Category Archives: Theology

God’s foreknowledge and predestination/election to salvation

(images courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

Within the evangelical Christian community, there are two prominent views on how human beings are elected by God to salvation. They are the views of Calvinism and Arminianism. See examples of these views:

Arminianism: Roger Olson, ‘Election is for everyone‘;

Calvinism: J I Packer, ‘Election: God chooses his own’;

In a discussion on God’s predestination/election and foreknowledge on a Christian Forum, this was stated:

It can’t be “both”, it’s either one or the other. One is the cart, the other is the horse. Either God’s grace is the driving engine behind a man’s salvation, or the man is. Either Christians in heaven will be saying “the reason I’m here is because God chose me” or they will be saving “The reason God chose me is because I decided to be here.[1]

My response was:

(image courtesy Bethany House)

Salvation that involves the omniscience of God and the free choices of human beings is God-centred. That’s how God has revealed this situation in Scripture and Geisler has attempted to demonstrate this – Chosen but Free.[2] They are understood as based on God’s omniscience. It is a very God-centred doctrine of salvation, straight from the authoritative God of Scripture.

I would not be supporting such a view if it were not what is found in Scripture. I’m committed to the inerrancy of Scripture in the autographa [the original documents of Old and New Testaments).

It seems that it is your Calvinistic interpretation that wants to place any view other than yours as the creation over the Creator. This is clearly not the case with Geisler (1999) and it is not my view.The choices of human beings are ‘free’ in the sense that God has extended to all human beings common grace (see Titus 2:11).

Your example of your son is not adequate for the discussion we are having because with your son you are dealing with how to set parameters for discipline, because you love him. With the eternal God, he is revealing how his love for the whole world makes salvation available to all. As I understand them, unconditional election and irresistible grace involve forced love. Geisler has labelled this as ‘divine rape’ – not nice terminology, but it does try to get to the essence of forced love for salvation.

I support your view of ‘the wise and immutable choices of God’, but it is the basis on which those immutable choices are made about which we disagree. Are you promoting an immutable decree in predestination? I’m promoting predestination/election, based on the foreknowledge of God and that involves freedom of individuals to voluntarily love or reject God’s offer of salvation when the Gospel is shared or preached.

Mine is a God-centred theology of salvation that incorporates the Gospel, God’s omniscience in foreknowledge, election that includes human beings freely choosing to respond favourably to the Gospel. It is genuine free will that God has given to all.[3]

How would Apologetic_Warrior, a Presbyterian and Reformed believer, respond? Before looking at his response to my post on foreknowledge, it is important to note his emphasis in a previous post,

Sorry but election by “free” choices of men is “man centered” doctrine if there ever were such a thing. Of course Geisler does not come right out and speak in those terms, he is blind to the fact, cannot see the forest for the trees. So let me rephrase, Geisler does not intentionally place the creation over the Creator, but he does so unintentionally based on his philosophical presuppositions.

If Geisler and yourself believe in original sin and total depravity, in what sense can man’s choices be said to be “free”? Free of what to what?[4]

Now to his response about foreknowledge in Romans 8:29-30 and 1 Peter 1:1-2. It was fairly predictable. It is a common response I receive from the Reformed who don’t believe that salvation and God’s foreknowledge are associated with election/predestination. He wrote:

Neither of those verses support what you would like for them to support.

If we interpret “those whom he foreknew” in the sense you suggest, let me ask you this, are we therefore to interpret that as God foreknowing some but not others? No, God foreknows everyone’s destiny in the knowledge sense of the term. Because the phrase limits the number of persons (those), I believe a more accurate rendering would be “those whom he foreLoved”, as we already know of instances in Scripture where to “know” someone (“Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived”) is to love intimately.

Neither of the verses give the cause or basis of election, and neither is it contradiction for the Calvinist to agree that there is a tie between election and foreknowledge….and predestination and sovereignty. What you read into foreknowledge is the “choices of men”, where we Calvinists read the free choices of God on the basis of His love and mercy, according to His will and His purpose, for His glory.[5]

Here was my response:[6]

‘For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified’ (Romans 8:29-30; emphasis added).

‘He foreknew’ is the Greek proegnw, aorist, active indicative of proginwskw, which means ‘know beforehand, in advance, have foreknowledge of something… Choose beforehand someone’ (Arndt & Gingrich p. 710). Therefore, your statement, ‘I believe a more accurate rendering would be “those whom he foreLoved”‘, is your own opinion and is not based on the etymology of the word.

Proginwsko means to foreknow, to know in advance. The preposition pro that begins this verb does not change the meaning of ginwsko (I know), but simply dates it, the same preposition is associated with proorizo, I predestine in advance in Rom 8:29. This divine action reaches back to eternity.

We need to note that the verb for knowing is ginwsko and not oida, to know about someone, intellectual apprehension. Proginwsko refers to a knowing relationship that is a personal relationship between the knower and the person known. So it becomes plain that when God foreknew, in his omniscience He foreknew in personal relationship. This does not refer to what you want it to mean, ‘foreloved’, but to know personally in relationship through foreknowledge.
Therefore, when Jesus said concerning the unbelievers and judgment, ‘I never knew you’, Jesus did not know the wicked with the affection of a personal relationship.

Romans 8:29 most definitely refers to foreknowledge of God, a personal relationship of knowing by God with believers. I am not imposing my meaning on the text. I’m exegeting the text, based on etymology of foreknowledge.

So one of the fundamentals in understanding God’s election of a person to receive salvation, is God’s foreknowledge according to Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:1-2.

Works consulted

Geisler, N 1999. Chosen but free. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

Lenski, R C H 1936. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. This commentary was originally published by the Lutheran Book Concern in 1936. The Hendrickson Publishers’ edition was printed in 2001.

The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to…

(image courtesy LibraryThing)

Notes:

[1] Apologetic_Warrior #388, Christian Forums, Soteriology, ‘Is rejecting Christ a sin?’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755517-39/ (Accessed 8 July 2013).

[2] 1999. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

[3] Ibid., OzSpen #386.

[4] Ibid., Apologetic_Warrior #385.

[5] Ibid., Apologetic_Warrior #401.

