. . . Who would have the temerity to suggest to God what the punishment . . . should be?”[23]
    Matthew 25:30, 41, 46; Mark 9:43, 48; Luke 16:22-24, 28; Revelation 14:9-11; 19:3

            2.    Is hell just? Revelation 19:1-3

“Be under no illusion.  Unbelievers deserve to go to hell.  And it is fair for God to send them there.  Don’t blame God or say it is unfair.  Man it is who has sinned.  He is the rebel who continues to defy God and break his holy laws.  In his heart he hates God and refuses to honour or serve him.  He does not want God to interfere with his life or tell him how to live.  And man is without excuse.  The evidence stares him in the face.  Even creation tells him that God exists and that God is powerful as well as eternal.  Man’s conscience also tells him of his duty to obey God.  There is the Bible, too, which reveals God to man.  But man ignores the evidence.  He continues to sin without realizing that God, in his holiness and anger, must punish him for his disobedience.  ‘The soul who sins is the one who will die (Ezekiel 18:4).” [24]

W. G. T. Shedd said, “If there were no hell in Scripture, we should be compelled to invent one.” [25]  C. S. Lewis wrote: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done’.  All that are in hell choose it.” [26] Matthew 11:28 (ESV):  Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. If you want to know more, see “Two Ways to Live”.

 

 

Endnotes:

1. This summary of the content of the Gospel is based on John F. MacArthur Jr., Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Milton Keynes, England: Word Publishing, 1993, p. 247ff.

2. Spencer D Gear PhD is ordained with the Christian & Missionary Alliance, Australia, is an independent researcher, Bible teacher and Christian apologist living in Brisbane, Qld., Australia. He completed his PhD in New Testament (University of Pretoria, South Africa) in an aspect of the historical Jesus.

3. Richard Wurmbrand, In God’s Underground (Diane Books), in David K. Watson, How to Find God. Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1974, p. 65.

4. Philip Yancey, The Jesus I Never Knew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995, p. 75.

5. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994, p. 201

6. Ibid., pp. 490, 492.

7. Ibid., p. 203.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid., p. 204.

10. Ibid., pp. 205-206.

11. Ibid., p. 206.

12. Ibid., p. 575.

13. Ibid., p. 568.

14. MacArthur., p. 252.

15. Grudem, p. 713.

16.  Ibid., p. 714,  including note 5.

17. MacArthur, p. 253.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid., pp. 254-55, from A. W. Tozer, The Root of the Righteous. Harrisburg, Pa.: Christian Publications, 1955, pp. 61-63. 20. Grudem, p. 803.

21. Ibid., p. 803-806.

22. Ibid., p. 1148.

23. In ibid., p. 1151.

24.  Eryl Davies, Condemned For Ever! What the Bible teaches about eternal punishment.  Welwyn, Hertfordshire, England: Evangelical Press, 1987, pp. 77-78.  This quote is taken from Davies’ chapter, “Is it fair?”  He is asking the question about the justice and fairness of God sending unbelievers to hell.

25. In John Blanchard, Whatever Happened to Hell?  Darling, Co. Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1992, p. 148

26. In ibid., p. 149.

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 14 December 2015.

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

Whytehouse Graphics

Refutation of a heresy of Christ’s incarnation

image

Courtesy of Hendrickson Publishers (2005)

By Spencer D Gear

Was this idea of Jesus’ being fully man and fully God a creation of the church after Christ’s life, death and ascension?

A statement has been made about the divine and human with relation to Jesus. It’s a confusing statement, but it points to a problem in the contemporary doctrine of the person of Christ:

It seems to me that part of the problem is the idea of Jesus being “fully man” and “fully God” simultaneously. But I think some of this is stuff that has come up AFTER Jesus. For example, the Ebionite Christians of the 2nd Century said that Jesus was man, but not God, but the Docetist Christians (same era) said Jesus was fully God, but not a man at all (since, by their thinking, God couldn’t be debaucherized by entering a sinful world.. so Jesus was kind of like a hologram, in today’s terms).. and so to stick these together, they made Jesus “fully God, and fully man”.. and that’s where this confusion comes from.[1]

My response[2] is that Jesus has two natures – fully God and fully man – and this is the orthodox teaching of the New Testament. See the following for biblical support:

The Nestorian heresy

This was as much an issue in the early church as it is today. It was debated at the First Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Nestorian position was found to be unorthodox and his teachings were condemned as heresy.

Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople, may not have taught this doctrine himself, but Nestorianism, associated with his name, believed the error that Jesus was two distinct persons, one human and one divine. This doctrine threatens the nature of the atonement. Harold O. J. Brown stated that

Nestorius’ incarnate person was a single person, not two as his critics thought, but he could not convince others that it was so. Consequently he has gone down in history as a great heretic although what he actually believed was reaffirmed at [the Council of] Chalcedon.[3]

The Scriptures do not indicate the human nature of Christ as an independent person. We don’t find in the Bible any teaching such as: “Jesus’ divine nature did this” and “Jesus’ human nature did that” as if they were acting as two separate persons. The NT teaching always speaks of the PERSON of Christ did this or that.

So, the orthodox position is that Jesus was one person who possessed both a human nature and a divine nature.

We can talk of Christ’s human nature, where he ascended to heaven and is no longer in our world (see John 16:28; 17:11; Acts 1:9-11). When speaking of Christ’s divine nature we can say that he is present everywhere: “Where two or three are gathered in my name THERE AM I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20); “I am with you always to the close of the age” (Matt. 28:20).

So we can say that both of these things are true about the PERSON of Christ – he has returned to heaven AND he is also present with us.

We can say that Jesus was about 30 years old (Luke 3:23) if we speak of his human nature, but when speaking of his divine nature, we can say that he eternally existed (see John 1:1-2; 8:58). In his human nature, Jesus became weak and grew tired (see Matt. 4:2; 8:24; Mark 15:21; John 4:6), but we know that in his divine nature, he was omnipotent (Matt. 8:26-27; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3. Therefore, we know that he was omnipotent, but he grew tired.

We see these two natures at work in the situation where Jesus was asleep in the boat and then calmed the wind and the waves (Matt. 8:26-27). It is amazing that this one person was both tired and omnipotent. At time his weak human frailty hid his omnipotence. But we must never lose sight of the fact that Jesus was one person with both human and divine natures.
I find that the only way I can get my head around this teaching that opposes Nestorianism, is to read the Scriptures. Jesus was truly and fully God and truly and fully human – both natures in the one person.

But what about this problem?

It is stated by Jesus, ‘But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father’ (Mark 13:32 ESV). He was speaking of his second coming and Jesus did not know this time. How can this be when he is fully God?

This is why the biblical doctrine of Christology needs to be fully support in understanding that Jesus was one person with two natures. Christ’s lack of knowledge of the time of his return is a clear example of the need to have the orthodox doctrine of Christ’s one person with two natures. Wayne Grudem put it this way:

This ignorance of the time of his return was true of Jesus’ human nature and human consciousness only, for in his divine nature he was certainly omniscient and certainly knew the time when he would return to earth.[4]

Let’s check out Lutheran commentator, R. C. H. Lenski, and his interpretation of Mark 13:32:

The fact that the angels, though they are in heaven, do not know the date and period is no special surprise to us, but the fact that “the Son” should not know day and hour does cause surprise. The term “the Son” is placed alongside of “the Father.” But whereas Jesus thus names himself according to his divine person and nature, what he predicates of himself is something that pertains to his human nature. The Scriptures show that Jesus may be named according to either nature, and yet that something that belongs to the opposite nature may constitute the predicate. Analogous to the expression used here is Acts 3:15: “you killed the Prince of life”; also 1 Cor. 2:8, “crucified the Lord of glory.” In their essential oneness the three persons know all things, but in his humiliation the second person did not use his divine attributes save as he needed them in his mediatorial work. So the divine omniscience was used by Jesus only in this restricted way. That is why here on Mt. Olivet (v. 3) he does not know the date of the end. How the incarnate Son could during his humiliation thus restrict himself in the use of the divine attributes is one of the mysteries of his person; the fact is beyond dispute.[5]

This is the mystery revealed in the NT. Jesus Christ was one person with two natures – human and divine. Lenski has stated it well in his assessment above: “How the incarnate Son could during his humiliation thus restrict himself in the use of the divine attributes is one of the mysteries of his person; the fact is beyond dispute”.

See more of my articles in ‘Truth Challenge’. See also the article, ‘What do Christians believe about the incarnation? Was Jesus really God?’

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums #256, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7474786-26/#post58827293 (Accessed 23 October 2011).

[2] Ibid., #257. I was helped in my response by Wayne Grudem 1994. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, pp. 555-562.

[3] Harold O. J. Brown 1984. Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., p. 176. This edition now is available from Hendrickson Publishers (2005).

[4] Grudem, op cit, p. 561. Grudem notes that if you check out the commentaries on Mark 13:32 by John Calvin, H. B. Swete (an Anglican) and R. C. H. Lenski (a Lutheran), you will find that they all attribute this ignorance by Jesus to his human nature and not his divine nature (Grudem 1994:561 n 43).

