Author Archives: spencer

Cessationists through church history

(image courtesy ChristArt)

Spencer D Gear

In my Contending Earnestly for the Faith[2] letter (March 2010, p. 25), I wrote that the following Christian leaders were cessationists (the gifts of the Spirit ceased when the Scriptures were complete). These include Athanasius, Luther, Calvin, Matthew Henry, C.H. Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, and a multitude of current leaders such as John MacArthur & Norman Geisler.

The editor’s note at the end of the letter stated: “I am not sure that you are quite right in labelling C. H. Spurgeon and possibly some of the others, whom you have named, as ‘cessationists’” (p. 26).

Let’s check the evidence. What did the people I mentioned believe about continuation or cessation of spiritual gifts?

John Piper, an outstanding expositor of the Scriptures from Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN, and founder of Desiring God Ministries, wrote: “Virtually all the great pastors and teachers of history that I admire and that have fed me over the years belong to the … group who believe that signs and wonders were only for the apostolic age (John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, Benjamin Warfield, my own father). But I am not fully persuaded by their case”.[3] This is some of the evidence of cessationism from the history of the church.

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (north Africa) from 328 until his death in 373, was known for his tireless defense of the deity of Christ against the heresy of Arianism at the Council of Nicaea in 325. It is believed that he wrote his “Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit” while he was exiled in the desert between 356-361.[4] In those letters he wrote of “the blessed Paul who … did not divide the Trinity as you do, but taught its unity when he wrote to the Corinthians about spiritual gifts and summed them all up by referring them to the one God and Father, saying ‘there are different gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who works all of them in everyone’ (1 Cor. 12:4-6). For that which the Spirit imparts to each is provided from the Father through the Son. Everything that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son (Jn 16:15, 17:10); thus what is given by the Son in the Spirit is the Father’s gifts”.[5]

In context of his writing to Serapion, Athanasius makes no direct commitment either way to continuation or cessation that I was able to locate. However, his quoting from 1 Cor. 12:4-6, and using the present tense, “that which the Spirit imparts to each”, does not seem to point to these gifts as having ceased. However, it is by inference only. I have not been able to find a direct quote from Athanasius affirming either way.

However, another early church father, Chrysostom (347-407), a name that means “golden mouth” as he was an eloquent speaker, had a cessationist perspective. He was a contemporary of Athanasius’s later life, was Archbishop of Constantinople and defender of orthodoxy. He wrote of spiritual gifts as being obscure in his understanding. In his homily on 1 Cor. 12:1-2, He wrote, “This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity has produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?[6]

One of the greatest church fathers was St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo in northern Africa. He wrote that “in the earliest times, ‘the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues’, which they had not learned, ‘as the Spirit gave them utterance’. These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away”.[7]

In his later life, Augustine returned to a belief in the Lord’s supernatural ability to heal. I have documented this in my article, “The man who dared to change his mind about divine healing”.[8]

Martin Luther, from whom we Protestants owe a great deal in his leadership of the 16^th century Reformation. His teaching was a mixed bag concerning his statements on the gifts of the Spirit. He wrote of the continuation of gifts: “When you depart lay your hands upon the man again and say, These signs shall follow them that believe; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover‘“.[9] But he also wrote as a cessationist in his commentary on Galatians 4:1-9, “Paul explained the purpose of these miraculous gifts of the Spirit in I Corinthians 14:22, ‘Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.’ Once the Church had been established and properly advertised by these miracles, the visible appearance of the Holy Ghost ceased”.[10] Which perspective belongs to Luther’s theology?

Another leader of the Reformation, John Calvin, wrote that “the gift of healing, like the rest of the miracles, which the Lord willed to be brought forth for a time, has vanished away in order to make the new preaching of the Gospel marvelous forever… It now has nothing to do with us, to whom the administering of such powers has not been committed”.[11]

In his commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, writing of Mark 16:17[12] (“and these signs shall follow them that believe”), Calvin wrote, “When he says that believers will receive this gift, we must not understand this as applying to every one of them; for we know that gifts were distributed variously, so that the power of working miracles was possessed by only a few persons…. Though Christ does not expressly state whether he intends this gift [of miracles] to be temporary, or to remain perpetually in the Church, yet it is more probable that miracles were promised only for a time, in order to give lustre to the gospel while it was new or in a state of obscurity”.[13]

Calvin seemed somewhat arbitrary when he wrote of the gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in Ephesians 4. He believed that “only the last two [pastors and teachers] have an ordinary office in the church; the Lord raised up the first three at the beginning of his Kingdom, and now and again revives them as the need of the times demands”.[14] The functions of apostles, prophets and evangelists “were not established in the church as permanent ones, but only for that time during which churches were to be erected where none existed before, or where they were to be carried over from Moses to Christ. Still, I do not deny that the Lord has sometimes at a later period raised up apostles, or at least evangelists in their place, as has happened in our own [Reformation] day.”[15]

How would Calvin interpret John 14:12, which states: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father” (KJV)?

In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Calvin wrote of John 14:12:

“ And shall do greater works than these. Many are perplexed by the statement of Christ, that the Apostles would do greater works than he had done I pass by the other answers which have been usually given to it, and satisfy myself with this single answer. First, we must understand what Christ means; namely, that the power by which he proves himself to be the Son of God, is so far from being confined to his bodily presence, that it must be clearly demonstrated by many and striking proofs, when he is absent. Now the ascension of Christ was soon afterwards followed by a wonderful conversion of the world, in which the Divinity of Christ was more powerfully displayed than while he dwelt among men. Thus, we see that the proof of his Divinity was not confined to the person of Christ, but was diffused through the whole body of the Church.

Because I go to the Father. This is the reason why the disciples would do greater things than Christ himself. It is because, when he has entered into the possession of his kingdom, he will more fully demonstrate his power from heaven.[16]

One of the problems that I see with Calvin’s interpretation is that he makes John 14:12 as applicable only to “the Apostles”, meaning Christ’s apostles of the first century. They would see “many and striking proofs” when they no longer had Christ’s bodily presence and he had returned to the Father.

The “greater works” were spoken to the Twelve, but Philip specifically. However, John 14:12 states that ” He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also”. It does not state that the greater works would be done by the Apostles, but by “he that believeth on me”. That sounds very comprehensive and not limited to the Twelve. D. A. Carson says it well: “Jesus’ ‘works’ may include more than his miracles; they never exclude them”.[17] The “greater works” is not easy to understand as it is unlikely that Christ was referring to “more works” as though the church would do more of them, as there was a common Greek word for “more”.

It is hardly likely that “greater works” could refer to greater examples of the supernatural. What could be greater than the raising of Lazarus from the dead? The meaning seems to point to the fact that Jesus was returning to the Father and that those who believed in Jesus, the church, would become the new order through which God’s miraculous gifts would be channelled, by the Holy Spirit’s ministry. But the meaning is not crystal clear to me.

St. Augustine of Hippo, in the fifth century interpreted the “greater works” as:

“What works was He then referring to, but the words He was speaking? They were hearing and believing, and their faith was the fruit of those very words: howbeit, when the disciples preached the gospel, it was not small numbers like themselves, but nations also that believed; and such, doubtless, are greater works. And yet He said not, Greater works than these shall ye do, to lead us to suppose that it was only the apostles who would do so; for He added, “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do.” Is the case then so, that he that believeth on Christ doeth the same works as Christ, or even greater than He did? Points like these are not to be treated in a cursory way, nor ought they to be hurriedly disposed of”.[18]

A theologian such as Norman Geisler gets over this difficulty with his cessationist interpretation, “Jesus did promise that miracles would continue after His time, but not after the time of the apostles. In fact, it was specifically to the apostles with Him in the Upper Room that he made His promise that they would do greater miracles than He did (John 14:12; cf. 13:5ff)”.[19]

The Encyclopedia of Religion says that “both Luther and Calvin wrote that the age of miracles was over and that their occurrence should not be expected”.[20] This is a questionable statement, based on the above information.

