This photo was taken on Christmas Day 2017. Spencer with 6 grandchildren. Joseph & Daniel on left are sons of Paul & Angela. I’m in the centre at the back. In front of me is Mackenzie (daughter of Wendy & Glen). She has her hands around Eloise (daughter of Jeff & Amy). On the right is Zeke (Ezekiel) who is holding my youngest grand-daughter, Jemima.
This is a photograph taken of me on Saturday, 19 August 2017, at Qld Radio 4MB’s 85th anniversary reunion of staff and relatives in Maryborough, Qld. This was the station where I started my radio career as a DJ in 1966.
This is a photograph of our house in Bundaberg, Qld in about 2005-2006.
I couldn’t accurately guess my age with this photo to the left. I suspect I was about 50.
This is a younger Spencer
Spencer mowing the lawn around the Bundaberg house with Zeke (grandson, to Wendy & Glen) on his knee. Zeke was born in 2000 (I think). This was when he was aged about 3-4 years.
These are the children of Roy Edward & Enid Joy (nee Bubb) Gear: from left to right, Spencer, Trevor & Lorraine (Johannesen), taken about 2004.
My friend Alan phoned me as he was watching the news on TV and saw the promotion for the upcoming story on Channel 9 news, Brisbane Qld. This dealt with the supposed link between diet drinks, stroke and dementia. I turned onto Channel 9 and waited for the item to come on. That item ended by stating that further research was needed.
That was also the information provided in an article in The Sun (UK). The emphasis was repeated that more research was needed. ‘But after accounting for all lifestyle factors, the researchers found the link to dementia was statistically insignificant’ in this British report (McDermott 2017).
The lead researcher of this study, Matthew Pase, said, āItās important to note that the absolute risk for any one person who drinks diet pop is low. Of the 2,888 participants the study followed, there were only 97 cases of stroke and 81 cases of dementiaā. The study warned: āThat will need to be explored further in other studiesā¦. We need more studies to confirm whether the association is true and causal or whether the association is caused by something elseā (CTVNews.ca Staff 2017).
Whatās the truth in The Sun (UKās) headline?
Coca killer āJust ONE Diet Coke or Pepsi Max a day can āTRIPLE the risk of a deadly strokeā and dementia, researchers claimā[1]
This Australian news item stated:
Drinking at least one artificially sweetened drink every day has been associated with a three times greater risk of having a stroke or developing dementia, according to a US study.
The researchers of the Boston University study, published in medical journal Stroke, caution that the findings only show an association, but say there is a need for further investigation (The Australian, 22 April 2017).[2]
Do you remember a few years ago there was a lot of commotion about the supposed link between aspartame (artificial sweetener) and cancer? After further research, the American Cancer Society reported:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the use of aspartame and other artificial sweeteners in the United States. In 2007, the FDA stated:
Considering results from the large number of studies on aspartame’s safety, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies, a recently reported large epidemiology study with negative associations between the use of aspartame and the occurrence of tumors, and negative findings from a series of three transgenic mouse assays, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food (U.S. Food & Drug Administration 2007).
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assesses the safety of sweeteners such as aspartame in the European Union. According to a 2009 report from its Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food:
Overall, the Panel concluded, on the basis of all the evidence currently available ā¦ that there is no indication of any genotoxic or carcinogenic potential of aspartame and that there is no reason to revise the previously established ADI for aspartame of 40 mg/kg [body weight].
Though research into a possible link between aspartame and cancer continues, these agencies agree that studies done so far have not found such a link (American Cancer Society, Aspartame).
I consider it is way too early to claim a link between diet drinks, strokes and dementia. There is much more of a possibility that I will get dementia from the deep anaesthesia I have been through in my 5 heart surgeries triggering a predisposition to dementia:
āWe donāt think that anesthesia and surgery actually cause Alzheimerās or cause dementia,ā he adds. āWe think that it interacts with individual vulnerabilities where if youāre already predisposed to getting something like this, this speeds it up.ā Scientists are working on ways to identify populations that might be more susceptible to dementia via biomarkers and other tests, and eventually hope to use that information to make surgery safer for them (Scientific American, October 23, 2014).
If the research was certain of the link between aspartame, stroke and dementia, I’d be off diet Coke and Pepsi Max immediately. At this point, it’s more suitable for mass media hype to get our attention – as with Aspartame years ago. Thatās how I see it and I drink about 3-4 cans per week.
Country music legend, Loretta Lynn (pictured here at left on her 1965 album, Blue Kentucky Girl. At age 85 in 2017, she suffered a stroke (but is expected to make a full recovery). The second photograph is Loretta performing at age 82.
[2] When I originally accessed this article online, it was available for open access, but on 29 November 2017 it is available only to subscribers of The Australian.
Did Mary, the mother of Jesus, remain a virgin all of her life?[1] Thatās the meaning of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary as promoted by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches today, some early church fathers, and some Protestants in the early Reformation period.
A Roman Catholic explanation is:
When Catholics call Mary the “Blessed Virgin,” they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants refer to Mary as “virgin,” they mean she was a virgin only until Jesusā birth. They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as “the brethren of the Lord.” The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms “brethren,” “brother,” and “sister.”
There are about ten instances in the New Testament where “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31ā34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19ā20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).[2]
Here is how some Roman Catholics argue:
1. Roman Catholic support for The Protoevangelium of James
A person online wrote:
Are we to ignore The Protoevangelium of James written in 150 AD? I know you will because it doesn’t fit your theory 1900 years later. The Origin of Alexandria’s commentary on Matthew 10:17 written in 249 AD? He is wrong because______________????? I could go on and on throughout history and quote some of the greatest Christian theologians/teachers of the Christian Church to rebut your theory but you have decided you are right and everyone else is wrong.
So, once again, what makes your interpretation right(?) and the historical writings and interpretations of The Protoevangelium of James, Origin of Alexandria, Wycliffe and Calvin (who you love to quote on your website when they agree with your personal doctrine) wrong??[3]
The Protoevangelium of James (The Infancy Gospel of James) is a fake that is in the Pseudepigrapha/Apocrypha. It is a false document attributed to Jesus’ brother, James. Early writers used this tactic to try to gain credibility for what they wrote. And Tom used it to support his unbiblical view of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Tom has created a straw man argument of my view. I do not support the use of a false document to augment the case for Maryās perpetual virginity.
2. Some of the early reformers supported perpetual virginity of Mary
Surely itās a killer blow for the Protestant rejection of the perpetual virginity of Mary for a RC person to isolate the Reformers and their support of the perpetual virginity. This is how one of them did it:
The Reformers on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:[4]
Martin Luther
It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)
John Calvin
(On the Heretic Helvidius) Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christās ābrothersā are sometimes mentioned. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvinās Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called āfirst-bornā; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)
Under the word ābrethrenāthe Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3])
John Wesley
āI believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virginā (āLetter to a Roman Catholicā, The Works of Rev. John Wesley, vol 10, p. 81).
3. Was it plagiarised information about the Protestant details?
I asked:[5] Did you obtain your information here from https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm? You seem to have done that. Why don’t you acknowledge your sources?Ā If you have not read these actual documents to get these quotes and have obtained them from another source you have not acknowledged, then you have plagiarised from that source. If you obtained your citations from this website, it is a global RC television network. It comes with a decided agenda to promote RC theology.
See the article on ‘Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary’ and the assessment of statements by Luther, Martin. The article begins: ‘Luther’s opinions on Our Lady are not wholly consistent, not altogether free from tension. They are abundant and it would be possible to select a series of extracts that would make him look like a Catholic’.
Of course you can find statements from Luther that would make him look like a RCC adherent. After all, that was the system he had left and his theology was in transition. There will be examples of contradiction in this process at various stages of his movement away from the RCC. I know that when I moved from being a cessationist to being a supporter of the charismatic gifts, there were (and could still be) contradictions in my statements. That’s called growth and change.
Pulling out some pro-RCC statements from Luther is a questionable tactic when he was a man in process of transitioning from one theological system to another.
As for John Calvin and John Wycliffe, they should have known better because of the biblical evidence that contradicts their positions. Scripture states that Jesus had siblings. Matt 13:55-56 (NLT) states, ‘Then they scoffed, āHeās just the carpenterās son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothersāJames, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. Ā All his sisters live right here among us. Where did he learn all these things?ā’
The perpetual virginity of Mary is a misnomer perpetrated by the RCC.
She was a privileged lady but not in such a prominent position that causes schools in my electorate to be named in this kind of way to exalt her: Our Lady of the Way Catholic Primary School, Petrie, Qld, Australia.
The exalted Mary, mother of Jesus, cannot show the way to eternal life. That’s for Jesus alone (John 3:16 NLT; Acts 4:11 NLT). The Scriptures describe Mary: āGabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!”ā (Luke 1:28 NLT)
4. Logical fallacies and promotion of perpetual virginity
Gotquestions.org is a website run by Protestant,Ā evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational people. Of course they are going to be anti-Catholic. It comes with a decided agenda to refute RC theology!!
Why aren’t Protestant beliefs or your beliefs that you promote on your website contrary to biblical Christianity that have been exposed over and over?
Here Tom55 has committed a genetic logical fallacy.[8] His genetic fallacy, a fallacy of reasoning, is based on what Tom sees as a defect in the origin of a claim, i.e. GotQuestions.org is a Protestant, evangelical, fundamental, non-denominational website. What he did in perpetrating this fallacy is:
The origin of a claim about the perpetual virginity of Mary is from a Protestant, evangelical source;
The claim is wrong because of that source.
This sort of reasoning is erroneous because blaming the source does not deal with the evidence for the issue. In the link I gave above it gave the example of, ‘Bill claims that 1+1=2. However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill must be wrong’.
Of course there are examples where the origin of a claim is more relevant to its being true or false when, for example, a reliable expert in a field is more likely to be correct than a person with little expertise. I have had 5 open heart (valve replacement) surgeries. I would trust my cardiac surgeon’s knowledge on the need for a valve replacement than the knowledge of a lay person because of his expertise in these matters.
However, to claim that denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary is wrong because it comes from a Protestant, evangelical site, avoids the issue of the evidence. Tom committed a genetic logical fallacy. We cannot have a rational conversation when Tom does this.
Example 2
It was stated, āPS – when a poster starts complaining about the formatting style of his opponent, it usually means that his argument has run OUT of steamā.[9]
My response was: [10] When I complain about your shouting on an internet forum, it has zero to do with conceding defeat but bringing to your attention the need for etiquette when we speak to one another online. This was a red herring logical fallacy that did not deal with the fact that he was using capital letters, bold and enlarged font. He would not agree that he was wrong with his etiquette on a forum.
Example 3
Can you show me onesingle verse of Scripture that states that Scripture is our final authority??
I can show you verses that make this claim about the Church – but not about Scripture . . .
Matt 16:18-19 – Jesus told Peter that WHATEVER he ordained on earth would also be ordained in Heaven.
Matt. 18:15-18 – Jesus told Apostles that WHATEVER he ordained on earth would also be ordained in Heaven.
2 Thess 2:15 – Paul tells his readers to stand firm in the TRADITIONS they taught – WHETHER by oral statement OR by letter.
Luke 10:16 – Jesus tells hid disciples that whoever listens to THEM or rejects THEM – listens to HIM or rejects HIM and the ONE who sent Him.
Eph. 1:22-23 – Paul refers to the Church the FULLNESS of Christ.
Scripture is the written Word of God and is Authoritative – but NOWHERE does it claim to be our SOLE Authority.[11]
Notice what he continues to do! He screams at me with capitals, bold font and underlining.
Now to his rejection of the sole biblical authority.
Are you so blind[12] that you cannot see that ‘all Scripture’ that comes with the authority of being breathed out by the perfect Lord God who has absolute, sovereign authority of the universe has less authority than the early church fathers and popes?
I have argued that the notion of the āauthority of scriptureā is a shorthand expression for Godās authority, exercised somehow through scripture; that scripture must be allowed to be itself in exercising its authority, and not be turned into something else which might fit better into what the church, or the world, might have thought its āauthorityā should look like; that it is therefore the meaning of āauthorityā itself, not that of scripture, that is the unknown in the equation, and that when this unknown is discovered it challenges head on the various notions and practices of authority endemic in the world and, alas, in the church also.
Seems to me that your push for the authority of the church violates God’s authority that is exercised through Scripture.
Tom55 wrote on the forum: āOnce again. You love to quote the Church Fathers on your website when they agree with you but avoid them when they prove you wrong…. How dishonest and sadā.[14]
I couldnāt let him get away with that one:[15] You have responded with a straw man fallacy. It is erroneous reasoning that falsely presents my view!
I use the church fathers when they agree with the Bible. When they invent something opposed to the Bible, as with the Evangelium of James (pseudepigrapha – fake stuff), I expose it. That’s what any sound exegete of Scripture should do. Seems as though you don’t want to venture into that realm of where the church fathers promote doctrines contrary to Scripture, but you reject the church fathers’ views in favour of the RCC’s positionā¦. I have a brain that I use in reasoning. You are misrepresenting me with your erroneous reasoning.
It is understood[16] that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary originated with TheProtoevangelium of James (dated about AD 150)which also is known as The Infancy Gospel of James. What is the nature of this writing? Is it from the pen of James?
Gregory Elderās assessment of this document is:
It was almost certainly not written by the James, the ābrotherā or ākinsmanā of Jesus mentioned in the Bible. The earliest reference to the book appears in a third-century document and it was probably written in the middle of the second century A.D.
No Christian church today regards it as scriptural, and it is agreed to be apocryphal. That said, it is relatively early as Christian documents go, and it has some very interesting stuff in it.
The relatively short document is written in Greek, and it apparently was quite interesting to the early church communities, as more than 130 copies of it have survived, suggesting a wide readership for a day when handwriting was the only way to disseminate texts (Professing Faith: The Protoevangelium is noncanonical but influenced Christian beliefs 2014).
Gabriel is called an archangel (Chapter 9:22), which was a common designation for Gabriel in apocryphal literature written after the first century. (For example, see Revelation of Paul, The Book of John Concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary, and The Apocalypse of the Holy Mother of God.)
The Bible never identifies Gabriel as an archangel, but Michael is described as an archangel in Jude 1:9. The idea of Gabriel as an archangel seems to be a misconception that began in the second century.
2
Maryās response to the angel is different than what is recorded in Scripture. āWhat! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?ā (Chapter 9:12).
Luke 1:34 states, āThen Mary said to the angel, āHow can this be, since I do not know a man?āā
3
Elizabeth fled the Bethlehem region with her son John (the Baptist) to the mountains because of Herodās wrath when he decided to kill all the baby boys around and in Bethlehem (Chapter 16:3).
Concerning John the Baptist, Luke 1:80 states, āSo the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel.ā It was Joseph, Mary, and Jesus who fled from Bethlehem because of Herod (Matthew 2:13ā15).
4
Jesus was born in a cave outside the city of Bethlehem (Chapters 12:11ā14:31).
Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the town of David, according to Luke 2:4, 11 and Matthew 2:1.
5
The angel of the Lord, when speaking to Joseph in a dream, said to take Mary but does not mention having her as a wife. The priest chastised Joseph and accused him for taking Mary as a wife secretly by the priest. Joseph takes her home but is reluctant to call her his wife when they go to Bethlehem (Chapters 10:17ā18, 11:14, 12:2ā3).
Matthew 1:19 reveals that Joseph was already Maryās husband (they were betrothed) before the angel visited him in a dream. Matthew 1:24 points out that after the angel visited Joseph, he kept her as his wife.
6
Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling cloths and hid him in a manger at the inn to keep him from the massacre by Herodās men (Chapter 16:2).
Mary and Joseph were warned of Herodās plot by an angel, and they fled to Egypt (Matthew 2:13ā14).
7
Wise men came to Bethlehem and inquired of Herod where the Child was born (Chapter 21:1ā2).
Wise men came to Jerusalemto inquire where the child king was (Matthew 2:1).
This comparison should lay to rest any support of the pseudo āInfancy Gospelā of James as a genuine document to be followed in its support of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
The Protoevangelium of James (The Infancy Gospel of James) is a fake that is in the Pseudepigrapha. It is a false document attributed to Jesus’ brother, James. And this RC promoter dares to use it to support his unbiblical view of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
6. Evidence for Jesusā brothers and sisters
Matthew 13:55-56 (ESV) states,[17] ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?ā
Here is the scriptural support for the other children, brothers and sisters, of Jesus. The brothers (adelphoi) are named as James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, but the sisters (adelphe) are not named. The origin of his brothers (whether by Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth; step brothers of Jesus, etc), in my view, has not been determined in any definitive way.
Some commentators consider them to be sons and daughters to Joseph and Mary, born later than Jesus’ birth. Others think of these brothers and sisters as from a previous marriage by Joseph. We know from a verse such as Mark 6:3 (ESV) that Jesus is called ‘the son of Mary’, but this verse again states that Jesus is the ‘brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon’.
Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe summarised the biblical evidence in a more than adequate way when they examined MATTHEW 13:55-56. Was Mary a perpetual virgin, or did she have other children after Jesusā virgin birth?
PROBLEM: Roman Catholicism teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin, that is, that she never had sexual intercourse, even after Jesus was virgin born. Is it true that when the Bible refers to Jesusā ābrothers and sistersā (Matt. 13:56) it means cousins or close relatives?
SOLUTION: It is true that the words for brother and sister can mean close relative. This must be determined by the context and from other Scriptures. And in the case of Jesusā brothers and sisters, the context indicates they were his real half brothers and sisters.
First, nowhere does the Bible affirm the doctrine of Maryās perpetual virginity. Like the Roman Catholic doctrine of Maryās sinlessness (see comments on Luke 1:46), there is no statement anywhere in the Bible that supports this teaching.
Second, when ābrothers and sistersā are used in connection with father or mother, then it does not mean cousins, but actual blood brothers and sisters (cf. Luke 14:26). Such is the case with Jesusā brothers and sisters. Matthew 13:55 says, āIs not this the carpenterās son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?ā (cf. Mark 6:3)
Third, there are other references in the Bible to Jesusā ābrothers.ā John informs us that āeven His brothers did not believe in Himā (John 7:5). And Paul speaks of āJames, the Lordās brotherā (Gal. 1:19). On another occasion Mark refers to āHis [Jesusā] brothers and His motherā (Mark 3:31). John spoke of āHis mother, His brothers, and His disciplesā (John 2:12). Luke mentions āMary the mother of Jesus, with His brothersā being in the Upper Room (Acts 1:14) [Geisler & Howe 1992:346].
I find nothing in Scripture to confirm the perpetual virginity of Mary.
When examining this issue, we need to deal with biblical evidence and not tradition, whether RC or Protestant.
7. Roman Catholic and other commentaries affirming perpetual virginity
One RC person online wrote:
Mary’s perpetual virginity bears witness to the uniqueness and Christ and to the divinity of Christ.
Denying the perpetual virginity of Mary subtly denies the divinity of Christ in the womb.[18]
There is not a word in Scripture that supports such a view. Itās a doctrine invented and perpetrated by the RCC. Even Roman Catholic priest, Fr Angelo Mary Geiger, associates the perpetual virginity of Mary with Jesusā divinity in this statement:
The essential truth of the Virgin Birth, as taught continually by the Fathers and defined by the Church, does not concern the presence or absence of pain during Jesusā birth. The central truth of the Virgin Birth is that Christ was born of Mary miraculously, as a sign and confirmation of His divinity (Geiger 2007).
Johannes Quasten wrote: āThe principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christā (Patrology 1:120ā121, cited in āMary: Ever Virginā, Catholic Answers 1996-2017).[19]
St Augustine wrote of Mary: āA Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?ā (Sermon 186.1).[20]
from a modern perspective this doctrine [of Maryās perpetual virginity] may to many seem fantastic. Without the theology it may seem unnecessary, with an anachronistic perspective it may seem misogynist, with a scientific perspective it might seem impossible. Yet with the information handed down to us from the early Church, we have to ask ourselves why would they make it up? If it wasn’t true, isn’t it just too complicated to make up? And for what purpose? Would it really bother anyone if it wasn’t the case? Logically, it seems that once one can accept the possibility of the virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth and the necessity of that fact for the reality of the Incarnation, the historical evidence to support the claim is more than adequate (Lambert 2012).
The idea that because early church fathers affirmed Maryās perpetual virginity, this means that it is true, commits the appeal to tradition logical fallacy.
8. Assessment by a few Protestant commentators
How do these Protestant commentators conclude with the evidence for Jesusā brothers and sisters? Are they siblings, half-brothers and sisters, cousins, or in some other relation to Mary and Jesus?