[5] R. C. H. Lenski 2001. The Interpretation of Mark’s Gospel. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, pp. 590-591. Previously it was published by The Wartburg Press (1946) and assigned in 1961 to Augsburg Publishing House. The Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. edition was printed in March 2001.

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 13 October 2015.

Flower23Flower23Flower23Flower23Flower23Flower23

Whytehouse Designs

Did Jesus give up his omniscience?

We see this debated on the Internet in places like the Christian Forums thread, “Was Jesus omniscient?” On writer in this thread stated, “I believe that considering the many things in the Bible that we can see that Jesus didn’t know. I believe that Jesus was not omniscient”.

It should not be surprising on a sceptical website to get this kind of comment,

“How could Jesus know that Judas would betray him, but yet not know when Jesus’ own return would be? Was Jesus omniscient, or not? The fact that the two verses cited above contradict each other is evidence that the New Testament is just a compilation of often conflicting traditional beliefs about Jesus and his attributes. It is not surprising, then, that some passages indicate that Jesus can see the future, while other passages indicate that he cannot see the future”.

On other forums, this question is asked and it seems to be confusing to some Christians. See, “Christians, was Jesus omniscient?” (Yahoo! Answers) and “Was Jesus omniscient?” (Reasonable Faith forum).

I have found evangelical theologian, Wayne Grudem’s, explanation of this in relation to a refutation of the Kenosis Theory of Philippians 2:7, to be the most satisfactory explanation of Jesus’ not exercising his all-knowledge (omniscience) on some occasions. Grudem’s explanation is in Systematic Theology.[1] His exposition is available online and it asks the question:

Did Jesus Give Up Some of His Divine Attributes While on Earth? (The Kenosis Theory).

Paul writes to the Philippians,

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. (Phil. 2:5–7)

Beginning with this text, several theologians in Germany (from about 1860–1880) and in England (from about 1890–1910) advocated a view of the incarnation that had not been advocated before in the history of the church. This new view was called the “kenosis theory,” and the overall position it represented was called “kenotic theology.” The kenwsis theory holds that Christ gave up some of his divine attributes while he was on earth as a man. (The word ??????? is taken from the Greek verb ?????, G3033, which generally means “to empty,” and is translated “emptied himself ” in Phil. 2:7.) According to the theory Christ “emptied himself “ of some of his divine attributes, such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, while he was on earth as a man. This was viewed as a voluntary self-limitation on Christ’s part, which he carried out in order to fulfill his work of redemption.?27?

But does Philippians 2:7 teach that Christ emptied himself of some of his divine attributes, and does the rest of the New Testament confirm this? The evidence of Scripture points to a negative answer to both questions. We must first realize that no recognized teacher in the first 1,800 years of church history, including those who were native speakers of Greek, thought that “emptied himself “ in Philippians 2:7 meant that the Son of God gave up some of his divine attributes.

Second, we must recognize that the text does not say that Christ “emptied himself of some powers” or “emptied himself of divine attributes” or anything like that.

Third, the text does describe what Jesus did in this “emptying”: he did not do it by giving up any of his attributes but rather by “taking the form of a servant,” that is, by coming to live as a man, and “being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8). Thus, the context itself interprets this “emptying” as equivalent to “humbling himself “ and taking on a lowly status and position. Thus, the NIV, instead of translating the phrase, “He emptied himself,” translates it, “but made himself nothing” (Phil. 2:7 NIV). The emptying includes change of role and status, not essential attributes or nature.

A fourth reason for this interpretation is seen in Paul’s purpose in this context. His purpose has been to persuade the Philippians that they should “do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves” (Phil. 2:3), and he continues by telling them, “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4). To persuade them to be humble and to put the interests of others first, he then holds up the example of Christ: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant…” (Phil. 2:5–7).

Now in holding up Christ as an example, he wants the Philippians to imitate Christ. But certainly he is not asking the Philippian Christians to “give up” or “lay aside” any of their essential attributes or abilities! He is not asking them to “give up” their intelligence or strength or skill and become a diminished version of what they were. Rather, he is asking them to put the interests of others first: “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4). And because that is his goal, it fits the context to understand that he is using Christ as the supreme example of one who did just that: he put the interests of others first and was willing to give up some of the privilege and status that was his as God.

Therefore, the best understanding of this passage is that it talks about Jesus giving up the status and privilege that was his in heaven: he “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (or “clung to for his own advantage”), but “emptied himself “ or “humbled himself “ for our sake, and came to live as a man. Jesus speaks elsewhere of the “glory” he had with the Father “before the world was made” (John 17:5), a glory that he had given up and was going to receive again when he returned to heaven. And Paul could speak of Christ who, “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor” (2 Cor. 8:9), once again speaking of the privilege and honor that he deserved but temporarily gave up for us.

The fifth and final reason why the “kenosis” view of Philippians 2:7 must be rejected is the larger context of the teaching of the New Testament and the doctrinal teaching of the entire Bible. If it were true that such a momentous event as this happened, that the eternal Son of God ceased for a time to have all the attributes of God—ceased, for a time, to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, for example—then we would expect that such an incredible event would be taught clearly and repeatedly in the New Testament, not found in the very doubtful interpretation of one word in one epistle. But we find the opposite of that: we do not find it stated anywhere else that the Son of God ceased to have some of the attributes of God that he had possessed from eternity. In fact, if the kenosis theory were true (and this is a foundational objection against it), then we could no longer affirm Jesus was fully God while he was here on earth.?28? The kenosis theory ultimately denies the full deity of Jesus Christ and makes him something less than fully God. S.M. Smith admits, “All forms of classical orthodoxy either explicitly reject or reject in principle kenotic theology.”?29?

It is important to realize that the major force persuading people to accept kenotic theory was not that they had discovered a better understanding of Philippians 2:7 or any other passage of the New Testament, but rather the increasing discomfort people were feeling with the formulations of the doctrine of Christ in historic, classical orthodoxy. It just seemed too incredible for modern rational and “scientific” people to believe that Jesus Christ could be truly human and fully, absolutely God at the same time.?30? The kenosis theory began to sound more and more like an acceptable way to say that (in some sense) Jesus was God, but a kind of God who had for a time given up some of his Godlike qualities, those that were most difficult for people to accept in the modern world.

Conclusion: Christ Is Fully Divine. The New Testament, in hundreds of explicit verses that call Jesus “God” and “Lord” and use a number of other titles of deity to refer to him, and in many passages that attribute actions or words to him that could only be true of God himself, affirms again and again the full, absolute deity of Jesus Christ. “In him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell” (Col. 1:19), and “in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9). In an earlier section we argued that Jesus is truly and fully man. Now we conclude that he is truly and fully God as well. His name is rightly called “Emmanuel,” that is, “God with us” (Matt. 1:23).

Here is another view: The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (eds. Gerhard Kittel & Gerhard Friedrich, vol. 5, Eerdmans, p. 895)  states of pas (all, everything) in the NT as it applies to Jesus, the Logos:

The incarnate Logos is invested with cosmic authority even here on earth, Jn. 3:35; 13:3: the Father has put all things in His hands; 17:2: He has given Him power over all flesh. The debated Mt. 11:27 par. Lk. 10:22 is probably to be understood along these lines: “All things are delivered unto me of my Father, and no man knoweth the Son …” Though the continuation speaks of knowledge, the “all things” obviously include more than knowledge. Hence the verse is to be construed, not along the lines of Jn. 21:17 or 1 C. 2:10, but along the lines of Jn. 3:35; 13:3; 17:2: “all power,” which includes knowledge as well. Elsewhere, however, it is said of the Redeemer during His earthly life that He has laid aside His power and appeared in lowliness and humility, Mt. 11:29; 12:18–21; 2 C. 8:9; Phil. 2:5–8, ? ????? III, 661, 13–28, cf. the temptation of Jesus, Mt. 4:8 f. par. Lk. 4:5 f. Thus, when the full power of Jesus is occasionally mentioned during the time of His humiliation, it is merely a proleptic fact. (Bo Reicke, TDNT, ???)

“[I am God] declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose” (Isa. 46:10 ESV).

For a detailed examination that affirms the omniscience of God, see Norman Geisler 2003. Systematic Theology: God, Creation (vol. 2). Minneapolis, Minnesota, BethanyHouse, pp. 180-212. Geisler defines God’s omniscience: “God knows everything-past, present, and future; He knows the actual and the possible; only the impossible (the contradictory) is outside the knowledge of God” (p. 180). Geisler goes on to state that “the contemporary debate, however, has changed the theological landscape on this doctrine. God’s unlimited knowledge is now allegedly limited; His all-knowing is no longer the knowing of all. If we adhere to this, we are left with the oxymoronic view of limited omniscience. The attack on traditional omniscience has come from both outside and inside evangelicalism” (p. 180).