What of Matthew Henry (1662-1714), the British Presbyterian Bible commentator? He stated in his concise commentary on 1 Cor. 12:12-26 that “spiritual gifts were extraordinary powers bestowed in the first ages, to convince unbelievers, and to spread the gospel”.[21]

Revivalist and theologian, Jonathan Edwards (1703-58), wrote,

“The extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, such as the gift of tongues, of miracles, of prophecy, &c., are called extraordinary, because they are such as are not given in the ordinary course of God’s providence. They are not bestowed in the way of God’s ordinary providential dealing with his children, but only on extraordinary occasions, as they were bestowed on the prophets and apostles to enable them to reveal the mind and will of God before the canon of Scripture was complete, and so on the primitive Church, in order to the founding and establishing of it in the world. But since the canon of the Scripture has been completed, and the Christian Church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased”.[22]

Revivalist George Whitefield (1714-70) asked, “What need is there of miracles, such as healing sick bodies and restoring sight to blind eyes, when we see greater miracles done every day by the power of God’s Word?”[23]

John Owen, 17^th century British non-conformist theologian and Puritan, wrote: “Gifts which in their own nature exceed the whole power of all our faculties” [tongues, prophecy, healing powers] belong to “that dispensation of the Spirit [which] is long since ceased, and where it is now pretended unto by any, it may justly be suspected as an enthusiastical delusion”.[24]

One of the champions of cessationism was B. B. Warfield, professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, 1887-1921. He is regarded by some conservative Presbyterians as the last of the great Princeton theologians before the split of the church in 1929. In his article, “Cessation of the Charismata”, he wrote that

“the theologians of the post-Reformation era, a very clear-headed body of men, taught with great distinctness that the charismata ceased with the Apostolic age. But this teaching gradually gave way, pretty generally throughout the Protestant churches, but especially in England, to the view that they continued for a while in the post-Apostolic period, and only slowly died out like a light fading by increasing distance from its source”.[25]

C. H. Spurgeon the prominent 19^th century Baptist preacher and pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, for 38 years, wrote that

“those gifts of the Holy Spirit which are at this time vouchsafed to the church of God are every way as valuable as those earlier miraculous gifts which are departed from us… As you would certainly inquire whether you had the gifts of healing and miracle-working, if such gifts were now given to believers, much more should you inquire whether you have those more permanent gifts of the Spirit which are this day open to you all, by the which you shall work no physical miracle, but shall achieve spiritual wonders of the grander sort”.[26]

In my preparation of this article, I engaged in email discussion with my friend, Philip Powell, who alerted me to several incidents in the life of C. H. Spurgeon which indicate that he was not a cessationist. Spurgeon provided these descriptions and an explanation, as supplied by Philip Powell (I have located the following quotes from other sources):

Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-92) was the prominent Baptist preacher in England during the 19th century, who spoke of a “sermon at Exeter Hall in which he suddenly broke off from his subject, and pointing in a certain direction, said, `Young man, those gloves you are wearing have not been paid for: you have stolen them from your employer’. At the close of the service, a young man, looking very pale and greatly agitated, came to the room, which was used as a vestry, and begged for a private interview with Spurgeon. On being admitted, he placed a pair of gloves upon the table, and tearfully said, `It’s the first time I have robbed my master, and I will never do it again. You won’t expose me, sir, will you? It would kill my mother if she heard that I had become a thief’.” (see HERE)

“On another occasion while he was preaching, Spurgeon said there was a man in the gallery who had a bottle of gin in his pocket. This not only startled the man in the gallery who had the gin, but it also led to his conversion.” (see HERE)

Spurgeon gives further examples of his prophetic ministry:

“While preaching in the hall, on one occasion, I deliberately pointed to a man in the midst of the crowd, and said, `There is a man sitting there, who is a shoemaker; he keeps his shop open on Sundays, it was open last Sabbath morning, he took nine pence, and there was four pence profit out of it; his soul is sold to Satan for four pence!’ A city missionary, when going his rounds, met with this man, and seeing that he was reading one of my sermons, he asked the question, `Do you know Mr Spurgeon?’ `Yes,’ replied the man `I have every reason to know him, I have been to hear him; and under his preaching, by God’s grace I have become a new creature in Christ Jesus. Shall I tell you how it happened? I went to the Music Hall, and took my seat in the middle of the place: Mr Spurgeon looked at me as if he knew me, and in his sermon he pointed to me, and told the congregation that I was a shoemaker, and that I kept my shop open on Sundays; and I did, sir. I should not have minded that; but he also said that I took nine pence the Sunday before, and that there was four pence profit; but how he should know that, I could not tell. Then it struck me that it was God who had spoken to my soul through him, so I shut up my shop the next Sunday. At first, I was afraid to go again to hear him, lest he should tell the people more about me; but afterwards I went, and the Lord met with me, and saved my soul.'” (See HERE)

How does Spurgeon explain this prophetic ministry?

“I could tell as many as a dozen similar cases in which I pointed at somebody in the hall without having the slightest knowledge of the person, or any idea that what I said was right, except that I believed I was moved by the Spirit to say it; and so striking has been my description that the persons have gone away, and said to their friends, `Come, see a man that told me all things that ever I did; beyond a doubt, he must have been sent of God to my soul, or else he could not have described me so exactly.’ And not only so, but I have known many instances in which the thoughts of men have been revealed from the pulpit. I have sometimes seen persons nudge their neighbours with their elbow, because they had got a smart hit, and they have been heard to say, when they were going out, `The preacher told us just what we said to one another when we went in at the door.'” (See HERE)

Noted Reformed theologian and defender of the orthodox faith at Princeton Theological Seminary, Charles Hodge (1797-1878), wrote in his commentary on 1 Corinthians that “[the word of] knowledge and prophecy are to cease. They are partial or imperfect”.[27]

The contemporary, famed Bible expositor from Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA, John MacArthur Jr is renowned for his promotion of cessationism. In his exposé of the charismatic movement in Charismatic Chaos, he stated, “I am convinced by history, theology, and the Bible that tongues ceased in the apostolic age. And when it happened they terminated altogether. The contemporary charismatic movement does not represent a revival of biblical tongues. It is an aberration similar to the practice of counterfeit tongues at Corinth”.[28]

A leading contemporary exegete, theologian and apologist, Norman Geisler, teaches that “even though tongues are mentioned in the New Testament, it is possible that tongues are no longer for us…. Since apostles existed only in the New Testament (Acts 1:22) and since there were supernatural sign gifts given to apostles (2 Cor. 12:12), it follows that these sign gifts ceased with the apostles in the first century”.[29]

Cessationism is not a new development of the anti-charismatic movement. It has been evident throughout church history. However, there is another side to the cessationist arguments and it was provided by a very early theologian of the church.

Irenaeus was born in the first half of the second century (his birth date has been suggested between 115-125) and died towards the end of that century. As one of the first great theologians of the church, he was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. Irenaeus became bishop of Lyons, Gaul (France today).

Irenaeus assures us that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit had not disappeared by the end of the second century. He wrote in a leading refutation of Gnosticism, Against Heresies (written about 180):

“Those who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform [miracles], so as to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from Him. For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe [in Christ], and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. And what shall I more say? It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church, [scattered] throughout the whole world, has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ”.[30]

So Irenaeus knew of the practice of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit in his day. Thus, they did not cease with the death of the Twelve and the formation of the New Testament canon of Scripture. It is estimated that the last book of the New Testament was written about AD 95-96 (the Book of Revelation). Thus, Irenaeus refutes John MacArthur’s statement that “once the Word of God was inscripturated, the sign gifts were no longer needed and they ceased”.[31] Irenaeus clearly shows the existence of sign gifts in the church over 100 years after the completion of the canon of Scripture.