8.1Ā Ā William Hendriksen
He wrote of Matt 1:24-25 about āthe case against Maryās perpetual virginity ā and stated that
a. According to both the Old and the New Testament sexual intercourse for married couples is divinely approved (Gen. 1:28; 9:1; 24:60; Prov. 5:18; Ps. 127:3; 1 Cor. 7:5, 9). Of course, even there, as in all things, self-control should be exercised. Incontinence is definitely condemned (1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 5:22, 23). But no special sanctity attaches to total abstention or celibacy. b. We are definitely told that Jesus had brothers and sisters, evidently together with him members of one family (Matt. 12:46, 47; Mark 3:31, 32; 6:3; Luke 8:19, 20; John 2:12; 7:2, 5, 10; Acts 1:14). c. Luke 2:7 informs us that Jesus was Maryās āfirstbornā (Hendriksen 1973:144).
Taken together, these three arguments provide āthe evidence [that] becomes conclusive. The burden of proof rests entirely on those who deny that after Christās birth Joseph and Mary entered into all the relationships commonly associated with marriageā (Hendriksen 1973:145).
An RC response by Fr. Geiger is:
The virginity of Our Lady after the birth of Jesus concerns the fact that Mary never had marital relations with St. Joseph and therefore, of course, conceived no other children. Her whole life was that of consecrated virginity. Most Protestants do not hold this position. They argue that the brethren of the Lord referred to in the Gospel are the other children of Mary. The short answer to this problem is that the brethren in these passages refer to relatives such as cousins, and not siblings born from the same mother (Geiger 2007).
8.2Ā Ā R C H Lenski
In his commentary on Matthew 12:46, he wrote:
Who āhis brothersā are, in the writerās opinion has not been determined. Modern commentators answer: the sons of Joseph and Mary who were born later than Jesus. But here and elsewhere they act as though they were older than he. Others think of sons of Joseph by a former marriage. In Mark 6:3 Jesus is called āthe son of Maryā in a marked way (compare John 19:26) and is kept distinct from the brothers and the sisters. In Acts 1:14 Luke writes: āMary, the mother of Jesus and his brothersā ā not āher sons.ā Still others, for instance, the Latin Church since Jerome and older Protestant theologians and some interpreters of our day, think of the sons of Clopas, a brother or a brother-in-law of Joseph. Thus these brothers would be first cousins of Jesus (Lenski 1943/1961:502).
8.3Ā Ā D A Carson
Commenting on Matthew 12:46-47, he wrote:
The most natural way to understand ābrothersā (v. 46) is that the term refers to sons of Mary and Joseph and thus to brothers of Jesus on his motherās side. To support the dogma of Maryās perpetual virginity, a notion foreign to the NT and to the earliest church fathers. Roman Catholic scholars have suggested that ābrothersā refers either to Josephās sons by an earlier marriage or to sons of Maryās sister, who had the same nameā¦. Certainly ābrothersā can have a wider meaning than male relatives (Acts 22;1). Yet it is very doubtful whether such a meaning is valid here for it raises insuperable problems. For instance, if ābrothersā refers to Josephās sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Josephās firstborn would have been legal heir to Davidās throne. The second theory ā that ābrothersā refers to sons of a sister of Mary also named āMaryā ā faces the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same name. All things considered, the attempts to extend the meaning of ābrothersā in this pericope, despite McHughās best efforts, are nothing less than farfetched exegesis in support of a dogma that originated much later than the NT (Carson 1984:299).
While Lenski doesnāt know who the brothers and sisters of Jesus have as parents, Hendriksen and Carson acknowledge them as children of the one family of Joseph and Mary.
None of these commentators supports the perpetual virginity of Mary. The RC opposition would say: Of course you would expect that. They are Protestants who do not respect the tradition of the universal church from the time of Jesus. My response is: Each of these commentators and Geisler and Howe examine the exegetical evidence in Scripture to arrive at their decisions. If the evidence led to perpetual virginity, they would, in all honesty, accept such a view. However, Hendriksenās statement reaches a profound conclusion that is substantiated by the evidence:
āThe evidence becomes conclusive. The burden of proof rests entirely on those who deny that after Christās birth Joseph and Mary entered into all the relationships commonly associated with marriageā (Hendriksen 1973:145).
The RCC has not demonstrated that Joseph and Mary did not enter into the marriage relationship and have children after the birth of Jesus.
Maryās virginity at the time of Jesusā conception assures us that Jesus was not infected by sin and is uniquely Godās Son. However, it is not related to Maryās perpetual virginity.
It is a straw man fallacy that the denial of Maryās perpetual virginity denies Christās divinity in the womb. Christās divinity is guaranteed by the divine manifestation and confirmation by God himself that Jesus is the unique Son and Messiah. This happened at Jesusā baptism: āNow when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, āYou are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleasedāā (Luke 3:21-22 ESV).
This is God from heaven proclaiming Jesus as his Son and with Jesus, God is āwell pleasedā. Do you remember who declared Jesusā divinity? It was not linked to Maryās perpetual virginity.
According to Luke 3:21-22, it is God, out of heaven proclaiming Jesus as His Son, the Son of the Most High God, as Gabriel had said He was, Immanuel, God with us.Ā And the Father is also proclaiming His perfection saying He is well pleased with everything about Him.
Concerning the birth of Jesus, Matthew 1:22-23 (ESV) states,
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
āBehold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuelā
(which means, God with us).
This is a quotation from the prophet Isaiah 7:14 and is fulfilled in Jesusā virgin birth where he was called Immanuel, which means, āGod is with usā. Thus, Jesusā divinity is not related to any perpetual virginity of Mary but to a declaration by God Himself and biblical teaching that Jesus is eternally the Son.
See my articles in defence of the virgin conception and birth:
I commend to you the excellent summary of the biblical material in context that does not support Maryās perpetual virginity, āDid Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)?ā [Compelling Truth]
10. Works consulted
Carson, D A 1984. Matthew, in The Expositorās Bible Commentary, vol 8, 3-500. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library (Zondervan Publishing House).
Lenski, R C H 1943/1961. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St. Matthewās Gospel. Minneapolis MN: The Wartburg Press/Augsburg Publishing House (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. edn.).
Do Christians sin after they become believers in Christ? Of course they do! They commit some sinful actions. However, occasionally I meet a person ā generally online – who uses the KJV to try to prove that Christians donāt sin.
I met another one of these and I tried to respond biblically to him/her.[1]
a. Christ made us sinless?
Letās try somebody else on another Christian forum. He made the comment: āall theology is flawedā,[2] to which I responded, āThat’s because you and I are flawed, imperfect, ineffective and sinfulā.[3] His comeback was to cite 1 John 3:9 in the KJV and added:
We are joint heirs in the body of Christ by his Blood.
God cannot look upon sin ,therefore we through Christ have been redeemed from the flawed sin nature into the perfection of the body of Christ.
All men have sinned, but Christ has made us sinless by his Blood.[4]
This is false theology that āChrist has made us sinless by his Bloodā, so I responded: āChrist has not made us sinless by his blood sacrifice. This sacrifice means I am justified by faith – declared righteous. It’s a legal position before Godā.[5] Then I proceeded to provide the following exegesis for him.
1 John 3:9 in the King James Version of the Bible states: āWhosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of Godā.
Some have interpreted this to mean that Christians do not sin. I was responding to this statement:
I believe the issue is now, a matter of the fear that if/when we do presently sin, then how can we claim to have Christ? Or to rephrase, the problem is how is it that we could sin if Christ is in us? Wouldn’t we then never sin? If so, then none of us would need confess our sins and be cleansed. 1 John 1:9. James 5:16.[6]
b. Christians donāt sin continuously
The translators of the NIV have tried to convey the meaning of the Greek tenses in this verse, 1 John 3:9 (NIV): ‘No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because Godās seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God’.
We are talking about those who are born again (favourite language of John), those who are ‘born of God’. We are talking about Christians who have been changed from the inside by God.
These Christians will not continue to sin as a lifestyle. They cannot go on sinning in that way. The Greek present tense verb indicates continuous action, so the NIV presents a goodĀ translation. The thought in this verse is NOT that Christians will never commit acts of sin. It is not saying that born again believers will not sin but that they will not persist in sin.
So, the born again believer cannot live in habitual sin.
BUT, there is the possibility of committing occasional acts of sin – as I can testify in my own life. If we commit those acts of sin, 1 John 1:9 (NIV) tells us what we are to do: ‘If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness’.
That’s my understanding of 1 John 3:9 and the Greek verb used. Also, it makes practical sense. We know from the preceding verse, 1 John 3:8 (ESV) that ‘whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil’. In other words, they have not been born of God.
Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil (1 John 3:8).
A doubter about the existence of God and other things religious wrote that part of his problem was that he had …
a passing academic interest in religion, so pulling things out of that context causes a bit of cognitive dissonance. Theologically I’m very liberal–I know it’s a slippery slope, but it is what it is. I see cultural context everywhere, I don’t trust the Gospels’ historicity, I read John as mysticism, the less said about Paul the better, and I’m aware of how diverse early Christianity was. I won’t claim that the version that survived wasn’t the true one, but I definitely see other factors at play in its success. One of those actually may have been divine intervention–it’s intriguing that there are visions associated with both of the people who transformed it (Paul and Constantine), but this is definitely a tangled knot of problems that aren’t going to be solved anytime soon. So I’m trying to be open to the possibility that the all the important stuff actually is true, but it’s going to involve a lot of leaps of faith to come to that conclusion.[1]
This is only part of a post he made to a Christian forum (you can read a continuation of it at footnote #1, but it unveils a considerable amount of information about his perspective. Letās see if we can unpack some of the issues that are driving his agenda.
A.Ā Liberal resistance to God
What I observe about his perspective, associated with his ācognitive dissonanceā, i.e. disharmony in his thought processes, is that his ā¦
1. Presuppositions cover up issues
I addressed him directly:[2] I’ve been looking at this paragraph that you wrote and it seems to be overcome with your presuppositions that are preventing your examining the biblical material at face value. Let me pick up a few of them and I’d appreciate it if you would correct me if I’m wrong:
Your passing academic interest in religion and pulling out of context causes cognitive dissonance. I’m unsure if this ‘context’ is the academic interest or context in Scripture or something else. I’m unclear on your content. If your context is ‘academic interest in religion’, then I’ll have to know whether that is a university, seminary, college or Christian setting (and whether it’s a liberal setting) to be able to try to uncover your presuppositions.
2. We know where the slippery slope leads
From where did you get your ‘very liberal’ theological position? Was it from the evidence from Scripture or from ‘very liberal’ sources who/that dumbed down other views, especially those of Bible-believing Christians? You’ve admitted that it is ‘a slippery slope’. This means that that position is doomed to destroy faith and cause disillusionment with people and decline of churches. We know this from the decline in theologically liberal denominations worldwide. Take a look at the Anglican Church here in Australia (outside of the Sydney diocese), Anglican Church in UK, Church of Scotland, United Church of Canada, Episcopal Church (USA), United Methodist Church (USA), Presbyterian Church (USA), American Baptist, etc. See the article, ‘Liberal churches in decline while orthodox ones grow, says study of Protestants in Canada‘.
3. Stuck in a rut
‘It is what it is’ is an unhealthy way of examining or correcting one’s views. I find the better approach is to investigate the evidence from Scripture without imposition of previous beliefs. Are you a postmodern deconstructionist when it comes to your reading of Scripture?
4. Historicity of the Gospels
You say, ‘ I don’t trust the Gospels’ historicity’. That seems to be your presuppositional imposition on the Gospels. What primary investigation have you done into the nature of historicity of any document and applying those criteria to the Gospels? Other researchers have gone before you who have already done that and they have come to a positive position on the historicity of the Gospels and the NT. I’m thinking of leading researcher at the University of Manchester, the late F F Bruce: The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?(available online). Right beside me on my desk is Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (IVP 2007). What causes you to refuse to accept the historical evidence provided by these scholars?
4.1 Johnās Gospel and mysticism
‘I read John as mysticism, the less said about Paul the better’, he wrote. That statement is loaded with your presuppositional agenda. You would have to give me lots of other information for me to understand why you regard John as mysticism. By the way, it’s a very different kind of Gospel to the Synoptics because it was written for a different purpose, ‘The disciples saw Jesus do many other miraculous signs in addition to the ones recorded in this book. But these are written so that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life by the power of his name’ (John 30 30-32 NLT).
Then you give the thumbs down to Paul (presumably referring to his letters and the history about him in the Book of Acts). Without your telling us why you make that statement, I wouldn’t try to guess what leads you to that kind of view.
5. Leap of faith and unthinking Christianity
You say, ‘I’m trying to be open to the possibility that the all important stuff actually is true, but it’s going to involve a lot of leaps of faith to come to that conclusion’. To the contrary, Christianity does not require you to put your brain/mind in neutral and resort to a ‘leap of faith’ to accept it. All of the historical basis of Christianity can be subjected to the same tests of historicity that you give to any other historical document about Nero, Martin Luther, George Washington, Captain James Cook or the September 11, 2001 disaster in New York City. However, there is the strong dimension of faith, but that is in the person of Jesus Christ for salvation, the Jesus who is revealed in Scripture. If you don’t know who Jesus is (because of theological liberal presuppositions), that leap of faith will be into darkness rather than into the light.
B. His responses to my challenge
In the following I deal with his responses to what I have written above. These are some of his emphases:
1. Liberal bias that opposes one-way religion
He wrote:
No formal training, I’ve just accumulated knowledge here and there–mostly of a liberal bias, yes. Not specifically Christianity but religion in general. It’s uncomfortable for me to switch from viewing something as interesting in the greater scheme of world religion to zeroing in on one and saying, “Maybe this one actually is true.” It’s getting less strange with time, but it’s definitely still jarring.[3]
I was raised in a religiously liberal home and it wasn’t until my parents were converted from liberalism to biblical Christianity that I was even open to other evidence. I did not pursue the evidence wherever it led until that time of conversion for my parents.
What has caused you to consider that the liberal bias of accumulated knowledge is correct? This indicates that you have censored some important areas for consideration. Why have you done that? Have you ever considered how your ‘liberal bias’ lines up with reality – the truth? Why liberal and not conservative? What attracts you to liberal religion?
You don’t like going from the general (greater scheme of world religion) to the specific of one religion being true. Surely this should not be a difficult thing for you to do because you are forced to do it in everyday life, even with much lesser products. Do you use a mobile phone? If so, surely you have examined a range of mobile phones before concluding a certain one was the best for you. That’s what I had to do recently.
You do this in a whole range of activities. What causes you and me to take medicine prescribed by the Dr and not swallow āRoundUp Poison Ivyā:
The purpose of the product influences that choice.
When it comes to the choosing which religion is the truth, it takes care in comparing that religion with reality, facts/truth. What is truth when you examine religion?
Have you found a better search engine on the www than Google? Why does Google seem to be the preferred product over, say, Bing or Yahoo?
Another analogy would be when something happens to the motor of your automobile. Do you choose to take it to a motor mechanic instead of a painter or cabinet maker? You can be narrow in your choices.
When it comes to dealing with the worldviews of any religion, I challenge you to examine which of those worldviews fits reality. See the difficulties with:
You face a major hurdle before you can even begin to investigate worldviews, religion and God. You start at the wrong end of your inquiry, by excluding certain evidence. When you start with a liberal bias, you will see liberal views in a much more favourable way and anti-liberal views negatively. This is not a beneficial way to examine evidence.
I hope you realise the self-defeating nature of your view with a āliberal biasā. You donāt like one-way religion but you have chosen that view yourself, i.e. religion with a liberal bias. Thatās every bit as one-way as biblical Christianity. Do you realise how self-defeating your argument is?
May I suggest a better approach: Pursue the evidence, wherever it leads.
I’ll pick up a few things from the early parts of his post.
2.1 Presupposition favours evolution
He wrote: ‘I walked away from Christianity as a child because of evolution’. Go to the science section of this forum to discuss this further if you want. However, to allow Charles Darwin & Co to determine HOW God created and continues to create is a view that has added to Scripture. Itās your presuppositional agenda. I don’t see the origin of species and adaptation (Darwinism) in Scripture, but I won’t discuss further.
Again, his reasoning is, āI’m not sure if dropping literalism means dropping conservativism (sic), because there have been people who’ve read Genesis as allegory since the religion first started up. That seems to be even more common in Judaism’.
You provide not one piece of documentation for this. It is your assertion. Therefore, it is a diversionary tactic. If you want to interpret Genesis as allegory, then start a thread and raise the issues. Do you want the first man and woman to be an allegory? Are you going to treat Noah and the flood as an allegory? How about Abraham? Is God’s promise to Abraham, ‘I will make of you a great nation’, an allegory that had no relationship to the nation of Israel?
The article began: āNew York: President Donald Trump’s executive order closing the nation’s borders to refugees was put into immediate effect on Friday night (Saturday AEDT). Refugees who were in the air on the way to the United States when the order was signed were stopped and detained at airportsā.?
What would stop you from making this an allegory where you force your own meaning onto it to make it say what you want? That’s what allegorical interpretation does. It imposes a meaning from outside of what the text states. It is far too easy for you to say, ‘there have been people who’ve read Genesis as allegory since the religion first started up. That seems to be even more common in Judaism. I didn’t know that this stuff could be read in layers when I was seven, but I certainly know it now’.
So you are already accepting the ‘layers’ of allegorical interpretation without investigating whether that is the case and the harmful consequences of what that does to any piece of literature, including the Bible.
For further explanations of the meaning of allegorical interpretation and the damage it does, see my other articles:
He continued: ‘If I decide the Resurrection happened, I can then start working on the question of how much of the rest is true, but that seems a bit backwards as a starting point.’ But you have already told us about your ‘liberal bias’. How will you ever get to understand Jesus’ resurrection as an historical event without telling us which historical criteria you will be using to examine the evidence?
You say, ‘Can you be conservative and read the Garden of Eden metaphorically? I find it a very powerful statement when viewed symbolically, but when taken literally, I think it’s blatantly misogynistic. My liberal bias very clearly lines up to the reality that Eve has been used as an excuse to justify the oppression of women throughout all of Judeo-Christian history’.
You can’t be a legitimate biblical interpreter and make the Scriptures mean what you want them to mean. When you impose a metaphorical hermeneutic on the Garden of Eden, you introduce your own story into the narrative. That’s called a red herring fallacy because it takes us away from what the narrative states. There is no indicator in the text of Gen 1-3 (ESV) that tells us the Garden of Eden narrative is an allegory. That’s your ‘liberal bias’ imposition.
You have nailed what drives your agenda: ‘I lean towards the liberal view that the Word of God was filtered through a patriarchal culture and picked up some of its bias’. Again, that’s imposition on the text. It’s eisegesis (putting your meaning into the text) instead of exegesis (getting the meaning out of the text). Unless you put your presuppositions up for examination and follow the evidence wherever it leads, you are going to have difficulty in pursuing this investigation. I see your foggy worldview of liberalism blinding you to the reality of what the text states.
When you pick and choose what you want to make allegory, you are the postmodern deconstructionist[8] who is deconstructing the text to your own worldview. I urge you to place your presuppositions on the altar of critical examination (I ask the same of all of us on this forum, including myself).
C. Further responses: Distorted reasoning
This person replied and Iāve incorporated his reply in my response.
It’s not a diversionary tactic to not provide evidence–I figured you’d already know what I was talking about, since I’ve been at this for a couple months now; you’ve been doing it for significantly longer! But if you want evidence, I know Clement of Alexandria and Origen interpreted things allegorically, and in Judaism, there’s the Remez approach to interpretation, which appears to be allegorical. There was also apparently a medieval rabbi called Saadia Gaon who said that a passage should not be interpreted literally if that made it contrary to the senses or reason. I am not making any of this up; it is quite ancient and literally biblical. We can go straight to Galatians 4:24, since apparently Paul himself interpreted things allegorically: “Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants.” If Paul wasn’t orthodox, I have no idea what orthodoxy is, haha.[9]
1. Confusion of allegorical interpretation with allegory
You seem to confuse two things:[10] (1) Allegorical interpretation, and (2) A narrative that says something is described as an allegory.
Do you want me to interpret your above information allegorically, by which I make your statements say what I want them to say and not what you have intended them to mean? Let me try one example:
‘It’s not a diversionary tactic to not provide evidenceāI figured you’d already know what I was talking about, since I’ve been at this for a couple months now; you’ve been doing it for significantly longer!’
By this, Silmarien means that God’s lack of evidence (for Jesus) is merely God’s way of getting through to Silmarien that God has superior knowledge to Silmarien’s beginning inquiries into spiritual things.