Geisler states, “Granted that God has knowledge, His omniscience can be derived from a number of His other attributes. These include His infinity, His causality, His necessity, His knowledge of reality, His eternality, and His absolute perfection” (p. 181).

Notes:

[1] 1994. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, pp. 549-552).
Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21
Whytehouse designs

An Arminian view of faith in Christ

(Arminius, public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

It is not unusual to hear Calvinists state that Arminians do not believe that faith is a gift of God.[1] Is this true or false?

Part of #5 of the “Statement of Faith” of the evangelical Arminians states this about the gift of faith and the ability to believe:

In and of themselves and apart from the grace of God human beings can neither think, will, nor do anything good, including believe. But the prevenient grace of God prepares and enables sinners to receive the free gift of salvation offered in Christ and his gospel. Only through the grace of God can sinners believe and so be regenerated by the Holy Spirit unto salvation and spiritual life.

The following is a good summary of grace and faith from an Arminian perspective:

Freed by Grace {to Believe} (Article 4)

  • Because of Total Depravity and Atonement for All … God calls all people everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, and graciously enables those who hear the gospel to respond to it positively in faith.
  • God regenerates those who believe in Christ (faith logically precedes regeneration).
  • God’s saving grace is resistible, which is to say that he dispenses his calling, drawing, and convicting grace (which would bring us to salvation if responded to with faith) in such a way that we may reject it. Those who hear the gospel may either accept it by grace or reject it to their own eternal destruction.
  • Apart from the realm of pleasing the Lord and doing spiritual good, people often have free will, which means that, with respect to an action, they can at least either do the action or refrain from doing it. People often have genuine choices and are therefore correspondingly able to make choices.
  • God has ultimate and absolute free will. His choice to supernaturally free the will of sinners by his grace to believe in Christ is a matter of the exercise of his own free will and sovereignty.

I cannot find any teaching in the Bible that confirms that saving faith is for a select few people. The Bible assumes that “whoever believes” is a statement to indicate that faith is available to all. Anyone who says “yes” to Jesus, repents and receives Him, and so exercises saving faith. This is what is taught in:

  • Luke 13:3;
  • John 3:16, 18; 6:29; 11:40; 12:36;
  • Acts 16:31; 17:30; 20:21;
  • Heb. 11:6, etc.

Note especially the words of Acts 17:30 where God “commands all people everywhere to repent”. Since God commands all to repent, those who choose to respond positively to God’s command when the Gospel is presented, are saved. Those who reject, are damned. Those who respond with faith have faith as a gift of God, graciously enable by God himself. But this offer of God’s gift of salvation is able to be resisted and rejected.

We get this understanding from the Scriptures:

  • Jesus said, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing” (Matt. 23:37 NIV). The ESV translates as, “You would not”. The meaning is the same. They could reject Jesus’ offer.
  • Jesus made a similar kind of statement of a person’s ability to reject Him in John 5:39-40: “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life (NIV).
  • John 1:12 is crystal clear of a person’s need to receive Christ to become children of God: “Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (NIV).
  • John affirms this meaning in 1 John 5:1, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God…” (NIV)
  • However, this salvation, is all of God, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this [salvation][2] is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV).

What is the meaning of Ephesians 2:8?

This verse has been one of the battlegrounds for Arminians and Calvinists. Is faith the gift of God and does regeneration precede faith, or does faith precede regeneration? R. C. Sproul, a Calvinist, maintains that

Regeneration is the theological term used to describe rebirth…. Regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit upon those who are spiritually dead (see Ephesians 2:1-10)…. Regeneration is not the fruit or result of faith, regeneration precedes faith as the necessary condition for faith…. We do not decide or choose to be regenerated. God chooses to regenerate us before we will ever choose to embrace Him.[3]

So, being born again (regeneration), comes as God acting sovereignly on the unbeliever before he/she can have faith in Christ. That’s the Calvinistic view.

By contrast, the Arminian theologian, John Miley, sees it quite differently:

There are prerequisites which cannot be met without our own free agency. There must be an earnest turning of the soul to God, deep repentance for sin, and a true faith in Christ. Such are the requirements of our own agency. There is no regeneration for us without them. Yet they are not possible in the unaided resources of our own nature. Hence there must be a helping work of the Spirit prior to his work of regeneration.[4]

At the lay level, this is battled out on Christian forums on the Internet.[5] Let’s look at the gender of some of the nouns and the demonstrative pronoun in this verse:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8 ESV).

  • The noun, grace – charis – is feminine gender;
  • The noun, faith – pistis – is feminine gender;
  • The demonstrative pronoun, this/that – touto – is neuter gender.

So it is very clear in Greek that touto, neuter, cannot refer back to the antecedent feminine nouns – charis and pistis. If the demonstrative this/that was meant to refer to grace or faith, there is a perfectly good Greek way of expressing this. The demonstrative would be the feminine, taute.

To what does “this/that” refer if it is not to grace or faith? Verse 8 tells us that “it is the gift of God’, thus referring to salvation by grace through faith.

What did John Calvin state about Ephesians 2:8?

On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace. The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.

His meaning is, not that faith in this verse is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.

One of the greatest NT Greek scholars of the 20th century, Dr. A. T. Robertson, noted this of Eph. 2:8,

“Grace” is God’s part, “faith” is ours. And that (kai touto). Neuter, not feminine taute, and so refers not to pistis (feminine) or to charis (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part.[6]

If Paul wanted “that/this” to refer to grace or faith, there was a regular Greek way of doing it. He would have used the same gender for “this/that” as for “faith” or “grace”. Paul would have written taute and not tauto for the demonstrative in this Scripture. But he did not use this grammar. Instead, by using the neuter, tauto, Paul refers to the whole process of salvation by grace through faith.

Even the Calvinist, F. F. Bruce, stated of Eph. 2:8,

But the fact that the demonstrative pronoun ‘that’ is neuter in Greek (tauto), whereas ‘faith’ is a feminine noun (pistis), combines with other considerations to suggest that it is the whole concept of salvation by grace through faith that is described as the gift of God.[7]

So Ephesians 2:8, based on the Greek grammar does not teach that faith is an irresistible gift straight from God that a person has no say about and cannot reject. This verse says that salvation is of God (and affirmed by Eph. 2:9). But Eph 2:8 does not demonstrate that salvation is a deterministic born again (regeneration) experience that is imposed on a person without his/her consent – which the Calvinists believe.

To use John Miley’s language, “Regeneration is a true sphere of the divine monergism.[8] [But] there is also a sphere of synergism”.[9]

Notes:

[1] For an example of the back-and-forth on this topic, see the thread, “On what basis does God elect?” in Christian Forums.com.

[2] See what follows for an exegetical understanding of why “this” refers to salvation and not to “grace” or “faith”.

[3] R C Sproul 1992. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, pp. 171-172.

[4] John Miley 1893/1989. Systematic Theology, vol 2. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, pp. 336-337.

[5] One example is on Christian Forums.com, “What precedes what – faith regeneration” (Accessed 2 September 2011).

[6] A T Robertson 1931. Word Pictures in the New Testament: The Epistles of Paul, Vol IV. Nashville, Tennessee: Boardman Press, p. 525, emphasis in the original.

[7] F F Bruce 1961. The Epistle to the Ephesians. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, p. 51.

[8] Monergism is based on the Greek, monos (meaning ‘single’), plus ergon (meaning work’). The Century Dictionary defines monergism ‘in theology as the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration – that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration (The Century Dictionary 1890, p. 287).

[9] Miley, vol. 2, p. 336. What is synergism? “Arminius proposed what we might call an evangelical synergism. Synergism is any belief in cooperation between the human will and agency on the one hand, and God’s will and agency on the other hand” (Roger E. Olson 2005. ‘Confessions of an Arminian Evangelical’, (Accessed 30 August 2011).

 

Copyright (c) 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 11 October 2015.
Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21

“Jacob I loved, Esau I hated". What is the meaning?[1]

Peter Paul Rubens, The Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau, 1624

(Image courtesy Wikipedia)

Spencer D Gear

There has been for centuries a debate on the means that God uses to bring people to salvation. One Calvinist takes the view that Romans 9:13 refers to ‘a declaration of the sovereign counsel of God as it is concerned with the ultimate destinies of men’ (John Murray).[2] Another Calvinist (Douglas Moo) states that this

passage gives strong exegetical support to a traditional Calvinistic interpretation of God’s election: God chooses those who will be saved on the basis of his own will and not on the basis of anything – works or faith, whether foreseen or not – in those human beings so chosen.[3]

Calvinist Charles Hodge affirmed that

God is perfectly sovereign in the distribution of his favours, that the ground of his selecting one and rejecting another is not their work, but his own good pleasure…. Thus Meyer says, “God does not act unjustly in his sovereign choice; since he claims for himself in the Scriptures the liberty to favour or to harden, whom he will.[4]

The contrasting view of Norman Geisler is that, loving Jacob and hating Esau,

one of the strongest verses used by extreme Calvinists does not prove that God hates the non-elect or even that He does not love them. It simply means that God’s love for those who receive salvation looks so much greater than His love for those who reject it that the latter looks like hatred by comparison.[5]

Lutheran exegete, the late R. C. H. Lenski, wrote of Romans 9:13 that the Israelites (national, not individual) should have recognised what God had done for them by his grace through promises to them. This grace should have caused all of them to become ‘the children of promise’ (v. 8). But it didn’t and they chose the opposite, refused faith and became stubborn in their presumptuous, outrageous unbelief.[6]

Evangelical Arminians state that:

The Calvinist methodology of interpreting Jacob and Esau as a representation of how individuals are chosen then is a decontextualized over-stretching of the analogy, and thus fundamentally flawed. The context of the chapter plainly dictates that the analogies demonstrate the choosing of one group over the other according to God’s eternal purpose in Christ.