Irenaeus also provided us with the earliest undisputed authority for the authorship of the four Gospels: Matthew issued his Gospel among the Hebrews; Mark was the disciple and interpreter of Peter; Luke was a companion of Paul and recorded a Gospel preached by Paul; John, a disciple of the Lord, published his Gospel while he was in Ephesus in Asia.[32]

With John Piper and Irenaeus, I am not persuaded by the arguments of the cessationists. For a defence of the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit, I recommend Jack Deere’s chapter, ‘Were miracles meant to be temporary‘ (Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, ch 8).

Endnotes

[2] CETF refers to the magazine, Contending earnestly for the faith, published by Christian Witness Ministries, available from: www.cwm.org.au.

[3] “John Piper on the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit”, available at: http://reformedandreforming.org/2010/03/31/john-piper-on-the-continuation-of-the-gifts-of-the-spirit/ [Assessed 20 June 2010].

[4] See Brian LePort, 21 April 2010, “An Introduction to the The Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit by Athanasius of Alexandria”, available at: http://westernthm.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/leport-an-introduction-to-the-letters-to-serapion-on-the-holy-spirit-by-athanasius-of-alexandria.pdf [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[5] p. 186, available at: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=KrvXjxlRsP0C&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=%22spiritual+gifts+Athanasius%22&source=bl&ots=bSy_5TDTTk&sig=M0eG3pAw_84LDTCcrR0aMmFZjh0&hl=en&ei=aTkdTLD7BIi8cY-4_P4M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[6] “Homily 29 on First Corinthians”, available at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220129.htm [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[7] Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 6:1-14, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [7:497-98].

[8] This article was originally published as, “The man who dared to change his mind about divine healing,” in the Pentecostal Evangel, September 11, 1983, pp. 18-20. It is available at: The leading church father who changed his mind about the supernatural gifts. I have written about him in St. Augustine: The leading Church Father who dared to change his mind about divine healing [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[9] “Letters of spiritual counsel” to one of his followers, available at: http://www.pentecostalpioneers.org/gpage.htm20.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[10] Available at: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/gal4-01.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[11] 1960. Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. F. L. Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, p. 1467.

[12] Some of the earliest Greek manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20.

[13] John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew, Mark & Luke – vol. 3; Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18, available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom33.ii.li.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[14] Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 1056.

[15] Ibid., p. 1057.

[16] Available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom35.iv.ii.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[17] 1991. The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, p. 495.

[18] Homily on John 14:10-14, available at: http://153.106.5.3/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.lxxii.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[19] Systematic Theology, vol. 4, pp. 673-75).

[20] Cited in: http://thisblogchoseyou.wordpress.com/2007/08/06/the-continuationistcessationist-debate-part-x/ [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[21] Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Bible, I Corinthians 12, “The variety of use of spiritual gifts are shown”, Bible Gateway, available at: http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/Matthew-Henry/1Cor/Variety-Use-Spiritual-Gifts [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[22] Jonathan Edwards, “Love more excellent than the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit”, available at: http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/charity2.htm [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[23] Arnold Dallimore 1970, George Whitefield: The life and times of the great evangelist of the eighteent-century revival, vol 1. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, p. 348.

[24] The Works of John Owen, IV:518, cited in J. I. Packer, “John Owen on spiritual gifts”, available at: http://www.johnowen.org/media/packer_quest_for_godliness_ch_13.pdf [Accessed 20 June, 2010].

[25] Available at: http://www.the-highway.com/cessation1_Warfield.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[26] “Receiving the Holy Ghost”, sermon no.1790, vol. 30, Year 1884, p. 386, available at: http://adrianwarnock.com/2004/05/what-would-c-h-spurgeon-have-made-of-charismatics/ [Accessed 20 June 2010]..

[27] 1857-1859. I & II Corinthians (The Geneva Series of Commentaries). Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, p. 272.

[28] Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992, p. 231.

[29] 2005. Systematic Theology vol. 4. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse, p. 192.

[30] Against Heresies, II.32.4, available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxxiii.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[31] Charismatic Chaos, p. 199.

[32] Against Heresies III.1.1, available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

Some of Antony Flew’s arguments for an uncaused God rather than an uncaused universe.

By Spencer D Gear

I (OzSpen) started a thread, “There is a God” on Christian Forums, to point to issues raised by Antony Flew’s conversion from atheism to deism. In response, one person asked, “I’m wondering what argument Flew used to back up this claim, or is it stated as an axiom?” (#6 in the thread).

Here is my reply:

Science and religion writer, Roy Abraham Varghese, was influential in Antony Flew’s moving from atheism to deism. In Antony Flew’s (with Roy Abraham Varghese), There is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind (2007. New York: HarperOne), Varghese writes the introduction and his article is included as Appendix A, “The ‘New Atheism’: A critical appraisal of Dawkins, Dennett, Wolpert, Harris and Stenger” (p. 161f). For an extensive, popular, newspaper article on Varghese’s defence of the existence of God, see, ‘God in the details‘ (Dallas Observer, 3 May 2007).

To give an overview of Antony Flew’s argument for the existence of the uncaused God rather than the uncaused universe, I must take steps not to violate copyright. Therefore, this will be in my own words (with some quotes) but it will be a brief overview of his reasoning with lots of details missed. In being brief, I must leave out some significant details. I highly recommend picking up a copy of the paperback edition of this book as it has some very tight reasoning. This is not a book for those who don’t want to think through cosmological implications.

These are some of the points from chapter 8 of Flew’s book, “Did something come from nothing?” (2007:133-145).

1. Can something come from nothing? In his atheistic writings (e.g. The Presumption of Atheism), Flew defended the universe and its laws as ultimate. But systems of explanation involve “some fundamentals that are not themselves explained” (134).

2. In debating theists, he tried to show that they faced the same problem: There were ultimates beyond explanation (135).

3. His two main anti-theological books were written prior to the development of big-bang cosmology and since the early 1980s he had been reconsidering and “confessed” that “atheists have to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus” which was providing a scientific version of what St. Thomas Aquinas had defended philosophically – the universe had a beginning (135). As long as he maintained the universe had no beginning, he was content with the universe as ultimate, brute fact.

4. But the big-bang theory changed all of that (136).

5. Modern cosmologists who promoted the escape route of “the idea of the multiverse, numerous universes” or “Stephen Hawking’s notion of a self-contained universe” (137), could not avoid “potential theological implications”. He found the “multiverse alternative” unhelpful as the existence of one universe requires on explanation, but multiple universes requires bigger explanations (137).

Antony flew.jpg

Antony Flew (1923-2010) (photo courtesy Wikipedia)

6. Physics must “remain radically agnostic” about what caused the big bang (138). The universe in flux rather than being statically, eternally inert, “made a difference to the discussion” (138), but all of this brought him back to the cosmological argument.

7. The main philosophical critic of the cosmological argument was David Hume. Previously, Flew had supported Hume’s arguments but he came to realise that there were “certain presuppositions in Hume’s thinking [that] resulted in crucial errors”, especially Hume’s view that “causes” only relate to the association of ideas or the absence of such associations. The origin or validation of a “mind-dependent world” lies in our experience of that world. He thus concluded that Hume’s theory (story) could not explain the meaning of “cause” and “the law of nature” (139).