[6] Ibid., OzSpen #405, with some guidance from R C H Lenski (1936:556-557).

Conversations with a Calvinist on apostasy

Spencer D Gear

Courtesy ShareFaith

By Spencer D Gear

If you want to see some heat generated in theological discussions, just raise the issue of the possibility of apostasy with Calvinists who believe in perseverance of the saints. These folks who believe in once saved, always saved (OSAS) – which is not good terminology – do not want to come close to believing that it is possible for a genuine Christian to be lost again and to be lost eternally with no further opportunity for repentance.

What, then, is apostasy? Apostasy refers to

defection from the faith, an act of unpardonable rebellion against God and his truth. The sin of apostasy results in the abandonment of Christian doctrine and conduct. With respect to the covenant relationship established through prior profession of faith (passive profession in the case of baptized infants), apostates place themselves under the curse and wrath of God as covenant breakers, having entered into a state of final and irrevocable condemnation. Those who apostatize are thus numbered among the reprobate. Since the resurrection of Christ, there is no distinction between blasphemy against Christ and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt 12:31-32; Heb 6:4-6 ; 10:26-29 ; 1 John 5:16-17) [Karlberg 1996].[1]

I made the post to a Christian forum in which I dealt with Hebrews 10:26-27, which states, ‘For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, ²⁷but a fearful expectation of judgement, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries (ESV).

Courtesy ChristArt

In response to another person, I wrote:

They should cause us all to be concerned about our continuing to ‘go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth’ (Heb. 10:26). This verse, along with Heb 6:4-8, confirm that apostasy is a genuine possibility for some who have been Christian but choose to sin deliberately and reject the Lord.

These verses and the others you quoted cannot be excluded when continuation or loss of salvation is considered.[2]

A Calvinist responded, ‘We all sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth’.[3] How should I reply?

Therefore, this is what we can expect from God if that is what we :

26 Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins. 27 There is only the terrible expectation of God’s judgment and the raging fire that will consume his enemies (Heb 10:26-27 NLT).

The NLT has gotten the essence of the Greek present tense with ‘continue sinning’ and this is deliberately. This is deliberate sinning that continues on and on.[4]

The same Calvinist responded:

The passage isn’t talking about losing salvation. It’s sad that you think the Great Shepherd could lose His sheep.
The writer is talking to Jews. If they reject Christ, their sacrificial system will not benefit them. That’s why there remains no more sacrifice for sins.
But hey, only have conversations with those who agree with you. That way you’ll never be challenged.
(Oh, and the 1 Tim passage says nothing about them losing their salvation.)[5]

My response was:[6] The passage is doing more than talking about losing salvation. It is talking about the believer who commits apostasy (repudiates the Christian faith), for whom ‘there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins’. That’s the apostasy from which there is no return, as Heb. 6:4-8 confirms.
It’s sad that you think the Great Shepherd is not telling us the truth when he writes about committing apostasy in Heb 6:4-8 and Heb 10:26-27 for which there is no return to repentance.

Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg, Courtesy Wikipedia

The context of Hebrew 10:26-27, no matter how much you want it to refer to Jews, tells us that the writer to the Hebrews is writing to Christians. We know this from these verses in Ch. 10:

Hebrews 10:10, “By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (ESV)

Heb 10:15, “And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us….”

Heb 10:19, “Therefore, brothers and sisters since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,”

Heb 10:22, “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith….”

Heb 10:23, “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering….”

Heb 10:24, “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works.”

Heb 10:25, “Not neglecting to meet together as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another.…”

Heb 10:26, ‘“For if we go on sinning deliberately….”

This Calvinist did nto seem to like the challenges that I to his view on apostasy, which was that no Christian can commit apostasy as once they are saved they will persevere in the faith and not lose salvation. However, that is not a consistent view maintained in Scripture.

Mark Karlberg’s (1996) article on apostasy continued:

G. C. Berkouwer[7] comments: “We must underscore the deep seriousness of the biblical warning against apostasy after enlightenment’ and after the knowledge of the truth.’ This is the apostasy which reviles the Spirit of grace and despises the Son of God and crucifies the Man of Sorrows anew” (p. 343). Berkouwer is correct to refute the idea that this sin against the Holy Spirit is a mysterium iniquitatis (“a mystery of sin”), a sin difficult, if at all possible, to define precisely in the Bible.

Apostatizing from God’s redemptive covenant is an act of unpardonable transgression and rebellion. All other sins are forgiven on true repentance and faith. Those who fall out of fellowship with the saints are restored to full communion through confession of sin and reaffirmation of faith in Jesus Christ. Excommunication, as a final step in the process of ecclesiastical discipline, is undertaken in the hope of restoring the wayward sinner who has fallen into grievous sin ( 1 Co 5:1-5).

Israel of old repeatedly broke covenant with God. By impugning the name and works of Yahweh, Israel despised her calling and proved to be a stubborn and disobedient nation. Pentateuchal law identifies covenantal faithlessness as apostasy (see, e.g., the curses of the covenant pronounced on Mount Ebal by the Israelites in Deut 27:9-26). With respect to temporal blessing in the land of promise, restoration of Israel to divine favor after covenant breaking was always a consequence of divine grace and mercy, not because of meritorious works on Israel’s part.

In biblical prophecy apostasy is an eschatological sign of the impending day of the Lord, a precursor of the final day of judgment. Ancient Israel’s experience of divine wrath and displeasure served as typological foreshadowings of that latter day. The increase in apostasy in these last days of the church’s wilderness experience is associated with the appearance of the “man of lawlessness” ( 2 Th 2:1-3).

For a detailed examination of the possibility of a Christian committing apostasy and being lost forever with no opportunity for repentance, see my exposition of Hebrews 6:4-8, ‘Once saved, always saved or once saved, lost again’.

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

Works consulted

Karlberg, M W 1996. Apostasy, in W A Elwell (ed), Baker’s evangelical dictionary of biblical theology. Available at BibleStudyTools.com, http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/apostasy.html (Accessed 8 July 2013).

Notes:

[1] Karlberg (1996).