So, what does Romans 9:13 mean? Is it promoting Calvinistic double predestination – some to salvation and the rest to damnation? Or is it contrasting election for the destinies of the nation of Israel and the nation of Edom?

Romans 9:10-13 reads:

And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (ESV).

There is a tendency among some Christians to understand this passage as referring to individual salvation, thus supporting a Calvinistic view of election to individual salvation, interpreting it as meaning God loved Jacob and he was saved, but hated Esau and he was lost.

However people fail to realise that the context of Romans 9 in which v. 13 appears is not referring to individual salvation but Paul is talking about nations. We know in this passage from the OT:

And the LORD said to her,
“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you shall be divided;
the one shall be stronger than the other,
the older shall serve the younger” (Gen. 25:23, emphasis added).

Back in this Genesis context, Esau as an individual did not serve Jacob. It was the opposite. The evidence from Genesis 33:1-3 is that Jacob was “bowing himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother [Esau]” (Gen. 33:3) and Jacob addressed Esau as “my lord” (Gen. 33:8, 13). In fact, Jacob said to Esau that Jacob was “your servant” (Gen. 33:5). It was Jacob who wanted Esau to “accept my blessing” (presents) and Jacob said that Esau’s face was “like seeing the face of God” (Gen. 33:10-11).

So we know from this Genesis 33 context that Esau as an individual did not “serve” his younger brother, Jacob. It was the nation of Esau (Edom) that served the nation of Jacob (Israel).

So what is the point that Paul is making in Romans 9? God’s choice of Jacob was God’s choice of the nation of Israel over the nation of Edom and that choice was made while they were still in the womb before they had committed neither good nor evil. This was a plan that God had made, the choice of a nation –Israel – and it was not based on human merit. Calvinistic commentator, F. F. Bruce, stated of Rom. 9:13 that it was “from Malachi 1:2 f, where again the context indicates it is the NATIONS of Israel and Edom, rather than their individual ancestors Jacob and Esau, that are in view”.

What is the meaning of “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”? Does God indicate what he means by “loved” vs “hated”? We get some concept from Genesis 29:30-31,

So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban for another seven years. 31When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren (ESV).

There is an indication here that “hated” means loved less than. We see this kind of view with the comparison of two NT passages that discuss the same event:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26 ESV, emphasis added)

The parallel passage is in Matt. 10:37,

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me (ESV).

So the comparison of these two passages shows us that the word “hate” can not be taken literally, but it implies “love more than”. Even a Calvinistic commentator, John Murray, agrees:

It has been maintained that the word “hate” means “to love less, to regard and treat with less favour“. Appeal can be made to various passages where this meaning holds (cf. Gen. 29:32, 33; Deut. 21:15; Matt. 6:24; 10:37, 38; Luke 14:26; John 12:25). It would have to be admitted that this meaning would provide for the differentiation which must be posited.[8]

So when the Bible uses the contrast of “hate” vs “love”, it signifies that hate means “love less than”. This is the meaning we find in the passage from which Paul seems to have quoted in Malachi 1:2-3,

“I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob 3but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert” (ESV).

In Malachi 1, the prophet dresses down Israel in a firm – even angry – way, so he cannot be seeing any merit in the nation of Israel. The parallel in Romans 9 has Paul to correct is opponents who believed that the works of the law were the reason God chose Israel and provided them with the way to holiness (Rom. 9:30-33).

Lenski, provides this exegesis of Romans 9:13:

The statement cited from Mal. 1:2, 3: “Jacob I treated with an act of love but Esau with an act of hate,” is used by Paul as corroborating the promise of Genesis: “Even as it has been written” (the perfect: and is thus still on record). The [Greek] aorists egapesa and emisesa might be constative and summarize God’s different treatment of the two nations until Malachi’s time. But Paul treats this passage in the same way as he treated Gen. 25:23; he takes out of each only what pertains to Jacob and to Esau personally and omits the rest. So we translate the two aorists with reference to the two individual acts when God took Jacob and did not take Esau. The passage is excellently chosen for bringing out what we have repeatedly said regarding Paul’s illustrating how the Israelites got all the gifts mentioned in v. 4, 5. When Israel asked wherein the Lord had loved them they were answered: “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? Yet I loved Jacob and hated Esau.” Had Jacob a greater claim to be the next patriarch than Esau? Why, they were twin brothers! Let the Israelites look at their array of blessings (v. 4, 5) and see in them God’s gratuitous gifts of love.

That is the great point here. The Israelites should have recognized what God had done for them with his grace and his gratuitous promises. They should have recognized the gratuity that made these the pure promises they were. They should, every last one of them, have become “the children of the promise” (v. 8). They did nothing of the kind. They did the exact opposite. They refused faith; they became obdurate in unbelief and in their unbelief grew presumptuous. Outrageous! When Paul thought of it, it nearly broke his heart. To use such blessings only for their own damnation – incredible but, alas, a fact!

“I did hate” is highly anthropopathic but refers to the effect that Esau was not made the third patriarch and not the affect. Hate is used comparatively to love. On this use compare Gen. 29:30, 31; Deut. 21:15-17; Prov. 13:24; Matt. 10:37 and its restatement in Luke 14:26; finally, John 12:25…. Sufficient has been said regarding the Calvinistic interpretation.[9]

Both OT and NT demonstrate that God’s choice of the nation of Israel (Jacob) over the nation of Edom (Esau) was not because of Israel’s good works, but because of God’s choice – His plan. So in Rom. 9:13, God’s love of Jacob and hatred of Esau meant that God chose to give the nation of Israel a special place in His plan for history. It was not based on any goodness or righteousness of the nation of Israel. It was God’s way of planning the unfolding of history.

Anglican commentator, the late Leon Morris, in his commentary on the book of Romans gave this meaning of Romans 9:13:

Characteristically Paul backs up his argument with a quotation from Scripture, this one from Malachi 1:2-3: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”…. We have just seen that the Genesis passage refers primarily to nations and we would expect that to continue here. That this is the case seems clear from what Malachi writes about Esau: “Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals (Mal. 1:3). Both in Genesis and Malachi the reference is clearly to nations, and we should accept this as Paul’s meaning accordingly.[10]

Norman Geisler pointedly summarised the facts from Romans 9 to contradict the view that God is not perfectly good [11] or does not have moral perfection in Romans 9:13, “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated”. This is the objection that Geisler is answering:

According to Romans 9, God loved Jacob and hated Esau (v. 13); He has mercy on some but not on others (v. 15) (v. 15); He destines some to destruction and not others (v. 18). From these examples, it seems obvious that God is not omnibenevolent when it comes to salvation.[12]

Geisler provides these responses:[13]

1. The passage in Romans 9 is not speaking of election of individuals but of nations, the nation of Edom that came from Esau (cf. Mal. 1:2) and the nation of Israel that came from Jacob (cf. Rom. 9:2-3).

2. Individuals and their election to salvation are not being addressed, but Israel is chosen as a nation, a ‘channel through which the eternal blessing of salvation, through Christ, would come to all (cf. Gen. 12:1-3; Rom. 9:4-5)’. However, even though Israel as a nation was chosen by God, not all individuals in Israel were elected to salvation (Rom. 9:6).

3. The use of the word, hate (Greek emisesa, from miseo) means ‘to love less’ or ‘to regard with less affection’ and does not mean ‘not to love at all’ or ‘not to will the good of a person’.[14] This is seen in the phrases used in Gen. 29:30-31, ‘loved Rachel more than Leah’ which is used as equivalent to ‘Leah was hated’ (see also Matt. 10:37).

4. See the example of Pharaoh hardening his own heart against God (see Ex. 7:13-14; 8:15, 19, 32) before God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 9:12). Why were the 10 plagues sent on Egypt? They were to convince Pharaoh to repent. He refused to repent and so his heart was hardened as a result of Pharaoh’s own actions. Geisler uses the example of how sun melts wax but hardens clay. ‘The problem is not with the source but with the receptivity of the agent on which it is acting’.[15]

5. The ‘vessels of wrath’ (Rom. 9:22 ESV, NKJV) were not destined to be destroyed against their own will. They were destroyed because they rejected God and 2 Peter 3:9 states that the Lord ‘is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance’ (ESV).

