Author Archives: spencer

Woman caught in adultery: In or out of New Testament?

By Spencer D Gear

Are there chunks of the Bible that should not be there? Even to raise this topic may cause some some conservative Christians to doubt my salvation: ‘How dare you suggest that you know better than what is in the Bible’,a small number have said to me. What they fail to realise is that they are accepting what is in their English Bible (for many it is the KJV) as the authentic word of God – all of it. They treat their Bible version as the original, inspired text.

However, like it or not, there are issues with a few small sections of Scripture as to whether they should be in the Bible or not. One such example, which I will discuss here, is John 7:53-8:11 which deals with the woman caught in adultery.

The latest edition of the New International Version states at the beginning of this passage: “The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53” (BibleGateway).

For the English Standard Version, latest edition, immediately prior to John 7:53, there is this statement, ‘The earliest manuscripts do not include John 7:53-8:11’ (BibleGateway).

Should this passage of John 7-8 be included in the New Testament or not? Let’s look at the evidence. There are two sides to the discussion. Yes! and No! Firstly, let’s those who support the retention of this portion in the NT.

1. Support for John 7:53-8:11 to remain in the NT

Who are the supporters of this passage remaining in Scripture?

1.1 Supporters of the Majority Text of the NT

What is the Majority Text? Michael Marlowe explains that

The “Majority Text” is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript. It is arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others. There are two published Greek texts which purport to represent the Majority readings — Hodges & Farstad 1982 and Pierpont & Robinson 1991 (in ‘What about the Majority Text?’).

The Majority Text is the Greek text behind the King James Version and the New King James Version of the Bible – New Testament. The text of modern Bible translations for the NT is known as the ‘Received Text’. This is the text behind the RSV, NRSV, ESV, ERV, ASV, NASB, NIV and NLT to mention a few. Michael Marlowe gives an excellent assessment of the issues and his summary is reasonable:

The idea that the majority of existing Greek manuscripts (i.e. the numerous medieval copies) somehow represent the original text better than any of the oldest manuscripts known to us is an idea that is very hard to defend intellectually. One would suppose, even on common-sense grounds, that a consensus of the earlier copies is likely to be closer to the original text. Against this, it is said that perhaps all of the early manuscripts known to us have derived from a deviant kind of text which gained currency only in the area around Alexandria, where these very old manuscripts were preserved on account of the dry climate. But this hypothesis fails to account for the readings of the ancient versions (e.g. Latin and Syriac) which frequently agree with the older Greek copies against the later ones. We cannot reasonably suppose that the Latin and Syriac versions were based upon manuscripts that were not circulating in Italy and Syria. And then there are the scripture quotations from ecclesiastical writers who lived outside of Egypt, which likewise often support the earlier manuscripts. It is very hard for a Majority Text advocate to overcome this evidence, and certainly it cannot all be brushed aside with an hypothesis about “Alexandrian” deviations. For this reason, very few competent scholars have argued in favor of the Majority Text.

1.2 Dean John Burgeon

Dean John Burgeon supports its inclusion in the NT. See his arguments in John 8:1-11. They include:

The historical circumstance and burden of proof lies with those who challenge its authenticity;
The Gospel context – John 8:1-11 is an integral part of the immediately antecedent and following narrative;
The content and meaning – it ‘carries on its front the impress of Divine origin’;
Style and diction – it is ‘woven on a heavenly loom’;
Alleged textual evidence against – in spite of the trail of opponents, ‘these twelve verses exhibit the required notes of genuineness less conspicuously than any other twelve consecutive verses in the same Gospel’.

Burgeon explains further:

Section 9: – Evidences Re-Examined: The Old Latin
Section 10: – Patristic and Versional Support

Sidebar: – The Ferrar Group (Family 13)

Section 11: – The Cause of the Omission
Section 12: – The Ancient Lectionary Tradition
Section 13: – Silence of Early Commentators Explained
Section 14: – The Voice of the Early Church Identified
Section 15: – Critical Theories Fail to Explain Facts
Section 16: – Spiritual Bankruptcy of the Critical Position

1.3 Peter Ruckman

Another promoter of this passage in John 8 to remain in the NT is long-term KJV-onlyism advocate, Peter Ruckman of Pensacola Bible Institute. See Ruckman on ‘James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible’. See James White’s reply, ‘A response to Dr Ruckman’.

1.4 Trinitarian Bible Society

The Trinitarian Bible Society has a statement in its Constitution:

This Society shall circulate the HOLY SCRIPTURES, as comprised in the Canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, WITHOUT NOTE OR COMMENT, to the exclusion of the Apocrypha; the copies in the English language shall be those of the Authorised Version.

1.5 Gail Riplinger

See Gail Riplinger’s website, ‘Authorized Version Publications’ for her view of keeping the section on the adulterous woman in John’s Gospel.

2. Support for John 7:53-8:11 to be excluded from the NT

But there is support for excluding this passage from the NT.

D. A. Carson wrote:

“Despite the best efforts of Zane Hodges[1] to prove that this narrative was originally part of John’s Gospel, the evidence is against him, and modern English versions are right to rule it off from the rest of the text (NIV) or to relegate it to a footnote (RSV). These verses are present in most of the medieval Greek minuscule manuscripts, but they are absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us, representing great diversity of textual traditions. The most notable exception is the Western uncial D, known for its independence in numerous other places. They are also missing from the earliest forms of the Syriac and Coptic Gospels, and from many Old Latin, Old Georgian and Armenian manuscripts. All the early church Fathers omit this narrative: in commenting on John, they pass immediately from 7:52 to 8:12. No Eastern Father cites the passage before the tenth century. Didymus the Blind (a fourth-century exegete from Alexandria) reports a variation on this narrative, not the narrative as we have it here. Moreover, a number of (later) manuscripts that include the narrative mark it off with asterisks or obeli, indicating hesitation as to its authenticity, while those that do include it display a rather high frequency of textual variants. Although most of the manuscripts that include the story place it here (i.e. at 7:53-8:11), some place it instead after Luke 21:38, and other witnesses variously place it after John 7:44, John 7:36 or John 21:25.[2] The diversity of placement confirms the inauthenticity of the verses. Finally, even if someone should decide that the material is authentic, it would be very difficult to justify the view that the material is authentically Johannine: there are numerous expressions and constructions that are found nowhere in John, but which are characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels, Luke in particular.

On the other hand, there is little reason for doubting that the event here described occurred, even if in its written form it did not in the beginning belong to the canonical books. Similar stories are found in other sources. One of the best known, as reported by Papias (and recorded by the historian Eusebius, H. E. III. xxxix. 16)[3] is the account of a woman, accused in the Lord’s presence of many sins (unlike the woman here who is accused of but one). The narrative before us also has a number of parallels (some of them noted below) with stories in the Synoptic Gospels. The reason for its insertion here may have been to illustrate 7:24 and 8:15 or, conceivably, the Jews’ sinfulness over against Jesus’ sinlessness (8:21, 24, 26) [Carson 1991:333-334].

Bruce Metzger’s (1971:219-222) assessment is:[4]

[John] 7.53-8.11 Pericope of the Adulteress

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as Papyrus^66.75 Aleph B L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syr^c.s. and the best manuscripts of syr^p), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (it^a.l*.q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it.

When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and that it interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12 ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive.

At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places. Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John’s narrative least if it were inserted after 7.52 (D E F G H K M U G P 28 700 892 al). Others placed it after 7.36 (ms. 225) or after 7.44 (several Georgian mss.) or after 21.25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 arm^mss) or after Luke 21.38 (f¹³). Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses which contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials.

Sometimes it is stated that the pericope was deliberately expunged from the Fourth Gospel because it was liable to be understood in a sense too indulgent to adultery. But, apart from the absence of any instance elsewhere of scribal excision of an extensive passage because of moral prudence, this theory fails “to explain why the three preliminary verses (vii 53; viii 1-2), so important as apparently descriptive of the time and place at which all the discourses of chapter viii were spoken, should have been omitted with the rest” (Hort, “Notes on Select Readings,” pp. 86 f.).

Although the committee [that is, the editorial committee of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament] was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following John 7.52.

Inasmuch as the passage is absent from the earlier and better manuscripts that normally serve to identify types of text, it is not always easy to make a decision among alternative readings. In any case it will be understood that the levels of certainty ({A}, {B}) are within the framework of the initial decision relating to the passage as a whole.[5]

My conclusion

Since I accept that the MSS that are closer to the originals are deemed to be the most accurate (see the arguments above), I accept that John 7:53-8:11 is an addition to the original MSS and should not be included in the NT.

Works consulted

Carson, D A 1991. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Metzger, Bruce M 1971. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament: Acompanion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (3^rd ed). London / New York: United Bible Societies.

Notes:

[1] BibliothecaSacra 136, 1979, pp. 318-372; 1980, pp. 41-53.

[2] Carson’s footnote at this point was, ‘For a convenient summary of the evidence, cf. Metzger, pp. 219-222. He is referring to Metzger (1971).

[3] This was in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16, available at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm (Accessed 14 May 2012).

[4] Available at: (1) Bible Research, ‘The story of the adulteress in the eighth chapter of John’, available at: http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html (Accessed 14 May 2012); (2)

[5] The last paragraph was not in the URL. I copied it from the actual text.

What Presbyterians can learn from Pentecostals!

(image Courtesy: Wikipedia) (image Courtesy: Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

When my wife and I moved to Brisbane from Hervey Bay, Qld., Australia, we left Fraser Coast Baptist Church where the senior pastor, Steve Sauvageot, was a solid biblical expositor of the Scriptures and the church sang only hymns during the services. And have a guess what? There were plenty of youth who came to the church who were part of a vibrant youth group.

When we moved to Brisbane in mid 2011 and settled in a Brisbane suburb, we set about finding a church with solid preaching and sound theology in the songs they sang. We were seeking out an evangelical church that believed the Bible, the Gospel, and preached from the Scriptures.

What did we find?

We went to seven local evangelical churches and for all of those, Baptist and Churches of Christ, the old hymns were out and contemporary, rock music was in. Loud rock music tended to dominate the music. At one church, the music introduction in one of the songs was led by the drummer. In fact, the musical interlude in this song was given by the drummer as the only means of music. Now that’s a hard way for me, a very average singer, to get a note to try to sing.

The lyrics of these songs were biblical-lite. There was nothing like, ‘A mighty fortress is our God!’, ‘O for a thousand tongues to sing my great redeemers praise’, or ‘How great Thou art’. Since it was 12-months ago, I cannot remember one contemporary song that we sang in those churches.

In one church, there was not a Bible reading in the entire service. Most of the sermons were topical with no expository emphasis. The one exception was the ‘drummer’ church where an elder did give a very good expository sermon. However, we were hardly going to settle at that church as the music was superficially light and the people were not very friendly. Not a person spoke to us after the service.

We settled on a Presbyterian church

While I am not Calvinistic in my primary theological orientation, my wife and I found a Presbyterian church where there was solid expository preaching along with the singing of hymns, most of which we know. Singing is from words flashed onto a projector screen from a computer and digital camera.

But here there is another challenge. The people are friendly, the sermons are expository as the pastor preaches through the Bible, but the services, to use my language, are as dry as dust. It is traditional church order of: introduction from the psalms (generally), hymn, prayer (by pastor), children’s talk, announcements, hymn, Bible reading, pastoral prayer (by pastor), hymn, sermon, hymn, and benediction. It is dominated by one-way communication. It is quite a contrast from some of the other Pentecostal and evangelical churches with which I have been associated down through the years.

I have been to some mid-week, evening Bible studies in the church and they are a fairly sterile environment with a Bible study gained from the Internet on 1 Corinthians, but there is no prayer and care for one another in the group. It’s a dry, academic study where interaction is allowed.

There was content that came in a sermon on 19 August 2012 on the raising of Lazarus (John 11:11-27) that caused me to think further about the nature of what is happening in this evangelical Presbyterian church. I take notes from all of the sermons I hear and this is one area of emphasis from this sermon (the pastor has been at this church for 9 years) – this is based on the notes that I took during the service:

(Australian) Presbyterians are a fearful people; we fear to give and we are an impotent bunch.
Pentecostals are more optimistic.
Baptists and Pentecostals are more evangelistic.