[2] Christian Forums, Congregation, Christian Communities, Baptists, Heb 6:4-6, OzSpen #13, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755725-2/ (Accessed 6 July 2013).

[3] Ibid., Hammster #14.

[4] Ibid., OzSpen #15.

[5] Ibid., Hammster #30.

[6]Ibid., OzSpen #34.

[7] Karlberg stated that this referred to the book by G. C. Berkouwer, Sin.

How were the New Testament documents transmitted in the first century AD?

Folio 41v from Codex Alexandrinus contains the Gospel of Luke with decorative tailpiece (courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

It is not unusual to get this kind of theory propounded. Here it was on a large Christian forum on the Internet:

It’s blatantly obvious that there is a question to be answered: the three Synoptics have a lot of the same material – often word-for-word identical. How did that happen?
However much you bluster, any theory of authorship that fails to explain that overlap – in all its detail – is not satisfactory.[1]

The conversation continued by the same person (with interaction from others):

That would work [memorising a Rabbi or teacher’s words, word-for-word] if oral sources worked quite like that and if the overlaps between the gospels consisted of only context free words of Jesus.

But oral sources don’t work like that, and the overlaps include narration.
“Q”, if it ever existed , would appear to be a collection of sayings – which is the biggest problem with any hypothetical Q as a reconstructable stand-alone document.
but the overlaps between Matthew and mark, say, include narrative.[2]

This poster continued her scepticism towards the Gospel material:

It doesn’t matter how clearly “Matthew” and Peter remember the same events – their narration of those events won’t be word similar or remotely close to it unless one is copying the other. You can’t have “Matthew” and Peter independently writing accounts and have the similarities we have – it just would not happen. One has to have access to the other and be copying from it. Or they both have to be copying from a shared source.[3]

My response was as follows:[4]

Courtesy Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

I suggest that you read a Swedish scholar (former professor of exegetical theology, Lund University, Sweden) who challenges your view. He is Birger Gerhardsson and has published his investigations in Memory & Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity and Tradition & Transmission in Early Christianity. I have these two volumes in one publication published by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (Grand Rapids, Michigan). Mine is a 1998 edition but they were originally published by Gerhardsson in 1961 and 1964. I have referenced them below as 1998a and 1998b.[5]

Gerhardsson searched for a model to demonstrate how oral formulations and oral tradition could have taken place. His aim was to find knowledge of possible techniques (1998a:xxxi). He set out to answer what he considered were three crucial questions:

‘To what extent did the Pharisaic teachers apply the Rabbinic principles of pedagogics during the first century A. D.’?
‘To what extent are we justified in regarding the pedagogics we find among the Pharisaic teachers as representative of the normal practices of the Jesus milieu as a whole, i. e. even outside the bounds of Pharisaism proper?’
‘To what extent did the teaching and transmission of Jesus and the early Church follow the principles of practical pedagogics which were common in their milieu, and to what extend did they create new forms?’ (Gerhardsson 1998b:12)

One of his conclusions from a long and extensive study is:

It is one thing to state that traditions have been marked by the milieu through which they passed; another to claim that they simply were created in this secondary milieu [a hypothesis of the form critics]. The evidence suggests that memories of Jesus were so clear, and the traditions with which they were connected so firmly based that there can have been relatively little scope for alteration (Gerhardsson 1998b:43; emphasis in original).

So Gerhardsson’s extensive research comes to rather different conclusions to yours. May I suggest a careful read of Gerhardsson’s seminal material that has been radically criticised by Morton Smith and Gerhardsson (1998b) has addressed Smith’s critique.

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Apologetics, ‘Which gospel was first’, ebia #56, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7753487-6/ (Accessed 4 July 2013).

[2] Ibid., ebia #62.

[3] Ibid., ebia #65.

[4] Ibid., OzSpen #70.

[5] Some of this material is made available online by Google Books HERE. Birger Gerhardsson has also written a smaller version, The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition (2001. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers).
Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 29 October 2015.

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

By Spencer D Gear

John Calvin (image courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

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

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

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

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

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

There was this new post on Christian Forums,

Hello need answer.

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

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

We have Gods word as the other.

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

You will get your feet wet.

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

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

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

A Calvinist responded:

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

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

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

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

But it was not a new one on this fellow:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John S Piper (photo courtesy Wikipedia)

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

Here’s a sample from Piper’s teaching:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Anderson (photo courtesy blogspot)

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

Is it Calvinism or Hyper-Calvinism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Calvinistic God decrees evil – all evil

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

rape of children; see ‘Rape of five-year-old Delhi girl throws light on child abuse in India’ (dnaIndia);
the slaughter of multiple millions in the Holocaust (Wikipedia),
the Gulag (Library of Congress),
under Pol Pot’s killing fields (Killing Fields Museum) & the truth about Idi Amin murders (Ugandans at Heart),
the Syrian conflict (BBC News),
the Sri Lankans who die at sea in trying to get to Australia as asylum seekers; see ‘Bodies of 98 asylum seekers ‘thrown into sea‘ (Yahoo7! News);
The twin towers disaster in New York City of September 11, 2011 (Wikipedia),
etc. etc. etc.

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

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

Nero (Wikipedia),
Sandy Creek School massacre (NBC News),
Port Arthur killing spree (Wikipedia),
Boston marathon bombing (CNN), and
the slaughter of people in Santa Monica, California (ABC News).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is the God revealed in the Bible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1)The benevolent attributes of God, and

(2)The judgment of God.

(1) The benevolent attributes of God

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

Justice,

Impartiality,

Righteousness,

Does not delight in wickedness;

Evil does not dwell with Him;

Against those who do evil;

Upright,

(2) The judgment of God

These verses reveal God’s judgment as:

Done with justice;

Done with righteousness & uprightness;

Creating calamity;

Causing harm;

Causing evil and not good;

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

See my articles,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the hope available to all people

(image courtesy ChristArt)

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

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

We are!

References

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

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

Notes:

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

[2] Ibid., Hammster#2.

[3] Ibid., now faith#6.

[4] Ibid., Hammster#7.

[5] Ibid., janxharris#8.

[6] Ibid., Hammster#9.

[7] Ibid., janxharris#10.