Even such a prominent Calvinist as Charles H. Spurgeon stated,

I cannot imagine a more ready instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than a minister who tells sinners it is not their duty to repent of their sins [and] who has the arrogance to call himself a gospel minister, while he teaches that God hates some men infinitely and unchangeably for no reason whatever but simply because he chooses to do so. O my brethren! May the Lord save you from the charmer, and keep you ever deaf to the voice of error.[16]

Conclusion

We can conclude that Romans 9:13 does not refer to double-predestination of the Calvinists (some predestined to salvation and the rest predestined to damnation). Rather, it refers to two nations, Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau) that were chosen when the individual men were in the womb. It is not referring to God’s unconditional election of some to salvation – those whom God loved – and the remainder, whom God hated, to damnation. With Charles Spurgeon we echo the theme that it is ‘the voice of error’, an instrument of Satan, to not tell all people (sinners) that it is their duty to repent of their sins.

Notes:

[1] Much of this material has been gleaned from Roger T. Forster & V. Paul Marston 1973. God’s Strategy in Human History. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., ch. 9, pp. 59-62. This is by far the finest explanation I have read of the meaning of “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated” in Rom. 9:13.

[2] John Murray 1968. The Epistle to the Romans (vol. 2). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 24. This is the one-volume edition that contains Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, but the page numbers start at the beginning for each volume.

[3] Douglas J. Moo 1996. The Epistle to the Romans (The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 587.

[4] Charles Hodge 1972. A Commentary on Romans (The Geneva Series of Commentaries). London: The Banner of Truth Trust, p. 312. The original edition was in 1835, with a revised edition in 1864.

[5] Norman Geisler 1999. Chosen But Free. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, p. 83. Dave Hunt considers that Rom. 9:13 is ‘not about salvation of individuals but concerning blessing and judgment upon nations descended from Jacob and Esau’ (Dave Hunt & James White 2004. Debating Calvinism. Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, p. 105).

[6] R. C. H. Lenski 1936. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers (this edition was published by Hendrickson in 2001), pp. 604-605.

[7] Christian Forums, Baptists, “Questions for Arminians on their assurance of salvation”, Skala #208, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7584042-21/ (Accessed 28 August 2011).

[8] John Murray 1968, The Epistle to the Romans, Part 2 (The New International Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 21. This is a one-volume edition that consists of Part 1 (published 1959) and Part 2 (published 1965). The numbering for the two parts is retained as two separate volumes in this one-volume edition. Part 1 covers Romans, chapters 1-8; Part 2, chapters 9-16.

[9] R. C. H. Lenski op cit, pp. 604-605.

[10] Leon Morris 1988. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company / Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, pp.356-357.

[11] Geisler used the term, “omnibenevolent”. Reference.com gives the meaning of omnibenevolence as ‘defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “unlimited or infinite benevolence“. It is a technical term used in the academic literature on the philosophy of religion, often in the context of the problem of evil and in theodical responses, and even in such context, the phrases “perfect goodness” or “moral perfection” are often preferred’. Available at: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Omnibenevolence (Accessed 28 August 2011).

[12] Dr. Norman Geisler 2004. Systematic Theology (vol. 3: Sin, Salvation). Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse, p. 195.

[13] Ibid., pp. 195-196.

[14] Geisler uses the comparison with Luke 14:26 where Jesus stated, ‘If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple’.

[15] Ibid., p. 196.

[16] Iain H. Murray 1995. Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: A Battle for Gospel Preaching. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, pp. 155-156.

Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 08 May 2020.

Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25

Will you be ready when your death comes?

By Spencer D Gear

The life-death ratio is 100%, no matter where you live in the world. All people who are born eventually die – everyone of them.[1]

There are times when one is caused to think of life after death issues. The death of a loved one or friend precipitates this for me. I did this recently when my Canadian friend, Monte, died on 9 June 2011, aged 79, after a long battle with cancer.

image Photo: Monte Manzer

What happens to all people who die? In contrast to Monte’s vibrant Christian faith, there are always exceptions. And some of them are dogmatically anti-God: “I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive”,[2] said British philosopher Bertrand Russell. He ought to know now of the truth of his statement as he died in 1970. Was Russell telling the truth in his atheistic belief, or is there evidence that he did not accept? Russell left no doubt about his view of God, so could he have rejected some vital evidence? It was Russell who stated:

The whole conception of God is a conception de­rived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a concep­tion quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contempti­ble and not worthy of self-respecting human beings.[3]

Could Russell’s conclusions about God have clouded his view of life after death? What do the Christian Scriptures teach that Russell was discarding?

New Testament believers and death

The souls/spirits of New Testament believers go immediately into God’s presence at death. The cessation of bodily life means that there is a separation of the soul from the body. We know this because the Scriptures teach it. This is what Paul says about death in 2 Cor. 5:8, “We would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord“. Phil. 1:23 affirms that Paul’s desire (and it is my desire) “to depart and be with Christ for that is far better”. To the thief on the cross beside Jesus, Jesus said: “Today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43).

I am not convinced that the Bible teaches these doctrines at death: purgatory, soul sleep and annihilation.

Old Testament believers and death

What happened to Old Testament believers at death? Did they go immediately into the presence of the Lord as is stated of NT believers? There are not many OT passages that discuss the state of believers at death, but there is an indication of waiting away from God’s presence: “Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him” (Gen. 5:24; see also Heb. 11:5). What happened to Elijah? He “went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11; cf Matt 17:3 where Moses and Elijah appear and they were talking with Jesus). David says that he will “dwell in the house of the Lord for ever” (Ps. 23:6; cf. 16:10-11; 17:15).

When Jesus spoke with the Sadducees he reminded them that God says, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” but he continues: “He is not God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 23:32). The implication is that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were living at that very moment when Jesus spoke and God was their God. From this information, it seems that the OT believers entered immediately into heaven to fellowship with God when they died.

Unbelievers and death

What happens to unbelievers at death? There is no second chance. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus teaches us there is no hope of going from hell to heaven after death. The rich man was in anguish in the flame (obviously speaking metaphorically) but nonetheless indicating that the souls of unbelievers go to punishment at death.

Heb. 9:27 links death with judgment, “just as it is appointed to men to die once, and after that comes judgment”. That final judgment is based on nothing that we do after death, but on what happens in this life (e.g. Matt. 25:31-46; Rom. 2:5-10; cf. 2 Cor 5:10).

Thus, there is conscious punishment for unbelievers at death and this punishment goes on forever: “They will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt. 25:46).

Conclusion

My friend, Monte, lived to an older age. Monte’s church, Bethel Temple, paid him this tribute on Facebook:

Bethel says goodbye to one of our faithful longstanding members. Monte Manzer passed away June 9th at 79 years old. Monte has been a member of Bethel Church since his teens and had continued to be active in all areas of the life of the church. Always energetic and always positive, Monte has left us a legacy of living life with a sense of purpose and joy.

We look forward to seeing you again one day… Your Bethel Family

But you and I know of people who die at a much younger age. My Queensland cane farmer father died of a heart attack at age 57. There are deaths of the young and old around us, but the key issue is, “Where will you spend eternity?” If you are interested in examining eternal issues further from a Christian perspective, see HERE.

Recommended:

I commend Dan Lioy’s article, “Life and death in biblical perspective“. See also John Lawrence, “Death and the word of God“.

Endnotes:

[1] There will be an exception for one group of people in the future and we don’t know how soon or distant that future will be. These are those who are still alive when Jesus Christ returns. See 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 in the New Testament for what will happen to those who are alive at the time of Christ’s second coming.

[2] Cited in Richard Dawkins 2006. The God Delusion. London: Black Swan (Transworld Publishers), p. 397). This is from Bertrand Russell’s 1925 essay, “What I believe”. It is available for free download HERE.

[3] Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian, available at: http://www.skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id7.html (Accessed 17 August 2011). It was originally published in 1927 in London by Watts, originating as a talk on 6th March 1927 at Battersea Town Hall, the talk sponsored by the South London Branch of the National Secular Society. Then it emerged as a pamphlet to be published later with other Russell writings as, Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects.

 

Copyright (c) 2012 Spencer D. Gear.  This document last updated at Date: 11 October 2015.
Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25

 

Sinful nature or sinful environment?

image

By Spencer D Gear

From where did my sinful actions come? With my parents? The evil environment around me whether at school, work, TV, radio, Internet or anywhere else in our sin-soaked society?