I have observed this kind of thinking among the Presbyterians in this church also.

How should I respond?

I took the time to send the pastor an email that included this content:

I’ve been contemplating some of the content of your sermon and the contrasts between Presbyterians and Pentecostals. Then there was a chain of people that the elder asked to be formed at the end of the service when we held hands and prayed. The elder had a personal issue that he shared.

Would you and the elders be prepared to engage with me in two areas of ministry that I believe will make a major difference at this Presbyterian Church? I’m convinced that this needs to happen at the local church level. There are two areas that I’d like to discuss with you and the elders, based on your sermon contents and the joining of hands of the people at the conclusion of the service.

What are those two areas?

Firstly, this has to do with the pastor’s comment about the differences between Pentecostals and Presbyterians. One of the reasons many of the Pentecostals I know are so active in evangelism and vibrant in their understanding of Christian ministry is because of this emphasis: They have a biblical understanding of the need for all Christians to care for one another, weep with one another, hurt with one another, pray for one another and minister to one another. This is the biblical emphasis:

James 5:16: ‘Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working’ (ESV).
Ephesians 6:18: ‘Praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints’ (ESV).
1 Corinthians 12:26: ‘If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together’ (ESV).

What happens when my wife and I go to the church’s Bible study? There is no confessing of sins one to another, praying for one another. It becomes an academic exercise without the involvement of the community of believers and the Community of the King (the language of Howard Snyder). We are the body of Christ and we need to be caring for one another when we meet. I asked for opportunity for me to discuss this with the pastor and/or elders. I believe it is an important aspect of ministry among the body of believers that seems to be neglected at this church (I await a reply from the pastor).

If the elder had not shared his personal struggles from the pulpit at the end of service, I would not have known of his personal struggles with a certain issue. This should not be so with a functioning body of believers. When we meet for Bible study, it should not be just a Bible study. It ought to be a gathering of the body of believers where all believers are able to minister to one another. If anyone is hurting, this is the opportunity to pray for one another and be healed by the power of God. I asked to be able to share further with pastor and elders.

Secondly, there is another area where Pentecostals could teach Presbyterians a great deal about biblical functioning. I’m somewhat reticent to broach this subject with the pastor as I know that he opposes this view. However, I asked him to consider allowing me to present some teaching at some elders’ meetings on the biblical understanding of the continuing ministry of the gifts of the Spirit. I was raised in a cessationist Baptist Church but when I exegeted the relevant Scriptures, I could no longer support that view.

What I observe happening at this Presbyterian Church is that it is very hierarchical and one-way communication is dominant when the church gathers. That is not what happened at Corinth and it should not be what happens with any church that believes the Bible in the twenty-first century. I’m speaking of the giftedness of the whole body of believers. We have this teaching stated clearly and overtly in Paul’s correction of the Corinthian Church. He did not condemn them for this practice but told them that this is what ought to happen when the church gathers. Here it is:

1 Corinthians 14:26, ‘What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up’ (NIV).

This is what should be happening in each church gathering, but especially in small groups. I asked for permission to come to elders’ meetings and present teaching on the continuing ministry of the Holy Spirit in the body of believers. I am convinced this would address some of the issues raised by the pastor in his sermon about the vibrancy of Pentecostalism when compared with Presbyterianism. I am not suggesting that we adopt a philosophy of pragmatism – doing what works. But I see a biblical need to get back to the continuing ministry of the Holy Spirit among us when the church gathers. This is not happening in this Presbyterian Church. Why? It is because cessationism is being promoted. I asked for permission to engage with the pastor and elders on these teachings.

I said that it may sound brazen of me to raise these topics as I’ve only been in the church 12-months, but I consider they are two vital factors in a healthy church.

For some of the articles I’ve written on these topics, I refer you to:

Appendix A: An expose on what is happening to music in the church

I only recently have become aware of this book. My wife, a pianist and vocalist, has just finished reading it. I’m impressed by what I’ve heard so far, but my wife has passed it on to another musician in the church to read. Here is the book by T. David Gordon, Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Rewrote the Hymnal ( 2010. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing).

For reviews, see:

Rev. David Thommen;
‘Pop Goes the Worship’, Mark Moring, Christianity Today, 9 March 2011;
John Gardner;
Todd Pruitt;

Colossians 1:21-23: News! News! The in-depth news![1]

Christ Art

By Spencer D Gear

I. Introduction

News! News! All the news! The latest news! The oldest news! Good news! Bad news! You get the most in-depth news coverage by tuning into this news.

It is not Channel 7 national news. I’m not speaking about ABC radio news. You won’t get it on 60 minutes, A Current Affair, Today Tonight, or the 7.30 Report. This is not The Courier-Mail, The Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age or Time magazine. This is the most in-depth news you need to live your life. I’m speaking about the news in Col. 1:21-23. These three verses read in the New International Version:

²¹Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. ²²But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— ²³if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

A. Let’s place this passage in context in Colossians 1

Paul has just written one of the most magnificent proclamations of the superiority of Jesus Christ. Just before he launches into today’s subject, Paul gives us the HEADLINE news in vv. 19-20.

There are three HEADLINES in the one article that tell us who Jesus is:

Main headline:

God’s fullness dwells in him (v. 19).

Jesus is fully God. It’s a similar expression to Col. 2:9, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”

Second headline:

Even though this is a wicked, hostile world, Christ will eventually reconcile all things to himself in heaven and on earth (v. 20).

Third headline:

How come? There will be permanent peace through Christ’s shed blood on the cross (v. 20).

This is the backdrop (context of the passage): The God-man, Jesus Christ, provides reconciliation and peace through his blood shed through death.

Now we come to Colossians 1:21-23.

B. What’s the message of this passage in a nutshell? (Proposition)

Paul wants to get through to the Colossians and to us: The gospelproclaimed is in-depth news. This is the most in-depth news you will ever discover about human beings. To be in-depth news,

II. Firstly, the gospel proclaimed must include the BAD news story (v. 21).

In vv. 21-23, we have a brief outline of some essential content of the Gospel. Please notice this in-depth news begins with bad news (v 21).

A. The bad news is this:

all people are “alienated from God.” “Alienated[2] = “transferred to another owner.”[3] “As vivid a picture of the non-Christian world as in Rom. 1:20-23.”[4]

All people are in a fixed state of being alienated[5] from God. They are born as rebel sinners, whose allegiance is transferred to the devil himself. This alienation from God is not just for those in deepest darkest Africa. It describes all people in deepest, darkest, open and transparent Hervey Bay – they may be dressed in businessmen’s suits, teachers, school children , truck drivers, mothers and fathers, children.

All of the Colossians and all of us were “alienated from God” before we came to Christ in repentance, confession and faith. But the situation gets even worse. You were:

“Enemies” of God. You had a hostile hatred[6] of God.

Where is this hatred located according to Col. 1:21? You were “enemies in your minds.” For all people, in their thinking they are enemies of God before they come to Christ.

Notice what happens with all ungodly people. When they hate God in their minds, it results in “evil behavior” (v. 21).

We know that God reveals himself to all people through creation: (the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands, Ps. 19:1-4). God reveals himself to all people through conscience: (Rom. 2:14-15).

What do we do with this knowledge? Romans 1:18-19 explains, “The godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them” (NIV).

Do you see the vicious cycle for all unbelievers?

God reveals himself in creation and conscience (leads to) ð we are enemies of God in our minds

we hold down (suppress) the truth of God

we do evil deeds

God continues to reveal himself

we think hostile things

we suppress the truth

we commit all kinds of wickedness.

And the merry go round goes on and on UNTIL God intervenes in our lives with the GOOD NEWS.

It bothers me when this BAD news is toned down or only part of the story is told. Why don’t you examine your favourite method of presenting the Gospel and see how much emphasis it places on the BAD news. It surprised me when I examined some of these methods.

The in-depth, bad news, according to Col. 1:21, is this: All unbelievers are:

ø Alienated from God;

ø Enemies in their minds, and

ø Commit evil behaviour.

Illustration:

“Louis Blanc, French socialist . . . historian [journalist and politician of the 19th century],[7], said shortly before his execution, ‘When I was an infant, I rebelled against my nurse. When I was a child, I rebelled against my teachers. When I was a young man, I rebelled against my mother and father. When I reached a mature age, I rebelled against the state. When I die, if there is a heaven and a God, I’ll rebel against them.”[8]

That’s about as blatant a statement as you could get. But that’s the state of all people as far as God is concerned.

How can we apply this today?

What does God require of you to reflect this biblical principle in your life?

When you share the gospel, you must include the BAD news;

I counsel rebel youth, abusive parents, and marriages that are falling apart at the seams. The BAD news tells me what is going on.

We cannot understand Iraq, Iran, persecution of 200 million Christians worldwide, Afghanistan, Bali, Sept. 11, without understanding the BAD news.

You won’t understand adultery, the push for homosexuality, use of illicit drugs, Governments that legislate immorality through prostitution, abortion and euthanasia, without understanding the BAD news.

Brothers and sisters in Christ! There’s a very important phrase that is found at the beginning of the BAD NEWS in Col. 1:21: “Once you were.” It reminds me of I Cor. 6:11, “And that is what some of you were.”

To be in-depth news , the gospel proclaimed must include the BAD news story – once you were. But also . . .

III. The gospel proclaimed must include the GOOD news story (v. 22).

“But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation.”

v. 21 begins, “Once you were . . .”

Notice how v. 22 begins, “But now. . .”

A radical change comes when Christ enters your life. The ONCE bad situation becomes the NOW good situation.

A. The good news is that “now he has reconciled you” (v. 22).

What incredible good news that is! You who were once enemies in our mind that led to your evil behaviour. You are now reconciled to God if you have come to God in repentance and faith.
This word for “reconciled” appears only 3 times in the NT. Col. 1:20, 22 (here) and Eph. 2:16. It is not Paul’s usual word for “reconcile” [katallassÇ] that is used in verses such as 2 Cor. 5:17-20 and Rom. 5:10. But it is a closely related word.

Many of you will be familiar with 2 Cor. 5:17-20:

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.”

Here in Col. 1:22, Paul attaches a preposition, apo, to the regular word for reconciliation in 2 Cor. 5 & Rom. 5, katallasso.[9] Clearly he wants to communicate “the idea of complete reconciliation.”[10] Reconciliation means: to change from being an enemy to being a friend. It suggests that rebellious enemies of God submit to God and are now in harmony with God himself.[11]

In Col. 1: 20 we are told what this “complete reconciliation”

involves: “and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”

Through Christ’s death

“all things” will be reconciled to God. That includes the entire universe. The universe being out of harmony reminds us of Rom. 8:19-23.

The good news is that you were once hostile enemies towards God, have moved from enemy status to friendship with God — reconciled by “Christ’s physical body through death” (v. 22). “Physical body” (NIV) is literally, “body of flesh.”

It seems strange to us that Paul would use this redundant expression “physical body through death.” Physical death always includes the death of the physical body. Why would Paul mention it like this? Probably because he was addressing false teaching being promoted by the Colossian Gnostic heretics. They were teaching that reconciliation could only happen through spiritual (angelic) beings. Paul was stirred by the danger to the Colossians of false teaching of the Gnostics.

Gnostics “attached little or no value to the work of Christ in a physical body. In opposition to this, Paul stressed the importance of Christ’s physical body.”[12]

According to Col. 1:22, it was “Christ’s physical body through death” that reconciled believers to God.

How can Christ’s physical death lead to reconciliation of enemies with the holy God?

In other religions, it is the human being who does all he or she can to appease, turn aside the wrath of the gods. This is not the way it is with the law of God in Christianity. To turn away the wrath of almighty God and be reconciled with God, it takes the initiative of God himself. That’s why 2 Cor. 5:19 declares, ” God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.”

The good news is that now he has reconciled you as believers. Also

B. According to v. 22, The good news is that Christ’s death, “presents you

holy in God’s sight,

without blemish, and

free from accusation.”

How can this be? How can you and I be holy, without blemish and free from accusation before God when we KNOW that we sin after we become Christians. We are not goody two-shoes and sinlessly perfect. Well, I’m not! Please consult my wife and children.