8. He found David Conway’s, The rediscovery of wisdom (London. Macmillan 2000) and Richard Swinburne’s, The existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon 2004) were effective in refuting Hume’s and Kant’s opposition to the cosmological argument. These are some of the points of refutation:

Causal explanations of parts of the whole can’t add up to “causal explanations of the whole” (Conway) [140]. He saw Swinburne’s argument to reject Hume’s view as persuasive: “The existence of a complex physical universe over finite or infinite time is something ‘too big’ for science to explain” (Swinburne in Flew 141).
Once David Hume’s framework is rejected, it is possible to apply the cosmological argument in light of evidence from modern cosmology. Laws by themselves cannot explain things. Further explanations are needed. If we don’t have such laws, how can we explain the beginning of the universe? Even if one hypothesises “empty space” as necessary to give rise to matter, empty space is still something that is already there. We have to rely on laws even to get the universe started with empty space (141).
Thus, following philosopher of science, John Leslie (Infinite minds. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), there is no reason to pursue cosmological speculations of the universe coming from nothing. “If you had an equation detailing the probability of something emerging from a vacuum, you would still have to ask why that equation applies. Hawking had, in fact, noted the need for a creative factor to breathe fire into the equations” (143).

9. The old argument to explain the universe through “an infinite series of causes” is now in the new language of modern cosmology. Again, he refers to John Leslie’s argument that finds this infinite series unsatisfactory. Why? Leslie explains: “The existence even of an infinite series of past events couldn’t be made self-explaining through each event being explained by an earlier one” (Leslie in Flew 144). The entire series still needs an explanation. Which explanation best fits the facts and reason?

10. He affirms Richard Swinburne’s summary exposition of the cosmological argument: “There is quite a chance that, if there is a God, he will make something of the finitude and complexity of the universe. It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but more likely that God would exist uncaused. Hence the argument from the existence of the universe to the existence of God is a good C-inductive argument” [1] (Swinburne in Flew 145). Before the publication of Flew’s book, he had discussions with Swinburne in which Flew “noted that his [Swinburne’s] version of the cosmological argument seems to be right in a fundamental way. Some features of it may need to be amended, but the universe is something that begs an explanation. Richard Swinburne’s cosmological argument provides a very promising explanation, probably the finally right one” (145, my emphasis).

Dr. William Lane Craig has outlined the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God in, “The existence of God & the beginning of the universe”.
For a review of Antony Flew’s, There is a God, see: “Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God”.

Richard Swinburne (photo courtesy Wikipedia)

Notes

[1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s explanation of the “Cosmological Argument”, states that “Richard Swinburne contends that the cosmological argument is not deductively valid; if it were so, “it would be incoherent to assert that a complex physical universe exists and that God does not” (1979, 119). Rather, he develops an inductive cosmological argument that appeals to the inference to the best explanation. Swinburne distinguishes between two varieties of inductive arguments: those that show that the conclusion is more probable than not (what he terms a correct P-inductive argument) and those that further increase the probability of the conclusion (what he terms a correct C-inductive argument). In The Existence of God he presents a cosmological argument that he claims falls in the category of C-inductive arguments. However, this argument is part of a larger, cumulative case for a P-inductive argument for God’s existence”.

The New York Times (16 April 2010) reported, “Antony Flew, Philosopher and Ex-Atheist, Dies at 87” (died 8 April 2010, Reading, England).

Worldliness in church music

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

Introduction

When I walk into the average, contemporary evangelical church and hear the “church music”, it reminds me of my DJ days as a rock radio announcer. The thumping beat of this church music and some of the light-hearted, flimsy words, remind me of the Beatles, Rolling Stones and Jimi Hendrix that I played on-air and at Record Hops long ago at the Maryborough Rowers’ Hall as a 4MB DJ in Queensland, Australia, back in the 1960s and 70s.

Within the church, this is known as contemporary Christian music (CCM). I have an increasing discomfort over what is happening to music and preaching in the evangelical church. We can expect light-hearted stuff from the liberal church because it has assaulted biblical authority, but to see it happening in the evangelical church rings alarm bells for me. [See “How liberal churches undermine the Bible. Part 1; Part 2]

Infiltration of evangelical churches

What has become of the evangelical church that it seems not to be able to discern the world’s style of music from that which glorifies the Lord in songs, hymns & spiritual songs of praise and edification (Matt. 26:30; Acts 26:25; 1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) . Has worldliness engulfed the church? I considered writing an article on this theme because it is bothering me that the seeker-sensitive church seems to have swallowed worldly music styles as part of the seeker-sensitive package. Are attempts for the church to reach the secular community and not bore church people, reasons for engaging in compromise of the Christian standard through styles of music in the church? See the article, “Did Bill Hybels ‘repent’ of seeker-sensitive?”

However, others before me have addressed this topic. In what follows, I provide a few links to expand on the reasons for my discomfort with worldliness and CCM.

Worldliness and contemporary Christian music

What is worldliness? Here’s a solid outline of it, based on I John 2:14-17. I hope you took a read. Iain Murray has a helpful article on “Worldliness”. Dr. Jack Arnold asks, “What is worldliness?” in his article on Romans 12:2.

Dr Frank Garlock has taken the church to task over “pop goes the music”, starting back in the 1970s, and the worldliness of much of CCM.

“Dr. Garlock teaches that music is not neutral or amoral. It is a language; in fact, it is one of the most important languages on earth. He warns that the message of the music must match the message of the lyrics. He says, “The words only let you know what the music already says. … The music is its own message and it can completely change the message of the words”
(Garlock, The Big Beat: A Rock Blast).

Fanny Crosby, the renowned hymnist, had some pointed observations of the connection between music and worldliness. In “Bible guidelines for Christian music” it is stated:

Fanny Crosby is the greatest hymn writer that ever lived, writing over 9,000 songs! Before Fanny got saved, at 45 years old, she wrote many secular songs. But after she got saved — things were different. . . Here’s what Fanny said about mixing Christian and worldly music:

“Sometimes I need to reject the music proposed for my songs because the musicians misunderstand that the Fanny Crosby who once wrote for the people in the saloons has merely changed the lyrics. Oh my no. The church must never sing it’s songs to the melodies of the world.” (Danny Castle, video “What’s Wrong with Christian Rock”)

And do you know why Fanny Crosby said that — because Fanny got saved! And God “hath put a NEW SONG in my mouth, even PRAISE unto our God” inside the NEW Fanny Crosby! Fanny Crosby wrote over 9,000 songs to the Lord! Fanny used over 200 different pen names because she wanted to make sure God got the glory and not her.

Praise Him! praise Him! Jesus, our blessed Redeemer!
SING, O Earth, His wonderful love proclaim!
Hail Him! Hail Him! Highest archangels in Glory;
Strength and honor give to His holy name!
Like a shepherd, Jesus will guard His children,
In His arms He carries them all day long;
Praise Him! Praise Him! Tell of His excellent greatness;
Praise Him! Praise Him! Ever in joyful SONG.

Pastor Phil Christensen challenges Frank Garlock in his “Response to Frank Garlock” and Garlock’s view of worldly church music.

Is the origin of rock music worldly?