If I invented allegorical interpretation of everything you wrote, you would have every right to call it baloney or bunkum. Why? Because allegorical interpretation is an illegitimate method of interpretation because it forces into a text what is not there.
When Paul states in Gal 4:24 that he was dealing with an allegory. That was a literal interpretation by Paul to confirm the existence of allegory.
2. Genesis and literalism
You wrote:
A critical examination of the Old Testament is very much the problem, though. God creates animals first and humans second in Genesis 1, but in Genesis 2, Adam is created before the animals. Cain conjures up a wife out of nowhere and then goes off and builds himself a city, even though there’s supposedly nobody to live in it yet. I’m sure there are ways to get around all the continuity issues, but for me, it kind of feels like trying to trap God within the pages of a book. Because my problem with literalism isn’t just liberal post-modernism; it’s also mysticism. The surface level of all things religious tends to leave me cold.[11]
To the contrary,[12] a careful examination of the OT is not a problem. Every one of the issues you raise here from Gen 1 and 2 has been successfully resolved. The differences in the order of creation are quite easily explained.
Gen 1 gives the order of events:
Chronological order
Outline
Creating animals
Then,
Gen 2 goes into more detail on the content about what was in ch. 1:
There is no contradiction, since ch 1 doesn’t affirm when God made the animals. Ch 2 gives:
Topical order
Details, and the
Naming of animals, not creating animals.
Therefore, Gen 1 and 2 provide a harmonious statement that gives a more complete picture of the events of creation (with help from Geisler & Howe 1992:35).
Determining the source of Cain’s wife is an old chestnut. It is easily solved. Your claim is that ‘Cain conjures up a wife out of nowhere’. Were there no women for Cain to marry as there were only Adam, Eve (Gen 4:1) and his dead brother Abel (Gen 5:4)?
Cain probably married his sister or niece because we are told that Adam ‘fathered other sons and daughters ‘ (Gen 5:4 HCSB). Adam lived 930 years (Gen 5:5 ESV) so he had stacks of time to have a pile of children. Was Cain committing incest if he married his sister/cousin? At the beginning of the human race there would have been no genetic imperfections. Genetic defects would have emerged following the Fall into sin. Since only a pair (Adam & Eve) began the human race, Cain had nobody else to marry except a close female relative.
You state that Cain ‘goes off and builds himself a city, even though there’s supposedly nobody to live in it yet’. It’s time that you read Genesis 5 more carefully. ‘Supposedly nobody to live in it’ is bunk, when you read the text.
You say, ‘My problem with literalism isn’t just liberal post-modernism; it’s also mysticism. The surface level of all things religious tends to leave me cold’. Your problems with this statement include:
Your problems with ‘literalism’ are not applied by you to your own text. If you gave a postmodern, getting below the surface interpretation to what you write, then I would understand your dilemma.
But you don’t apply this principle of anti-literalism to your own narratives on this forum.
Regarding historical evidence, I accept logical arguments that take the formula “if not P, then not Q. Q is true, therefore P is true.” Could be applied to the disciples’ transformation, as well as Paul’s conversion. There are plenty of facts that are debatable, but these two are not. I’m also intrigued by extra-biblical evidence in general–Constantine’s vision, Genesis 1 continuing to match up to the Big Bang Theory, but evidence for the Old Testament is probably a bit premature.[13]
Do you affirm the Law of Noncontradiction[14] that ‘A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship’?
Evidence for the reliability of the OT is not premature. Your knowledge seems to have a gap here. Take a read of archaeologist, Egyptologist and historian, Dr Kenneth A Kitchen 2003. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
4. Belief and postmodern deconstruction
This isn’t really an investigation, though, since I actually do believe. Experimentation with prayer has been… pretty conclusive. A lot of it could be attributed to brain chemicals, but when a prayer of “Hey Jesus, if you’re real, can you please help me not be crazy over Calvinism?” results in immediately calming down… well, it can’t be the placebo effect when you don’t actually have faith. The problem is that I already have deconstructed everything–it’s too late to not be a postmodernist when you’ve already torn everything to pieces. I guess all I can do now is try to put it back together in a way that’s reasonably orthodox. I did just order Simply Christian, so hopefully that will help. C.S. Lewis offered some food for thought, but not really on a theological level.[15]
You say you actually do believe.[16] What do you believe in? What is the nature of your belief? I’m reminded of a verse that James taught, ‘You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believeāand shudder!’ (James 2:19 ESV).
Your claim is that you have deconstructed everything and it’s too late not to be a postmodernist. That fact is not true. What you have written in your post is not postmodern deconstruction. For the benefit of those who don’t understand that language, we should define ‘postmodern deconstruction’.
It means that words and sentences have no inherent meaning in themselves. People who read anything construct their own meaning, which is shaped by culture and life’s experiences. So the author’s intention in the writing is deconstructed, i.e. altered by the reader. The reader determines what the author means. Postmodern deconstruction turns an author’s meaning on its head. The reader determines the meaning.
Silmarien, in your post here, I didn’t read anything that told me I must read it as postmodern deconstruction. I observe how close postmodern deconstruction is to allegorical interpretation. Postmodern deconstruction tears the heart out of any document. You cannot apply for social security, secure a bank loan, or answer the rules of the road to get your driver’s license using postmodern deconstruction.
Therefore, it makes no sense to interpret the Bible, your writing on Christian Forums.net, or your local newspaper using postmodern deconstruction. Itās a great way for any reader to make a writing say anything he/she wants it to say. The fact remains that the true meaning of a text or spoken word is based on what the writer or speaker intended for it to mean. Anything else is an imposition on the text.
So, you do not engage in postmodern deconstruction of ‘everything’. You are selective in what you deconstruct. That’s your liberal bias coming into play and that bias needs to be exposed if you are going to read the Bible objectively and not impose your deconstructed message on it.
D. More examples of liberal bias intruding
All of us need to be aware of how our presuppositions can interfere with our interpretations of documents.
1. Presuppositions meet a brick wall of liberal bias
He wrote:
I would say that everyone has presuppositions when it comes to reading anything–biblical inerrancy is as much a presupposition as historical criticism, and an equally modern take. I can’t ignore things like Zoroastrianism’s influence on Judaism or Platonic elements in Christian theology, so my options are 1) abandon all religion as inherently manmade, or 2) accept that cultural influences don’t negate the truth value of a religion as a whole. I’m actually an existentialist with my reading of Scripture–Paul Tillich right now, a bit of Kierkegaard. But when it comes to actual evidence, I do start deconstructing things into meaninglessness. That part is a problem, but the existentialism is kind of necessary for me.[17]
I agree that all of us have presuppositions,[18] but the key to unpacking them is to compare those presuppositions with the evidence from reality.
What youāve done in announcing biblical inerrancy as a presupposition and a modern take, it that this is a throw away line. Why? You provided not one example for us to examine. Norman Geislerās edited book, Inerrancy (Zondervan 1979), presents biblical and historical evidence to counter your presupposition. Chapter 12 (by Robert Preus) of this book is, āThe view of the Bible held by the church: The early church through Lutherā, in which Irenaeus is cited from his writing, Against Heresies, āWe should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spiritā (Against Heresies 2.28.2). Therefore, you are incorrect to state that biblical inerrancy is a āmodern takeā (āScriptures are indeed perfectā, Irenaeus). Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, lived ca. 125-202. That is hardly a modern take in support of inerrancy ā the Scriptures are perfect. Chapter 12 of Inerrancy provides other examples from the church fathers in support of inerrancy. Seems like you have a fair amount of research to do to come up with a correct understanding of what the early church fathers believed about the Bibleās perfection in the original documents.
Then you provide the unsupported statement of Zoroastrianismās influence on Judaism and Platonic influence on Christian theology. That may be so, but you are yet to prove your case. Your assertions merely state your opinions. They donāt provide evidence.
Your support of Paul Tillichās existentialism (I have his Systematic Theology) comes with the critiques of existentialism that donāt make it a worldview to live by. The review, āTillich: An Impossible Struggleā, raises some insuperable difficulties with Tillichās worldview.
Deconstructing into nothingness will lead you to nothingness.
Starting with existentialism as being ānecessary for meā is a brick wall approach to understanding any world view. You are stuck in a rut of experience that wonāt allow you to pursue the evidence wherever it leads because ā¦ of your necessity for existentialism. Try existentialism if you are caught speeding and the policeman issues you with a fine. Existentialism is not a world view of reality that leads to payment of the fine.
2. Mysticismās failures
This inquirer (or stirrer) wrote:
The view of the Gospel of John as a work of mysticism is ancient. It’s only a problem in that it puts me on a different page than most people here–mysticism is one of the major reasons I’m not an atheist. I don’t discount the claims because I think it’s mysticism; I actually take them more seriously. I’m very much on the mystical side, that’s a large part of why taking things at face value does nothing for me. As for Paul… suffice to say that I have no love for 1 Timothy. Apparently there are serious doubts as to its authorship, so that’s one less problem, but there’s still plenty of stuff I’m skeptical about, including his claim to authority when he was never there in the first place. Actually, if you know of any good material on him, I’d definitely appreciate it.[19]
You say,[20] ‘Now you’ve got presuppositions about my presuppositions!’ Not really! What I’ve been trying to do is uncover your presuppositions as your post at #17 is loaded with your presuppositions, some of which you mentioned, like your ‘liberal bias’, but there were more presuppositions that needed to be exposed to try to see how they fit the evidence.
I acknowledge that the Gospel of John has some different emphases to the Synoptics, but a mystical interpretation, I find, is an imposition on the text. You seem to be engaged in a begging the question logical fallacy. When you start with Johnās Gospel as mysticism and conclude with mysticism, you have achieved nothing. It is fallacious reasoning that doesnāt deal with differences between John and the Synoptics.
You say ātaking things at face value does nothing for meā. I wish you luck in trying that approach with buying groceries, abiding by the road rules, reading your local newspaper, or appearing in court to face the evidence?
Concerning the pastoral epistles, I recommend Gordon D Feeās commentary, ‘New International Biblical Commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988). A later edition gives details HERE. Fee has a considerable amount of exposition on the authenticity of the pastoral epistles. See his index on āauthenticityā. R C H Lenskiās Introduction to the pastoral letters, in my view, more than adequately covers the authorship controversy. See Lenski (1961:473-484).
3. Christian existentialism
Now he launches into a brief statement in support of ā¦
Christian existentialism. š I’m all about faith as the ultimate act of courage. It’s what cured me of my atheism, so when I talk about leaps of faith, shutting off your brain is not remotely what I’m thinking of.
I mention that I’m pretty liberal so that people know what they’re dealing with. I don’t know where to start with conservative scholarship and definitely do want to take a look at the other side of the story. I know there’s a lot of bad blood between the groups, but please leave me out of it, haha. The infighting is part of what’s stressing me out.[21]
What is Christian existentialism?[22] Would you conclude that this is a reasonable summary of Christian existentialism? It may be defined as
a philosophy of its own that is not compatible with either secular existentialism, nor traditional Christianity. There is a wide variety of forms of existential religion with differing doctrinal beliefs. Kierkegaard and later Karl Barth are sited for attempting to make theology, particularly the Christian faith, compatible with existentialism.
Its premise is that a person must submit themselves totally to God without reasoning — that is, true absolute faith must be void of philosophy or intellect. Religious existentialism then states such things as:
A person is autonomous and is fully free to make choices and fully responsible for them
Rational grounds for theology and divine revelation do not exist
True faith transcends rationalism and Godās commandments
The true God is not the God of philosophers or of rationalism
The destruction of wars throughout human history proves there cannot be rational understanding of God or humanity
A Christian must personally resolve within self the content of faith from being a myth or mystery to being realty or truth before they will allow an understanding and acceptance of salvation
If faith is āthe ultimate act of courageā for you, I have to ask, āFaith in what? The god of Zoroastrianism; the Jesus who was not raised bodily from the grave; a liberal Jesus who loves people but excludes damnation?
Where to start with conservative scholarship is what Iāve stated: Follow the evidence wherever it leads. However, if you are going to impose your liberal bias, mysticism and existentialism onto the biblical text or an authorās views, you will invent your own god and jesus and wonāt allow the conservative scholars to present their cases . Youāll come out with a godhead that looks like the very one with which you began.
For an examination of the conservative side of the resurrection of Jesus, Iād recommend:
(1) The debate between Gary Habermas (Christian) and Antony Flew (atheist who became deist). Itās available in: Gary R Habermas and Antony G N Flew 1987. Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate. San Francisco: Harper & Row. In this book, there is a response to the debate by Wolfhart Pannenberg (pp. 125-135). Pannenberg is the European scholar on the resurrection that I mentioned previously to you.
(2) Norman L Geisler 1989. The Battle for the Resurrection. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
(3) James L Snyder 1991: In Pursuit of God: The Life of A. W. Tozer. Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: Christian Publications.
Yes, there is considerable controversy between liberal and evangelical Protestants. I encourage you not to become involved in slinging matches but to examine the evidence, based on the claims themselves. This will require for both sides to: (a) Examine their presuppositions in the light of reality; (b) Do not impose oneās worldview on the text. (c) Refrain from the use of logical fallacies in challenging an opponent.
Speaking of logical fallacies, do you remember your statement: āHis [Norman Geislerās] endorsement of Donald Trump. In all seriousness, I disapprove immensely of the politicization of religion. He seems to mix the two a fair amount, and that makes me believe that I’m not his intended audienceā (Silmarien #29).
Here you have committed a genetic logical fallacy. Any Christian apologist worth his or her salt should be assessing politicians and their policies. You obviously donāt like Trump, but when you dump Geislerās views because of his support for Trump, you have not engaged in debate of the issues that Geisler raised. Instead, you have wiped his views because of his assessment of Trumpās views. This is erroneous reasoning.
4. Presuppositions about presuppositions
His ducking and weaving among challenges continued, this time with a red herring fallacy,
Now you’ve got presuppositions about my presuppositions! I’m comfortable with the idea of miracles, just disinclined to look at them as evidence when I think such claims would have ended up in the stories regardless of whether or not they happened. Just as I think that if prophecies were not fulfilled, the disciples would have started forcing prophecies to fit events (or events to fit prophecies) one way or the other. I don’t accept these things as evidence, but that doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge the possibility that they’re true.[23]
You say,[24] ‘Now you’ve got presuppositions about my presuppositions!’ Not really! What I’ve been trying to do is uncover your presuppositions as your post at #17 is loaded with your presuppositions, some of which you mentioned, like your ‘liberal bias’, but there were more presuppositions that needed to be exposed to try to see how they fit the evidence.
I think you need to ask: ‘What is the truth about reality, especially concerning the person of Jesus Christ, his death, resurrection, and second coming?’ The answer to that question, along with, ‘What are the attributes of God?’ will unlock a gold mine that will take you into eternity, with the beloved or the lost.
‘What happens one second after your last breath?’ is a dynamite question for which you need answers. Your posts do read to me like a version of Pascal’s Wager.
Without Christ changing your life, you will not be able to live up to the high moral standards of Christianity. It’s wishful thinking trying to make it on your own.
5. His struggles
In response to what I wrote above, he admitted his struggles. These are his conflicts within:[25]
The idea of eternity is terrifying (thatās a big one for him);
Annihilation doesnāt sound bad;
Damnation means everyone is in trouble;
You canāt magically not struggle with doubt;
Why would you take the Bible at face value?
ā”Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind” seems to encompass at least a bit of mystical dabblingā.
The religious experience is in a different sphere to intellect.
You balk at Luke 16:31 (ESV), āHe said to him, āIf they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the deadāā.
Ā· You stated: āI don’t have an agenda, but if you’ve spent your life rationalizing away everything, it’s hard to make yourself stopā. Thereās a paradox in this statement. You really do have an agenda and that is to rationalise away āeverythingā.
āNot sure why I’d be worshipping Ahura Mazda [a god of Zoroastrianism], but the bodily Resurrection and the concept of damnation are not things that I reject as unbelievableā.
The idea of eternity is terrifying (thatās a big one for you). This is an example where you are kicking against the pricks – against God’s revelation to you eternally. This is what I’m talking about: ‘He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end’ (Eccl. 3:11 NIV). You may not understand this revelation of eternity, but you need to recognize eternity is right there in your innermost being. I urge you not to resist the wooing of the Holy Spirit in revealing what is there already. An understanding of it is in everyone’s heart – eternity.
Annihilation doesnāt sound bad, he wrote. Of course zapping people out of existence at death sounds better than eternal torment in hell/Hades. However, what’s the truth? You’ll read about it in Scripture and not in your or my presuppositions.
Damnation means everyone is in trouble, according to his view. This is not so. Biblical facts determine that only unbelievers experience damnation. See: Matthew 25:46 NIV; John 3:36 ESV. I’m sticking with Scripture and not Silmarien’s or my presuppositions.
You canāt magically not struggle with doubt is what he stated. Agreed! Thomas doubted (John 20:24-29), but when evidence is provided to counter the doubt, doubt should subside to the point of being pacified or removed. I encouraged him to meditate on Psalm 77:11-15 (NRSV) to help him with his doubt?
Why would you take the Bible at face value? Thatās because it’s a book of history and should be interpreted like any other historical book. Try taking the bombing of Pearl Harbor or Richard Nixon’s presidency at other than face value! For the same reason, we take Jesus’ death and resurrection at face value.
ā”Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind” seems to encompass at least a bit of mystical dabblingā. I think you’ve missed the meaning. It means loving the Lord with your entire being. I hope you and I are more than mystical beings involved in mystical activities.
The religious experience is in a different sphere to intellect is your perspective. That’s one view. I suggest to you that Christianity involves communicating with your inner being with God and that includes the mind.
You balk at Luke 16:31 (ESV), āHe said to him, āIf they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the deadāā. That’s the human propensity to doubt the historical and supernatural in Christian experience.
You stated: āI don’t have an agenda, but if you’ve spent your life rationalizing away everything, it’s hard to make yourself stopā. Thereās a paradox in that statement. You really do have an agenda and that is to rationalize away āeverythingā.
āNot sure why I’d be worshipping Ahura Mazda [a god of Zoroastrianism], but the bodily Resurrection and the concept of damnation are not things that I reject as unbelievableā. I found that statement confusing, that you are worshipping a god of Zoroastrianism but you are open to teaching on the bodily resurrection and damnation. Are you wanting to worship a God/god of syncretism?
I thanked him for engaging with me in this challenging discussion. I pray that the Lord will guide him into all truth.
‘But in fact, it is best for you that I go away, because if I donāt, the Advocate [Paraclete] wonāt come. If I do go away, then I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world of its sin, and of Godās righteousness, and of the coming judgment’ (John 16:7-8 NLT).?
He seems to be a seeker but his filter of liberal bias is acting as a blockage.
E. Conclusion
This person with a self-proclaimed liberal bias came onto an evangelical Christian forum with an agenda of a ācouple of questionsā. Thatās shorthand for a number of questions that were filtered through his theological liberal worldview.
I have attempted to expose his presuppositions, many of which do not harmonise with reality and especially with a literal reading of the biblical text. He confused the use of allegorical interpretation with a literal hermeneutic stating that a section of Scripture is allegory. At least he admitted that liberal presuppositions can lead to a slippery slope, by which he meant that the liberal bias descends into something worse ā he gave an example of nothingness as one alternative.
He is stuck in a rut, not able to understand or accept the historicity of the Gospels. His leap of faith takes him into mysticism and existentialism. He does not want to understand the Book of Genesis literally but pursues allegorical interpretation.
He did admit that he engages in postmodern deconstruction of āeverythingā, to which I responded that he did not state he wanted me to read his posts that way. Postmodern deconstruction falls flat with any document. He cannot apply for social security, secure a bank loan, or answer the rules of the road to get his driver’s license using postmodern deconstruction.
I agreed with him that his posts do look like a version of Pascalās Wager.
One of the major problems with his liberal bias of a worldview is that it colours all of his investigation of life and the Bible. It is way too easy for him to commit a begging the question logical fallacy, by which he starts with a liberal bias in examining anything and concludes with a liberal bias. That gets him nowhere.
The final section on his struggles demonstrates the inconsistencies in his world view. His liberal presupposition overwhelm his ability to consider the claims of Scripture at face value.
F. Works consulted
Geisler, N & Howe, T 1992. When critics ask: A popular handbook on Bible difficulties. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.
Lenski, R C H 1961. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Paulās Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers (earlier published by Lutheran Book Concern 1937; The Wartburg Press 1946; Augsburg Publishing House 1961; Hendrickson Publishers, Inc edn 2001).