Yet, God says that when we are reconciled with God we are holy, without blemish and free from accusation. How does that happen? I’m glad you asked.

It would be pretty natural to think that this holiness without blemish and free from accusation would only happen when we get to heaven when we will no longer be infected with sin.

Not so, says Paul. This is what Christ has done for the Colossians and all believers in reconciling them with God. “He brought them into his presence, no longer as [unholy][13], stained by sin, and bearing the burden of guilt; but ‘holy’ and ‘without blemish and free from accusation.'”[14]

How can this happen? Christian, your legal standing before God is that “at the time of and because of the death of Christ”[15], you are declared holy, without blemish and free from accusation.

This is the message of imputation, which seems to be foreign language to us today, but a core Bible teaching. Because of Christ’s death, the believer is legally declared before God to be:

holy = in consecration and dedication;

“without blemish” translates “a technical sacrificial term (anomous), [that] was used of animals that were without flaw and therefore worthy of being offered to God.”[16] Believer, before God you are declared as being without a sinful flaw – legally before God.

You are also “free from accusation” by God for your sinful, rebellious, hostile attitudes and actions towards God.

Paul could not be referring to your and my personal behaviour NOW because our actions are not always holy and without blemish. There has never been nor will there ever be a Christian who is sinlessly perfect and without blemish in actual conduct.[17] Paul is speaking about our legal standing before God because we are in Christ. We are “holy, without blemish, and free from accusation” legally with God.

It’s another way of saying what he told the Corinthians: “2 Cor. 5:21 (ESV), “For our sake he made him [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Christian friend, by Christ’s physical death you, who were once hostile enemies in your mind, have been reconciled with God and declared to be holy, blameless and free from accusation.

Illustration:

In Yorkshire in England there is a picture at Catterick Camp, “which shows a signaler lying dead in no-man’s land. He had been sent out to repair a cable that had been broken by [gun][18] fire. And there he lies, cold in death, but with his task accomplished, for in his stiffened hands he holds the broken ends together. Beneath the picture is the one word, ‘Through.’

“So too, by his once-for-all death on Calvary, Christ has brought God and [people][19] together in reconciliation and fellowship.”[20]

Let’s apply this to us today:

What does God now require of you, the reconciled? You who have been declared holy, spotless and without a guilty accusation. How can we be silent? The good news is that you must be people who proclaim the good news of reconciliation through Christ.

Where? Make opportunities. Take opportunities. This is incredible good news that the guilty can have no charge against them before God. Don’t you need to share that news with your boss, your neighbour, your enemy? What will you do this week to share such incredible good news of reconciliation?

To be in-depth news,

Blue Golden Button Firstly, the Gospel proclaimed must include the BAD news – we are hostile enemies towards God;

Blue Golden Button Secondly, the Gospel proclaimed must include the GOOD news of reconciliation and declared righteous.

Then comes a statement that is somewhat unexpected in this context. Thirdly…

**IV. The gospel proclaimed must include the CONTINUING news story (v. 23).**

A. The continuing news is that you must continue in your faith for it to be good news and for your salvation.

This seems like a most unusual emphasis when Paul is giving instructions about the Gospel being proclaimed. We can understand the need for the BAD news, although we tend to want to downplay that aspect. We know we need the GOOD news of reconciliation with God and righteousness by legal standing. But why this emphasis on “if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.”

Why? Why?

Paul faced the problem in his day. We face it today in the church worldwide.[21] One “major denomination in the United States . . . disclosed it obtained an incredible 294,784 decisions for Christ in 1990. Yet, in 1991, it could only find 14,337 in a Christian fellowship. There were 280,447 decisions that couldn’t be accounted for. The leadership had no clue as to why this happened, but could only conclude, ‘Something is wrong!’

“The trend continued. In August 1996 a leading U.S. denomination revealed that during 1995 it secured 384,057 decisions, but retained only 22,983 in fellowship. It couldn’t account for 361,074 supposed conversions.”

Charles E. Hackett, the Division of Home Missions National Director for a large denomination in the USA[22] said: “A soul at the altar does not generate much excitement in some circles because we realise approximately 95 out of every 100 will not become integrated into the church. In fact, most of them will not return for a second visit.”

This phenomenon is not unique to the US. A pastor in Boulder, Colorado sent a team to Russia in 1991 and there were 2,500 decisions. The next year they found only 30 persevering in their faith. In Leeds, England, a visiting US speaker said that there were 400 decisions for a local church. However, six weeks later only two were going on, and they eventually fell away.

“A pastor who travelled to India every year since 1980 [said][23] he saw 80,000 decision cards stacked in a hut in the city of Rajamundry, the ‘results’ of past evangelistic crusades. But he maintained that one would be fortunate to find even 80 Christians in the entire city. That is one tenth of one percent.”[24]

Paul to the Colossians wrote that this is the gospel that you heard, “If you continue in your faith”. One of the great Bible teachers of the last century, F. F. Bruce, wrote about this verse: “If the Bible teaches the final perseverance of the saints, it also teaches that the saints are those who finally persevere – in Christ. Continuance is the test of reality.”[25]

Perhaps these Colossians were beginning to wane in their faith and there was danger of their slipping back, so there was the need for this exhortation.

The gospel of continuing faith, according to v. 23, means that you are:

“Established” – suggesting that your faith is secure when it on the rock of continuing salvation.
You are “firm” (literally, “settled”), shows that you have a “steady and firm resolve” to continue in the faith.

Hebrews 3:6 (ESV) states: “but Christ is faithful over God’s house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.”

We see a similar emphasis on the need to hold fast to hope in passages such as Heb. 6:11; 10:23; 1 Peter 1:13; 1 John 3:3.

Never let us forget that continuing in the faith – genuine perseverance – is not something that is done in our own strength. Jesus made that very clear in John 15:5, “I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing” (ESV).

Let’s apply this to us today:

Since Col. 1:23 is an essential to the Gospel, when you share Christ with people, urge them to continue in the faith. The real test of faith in Christ is continuing to trust in Christ alone for your salvation. Never say, “Give Jesus a go!”

“Just believe,” is not the Gospel. “Raise your hand and ask Jesus into your heart” is not the Gospel. Getting back to the core Gospel is long overdue. According to Col. 1:21-23, this means:

The Gospel proclaimed must include the BAD news;

The Gospel proclaimed must include the GOOD news;

The Gospel proclaimed must include the CONTINUING news, and

**V. Fourthly, The gospel proclaimed must be newsworthy here in Queensland AND around the world (v. 23).**

The theme of these three verses in Colossians is stated clearly in the NIV translation of v. 23, “This is the gospel that you heard.” Please note what Paul goes on to say. This Gospel is to be proclaimed around the world.

A. This most newsworthy story that was proclaimed at Colossae was by Paul, a servant of this gospel (v. 23).

B. This most newsworthy story must be proclaimed around the world (v. 23).

In fact Paul says that this gospel “has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven” (v. 23). How on earth was it possible that Paul, in the days before airline travel, radio, TV, newspapers and the Internet, could proclaim the gospel “in all creation under heaven” (ESV)?

Perhaps this was Paul’s way of saying that the Gospel had been “heard in all the great centres of the [Roman] Empire.”[26] Maybe Paul was using hyperbole (exaggeration). We do know from Rom. 15:19-23 that Paul preached from Jerusalem to Rome and that it was his ambition “to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that [he] would not be building on someone else’s foundation” (Rom. 15:20).

This is a basic outline of the gospel that Paul preached. Is this the total gospel content? No! There is no mention of confession, repentance, receiving Christ “by grace through faith” when the Gospel is preached (see Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 10:9-10).

In our day of biblical ignorance, there is a need for the biblical plot-line as in Colossians to be proclaimed with Gospel presentations. Sadly, most secular people and many in the church don’t understand the major themes of the Bible – the plot-line of the biblical story.

Illustration:

I support the evangelist who preached an outreach series at the University of Durham in the UK. He understood the problem we face with temporary conversion. He preached 8 messages through the first 8 chapters of the Book of Romans (he was not a D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones who took 13 years[27] to preach through Romans, one sermon a week). The plot-line of the Durham University presentation

“Introduced [students] to God, Creation, the nature of sin and law, the place of the atonement in God’s redemptive purposes, the nature of grace and faith, justification, and the gift of the Spirit, and ultimately the hope of a new heaven and a new earth.”[28]

I recommend this Aussie evangelistic tool, “2 Ways to Live,” that presents Christ in six steps:

1. God – the loving ruler and creator,

2. Humanity in rebellion,

3. God won’t let people keep rebelling forever,

4. Jesus – the Man who dies for rebels,

5. Jesus – the risen ruler,

6. The Two Ways to Live: Our Way OR God’s New Way.[29]

Let’s make an application to us:

Will you take or make the opportunity this week to share the Gospel? With your friend, neighbour, perhaps a stranger you meet somewhere. Please do NOT take up the boss’s time by sharing the Gospel in working hours with a work mate. That is cheating the boss.

What will you do about God’s call, through Paul, to present the BAD news of people being enemies of God, hostile in the mind? Make sure you include the GOOD news of reconciliation to God through Christ. Never forget that this Gospel is for those who CONTINUE in the faith.

I call upon you to forever give up the cheap Gospel. Don’t proclaim Gospel L-I-T-E.

VI. Conclusion[30]

Malcolm Muggeridge died in 1990. He was the famous British author, media personality and journalist, who became a Christian late in life. He “once told of working as a journalist in India as a young man. One evening he walked down to the river for a swim. As he entered the water, he saw an Indian woman from the nearby village who had come for her evening bath. Muggeridge immediately felt the allurement of the moment, and he was besieged by temptation. He had lived with this kind of temptation all his adult life, but until this moment he had fought it off out of respect for his wife Kitty. But tonight, he was weak and vulnerable. He hesitated just a moment, then swam furiously across the river toward the woman, literally trying to outdistance his conscience. But when he was just a few [metres][31] away from her, he emerged from the water and what he saw took his breath away. She wasn’t a beautiful young maiden, but old and hideous, with wrinkled skin, and worst of all, she was a leper. He said later, ‘The creature grinned at me, showing a toothless mask.’ Muggeridge muttered, ‘What a dirty lecherous[32] woman!’ But as he swam away from her, a sudden shock gripped him, ‘It wasn’t just the woman who was dirty and lecherous,’ he said. ‘It was my own heart.'”[33]

Muggeridge was once a sceptic of Christianity and even denied the resurrection of Christ. In the later part of his life he became fully convinced of the resurrection of Christ and wrote the book: Jesus: The Man Who Lives (1975).

All of us are dirty and lecherous – lustful.

The Gospel proclaimed must include the BAD news about Malcolm Muggeridge and all of us. We are/were wilful, hostile enemies of God.
The Gospel proclaimed must include the GOOD news – reconciliation with God because of Christ’s death that declares us holy, without blemish and free from accusation;
The Gospel proclaimed must include the CONTINUING news – you have salvation if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the fundamental doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.
This gospel proclaimed is the in-depth, in-depth news for Hervey Bay and around the world.

Let us pray.

Thank you, Lord, for declaring our true state before you. We are sinners, alienated from you and we suppress your truth.
Thank you for the good news that we can be reconciled to you through Christ’s death if we repent and confess our sin to you.
We praise you that by repentance and faith, we are declared holy in your sight, without blemish and free from accusation.
That’s what we are legally before you, God, when we repent.
In our progressive sanctification, help us to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Saviour.
Thank you for giving us the daily strength to continue to persevere in our faith.

Notes:

[1] Bundaberg West Baptist Church, 31 August 2003, 8am & 10am services; Northcote Baptist Church, Melbourne, 25 January 2004; Hervey Bay Presbyterian Church, 10 October 2010.

[2] Apellotriwmenous = perfect passive participle of apallatriow..

[3] Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in Frank E. Gaebelein (gen. ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (vol. 11). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978, p. 185.

[4] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament: The Epistles of Paul (vol. 4). Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1931, p. 481.

[5] Perfect tense.

[6] Old word, echthos (enemies). Robertson, p. 482.