[8] Ibid., janxharris#12.

[9] Ibid., OzSpen#11.

[10] Ibid., janxharris#13.

[11] Ibid., Hammster#14.

[12] Ibid., OzSpen#15.

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

[14] Ibid., OzSpen#16.

[15] Ibid., OzSpen#17.

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

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

Landmine Doctrine

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

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

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

What does the Bethel Church teach?

Bethel Church, Redding CA

Courtesy Wikipedia

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

Critiques of the Bethel Church movement

Empty Words

(image courtesy ChristArt )

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

‘Warning – Bill Johnson and Bethel Church’;

‘Sound advice for Bethel Church Pastor Bill Johnson’;

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

‘The dangers of the International House of Prayer’, CARM;

‘Bill Johnson and Bethel – Report from Redding Record Searchlight’;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evangelical commentator, William Hendriksen, wrote of this passage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worm and Lace

(image courtesy ChristArt)

Which Jesus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The challenge

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

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

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

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

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

See my articles:

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

‘Double faults and no aces: Margaret Court’;

‘Are the dead raised today?’

‘Seventh Day Adventist atonement doctrine’.

(image courtesy ChristArt)

References

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

What kind of faith did the demons have?

Faith Fearful Demon

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

James 2:19 states, ‘You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!’ (ESV). If the demons have the same kind of faith as Christian believers, who do they believe and shudder, but remain demons who are estranged from God.

There was an interesting discussion on line in which a person stated:

Look up the word faith in the greek theta (sic) used throughout the NT, its a word that literally means to trust with certainty.

Please reason with your own logic. By your logic, our faith is unsustainable because then we wouldn’t know anything. And if we don’t know with certainty, as scripture says we can as Christ says we can, then the faith means nothing. For its relative and flimsy like all other world religions. Please, think critically and study scripture. For it’s the word of God Himself. May He guide you.[1]

My response was, ‘The noun, faith, in the Greek is pistis. The verbal form (I have faith, I believe), pisteuw, is found in James 2:19. How then do you understand this verse in relation to faith being trust with certainty?’[2] His reply was:

Let’s clarify using that verse. the word James uses in v. 19 is, pisteueis. this is derived from Pistis, it does mean and imply a belief/giving credit towards something. but not used in the same way as its derivative. For example, James earlier uses Pistis, from peitho, which literally means to persuade/ in general it implies such a KNOWLEDGE, assent to, and confidence in CERTAIN divine truths, especially those of the gospel, as produce of GOOD WORKS. ( Acts 3:16;17:31; Matt. 17:20 i.e. James 2:14.

Though related, those words are used in complete different contexts.[3]

What should be the response to this kind of challenge, based on the etymology of the Greek pistis (faith)? My reply was: ‘In James 2:19, pisteueis, is a verb, 2nd person, singular, present indicative, active. It is from the base verb pisteuw (I believe). While pisteuw and pistis (a noun) have a common root, we must not confuse the use of a verb with the use of a noun’.[4]

He came back with, ‘I agree. But that only strengthens the fact that our faith is based on trusting in what we’ve come to KNOW as CERTAIN. (refer to my post before with scripture and the greek definition)’.[5]

[6]If I am to accept this person’s understanding of pisteuw in James 2:19, that ‘our faith is based on trusting in what we’ve come to KNOW as CERTAIN’, then I need to understand that this is the kind of faith that the demons have and shudder, based on that faith.
Surely that is not what he was intending to mean! If not, then pisteuw does not always mean what he has stated it to mean. The demons certainly don’t have saving faith that knows and is certain. Therefore, relying on the etymology of the word does not solve the nature of faith for demons in James 2:19.
In his commentary on James, D. Edmond Hiebert, helps me in my understanding of the nature of the demons’ faith:

James - By: D. Edmond Hiebert

Courtesy Christianbook.com

With one stunning remark James shatters the value of such an orthodox faith if it is inoperative: “the demons also believe, and shudder.” “Also” (kai), perhaps “even,” places such an inoperative faith on the level of the demonic. They also believe in one transcendent God. No atheists or skeptics are among them…. In the story of the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:1-10; Luke 8:26-33; cf. also Mark 1:23-24) we have a clear illustration of such a faith on the part of the demons. These malicious supernatural spirits, engaged in seeking to possess and torment men, readily confessed God’s existence and omnipotence; but their “faith” did not transform their character and conduct or change their prospects for the future. They establish the sad truth that “belief may be orthodox, while the character is evil.” [quoting W. Boyd Carpenter]
The only effect that their faith has upon the demons is that they “shudder” (phrissousin). The verb, occurring only here in the New Testament, means “to bristle,” conveying the picture of a horror that causes the hair to stand on end. The present tense pictures this as their characteristic reaction whenever they face the reality of the eternal God. While this term is not strictly applicable to spirits, yet it effectively conveys the intensity of the horror that seizes the demons when confronting God. They have an intense unquestioned belief in God’s existence and power, but their faith brings them no peace or salvation. They are fully aware that doom awaits them at the hands of the infinitely perfect God (Matt. 8:29; 25:41; Luke 8:31) (Hiebert 1979:187-188).

What, then, is the nature of faith for the demons? It cannot be that of the committed Christian who has faith which is commitment to Christ and that leads to salvation that is demonstrated by good works for God. ‘Faith without works is dead’

Reference

Hiebert, D E 1979. The epistle of James: Tests of a living faith. Chicago: Moody Press.

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, ‘We don’t know’, ChristianLife08#22, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7741434-3/ (Accessed 9 May 2013).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen#24.

[3] Ibid., ChristianLife08#25.

[4] Ibid., OzSpen#26.

[5] Ibid., ChristianLife08#27.

[6] This was my reply at ibid., OzSpen#31.
Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 29 October 2015.

What’s happening to music in evangelical churches?

Tuba

(image courtesy ChristArt)

by Spencer D Gear

There was a discussion on the use of instruments in church music on Christian Forums. One writer wrote:

[My] argument is in reference to those churches which have music bands with drummers and guitarists…. it doesn’t’ attract youths but certainly make them comfortable, the music is the same with the world’s music. Furthermore did anyone researched on the origins of drum beats? it originated from voodoo practice whereby they would beat a rhythm during their witchcraft worship. How many churches still practice old fashion hymns with just an organ or piano?[1]

[2]How does this view of drums fit with the use of cymbals? They are pretty loud instruments.