By worldly, I mean a mind-set from this secular world and not from the Scriptures as proclaimed by the evangelical Christian church. What is the origin of rock music? Did it originate in the church or in the world? This is the Encyclopedia Britannica’s take on the origin of rock music.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia states:

Musical style that arose in the U.S. in the mid-1950s and became the dominant form of popular music in the world. Though rock has used a wide variety of instruments, its basic elements are one or several vocalists, heavily amplified electric guitars (including bass, rhythm, and lead), and drums. It began as a simple style, relying on heavy, dance-oriented rhythms, uncomplicated melodies and harmonies, and lyrics sympathetic to its teenage audience’s concerns — young love, the stresses of adolescence, and automobiles. Its roots lay principally in rhythm and blues (R&B) and country music. Both R&B and country existed outside the mainstream of popular music in the early 1950s, when the Cleveland disc jockey Alan Freed (1921 – 65) and others began programming R&B, which until then had been played only to black audiences. Freed’s success gave currency to the term rock and roll. The highly rhythmic, sensual music of Chuck Berry, Bill Haley and the Comets, and particularly Elvis Presley in 1955 – 56 struck a responsive chord in the newly affluent postwar teenagers. In the 1960s several influences combined to lift rock out of what had already declined into a bland and mechanical format. In England, where rock’s development had been slow, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones were found to have retained the freshness of its very early years and achieved enormous success in the U.S., where a new generation had grown up unaware of the musical influences of the new stars. At the same time, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, the Byrds, and others were blending the traditional ballads and verse forms of folk music with rock, and musicians began to explore social and political themes. Performers such as the Grateful Dead, Jim Morrison of the Doors, and Frank Zappa of the Mothers of Invention combined imaginative lyrics with instrumental virtuosity, typically featuring lengthy solo improvisation. Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix won large followings with their exotic elaborations on R&B. The 1970s saw the rise of singer-songwriters such as Paul Simon, Neil Young, Elton John, David Bowie, and Bruce Springsteen, and rock assimilated other forms to produce jazz-rock, heavy metal, and punk rock. In the 1980s the disco-influenced rock of Madonna, Michael Jackson, and Prince was balanced by the post-punk “new wave” music of performers such as Laurie Anderson, Talking Heads (led by David Byrne), and the Eurythmics — all of whom illustrated their songs with music videos. By the 1990s rock music had incorporated grunge, rap, techno, and other forms.

Please don’t say that there are lots of things from worldly inventors that Christians use such as the motor car, refrigerator, microwave and DVD player. But these are not used for Christian worship.

I’ll let you be the judge, but it seems to me that in the contemporary, evangelical church, the world’s system of music has infiltrated the church in association with light-hearted, seeker-sensitive “preaching” (talks on the faith). Is this worldly preaching? See John MacArthur on “Charles Spurgeon and worldly preaching”. This is what C. H. Spurgeon had to say about “worldliness”.

Vance Havner lived from 1901-1986. During that time he wrote the following:

“Once we stood amazed at worship in the presence of the Lord. Now a generation bred on entertainment wants to sit amused. What was once an experience has become a performance and the church must put on a show. The idea of entertainment in things spiritual is nowhere in the New Testament. Nothing was further from the minds of the early saints than the idea that “we must make it interesting.” It was interesting but it was the mighty power of God that drew amazed throngs to ask, “What meaneth this?”

“It is a decadent generation in the last days that cannot endure sound doctrine and heaps to itself teachers to tickle its itching ears. Much of the professing church works itself into a fever trying to entertain as though taking a cue from Hollywood. We pattern after the age in a futile effort to reach these jaded mortals with a religious version of the thing they are surfeited with already. We go far afield and spend millions providing recreation and sport for a jittery generation that cannot rest or meditate but must be ‘doing something’ all the time. Someone has said that we do not need bowling rooms in our churches half as much as we need ‘bawling rooms,’ where parents and children need to weep their way back to God in confession of sin.

“There will be no revival until we return from amusement to amazement. Men must first ask in wonder, “’What meaneth this?’ before they will inquire, ‘What shall we do?’” (A Treasury of Vance Havner: Twentieth-Century Prophet, Preacher, Pilgrim, compiled by Betsy D. Scanlan. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988, pp 238-9)

What would Vance Havner think today?

Contemporary Christian rock music is worldly

I see much of modern church music as worldly because

It has one dimension, a worldly way, to speak in a manner to move human beings and not in a God-focussed, transcendent way. This happens through the light-hearted music style of rock music, some country and jazz styles. This sound is pleasing to the ears of many. However, postmodernist, classical forms of music also can be used one-dimensionally to move the emotions of the heart and soul.
The worldliness is accentuated by the light content of the lyrics.
Some of the light stuff of lyrics could have a proper spiritual use in some places, but mostly it does not. Most of it is human pleasing.

What do the Scriptures say?

In the Scriptures we are exhorted to sing “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” (Colossians 3:16), but this is in the context (v. 16) of, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom”. Honestly, can this be done to the driving beat of drums and guitars of rock music that tends to dull and overpower the words? We do need a spiritual diet of all three types of songs when we come to worship – psalms, hymns and spiritual songs so that we are edified and uplifted in music of praise to our God, the holy Trinity. Our music is not to be an experience generator but to contain content that will glorify God when we hear and sing it. Rock music tends to cloud the lyrics of worship. These psalms, hymn and spiritual songs need to be melodious and singable for the average congregation. Of course, some heart response music has its place in invitational situations, but it can tend to be human focussed too much.

Is there a way back to worshipful music for singing in the church gathering? Singing the words of the Bible, including the metrical psalms, could create more songs of praise to God and less human–focussed mood music that is designed to titillate the emotions. Many old hymns are God-focussed. I’m thinking of hymns such as “To God be the Glory”, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty”, “The Lord is my Shepherd”, “O Worship the King, all-glorious above”, and “Great is thy Faithfulness”.

The Evangelical Movement of Wales has produced a God-centred hymnal in Christian Hymns (1977, Byrntirion, Bridgend). However, does this comply with my musical tastes and rock music doesn’t? The more recent music of Bill & Gloria Gather, including, “Because He lives”, also is Christ-exalting music.

I am convinced that worship of God needs to move human beings to Godward thinking rather than towards human mood music. While individual tastes can be considered, Christian music will involve moving away from sensual, rebellious styles of music to focus on God and all of his attributes. The ideal combination for the church gathering would be God-centred music that draws one to the transcendent Lord of the universe and combine it with expository preaching that focuses on the content of Scripture and not the preacher’s opinion.

Appendix 1: Comments from a CCM promoter

I asked for his comments on the article above. He wrote:

I may surprise you when I say, in the most part, that I wholeheartedly agree with you. My greater concern is not so much the style (although that can be a worry too) but rather lyrics (content, Biblical correctness and subject) and attitude of the worship leaders and singers (performance vs leading the congregation to the throne of the King). I believe that music style doesn’t have to be ancient to be classed as worship or worshipful and some old hymns drive me nuts with their awful musicality!

One of my favourite singers of Christian music is Aled Jones. A few years ago he penned a worship song called “Vespera”. It was truly what we might call worshipful Church Music – organ as core instrument and with a boys’ choir with two boy soprano soloists. Each time I hear it – and often play it in my quiet time – I am transported through the heavenly vastness and find myself in the throne room of Our Father. It makes me wonder and hope that (when we reach glory) we might hear such voices worshipping God and stirring our hearts. Praise God!

Whilst I do like modern music there are limits. My short time at [a stated church] allowed me to see such extreme rubbish as – “Let the Holy Ghost Fall”. This gave me the impression that the Holy Ghost was like a sack of potatoes falling out of heaven and hitting people, knocking them to the floor! Anyway it was “performed” by a gyrating young guy who would be better placed in a club room at a hotel under spot lights and also the night where [the pastor’s wife] ended her “worship” song, laying on her back on the “stage” kicking her legs to the sky! I have both these on video too! Whilst a couple of songs that night were true worship songs (even though in a modern framework) but most of the service was performance and self promotion, obviously designed to entertain the patrons and evoke emotional responses rather than reverently offering praise and worship to Almighty God – who is worthy to be praised!

There are so many issues where the church today is out of step and I think this is increasingly becoming one of those areas. I remember an article way back by Christian artist – Steven Curtis Chapman on the same subject – its a very sobering look at the same issue!

I see music as a gift from God, but so many have hijacked its beauty and purpose to create noise. I suppose I am with Larry Norman here -“Why should the Devil have all the Good music?”

We need apologists like you to keep these issues before the Christian Church, even if it causes us to do no more than talk and pontificate on the issue. Hopefully people will heed the call to truly worship God rather than entertain the sheep!