[7] Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity: Volume II A. D. 1500 – A.D. 1975. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1953/1975, p. 1066.

[8] Roy B. Zuck, The Speaker’s Quote Book. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1997, p. 324.

[9] The word in 2 Cor. 5:18-10 and Rom. 5:10 is katallasso. In Col. 1:22 it is apokatallasso.

[10] Robertson, p. 481.

[11] Vaughan, p. 186.

[12] Vaughan, p. 187.

[13] The original said, “unhallowed.”

[14] Vaughan, p. 187.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Suggested by ibid.

[18] The original said, “Shell.”

[19] The original said, “Man.”

[20] John Wood, “Reconciliation,” in Zuck, p. 423.

[21] Christian lawyer, Bernie Koerselman, says that “years ago I began to suspect that one of the evidences of fraud in the presentation of the gospel is the high percentage of people who quickly desert the church after having ‘made a commitment.'” He says, “Ray Comfort’s book, Bride of Heaven, Pride of Hell confirmed my suspicions. Ray quotes statistics.” The following statistical details are in Bernie Koerselman, “Fraud & Deceit in the presentation of the gospel.” Vanguard, February 2000, p. 5.

[22] The Assemblies of God USA

[23] He told Ray Comfort.

[24] Bernie Koerselman, “Fraud & Deceit in the presentation of the gospel.” Vanguard, February 2000, p. 5.

[25] F. F. Bruce, “Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians,” in E. K. Simpson and F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians (The New International Commentary on the New Testament, F. F. Bruce, gen. ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1957, p. P. 213

[26] C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary, C. F. D. Moule, gen. ed.). London: Cambridge University Press, 1957, p. 73.

[27] The fly-leaf of the dust jack to the hardback edition of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans:Exposition of Chapter1, The Gospel of God. Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985, states: “Dr. Lloyd-Jones’ exposition of Romans, the major work of his mid-week ministry in London, occupied him from 1955 until 1968. Throughout these years, no other event in the calendar of evangelicals was comparable to Friday night at Westminster Chapel.”

[28] D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996, p. 504.

[29] From “2 Ways to Live: A Bible study explaining Christianity.” Kingsford NSW: Matthias Media (PO Box 225, Kingsford 2032, Australia.)

[30] When I preached this message, a knowledgeable Christian objected to my use of Malcolm Muggeridge (see what follows), claiming that he doubted Muggeridge’s conversion as he did not believe in the resurrection of Christ. I have since checked, “Malcolm Muggeridge’s Conversion Story”, available at: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/malcolm-muggeridges-conversion-story.html (Accessed 26 January 2007). Here it is recorded that in 1966, Muggeridge stated: ” I don’t believe in the resurrection of Christ, I don’t believe that he was the son of God in a Christian sense.” This quote has the endnote, Hunter, Ian, Malcolm Muggeridge: A Life, London: Hamish Hamilton, 1980, p. 225. However, John Ankerberg and John Weldon wrote in, ‘The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Part I—Can It Persuade Skeptics?”

Among great literary writers, few can match the brilliance of famous author Malcolm Muggeridge. He, too, was once a skeptic of Christianity. But near the end of his life he became fully convinced of the truth of the Resurrection of Christ, writing a book acclaimed by critics, Jesus: The Man Who Lives (1975; HarperCollins 1984). He wrote, “The coming of Jesus into the world is the most stupendous event in human history….” and “What is unique about Jesus is that, on the testimony and in the experience of innumerable people, of all sorts and conditions, of all races and nationalities from the simplest and most primitive to the most sophisticated and cultivated, he remains alive.” Muggeridge concludes, “That the Resurrection happened… seems to be indubitably true” and “Either Jesus never was or he still is….with the utmost certainty, I assert he still is”, available at: http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/ATRJ/truth/ATRJ1203-EVPDF/ATRJ1203-EV-1.pdf (Accessed 26 January 2007)

[31] The original said, “feet”.

[32] According to dictionary.com, “lecherous” means lustful, erotically suggestive, inciting to lust. Available at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lecherous (Accessed 2 October 2010).

[33] Robert J. Morgan, Nelson’s Complete Book of Stories, Illustrations & Quotes: The Ultimate Contemporary Resource for Speakers. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000, “Muggeridge in India,” p. 751.

ChristArt

Tongues and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit

By Spencer D Gear

Some Pentecostal Christian denominations and para-church agencies of a similar theological persuasion have Statements of Beliefs that state that they believe the baptism with the Holy Spirit, according to Acts 2:4, is given to believers who ask for it. [1] The meaning is that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of the baptism/filling with the Holy Spirit. Those who are Spirit-filled will speak in unknown or other tongues, according to this theology.

Although I accepted this view for about 13 years, an examination of the Scriptures and Christian experience have pressed me to question this understanding. Since I am committed to the inerrant Word of God, I have sought answers from a careful study of the grammar and context of Acts 2:4 and other Scriptures.

I consider this an important issue since the Scriptures speak about the baptism/filling of the Holy Spirit. I deeply desire the Holy Spirit’s ministry in my life, therefore, the following study is directed towards discovering the theology of the baptism with the Holy Spirit with a view to experience in the Christian’s life.

The Day of Pentecost

What happened on the day of Pentecost was a unique historical occurrence (tongues were not sought) where the tongues were actual known dialects (Acts 2:6, 8 uses the Greek word, dialekto — dative case, which v. 8 affirms was their own native language). These dialects were understood by the listeners and did not need to be interpreted.

To make Acts 2:4 support the “initial evidence” doctrine, one, to be consistent, must require that those baptised in the Holy Spirit today must speak in known dialects.

Other References in the Book of Acts

The “tongues” of Acts 10:46 seem to be interpreted by Acts 11:15, which means that it is the Gentiles’ Pentecost with the languages being known dialects (cf, “just as He did upon us at the beginning”, 11:15). Therefore, because of this context of the Book of Acts, Acts 19:6 would be most consistently interpreted as the dialects of the day of Pentecost. What is significant is that as the gospel spread and as each new group of people was encountered, tongues is mentioned (the Jews, Acts 2:4; the Gentiles, Acts 10:46; those who accepted John’s baptism, Acts 19:6). From these verses it is evident that for some people who are filled with the Spirit, they will speak in tongues.

It is just as significant in the Book of Acts that tongues is not mentioned with the filling of the Spirit in all examples. Acts 8:18 does not state what Simon the sorcerer saw. Acts 9:17 does not associate Paul’s filling with the Holy Spirit with “tongues”. It is arguing from silence (a dangerous exegetical practice) to say that Paul’s baptism with the Spirit was accompanied by tongues. We know he spoke in tongues (I Cor. 14:18-19), but do not know when it began.

In Acts 4:8, “filled”, an aorist participle, could be translated “having just been filled”, does not mention tongues. This is repeated in 13:9, 52. Acts 4:31 does not mention tongues. In fact the evidence was that they “began to speak the word of God with boldness” (NASB). Why are not boldness (Acts 4:31), power (Acts 1:8) and prophecy (Acts 19:6) the evidences of the filling of the Spirit?

Tongues in I Corinthians

What happened on the day of Pentecost cannot be identified with the “tongues” of I Cor. 12:11, 30; 14:2, 4, 13, 19, 27 where the “tongue” either had to be interpreted (12:11, 30; 14:13, 27) or was unknown language, spoken to God for personal edification (14:2, 4). However, I Cor. 13:1 identifies tongues with the languages of men (understandable human languages) and the languages of angels (presumably the communication language of the angels in heaven).

For me, the definitive moment in my interpretation of these sometimes difficult verses came when I studied the Greek language of I Cor. 12:29-30 which uses the Greek negative me, thus requiring that a negative answer be given to the question, “Do all speak in tongues?” which is confirmed by the NASB translation: “All do not speak with tongues, do they?”

Since the baptism of the Holy Spirit is available to all believers, I Cor. 12:30 confirms that tongues cannot be the initial physical evidence for all believers, since tongues is not given to all.

Perhaps the reply could be: I Corinthians 12-14 must be taken as a whole and refers to the use of tongues in the corporate gathering of the church and so refers to the gift of tongues requiring the accompanying gift of interpretation. Therefore, it is correct to say that not all believers are given the gift of tongues requiring interpretation for exercise in the gathering of the body.

This is a valid objection that I accepted for many years. However, a closer examination of the context reveals the following:

a. I Cor. 14:2, 4 refers to tongues for personal edification and not requiring interpretation — therefore it is not for use in the church. This seems to be what Paul is referring to when he says, “I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all” (I Cor. 14:18). In the church, he prefers intelligibility: “I desire to speak five words with my mind, that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue” (14:19)

b. I Cor. 14:14-18 contrasts speaking and singing “with the spirit” (tongues on the basis of v. 14) and praying with the mind. Therefore, throughout I Cor. 12-14, there seems to be an interchange of tongues (spiritual language or ecstatic utterance) as a language spoken to God for personal edification and tongues requiring interpretation for the edification of the church.

Therefore, my conclusion is that I Cor. 12:28, 30 is referring to both kinds of tongues, which are not given to all believers. Why? Because “one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills” (I Cor. 12:11 NASB). I Cor. 12:14 emphasises: “For the body is not one member, but many.” Therefore, I do not find it surprising that tongues is restricted to some believers by the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit.

This has led charismatic leader and pastor of a Vineyard church (USA), George Mallone, to state: “Beyond doubt, one of the greatest theological tragedies to befall the church is the suggestion that tongues is a visible sign of having been baptized or filled with the Spirit” (1983:90).

Based on Experience

Experience is never the way to judge whether or not a doctrine is correct. That must come from a solid historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible. However, my experience and that of others is that, even though one speaks in tongues, this does not mean one is always controlled by the Spirit (and surely that is one meaning of the filling/baptism of the Holy Spirit). I have spoken in tongues in my prayer time with the Lord, but later in the day have been angry with my children, told a lie, or slandered a brother. So, speaking in tongues is no guarantee for me that I am always dominated by the Spirit of God.

On the other hand, I know people who do not speak in tongues (my wife is one example) whose lives are a constant testimony to submission to Jesus Christ and control by the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion

A consistent interpretation of the relevant Scriptures reveals that tongues cannot be available to every Christian as the initial physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit because:

1. Not all will speak in tongues (I Cor. 12:30), and
2. Such a doctrine usurps the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, based on the following Scriptures:

“We have different gifts according to the grace given us” (Rom. 12:6a).
“All these [gifts] are the work of the one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines” (I Cor. 12:11).
·Hebrews 2:4 speaks of “gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.”
I believe it grieves the Holy Spirit and is a promotion of doctrinal error when denominations and Christian leaders go contrary to the Bible’s teaching.

However, if I am in error in the above contextual-grammatical interpretation of “tongues” I need your correction. Please be a Berean (Acts 17:11) and direct me to the Word of God. Use this web page’s response form to show me my error.

References

Mallone, G. 1983. Those Controversial Gifts, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.

Endnotes:

1. These Denominations explain the baptism with the Holy Spirit as follows:

(a) Statement 8 of the Assemblies of God (a Pentecostal denomination) “Fundamental Truths” is:

“The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit”: ‘The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance. Acts 2:4 [KJV/NIV]

The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues, but is different in purpose and use.1 Corinthians 12:4-10 [KJV/NIV]; 1 Corinthians 12:28 [KJV/NIV]’.

(b) The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (a Pentecostal denomination) in its ‘Declaration of Faith’ states:

We believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the incoming of the promised Comforter in mighty and glorious fullness to endue the believer with power from on high; to glorify and exalt the Lord Jesus; to give inspired utterance in witnessing of Him; to foster the spirit of prayer, holiness, sobriety; to equip the individual and the Church for practical, efficient, joyous, Spirit-filled soul-winning in the fields of life; and that this being still the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, the believer may have every reason to expect His incoming to be after the same manner as that in which He came upon Jew and Gentile alike in Bible days, and as recorded in the Word, that it may be truly said of us as of the house of Cornelius: the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning [biblical references to support this statement are: John 14:16-17; Acts 1:5, 8; 2:4; 8:17; 10:44-46; 1 Cor. 3:16].