Here are some cross references dealing with loud percussion instruments:

Drum Praise

(image courtesy ChristArt)

1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

2 Samuel 6:5 David and all Israel were celebrating with all their might before the LORD, with castanets[3], harps, lyres, timbrels, sistrums[4] and cymbals.[5]

1 Chronicles 13:8 David and all the Israelites were celebrating with all their might before God, with songs and with harps, lyres, timbrels, cymbals and trumpets.

1 Chronicles 15:16 David told the leaders of the Levites to appoint their fellow Levites as musicians to make a joyful sound with musical instruments: lyres, harps and cymbals.

Ezra 3:10 When the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests in their vestments and with trumpets, and the Levites (the sons of Asaph) with cymbals, took their places to praise the LORD, as prescribed by David king of Israel.

Nehemiah 12:27 At the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, the Levites were sought out from where they lived and were brought to Jerusalem to celebrate joyfully the dedication with songs of thanksgiving and with the music of cymbals, harps and lyres.

New International Version ©2011 by Biblica

As for churches that sing hymns accompanied by piano and/or organ, there are not many around my region. However, the last 2 churches my wife and I have attended, including the current one, sing hymns from hymn books (now on digital projectors). One was Baptist and was packed to the rafters with people, including considerable numbers of teens and young adults. There was no need to do thrash music to attract the youth at that Baptist church.

The other, the one we currently attend, is Presbyterian. The congregation is elderly with a few young families – but not too many – and the numbers are dwindling. That has more to do with the lack of outreach than the nature of the music. I know of another Presbyterian church in Brisbane that has thrash music with expository preaching. A friend I know attends that church and puts up with the music so that he can be edified by the preaching.

Some of the issues for us

Listen to iPod

(image courtesy ChristArt)

These are some of the musical issues in churches for my wife and me:

Does the service focus on worship of the trinitarian Lord God Almighty or is it human-centred? We seek the former.
Is the content of the lyrics of the songs, hymns and spiritual songs Christ-centred and promoting sound doctrine? I’m finding many contemporary songs to have too many trite, subjective lyrics. There are a few with these characteristics in the older songs as well.
Does the music drown out the lyrics or is the music meant to be an accompaniment to help with the adequate singing of the hymns/songs?
Are the melodies singable for the average person who attends a church service? I’m a very average singer and I find many of the contemporary songs to be not meant for congregational singing, but are meant for performance by a group and band.
Does the music support or detract from the message of the preacher/teacher?
How much of the music is influenced by the nature of music in the contemporary culture?

To be honest, I am concerned at the direction in which many evangelical churches are going with music and preaching content in my part of the world. Contemporary music, light lyrics and topical sermons are the order of the day in evangelical churches.

Here are but two examples of the light lyrics, in my understanding:

Air I Breathe [6]

This is the Air I Breathe
This is the Air I Breathe
Your holy presence living in me

This is my daily bread
This is my daily bread
Your very word spoken to me

Chorus

And I
I’m desperate for you
And I
I’m lost without you

Never let me go[7]

In the shadows; My spirit weak
Love broke through the darkness and lifted me
And I know you’ll never let me go

In the storm in the raging sea
Love conquered the fear and delivered me
And I know you’ll never let me go

Oh love in the shadows
Be the light who leads me on
You’re love I will follow
Be my guide, You’re will be done
Oh Lord

In the arms of the One unseen
Love carried the cross that was meant for me
And I know you’ll never let me go

Oh love in the shadows
Be the light who leads me on
You’re love I will follow
Be my guide, You’re will be done

Oh Lord I surrender, now forever I’ll be loved
In the love of the Father, You are faithful You are strong
So hold me now, hold me now, hold me now

Nothing in this life has walked these streets
Love opened my eyes show me what You see
And I know I’ll never let You go

Now compare

There is power in the blood

Would you be free from the burden of sin?
There’s power in the blood, power in the blood;
Would you o’er evil a victory win?
There’s wonderful power in the blood.

Refrain

There is power, power, wonder working power
In the blood of the Lamb;
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the precious blood of the Lamb.

Would you be free from your passion and pride?
There’s power in the blood, power in the blood;
Come for a cleansing to Calvary’s tide;
There’s wonderful power in the blood.

Refrain

Would you be whiter, much whiter than snow?
There’s power in the blood, power in the blood;
Sin stains are lost in its life giving flow.
There’s wonderful power in the blood.

Refrain

Would you do service for Jesus your King?
There’s power in the blood, power in the blood;
Would you live daily His praises to sing?
There’s wonderful power in the blood.

Refrain

How great Thou art

Lord my God! When I in awesome wonder
Consider all the works thy hand hath made,
I see the stars, I hear the mighty thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed;

Refrain:

Then sings my soul, my Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!
Then sings my soul, my Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!

When through the woods and forest glades I wander
and hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees;
when I look down from lofty mountain grandeur,
and hear the brook, and feel he gentle breeze;

Refrain

And when I think that God his son not sparing,
Sent him to die – I scarce can take it in,
That on the cross my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin:

Refrain

When Christ shall come with shout of acclamation
And take me home- what joy shall fill my heart!
Then I shall bow in humble adoration
And there proclaim, my God, how great thou art!
Then sings my soul, my Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!
Then sings my soul, my Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!

Do you see the picture of what is happening to music in the evangelical church?

References

Youngblood, R F 1992, 1, 2 Samuel, in F E Gaebelein (gen ed), The expositor’s Bible commentary, vol 3, 553-1104. Youngblood, R F 1992, 1, 2 Samuel, in F E Gaebelein (gen ed), The expositor’s Bible commentary, vol 3, 553-1104. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Baptists, ‘Music: If it feels good, do it!’ zanness#171, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7739696-18/ (Accessed 2 May 2013).

[2] The following is my response as OzSpen#181, ibid.