[7] Misogyny means ādislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against womenā (Oxford dictionaries online 2017. s v misogyny).
[8] Deconstruction means ādetailed examination of a text in order to show there is no fixed meaning but that it can be understood in a different way by each readerā (Cambridge dictionary 2017. s v deconstruction).
“Hadesā which is the Greek term used to translate the Hebrew term Sheol, basically refers to the grave or the abode of the dead and clearly the parable of the rich man and Lazarus describes this intermediate state as being a place of consciousness. But sheol during the Old Testament period also describes a place devoid of consciousness, for example Ecclesiastes 9:5, Ecclesiastes 9:10; Psalms 88:12 (NIV). In other words the intermediate state proceeding (sic)[1] the resurrection has more than one meaning.[2]
1. Hades, the place of departed souls
Those who know Hebrew and Greek disagree with him. [3]
According to OT Hebrew commentators, Keil & Delitzsch, āSheol denotes the place where departed souls are gathered after deathā (n d:338). As a general description, this is not referring to the grave.
One of the leading exegetical Greek word studies edited by Colin Brown states:
In the LXX [Septuagint] hades occurs more than 100 times, in the majority of instances to translate Heb sheol, the underworld which receives all the dead. It is a land of darkness, in which God is not remembered (Job 10:21f; 26:5; Ps. 6:5; 30:9 [LXX 29:9]; 115:17 [LXX 113:25]; Prov. 1:12; 27:20; Isa. 5:14) (Brown 1976:206).
So in the Septuagint (OT Greek), hades is a Greek translation of the Hebrew, sheol.
There are further explanations of hades and sheol in my articles,
On this Christian forum (online), the regular rejection of the orthodox doctrine of life-after-death and the immortality of the soul has become such a drone that a person expressed dismay over what was happening. I understand and sympathise with his perspective.
However, a biblical response is needed to this disillusionment.
2. Growing weary of correction
Jim Parker wrote:
There is truly nothing new under the sun.
Here, we seem to be on a wheel which periodically brings around OSAS,[4] faith alone without works, no eternal punishment in hell, baptism’s just for show, and a few other favorites which don’t come to mind at the moment.
I have attempted to show where people’s comments have been illogical or taken totally out of context only to find that logic and context are concepts with which many, not only do not know anything about the subject, but, often, don’t even suspect there is something to be known. I have attempted, in response to “proof-texts” to show the rest of the story (as Paul Harvey used to say) only to have them either dismissed out of hand or completely ignored and then be assailed with another barrage of “proof-texts.”
I grow weary.
Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow creeps in its petty pace from day to day and all our yesterdays light fools the way to dusty death.
or
Proof-text after proof-text after proof-text drip like a leaky faucet from day to day and all the light of logic and learning offered is snuffed out by fools in darkness on their way to the next pop-theology Bible study.[5]
I encouraged him not to become weary in doing good through correcting those who proof-text out of context to modify or change what the Bible says about life-after-death issues.
3. Do good to everyone – correct false teaching in the family of faith
Doing good to everyone sounds more like good works in the community (food hampers, meeting human need) and to believers at church. However, could it have a broader application?
Let’s look at a few verses in context:
6 One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches. 7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. 10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith (Gal 6:6-10 ESV).?
We will use this section of Gal 6 to apply to the title of this thread, ‘Contradictions and the soul of man’,[6]
Those taught the word (about the immortal soul) should teach this good word (immortal soul) to the teacher.
It is possible to be deceived in this teaching – hence the term ‘contradictions’;
God is not mocked because what is sown in eisegesis will reap its reward (loss, penalty or punishment) in confusion over the nature of what happens at death for believers and unbelievers.
The one who sows to his own fleshly understanding of what happens at death – no hell for unbelievers and no soul/spirit to enter the Intermediate State for believers – will reap corruption. In this post title, this is called ‘contradiction’.
The one sowing to the Spirit by obedience to Scripture regarding eternal damnation and eternal salvation will not reap corruption of understanding but will be enlightened by the Spirit’s understanding.
Refuting and challenging such fleshly understanding can cause some to grow weary in the good action of challenging incorrect exegesis. Those who remain true to Scripture will reap truth if they don’t give up.
On this Christian forum, we have the opportunity to do good to everyone by agreeing, challenging, correcting and defending the truth of what the Scriptures say about the immortal soul. There are no contradictions in Scripture, only ‘apparent human contradictions in understanding’. Instead of promoting feel-good Christianity (no eternal damnation), we have the opportunity of doing good by correction. It doesn’t feel good at the time of giving correction over and over as it can become wearying. But it is important to continue to be faithful exegetes and not base our responses on being politically correct and following Rob Bell’s view of no eternal punishment in hell.
Let us continue to do good on this forum and in other situations (whether in a church setting or the general community) by challenging and correcting views that are contrary to Scripture in regard to eternal life and eternal damnation (Matt 25:46 ESV).
Yes, it can be wearying but we are exhorted by Paul to the Galatians to ‘not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up’ (Gal 6:9 ESV).
Jimās response was: āIt still feels like trying to teach a pig to sing. All it does is annoy the pigā.[7]
I understand that it is tough going on many occasions, even on this forum. However, this is our biblical responsibility before God (see 1 John 4:1-3 ESV).[8]
The challenge to Bible teachers is that they will endure a ‘stricter judgment’ (James 3:1-2 ESV) because of the requirements placed on God’s teachers of testing the spirits to discern false prophets (and false profits) and those who do not confess Jesus as being from God. This means weeding out those who proclaim a human Jesus without the deity of Christ or a divine Jesus without the humanity of Christ (the latter being a form of Docetic Gnosticism). It applies to all other departures from biblically orthodox doctrines.
3.1 Docetic Gnosticism explained
One error that invaded the church in its first few centuries was Docetic Gnosticism. What is it? Church Historian, Earl Cairns, explained the Docetic Gnosticism threat:
Gnosticism, the greatest of the philosophical threats, was at its peak of power about 150. Its roots reached back into the New Testament times. Paul seemed to have been fighting an incipient form of Gnosticism in his letter to the Colossians. Christian tradition related the origin of Gnosticism to Simon Magus [Acts 8:9-24], whom Peter had to rebuke so severely. Gnosticism sprang from the natural human desire to create a theodicy, an explanation to the origin of evil. The Gnostics, because they associated matter with evil, sought a way to create a philosophical system in which God as spirit could be freed from association with evil and in which man could be related on the spiritual side of his nature to Deityā¦.
To explain Christ, they adopted a doctrine known as Docetism. Because matter was evil, Christ could not be associated with a human body despite the Bible’s teaching to the contrary. Christ as absolute spiritual good could not unite with matter. Either the man Jesus was a phantom with the seeming appearance of a material body (Docetism), or Christ came upon the human body of Jesus only for a short time between the baptism of the man Jesus and the beginning of His suffering on the cross. Then Christ left the man Jesus to die on the cross. It was the task of Christ to teach a special gnosis or knowledge that would help man save himself by an intellectual process (Cairns 1981:98-99)
With the advent of the Internet there are more opportunities to sow seeds of false doctrine and water the seed into full-blown false teaching. This is happening in droves on Christian forums.
Keep watch, brother in Christ. Don’t grow weary in doing good in correcting false doctrine and proclaiming orthodox teaching.
3.2 Correctly explaining Scripture
Is it doing good to correct false teaching? In the context of exhorting Timothy to be a worker approved by God (2 Tim 2:14-26 ESV), Paul wrote, āDo your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truthā (2 Tim 2:15 ESV). The New Living Translation translates this as, āWork hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly explains the word of truthā (emphasis added).
What is the danger of false teaching, whether it be on life-after-death theology or any other teaching? Paulās exhortation to Timothy is clear that he, the pastor, should be one who is ārightly handling the word of truthā. What is the meaning of ārightly handlingā?
āRightly handlingā is the Greek, orthotomounia, present tense, active voice, infinitive. Being present tense, it refers to continual action by pastor-teachers to correctly explain Godās word of truth (the Scripture). Explaining truth means the teachers also correct errors. The Greek is a late and rare compound word (orthos and themnw) that means ācutting straightā and is the only time it is used in the NT. The LXX uses it in Prov. 3:6 and 11:5 for constructing straight paths. There is a parallel verse in Heb 12:13 (ESV), āMake straight paths for your feetā (Robertson 1931:619).
Theodoret explains it to mean ploughing a straight furrow. Parry argues that the metaphor is the stone mason cutting the stones straight since themnw and orthos are so used. Since Paul was a tent-maker and knew how to cut straight the rough camel-hair cloth, why not let that be the metaphor? Certainly plenty of exegesis is crooked enough (crazy-quilt patterns) to call for careful cutting to set it straight (Robertson 1931:619-620).
In dealing with the false teaching of soul sleep, annihilation of the wicked at death, and no eternal punishment for unbelievers, there is need for correctly explaining the word of truth. This involves constructing straight paths of the true meaning of Scripture. To do this, often one has to cut out foreign, false teaching and provide correct exegesis by cutting straight to the heart of the text. This involves historical, grammatical, contextual understanding of all sentences in Scripture.
4. Be warned: True prophets acknowledge the truth about Jesus
John warned us in 1 John 4:1-3 (NLT):
Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world. 2 This is how we know if they have the Spirit of God: If a person claiming to be a prophet acknowledges that Jesus Christ came in a real body, that person has the Spirit of God. 3 But if someone claims to be a prophet and does not acknowledge the truth about Jesus, that person is not from God. Such a person has the spirit of the Antichrist, which you heard is coming into the world and indeed is already here.
While this addresses a threat in the early church of Gnosticism, it has broader application. Gnostics did not and do not believe Jesus had a real body of flesh. Second John 1:7 (NLT) addresses the same issue: āI say this because many deceivers have gone out into the world. They deny that Jesus Christ came in a real body. Such a person is a deceiver and an antichristā. Today there is similar opposition from people who do not believe that Jesus is God (Jehovahās Witnesses, Christadelphians, Oneness Pentecostals, Christian Science, Armstrongism,[9] etc).
The anti-Christian website of Religious Tolerance (Ontario, Canada) claimed this as a Gnostic belief about Christ: āSome Gnostic groups promoted Docetism, the belief that Christ was pure spirit and only had a phantom body; Jesus just appeared to be human to his followers. They reasoned that a true emissary from the Supreme God could not have been overcome by the evil of the world, and to have suffered and diedā (Robinson 1996-2007).
They will claim to speak by the Holy Spirit. John warns us that:
We must test what these people say to discern if it comes from God. Here you need the Scriptures and spiritual insight by the Spirit to bring discernment.
You know they speak by the Spirit if the following happens:
(a) They acknowledge that Jesus had a real human body while on earth. That demonstrates the person has the Spirit of God.
(b) If they donāt acknowledge the truth about Jesus (from Scripture), they are not from God. Therefore, a person who does not view Jesus as God cannot be a true prophet or teacher of God.
(c) That person has the spirit of Antichrist, which means he/she is proclaiming teaching that is anti-Christian.
(d) Antichrist is coming into the world and already is here.
This is a serious biblical exhortation to determine how to discern false teaching in the body of Christ. Pastors and teachers in the Christian churches must not be slack with these responsibilities. I note in passing that Bible teaching has a low level of priority in the seeker-sensitive model that dominates the contemporary church.
Many churches gradually, and perhaps unwittingly, transitioned from being appropriately sensitive to the needs of their congregants to becoming ā if you’ll permit some pop-psychologizing ā co-dependent with them.
What does co-dependence look like within a church? Avoiding sections of Scripture out of fear that certain power pockets will be offended. Believing that repeat attendance depends primarily upon the staff’s seamless execution of Sunday morning ā rather than the manifest presence of God. Eliminating doleful songs from the worship repertoire because they might contradict the through line that “following Jesus is all gain.”
Jesus was neither a co-dependent nor a businessman. He unashamedly loved those on the margins and revealed himself to all who were searching. He seemed quite indifferent about whether or not he disappointed the power brokers. Additionally, Jesus understood that the irreducible gospel messageāthat we are all sinners in need of being savedāwas, and always will be, offensive. No brilliant marketing campaign could ever repackage it.
In 2007, Bob Burney provided this assessment of the seeker-sensitive movement, with quotes from Bill Hybelsā Willow Creek Churchās research:
Willow Creek has released the results of a multi-year study on the effectiveness of their programs and philosophy of ministry. The studyās findings are in a new book titled Reveal: Where Are You? co-authored by Cally Parkinson and Greg Hawkins, executive pastor of Willow Creek Community Church. Hybels himself called the findings āearth shaking,ā āground breakingā and āmind blowing.ā And no wonder: it seems that the āexpertsā were wrong.
The report reveals that most of what they have been doing for these many years and what they have taught millions of others to do is not producing solid disciples of Jesus Christ. Numbers yes, but not disciples. It gets worse. Hybels laments:
Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back it wasnāt helping people that much. Other things that we didnāt put that much money into and didnāt put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for.
If you simply want a crowd, the āseeker sensitiveā model produces results. If you want solid, sincere, mature followers of Christ, itās a bust. In a shocking confession, Hybels states:
We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become āself feeders.ā We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their bible between services, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own.
Incredibly, the guru of church growth now tells us that people need to be reading their bibles and taking responsibility for their spiritual growth (Burney 2007).
What a shocker of a confession that they āmade a mistakeā, got it wrong and invested millions of dollars into promoting something worldwide that does not make disciples of Christ but promotes a way to get crowds into the church.
4.1.3 Promoting nonsense, the work of Satan and of pure evil
This is the kind of response that could lead Jim Parker (cited above) to despair over what is taught on this Christian forum and want to give up participating there:
You are free to believe what you want to believe.
If a man can believe that all men were born with immortal souls and that our ā¦ senses and our awareness and our ability to reason and perceive will live forever, and at the same time also believes 1 Timothy 6:15-16 (NIV) tells us God alone is immortal, then the question I have to ask myself is what other nonsense does he believe in?
He can philosophise all he wants to reconcile these differing views to his concept of reality so that he can continue promoting and maintaining the grotesque and vile idea that God will condemn the least knowledgeable and least offensive of souls who die without Christ to be tortured, screaming in agony forever, but in the end he will see what he believes is in fact nothing other than the work of Satanā¦ or to put it another way, it is a work of pure evil.[10]
I couldnāt let him get away with this kind of assault on orthodox Christian belief of eternal damnation.
(a) Believe whatever you want
Am I free to believe what I want to believe about what happens at death for believers and unbelievers?
I’m only free to believe the truth about Jesus and the whole of revealed truth. 1 John 4:1-3 (NLT) provides my teaching responsibility of testing the spirits:
Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world. 2 This is how we know if they have the Spirit of God: If a person claiming to be a prophet acknowledges that Jesus Christ came in a real body, that person has the Spirit of God. 3 But if someone claims to be a prophet and does not acknowledge the truth about Jesus, that person is not from God. Such a person has the spirit of the Antichrist, which you heard is coming into the world and indeed is already here.
(b) Supporters of torment in hell: The work of Satan and of pure evil
This was the accusation promoted on this Christian forum that those who philosophise and promote the grotesque and vile idea of Godās condemning āthe least knowledgeable and least offensive of souls who die without Christ to be tortured, screaming in agony foreverā, are promoting āthe work of Satanā and āit is a work of pure evilā.
Are you accusing others on this forum and me who believe in eternal life and eternal damnation that we are promoting ‘the work of Satan’ and that what we teach ‘is a work of pure evil’?
Is that what you are declaring on this forum about these people and their teaching?
He came back with a copy and paste of his post to which I had responded.[13]
I pressed him further: āSo is what I write on this forum in support of eternal damnation for unbelievers āa work of pure evilā?ā[14]
5. God alone is immortal
In spite of this personās opposition to the immortal soul, he does raise a good point. First Timothy 6:15b-16 (NIV) states: āGod, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honour and might for ever. Amenā. This also is affirmed in 1 Tim 1:17 (ESV) where God is described as āthe King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only Godā.
Since God alone is immortal, how can we speak of immortal souls of human beings? Although 2 Timothy 1:10 speaks of another dimension of immortality besides that of God, hereās the context:
8 So never be ashamed to tell others about our Lord. And donāt be ashamed of me, either, even though Iām in prison for him. With the strength God gives you, be ready to suffer with me for the sake of the Good News. 9 For God saved us and called us to live a holy life. He did this, not because we deserved it, but because that was his plan from before the beginning of timeāto show us his grace through Christ Jesus. 10 And now he has made all of this plain to us by the appearing of Christ Jesus, our Savior. He broke the power of death and illuminated the way to life and immortality through the Good News (2 Tim 1:8-10 NLT).
Godās plan was to show us his grace through Jesus Christ and an important dimension of that grace is that the power of death has been broken and the way of life, which brings immortality to human beings, has been illuminated through the Gospel.
What does this āimmortalityā mean in v. 10? It comes through the Gospel, so applies to Christian believers.
It transcends by far mere endless existence or even endless conscious existence. The gospel of our Savior Christ Jesus is far better than anything Plato ever excogitated.[15]
It is clear ā¦ that though even here and now the believer receives this great blessing in principle, and in heaven in further development, he does not fully receive it until the day of Christās re-appearance. Until that day arrives, the bodies of all believers will still be subject to the laws of decay and death. Incorruptible life, imperishable salvation, in the full sense, belongs to the new heaven and earth. It is an inheritance stored away for us (Hendriksen 1957:234)
Jim Parker stated it well on the Christian forum:
When scripture speaks of God as immortal, (1 Tim 6) the meaning is that God has no beginning or end. That is the more precise meaning of the word “immortal” in Christian theology.
When scripture speaks of man as immortal, (1 Cor 15) the meaning is that man, as a created being, does have a beginning but that, after the resurrection, he will have no end. So, in Christian theology, the word “immortal” when applied to man, is not the same as when referring to God.
That’s why 1 Co 15:53 (RSV) says: For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.
Our nature, as created by God and damaged by sin, is now perishable and mortal. At the resurrection, our nature will “put on”, as something unnatural to it, imperishability and immortality. It will put on those attributes because Jesus, by His death and resurrection, has destroyed death and perishability.[16]
The dynamic equivalence of the New Living Translation translates 1 Cor 15:53 (NLT) as, ‘For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die; our mortal bodies must be transformed into immortal bodies‘. So, Christian believers will receive their immortal bodies at the resurrection according to 1 Corinthians 15:53.
This principle should not be difficult to understand. God alone is the only one with immortality, which means he has no beginning or end. For human beings, it is a derived immortality through the Gospel. Human beings had a beginning but their eternal life will never end, thus meaning it is immortal.
Therefore, there is another meaning of immortal. Our immortality of the soul is in a derived sense and applies to all people, believers and unbelievers. Second Timothy 1:10 (ESV) speaks of Godās purpose and grace āwhich now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospelā.
5.1 Secular immortality through biology
The scientific community and secular media enjoy speaking of immortality on earth. Here is but one example from the Daily Mail,
āScientists say humans really could become IMMORTAL like the characters in new film Self/Less, but only if they’re wealthyā,
While the technology remains in the realm of science fiction, experts have claimed that the ability to create immortal humans may not be all that far-fetched.
I would see immortality coming from the biological sector,’ said University of Arizona researcher Wolfgang Fink, during a recent panel discussion in California.
‘If you manage somehow to prevent cell death from happening or if you extend the life span of cells beyond their natural life span’ (Zolfagharifard 2015).
5.2 What a shock is coming!
What astonishment they have coming! The Scriptures as the God-breathed word of God could not be clearer: āJust as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgmentā (Heb 9:27 NIV). There is not a chance of immortality on this earth. ALL will die or face the Lord alive if they are alive on earth when he returns to the earth.
This is what happened 2,000 years ago with Jesus:
After saying this, he [Jesus] was taken up into a cloud while they were watching, and they could no longer see him. 10 As they strained to see him rising into heaven, two white-robed men suddenly stood among them. 11 āMen of Galilee,ā they said, āwhy are you standing here staring into heaven? Jesus has been taken from you into heaven, but someday he will return from heaven in the same way you saw him go!ā (Acts 1:9-11 NLT).
6. Conclusion
There is a torrent of false teaching surrounding life-after-death issues, particularly from those who oppose eternal torment for unbelievers. Correcting this false theology often becomes laborious for the astute Bible teacher. This issue of growing weary from false teaching was raised by an orthodox Bible teacher on a Christian forum.
An examination of sheol in the OT and its translation as hades in the LXX and the NT, denotes the place where departed souls of all people are gathered after death.