(c) The Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee (a Pentecostal denomination), in its “Declaration of Faith” states that ‘we believe … in speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance and that it is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost’.

(d) The Vineyard Churches USA take a different slant in their statement of Core Values, ‘The Ministry of the Holy Spirit’:

We believe that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Church at Pentecost in power, baptizing believers into the Body of Christ and releasing the gifts of the Spirit to them. The Spirit brings the permanent indwelling presence of God to us for spiritual worship, personal sanctification, building up the Church, gifting us for ministry, and driving back the kingdom of Satan by the evangelization of the world through proclaiming the word of Jesus and doing the works of Jesus.

We believe that the Holy Spirit indwells every believer in Jesus Christ and that He is our abiding Helper, Teacher, and Guide. We believe in the filling or the empowering of the Holy Spirit, often a conscious experience, for ministry today. We believe in the present ministry of the Spirit and in the exercise of all of the biblical gifts of the Spirit. We practice the laying on of hands for the empowering of the Spirit, for healing, and for recognition and empowering of those whom God has ordained to lead and serve the Church.

(e) The Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa (a Pentecostal denomination) in the “Confession of Faith” states that,

WE BELIEVE in the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues as promised to all believers. We believe in the manifestation of the gifts and fruit of the Spirit in the life of a Christian. We believe that a Christian should be a disciple of Jesus Christ living a consecrated and holy life.

Five ingredients for a healthy church: Colossians 4:7-18 [1]

ChristArt

By Spencer D GEar

What do you do when a pastor’s adultery shatters a church? Jerry Cook, a pastor of a largish church in Gresham, Oregon, USA, tells this story[2]. “A pastor in our town whom I knew only slightly became involved in adultery. As a result, his marriage went on the rocks and his ministry was destroyed. Since he was a strong Christian leader in our area, this brother’s fall came with a resounding crash. His church splintered into a dozen fragments and hurting, confused people were scatter all over the city.

“A year and a half after all that happened, I received a phone call at 7:30 A.M. one Sunday. It was this former pastor. He said, ‘Would you mind if my wife and I came to church this morning?’

“I said, ‘Why would you even call and ask that question? Of course we wouldn’t mind.’

“‘Well’, he said, ‘you know this is my second wife and I am divorced from my first. Are you aware of this?’

“I said, ‘Sure, I’m aware of it.’

“‘Well,’ he said, ‘I’ll tell you, Jerry, we’ve been trying for eight months now to find a place to worship. The last time we tried was a month ago. That morning we were asked from the pulpit to leave. We’ve been met at the door of other churches by pastors who heard that my wife and I were coming. They asked us not to come in, said we would cause too much trouble. Still others have heard that we might show up and called in advance to ask us please not to come.’

“He said, ‘Frankly, I don’t think we could handle it again if we were to come and be an embarrassment to you and be asked to leave. I just don’t know what would happen; my wife is close to a nervous breakdown.’ By now he was weeping. ‘I know that you have video for overflow crowds,’ he said. ‘If you want you can put us in a room where no one will see us and let us watch the service.’

“I said, ‘Listen, you be there and I’ll welcome you at the door.’

“He came with his wife and their little baby. They came late and sat in the back.”

Does this ever bother you? Acts 4:34, “And there was not a needy person among them.” In the church of the Book of Acts it is stated that not a needy person was to be found in the church. Church people met the physical & financial needs of the people in the church. How would they get on with Jerry Cook’s situation of meeting the need of an adulterous former-pastor, new wife and child? Would they be welcome in the early church? Would their needs be met in this church?

We rely on the Salvos, St. Vincent de Paul, counselling agencies, and Centrelink government handouts.

What is the difference between the first century church and the 21st century church? Paul tells us in Col. 4:7-18 that if any church (this church) wants to be a healthy, it will have five ingredients.

Before we examine these 5 ingredients, please note with me some issues arising from this passage:

“Paul mentions over 100 people by name in his New Testament letters! In Romans 16 alone, there are 26 people listed. Here, in Colossians 4, he mentions 10 individuals.”[3] Paul could not survive in the Christian life alone. He was in deep relationship with people in the churches.
Close friendship was part of discipleship and Christian growth for Paul. To grow in Christ, you need close relationships. I’m reminded of Prov. 18:24, “A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.”
For Paul, people were more important than programmes.
Paul’s friends included Luke, the doctor & Onesimus the runaway slave. He had friends who were Jews and with others who wouldn’t have a clue who Abraham was. Some were male, some female. Some were faithful Christians; others were deserters from the faith.
When Paul talks about real people by name, he roots his letters in real history with real people. This is not fantasy or myth. There is no such thing as Christianity without its historical base dealing with real people in real places in the real world.
This entire epistle to the Colossians exalts the supremacy of Christ (see especially 1:15ff) and how that impacts our

prayer life[4];

ministry in the church[5];

freedom from legalism of human regulations[6];

holy living[7];

how families, employers & employees should live[8]; and

gospel proclamation at every opportunity.[9]

Let’s look at these five ingredients for a healthy church.

I. First, if this church is to be healthy, it needs faithful people in radical relationships (vv. 7-9)

7Tychicus will tell you all the news about me. He is a dear brother, a faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord. 8I am sending him to you for the express purpose that you may know about our[10] circumstances and that he may encourage your hearts. 9He is coming with Onesimus, our faithful and dear brother, who is one of you. They will tell you everything that is happening here.

Let’s meet . . .

A. Tychicus

This is the Tychicus of Eph. 6:21; 2 Tim. 4:12; Titus 3:12. Paul sends Tychicus to the Colossian church, in Turkey today, trusting Tychicus to:

Tell them all the news about Paul (4:2 says Paul is “in chains”, possibly in Rome, for proclaiming “the mystery of Christ”);

Tychicus will tell them about Paul’s circumstances;

He will encourage the Colossian believers. Paul had never been to Colosse. Reading this letter gives one the impression that Epaphras introduced these people to Christ and founded this church and possibly churches at Laodicea and Hierapolis (4:13).

Why has Paul chosen Tychicus to deliver this letter, fill them in on

what is happening to Paul in prison, and to encourage them? We learn 3 important things about Tychicus that caused Paul to have confidence in this man. He’s:

A dear brother; a beloved brother. Of all the Christian people

that Paul knew, of Tychicus he could say that he was one “who has become beloved by those who know him.”[11]

How many people in this church could you describe as a loved brother or a loved sister by you because you know them so well and have such a deep relationship with them that they are dear to you? Honest?

Tychicus was loved, but this verse also says that he was

A faithful minister; A minister is not a pastor but a “diakonos”

(from which we get deacon). In ch. 1:7, Epaphras is called a “diakonos”; the apostle Paul calls himself a “diakonos” in 1:23. A “diakonos” is the word to express this idea and ministry: he or she is “one who renders voluntary service ‘in behalf of’ other people so that they may have the benefit.”[12]

There’s nothing in the context to say that Tychicus was a Deacon as we understand it. But he was a “servant of the Lord” or a “minister in Christian work, in a general sense.”[13] We must understand that this person was one who served others. That’s why Christians ought to be so radically different from the secular world. We are here to serve others, whatever their need.

But Tychicus served others not in some occasional, slap-happy way. He was known to be a FAITHFUL minister. He was dependable. I’m reminded of I Cor. 4:2, “Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove FAITHFUL.”

One of the fruit of the Spirit, according to Galatians 5:22 is “faithfulness.” If you are lacking in faithfulness, you have a spiritual problem. The fruit of the Spirit are lacking in your life.

Illustration:

What would this church be like if all of us were so growing in the fruit of the Spirit that we were faithful in church attendance, faithful in our giving, faithful in leadership of Brigades, deacons’ meetings, etc.

I go to churches around the country and I find that one of the greatest lacks is preachers who are faithful in preaching the Word of God. The Bible calls all preachers to “preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2). Preachers read the Word, preach around the text, preach what’s in their mind, but many, many are not faithful preachers of the Word.

Illustration:

“Old Faithful is not the largest geyser in Yellowstone National Park [Wyoming, USA], nor does it reach the greatest height [when it spurts forth.] But it is by far the most popular one. Why? It is regular and dependable, hence its name, ‘Old Faithful.'”[14]

God does not call you and me to be brilliant, with brawn and beauty. He does call all believers to be faithful.

Tychicus was the person who was faithful in serving others, no matter what their need. He’s also described as . . .

“A fellow servant[15] in the Lord” – “a fellow slave of Paul and of Timothy (1:1) who submitted his will completely to the Lord.”[16]

In these final greetings, Paul mentions another faithful person in v. 9. Tychicus is going to the Colossian church with

B. Onesimus

“Our faithful and dear brother.” If you want to know more about

Onesimus, read the epistle to Philemon. This is an amazing story. Onesimus the slave “ran away from his master in Colosse, came into contact with Paul in Rome, and was converted and completely changed. Paul is now sending him back to his master. Tychicus is serving as his protector, for a runaway slave was liable to arrest anywhere by the . . . slave catchers who were everywhere on the lookout for such slaves. Paul does not say what the congregation is to do with this slave; he says only that he is sending him back as ‘a faithful and beloved brother’ who is from their city.”[17]

First, if this church, any church, is to be healthy, it needs faithful people in radical loving relationships (vv. 7-9). But this is such a low priority in the materialistic western church. I call you to be faithful in your ministry here. Love one another deeply, warts and all. I have warts in my Christian life. Will you love me in spite of them? Will you be faithful in ministering to the needs of people here in this church?

II. Second, if this church is to be healthy, it needs prayer warriors (vv. 12-13)

12Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured. 13I vouch for him that he is working hard for you and for those at Laodicea and Hierapolis.

Epaphras is an amazing believer (v. 12). He’s the founder of the Colossian church (see 1:7) but here he is described as a:

Bond-slave (doulos) of Jesus Christ;
He’s “always wrestling in prayer for you.” Why?
“That you may stand firm in all the will of God;
“That you will be mature and fully assured.”

This church was under threat from the heretical sect known as the Gnostics and there was a danger that this newish church would go under through false teaching.

These Gnostics believed matter was evil, there were mediating beings, salvation through knowledge. So, God and matter were antagonistic. What would they do with Jesus, fully God and fully man (which included matter)? That’s why Paul in Col. 1:15 had to correct this error with this refutation: “[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth . . .”

Christ was born a human being and he created matter. That directly corrected these false Gnostic teachers.

If false teachers were infiltrating this church, you correct them with sound biblical teaching, but Paul says that the Colossian church, to be healthy had their founder who engaged in “agÇnizomai‘ in prayer.

Epaphras was “always wrestling in prayer” (v. 12. He was in prayer that was “constant, frequent, and intense. He’s a great illustration of Colossians 4:2: ‘Devote yourselves to prayer. . .’ The verb ‘wrestling’ can be translated ‘agonized’ and is the same word used for the prayers of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. This battle metaphor pictures prayer as a struggle.”[18]

Paul uses the same word for himself in ch. 1:29 in a different context: “For this end I labor, struggling [there’s the word] with all the energy he so powerfully works in me.” In his apostolic ministry, Paul was laboring with an agonising, intense struggle.

“Epaphras ever ‘agonizes’ for the Colossians with strong pleading in his prayers, and his prayer for them is that they may ‘stand’ firm and solid, ‘as complete,’ as having reached the goal and lacking nothing to make them true Christians in every way.”[19]

Do you agonise in prayer for Christians in this church that they would stand firm in the faith and grow into maturity in the faith? Do you think there are enough prayer agonisers in this church? What will cause us to agonise in prayer for this church? Will it take the threat of false doctrine, as with the Colossians, or the threat of persecution of Christians, to call us to agonising, struggling, powerful and pleading prayer for believers who are in danger of falling away from the faith.

Illustration:

Leonard Ravenhill wrote much on revival and to challenge the church in many areas. He said: “The church has many organizers, but few agonizers; many who pay, but few who pray; many resters, but few wrestlers; many who are enterprising, but few who are interceding. People who are not praying and praying. . . Tithes may build a church, but tears will give it life. That is the difference between the modern church and the early church. In the matter of effective praying, never have so many left so much to so few. [Brothers and sisters],[20] let us pray.”[21]

Like Epaphras, will you be an agoniser in prayer for this church’s ministry:

to those who do not know the Lord;

for ministry outreach;

that we might be a truly Christ-centred church in what we say and do;

for the Holy Spirit to rule every part of this church.