6pointLight

Fluoride for politicians

I sent the following letter to a would-be politician when I was living in Hervey Bay, Qld., Australia.

28 February 2009

Mr. Ted Sorensen

LNP Candidate for Hervey Bay [1]

Dear Mr. Sorensen

Please make forced water fluoridation an election issue.

I have a medical condition that requires extensive use of medications. I do not need my medications screwed up by intrusion of an unprescribed toxic fluoride drug entering my body. Please keep Hervey Bay’s water clear of this unnecessary toxic drug — for our health’s sake.

Here are some of the issues:

In 2003, the Queensland government stated that “whilst recognising that the balance of the scientific argument favours the use of fluoride in the pursuit of oral health, it is a principle of ethical public health that mass, involuntary medication must never proceed without the express consent of the community. . . . Queensland Government supports the introduction of water fluoridation wherever it receives the consent of the community affected” (Queensland Government Position Statement on Water Fluoridation 2003).

So, the then Queensland Beattie government considered it unethical to provide “mass involuntary medication” through water fluoridation without the “consent of the community.” But what did the Bligh government do? Repudiating its own government statement in 2003, it implemented an unethical practice of forcing a toxic drug on all Queenslanders through water fluoridation – without the people’s consent.

I urge you to please oppose the introduction of fluoride into Queensland’s water supplies for the following reasons.

One of the world’s leading centres for the manufacture of medical, chemical, and drug supplies (Basel, Switzerland, a centre of pharmacology) stopped fluoridation of its water supply in 2003, after 41 years of fluoride. Why did this centre refuse to use fluoride in the water supply? The Canton of Basel-Stadt, Switzerland, withdrew fluoride for the same reasons that Queensland should not fluoridate its water supply. The Swiss gave these reasons:

1. The preventative effect of the fluoridation of drinking water could not be proved by any study. When specialists do not succeed in producing definitive proof in 40 years, the issue has to be abandoned.

2. In spite of the fluoridation of drinking water, caries (tooth decay) has been on the increase with children.

3. The danger of fluorosis is played down; nobody talks about fluorosis of the bones. The fluoridation of drinking water is particularly problematic in the case of young children and babies.

4. Less than 1% of the fluoride in drinking water is actually used for “prevention of caries”, more than 99% of the fluoridated water is used for washing, cleaning, industrial production, etc. and thus only pollutes the environment, a very undesirable imbalance (this Basel statement by Rudolf Ziegelbecker & Konradin Kreuzer, from: http://www.woats.co.uk/pages_articles/nutrition_03.htm [cited 28 February 2009].

Example of dental fluorosis caused by fluoride in the water.

For those who want to use fluoride, fluride tablets are available from the Regional Council. This toxin should not be forced on people in a democracy. Otherwise it is violating my human rights.

Dr. Charles G. Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association (AMA), said: “Fluoride in municipal water or in pill form is a corrosive poison that will produce serious side effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use fluoride this way is deplorable.” Also from the AMA: “The American Medical association is NOT prepared to state that no harm will be done to any person by ingesting fluoridated municipal water,” Dr. Flanagan, Director of Environmental Health, American Medical Association, April 2006.

I urge you to read this article: “Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water,” by Dr. Hardy Limeback, Associate Professor of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. He has two doctorates, one in biochemistry and the other in dentistry. He was a former ardent advocate of the fluoridation of water supplies. In 1999, he changed his mind because of the weight of research evidence. This is a conclusion by a considered expert in the field.

Dr. Hardy Limeback told his colleagues and students that he had unintentionally misled them.

“For the past 15 years, I had refused to study the toxicology information that is readily available to anyone. Poisoning our children was the furthest thing from my mind”. Among the findings that finally opened Dr. Limeback’s eyes was a recent study at the University of Toronto which confirmed that “Residents of cities that fluoridate have double the fluoride in their hip bones vis-a-vis the balance of the population. Worse, we discovered that fluoride is actually altering the basic architecture of human bones”. Skeletal fluorosis is a debilitating condition that occurs when fluoride accumulates in bones, making them extremely weak and brittle. The earliest symptoms? “Mottled and brittle teeth”, said Dr. Limeback. “In Canada we are now spending more money treating dental fluorosis than we do treating cavities. That includes my own practice” [2].

Dr. Limeback was also a former consultant to the Canadian Dental Association. He said in an interview:

“Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste,” he counseled. “Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never.”

Why, I wondered? What could have caused such a powerful paradigm shift?

“It’s been building up for a couple of years,” Limeback told me during a recent telephone interview. “But certainly the crowning blow was the realization that we have been dumping contaminated fluoride into water reservoirs for half a century. The vast majority of all fluoride additives come from Tampa Bay, Florida smokestack scrubbers. The additives are a toxic byproduct of the super-phosphate fertilizer industry.”

“Tragically,” he continued, “that means we’re not just dumping toxic fluoride into our drinking water. We’re also exposing innocent, unsuspecting people to deadly elements of lead, arsenic and radium, all of them carcinogenic. Because of the cumulative properties of toxins, the detrimental effects on human health are catastrophic.”

A recent study at the University of Toronto confirmed Dr. Limeback’s worst fears. “Residents of cities that fluoridate have double the fluoride in their hip bones vis-a-vis the balance of the population. Worse, we discovered that fluoride is actually altering the basic architecture of human bones.”

Skeletal fluorosis is a debilitating condition that occurs when fluoride accumulates in bones, making them extremely weak and brittle. The earliest symptoms?

“Mottled and brittle teeth,” Dr. Limeback told me. “In Canada we are now spending more money treating dental fluorosis than we do treating cavities. That includes my own practice.”

One of the most obvious living experiments today, Dr. Limeback believes, is a proof-positive comparison between any two Canadian cities. “Here in Toronto we’ve been fluoridating for 36 years. Yet Vancouver – which has never fluoridated – has a cavity rate lower than Toronto’s.” And,he pointed out, cavity rates are low all across the industrialized world including Europe, which is 98% fluoride free. Low because of improved standards of living, less refined sugar, regular dental checkups, flossing and frequent brushing. Now less than 2 cavities per child Canada-wide, he said. “I don’t get it, Doc. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) ran a puff piece all across America saying the stuff was better than sliced bread. What’s the story?” (available from: http://www.geocities.com/missionstmichael/FluorideLimeback.html [cited 28 February 2009].

The United Nations (UNICEF) states: “But more and more scientists are now seriously questioning the benefits of fluoride, even in small amounts” (available from, http://www.nofluoride.com/Unicef_fluor.htm ) [cited 28 February 2009].

I urge you to immediately make water fluoridation an election issue.

Please advise me what the LNP will be doing with fluoridation of our water supplies.

Yours sincerely,

Spencer Gear

Hervey Bay

Notes

[1] LNP is an acronym for a Queensland conservative political party, the Liberal National Party.

[2] (Barry Forbes, Mesa, AZ Tribune, cited in Linda Chae, “Fluoride,” available from: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fluoride_expert.htm (Accessed 28 February 2009).

Whytehouse Graphics

Dangers of fluoride: Letters-to-the-editor

Germany:

“Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication.”

SOURCE: Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999 (from fluoridealert.com)

By Spencer D Gear

The following are letters that I have sent to various newspapers on the fluoride issue. I have knowledge that some have not been published.

Letters to the editor: Fraser Coast Chronicle

7th December 2007

Letters to the Editor,

Fraser Coast Chronicle

Dear Editor,

Dictatorship is alive and well in Qld. with forced Council amalgamations and now forced fluoride in the water.

The scientific research shows the negative effects of fluoride on the brain, bones, thyroid, kidneys, links with cancer, birth defects and fluorosis.