I suggested that doing good to everyone (Gal 6:6-10) included correcting false doctrine. One example that caused the early church a lot of strife was Docetic Gnosticism ā Jesus only seemed to have a physical body but it was not so. Orthodoxy promotes that Jesus is God but at his incarnation he became a fleshly human being. True prophets acknowledge the truth about Jesus ā he has always been God but at the first Christmas he became a human being of flesh (but did not cease to be God).
First John 4:1-3 demonstrates the responsibility of the church in correcting false prophets. Seeker-sensitive Christianity is not creating disciples according to a survey conducted at Willow Creek Community Church, the creator of seeker-sensitive services. Instead, it is generating a pop-psychologised church for the contemporary marketing generation.
A person chimed in with the statement that I can believe whatever I want to regarding life after death. No I canāt! I must conform to what the Scriptures state. This person claimed that those who promoted eternal damnation for the wicked were doing the work of Satan and my belief about damnation of the wicked is a work of pure evil.
This article affirms that what the Bible teaches is that God alone is immortal ā having no beginning or end ā and that human beings have a derived immortality. This means that they have a beginning at conception but have an existence that is eternal ā eternal life or eternal damnation.
The secular community wants to invent immortality through biology. What a shock they have coming. Immortality is Godās provision for the damned and the saved: āJust as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgmentā (Heb 9:27 NLT).
To my dying day, I will engage in the task of correcting false doctrine in the church and on the streets and Internet. I ask the same of godly teachers who check my teaching and the teaching of others (whether in a formal church setting or on the Internet) by comparing what is taught with Scripture. We need to become and function as āBereansā (see Acts 17:11).
What will you do about false teaching in the church, even YOUR church?
āNow the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was trueā (Acts 17:11 NIV).7.
7.Ā Works consulted
Brown, C (ed) 1976. The new international dictionary of New Testament theology, vol 2. Exeter: The Paternoster Press.
Cairns, E E 1981. Christianity through the centuries: A history of the Christian church, rev & enl ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.
Hendriksen, W 1957.[17]New Testament commentary: Exposition of Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.
Keil, C F & Delitzsch, F n d. Tr by J Martin (from the German). Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch, vol 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Robertson, A T 1931. Word pictures in the New Testament: The epistles of Paul, vol 4. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press.
Robinson, B A 1996-2007. Gnosticism: Beliefs and practices (beliefs and practices). Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (online). Available at: http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic2.htm (Accessed 29 October 2016).
The destiny of unbelievers at death continues to bother some Christians. Some believe that the Bible confirms eternal punishment (meaning punishing with torment forever after death) for unbelievers. Others consider that this eternal damnation is false teaching.
There was a back and forth between people who believe in eternal damnation of unbelievers and those who reject this doctrine on an Internet Christian forum.
One fellow said:
Those verses [Mat 25:46 and Rev 14:11] say that their punishment/torment goes on, continues, for ever.
In order for the punishment/torment to continue forever the person being punished/tormented also must "go on forever."
A person who is reduced to a pile of ashes can no longer be punished or tormented.
I don’t understand why that is so hard for you to grasp.[1]
This person supported the eternal torment for unrepentant unbelievers after death.
1. Torment of unbelievers does not continue forever
Another had been defending no eternal punishment for the wicked on a Christian forum. He wrote:
Rev 14:11 doesn’t say their torment continues forever. It clearly says the smoke of their (Beast worshippers) torment rises forever. And furthermore this occurs in the presence of the Lamb, not in Hell or the Lake of Fire. Is it your view that the Lamb will be in Hell tormenting the lost forever?
Revelation 14:10he himself also will drink of the wine of the anger of God that has been mixed full strength in the cup of his wrath, and will be tortured with fire and sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. ?
The Bible doesn’t say that the lost’s eternal punishment is torment forever. It clearly teaches that death (a second death) is the punishment called for.[2]
This is what happens when you pluck one verse (Rev 14:11 ESV) out of context and make it a proof-text. Let’s look at the context:
6 Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. 7 And he said with a loud voice, āFear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgement has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water.ā
8 Another angel, a second, followed, saying, āFallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality.ā
9 And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, āIf anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshippers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.ā
12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.
13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying, āWrite this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.ā āBlessed indeed,ā says the Spirit, āthat they may rest from their labours, for their deeds follow them!ā (Rev 14:6-13 ESV).
3. The teaching of Rev 14:6-13 (ESV) is that
John in his revelation saw angels who had an eternal gospel to proclaim to people on the earth from every nation, tribe, language and people (v. 6).
That message was to fear God and give him glory because …
An hour of judgment has come (v. 7).
Another angel proclaimed that message of the fallen Babylon the great who made nations drink the wine of the passion of sexual immorality (v. 8)
Another angel, with others following, announced in a loud voice that anyone who worships the beast and its image and receives the mark of the beast will drink of the wine of God’s wrath and will experience the full strength of the cup of God’s anger, being tormented with fire and sulphur (vv. 9-10).
This experience of God’s wrath and anger will be in the presence of holy angels and the Lamb (v. 10).
The smoke of this torment goes up for eis aiwnas aiwnwn, i.e. for aeons of aeons. The meaning is that ‘smoke’ (a symbol) of this torment is for ‘many eons, each of vast duration, are multiplied by many more, which we imitate by "forever and ever." Human language is able to use only temporal terms to express what is altogether beyond time and is timeless. The Greek takes its greatest term for time, the eon, pluralizes this, and then multiplies it by its own plural’ (Lenski 1943/1963:48, 438).
‘Smoke’ is parallel to ‘fire and brimstone’ and is human language to convey what is experienced in the place where the worshippers of the Beast experience torment that continues for multiplied aeons. This is hell with eternal torment, using symbolic language (v. 11).
If one wants to water down the ‘aeons’ to make it less than forever and ever, John makes that impossible in v. 11 because he adds, ‘they have no rest, day or night’. There is no rest 24/7 for the unbelieving worshippers of the Beast.
It is not surprising, therefore, that John ā in light of the horrific eternal experiences of the unbelievers ā calls on the saints to endure and keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus (v. 12).
In contrast to those serving the Beast, those who die in the Lord are blessed from now on. They rest from their labours (again this contrasts with the horrible experience of those drinking God’s wrath and the cup of his anger) – v. 13.
3.1 The damned experience torment forever after death
There are excellent, contextual reasons to demonstrate that Rev 14:11 (ESV) refers to the damned who experience torment for aeons multiplied by aeons – forever and ever. The verse reads, āAnd the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshippers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its nameā.
They receive no rest day and night from this. It’s in the presence of the Lord because it is the Lord’s wrath they experience.
and the smoke of their torment goeth up for ever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, they that worship the beast and his image, and whoso receiveth the mark of his name.
The doctrine of the New Testament is so strong and emphatic with regard to the eternal punishment of the wicked, that we are simply not allowed to set it aside as, "sub-Christian, or to interpret it in such a way as to remove the abrasive truth of eternal punishment."[Mounce’s commentary, p. 277] Jesus spoke of this at greater length than did any of his apostles. After we have made every allowance for the figurative nature of the apocalyptic language, there still remains, "the terrifying reality of divine wrath,"[Mounce’s commentary, p. 277] to be poured out upon those who persist in following the devil. It is no light matter to abandon the holy teachings of the sacred New Testament, and to substitute the easy rules of man-made, man-controlled, and man-centered religion.
3.2 The torment of God’s wrath in the presence of the Lamb
Therefore, the context of Rev 14:11 (ESV) demonstrates that those who are serving the Beast, the unbelieving damned, will experience the torment of God’s wrath in the presence of the Lamb for aeons upon aeons – forever and ever Amen! That’s clear Bible teaching and one has to do a lot of squirming to make it say that unbelievers do not experience eternal torment. It’s called eisegesis to impose another reading on it.
Lenski, R C H 1943/1963. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St. Johnās Revelation. Minneapolis MN: Augsburg Publishing House (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. edn.).
This was an audacious request on a Christian forum that did not seem to indicate too much thought about the question: āWhere in scripture does it tell us which books of the bible are to be included in the bible? (table of contents)ā[1]
How should I respond?
1. No need to inform first century Christians
There was no need to tell the Christians of the first century.[2] They knew which books were included in the OT canon. That’s why Paul could say to the Berean Christians in Acts 17:11 (ESV): ‘Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so’. Which Scriptures?
Isn’t that amazing that the Book of Acts does not need to articulate a list of the Books of the OT so that the Berean Christians would know which books were in the OT and which were out of it? Paul did not have to list them and say, ‘Here is a list of the books contained in Scripture that you should use to check the authenticity and validity of my teaching’. They knew which books were in the OT canon.
In the four NT Gospels, I do not read that there was any dispute between Jesus and the Jewish leaders over the extent of the OT canon.
2. Persistence: No list of books in the canon
The forum fellow persisted in another thread: āScripture does not give us a list of books that are to be in the Bible. How do we know we have the right books in the Bible? Scripture is silent about itā.[3]
Because the OT and NT do not give a list of books that are inspired of God to be included in the Bible does not mean that what we have is illegitimate. In fact, the word, Bible, appears nowhere in the Bible (that I’m aware of), so why are you supporting the use of the term, Bible?
However, God gave teachers to the church (1 Cor 12:28 ESV; Eph 4:11 ESV) who guide us through that process. These teachers themselves are not perfect in their understanding as Paul told the Bereans (Acts 17:11 ESV) that they were to check his teaching against the Scripture. Which Scripture? The OT. Paul didn’t say in Acts 17, here’s a list of the OT books that you need to use to check my teaching. They knew what they were as affirmed by the Jews.
3. Pseudo-gospels readily available
In the first century and beyond, there were plenty of fake gospels available. Do you want the pseudo-gospel of Peter (GPet) to be in the NT? It was rejected by the early church fathers because of its heretical teachings. It was found with the Qumran documents. It was mentioned by early church historian, Eusebius in his Church History (3.3.1-4; 3.25.6; and 6.12.3-6).
Why not also theGospel of Thomas (written about mid to late second century)?[5]Ā If you read the Gospel of Thomas and compare it with each of the 4 Gospels in the NT, you will notice the marked difference in content.Ā I’d suggest a read of Nicholas Perrin’s, Thomas, the Other Gospel (Perrin 2007).Ā Perrin concludes his book with this comment:
Is this the Other Gospel we have been waiting for? Somehow, I suspect, we have heard this message before. Somehow we have met this Jesus before. The Gospel of Thomas invites us to imagine a Jesus who says, ‘I am not your saviour, but the one who can put you in touch with your true self. Free yourself from your gender, your body, and any concerns you might have for the outside world. Work for it and self-realization, salvation, will be yours ā in this life.’ Imagine such a Jesus? One need hardly work very hard. This is precisely the Jesus we know too well, the existential Jesus that so many western evangelical and liberal churches already preach.
If the Gospel of Thomas is good news for anybody, it is good news to those who are either intent on escaping the world or are already quite content with the way things are (Perrin 2007:139).
As for the Gospel of Peter [GPet], please read this assessment by C L Quarles (2006).Ā Here are a few grabs from Quarles’ critique of GPet:
Such compositional projection and retrojection [of GPet] are absent from the canonical Gospels. This suggests that the authors of the canonical Gospels were constrained to preserve faithfully the traditions about Christ, but that the author of GP felt free to exercise his imagination in creative historiography. The compositional strategy of projection suggests that the GP shares a common milieu with second-century pseudepigraphical works and casts doubt on [John Dominic] Crossan’s claim that the GP antedates the canonical Gospelsā¦.
Compositional strategies that were popular in the second century can readily explain how the author of the GP produced his narrative from the canonical Gospelsā¦.
The GP is more a product of the author’s creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events (Quarles 2006:116, 119).
Charles Quarles has an online assessment of GPet HERE.
Stephen Emmel, professor of Coptic studies at Germany’s University of Munster, analyzed the Gospel of Judas and submitted the following assessment.
“The kind of writing reminds me very much of the Nag Hammadi codices,” he wrote, referring to a famed collection of ancient manuscripts.
“It’s not identical script with any of them. But it’s a similar type of script, and since we date the Nag ‘Hammadi codices to roughly the second half of the fourth century or the first part of the fifth century, my immediate inclination would be to say that the Gospel of Judas was written by a scribe in that same period, let’s say around the year 400.”
The Gnostic authors often borrowed the names of Jesusā disciples to attach to their texts, such as the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Mary. The Gospel of Judas has been discovered, restored, and published most recently. Using the disciplesā names or other Biblical names gives the appearance of authority, but it is deceptive. The original disciples or Bible characters had nothing to do with these writings. The teaching of Jesus, the names of his disciples, and the four Gospels traveled well. Gnostics capitalized on this fame.
All of these (late) Gnostic documents would not be a concern to anyone but a few specialists. Yet some scholars, who have access to the national media and who write their books for the general public, imply that Gnostic texts should be accepted as equally valid and authoritative as the four canonical Gospels, or stand a step or two behind the Biblical Gospels. At least the Gnostic scriptures, so these scholars say today, could have potentially been elevated to the canon, but were instead suppressed by orthodox church leaders. (Orthodox literally means ācorrect or straight thinking,ā and here it means the early church of Irenaeus and Athanasius, to cite only these examples).
This series challenges the claim that the Gnostic texts should be canonical or even a step or two behind the four Biblical Gospels. The Gnostic texts were considered heretical for good reason.
I examined why some of the content of these pseudo-gospels are not included in the NT in my doctoral dissertation. Take a read of the Gospel of Peter (online) and it should become evident why such fanciful imagination is not included in the NT. This section of GPet states:
35 Now in the night whereon the Lord’s day dawned, as the soldiers were keeping guard two by two in every watch, 36 there came a great sound in the heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend thence, shining with (lit. having) a great light, and drawing near unto the sepulchre. 37 And that stone which had been set on the door rolled away of itself and went back to the side, and the sepulchre was
X. 38 opened and both of the young men entered in. When therefore those soldiers saw that, they waked up the centurion and the elders (for they also were there keeping 39 watch); and while they were yet telling them the things which they had seen, they saw again three men come out of the sepulchre, and two of them sustaining the other (lit. the 40 one), and a cross following, after them. And of the two they saw that their heads reached unto heaven, but of him that 41 was led by them that it overpassed the heavens. And they 42 heard a voice out of the heavens saying: Hast thou (or Thou hast) preached unto them that sleep? And an answer was heard from the cross, saying: Yea.
Here we have a walking and talking cross that came out of the sepulchre ā fanciful nonsense! One does not have to be very astute to reject this kind of extra ‘gospel’, yet John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar believes GPet is the original Cross Gospel from which the other Gospels derived this information (Crossan 1994:154-155).
6. Questions about formation of the NT canon
I still have some questions about the formation of the NT canon that remain unanswered at this time. Historically, there was a partial list available, known as the Muratorian Canon (ca. AD 170-200).[6] My questions surround the process of formation of the canon that included the procedure used to determine if a book was theopneustos (breathed out by God ā 2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV). I had questions about two church councils in the late third century that finally affirmed the NT canon.
Historical details include the following:
The first historical reference listing the exact 27 writings in the orthodox New Testament is in the Easter Letter of Athanasius in 367 AD. His reference states that these are the only recognized writings to be read in a church service. The first time a church council ruled on the list of “inspired” writings allowed to be read in church was at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD. No document survived from this council – we only know of this decision because it was referenced at the third Synod of Carthage in 397 AD. Even this historical reference from Carthage, Canon 24, does not “list” every single document. For example, it reads, “the gospels, four booksā¦” The only reason for this list is to confirm which writings are “sacred” and should be read in a church service. There is no comment as to why and how this list was agreed upon (Baker 2008).
Church historian, Earle Cairns, answers some of these issues with this assessment of the development of the list of books that became known as the NT:
People often err by thinking that the canon was set by church councils. Such was not the case, for the various church councils that pronounced upon the subject of the canon of the New Testament were merely stating publicly ā¦ what had been widely accepted by the consciousness of the church for some time. The development of the canon was a slow process substantially completed by A.D. 175 except for a few books whose authorship was disputed (Cairns 1981:118).
Cairns explained further why there was a delay in accepting certain NT books as canonical:
Apparently the Epistles of Paul were first collected by leaders in the church of Ephesus. This collection was followed by the collection of the Gospels sometime after the beginning of the second century. The so-called Muratorian Canon, discovered by Lodovico A. Muratori (1672-1750) in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, was dated about 180. Twenty-two books of the New Testament were looked upon as canonical. Eusebius about 324 thought that at least twenty books of the New Testament were acceptable on the same level as the books of the Old Testament. James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation were among the books whose place in the canon was still under consideration.[7] The delay in placing these was caused primarily by an uncertainty concerning questions of authorship. Athanasius, however, in his Easter letter of 367 to the churches under his jurisdiction as the bishop of Alexandria, listed as canonical the same twenty-seven books that we now have in the New Testament. Later councils, such as that at Carthage in 397, merely approved and gave uniform expression to what was already an accomplished fact generally accepted by the church over a long period of time. The slowness with which the church accepted Hebrews and Revelation as canonical is indicative of the care and devotion with which it dealt with this question (Cairns 1981:118-119).
Eusebius (ca. AD 265-330)[8] wrote this of the disputed and rejected NT writings:
3. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.
4. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books (Eusebius 1890, 3.25.3-4).
7. An eminent church historianās assessment
Philip Schaffās History of the Christian Church is considered one of the most comprehensive expositions of church history by a near-contemporary scholar. He wrote:
The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles.[9] (Schaff n.d., vol 3, Ā§ 118. Sources of Theology. Scripture and Tradition).
8. Which books were confirmed in the Hebrew OT?
Page from an 11th-century AramaicTargum manuscript of the Hebrew Bible (Wikipedia)
Which books were included by the Jews in the Hebrew Bible?
I reject the inclusion of the Apocrypha (Deutero-Canonical books) in the OT. This is the position adopted by Roman Catholic authority, Jerome (ca. 347-420),[10] who, in his preface to the Vulgate version of the Apocryphaās Book of Solomon stated that the church reads the apocryphal books āfor example and instruction of mannersā but not to āapply them to establish any doctrineā. In fact, Jerome rejected Augustineās unjustified acceptance of the Apocrypha.[11]
The Jewish scholars who met at Jamnia, ca. AD 90, did not accept the Apocrypha in the inspired Jewish canon of Scripture. The Apocrypha was not contained in the Hebrew Bible and Jerome knew it. In his preface to the Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible, he rejected the apocryphal additions to Daniel, i.e. Bel and the Dragon, and Susanna.[12] Jerome wrote:
The stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are not contained in the Hebrew…. For this same reason when I was translating Daniel many years ago, I noted these visions with a critical symbol, showing that they were not included in the Hebrew…. After all, both Origen, Eusebius and Appolinarius, and other outstanding churchmen and teachers of Greece acknowledge that ā¦ these visions are not found amongst the Hebrews, and therefore they are not obliged to answer to Porphyry for these portions which exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture ā (in Geisler 2002:527, emphasis added).
The Protestant canon of 39 OT books, excluding the Apocrypha, coincides with the Hebrew 22 books of the OT.
There are many other reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha. Any reasonable person, who reads Tobit, and Bel and the Dragon, knows how fanciful they become when compared with the God-breathed Scripture.
There was no need for the apostles to provide the people of the first century with a list of the OT Books contained in Scripture. It was a given as Paul, the redeemed Pharisee, made evident with his comment to the Berean Christians in Acts 17:11 (ESV). In addition, the Jewish OT canon did not include the Deuterocanonical Books (the Apocrypha).
The Hebrew scholars who met at Jamnia about AD 90 confirmed the 22 OT books in the Hebrew canon of Scripture (which are 39 books in the Protestant canon).
There are good reasons why Gnostic and other gospels were not included by the teachers of the early Christian church in establishing the NT canon. A reading of the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Judas, and other pseudo-gospels makes evident that fanciful, speculative, creative content was evidence that these āother gospelsā were not the genuine product to include in the NT.
At least 22-23 of the 27 NT books had been affirmed as authoritative for the canon by the late second century. The remainder were questioned because of uncertainty of authorship. However, by the end of the third century, all of the NT canonical books had been gathered and affirmed by church use.
Crossan, J D 1994. Jesus: A revolutionary biography. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.
Eusebius 1890. Church history. Tr by A C McGiffert. Ed by P Schaff & H Wace, from Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers, 2nd series, vol 1. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co. Rev & ed for New Advent by K Knight at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm (Accessed 28 October 2016).
Perrin, N 2007. Thomas, the other gospel. London: SPCK.