The Bible’s teaching on original sin (a misunderstood term) and the sinful human nature being the cause of sin, has caused much controversy down through the centuries. Evangelical theologian, Wayne Grudem, prefers to use the phrase “inherited sin” instead of “original sin” because ‘the phrase “original sin” seems so easily to be misunderstood to refer to Adam’s first sin, rather than to the sin that is ours as a result of Adam’s fall’.[1]

One of church history’s early rejections of the teaching on inherited sinful nature or original sin came from the Pelagians (followers of Pelagius, ca. AD 360-420[2]), Pelagius being engaged in controversy on the topic with St. Augustine. What did the Pelagians believe? The late Yale University church historian, Kenneth Scott Latourette, summarised:

“In general Pelagians differed from Augustine in denying In general Pelagians differed from Augustine in denying that the taint of Adam’s sin and the impairment of the will brought by it have been transmitted to all Adam’s de- scendants, but, in contrast, declared that each man at birth at, has the ability to choose the good. In other words, they denounced “original sin.” Some seem to have held that Adam was created mortal and that his His death was not due to his sin, that new-born children need not be baptized, for they have no original sin inherited from Adam which needs to be washed away, and that some men before and after Christ have so used their free will that they have been sinless. God’s grace, so at least some Pelagians held, is seen in giving man free will at his creation, in giving man the law as a guide to his choice, and in send- ing Jesus Christ who by his teaching and good example assists men to do good. From Augustine’s standpoint, this view made grace unnecessary and differed little from Stoic morality”.[3]

R. C. Sproul leaves no doubt about how much of the Christian church is practising Pelagian theology, in his view. He states:

“Modern Evangelicalism almost uniformly and universally teaches that in order for a person to be born again, he must first exercise faith. You have to choose to be born again. Isn’t that what you hear? In a George Barna poll, more than seventy percent of “professing evangelical Christians” in America expressed the belief that man is basically good. And more than eighty percent articulated the view that God helps those who help themselves. These positions — or let me say it negatively — neither of these positions is semi-Pelagian. They’re both Pelagian. To say that we’re basically good is the Pelagian view. I would be willing to assume that in at least thirty percent of the people who are reading this issue, and probably more, if we really examine their thinking in depth, we would find hearts that are beating Pelagianism. We’re overwhelmed with it. We’re surrounded by it. We’re immersed in it. We hear it every day. We hear it every day in the secular culture. And not only do we hear it every day in the secular culture, we hear it every day on Christian television and on Christian radio.

“In the nineteenth century, there was a preacher who became very popular in America, who wrote a book on theology, coming out of his own training in law, in which he made no bones about his Pelagianism. He rejected not only Augustinianism, but he also rejected semi-Pelagianism and stood clearly on the subject of unvarnished Pelagianism, saying in no uncertain terms, without any ambiguity, that there was no Fall and that there is no such thing as original sin. This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man’s basic thesis was, we don’t need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous. His name: Charles Finney, one of America’s most revered evangelists. Now, if Luther was correct in saying that sola fide is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, if what the reformers were saying is that justification by faith alone is an essential truth of Christianity, who also argued that the substitutionary atonement is an essential truth of Christianity; if they’re correct in their assessment that those doctrines are essential truths of Christianity, the only conclusion we can come to is that Charles Finney was not a Christian. I read his writings and I say, “I don’t see how any Christian person could write this.” And yet, he is in the Hall of Fame of Evangelical Christianity in America. He is the patron saint of twentieth-century Evangelicalism. And he is not semi-Pelagian; he is unvarnished in his Pelagianism”.[4]

Elsewhere, Sproul wrote: “Pelagianism has a death grip on the modern church”.[5]

Pelagianism is alive and well today. A contemporary Pelagian, Verticordious, wrote on Christian Forums:

“People are not born with a sinful nature, they are taught a sinful nature by other sinful people. That’s why the Bible places such an importance on parents and marriage, as they are responsible for teaching their children. If you don’t teach your children right from wrong then they’re just going to get their behavior from society. Everyone has a choice, to obey God or to not obey God. Why would be a good parent matter if you child was inherently sinful from birth? People are responsible for their own choices, which is why they are punished when they wrong choices”.[6]

Is this a biblical perspective?[7]

The Bible says through Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (ESV). The NIV translates as, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me“.

Again from the Psalms, “Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies” (Psalm 58:3 NIV)

Isaiah wrote, “Well do I know how treacherous you are; you were called a rebel from birth” (48:8 NIV)

Then we have the NT. Paul wrote to the Ephesians:

“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath” (2:1-3 NIV).

Two important points come out of this passage:

1. Considering the Ephesian readers life before coming to Christ (which can be applied to all people before they experience salvation), Paul insists that these unsaved folks were dead in transgressions and sins and followed the world’s ways in disobedience, gratifying the cravings of the sinful nature with desires and thoughts. Surely most of us can recognise this before coming to Christ! I can!

2. From where did this sinful condition come? Paul does not say that this sinful condition was taught by other people, including parents. Paul deliberately says that we were “by nature” objects of God’s wrath. The problem did not have its initiation through sinful actions in our environment. The core cause of our sinful problems is that it is “by nature” – sinful nature.

And where did it originate? The Psalms and Isaiah are clear that it comes from conception/birth. We are rebels from birth – before any sinful environment had an influence on us.

How did we come to be rebels from conception? Some of the clearest biblical statements are in Romans 5:12, 18-19:

“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (ESV)

These verses provide not only the cause of inherited sin, one man’s [Adam’s ] transgression, but also the solution, justification and life for people “by one man’s [Jesus Christ’s] obedience” through his death on the cross.

People may object: “God is unjust for making all people sinners through Adam’s original sin”. Are you also going to object, “God is unfair in providing the God-man, Jesus Christ, as a sacrifice for sin”. Remember Romans 5:19, “As one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (ESV).

That’s my clearest, but brief, understanding of the issue from the Scriptures.

image

Endnotes:

[1] Wayne Grudem 1994. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, p. 494, note 8.

[2] E. E. Cairns 1981. Christianity through the centuries: A history of the Christian church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, p. 137.

[3] K.S. Latourette 1975. A history of Christianity: To A.D. 1500, vol 1, rev ed.

New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, p. 181. Also available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26953799/6/Christianity-Takes-Shape-in-Organization-and-Doctrine#outer_page_151 (Accessed 25 May 2011).

[4] R. C. Sproul 2001. ‘The Pelagian captivity of the church’, Modern Reformation, Vol 10, Number 3 (May/June 2001), pp. 22-29, available at: http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html (Accessed 25 May 2011).

[5] Available at: http://www.monergismbooks.com/Freedom-of-the-Will-p-16186.html (Accessed 25 May 2011).

[6] Verticordious #14, 24 May 2011. Christian Forums, Theology (Christian only), Christian Apologetics, “But what about those who never hear about Christ?”, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7562188-2/ (Accessed 25 May 2011).

[7] The following was my response to Verticordious at OzSpen #22, 25 May 2011, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7562188-3/ (Accessed 25 May 2011).

 

Copyright © 2011 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 13 October 2015.

Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21

Does the Bible teach limited atonement or unlimited atonement by Christ?

(public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

It has been a theologically contentious issue since the time of the Reformation, with even some dispute going back to St. Augustine. Did Jesus die for the sins of the whole world or did he die only for the sins of the elect – the church?

One supporter of limited atonement (Dr. C. Matthew McMahon ) wrote:

The Atonement of Jesus Christ is not limited in its power to save, but in the extent to which it reaches and will save certain individuals.

Limited atonement is a theological term that has been used for centuries to define a very important aspect of the Gospel.  It is a fundamental Christian doctrine which states that Jesus Christ came and died for a limited number of people.  He did not die, or redeem, every individual for all of time, but for some individuals, i.e. His sheep and His church.  This does not mean that the power of His death could not have saved all men if He wanted to.  The power and efficacy of His death in and through one drop of His blood could have saved a million-billion worlds.  That was not what God intended.  The Scripture does not dabble in “possibilities.”  It does, however, state that the scope of His death is limited.

R. C. Sproul (1992:175) prefers the term definite atonement to limited atonement and he states that it refers “to the question of the design of Christ’s atonement” and what God intended in sending Jesus to the cross. He explained:

Christ’s atonement does not avail for unbelievers…. Some put it this way: Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for some. This, however, does not really get at the heart of the question of definite atonement…. The Reformed view holds that Christ’s atonement was designed and intended only for the elect. Christ laid down His life for His sheep and only for His sheep. Furthermore, the Atonement insured salvation for all the elect (Sproul 1992:176).

I John 2:2 would seem to be an excellent verse to establish Christ’s unlimited atonement – dying for the whole world of sinners: “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (NIV).

How does Sproul interpret this verse? He admits that “this text, more than any other, is cited as scriptural proof against definite atonement”. His view is that if this verse is taken in this sense, “it becomes a proof text for universalism”. His way of viewing the text is

“to see the contrast in it between our sins and those of the whole world. Who are the people included in the word our?…. In this text, John may merely be saying that Christ is not only a propitiation for our sins (Jewish believers) but for the elect found also throughout the whole world…. The purpose of God in Christ’s death was determined at the foundation of the world. The design was not guesswork but according to a specific plan and purpose, which God is sovereignly bring to pass. All for whom Christ died are redeemed by His sacrificial act…. The Atonement in a broad sense is offered to all; in a narrow sense, it is only offered to the elect. John’s teaching that Christ died for the sins of the whole world means that the elect are not limited to Israel but are found throughout the world” (Sproul 1992:176-177, emphasis in original).