See <http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html>

Dr. Hardy Limeback, Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry
University of Toronto, Canada, moved from supporting fluoride to one officially opposed since 1999 because of new evidence showing the lack of effectiveness of fluoride in water.

Some recent studies by eminent researchers strongly suggest that fluoride works best by direct action on the surface of the teeth through toothpaste, or gels used in dental treatments.

I urge your readers to study the evidence. It shows potential serious harm from long-term fluoride ingestion.

This imposition of fluoride on us is very undemocratic, especially when fluoride tablets are freely available from Councils.

Yours sincerely,

S. Gear

Hervey Bay, Qld.

Letters to the Editor, Brisbane Sunday Mail

(sent online, 30 Nov 08).[1]

I hope that the Queensland Green Party will follow the Greens in the UK in their opposition to fluoridated water. I ask that the Greens refuse to give preferences to any party that supports water fluoridation.

Leading Green Party commentator on fluoridation in the UK, John Spottiswoode, wrote: “The case for fluoride has been far from made. Claims about the effectiveness of fluoride simply do not stand up to close scrutiny and there is growing evidence pointing towards fluoride causing bone problems, arthritic-like symptoms, brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s, hypothyroidism, as well as identified links to cancer and other diseases.”

He went on to say that “fluoride is a class 2 poison, it is extremely biochemically reactive in the body and only marginally less poisonous than arsenic. It also makes bones more brittle and has led to a marked increase in dental fluorosis (fluoride poisoning), affecting up to 48% of people in fluoridated areas. You should look in the mirror.”

Anna Bligh’s going against Peter Beattie’s decision and now to force fluoride in Queensland’s water flies in the face of this scientific evidence and the practice of democracy.

S. Gear, Hervey Bay

Letters to the Editor, Sunraysia Daily (Mildura)

Letters to the editor,

Sunraysia Daily

news@sunraysiadaily.com.au

28 November 2009

Dear editor,

I’ve been reading the debate in your paper over fluoride.

Government officials in Quebec City, Canada, in 2008 voted to remove fluoride from its water supply. Why?

The over-consumption of fluoride has been associated with increased risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland. This is as reported in the Scientific American, January 2008 article, “Second thoughts about fluoride.”

There are not many countries left in the world that are resorting to fluoridating more of their populations. There are only 8 of them that have over 50% of the population fluoridated. They are the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Israel, Singapore, Colombia & Malaysia.

Dr. Hardy Limeback, Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, Canada, moved from supporting fluoride to one officially opposed since 1999 because of new evidence showing the lack of effectiveness of fluoride in water.

Some recent studies by eminent researchers strongly suggest that fluoride works best by direct action on the surface of the teeth through toothpaste, or gels used in dental treatments.

I urge your readers to study the evidence. It shows potential serious harm from long-term fluoride ingestion.

This imposition of fluoride on us by governments also is very undemocratic. Fluoride tablets are available for those who want to make a free choice to swallow this toxin called fluoride.

Yours sincerely,

Spencer Gear

Hervey Bay, Qld.

Letters to the Editor: Swan Hill Guardian

Letters to the editor
The Guardian
Swan Hill

28 November 2009
Dear Editor,
So the Victorian Health Department says it will be going ahead with the introduction of fluoride to water supplies in Swan Hill.

Fluoridated water is a health hazard for the following reasons.

It’s impossible to provide medication (fluoride toxin) consistently through drinking water. People drink water at different rates.

The margin of error between a therapeutic dose and negative health effects is small. We already are getting too much fluoride through the soil, food and water.

Fluoride has been demonstrated to be a carcinogen (having a cancer link). Fluorosis is a bone disease impacting the teeth and it is caused by fluoride.

The efficacy in using fluoride to prevent tooth decay has not been shown. In addition, it’s an expensive exercise for any Council or government to fluoridate. The scientific case for fluoridation is highly questionable.
Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS, is Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. He’s no dummy when it comes to dentistry and knowledge of the negative effects of fluoride. Read his article online, “Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water.” His opposition since 1999 is based on the scientific evidence.

Vancouver, Canada, does not have fluoridated water, but has a lower rate of dental decay than Toronto, Canada, which has had fluoridated water for 40 years. Dr. Limeback’s reasons provide some evidence. Previously he was a leading promoter of fluoride in Canada — but no more!! Yet the city of Toronto’s online statement is that “fluoride is added to treated water to reduce the risk of dental cavities.”

Dr. Limeback told the Toronto Star in 1999, “Parents should keep fluoride away from children under three.” Yet the Victorian government wants to force fluoridate Swan Hill’s water.

Tooth decay is preventable through other resources. We can do something now about preventing cancer, hip fracture and osteoporosis associated with fluoride use. Don’t fluoridate!
Sincerely,
Spencer Gear
Hervey Bay, Qld.

Notes:

[1] http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comment/complete [30 November 2008].

Stop the Rotten Spin on Fluoride! How a city tries to propagandize a people about fluoride

(Photographs of dental fluorosis by Dr Hardy Limeback, Dr Iain Pretty, et al, fluoridealert.org)

By Spencer D Gear

During July and August 2004, the Bundaberg, News-Mail (Qld., Australia) ran a series of short features titled, “Stop the Rot,” which presented only one side of the fluoride debate – support fluoride being added to the local water supply. Throughout this article, I’ll quote from a number of “Stop the Rot” articles. Not one article in “Stop the Rot” series took an anti-fluoride perspective.

Let’s examine this issue and the Bundaberg situation.

A. Civic leaders & media must favour it.

The Australian Dental Association of Queensland Vice-President, Mike Foley, in advocating the addition of fluoride to a city’s water supply, claimed that “you would only get it through if the civic leaders and the media were in favour.” [1]

To date the local newspaper, the Bundaberg News-Mail, has been true to form in following Mike Foley’s advice that fluoride would only be supported if “the media were in favour.” This has been some of the News-Mail‘s approach that I have observed:

1. Bias is the name of the game. Only present one side of the fluoride debate.

As indicated above, in July-August 2004, the News-Mail published a series of pro-fluoride articles, “Stop the Rot.” I wrote this letter to the News-Mail, published on August 12 2004, p.6, “Biting into fluoride issue”:

A recent letter referred to “anti-fluoridation ratbags.” and I sent this letter to the editor of the Bundaberg News-Mail:

Roy Theodore [a retired editor of the News-Mail] (News-Mail July 31) calls us “flat-earth anti-fluoridationists.”

These are name-calling logical fallacies that make rational discussions about any subject impossible.

I emailed one of these “ratbags”, Dr Hardy Limeback, Associate Professor and Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada to ask why he had moved from pro-fluoride to anti-fluoride in 1999.

His response was: “I am still opposed to water fluoridation. The letter I wrote in 2001 [available on the Fluoride Action Network website at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/ remains essentially my view today except that I have collected even more studies to add to the list of peer-reviewed scientific studies that point to problems associated with long-term fluoride ingestion.”

When I supplied him with some of the snippets of information from the News-Mail’s “Stop the Rot” one-sided series, he wrote, “Furthermore, using toddlers with early childhood dental decay as the ‘poster children’ for severe dental decay is not only deceptive, but it is immoral.”

These public health officials are trying to use sympathy and fear tactics to win over people to the side of the proponents of fluoridation.

I think it is about time the News-Mail “stopped the rot” of printing essentially a one-sided editorial view of fluoride.

SPENCER GEAR

Bundaberg

Editor’s note: All anti-fluoridation letters sent by readers of the News-Mail have been published by the paper in an effort to keep the debate balanced. The News-Mail is calling for local governments to take the issue to the ratepayers in the shire, not to put fluoride in the water supply.