[3] The 1978 edition of the NIV translated this word as ‘songs’. Youngblood explains: ‘”Songs” (perhaps of victory….), the singular of Hebrew for which is sometimes equivalent to “music” (cf. 1 Chron 25:6-7) introduces the list of accompanying musical instruments that follows’ (Youngblood 1992:870). It does not make sense to me that the 2011 NIV translated with ‘castanets’, which is not common English here in Australia, when ‘songs’ would be much clearer to the contemporary reader. The ESV translates as ‘songs’ but notes that this is from the ‘Septuagint, 1 Chronicles 13:8, Hebrew fir trees’.

[4] ‘The systrum, mentioned only here in the OT, was used widely throughout the ancient Near East, especially in Egypt. It consisted of a handle fitted to “a metal loop with holes through which pieces of wire were inserted and bent at the ends. Since the holes were larger than the wire, the instrument produced a jingling sound when shaken. The Hebrew word comes from a verb which means ‘shake;’ so it is reasonable to suppose that the mea’an’im were sistra (Sellers, “Musical Instruments of Israel,” pp. 44-45)’ (Youngblood 1992:870).

[5] ‘”Cymbals” were of two kinds, one set of which were struck vertically (harsh/noisy cymbals) and the other horizontally (clear cymbals). The former may be reflected in the “clash of cymbals” and the latter in the “resounding cymbals” of Psalm 150:5. The cymbals here were probably clear cymbals (similar to but smaller than their modern descendants, bronze examples of which (cf. 1 Chron. 15:19) archaeologists have found at several cites in Israel (e.g. Beth Shemesh …; Hazor. While not mentioning sistrums, the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 13:8 concludes the list with “trumpets,” resulting in a total of six different musical instruments used to accompany the first attempt to bring the ark from Kiriath Jearim to Jerusalem’ (Youngblood 1992:870).

[6] Available at AlltheLyrics: http://www.allthelyrics.com/lyrics/hillsong/air_i_breathe-lyrics-829435.html (Accessed 2 May 2013).

[7] Available at AlltheLyrics: http://www.allthelyrics.com/lyrics/hillsong/never_let_me_go-lyrics-1037607.html (Accessed 2 May 2013).

Is the Holy Spirit God?

Hovering Dove

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

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

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

The following is my response.[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

[2] Ibid., OzSpen #255.

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

What is the origin of the pre-tribulation rapture of Christians?

Any Moment

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

This is not a fully fledged article in support or in opposition to the pre-tribulation rapture teaching. It is designed to give an overview of some of the public discussion on the Internet in the 21^st century.

In my discussing on Christian Forums, I encountered this kind of opposition to a pre-tribulation Rapture:

The rapture position being a very late opinion in church history. If it wasn’t for John Nelson Darby and his disciples we wouldn’t be talking about it today….[1]

Dean, your questions have nothing to do with the PreTrib rapture and its inventor. You are creating rabbit trails to protect your pet doctrine. Dispensationalism is a shoe horn theology where you take a passage and shoe horn it into a place, that contextually, it just doesn’t fit. You shoe horn the rapture into Revelation.

The Dispensational PreTrib Rapturism didn’t exist before 1800.[2]

Of course such provocative statements would cause a pre-tribulation Rapture proponent to respond:

Again sir, what of Enoch and Elijah?
Only Elisha knew of this.
And nobody but Moses was it revealed to about Enoch.
Were these not “secret”?
And one of the gretest (sic) secrets of all: what happened to the resurrected saints in Mt. 27:52.
Did God raise them nly (sic) to put them back in the grave?
No sir. Moses was dead and buried thousands of years before Christ, yet he was seen alive and well at the mount of transfiguration.
So here again, just because something wasn’t taught before a certain time, does not mean that its (sic) untrue or heresy.[3]

I replied to JM and Dean:

It seems to me that the eschatological differences you are having with your back and forth challenge could be related to the two major disagreements in evangelical theology over the details of future events surrounding Christ’s return. These seem to be associated with:

(1) Christ could return at any time. There are verses that indicate this (e.g. Matt 24:42-44, 50; 1 Cor 16:22; 1 Thess 5:2; Heb 10:25; James5:7-9; Rev 22:20), and

(2) There are signs that precede Christ’s return, one of which is that the Gospel must be preached to all nations (Mark 13:10. Other signs are in passages such as Mark 13:7-8; Matt 24:23-24; 2 Thess 2:1-10; 1 John 2:18.

Are these two different approaches causing the disagreement or are there some other issues. If so, what are they?[4]

1. What is the pre-tribulation rapture?

Norman Geisler provided this definition:

Pretribulationism holds that the Rapture of the church occurs before the Tribulation, during which the church, Christ’s bride, will be in heaven, standing before His judgment seat (2 Cor. 5:10) and preparing for His return to earth. Pretribulationism holds that Christ’s coming for His saints will be in the air and before the Tribulation; after the Tribulation, Christ will come with His saints and to earth to reign for a thousand years (Geisler 2005:612).

2. Others who taught pre-tribulation rapture

John Nelson Darby lived from 1800-1882 according to church historian, Kenneth Scott Latourette (1975:1185). Darby was previously an Anglican clergyman from Ireland. Was there any pre-tribulation teaching that is alleged to be prior to J N Darby? See:

Margaret Macdonald (1830 Pre-trib vision);
Edward Irving (1792-1834);
Manuel Lacunza (AD 1731-1801). This Wikipedia article on Lacunza gives an idea of his view.

(image courtesy ALO Photography)

David MacPherson has attempted to expose some of the pre-tribulation teaching in The Incredible Cover-Up (1975) and The Great Rapture Hoax (1983). There are critiques of David MacPherson’s research, e.g. HERE.

In MacPherson’s 1983 publication there is a quote from a letter written in 1834 by Francis Sitwell who became one of the 12 apostles of the Catholic Apostolic Church (associated with Edward Irving) in 1835. The letter reads:

It is because the time of the world’s doom draweth nigh, it is because the time of the sealing is come, it is because the Lord is nigh, even at the door. It is because there is no safety where you are, because you cannot be sealed where you are, it is because if you are not sealed you must be left in tribulations, while those who have obeyed His voice shall be caught up to meet Him (Sitwell in MacPherson 1983:63).