Talk about confusion. There is not a word in context of 1 John to speak of the elect as limited to Israel. What does the Bible teach?

By contrast, Lutheran commentator, R. C. H. Lenski (1966:399-400), while preferring the term expiation to propitiation, states that the Righteous One (Jesus, from 1 John 2:1) “suffered for unrighteous ones” and this was effective regarding the whole world.

John advances the thought from sins to the whole world of sinners. Christ made expiation for our sins and thereby for all sinners. We understand [cosmos] in the light of John 3:16 and think that it includes all men [meaning people], us among them, and not only all unsaved men [i.e. people] (Lenski 1966:400).

Did John Calvin (AD 1509-1564) support limited atonement? In the early days of his writing when he was aged 26, he completed the first edition of The Institutes of the Christian Religion. In the Institutes, he wrote:

I say with Augustine, that the Lord has created those who, as he certainly foreknew, were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed. Why he willed it is not ours to ask, as we cannot comprehend, nor can it become us even to raise a controversy as to the justice of the divine will. Whenever we speak of it, we are speaking of the supreme standard of justice (Institutes 3.23.5).

Here Calvin affirmed that God willed the destruction of unbelievers. Calvin continues:

their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves. The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not. It is certain, however, that it was just, because he saw that his own glory would thereby be displayed (Institutes 3.23.8)

While this description is tied up with Calvin’s view of double predestination, it is linked with the doctrine of limited atonement in that it would be impossible for God to predestine unbelievers to eternal damnation and yet provide unlimited atonement that was available to them, unto the possibility of salvation. That is the logical connection, as I understand it.

Roger Nicole has written an article on “John Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement”. This indicates that Calvin did not believe in limited atonement, but that it was a doctrine originated by Calvinists following Calvin.

Calvin’s first edition of The Institutes was in Latin in 1536 and this was published in a French edition in 1560.

John Calvin did progress in his thinking when he wrote his commentaries on the Bible later in life. His first commentary was on the Book of Romans in 1540 and his commentaries after 1557 were taken from stenographer’s notes taken from lectures to his students. He wrote in his commentary on John 3:16:

Faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish….

And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life (emphasis added).

Thus John Calvin himself is very clear. He believed in unlimited atonement.

The following verses also affirm unlimited atonement:

John 1:29: “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.'”

John 4:42: “They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.'”

Acts 2:21: “And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Romans 5:6: “You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.”

2 Corinthians 5:14-15: “For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.”

1 Timothy 2:3-4: “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

1 Timothy 2:5-6: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men – the testimony given in its proper time.”

1 Timothy 4:10: “We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.”

Titus 2:11: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.”

Hebrews 2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”

2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

1 John 4:14: “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.”

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Theologian, Henry C. Thiessen’s, summary of the sense in which Christ is the Saviour of the world is:

His death secured for all men a delay in the execution of the sentence against sin, space for repentance, and the common blessings of life which have been forfeited by transgression; it removed from the mind of God every obstacle to the pardon of the penitent and restoration of the sinner, except his wilful opposition to God and rejection of him; it procured for the unbeliever the powerful incentives to repentance presented in the Cross, by means of the preaching of God’s servants, and through the work of the Holy Spirit; it provided salvation for those who die in infancy, and assured its application to them; and it makes possible the final restoration of creation itself (Thiessen  1949:330).

Limited or definite atonement is clearly refuted by Scripture. Limited atonement is a false doctrine.

Works consulted

Lenski, R C H 1966. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of the epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers (© 1966 Augsburg 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.

 

Copyright (c)  2011 Spencer D. Gear.  This document last updated at Date: 13 October 2015.

Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21
Whytehouse designs

Is the Gospel of Thomas genuine or heretical?

Last page of Gospel of Thomas

(image courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

Is the Gospel of Thomas, discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945, a representative sample of the writings of biblical Christianity? Is it an authentic gospel that should be considered for inclusion in the New Testament along with the four recognised Gospels? Or should it be rejected as heretical as some of the church fathers concluded (see below)?

On Christian Forums (December – January 2010-2011), there was this discussion on the Gospel of Thomas. The thread began with a post by Yoder777:

Mainstream Christians are often dismissive of Thomas as a Gnostic Gospel, without really trying to understand the history that surrounds it.

Scholars make a distinction between the Gospel of Thomas and Gnosticism. While Thomas’ focus is on restoring the nature of man as it was before the fall, Gnosticism is world-negating. Thomas is better seen in light of Jewish wisdom literature than Gnosticism.

Thomas was not universally rejected in the early church. For example, 2 Clement quotes from it. The Orthodox Christians of India and Mesopotamia trace their heritage to the Apostle Thomas. If he visited those regions, it could explain some of the Gospel’s eastern tinge.

Thomas can be a valuable resource for our spiritual lives, since it illuminates and expands on passages found in the canonical Gospels. It also goes into the deeper spiritual meaning of Jesus’ message, just as John does.

The following contain some of my (OzSpen) responses on this thread. DaLeKo (#15) wrote:

So girls aren’t in need all that grace and faith stuff to be saved, they just need to have an operation ..

114) Simon Peter said to Him, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

I responded (OzSpen #36):

You have beautifully illustrated by this quote why the Gospel of Thomas is ‘another gospel’.


Nicholas Perrin in his assessment of The Gospel of Thomas, concludes that

The Gospel of Thomas invites us to imagine a Jesus who says, ‘I am not your saviour, but the one who can put you in touch with your true self. Free yourself from your gender, your body, and any concerns you might have for the outside world. Work for it and self-realization, salvation, will be yours – in this life.’ Imagine such a Jesus? One need hardly work very hard. This is precisely the Jesus we know too well, the existential Jesus, that so many western evangelical and liberal churches already preach (Perrin 2007:139).

Originally posted by Yoder777:

What if Thomas was available in a different geographical region, isolated from Matthew and Luke? What if, like John, Thomas was written independently of Matthew and Luke?

I wrote (OzSpen #53) that the church father, Origen, writing about AD 233, mentioned that

there is passed down also the Gospel according to Thomas, the Gospel, according to Matthias, and many others.

This seems to indicate that in the early part of the third century, the Gospel of Thomas, was known in the region where Origen lived.

After this time, it was labelled as heretical. Eusebius (ca. 265-339) includes the Gospels of Thomas, Matthias, and Peter in his list of heretical writings. See Eusebius’ greatest work, Ecclesiastical History 3.25.6, where he wrote:

But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers— we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

The church father, Origen, lived ca. 185-254. These are his views concerning other gospels than the four canonical Gospels accepted by the church.

From Origen’s Homily on Luke (1:1), according to the Latin translation of Jerome:

That there have been written down not only the four Gospels, but a whole series from which those that we possess have been chosen and handed down to the churches, is, let it be noted, what we may learn from Luke’s preface, which runs thus: ‘For as much as many have taken in hand to compose a narrative’ . The expression ‘they have taken in hand’ involves a covert accusation of those who precipitately and without the grace of the Holy Ghost have set about the writing of the gospels.

Matthew to be sure and Mark and John as well as Luke did not ‘take in hand’ to write, but filled with the Holy Ghost have written the Gospels. ‘Many have taken in hand to compose a narrative of the events which are quite definitely familiar among us’ . The Church possesses four Gospels, heresy a great many, of which one is entitled ‘The Gospel according to the Egyptians’, and another ‘The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles’. Basilides also has presumed to write a gospel, and to call it by his own name. ‘Many have taken in hand ‘ to write, but only four Gospels are recognized. From these the doctrines concerning the person of our Lord and Savior are to be derived. I know a certain gospel which is called ‘The Gospel according to Thomas’ and a ‘Gospel according to Matthias’, and many others have we read – lest we should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine that they posses some knowledge if they are acquainted with these. Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the Church has recognized, which is that only the four Gospels should be accepted (emphasis added).

The earliest mention we have of the Gospel of Thomas is from Hippolytus of Rome who was a martyr and died ca. 236. It is in, “The Refutation of all heresies. Book V”. He states:

And concerning this (nature) they hand down an explicit passage, occurring in the Gospel inscribed according to Thomas, expressing themselves thus: “He who seeks me, will find, me in children from seven years old; for there concealed, I shall in the fourteenth age be made manifest.” This, however, is not (the teaching) of Christ, but of Hippocrates, who uses these words: “A child of seven years is half of a father.” And so it is that these (heretics), placing the originative nature of the universe in causative seed, (and) having ascertained the (aphorism) of Hippocrates, that a child of seven years old is half of a father, say that in fourteen years, according to Thomas, he is manifested.

Hippolytus of Rome is said to have been a disciple of Irenaeus.