Quarles, C. L. 2006, The Gospel of Peter: Does it contain a precanonical resurrection narrative? in R B Stewart (ed), The resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in dialogue, 106-120. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
Schaff, P n.d. History of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, A.D. 311-600, vol 3. Available at: Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL), http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3 (Accessed 25 October 2016).
[9]Heb. xi. 35 ff. probably alludes, indeed, to 2 Macc. vi. ff.; but between a historical allusion and a corroborative citation with the solemn he graphe legei there is a wide difference.
If you wanted to euthanise someone with a drug or provide a drug for self-administered suicide, which drug would you recommend?
Pentobarbital (trade name Nembutal) is the lethal drug recommended and made available through Australiaās Dr Philip Nitschke of Exit International for euthanasia or assisted suicide.[1] Nitschke is a former medical doctor who also has a PhD in laser physics.[2]
What would you do if your national TV network, funded by tax payers’ dollars to the tune of approximately $1 billion Australian annually,[4] deliberately promoted only one side of a highly emotional contemporary issue? ABC TVās 7.30 programme in Australia did just that on Thursday, 20 October 2016, with its advocacy for assisted suicide. How could one possibly describe it other than pursuing the role of an activist promoter?
What did it do? It provided video of euthanasia advocate, Max Bromsonās, giving himself a lethal dose of Nembutal, obtained from Philip Nitschkeās Exit International, to end his life. This was from video that the family filmed of his taking this lethal dose and then released to the ABC and the public.
The ABC gave only one side of the euthanasia controversy (with a small exception). It was grossly imbalanced in its coverage.
Therefore, I considered the place to begin was to ā¦
1. Lodged a complaint with the ABC
This was my online complaint sent on 21 October 2016:
I viewed your story in support of euthanasia on the 7.30 programme, Thursday 20 October 2016. The story is titled, Family releases video of euthanasia advocate’s final moments, available at: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2016/s4560443.htm. It includes video and transcript. This shows the dark side of what Philip Nitschke will do illegally.
I protest at the way 7.30 did not provide balance in this story. As a $1 billion tax payer-funded broadcaster, we deserve balance in programming. That is not what I viewed last night.
In this entire story, the only words against euthanasia were from South Australian Labor MP, Tom Kenyon:
TOM KENYON, SA LABOR MP: Some of us are Christians in this Parliament and we have views that are formed and informed by our Christian upbringing and our faith.
There’s nothing wrong with that….
TOM KENYON: The idea that the state should assist in the deaths of people, to contribute financially through resources, the allocation of resources to the deaths of people, is not something I’m prepared to counter [the video said ācountenanceā].
This was an emotionally charged story to support euthanasia, even though it is illegal in Australia. There was not a word on issues such as:
These are the possible deleterious consequences for a nation that legalises the killing of people under any circumstances and assists in their suicides.
All human beings have a right to life and palliative care during their painful sicknesses and dying years.
The medical profession’s role is to help control the pain and not organise the death or killing.
Reasons why killing of human beings should not be legislated.
What a death culture of euthanasia and assisted suicide will do to the culture of the nation.
I am not writing as a theoretician. My wife is dying of leukaemia. I have two severe disabilities.
I refer you to retired Australian anaesthetist, Dr Brian Pollard’s, assessment of the dangers of euthanasia: ‘Why safe voluntary euthanasia is a myth‘ (published in Quadrant 2011).
What will you do to bring balance to the 7.30 programme’s advocacy for euthanasia that was evident last night?
Yours sincerely,
Spencer Gear PhD
I asked for a response via email but my experience with the ABC in the past is not to be hopeful of any lasting change in journalistic policy in obtaining balance in reporting. Unless the government demands such balance for funding and signs a contract with the ABC and SBS to that effect, it will not happen.
2. The mass media jumped on board with this story
Herald Sun front page 12 December 2005, reporting on the 2005 Cronulla riots (image courtesy Wikipedia).[6]
Especially the News Corp media took the opportunity to challenge the content of this story. The Herald Sun on 21 October 2016 published, āABC criticised for showing final moments of euthanasia advocate Max Bromsonās life[7]. The article stated that its original edition was published as āABC accused of ādeath voyeurismāā. āDeath voyeurismā was a term used by former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, in responding to the ABC story.
This Herald Sun article made these points:
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton accused the ABC of being ātaken overā by political activists.
Tony Abbott: āRegardless of where you stand on the issue, there have to be standards of reporting. This is death voyeurism, not journalismā.
Neil Mitchell: āI strongly support voluntary euthanasia, but this was a blatant and irresponsible piece of attention-seeking by the ABC,ā the 3AW Mornings host said. He also called it āself-serving, self-indulgent journalismā.
(photo Philip Nitschke 2016, courtesy Wikipedia)[8]
Bromson, a passionate and outspoken supporter of voluntary euthanasia, wanted to end his life his own way so he went to Philip Nitschkeās euthanasia advocacy group, Exit International, and secretly obtained the illegal euthanasia drug, Nembutal. Then at his chosen time when his bone cancer was severe, he asked family to take him to a motel room where he took the dose of Nembutal while his family filmed his last moments.
There are two bills before the South Australian parliament seeking to introduce voluntary euthanasia. This kind of political manoeuvring has been going on for two decades.
āThe latest bid for change was launched on Thursday with the 15th bill since 1995 put before the lower house by advocate and Liberal MP Duncan McFetridgeā¦. Dr McFetridge said his Choices and Dignity at the End of Life bill had embraced previous concerns from many MPs, making voluntary euthanasia only available to people with a terminal illness whose suffering had become intolerableā.
McFetridge claimed of his euthanasia legislation that āit also provided for seven clear steps before voluntary euthanasia would become available and barred people with a disability or mental illness from seeking euthanasia on those groundsā.
āThis is a choice that is wanted by those few people for whom palliative care does not work,ā Dr McFetridge said.
The Sun Herald article continued: āLetās give those people the democratic right to make the decision about how they leave this lifeā.
āLabor MP Steph Key, who introduced the 14th bill [into the South Australian parliament] in February, said the new measures had tightened the eligibility and assessment processes. āWe have continued to consult widely on the proposed voluntary euthanasia laws and this new Bill will encompass all the checks and safeguards sought by our colleagues,ā she saidā.
3. Responding to secular arguments favouring euthanasia
The Herald Sunās article included a poll, āShould the ABC have shown footage of a euthanasia advocate ending their own life?ā[9] Here it provided opportunity for comments. Two supporters of euthanasia responded:
3.1 Human beings compared with animals
This person compared euthanasia of human beings with what the RSPCA would do with animals that were suffering in a similar way. She[10] compared animals found in poor state with people being prosecuted for euthanasia. However, we allow human beings to suffer, she said.
Those offended by the ABC 7.30 video should understand that āYOUR level of discomfort is nothing compared to what they are inflicting on these poor people. We need to stop and think for a minute about this. Making assisted suicide legal is different to making it compulsory! If YOU find the thought unpalatable, FINE don’t do itā.
She went down the standard line that āyou do not have the right to impose your beliefs onto another human being. Making it legal will NOT result in more people dying, it will just help them die with dignity. We, collectively, as a society need to get OUR bloody noses out of other people’s business.[11]
Another replied:
3.2 Pray to your mythical god
This fellow was in agreement with the animal comparison by Pat but he took the opportunity to give God a secular slam in the religious gut:
I agree with Pat. If Max was a animal his carers would be prosecuted. As for the Liberal Senator Knoll, you can pray to your mythical god and suffer if he wishes you to me. I will die with dignity at my own hand where I want and when I want.[12]
3.3Ā I chose not to be silent
This support for euthanasia and assistance in suicide, comparing with animals, needs a response. This is how I countered:[13]
The difference is that we are not animals. We are human beings. Promoting the killing of anyone is endorsing a mighty cultural shift.
There are important issues that need to be addressed before becoming gung-ho advocates of killing and assisted killing:
What are the possible deleterious consequences for a nation that legalises the killing of people under any circumstances and assists in their suicides? All human beings have a right to life and palliative care during their painful sicknesses and dying years. The medical profession’s role is to help control the pain and not organise the death. We need much more detailed discussion on the reasons why killing of human beings should not be legalised. What would a death culture of euthanasia and assisted suicide do to the culture of Australia, especially for those who are vulnerable?
I do not write as a theoretician. My wife is dying of leukaemia and I have 2 severe disabilities. I would never ever place my wife and me in the category of being animals that are so diseased and need to be put down. Life is given by God and he determines when our end should be.
Job 1:21 (NLT) reminds us: āHe (Job) said, “I came naked from my mother’s womb, and I will be naked when I leave. The LORD gave me what I had, and the LORD has taken it away. Praise the name of the LORD!”ā Psalm 139:16 (NIV) confirms that āYour (Godās) eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to beā.
Ronald, in shaking your fist at God and declaring that ‘you can pray to your mythical god’ you have committed an appeal to ridicule logical fallacy. We cannot have a logical discussion on such an important topic as end of life issues when you resort to this fallacious reasoning.
3.4 We choose what is right for each other
It was interesting to see how a non-Christian, relativist and secularist would respond to my challenge. She came back with a predictable promotion of autonomous reason:
She understood āexactlyā what I said. Her point was āthat your choices are right for you under your circumstancesā. However, living in our āwonderful democracyā means I have the right to make my choice and others have the right not to share my ideals and beliefs.
They have as much right to an opinion and choice as I do.
There is āa difference between making something legal and making it compulsoryā.
If Iām opposed to assisted suicide, she was confident that ānothing will change if it is made legalā.
She is not optimistic about the level of palliative care in hour health care for pensioners, veterans and terminally ill.
Whoās at fault? The politicians drop the ball as there are not enough votes in them. We canāt rely on good care being available for these people.
She wished me well in dealing with the personal tribulations of my wife and me.
In spite of my opposition, she will remain steadfast in her beliefs as stated.[14]
4. Logical consequences of ‘itās right for you and not right for me’
What are the consequences of accepting Patās worldview and its values on euthanasia? This was my assessment of her use of autonomous reason in our democracy.[15]
I also understand what Pat says and the values driving her statements. It means that since we live in this wonderful Australian democracy we can make choices that are right for you and right for me. What’s the logical conclusion of this worldview driven by autonomous reason?
Why stop with Pat choosing euthanasia and my opposing it because of choices in our democracy? There is no reason you can stop people making the right decision for them to break into your property and flog whatever they want. I don’t share that value, but who am I to stop them in a democratic society that allows choices?
Let’s press her worldview to another logical conclusion: Who am I to say that people should not murder human beings and lie about what they did when they are the choices they make? You may disagree in a democracy but neither of us should be forced to agree that stealing and murder are wrong if democratic values are maintained. Neither of us would have to agree that paedophilia and the rape of children is wrong. If itās good for him to do that, who are we to oppose that value.
However, why are murder, theft, lying and rape illegal as absolute values in Australia? Itās because they are wrong, based on God’s transcendent standards in, say, the Ten Commandments (see Exodus 20:1-17 NIV; Matthew 5-7 NIV). There are those who disagree and break the law in our democracy but they suffer just consequences.
She said, ‘If you are opposed to the concept of assisted suicide, then nothing will change if it is made legal.’ This is a false premise. Introducing voluntary killing of another person into our culture will change the very fabric of our society. There will be fear for the elderly, severely injured and others to enter hospital.
If you don’t believe me, take a look at what is happening in the Netherlands right now following legalisation in 2002. It started with Drs who could euthanise patients if they were competent, conscious, repeatedly asked for euthanasia, and were suffering unbearably as a result of an incurable disorder. What are they up to now? According to Reuters’ news agency of 12 October 2016, the Dutch government is drafting legislation to legalise assisted suicide for people who sense they have ‘completed life’ (the elderly) [Sterling 2016].
I refer you to retired Australian anaesthetist, Dr Brian Pollard’s, assessment of the dangers of euthanasia: Why safe voluntary euthanasia is a myth (Quadrant 2011).
I agree that more money needs to be spent on palliative care. That is one value on which Pat and I agree. However, autonomous reason in a democracy leads to chaos because no reigns can be placed on any moral values. Itās the natural outcome of relativism in action.
What is relativism? āThe term “ethical relativism” encompasses a number of different beliefs, but they all agree that there are no universal, permanent criteria to determine what may or may not be an ethical act. God granted no divine command, and human nature displays no common law. Consequences have no bearing because each person or society may interpret the ārightnessā of each consequence differently. Ethical relativism teaches that a societyās ethics evolve over time and change to fit circumstancesā (Got Questions 2002-2016).
We need absolute standards of right and wrong: It is wrong to steal, kill and tell lies. God provides those standards in Scripture (see Ex 20:1-17; Matt 5-7). Without Godās unchanging standards, there is no way to objectively determine if murder is anything different to euthanasia. The Canadian Law Reform Commission got it right in 1983 when it concluded that mercy killing (euthanasia) should not be made a separate category to homicide (reference below).
5. Other issues from the secularistsā responses
The secular responses from Pat and Don raise some other disturbing concerns about euthanasia.
5.1 Dying with dignity at my own hand
Don stated: āI will die with dignity at my own hand where I want and when I wantā.
As retired anaesthetist, Dr. Brian Pollard indicates, (see below), safe voluntary euthanasia is a myth. That Don wants to die with dignity at his own hand when he wants is a pleasing objective for a person using his or her autonomous reason. However, I have some questions:
(a) How does he know he will have a disease that will allow him to die with dignity at the end of life?
(b) History demonstrates that not all Drs can be trusted to implement the wishes of the patient.
(c) We know from the history of humanity that laws against murder, theft, rape and lying do not prevent those crimes from being committed. Therefore, to die with dignity could fall into the category of the Drs who lie about maintaining the law to euthanise human beings who voluntarily decide when they do it, without permission.
(d) A greater issue than the human side of dying is what lies beyond death. God has told us what that will be: āJust as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgmentā (Hebrews 9:27 NIV).
Don as a secularist wants to give God a kick out of his life by assigning him to this place of imagination: āYou can pray to your mythical godā. One minute after his last breath he will know he is dead wrong. How do I know? Truth is that which matches reality. I take Scripture and examine its description of what is happening in our contemporary world and I see an exact description of reality. Truth is that which matches reality. Godās truth in Scripture lines up with the reality of human experience in our contemporary world.
It demonstrates why doctors and human beings in general want to violate Godās way of life. Romans 1:18 (NLT) states it clearly: āGod shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickednessā. In practical terms in the euthanasia discussion, God will show his anger towards all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth about whose responsibility it is to take life. They suppress this truth because of their practices of wickedness ā sinful actions that violate Godās truthful rule in peopleās lives and in our society.
I recommend to Don that he deals with something more serious than ādying with dignityā and choosing the time, place and manner of his own death.
Pat wrote some of the most provocative comments in her/his support of euthanasia. Here is another one:
Pat: āAnyone who took offense at the video should realize that YOUR level of discomfort is nothing compared to what they are inflicting on these poor peopleā.
Letās get something clear. My opposition to euthanasia and my offense at the ABC 7.30 programmeās support of euthanasia with the film of Max Bromsonās death by assisted suicide, has zero to do with inflicting suffering on poor people in their distress.
Who gives and takes life ā God ā and that role should not be usurped by autonomous people who reason that killing or assistance in the killing of people is appropriate for a democratic culture. āThe LORD gives both death and life; he brings some down to the grave but raises others upā (1 Sam 2:6 NLT).
Many doctors cannot be trusted with obeying the euthanasia law (see below).
5.3 You donāt have right to impose your beliefs
Pat: āBut you do not have the right to impose your beliefs onto another human being. Making it legal will NOT result in more people dying, it will just help them die with dignityā.
Notice the hypocrisy in this statement. I donāt have the right to impose my pro-life beliefs on another human being. What is she doing? She is imposing her pro-euthanasia views on Australian society and I am included. It is paradoxical that someone doesnāt want my values but is brazen enough to push her values on me without seeing the hypocrisy.
I have as much right to oppose euthanasia in this democracy as I have to oppose murder, theft, rape and lying. I have every right to uphold Godās absolute standards of justice for a just society. For the Old Testament people of Israel, moral standards were contained in the TenĀ Commandments in Exodus 20:1-17 (NIV). Since the time of Christ, they have been the commandments of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7 NIV). I have every right to promote the Sermon on the Mount as Godās absolutes for a society that brings justice.
It is a furphy (untrue or absurd) statement to say that I donāt have the right to āimposeā beliefs. A better way to put it would be: In this democracy, I have the right to demonstrate that adhering to Godās absolute laws of right and wrong leads to a society where justice is practised.
There is a further dimension: āRighteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any peopleā (Proverbs 14:34 NIV). For the Hebrews, ārighteousnessā was synonymous for ājusticeā. Godās justice will exalt Australia and breaking Godās law by sinning against his righteous standards will condemn Australia to chaos and destruction. If Australia legislates in favour of euthanasia, it will be promoting injustice and condemning the country to Godās punishments.
Patās view was that making euthanasia ālegal will NOT result in more people dying; it will just help them die with dignityā. This has been demonstrated to be false in the Netherlands. Will that also happen in Canada which also legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2016?[16]
5.4 Keep OUR bloody noses out of another personās business
Pat: āWe, collectively, as a society need to get OUR bloody noses out of other people’s businessā.
She writes with some anger with his capitalisation of OUR. There are many good reasons why people should have their noses in other peopleās businesses. Thatās the responsibility of living in a caring, compassionate society. If my neighbourās house is on fire, Iāll stick my nose into his business and call 000. If a thief breaks into the house, Iāll go to help him and do the best I can to catch the thief and hold him down.
To my dying day Iāll violate Patās command. Why? It IS my business if somebody is being murdered, raped, assaulted, or theft is taking place on anyoneās property that I know about. I have a duty of care and love for my neighbour, based on my Christian worldview: āLove your neighbour as yourselfā (Mark 12:31 NIV). Therefore, rejecting the deliberate killing or assistance in killing of another person through euthanasia for assisted suicide IS my business. Iāll stand up for life and not for murder. The right to life is one of Godās absolutes. It is His responsibility to take like when He is ready and not when autonomous reason says so.
Counselling people has been my business for 34 years (until retirement). I will not change my language from, āIāll be available to help you with your depression or suicidal ideationā to āIāll be here to assist you to know that life is not worth living and Iāll refer you to a euthanasia doctorā. That changes the ethics of a caring professional. I will not buy into butchering ethics in that manner.
The Canadians got it correct in their 1983 Law Reform Commission on euthanasia. It concluded, following an inquiry, that āthe Commission recommends that mercy killing not be made an offence separate from homicide and that there be no formal provision for special modes of sentencing for this type of homicide other than what is already provided for homicideā (Parliament of Canada 1995, emphasis added).
5.5 Lack of good palliative care
Pat: āAs for your reference to palliative care, I, sadly, do not share your optimistic view. In a perfect world, we would have excellent health care for our pensioners, veterans and terminally ill. The sad reality of it is, we do not. Our politicians continually drop the ball on these issues, guess there just aren’t many votes in it for them, so we cannot rely on the fact that good care will be readily availableā.
This is one area where I agree with Pat. If politicians continue to oppose euthanasia (and I pray that they will), I ask them to pump more medical dollars into better palliative care and hospices for the suffering and dying.
6. We cannot trust all doctors to obey euthanasia laws
If we cannot accept that Australians will abide by laws against murder, lies and theft, why should we expect doctors to obey the parameters of euthanasia in any legislation that is passed into law?
I do not reject euthanasia because of the results it is likely to cause. We have international evidence that doctors cannot be trusted to abide by a euthanasia law.
Steven Pleiter is the director of the Levenseindekliniek ā End of Life clinic ā in The Hague, The Netherlands. Angela Neustatter (2015) reported for The Guardian that in spite of his Christian upbringing, he wished he could have helped his mother to die after she suffered a stroke. Heās aware of the arguments that people need to be protected from the chance they may improve in the future. However, to those who are really suffering and want help to die, he considers it morally right to give help in that situation.
Where does this lead? Neustatter (2015) reported that this kind of thinking extends to anyone over the age of 18 who fits the criteria. Pleiter told of a 22-year-old male who was paralysed from the neck down in a sporting accident and considered life unbearable as he began to go blind. āAt this point, he was adamant he did not want to go on. We agreed to help and his parents were utterly supportiveā. However, it was more controversial when a 47-year-old woman with incurable tinnitus (like train brakes constantly shrieking in her head) who convinced the clinic āher suffering was unbearableā.
The Levenseindekliniek clinic does not charge because it receives funding from the Holland governmentās health system. Pleiter acknowledged that āwe go to the borders of the law, but never outside. We are a professional organisation but one that believes you look at the fact that some people want to die as enabling them to accept responsibility for their choice. It is about using compassion to give them the dignity to go when they wishā (Neustatter 2015).