For an overview of the historical origins of the pre-tribulation rapture, see Tim Warner, The Origin of the Pretribulation Rapture Doctrine, that gives some of the information to which I referred. Also see this article in the theological journal from Dallas Theological Seminary, Bibliotheca Sacra 159, July – September 2002, ‘A Rapture Citation in the Fourteenth Century’.

I replied to JM,

You don’t seem to have liked the fact that I used Norman Geisler’s research to identify a chronological logical fallacy by claiming that the pre-trib rapture, being late in exposition, does not necessarily make it invalid. I have not used an appeal to authority as a logical fallacy. I have simply used another’s research to show the nature of a chronological fallacy when applied to the pre-trib rapture. Surely you also use another’s research to save you having to do it yourself. That is what I did and did not appeal illogically to an authority.[5]

3. Beware of denying the validity of a doctrine because of its lateness

Historically, there could have been others before J N Darby who promoted this view. Some say that Darby got the pre-trib rapture from Edward Irving (1792-1834). Others claim it could have come from Margaret MacDonald (ca. 1830). Still others go a little bit further back to Emmanuel Lacunza (AD 1731-1801).

However, post-tribulation, premillennialist, George Eldon Ladd, wrote that

We can find no trace of pretribulationism in the early church; and no modern pretribulationist has successfully proved that this particular doctrine was held by any of the church fathers or students of the Word before the nineteenth century (Ladd 1956:31).

Norman Geisler, who is a dispensational pretribulationist, claimed that those who object to pretribulationism as a late doctrine are committing the logical ‘fallacy of chronological snobbery which wrongly argues that truth can be determined by time’ (Geisler 2005:631). His point was that time has no connection with truth as something can be new and true just as it is possible to have something that can be old and false.

He claimed that with the discovery of Ephraem of Syria’s teaching (from ca. AD 306-373), it can be established that pretribulationism was taught in the early church. Earlier in this volume, Geisler established that premillennialism was taught in the early church shortly after the time of the apostles. His view is that the imminence of Christ’s return was emphasised from the start of the church, that ‘pretribulationism is based on a realistic concept of imminence’, and that ‘there is ample New Testament evidence to support pretribulationism’ (Geisler 2005:632).

Geisler covers such material in the 17th chapter of this volume, ‘The Tribulation and the Rapture’ (Geisler 2005:597-661).

Therefore, I cannot be adamant that the pre-tribulation rapture was not taught in the early church. However, I have not been convinced to this point in time, but I have not pursued all of Geisler’s material.

For further details to challenge the pre-tribulation rapture teaching, see my articles,

References

Geisler N 2005. Systematic Theology, vol 4. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.

Ladd, G E 1956. The Blessed Hope. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Latourette, K S 1975. A History of Christianity: AD 1500 – 1975, vol 2, rev ed. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

MacPherson, D 1975. The Incredible Cover-Up. Medford, Oregon: Omega Publications.

MacPherson, D 1983. The Great Rapture Hoax Fletcher N. C.: New Puritan Library.

Notes

[1] Christian Forums, Baptists, ‘Rapture false doctrine’, JM #24. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7716090-3/ (Accessed 1 February 2013).

[2] Ibid., JM #26.

[3] Ibid., DeaconDean #28.

[4] Ibid., OzSpen #43.

[5] Ibid., OzSpen #74.

Amazing contemporary opposition to women in public ministry

Elizabeth Hooton Warren, 1600-1672 (public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

When traditional evangelicals, who are against women preachers/pastors, speak out, they can make statements like this:

“Andronicus and Junia were probably not called apostles in Romans 16:7. This is the only verse where these “two men” are mentioned. They are said to be Paul’s kinsmen and fellowprisoners and were “of note among the apostles.” Does this mean, as some say, that they were noteworthy apostles? Someone could be “of note” among the apostles without being an apostle. It could mean that the apostles had noted them as significant servants of the Lord. Also, if they were apostles of note, they were some of the more important apostles. But this is the only verse of the Bible where these two men are ever mentioned. Certainly, they are not being called apostles here.”[1]

How do we respond to the claim that Junia was not a female but that Andronicus and Junia were males? This is how I replied to this post:[2]

1. A prominent Greek lexicon

That is not how the eminent Greek lexicon of Arndt & Gingrich sees it. While it is given a masculine definite article, ho, their assessment of the Greek material is:

Junias (not found elsewhere, probably short form of the common Junianus); a Jewish convert to Christianity who was imprisoned with Paul Ro 16:7. The possibility, from a purely lexical point of view, that this is a woman’s name, Junia; ancient commentators took Andronicus and Junia as a married couple, is probably ruled out by the context (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:381).

So to be so adamant that you put in bold and underline that Andronicus and Junia are ‘two men‘ is hardly in keeping with the Greek lexical possibilities.

The late Greek exegete and commentator, Australian Leon Morris, has a different take to you. I remember hearing Leon Morris speak when he would pick up his Greek NT and exegete and expound the Scriptures as he spoke from the Greek text alone. I recommend a read of his commentary on Romans 16:7 (Morris 1988:533-534). His conclusions are:

Junias: The patristic commentators seem to have taken the word as feminine, Junia, and understood Andronicus and Junia as husband and wife.
They were Paul’s kinsfolk, probably fellow Jews.
They were fellow prisoners of him, in jail together or they shared the same fate as he.
‘Outstanding among the apostles’ might mean that the apostles held them in high esteem or that they were apostles, and notable apostles at that. The latter understanding does more justice to the Greek construction.
This couple seemed to have belonged to the wider apostolic circle (the circle of apostles was wider than the 12 according to the NT).
As for a woman being an apostle, Morris wrote: ‘We should bear in mind Chrysostom’s comment: “Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!”’

2. A prominent church father

A leading Greek exegete and commentator does not agree with the view that Andronicus and Junia were ‘two men’.

John Chrysostom, Courtesy Wikipedia

The fuller quote from John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, (with the link to his writings) is:

“And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst those of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!” (Chrysostom, Homily on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans XXXI).