The evidence from the early church is that the Gospel of Thomas was an heretical gospel. Perrin has made his doctoral dissertation on the Gospel of Thomas available to ordinary folks (Perrin 2007). I recommend it as an excellent assessment of the origin and value of this “other gospel”. Perrin states that

the Gospel of Thomas was a Syriac text written in the last quarter of the second century by a careful editor who arranged his material largely on the basis of catchword connection. As far as his sources, Thomas drew primarily on Tatian’s Diatessaron , but also undoubtedly drew on his memory of a number of oral and written traditions. It cannot be ruled out that Thomas preserves authentic sayings of Jesus….

Our author Thomas was inspired not only by Tatian’s gospel harmony but also by Tatian’s Encratistic theology, which saw Jesus not as Saviour, but as the one who can show us how to be saved. Through abstinence and vegetarianism, the moral soul could aspire to be reunited to the divine Spirit….

By so clothing Jesus in a deeply Encratistic and Hermetic guise, the Thomas community no doubt incurred the displeasure of the Edessean proto-orthodox Christians, who were on the cusp of formalizing their connection with Serapion of Antioch. While accepted by some soi-distant Christians, the Gospel of Thomas was rejected by many others, but not before attaining international status and popularity. It continued to be used predominantly among the Syrian-based Manichaeans who were sympathetic to its stripping away of the Jewish elements of Christianity (Perrin 2007:137, URL links added to the quote).

What type of Jesus is revealed in the Gospel of Thomas? Perrin’s view is that

the Gospel of Thomas invites us to imagine a Jesus who says, ‘I am not your saviour, but the one who can put you in touch with your true self. Free yourself from your gender, your body, and any concerns you might have for the outside world. Work for it and self-realization, salvation, will be yours – in this life.’ Imagine such a Jesus? One need hardly work very hard. his is precisely the Jesus we know too well, the existential Jesus that so many western evangelical and liberal churches already preach (2007:139).

This is in contrast to John Dominic Crossan’s associating the Gospel of Thomas with the authority of the apostle Thomas, known as “doubting Thomas”. Crossan wrote of Thomas, the apostle:

This is the figure here immortalized as Doubting Thomas. We know about his leadership and authority, and his competition with alternative figures such as Peter and Thomas, from the Gospel of Thomas 13 (Crossan 1994:188-189).

Crossan then quotes Thomas 13 (Crossan seems to have used his own translation):

13 Jesus said to his disciples, “Compare me to something and tell me what I am like.”

2Simon Peter said to him, “You are like a just angel.”

3 Matthew said to him, “You are like a wise philosopher.”

4Thomas said to him, “Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like.”

5 Jesus said, “I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended.”

6 And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him.

7When Thomas came back to his friends, they asked him, “What did Jesus say to you?”

8 Thomas said to them, “If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you.”

In contrast to Perrin, Crossan believes the Gospel of Thomas ‘may have been composed in two major steps’, the first stage being dated to ‘the the 50s and 60s of the first century…. The second stage has many sayings special to itself, dates to the 70s and 80s of that first century’ (Crossan 1995:26-31). How could it be that two scholars arrive at radically different conclusions concerning the writing of the Gospel of Thomas. For Crossan it is in the mid-late first century while for Perrin it is written in the latter part of the second century.

Could it have something to do with their presuppositions?

Based on the evidence from the early church (e.g. Origen & Eusebius), the Gospel of Thomas is to be regarded as an heretical document, another gospel.

What is heresy?

In New Testament Greek, the term from which we get “heresy” is hairesis. Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek Lexicon states that hairesis means ‘sect, party, school’. It was used of the Sadduccees in Acts 5:17; of the Pharisees in Acts 15:5. Of the Christians in Acts 24:5. It is used of a heretical sect or those with destructive opinions in 2 Peter 2:1 (“destructive heresies” ESV).

The article on hairesis in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. 1, p. 182ff) states that its “usage in Acts corresponds exactly to that of Josephus and the earlier Rabbis” but the development of the Christian sense of heresy does not parallel this Rabbinic use. When the ekklesia came into being, there was no place for hairesis. They were opposed to each other. This author states that “the greater seriousness consists in the fact that hairesis affect the foundation of the church in doctrine (2 Pt. 2:1), and that they do so in such a fundamental way as to give rise to a new society alongside the ekklesia” (Kittel Vol I:183).

From the NT, we see the term, heresy, being used to mean what Paul called strange doctrines, different doctrine,
doctrines of demons, every wind of doctrine (See 1 Timothy 1:3; 4:1;6:3; Ephesians 4:14), as contrasted with sound doctrine, our doctrine, the doctrine conforming to godliness, the doctrine of God (See 1 Timothy 4:6; 6:1,3;2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1, 10).

References

Crossan, J D 1995. Who killed Jesus? Exposing the roots of anti-semitism in the gospel story of the death of Jesus. New York: HarperSanFrancisco.

Kittel, G (ed) 1964. Theological dictionary of the New Testament, trans. & ed. by G. W. Bromiley (vol 1). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Perrin, N 2007. Thomas, the other gospel. London: SPCK.

 

Copyright © 2011 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 28 October 2016.

Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21

A pre-millennial, post-tribulation end times understanding[1]

Flying Feet

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

There’s a lot of promotion in evangelical Christian circles of the dispensational pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapture. On the popular level, this has been given lots of air-play in Tim LaHaye & Jerry B. Jenkins’ Left Behind series (Tyndale House Publishers 1995) .  In fact, in the first Bible College I attended, this was the only view that was presented of eschatology. When I left college, I investigated other views and felt that I had been taught such a one-eyed understanding.

  1. These are nothing more than beginning thoughts on an understanding of end times from a pre-millennial, post-tribulation perspective, which is the view which I believe has the best scriptural support.
  2. I cannot find a Bible verse that tells specifically when the Rapture will happen. The Bible does not give specifics about the timing of the rapture.
  3. What is the Rapture? It is a part of the resurrection of the church. Those who have died prior to Christ’s second coming will be resurrected from the dead and raptured – taken up (I Thess. 4:12-18).
  4. At that resurrection, those believers who are still alive will be raptured with those who have died in Christ (1 Thess. 4:12-18).
  5. At the Second Coming, the dead in Christ and the living in Christ will be gathered in the air to meet Christ (1 Thess. 4:12-18). This gathering is called “the harvest” at “the close of the age” according to Matt. 13:39, which states, “The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels” (ESV).
  6. What does the Bible say about the time of the Resurrection and the Rapture? Matt. 24:21-31 states:

21For then there will be great tribulation such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. 22And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25See, I have told you beforehand. 26So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

29“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other (ESV).

So, immediately after the great tribulation the Son of Man will come in the clouds with a loud trumpet call and Christian believers – the elect of God will be gathered (this is Christ’s second coming).

7.  Mark 13:18-27 states:

18Pray that it may not happen in winter. 19For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. 20And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days. 21And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. 23But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand. 24“But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. (ESV)

These two accounts of the Resurrection and Rapture state very clearly that believers (the elect) will be gathered (raptured) at Christ’s second coming.

Does it state when the Resurrection of believers and the Rapture will happen? Yes it does. It will be after the great tribulation. But we have further evidence

8.  Second Thess. 2:1-4 further confirms when this will happen:

1Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers [and sisters] 2not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God (ESV).

This event is often called the “abomination that causes desolation” as in Daniel 9:27. Daniel 11:31, 36 states:

31Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate…. 36“And the king shall do as he wills. He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is decreed shall be done (ESV).

The Antichrist (1 John 2:18) will be revealed at the “abomination that makes desolate”, which will begin the Great Tribulation (see Revelation 17:1-13).

9.  There is direct evidence for the resurrection of believers at the start of the Millennium, according to Revelation 20:4, “Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years” (ESV)

10.  Therefore, an instant, any moment Rapture of believers is not supported by these Scriptures. Instead, a great tribulation, an abomination must come first.

11.  A pre-tribulation Rapture is a recent innovation. See:

12.  In summary: The Bible states that the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the Rapture of the living in Christ will take place at Christ’s second coming, which will happen after the Great Tribulation. I can see no pre-tribulation rapture here.  But there is an affirmation for the post-tribulation rapture, a theological position that is called historic premillennialism.

See my other articles on this topic:

flamin-arrow-small Is the rapture of the church hogwash?

flamin-arrow-small What is the origin of the pre-tribulation rapture of Christians?

Recommended reading:

Robert Gundry 1973. The Church and the Tribulation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Robert Gundry 1997, First the Antichrist. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

George Eldon Ladd 1972. A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

George Eldon Ladd 1956. The Blessed Hope. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

R. Totten, “The church and the post-tribulation rapture“.

See also A Case for Historic Premillennialism.

 

clip_image001Notes

[1] With some help from: http://www.lastdaysmystery.info/the_post_tribulation_rapture.htm [Accessed 11 April 2010].

 

Copyright © 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 1 November 2016.

Flower15Flower15Flower15Flower15Flower15Flower15Flower15