Luke Gormally, director of London’s Linacre Bio-Ethics Centre (now called Anscombe Bioethics Centre), when in Australia warned of the message sent to youth with legalisation of euthanasia:
Legalizing euthanasia in Australia would send a ‘wholly negative message’ to young people and might even encourage teenagers to consider suicide, a British bioethics expert warned. Luke Gormally, director of the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics in London, told a Sydney news conference Friday night that new research has shown that lobbying to legalize euthanasia generally occurs during economic slumps. The government of Northern Territory has already legalized euthanasia, and Australian philosophers Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse have called for the legalization of so-called mercy killing. Gormally said Singer and Kuhse had ‘no coherent concept of justice,’ and said the underlying philosophical reason for legalizing euthanasia is the judgment that certain lives were not worthwhile. ‘Not only is that concept subversive of the foundations of justice in society, but it would be an educational message of the kind Australian society just does not need,’ he said. He said legalizing euthanasia would send young people the message that suicide is an acceptable solution to problems. ‘Now it seems to me that a society that, through the law, is underwriting the notion that certain lives are not worthwhile is positively validating a perception that young people can lapse into at critical moments in their lives,’ he said. ‘It’s sending a wholly negative message about human life and human worth,’ Gormally said. He added, ‘I gather that the rate of teenage suicide in Australia is rather high,’ although he did not provide statistics. Gormally, in Australia to give public lectures in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, said a study by U.S. researchers had shown that calls to legalize euthanasia increase during times of economic depression (Anderson 1995).
The British Medical Associationās report against legalising euthanasia has been reviewed by Luke Gormally. These are the main points he makes (Gormally n d):[18]
Euthanasia must not be supported because of the value of the individual;
It is important to have an unambiguous rule against euthanasiaās killing in order to maintain the true character of the doctor’s commitment to patient care.
Ā The insensitivity of euthanasia needs to be acknowledged.
Ā Which human beings are of `inestimable value’ and why are they?
What counts as intentional killing?
It creates limits of the duty to treat.
We know that when we support voluntary euthanasia, it can go beyond the person’s choice. Holland is the most evident, contemporary example for which we have clear evidence. That country has permitted voluntary, active euthanasia as far back as 1973 and made it legal in 2002.
Dutch medical doctor, Dr. Karel Gunning, on his 1992 visit to Australia said: āHolland has indeed become a very dangerous country, as patients may have their lives ended without their request and without knowledge of the authorities. The doctor thus has become a powerful man, able to decide on life or deathā. Dr Gunning wrote that āwhatever our own position, we have to admit that euthanasia in the Netherlands is completely out of control. If you define euthanasia, as the Dutch Physiciansā League does, as “Consciously causing a patient’s death,” then it occurred in some 20,000 cases in the Netherlands in one year. Of a total annual mortality of 129,000, this amounts to over 15 percent of all deathsā (Gunning n.d.).
[Photograph of 91-one-year old, Nel Bolten, showing her tattoo on her chest that says: ‘Do not reanimate, I am 91+’. It was taken on Nov. 15, 2014 in The Hague, The Netherlands (Ross 2015)].[19]
At a special presentation, Dr Gunning stated:
The government-installed Remmelink Committee, which issued a report on the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands in the year 1991, speaks of 2,300 cases of euthanasia, that is 1.8 percent of all deaths! They used another definition of euthanasia, to wit “life-ending treatment at the patient’s explicit request.”
Using our own definition we have to include, besides the 2,300 cases called euthanasia by the Committee, the 400 cases of assisted suicide and the 1,000 cases of ending a patient’s life without his request, also mentioned in the report. That makes together nearly 4,000 cases. But the report speaks also of cases where high doses of medicine for pain and symptom control were given or where treatment was omitted with the implied or explicit intention to hasten the patient’s death. And these cases are called “normal medical practice”. That is most frightening. Refraining from treatment which burdens the patient and cannot prevent his death is, of course, very good medical practice. But if it is done with the intention to end life, then it is not medical practice at all, but consciously causing a patient’s death, which we call euthanasia. On the basis of the numbers given in the Remmelink report the Dutch Physiciansā League had estimated the number of these cases at 16,000. Together, the League estimated the number of cases where the doctor had the intention (implied or explicit) to end the patient’s life at nearly 20,000 per year, that is over 15 percent of all deaths. These are huge numbers.
Now these conclusions and estimates of the Physiciansā League have been hotly contested. But in a recent letter to the editor of Medisch Contact (MC, April 29,1994), the official organ of the Royal Dutch Medical Association, the investigators of the Remmelink Committee themselves say that abstaining from treatment was done with the explicit intention to hasten the end of life in 11,000 cases. And high doses for pain and symptom control were given with the implied or explicit intention to hasten the end of a patient’s life in 6,500 cases. So, according to their estimates there must have been over 21,000 cases where the doctor had the intention (implied or explicit) to end the patient’s life, which is over 16.4 percent of all deaths, even more than the estimates of the Physiciansā League.
I mention these facts as a warning, because they show that we have no reason at all to tell the world to follow our example. They show how rapidly the Netherlands has slipped down the slippery slope. They show that, once you accept killing as a solution for one problem, you soon find a hundred problems for which killing can be regarded as a solution. First you kill at the patient’s request, then without request, a comatose patient or a handicapped newborn baby, then you help a healthy but depressed person to commit suicide, etc. (Gunning n.d.).
Dr K F Gunning is president of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life; Board Nederlands Artsenverbond – Dutch Physiciansā League (Gunning n.d.).
Of Holland, āWe have no reason at all to tell the world to follow our example. They show how rapidly the Netherlands has slipped down the slippery slopeā.
The New Scientist magazine (20 June 1992)[20] confirmed this alarming situation in an article titled, āThe Dutch way of deathā (Rachel Nowak).[21] It stated that ādoctors and nurses in the Netherlands can practise euthanasia if they stick to certain guidelines. Yet many patients receive lethal injections without giving their consentā. It went on to say:
In some hospitals, doctors routinely approach patients who are terminally ill, offering to inject them with lethal doses of barbiturates and curare. But Dutch euthanasia has its sinister side, too. Involuntary euthanasia of sick and elderly people is commonplace in the Netherlands, and that when patients do opt for euthanasia, it is frequently out of fear of being a nuisance rather than to avoid unnecessary physical suffering.
The details are alarming. At least a third of the 5000 or so Dutch patients who each year receive lethal doses of drugs from their doctors do not give their unequivocal consent. About 400 of these patients never even raise the issue of euthanasia with their doctors. Moreover, of those who willingly opt for euthanasia, only about 5 per cent do so solely because of unbearable pain.
New Scientist concluded that āthese revelations strike a blow at the two central canons of the worldwide euthanasia lobby: that euthanasia should be used only as a means to end pointless physical suffering, and that the patient alone should make the decisionā. As one Dutch doctor put it: āEverywhere doctors are terminating lives. The only difference in Holland is that here we talk about itā.
6.1 Latest news out of Europe
As I was writing this article on 22 October 2016, , I was alerted to an article in The Washington Post of 19 October 2016 (Lane 2016). Its title was, āEuropeās morality crisis: Euthanizing the mentally illā, and contained this disturbing information:
Once prohibited ā indeed, unthinkable ā the euthanasia of people with mental illnesses or cognitive disorders, including dementia, is now a common occurrence in Belgium and the Netherlands.
This profoundly troubling fact of modern European life is confirmed by the latest biennial report from Belgiumās Federal Commission on the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia, presented to Parliament on Oct. 7.
Belgium legalized euthanasia in 2002 for patients suffering āunbearablyā from any āuntreatableā medical condition, terminal or non-terminal, including psychiatric ones.
In the 2014-2015 period, the report says, 124 of the 3,950 euthanasia cases in Belgium involved persons diagnosed with a āmental and behavioral disorder,ā four more than in the previous two years. Tiny Belgiumās population is 11.4 million; 124 euthanasias over two years there is the equivalent of about 3,500 in the United States.
The figure represents 3.1 percent of all 2014-2015 euthanasia cases ā and a remarkable 20.8 percent of the (also remarkable) 594 non-terminal patients to whom Belgian doctors administered lethal injections in that period.
Whatās a bit different about this Belgian report, however, is that itās the first to appear since journalists and psychiatric professionals, inside Belgium and outside, began to take notice of whatās going on ā and to raise questions about it.
Recent newspaper articles and documentaries focused on cases in which psychiatrists euthanized or offered to euthanize people with mental illnesses, some still in their 20s or 30s, under dubious circumstances.
Seemingly stung by these criticisms, the commission spends two of its reportās pages defending the system, explaining that all is well and that no one is being euthanized except in strict accordance with the law (Lane 2016).
This article again confirms the slippery slop with euthanasia legislation and how voluntary eventually becomes involuntary with euthanasia ā even to killing young people with mental illnesses.
7. Why voluntary euthanasia cannot be controlled: Dr Brian Pollard speaks
Dr Brian Pollard is a retired Australian anaesthetist and palliative care physician, who founded and directed the first full-time palliative care service in a teaching hospital in Sydney at Concord Hospital in 1982 and directed it for five years. He is author of The Challenge of Euthanasia (Pollard 1994).[22] In this article, Pollard demonstrates why āevery law to permit euthanasia will be inherently and unavoidably unsafeā (Pollard 2011). These are some of his reasons:
āI believe that MPs, who have sole responsibility for making safe laws, should direct their attention to ensuring that draft euthanasia bills cannot imperil the lives of innocent people who do not wish to dieā
āA common feature of those who advocate euthanasia bills is their touching faith that certain things will happen, just because the draft prescribes them. If that were true, no crime would ever be committed because all crime is currently forbidden by some lawā.
He cited Yale Kamisar, an American professor of law in this field, who wrote a āseminal paperā in 1958 in which āhe listed these basic difficulties [with euthanasia laws]: ensuring that the personās choice was free and adequately informed; physician error or abuse; difficult relationships between patients and their families and between doctors and their patients; difficulty in quarantining voluntary euthanasia from non-voluntary; and risks resulting from this overt breach of the traditional universal law protecting all innocent human lifeā.
Pollard observed that all of these problems āstill exist and others have been added, such as the critical role of depression in decision-making and the evolution in the moral basis for requesting death from the relief of severe suffering in the terminally ill to reliance on respect for personal autonomyā.
Pollard observed that definitions are often vague or at odds with ordinary meanings. What about pain and suffering? He rightly pointed out that āboth highly subjective experiences; neither can be measured or compared between personsā. He added that according to draft euthanasia bills, they āhave to be simply accepted as the person describes them, even when this may raise serious doubt. And, as most now allow, if the symptoms are said to make life āintolerableā, even though it is recognised that what one person finds intolerable others can bearā,
There are many other factors he raises that need to be taken on board by legislators.
Voluntary euthanasia cannot be practised with integrity (my word) because:
āWherever voluntary euthanasia is practised, legally or not, non-voluntary is also found, including in Australia. Many find this difficult to credit because, whatever their failings, doctors surely would not take life without any request. In fact, they do it because it seems logicalā.
This happened in Holland. See my comments now on the Dutch Remmelink Report of 1991.
8. Doctors killing without explicit request in Holland: The Remmelink Report
What has been happening in The Netherlands where euthanasia has been practised since 1973 but only legal since 2002?
By eliminating the prosecutorial review of all cases, the government hopes to lessen doctorsā fears of possible prosecutions and encourage more doctors to actually report induced deaths. Reporting noncompliance is a major problem for the government. A Dutch study, published in 1996, found that the majority of Dutch doctors (59%) do not report voluntary euthanasia and assisted-suicide deaths, and cases of involuntary euthanasia (without patientsā knowledge or consent) are rarely if ever reported. [van der Wal et al., āEvaluation of the Notification Procedure for Physician-Assisted Death in the Netherlands,ā New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), 11/28/96:1706-1707]ā¦.
In a more recent Dutch study, researchers found that 55% of the Dutch doctors interviewed in 1995 indicated that āthey had ended a patientās life without his or her explicit requestā or āthey had never done so but that they could conceive of a situation in which they would.ā [van der Maas et al., āEuthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and Other Medical Practices Involving the End of Life in the Netherlands, 1990-1995,ā NEJM, 11/28/96:1701] (Patients Rights Council 2013).
An earlier official Dutch Government report (The Remmelink Report, 1991) gave conclusive evidence of abuse. The report showed clearly that doctors are killing without the explicit request of the patient. Doctors have violated the āstrict medical guidelinesā provided by the Dutch courts (in Fleming 1992). See also Fleming (2003), āEuthanasia by omission in Australia: What the parliament does not allow, the courts allowā.
8.1 EUTHANASIA IN HOLLAND: CRITERIA LAID DOWN BY THE COURTS
(Although officially illegal at the time of the Remmelink Report in 1991), the courts provided these criteria:
1. The request for euthanasia must come only from the patient and must be entirely free and voluntary.
2. The patientās request must be well considered, durable and persistent.
3. The patient must be experiencing intolerable (not necessarily physical) suffering, with no prospect of improvement.
4. Euthanasia must be a last resort. Other alternatives to alleviate the patientās situation must have been considered and found wanting.
5. Euthanasia must be performed by a physician.
6. The physician must consult with an independent physician colleague who has experience in the field.[23]
8.2 BUT WHAT WERE THE RESULTS IN HOLLAND?
The Dutch report in the British medical journal, The Lancet, stated that āin cases of euthanasia the physician often declares that the patient died a natural deathā (p. 669). This report indicated that 0.8% of the 38.0% of all deaths involving euthanasia were ālife-terminating acts without explicit and persistent requestā (p. 670) [van der Maas, et al 1991:669). The abstract of this article stated that it:
presents the first results of the Dutch nationwide study on euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life (MDEL). The study was done at the request of the Dutch government in preparation for a discussion about legislation on euthanasia. Three studies were undertaken: detailed interviews with 405 physicians, the mailing of questionnaires to the physicians of a sample of 7000 deceased persons, and the collecting of information about 2250 deaths by a prospective survey among the respondents to the interviews. The alleviation of pain and symptoms with such high dosages of opioids that the patient’s life might be shortened was the most important MDEL in 17Ā·5% of all deaths. In another 17Ā·5% a non-treatment decision was the most important MDEL. Euthanasia by administering lethal drugs at the patient’s request seems to have been done in 1 Ā·8% of all deaths. Since MDEL were taken in 38% of all deaths (and in 54% of all non-acute deaths) we conclude that these decisions are common medical practice and should get more attention in research, teaching, and public debate (van der Maas et al 1991:669).
This means that the deaths of about 1,000 Dutch people in a single year were caused by a doctor who hastened the death of a patient without the patientās explicit request and consent.
But there is more. Another assessment is that the real number of physician assisted deaths, estimated by the Remmelink Committee Report is, in reality 25,306 which is made up of (theyāre on the overhead projector for you to see):
2,300 euthanasia on request (Remmelink Report, 13),
400 assisted suicide (ibid.15),
1,000 life-ending treatments without explicit request (ibid.),
4,756 died after request for non-treatment or the cessation of treatment with the intention to accelerate the end of life. cf, ibid, 15; there were 5,800 such cases but only 82% (i.e. 4,756) of these patients actually died. (cf Dutch Euthanasia Survey Report, 63ff).
8,750 life prolonging treatment was withdrawn or withheld without the request of the patient either with the implicit intention (4,750) or with the explicit intention (4,000) to terminate life.[ibid., 69; There were 25,000 such cases but only 35% (i.e. 8,750) were done with the intention to terminate life. Cf ibid., 72; cf also Remmelink Report, 16).
8,100 morphine overdose with the implicit intention (6,750) or explicit intention (1,350) to terminate life. Of these, 61% were carried out without consultation with the patient, i.e. non-voluntary euthanasia.
There were 22,500 patients who received overdoses of morphine, [cf Remmelink Report, 16. 36% were done with the intention to terminate life, cf Dutch Euthanasia Survey Report, 58. See ibid., 61, Tabel 7.7 (āBesluit niet besprokenā)].
8.3 THIS TOTAL OF 25,306 PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED DEATHS AMOUNTED TO 19.61% OF TOTAL DEATHS [129,000] IN THE NETHERLANDS IN 1990.
āTo this should be added the unspecified numbers of handicapped newborns, sick children, psychiatric patients, and patients with AIDS whose lives were terminated by doctors according to the Remmelink Reportā (pp. 17-19).[24]
The Dutch programme of euthanasia has moved quickly to go beyond the adult parameters of the law and legalisation. In fact, while there was no legislation but legal protocol for adult euthanasia, killing of children was happening.
This demonstrates that, like with laws against murder, theft, lying and rape, no legislation can curtail the boundaries when autonomous human reason, freedom, and sinful human beings are involved in determining the values of a culture.
āFor everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standardā (Rom 3:23 NLT). What is sin? āEveryone who sins is breaking Godās law, for all sin is contrary to the law of Godāā (1 John 3:4 NLT). So anyone who breaks Godās law, āYou shall not murderā (Ex 20:13: Matt 5:21 NIV) is sinning. This latter verse states, āYou have heard that it was said to the people long ago, āYou shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgmentāāā. Godās view is that anyone who commits murder through euthanasia is violating His law and also will be subject to Godās judgment. We are not told explicitly in this verse what that will be but warning about judgment from God should be given to everyone promoting euthanasia. They may not believe in God but will come under his judgment whether they accept it or not, just as a person will face judgment in Australia for breaking the law against perjury.[25]
The following is an example of euthanasia of infants in Holland. It was done at what was formerly the Academic Hospital, Groningen, but is now associated with The University Medical Center, Groningen:[26]The Weekly Standard report stated:
IN 2004, Groningen University Medical Center [The Netherlands] made international headlines when it admitted to permitting pediatric euthanasia and published the “Groningen Protocol,” infanticide guidelines the hospital followed when killing 22 disabled newborns between 1997 and 2004. The media reacted as if killing disabled babies in the Netherlands was something new. But Dutch doctors have engaged in infanticide for more than 15 years. (A Dutch government-supported documentary justifying infant euthanasia played on PBS [Public Broadcasting System USA] in 1993. Moreover, a study published in 1997 in the Lancet determined that in 1995, about 8 percent of all infants who died in the Netherlandsāsome 80 babiesāwere euthanized by doctors, and not all with parental consent; this figure was reproduced in a subsequent study covering the year 2001.)
As far back as 1990, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) published a report intended to govern “life-terminating actions” taken against incompetent patients, including severely disabled newborns. The KNMG approved of pediatric euthanasia if the baby is deemed to have an “unlivable life,” a concept disturbingly close to Binding and Hoche’s “life unworthy of life”[27] (Smith 2006).
In 1984 the Dutch Supreme Court ruled voluntary euthanasia was acceptable, provided doctors followed strict guidelines. But, under Dutch criminal law, physicians could still face prosecution.
In 2002, the Dutch parliament voted to formally legalise the practice, making the Netherlands the first nation in the world to do so.[28] Belgium did it in that year as well. However, examine what has happened in the Netherlands:
Originally when The Netherlands legalised euthanasia [2002], it was for adults. Doctors could kill a patient if that person āwas competent and conscious, had repeatedly asked for euthanasia, and was suffering unbearably as a result of an incurable disorderā (Murray 2016).
Although Belgium had legalised euthanasia in 2002,[29]āin 2014, the Belgian parliament passed a bill that allows the euthanizing of children, no matter how young, so long as they are terminally ill. In Holland, the lower age limit for euthanasia is currently twelve with parental consent, though euthanasia advocates are pushing to eliminate any age limitā (Murray 2016).
āIn Holland today, it is accepted that people who are suffering unbearably from mental illness may be killedā (Murray 2016).
On October 12, 2016, Reuters newsagency reported: āThe Dutch government intends to draft a law that would legalize assisted suicide for people who feel they have “completed life,” but are not necessarily terminally ill, it said on Wednesday (12 October 2016)ā¦. Health Minister Edith Schippers wrote in the letter that “because the wish for a self-chosen end of life primarily occurs in the elderly, the new system will be limited to” them. She did not define a threshold ageā (Sterling 2016).
The slippery slope has happened in Holland. Euthanasia and assisted suicide cannot be contained.