Chrysostom’s dates were ca. AD 347-407 (Cairns 1981:141). So by the 4th century his understanding was that Junia was a female apostle, and a noteworthy one at that. Could it be that Chrysostom got it correct and some have got it wrong since then? Could it be that the opposition to women in public ministry is unwarranted? Could gifted women have been closed down by the male chauvinism in the ministry? I write as a male and I’ve read a lot against women in ministry by males. I am not of that view.

3. A minimised view of the ministry of an apostle and a response

Douglas Moo PhD, Wheaton College

Contemporary Greek exegete and commentator, Donald Moo, downplays the role of an apostle outside of the original 12 apostles of Jesus. He wrote in his commentary on Romans:

The identity of Andronicus’s “partner” is a matter of considerable debate. The problem arises from the fact that the Greek form used here Iounian, depending on how it is accented, could refer either (1) to a man with the name Junianus, found here in its contracted form, “Junias” (cf. NIV; RSV; NASB; TEV; NJB); or (2) to a woman with the name of Junia (KJV; NRSV; REB). Interpreters from the thirteenth to the middle of the twentieth century generally favored the masculine identification. But it appears that commentators before the thirteenth century were unanimous in favor of the feminine identification; and scholars have recently again inclined decisively to this same view. And probably with good reason. For while a contracted form of Junianus would fit quite well in this list of greetings (for Paul uses several other such contractions), we have no evidence elsewhere for this contracted form of the name. On the other hand, the Latin “Junia” was a very common name. Probably, then, “Junia” was the wife of Andronicus (note the other husband and wife pairs in this list, Prisca and Aquila [v. 3] and [probably], philologus and Julia [v. 15])….

In two relative clauses Paul draws the attention of the Roman Christians to the stature of this husband and wife ministry team. The first description might mean that Andronicus and Junia were “esteemed by the apostles.” But it is more natural to translate “esteemed among the apostles.” And it is because Paul calls Junia(s) an “apostle” that earlier interpreters tended to argue that Paul must be referring to a man; for they had difficulty imagining that a woman could hold such authority in the early church….

But many scholars on both sides of this issue are guilty of accepting too readily a key supposition in this line of reasoning: that “apostle” here refers to an authoritative leadership position such as that by the “Twelve” and by Paul. In fact, Paul often uses the title “apostle” in a “looser” sense: sometimes simply to denote a “messenger” or “emissary” and sometimes to denote “a commissioned missionary.” When Paul uses the word in the former sense, he makes clear the source and purpose of the “emissary’s” commission. So “apostle” here probably means “traveling missionary” (Moo 1996: 923-924).

Has Douglas Moo overlooked something significant in the hierarchical order of the ministry of apostles after the 12 apostles of Jesus? See 1 Corinthians 12:27-31 (ESV),

²⁷Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. ²⁸And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. ²⁹Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? ³⁰Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? ³¹Butearnestly desire the higher gifts.

And I will show you a still more excellent way.

Gordan-fee

Gordon Fee PhD

Professor Emeritus, Regent College

Greek exegete, Gordon Fee, disagrees with Douglas Moo’s perspective and explains that Paul

illustrates that diversity [of ministry gifts] by means of another considerable list (cf. vv 8-10), which has several remarkable features: (1) He begins with a list of persons (apostles, prophets, teachers), whom he ranks in the order of first, second, third. (2) With the fourth and fifth items (lit. “miracles” and “gifts of healings”) he reverts to charismata, taking two from the list in vv. 8-10. These are both prefaced by the word “then,” as though he intended the ranking scheme to continue. (3) The sixth and seventh items (lit. “Helps” and “guidances”), which are deeds of service, are noteworthy in three ways: (a) they are the only two not mentioned again in the rhetoric of vv. 29-30; (b) they are not mentioned again in the NT; © they do not appear to be of the same kind, that is, supernatural endowments, as those on wither side (miracles, healings, tongues)….

That leads to the further question, Does Paul intend that all of these be “ranked” as to their role or significance in the church? To which the answer seems to be No. He certainly intends the first three to be ranked. One might argue also for the rest on the basis of the “then … then” that prefaces the next two. But that seems unlikely…. The gift of tongues … is not listed last because it is least but because it is the problem. As before, Paul includes it because it is a part of the necessary diversity; but he includes it at the end so that the emphasis on diversity will be heard first.

Why, then, does Paul rank the first three? That is more difficult to answer; but it is almost certainly related to his own conviction as to the role these three ministries play in the church. It is not so much that one is more important than the other, nor that this is necessarily their order of authority, but that one has precedence over the o0ther in the founding and building up of the local assembly….

(1) First, apostles…. It is no surprise that Paul should list “apostles” first. the surprise is that they should be on this list at all, and that he should list them in the plural…. For Paul this is both a “functional” and “positional/official” term. In keeping with the other members on this list, it is primarily “functional” here, probably anticipating the concern for the “building up” of the body that he has already hinted at in v. 7 and will stress in chap. 14. Most likely with this word he is reflecting on his own ministry in this church; the plural is in deference to others who have had the same ministry in other churches (Fee 1987:618-620).

Thus, Gordon Fee understands the role of an apostle to be the ministry gift for the founding of churches. Surely such a role is necessary and continues today! And Paul to the Romans (16:7) affirms that that can be the role of a female apostle.

Conclusion

An eminent church father of the fourth century, John Chrysostom, does not agree that Junia was a male. He not only supported the view that she was a female apostle, but also was a noteworthy apostle. He is closer to the time of the apostles than those of us in the 21st century. Did he know more about this issue of supporting women in public ministry than contemporary church folks?

The role of an apostle is hierarchically fist in order (not of authority) in the founding of local churches. This role continues in the 21st century.

See my further articles on women in ministry:

References

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

Cairns, E E 1981. Christianity through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church, rev & enl edn. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Fee, G D 1987. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Moo, D J 1996. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Morris, L 1988. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company / Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

Notes

[1] Christian Forums, Baptists, ‘Women preachers’, DeaconDean #145. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7707393-15/#post62296957 (Accessed 31 January 2013). I have been interacting on this site as OzSpen.

[2] Ibid., OzSpen #148.

Open Clipart Library