First, if this church is to be healthy, it needs faithful people in radical relationships;

Second, if this church is to be healthy, it needs prayer warriors, agonisers.

III. Third, if this church is to be healthy, it will need to minister to those who are slack in fulfilling their ministry (v. 17)

v. 17 Tell Archippus: “See to it that you complete the work you have received in the Lord.”

In v. 17, Archippus apparently was being slack or ineffective in ministry and is urged to complete the ministry that he had received from the Lord. We don’t hear of this person very often in the Word, but Philemon 2 describes Archippus as “our fellow soldier.” But there was something not being completed in this person’s ministry. We are not told what it was.

In today’s church, this can happen to Christians

Through letting your spiritual life slip.
How’s your prayer life?
What about your discipleship?
To whom are you accountable?
How does anybody know what spiritual shape you are in?
We can’t be strong in the Lord if we are weak in some areas and are not fulfilling our ministry.
What is your ministry and are you doing it?

Sadly, a church that is becoming a healthy church will have to deal with disease in its midst. Some of that will be people who are not completing the Lord’s ministry. God gifts every one of you. Are you doing the ministry that God has given you? If you are doing the ministry that you think you have, you are likely to fail. There are not just one or two ministers in this congregation. You all are gifted for at least one spiritual ministry. Which are yours? Are you doing your ministry in this church? If not, why not? Are you like Archippus who needed challenging?

IV. Fourth, if this church is to be healthy, you will need to minister to the doubters and backsliders in this congregation (v. 14).

v. 14 Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.

Could we say that there are a number in this congregation who are faithful servants and ministers of the Lord? Would it be safe to say that there are a few, maybe very few who agonise in prayer? Are you backward or slack in exercising the gifts God has given them?

In v. 14 of Col. 4, we have an example of somebody whose name is just mentioned as “Demas sends you greetings.” That tells us nothing more than Demas was with Paul when Colossians was written, BUT something else was happening in Demas’s life. We read about him in Philemon 24 as one of Paul’s “fellow workers.”

BUT if we go to 2 Tim. 4:9-10, which was written about five years later than Colossians,[22] we read, “Do your best to come to me quickly, for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica” (NIV).

Demas, who was with Paul the great apostle, was developing the spiritual disease of backsliding, losing the faith through worldliness. When Paul wrote Colossians he did not condemn Demas, but within 5 years the spiritual disease of worldly thinking and living had infected him.

We are not told exactly what happened, but I John 2:15-16 tells us how this can set in.

“Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For everything in the world–the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does–comes not from the Father but from the world” (NIV).

Like Demas, we all have within us the potential to develop fickle, fragile, backsliding, apostatising faith that could lead to leaving the faith. We here in the affluent West are especially vulnerable. In even an evangelical church it is so easy to fake it when you are not accountable to anybody. Do you know what things in the world can pull you away from the faith? Where are you vulnerable. Look at the list from I John 2. See if these tempt you:

“the cravings of the sinful nature.” Galatians 5:19-21 tell us what they are:

v 19,The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery [that’s excessive indulgence in sexual pleasures]; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” (NIV).

The first 3, immorality, impurity and debauchery have to do with the matter of sex, the next two (idolatry & witchcraft) deal with false gods. Then follow 8 that have to do with strife and division among people, and the last two with abuses of alcohol.[23]

What could some examples be for you where you are tempted into sexual sin? We live in a very loose sexual society where condoms, porn and prostitutes are freely available. Where are you tempted? If you succumb, you are down the road of worldly thinking and living that may draw you, like Demas, away from the faith.

What other gods could you be serving? Who’s your rock music or reality TV idol? I’m very concerned at the baptism into the occult that is happening with so much access to Harry Potter books and movies for children. Fiction, yes! But dangerous fiction! I spoke with a woman recently who has been wonderfully saved out of witchcraft and she drew to my attention the witchcraft of the Harry Potter series and how attractive it is made to look, but how dangerous it really is.

“Filmmaker and occult expert Caryl Matrisciana explains the dangers of the Harry Potter series and how the books portray a lifestyle diametrically opposed to that of the Christian. Matrisciana and her husband have spent 25 years researching the occult.”

She was an occult practitioner, raised in India. Eventually, she became a Christian and worked through the British media to raise awareness of the dangers of the occult.

Matrisciana encourages Christians in her new hour-long documentary video to take an honest look at the world children fantasise about when reading J. K. Rowling’s books. Through Harry Potter books and audios, children as young as kindergarten age are being introduced to human sacrifice, the sucking of blood from dead animals, possession by spirit beings, and satanic ritual.

She is going around England warning the young and old about the occult dangers through Harry Potter. Her video is called: “Harry Potter, Witchcraft Repackaged: Making Evil Look Innocent “[24]

Are you tempted to become like Demas through the anger and strife you create or are engaged in, with your family, kids at school, in the workplace, in this church?

What about the temptation to alcohol and drug abuse in this alcohol soaked society that also has a softly, softly approach to illicit drug use?

Back to the examples of the temptations to the principles of this world, stated in I John 2:

” the lust of his eyes.” That’s self-explanatory. You will be tempted to lust into worldliness by what you see. Where are you vulnerable? This could be cars, the surf, sex and materialism, TV & internet.
Also, “the boasting of what he has and does.” I guess this applies to women as well as men. You will be tempted into worldly ways by boasting about what you have and do. Capitalism, wealth and greed foster such.

Is there a Demas streak in you right now?

If this or any other church is to be healthy, it:

needs faithful people in a radically close relationship;

needs prayer agonisers, people powerful through prayer;

will have some who are slack or ineffective in ministry;

will minister to the doubters & backsliders;

V. Fifth & finally: if this church is to be healthy, it will have radically forgiven people in this fellowship (vv. 9-10).

Demas bombed out of the faith. BUT there were two others in Paul’s list of greetings who made serious mistakes but were forgiven – radically forgiven.

The first is:

1. Onesimus (v. 9)

We are told that he is “a dear brother, a faithful minister.” To better understand Onesimus, please read that one chapter book of the NT, Philemon (right after Titus). Onesimus was from Colossae but was a runaway slave. We’ve dealt with him already in this message.

There’s another friend mentioned in Col. 4:10 who experienced radical forgiveness. That’s

2. Mark

Mark was the cousin of Barnabas but he didn’t have a good trackrecord in the faith. He’s also known as John Mark, the writer of the Gospel of Mark. He came a long way with the Lord, but if you remember that when Paul and Barnabas went on the first missionary journey something drastic happened (see Acts 15:39-40):

“They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord” (NIV).

Here in Col. 4:10, Paul and Mark had been reconciled and Paul was sending greetings from Mark. In fact, reconciliation took place to such an extent that Paul was able to say in 2 Tim. 4:11, “Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry” (NIV).

Isn’t this amazing. Paul fought with Barnabas and Mark and they split from him, but then there was reconciliation with Paul so that Paul could say that “he is helpful to me in my ministry.” Wow!

I guess it was 2-3 years ago that I was doing a devotion at the local ministers’ association on Rom. 15:7, “Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.” As an example of the need to accept one another, I said that in my many years of ministry to hurting and sinful people I have found one group of people who find it most difficult to be accepted by church people and they are the redeemed and forgiven homosexuals.

At that point, a leading pastor in this city shouted me down with words something like: “How dare you! These are dangerous people. People need to be protected from them.”

Brothers and sisters, we do not deserve to be part of the church of the living God unless we dare to have, support and accept people from very sinful pasts in our church. All of us were once filthy, rotten, degraded sinners in God’s sight. How dare we look down on forgiven, homosexuals, prostitutes, thieves, cons and other rebels!

Conclusion

Are you interested in what happened to that adulterous pastor, his new wife and baby at Jerry Cook’s church?[25]

Jerry explains: “The compounding thing was that many of the people who had been hurt through his fall [into sin] were now a part of our congregation. Nevertheless, we extended fellowship to that man and the Lord did a cleansing and a healing. We shed so many tears together. I never will forget how he grabbed me and buried his head on my shoulder, a man 15 to 20 years my senior. He wept like a baby and held to me like a drowning man. He said, ‘Jerry, can you love me? I’ve spent my life loving people but I need someone to love me now.’

“In the weeks and months that followed, he met with our elders regularly and wept his way back to God through a most intense, sometimes utterly tearing repentance. If ever in my entire life I’ve seen godly sorrow for sin, I saw it in that man. He literally fell on the floor before our elders, grabbed their feet and implored them, ‘Brothers, can you ever forgive me?’

“God healed that man and restored him to wholeness. Today, he’s back in the ministry.

“I say to you, that brother was restored only because God enabled us to love and accept and forgive him. Love, acceptance, forgiveness—those three things are absolutely essential to any ministry that will consistently bring people to maturity and wholeness.”

Are you a faithful Christian? Can you be depended on in ministry, work and at home?

Are you a prayer warrior, an agoniser? I pray that more of us will get serious with prayer.

Do you know your gifts? Have people, including the leaders, of this church, affirmed them? Are you being slack and ineffective in your ministry? Will you allow God to get hold of you so that you minister in your gifts?

If you are a doubter, a backslider, or somebody thinking of chucking your faith, please see me after this service so that we can arrange to spend time in working through your doubts.

All of you who know Christ have been wonderfully forgiven. Some of you have been forgiven from a deeply depraved lifestyle. I praise God for you. May you know the reality of sins forgiven and grow in grace and knowledge of the Saviour.

Notes:

[1] I, Spencer Gear, preached this sermon at Bundaberg West Baptist Church, Bundaberg, Qld., Australia, on 29 February 2004. I now live in Brisbane, Qld., Australia.

[2] This is found in Jerry Cook with Stanley C. Baldwin, 1979, Love, Acceptance & Forgiveness, Regal Books, Ventura, CA, pp. 9-11. At the time Jerry wrote the book he was pastor of East Hill Church [International Church of the Foursquare Gospel], Gresham, Oregon.

[3] “Colossians 4:7-18, Why We Need Each Other,” Brian Bill, Pontiac Bible Church, Sermon Central. Available at: http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/why-we-need-each-other-brian-bill-sermon-on-church-body-of-christ-57504.asp (Accessed 19 August 2012).

[4] See 1:3ff., 4:2-4.

[5] See 1:24ff.

[6] See 2:6ff.

[7] See 3:1ff.

[8] See 3:18ff.

[9] See 4:2-6.

[10] Some MSS read, “that he may know about your.”

[11] R. C. H. Lenski, Commentary on the New Testament:The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon, Hendrickson Publishers, 1937, 1946, 1961, p. 195.

[12] Lenski, p. 30.

[13] C. F. D. Moule, 1957, The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary: The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 136.

[14] In Robert J. Morgan 2000, Nelson’s Complete Book of Stories, Illustrations, & Quotes, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, p. 289.

[15] A “sundoulos.”

[16] Lenski, p. 196.

[17] Lenski, p. 196.

[18] Brian Bill, op cit.

[19] Lenski, pp. 202-203.

[20] The original said, “Brethren.”

[21] Michael P. Green (ed.) 1982, Illustrations for Biblical Preaching, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, illustration No. 1030, pp. 277-278.

[22] Brian Bill, op cit. The ESV states that Paul wrote Colossians ca. A.D. 60 (p. 1183) and that Paul wrote 2 Timothy in A.D. 64-68 (p. 1197). [The Holy Bible: English Standard Version, 2001, Crossway Bibles, Wheaton Illinois]. Curtis Vaughan considers that “the Epistle should therefore be dated about A.D. 62 during Paul’s first Roman imprisonment (cf. Acts 28:30, 31) [ The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 11, Zondervan, 1978, p. 166]. Ralph Earle considers that “it is obvious that the second Epistle to Timothy was written not later than A.D. 67. It may have been as early as 65” (1 Timothy, in ibid., pp. 343-344)]

[23] Based on William Hendriksen, 1968, (New Testament Commentary), Galatians, The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, p. 219.