10. Case studies of euthanasia
A Belgian physician and euthanasia activist, Wim Distelmans,[30] has released details of what he has done in Belgium:
In September [2013], the 60-year-old physician gave a lethal injection to Nathan Verhelst, 44, depressed over a failed sex-change operation. Last year [2012], he oversaw the double euthanasia of Marc and Eddy Verbessem, 45-year-old deaf twins who chose to die after learning they would lose their eyesight. Also last year [2012], he euthanized a despondent Godelieva De Troyer, 64, whose children learned of her death after the fact. And he acknowledges there are many more āborderlineā cases that the public never hears about.
To some, Dr. Distelmans has come to embody the dangers of legalized euthanasia. āWhat is he? Is he God or something?ā Ms. De Troyerās son, Tom Mortier, asked in a recent interview (Hamilton 2013).
Charles Lane reported another case by Dr. Distelmans:
Frank van den Bleeken, imprisoned for 30 years for rape and murder, sought euthanasia from Distelmans, citing his incurable violent impulses and the misery of life behind bars. Belgian officials and Distelmans initially agreed; a lethal injection the murderer might have gotten as punishment in the United States would be supplied as therapy in anti-death penalty Europe.
In January, however, Distelmans backed out just before the scheduled procedure ā there was still hope for van den Bleeken to get treatment at a facility in the Netherlands, he said (Lane 2016).
Dr Karel Gunning was a medical doctor in Holland. He gave examples of how doctors violated the Dutch euthanasia law:
An internist, called to see a lady with lung cancer who breathed with great distress, told her that he could help her, but that he would prefer to admit her to his hospital. The patient refused, as she feared to be euthanized. But the doctor told her that he would be on duty during the weekend and would admit her himself. She did go on Saturday. On Sunday night, she was breathing normally. On Monday morning the doctor was off duty. In the afternoon, he came back to the hospital but the patient was dead. A colleague had come in that morning and said, “We need that bed for another case. It makes no difference for her whether she dies today or after a fortnight!Ā Ā So, the patient was euthanized against her explicit will.
I, myself, had a discussion with a colleague about administering morphine. I maintained that large [doses] are needed to kill a patient. At first he denied this, but suddenly said, “You are right. I remember a case of an old man who could die any day. His son came to see me. He was booked for a holiday and did not want to come home for his father’s funeral. He wanted the funeral to be over with before he left. So I went to see the old man and gave him a huge dose of morphine. In the evening I came back to declare death, but the patient was happily sitting on the edge of his bed. At last, he had gotten enough morphine to kill his pain.” My colleague told this story as if it were the most normal thing to do: to kill a patient in order to please the family (Gunning n.d.).
These examples from people in the medical profession demonstrate that some doctors cannot be trusted to obey the law, whether that relates to laws enacted by parliament or by court decisions. Voluntary, active euthanasia becomes involuntary killing of people who have not agreed to this killing.
Gunning (n.d.) rightly pointed out that two kinds of ethics are being promoted in the medical fraternity:
10.1 Humanitarian ethic
This ethic adheres to the universal principle in the Hippocratic Oath (formulated by Hippocrates in 400 BC). He was not a Christian but believed that doctors were powerful people who could decide on life and death issues for humanity. By this ethic, medical doctors swear that they will not use their knowledge or expertise to kill a person, before or after birth, not even with the patientās own request. With the humanitarian ethic, the well being of the individual person is central (Gunning n d).
The classic version of the Hippocratic Oath contains this affirmation: āI will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my artā (MedicineNet.com 2016).
The Christian-informed humanitarian ethic is practised by doctors and others who are opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide and promote palliative care instead. They love their neighbour as themselves ā as human beings made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7).
10.2 Utilitarian ethic
Act and rule utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. It deals with the consequences of actions,
Its core idea is that whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on their effectsā¦.
Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). They reject moral codes or systems that consist of commands or taboos that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders or supernatural beings. Instead, utilitarians think that what makes a morality be true or justifiable is its positive contribution to human (and perhaps non-human) beings (Nathanson n.d.)
Apply this to the euthanasia and assisted suicide debate and what do we get? It does not commit to the patientās well being but to the well being (consequences) of others. Who judges whether the patientās life is going to be a burden or of benefit to society? The doctor does!
Dr Gunning explained how this was captured in an article in California Medicine (September 1970, āNew Ethic for Medicine and Society, pp, 67-68) which showed that historically the lives of all human beings had equal value. That cannot be maintained now with over population and people were no longer accepting the quality of life ethic (humanitarianism) for all people. Doctors were now making medical evaluations. Intentional killing of adults was too abhorrent so they started with abortion and have now moved to voluntary euthanasia. Gunningās assessment was that āin the end, we would have death control as well as birth control, and we doctors should prepare ourselves for this new taskā (Gunning n.d.).
Thatās the utilitarian ethic in action, all in the name of voluntary euthanasia that has moved to involuntary euthanasia or assisted suicide in a number of countries.
11. Where is euthanasia legal?
BBC News (Lewis 2015) reported that these were the countries and USA states that have legalised assisted dying:
The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg permit euthanasia and assisted suicide
Switzerland permits assisted suicide if the person assisting acts unselfishly
Colombia permits euthanasia
California has just joined the US states of Oregon, Washington, Vermont and Montana in permitting assisted dying
Canada permits euthanasia and assisted suicide from February 2016 (slightly earlier in the province of Quebec)
At the time of writing this article in October 2016, euthanasia and assisted suicide were illegal in Australia. However, there is advocacy by groups involved in university departments such as Queensland University of Technologyās (QUT) Australian Centre for Health Law Research. See its activist site, End of Life Law in Australia, at: https://end-of-life.qut.edu.au/. Within the next month, I hope to prepare a review of this site and note its ideological emphases. However, a brief overview seems to indicate that it is pushing for the reform of Australian law to accommodate euthanasia and assisted suicide. There also are activist groups such as Dying with Dignity Queensland[31] (my home state). Its theme is, āMy life, my voice, my choiceā. I have critiqued that worldview of autonomous reason above and its harmful consequences.
This also was indicated by this Law Schoolās invitation to Canadian Professor Jocelyn Downie to deliver the lecture, āThe legalisation of medical assistance in dying ā Lessons from Canadaā at the Gardens Theatre, QUT Gardens Point Campus, Brisbane, 19 October 2016, 6pm. I attended this lecture. This was an enthusiastic promotion of the Canadian law that has legalised euthanasia and to recommend a similar procedure in Australia. Professor Downie is Professor of Law at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.[32]
She was not a neutral person on the euthanasia issue at this lecture. Some Canadians have described her as a āpro-euthanasia profā and a ālong-time advocate for the legalization of euthanasiaā (LifeSite News 2015). After the lecture, I spoke with one of the QUT professors, Professor Ben White, who promoted this lecture. I challenged the QUT censorship of the opposing view in this public presentation. He brushed the objection aside and considered the opposing view was covered adequately at Q&A at the end of the lecture and they have had other panel presentations that included a pro-life person. The Q&A at the lecture on 19 October 2016 was not an opportune forum to present a counter proposal, as there was not opportunity to challenge Downieās responses and there were few who opposed Downie. It is an unfair imbalance to have a Professor of Law make a public presentation (with PPTs) in support of euthanasia in Canada and expect people in the audience to present the alternate view in the Q&A. That is destined to lead to an unfair exposure for euthanasia at the expense of the anti-euthanasia view.
At the lecture, I heard Prof. Downie state that āthe feared slippery slope didnāt eventuate [in Canada]ā. At Q&A after the lecture, I challenged her on this, providing evidence from Holland and Belgium. She resorted to denying this and using a genetic logical fallacy with her sprouting the superiority of peer-reviewed journals to my information from mass media sources. I had no right of reply to challenge her genetic fallacy. I hope Iāve presented enough information in this article from Dutch, Belgium and other medical sources to demonstrate that there definitely has been a slippery slope in euthanasia legislation in Holland from the legal system prior to 2002 and in legislation from 2002 to 2016.
12. The Australian Medical Association (AMA) on end of life care
The AMAās āPosition Statement on the Role of the Medical Practitioner in End of Life Care 2007 (amended 2014)ā states that āThe AMA believes that while medical practitioners have an ethical obligation to preserve life, death should be allowed to occur with dignity and comfort when death is inevitable and when treatment that might prolong life will not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or will impose an unacceptable burden on the patientā (10.1).[33]
In section 10.5 of this Position Statement, it is stated: āThe AMA recognises that there are divergent views regarding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.[34] The AMA believes that medical practitioners should not be involved in interventions that have as their primary intention the ending of a person’s life. This does not include the discontinuation of futile treatmentā.[35]
What should an Australian doctor do if euthanasia or assisted suicide is requested by a patient? The AMAās Position Statement is:
Patient requests for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide should be fully explored by the medical practitioner in order to determine the basis for such a request. Such requests may be associated with conditions such as a depressive or other mental disorder, dementia, reduced decision-making capacity, and/or poorly controlled clinical symptoms such as pain. Understanding and addressing the reasons for such a request will allow the medical practitioner to adjust the patientās clinical management accordingly or seek specialist assistance (10.6).[36]
Therefore, the Australian Medical Associationās current policy is against the practice of medical doctorsā involvement in euthanasia and assisted suicide, with the view of ending a personās life. However, as of 06 October 2015, the AMA was engaged in a āReview of AMA Policy on Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicideā. This is āpart of a five year position statement review cycleā.[37]
13. Conclusion
Two of Australiaās major institutions are actively promoting euthanasia and assisted suicide, even though it is illegal. They are: (a) ABC TVās 7.30 programme, and (b) Queensland University of Technologyās Australian Centre for Health Law Research. However, other mass media (e.g. the Herald Sun) exposed the ABCās ādeath voyeurismā by showing film of the assisted suicide of a client.
In responding to secular arguments favouring euthanasia, it was shown that human beings are not animals and to choose whatās right for me must allow me to allow you to choose whatās right for you in the breadth of ethical issues, including murder, theft, lying, rape and euthanasia. One personās assault on the Christianās āmythical godā was an appeal to ridicule fallacy. Pushing these secularists to the logical conclusions of their ethical relativism demonstrates the chaos that results when Godās ethical absolutes are abandoned
If I donāt have the right to impose my Christian beliefs, why are they imposing their secularist values? Itās a hypocritical value system that wants to censor Christian beliefs while promoting secular beliefs. If Iām to keep my nose out of another personās business, then it will tear the fork out of altruistic values of caring for one another in a democratic society.
Illustrations were given of how medical doctors violate euthanasia laws when euthanasia is illegal or legal. Some doctors cannot be trusted to obey the law and voluntary euthanasia becomes involuntary euthanasia for unfortunate individuals who are killed without their permission. Retired Australian anaesthetist and palliative care specialist, Dr Brian Pollard, has provided evidence to demonstrate that any effort to achieve safe voluntary euthanasia is a myth. Euthanising infants is already taking place, outside of the law.
Several case studies were provided to demonstrate that euthanasia cannot be controlled by legislation or the legal profession. Dr Karel Gunning, a Dutch medical doctor, showed how this demonstrated two contrasting ethics in action: (a) The humanitarian ethic of caring for patients and valuing life, and (b) A utilitarian ethic where the end justifies the means.
The Australian Medical Association has affirmed that it does not support euthanasia and assisted suicide. However, it is examining this policy in light of its customary 5-year review.
The position demonstrated and advocated in this paper is that God gives life and it is his responsibility to end life in His time. It is not for autonomous human beings to decide when time is up and to murder them or assist in their committing suicide. This is how it is with God and human life: āYou [God] saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book. Every moment was laid out before a single day had passedā (Psalm 139:16 NLT).
There are sound biblical, practical and philosophical reasons for demonstrating that the relativistic, utilitarian ethic of euthanasia and assisted suicide is wrong for individuals and societies. Australia will be exalted as long as it promotes Godās absolutes of justice in its ethics. As soon as it promotes the sinful evil of euthanasia and assisted suicide it will bring disgrace and Godās judgment on Australia.
‘Justice exalts a nation, but sin is a people’s disgrace’ (Proverbs 14:34 NAB).
Binding, K & Hoche, A n.d. Allowing the destruction of life unworthy of life. Athanatos Christian Ministries (online). Available at: http://lifeunworthyoflife.com/ (Accessed 22 October 2016).
Fleming, J 1992. Euthanasia, The Netherlands, and the slippery slopes. Bioethics Research Notes Occasional Paper No.1, June. Published by the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, PO Box 206, Plympton SA 5038, Australia. It is now associated with the Adelaide Centre for Bioethics and Culture at: http://www.bioethics.org.au/index.html (Accessed 24 October 2016).
Lewis, P 2015. Assisted dying: What does the law in different countries say? BBC News, 6 October. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-34445715 (Accessed 24 October 2016).
Nathanson, S n.d. Act and rule utilitarianism. Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Available at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/ (Accessed 24 October 2016).
Patients Rights Council 2013. Dutch Parliament votes to legalize euthanasia. Update 022: Volume 14, Number 3 (2000) [online]. Available at: http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/update022/ (Accessed 24 October 2016).
Pollard, B 1989. Euthanasia: Should we kill the dying? Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Little Hills Press.
Pollard, B 1994. The Challenge of euthanasia. Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Little Hills Press.
[4] The 2016-17 budget for the ABC (post-efficiencies) is $1.009 billion. Then add the SBS budget (post-efficiencies) for the same year of $274.5 million and we see that approx. $1.27 billion is given to the ABC/SBS consortium by tax payers to present a one-sided euthanasia story (as an example). For these budgetary figures see, Malcolm Turnbull MP, āFAQs on the ABC and SBSā, 19 December 2014. Available at: http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/faqs-on-the-abc-and-sbs#budget (Accessed 22 October 2016).
[8] Wikipedia 2016. Philip Nitschke, 23 October. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Nitschke (Accessed 23 October 2016). Nitschke set fire to his medical certificate, rejecting the Medical Board of Australiaās conditions placed on him. ABC News Brisbane, Qld., reported Nitschkeās statement: āToday, and with considerable sadness, I announce the end of [my] medical career,ā he said. He maintained that āthe conditions the board has sought to impose on me … amount to a heavy handed and clumsy attempt to restrict the free flow of information on end-of-life choiceā (Breen 2015).
[10] Her name was Pat and Iām unsure if this person was female but her writing style seemed to fit more for a female than a male in the caring way she responded to me, but that is only a āseemed soā as my subjective interpretation.
[11] Pat, 21 October 2016. Available at: (Accessed 22 October 2016).
[20]New Scientist, June 20; 1992. vol 134 (1826): 28-30.
[21] Accessed 2 January 2010. However, on 22 October 2016 this article was available only by subscription.
[22] These biographical details are from Pollard (2011).
[23] Summarised by Mrs. Borst-Eilers, Vice-President of the Health Council (a body which provides scientific advice to the Dutch government on health issues). In I.J. Keown, āThe Law and Practice of Euthanasia in The Netherlandsā, The Law Quarterly Review, Vol. 108, January 1992, p. 56.
[24] Source: Dutch-speaking Dr. Daniel Ch Overduin, Vita, Vol. 7, No. 1, March 1992, pp. 2-3].
[25] Perjury is āThe offence of wilfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oathā (Oxford dictionaries online 2016. s v perjury).
[27] See Binding & Hoche (n.d.). This relates to the ideology of two non-Nazi academics that led to the Nazi Holocaust and its practice of involuntary euthanasia of those with ālife unworthy of lifeā.
[30] This article states that Distelmans is āa cancer specialist, professor in palliative care and the president of the Belgian federal euthanasia commission poses in Wemmel, Belgiumā (Hamilton 2013).
[34] At this point in this āAMA Position Statementā, there was the footnote, āEuthanasia is the act of deliberately ending the life of a patient for the purpose of ending intolerable pain and/or suffering. Physician assisted suicide is where the assistance of the medical practitioner is intentionally directed at enabling an individual to end his or her own lifeā.
I couldn’t accurately guess my age with this photo to the left. I suspect I was about 50.
(copy of Apocrypha, courtesy 
Ā 
![clip_image004[1]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0041.gif "clip_image004[1]"){kind=small}
![clip_image004[2]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0042.gif "clip_image004[2]"){kind=small}
![clip_image004[3]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0043.gif "clip_image004[3]"){kind=small}
![clip_image004[4]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0044.gif "clip_image004[4]"){kind=small}
![clip_image006[1]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0061.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image006[1]"){kind=small}
![clip_image006[2]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0062.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image006[2]"){kind=small}
![clip_image006[3]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0063.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image006[3]"){kind=small}
![clip_image008[1]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0081.gif "clip_image008[1]"){kind=small}
![clip_image008[2]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0082.gif "clip_image008[2]"){kind=small}
![clip_image008[3]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0083.gif "clip_image008[3]"){kind=small}
![clip_image008[4]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0084.gif "clip_image008[4]"){kind=small}
![clip_image008[5]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0085.gif "clip_image008[5]"){kind=small}
![clip_image008[6]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0086.gif "clip_image008[6]"){kind=small}
![clip_image011[1]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0111.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image011[1]"){kind=small}
![clip_image011[2]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0112.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image011[2]"){kind=small}
![clip_image011[3]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0113.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image011[3]"){kind=small}
![clip_image011[4]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0114.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image011[4]"){kind=small}
![clip_image011[5]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0115.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image011[5]"){kind=small}
![clip_image011[6]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0116.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image011[6]"){kind=small}
![clip_image011[7]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0117.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image011[7]"){kind=small}
![clip_image011[8]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0118.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image011[8]"){kind=small}
![clip_image011[9]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/clip_image0119.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image011[9]"){kind=small}
One of the leading exegetical Greek word studies edited by Colin Brown states:
![clip_image002[1]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/clip_image0021.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image002[1]"){kind=small}
![clip_image002[2]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/clip_image0022.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image002[2]"){kind=small}
![clip_image002[3]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/clip_image0023.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image002[3]"){kind=small}
![clip_image002[1]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0021-1.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image002[1]"){kind=small}
![clip_image002[2]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0022-1.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image002[2]"){kind=small}
![clip_image002[3]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0023.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image002[3]"){kind=small}
![clip_image002[4]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0024.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image002[4]"){kind=small}
![clip_image002[5]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0025.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image002[5]"){kind=small}
![clip_image002[6]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0026.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image002[6]"){kind=small}
![clip_image002[7]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0027.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image002[7]"){kind=small}
![clip_image002[8]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0028.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image002[8]"){kind=small}
![clip_image002[9]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0029.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image002[9]"){kind=small}
![clip_image002[10]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image00210.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image002[10]"){kind=small}
![clip_image003[1]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0031.gif "clip_image003[1]")
![clip_image003[2]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0032.gif "clip_image003[2]")
![clip_image003[3]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0033.gif "clip_image003[3]")
![clip_image003[4]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0034.gif "clip_image003[4]")
![clip_image003[5]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0035.gif "clip_image003[5]")
![clip_image003[6]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0036.gif "clip_image003[6]")
![clip_image003[7]](https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0037.gif "clip_image003[7]")
46
(walking, talking cross: image courtesy 
![clip_image006[1]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0061-1.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image006[1]"){kind=small}
![clip_image006[2]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0062-1.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image006[2]"){kind=small}
![clip_image006[3]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0063-1.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image006[3]"){kind=small}
![clip_image006[4]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0064-1.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image006[4]"){kind=small}
![clip_image009[1]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0091.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image009[1]"){kind=small}
![clip_image009[2]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0092.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image009[2]"){kind=small}
![clip_image009[3]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0093.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image009[3]"){kind=small}
![clip_image009[4]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0094.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image009[4]"){kind=small}
![clip_image009[5]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0095.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image009[5]"){kind=small}
![clip_image014[1]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0141.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image014[1]"){kind=small}
![clip_image014[2]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0142.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image014[2]"){kind=small}
![clip_image014[3]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0143.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image014[3]"){kind=small}
![clip_image014[4]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0144.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image014[4]"){kind=small}
![clip_image018[1]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0181.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image018[1]"){kind=small}
![clip_image018[2]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0182.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image018[2]"){kind=small}
![clip_image018[3]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0183.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image018[3]"){kind=small}
![clip_image018[4]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0184.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image018[4]"){kind=small}
![clip_image018[5]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0185.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image018[5]"){kind=small}
![clip_image018[6]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0186.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image018[6]"){kind=small}
![clip_image018[7]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0187.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image018[7]"){kind=small}
![clip_image029[1]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0291.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image029[1]"){kind=small}
![clip_image032[1]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0321.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image032[1]"){kind=small}
![clip_image032[2]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0322.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image032[2]"){kind=small}
![clip_image032[3]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0323.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image032[3]"){kind=small}
![clip_image032[4]](https://i0.wp.com/spencer.gear.dyndns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clip_image0324.gif?ssl=1 "clip_image032[4]"){kind=small}