[24] Based on: “Harry Potter: Witchcraft Repackaged: Making Evil Look Innocent “. Available at http://www.carylmatrisciana.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94&Itemid=72 (Accessed 19 August 2012).

[25] This is in Cook & Baldwin 1979:10-11 (bibliographic details above).

What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Sticky Sin

(courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

This verse has often confused Christian people. Have they committed a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and will it not be forgiven? I’m particularly referring to Matthew 12:31, “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” (ESV).

This is one example in a www Christian Forum where a person asked:

Forgivable or Blasphemous?

In the past, I swore at God over a video game. I got home really frustrated, threw down my bag, and I cursed out loud like “F*%& God!”. The incident occurred over 10 years ago and I may have cursed The Holy Spirit the same way (I am not sure). I’ve prayed several times and talked to a Pastor before. While the Pastor already said it’s forgivable, I am not sure about cursing the Holy Spirit. Ever since reading Matthew 12:31-32, I have become really paranoid.
31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Matthew 12:31-32 NIV – And so I tell you, every kind of sin – Bible Gateway
If I did swear or curse at the Holy Spirit, is that forgivable?[1]

There was back and forth with a number of people, including myself (OzSpen), then this original poster stated:

Okay, I think I am understanding what ‘blasphemy’ is, but what I am concerned about it why there was a translation verse that said this:
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
So I can guarantee that people will be forgiven for any sin or cursing. However, cursing the Spirit will not be forgiven.
The bolded part is concerning me.[2]

Is cursing the Spirit the same as blasphemy against the Spirit? [3]

Let’s look at a few other translations of this verse (Matthew 12:31):

“And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” (NIV);
“Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” (ESV).
“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men” (KJV)
“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven” (NASB).
“So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven—except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven” (NLT).
“Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” (NRSV)
“For this reason I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” (NET)
“Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” (NAB)
“And so I tell you, every human sin and blasphemy will be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” (NJB).
“Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven” (D-R)

Here I have cited 7 Protestant Bibles and 3 Roman Catholic Bibles and all of them translate contrary to the God’s Word paraphrase that you presented. Why? Because the Greek text uses the noun, blasphemia, and the correct translation is blasphemy, not cursing. Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon gives the primary meaning of the word as ‘slander, defamation, blasphemy’ (p. 142).

For a fuller explanation of the blasphemy of the Spirit, I recommend this article from Hard Sayings of the Bible (1996. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce & Manfred T. Brauch. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, pp. pp. 414-417), “The unpardonable sin”. I’m grateful that somebody has taken the time to make this article available online. The book is one of the finest available in print in dealing with Bible difficulties.

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, ‘Forgivable or blasphemous’, guitarintro#1, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7679489/ (Accessed 14 August 2012).

[2] Ibid., #21.

[3] The following is my response as OzSpen at ibid., #22.

(courtesy ChristArt)

Has evolution been proved by science?

(courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

That was the heading of a letter to the editor in my local freebie newspaper, The North Lakes Times (northern Brisbane, Australia), August 8, 2012, p. E8: The letter read:

Evolution proved by science

Contrary to Col of Petrie’s comments (Press July 18) there are no facts being discovered that bring the theory of evolution into question.

In fact, the reverse is true. Evolutionary theory is based on science not on belief. Every discovery, bit of evidence and experiment confirm the theory. Mainstream faiths accept this and don’t take the first book of the Bible literally. It is only fundamentalist fringe that seem incapable of accepting scientific fact and seem set on trying to impose their ignorance on the rest of us.

Marcus Toyne, Mango Hill

What is a theory?

This brief explanation of ‘theory’ states: ‘Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter. There are theories in many and varied fields of study, including the arts and sciences’. When applied to evolution, this means that an evolutionary theory is a way of explaining and making predictions about Darwin’s and continuing explanations of evolution in science. Yes, there are theories that are developed, based on facts that have been uncovered.

What was the basic content (in summary) of Darwin’s evolutionary theory? This is one reasonable summary:

Natural selection explained how life evolved from the first simple organisms; how in nature the fittest win out, leaving more offspring with more of their desirable characteristics. This survival of the fittest would, over time, allow a species to change and develop until eventually new species could arise. Given billions of years, natural selection could create, unguided, the diversity of life on Earth.

Dr. Henry Morris wrote, ‘The vanishing case for evolution’, in which he stated:

Evolutionary belief is a remarkable and largely unexplained phenomenon. It is a belief held by most intellectuals all over the world, despite the fact that there is no real scientific evidence for it at all. Evolutionists allege that evolution is a proved scientific fact, based on a multitude of scientific proofs, but they are unable to document even one of these supposed proofs!

Morris cited David Kits who stated that ‘Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer’.

What are the holes in the argument in Toyne’s letter to the editor?

He confuses theory and fact. Evolution is a theory. Some could even say that there is insufficient evidence for it to be called a theory and that it is nothing more than an hypothesis. Facts may point to the need to develop a theory, but we must not confuse facts with a theory. A theory is a proposed explanation; it is not a statement of facts.
If evolution is based on science and not belief, why does this ‘belief’ continue when the transition species are just as non-existent as they were when Darwin announced his theory 150 years’ ago?
He gives this false statement, ‘Every discovery, bit of evidence and experiment confirm the theory’. What are the facts concerning transition species? We’ll briefly examine this below.
‘Mainstream faiths’ are not defined, but I expect he is referring to theological liberalism in mainline denominations. This is using the logical fallacy of ‘appeal to authority’. Rational discussion is handicapped when people resort to the use of logical fallacies.
He uses a genetic logical fallacy by diverting attention to the ‘fundamentalist fringe’ and rejecting it because of its origin. He should be addressing the issue and not associating it with a group of which he apparently does not approve.
If mainstream faiths do not read the book of Genesis literally, this is not an argument for whether literal or otherwise should be used. A short letter just gives opportunity for him to make assertions without defending his claims. Therefore, his views are open to challenge, as I’m doing briefly here.

What are the facts about transition species?[1]

Charles Darwin knew about 1.5 centuries ago when he developed his theory of evolution that the fossil record did not demonstrate what he tried to predict in his theory. He wrote:

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. (Darwin 1902:413, ch 9 link; also in ch 10).

What was the situation in the late 20th century? The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior palaeontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote the book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote:

I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[2]

The renowned evolutionist, the late Stephen Jay Gould, formerly of Harvard University, wrote:

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution (Gould in Smith 1982:140).

And Gould also wrote:

“New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region” (1977:12).

‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils’ (1977:14).

‘I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record’ (Gould 1984, link).

A letter of reply to the North Lakes Times

This is my letter of reply to this newspaper, dated 8 August 2012:[3]

Letters-to-the-editor
North Lakes Times

Dear editor,

Marcus Toyne (North Lakes Times, Aug 8) seems to have confused theory and fact with his statement that ‘there are no facts being discovered that bring the theory of evolution into question’. Evolution is a theory and its problem with finding transition species to agree with the theory is as bad now as in Darwin’s day, 1.5 centuries ago.

There are major facts that question the evolutionary theory. Darwin said that every stratum of geological formation should be full of intermediate links. They weren’t there in Darwin’s day and are still not.

Dr Colin Patterson, former palaeontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote that ‘there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument’.

Former leading evolutionist of Harvard Uni, the late Stephen Jay Gould, wrote that the absence of fossil evidence for intermediatry stages ‘has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution’.

As for Toyne’s view that mainstream faiths ‘don’t take the first book of the Bible literally’, this is a red herring. ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ and then statements of what was created on day 1, day 2, etc., are literal ways of stating God’s creation of our magnificent universe, according to Genesis 1.

Spencer Gear
North Lakes

Was the newspaper so adventurous as to print this letter? At least the paper did print a significant part of the above letter for which I’m grateful. How much of this letter do you think that the North Lakes Times printed? Here is what appeared in the paper on August 15, 2012, page E10.

Evolution theory ‘lacks facts’

Marcus Toyne (Pine Rivers Press, August 8) seems to have confused theory and fact when saying “there are no facts being discovered that bring the theory of evolution into question”.

Evolution is a theory and its problem with finding transition species to agree with the theory is as bad now as in Darwin’s day, 150 years ago. Darwin said that every stratum of geological formation should be full of intermediate links. They weren’t there in Darwin’s day and are still not.

Former leading evolutionist of Harvard University, the late Stephen Jay Gould, wrote the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages “has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution”.

As for Toyne’s view that mainstream faiths “don’t take the first book of the Bible literally”, is a red herring. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” and then statements of what was created on day one and so on are literal ways of stating God’s creation of the universe, according to Genesis 1.

Spencer Gear, North Lakes

Two further letters in the North Lakes Times

On August 29, 2012, p. E8, The North Lakes Times published two further letters responding to my letter (above). The large heading in the newspaper was, ‘Evolution: Genesis v scientists’. There were 2 responses to me. One was by the author to which I responded, Marcus Toyne of Mango Hill. His main emphases were:

Scientific theory explains facts;
Theories provide the framework for understanding how we share a common ancestor with other apes through evolution.
There are transition fossils that scientists find regularly but they don’t label them as such.
The second version in Genesis 2 contradicts parts of chapter 1.
Some do not consider the biblical creation story to be literal as a description of origins.

My reply to Mr. Toyne

On 3 September 2012, I sent this latter to the North Lakes Times to respond to some of Mr Toyne’s issues:

Marcus Toyne (NLT, 29 Aug) takes me to task over evolution as a theory and how Genesis 2 “contradicts part of the first (chapter of Gen.)”. Contrary to Marcus, a scientific theory doesn’t explain facts. It explains scientific observations and must be open to be falsifiable. The theory of evolution deals with unique events of the origin of life, including intelligence. These events are unrepeatable and cannot be subjected to the same kind of experimental investigation of a regular scientific theory.

He claimed scientists regularly find transition fossils but gave not one example. Not one! Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in 1981 that evolution was “positively anti-knowledge” and that “all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth” [in Taylor 1984:393]. Evolutionary biologist, Ernst Mayr, wrote that the basic theory of evolution “is in many instances hardly more than a postulate and its application raises numerous questions in almost every concrete case” [in Taylor 1984:393]. A postulate is a supposition that is assumed without proof. These scientific specialists are not as certain as Marcus.

So Genesis 2 contradicts chapter 1? But Marcus gave zero examples. This makes his a red herring kind of argument. However, the JEPD theorists have proposed this for many years and it has been refuted over and over. Ch 2 does not present a complete creation story or the time sequence of ch 1.

If anyone misses the nature of a key word in the first 5 words of Genesis 1, there will be misleading information promoted. Those words are, “In the beginning GOD created”. If one does not understand the omnipotent Yahweh God who created (Hebrew bara = out of nothing) the universe, the one who parted the Red Sea for the Israelites to pass over on dry land and drowned the pursuing Egyptians, and the God who raised Jesus Christ from the dead, then one will misunderstand the mighty acts of God in creating the universe.

Another letter opposing my position

Phil Gilbank’s response included these elements:

A theory is a collected theory of facts that explains observed phenomena.
The theory of evolution by natural selection is fact that is explained by the scientific facts.
The book of Genesis is a myth.
How does Spencer explain the anomaly in Genesis 1 that green vegetation was created on day 3 and there was no sun until day 4.

How should I respond?

I sent a letter on 3 September 2012 to The North Lakes Times:

So “the book of Genesis is a myth”, says Phil Gilbank (NLT, Aug 29). That’s his assertion that reveals one of his presuppositions. He provided no evidence. The wayyiqtol narrative structure of the Genesis creation accounts shows that the author wanted the readers to understand the account as happening in history.

There is evidence to show that Adam and Eve were real people. Genesis 1-2 presents them as actual human beings and it narrates the events of their lives as history. Have a guess what? They gave birth to literal children who produced similarly (Gen. 4:1, 25; 5:1ff). Later Old Testament genealogies placed Adam at the top of the list (see 1 Chronicles 1:1).

In the New Testament, Adam is placed at the beginning of Jesus’ literal ancestors (Luke 3:38). Jesus Christ himself referred to Adam and Eve as the first literal “male and female” indicating that their physical union was the basis of marriage (Matthew 19:4).

Phil thinks there is an anomaly between God creating vegetation on day 3 with no sun until day 4. Is Phil assuming days as representing millions of years? Whenever the Hebrew yom (day) is used with a numeral, it refers to a literal 24-hour period. Hebrew scholars, Keil & Delitzsch, stated that the days of creation, using the interchange of light and darkness, “must be regarded not as periods of time of incalculable duration, or years or thousands of years, but as simple earthly days” (n.d.:51).

By the way, the sun is not the only source of light. Phil will continue to have an issue with God’s creation of the universe as long as he retains the false view of Genesis being myth (not an uncommon theory) and failure to understand the nature of the omnipotent Lord God Almighty who created the heavens and the earth.

What is the meaning of ‘wayyiqtol narrative structure’ in the Hebrew language?

‘The most predominant verbal form in Biblical Hebrew narrative prose is WAYYIQTOL (41% of the total clauses in the texts and 79.2% of the total clauses in the narrative portion of the texts analyzed). The use of this form in uninterrupted syntactical chains consistently implies sequentiality of action in the narrative’ (Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Vol 5, 2004-2005).

Another put it this way: ‘Biblical Hebrew narrative usually employs verbal forms referring to the past, the variety of which is due not to an indication of tense, but rather aspect and narrative organization. Narrative sequence is mostly achieved by wayyiqtol clauses, which appear to be dominant in this genre, while boundaries of paragraphs and off-line information are usually achieved by non-wayyiqtol clauses’ (review of Roy L Heller 2004, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, The Free Library).

See the article, ‘Are there two creation accounts?’ (Tekton). See also, ‘Alleged biblical contradictions – creation stories’ (CreationWiki); ‘Are there two creation accounts in Genesis’ (Wayne Jackson). See my own very brief article, ‘Are there two creation stories in Genesis?’

References

Darwin C R 1902, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (online), 6th ed. London: John Murray,available at: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/index.html (Accessed 8 August 2012).

Gould, S J 1977. Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86, May, 12-16.

Gould, S J 1984. The Ediacaran experiment, Natural History 93(2):14–23, February. available at: http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0298.htm (Accessed 8 August 2012).

Keil, C F & Delitzsch, F n.d. Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch, vol 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Smith, J S (ed) 1982. Evolution now: a century after Darwin. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Taylor, I T 1984. In the minds of men: Darwin and the new world order. Toronto: TFE Publishing.

Notes

[1] I am indebted to this author for some of the following citations: Johathan Safarti’s article, ‘Refuting evolution’, Creation Ministries International, available at: http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-3-the-links-are-missing (Accessed 8 August 2012).

[2] C. Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April 1979, as published in Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 4th ed. 1988), p. 89.

[3] The email was sent to: letters@northlakestimes.com.au.

Does regeneration precede faith?

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

This is what happened while Paul and Silas were in prison at Philippi and the jailer asked,

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:30-31 ESV).

Was this a true or false statement? Is it possible for reprobate sinners to believe on the Lord Jesus and be saved? If you talk to some Calvinists, they will say, “No!”. I encountered one of these on Christian Fellowship Forum. He wrote:

Our choice to follow God has a bearing on our salvation, it is how God works to save us, but it does not have any CAUSAL bearing on it. that is, we are not saved because we choose to follow God, we choose to follow God because we have been saved.[1]

Here’s the word of another Calvinist, R. C. Sproul:

“In regeneration, God changes our hearts. He gives us a new disposition, a new inclination. He plants a desire for Christ in our hearts. We can never trust Christ for our salvation unless we first desire him. This is why we said earlier that regeneration precedes faith (1986:118, emphasis in original).

Charles Spurgeon, a Calvinist, knew the folly of the kind of thinking that states that regeneration is logically prior to faith. He preached that it is absurd to say that a sinner is regenerate logically before he/she believes. Spurgeon stated:

“If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. But you will tell me that I ought to preach it only to those who repent of their sins. Very well; but since true repentance of sin is the work of the Spirit, any man who has repentance is most certainly saved, because evangelical repentance never can exist in an unrenewed soul. Where there is repentance there is faith already, for they never can be separated. So, then, I am only to preach faith to those who have it. Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners. ” [Sermon, The Warrant of Faith].

Norman Geisler, who calls himself, a moderate Calvinist (1999:129)[2], stated that

Contrary to the claims of extreme Calvinists, there are no verses properly understood that teach regeneration is prior to faith. Instead, it is the uniform pattern of Scripture to place faith logically prior to salvation as a condition for receiving it (1999:228).

To support his position, Geisler examines Romans 5:1;Luke 13:3; 2 Peter 3:9; John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Romans 3:24-25; John 3:6-7; and Titus 3:5-7 (1999:228-230), to demonstrate that faith is prior to regeneration.

References

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

Sproul, R C 1986. Chosen by God. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

Notes

[1] Christian Fellowship Forum, Contentious Brethren, ‘Mortal sin = loss of salvation’, lrschrs #2, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=121305 (Accessed 5 August 2012). This person has a major problem with sight and so writes with many typographical errors. I have corrected 10 spelling mistakes in this short post.

[2] His exact words were, ‘We have been defending a moderate form of Calvinism’ (1999:129).

What is a Christian definition of when marriage begins?

Marriage cover photo

Courtesy Salt Shakers (Christian ministry)

By Spencer D Gear

A person wrote to me with a pertinent and relevant question about the nature of Christian marriage:

If my significant other and I treat our relationship as a marriage (following the guidelines found in the Bible for a marriage) are we not “married” in God’s eyes? I just fail to see where the Bible says you MUST get a marriage license or have a ceremony in order to be “married” in God’s eyes.

This article by Mary Fairchild, ‘What is the biblical definition of marriage?‘ provides a brief overview of a biblical approach to marriage. See also, ‘What constitutes marriage according to the Bible?‘ I consider that the ‘covenant of marriage‘ is the biblical way of explaining the foundation of marriage.

So what are the elements in a New Testament understanding of the requirements for Christian marriage? L I Granberg provides this definition:

When is a couple married? Of what does marriage ultimately consist? Some, arguing from I Cor. 6:16, maintain that marriage is effected through sexual intercourse. A person is considered in the eyes of God to be married to that member of the opposite sex with whom he or she first had sex relations. The sex act is viewed as the agent through which God effects marriage in a manner apparently analogous to the way in which adherents of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration see him make the sacrament of baptism the agent in effecting regeneration.

Others consider marriage to be brought about as the result of a declaration of desire to be married, accompanied by the expression of mutual intentions of sole and enduring fidelity and responsibility toward the other, preferably undergirded by self-giving love, in the presence of accredited witnesses. This view does not undercut the validity of marriages in which the couple cannot bring about physical consummation. It underscores the fact that marriage never has been regarded as solely the concern of the individual couple. This may be seen, for example, in the prevalence of community laws forbidding incest and regulating the degree of consanguinity permissible for marriage. Since the home is the proper medium for the procreation and nurturing of children, church and community have an important stake in the stability and success of the marriages taking place among their constituents.

Marriage relegates other human ties to a secondary role. Spiritual and emotional satisfactions formerly drawn from the parental relationship the marriage partners are now to find in one another. To sunder one’s parental relationships and join oneself in intimate, lifelong union with a person who hitherto has been a stranger demands a considerable degree of maturity – as expressed in a capacity for self-giving love, emotional stability, and the capacity to understand what is involved in committing one’s life to another in marriage. Marriage is for those who have grown up. This appears to exclude children, the mentally impaired, and those who are psychotic or psychopathic at the time of entering into marriage (Granberg 1984:694).

Granberg provides these dimensions of understanding ‘marriage and the NT’:

The chief contributions of the NT to the biblical view of marriage were to underscore the original principles of the indissolubility of marriage and the equal dignity of women (Gal. 3:28; 1 Cor. 7:4; 11:11-12). By raising women to a position of equal personal dignity with men, marriage was made truly, “one flesh,” for the unity implied in this expression necessarily presupposes that each person be given opportunity to develop his or her full potentialities. This is not possible in a social system in which either men or women are not accorded full human dignity.

Does not this raise difficulties with the biblical doctrine of subordination of married women (Eph. 5:22-23)? Not at all, for this doctrine refers to a hierarchy of function, not of dignity or value. There is no inferiority of person implicit in the doctrine. God has designated a hierarchy of responsibility, hence authority, within the family, and He has done so according to the order of creation. But woman’s dignity is preserved not only in the fact that she has equal standing in Christ, but also in that the command to submit to her husband’s headship is addressed to her. She is told to do this willingly as an act of spiritual devotion (Eph. 5:22) and not in response to external coercion. She is to do this because God rests primary responsibility upon her husband for the welfare of the marriage relationship and for the family as a whole. He, in fact, qualifies for leadership in the church in part through the skill he demonstrates in “pastoring” his family (1 Tim. 3:4-5) [Granberg 1984:694-695].

We do know that Jesus attended a wedding (was it a ceremony or feast?) in Cana in Galilee (John 2:1-11). So wedding ceremonies were part of Jewish culture in Jesus’ day.

References

Granberg, L I 1984. Marriage, Theology of. In W A Elwell (ed), Evangelical dictionary of theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 693-695.

The fanciful teaching of Tobit in the Apocrypha

By Spencer D Gear

(image public domain)

I encountered a Roman Catholic and promoter of the deutero-canonical books (the Apocrypha). She wrote: ‘Again, these are the Deutero-Canonical Books (NOT the Apocrypha as some like to call it)’.[1]

‘The following is a list proving that there are connections between the Deuterocanonical books (which are the Word of God) and the New Testament. That is, these books which are Divinely Inspired by God the Holy Spirit.’.[2]
‘As I have shown there is much more than “a couple” of quotes from the Deutero-Canonicals in the NT. This just lends all the more credibility of the Holy Catholic Church which maintains that the Apostles and the Early Church read them and used them as Sacred Writing (as the Holy Bible)’.[3]
‘Men may have their quote/unquote “reasons” but the Church together with the Holy Spirit have spoken on the matter. These DeuteroCanonicals are indeed the Word of God. The doctrines of Purgatory and praying for the dead are part of the Teaching of Christ and as such they do not contradict the New Testament…. To call these books Apocryphal is to deny the Word of God. [4]

That’s a sampling from an avid Roman Catholic and promoter of the deutero-canonical books, known to Protestants as the Apocrypha.

I asked this person:[5]

Are you telling us that this makes sense and this is Scripture?

In Tobit 6:2-8, 16-17 (RSV), it states:

[2] Then the young man went down to wash himself. A fish leaped up from the river and would have swallowed the young man;
[3] and the angel said to him, “Catch the fish.” So the young man seized the fish and threw it up on the land.
[4] Then the angel said to him, “Cut open the fish and take the heart and liver and gall and put them away safely.”
[5] So the young man did as the angel told him; and they roasted and ate the fish.

And they both continued on their way until they came near to Ecbatana.

[6] Then the young man said to the angel, “Brother Azarias, of what use is the liver and heart and gall of the fish?”
[7] He replied, “As for the heart and liver, if a demon or evil spirit gives trouble to any one, you make a smoke from these before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled again.
[8] And as for the gall, anoint with it a man who has white films in his eyes, and he will be cured.”

[16] When you enter the bridal chamber, you shall take live ashes of incense and lay upon them some of the heart and liver of the fish so as to make a smoke.
[17] Then the demon will smell it and flee away, and will never again return. And when you approach her, rise up, both of you, and cry out to the merciful God, and he will save you and have mercy on you. Do not be afraid, for she was destined for you from eternity. You will save her, and she will go with you, and I suppose that you will have children by her.” When Tobias heard these things, he fell in love with her and yearned deeply for her.

This is fanciful stuff, but this person wants to call it the Word of God.

HERE (in this link) you will find some further reasons why the Apocrypha should be rejected from the canon of Scripture.

^Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Christian Scriptures, ‘Cross-references between the deutero-canonicals (NOT apocryphal)’, AHJE #1, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7674840/ (Accessed 27 July 2012).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., #7, emphasis in the original.

[4] Ibid, #22.

[5] OzSpen, ibid #25.