While the News-Mail editor on this occasion stated that “all anti-fluoridation letters sent by readers . . . have been published by the paper in an effort to keep the debate balanced,” the following article will challenge the view that “effort to keep the debate balanced” has continued to be promoted by the News-Mail.

2. Censor opposing views

I have had personal examples of the way the Bundaberg News-Mail censored letters so that the truth about the dangers of fluoride was not presented as it should have been. These are the details:

a. This letter was not published

While the News-Mail was publishing its pro-fluoride series of articles, “Stop the Rot,” I sent the following letter to the paper that was not published:

Why I am against fluoride added to drinking water, 23rd July 2004

Letters to the Editor,
The News-Mail

Dear Editor,

May Bundaberg’s civic leaders consider these facts before taking away our civil liberties by putting fluoride in our water supply (N-M, July 23, p. 3).

One of the world’s leading centres for the manufacture of medical, chemical, and drug supplies (a centre of pharmacology) stopped fluoridation of its water supply in 2003 after 41 years of fluoride. The Canton of Basel-Stadt, Switzerland, withdrew fluoride for the same reasons that Bundaberg should not fluoridate its water supply. The Swiss gave these reasons:

1. The preventative effect of the fluoridation of drinking water could not be proved by any study. When specialists do not succeed in producing definitive proof in 40 years, the issue has to be abandoned.

2. In spite of the fluoridation of drinking water, caries (tooth decay) has been on the increase with children.

3. The danger of fluorosis is played down; nobody talks about fluorosis of the bones. The fluoridation of drinking water is particularly problematic in the case of young children and babies.

4. Less than 1% of the fluoride in drinking water is actually used for “prevention of caries”, more than 99% of the fluoridated water is used for washing, cleaning, industrial production, etc. and thus only pollutes the environment, a very undesirable imbalance [statement by Rudolf Ziegelbecker & Konradin Kreuzer]. [1a]

For those who want to use fluoride, tablets are available from the Bundaberg City Council. This toxin should not be forced on people in a democracy.

Dr. Charles G. Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association, said: “I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long-range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable.”

Please keep Bundaberg’s water clear of this unnecessary toxic drug — for health sake.

Yours sincerely,
Spencer Gear
Bundaberg

P.S. Editor: If you are interested, I am available to write an article opposing fluoride with some of these emphases: Fluoridated water is a hazard to health because:

It’s impossible to provide medication consistently through drinking water;

The margin of error between a therapeutic dose and deleterious health effects is small;

We already are getting too much fluoride through the soil, food and water;

Fluoride has been demonstrated to be a carcinogen (cancer link);

Fluorosis is a bone disease caused by fluoride;

The efficacy in preventing tooth decay has not been shown;

It’s an expensive exercise for any Council to fluoridate;

The scientific case for fluoridation is flawed;

Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS, is Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. He’s no dummy when it comes to dentistry. Read his article, “Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water.” [1b] Vancouver, Canada, does not have a fluoridated water supply, but has a lower rate of dental decay than Toronto, Canada, which has had fluoridation for 36 years. Dr. Limeback’s reasons provide some evidence. Previously he was a leading promoter of fluoride in Canada — but no more!!

Tooth decay is preventable through other resources. We can do something now about preventing cancer, hip fracture and osteoporosis associated with fluoride use. Don’t fluoridate!

The United Nations (UNICEF) states: “But more and more scientists are now seriously questioning the benefits of fluoride, even in small amounts.” [1c]

Recently, Dr. Hardy Limeback, Canada’s foremost promoter of fluoridation, head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto and President of the Canadian Association of Dental Research, told his colleagues and students that he had unintentionally misled them. “For the past 15 years, I had refused to study the toxicology information that is readily available to anyone. Poisoning our children was the furthest thing from my mind”. Among the findings that finally opened Dr. Limeback’s eyes was a recent study at the University of Toronto which confirmed that “Residents of cities that fluoridate have double the fluoride in their hip bones vis-a-vis the balance of the population. Worse, we discovered that fluoride is actually altering the basic architecture of human bones”. Skeletal fluorosis is a debilitating condition that occurs when fluoride accumulates in bones, making them extremely weak and brittle. The earliest symptoms? “Mottled and brittle teeth”, said Dr. Limeback. “In Canada we are now spending more money treating dental fluorosis than we do treating cavities. That includes my own practice.” [1d]

Dr. Hardy Limeback, biochemist and Professor of Dentistry, University of Toronto, former consultant to the Canadian Dental Association. “Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste. Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never. In fluoridated areas, people should never use fluoride supplements. We tried to get them banned for children but (the dentists) wouldn’t even look at the evidence we presented.” [1e]

Not only was the letter not published, but the editor of the NewsMail did not take up my offer to write articles to provide an alternate anti-fluoride view. To demonstrate the NewsMail‘s biased view, I submit the following information.

b. “Fluoride debated” (my anti-fluoride letter)

On March 7, 2005, p. 6, the News-Mail published my letter:

Where is the scientific evidence that proves “20% of Bundaberg’s smiles had 80% disease” (Dr Michael Foley, Australian Dental Association, NM [ie NewsMail] 17/02/05, page 3)?

Dr Mark Diesendorf, University of New South Wales, states: “Contrary to the false impression created by some health and dental authorities, there is no scientific evidence supporting the notion that fluoride at a daily dose of several milligrams per day is a nutrient—indeed, there (are) many communities around the world with much lower fluoride intakes who have excellent teeth.

“Those who provide http://www.fluoridealert.org/medications have a duty to inform patients of the risks and benefits of the medications” (Chemistry in Australia journal, Jan/Feb 2005, “Toxic chemicals: the case against fluoride”).

Dr. Foley claimed that Bundaberg’s alleged higher incidence of dental disease “comes down to other states having fluoridated water”.

Let us check the facts from the Child Dental Health Survey.

In 1997, the decay for primary teeth, five to six-year-olds in Queensland (5% fluoridated), was less than that for Victoria which had extensive fluoridation.

In 1998 decay in permanent teeth of 12-year-olds in Queensland was less than in Tasmania which had extensive fluoridation.

Fluoride supporters, Jason Armfield and John Spencer, in an article published in the journal Community Dentistry Oral Epidemiology (vol. 32, pp. 283-96, 2004) found no statistically significant benefit for permanent teeth through fluoridation in South Australia.

We know there are topic benefits (applied outside of the teeth), but the benefits of ingesting fluoride must be questioned.

For those who want to ingest fluoride, the Bundaberg City Council provides fluoride tablets on request.

SPENCER GEAR, Bundaberg

Surprise! Surprise! Dr. Michael Foley, now President, Australian Dental Association, came back with a letter-to-the-editor to try to refute my claims:

c. “Fluoride clarification” (Michael Foley’s letter)

On 15 March 2005, p. 6, this letter was published in the Bundaberg News-Mail:

In arguing against fluoridation (NM 7/3/05), Spencer Gear has completely misunderstood the Spencer and Armfield study he cites.
The quote: “no statistically significant benefit for fluoridation in South Australia” is Mr Gear’s alone, and appears nowhere in the study.

Spencer and Armfield actually stated that “Numerous studies in the last two decades and recent reviews provide support for the positive health consequences of the consumption of fluoridated water”.

This should come as no surprise as more than 100 of the world’s leading health and scientific authorities have strongly endorsed water fluoridation as being both safe and effective in combating tooth decay. And fluoride tablets are not the answer, as they only help the small number of children who are taking them.

Fluoridated water is far more effective, much cheaper, and strengthens everyone’s teeth from the very young to the very old.

Queensland’s tooth decay epidemic is a disgrace, and one for which the costs to the community are massive.

DR MICHAEL FOLEY, President, Australian Dental Association

How do I respond to such a scathing letter against my statements on the Spencer and Armfield research? I believe that I had correctly represented the views of these Australian researches. Dr. Foley did not think so. I sent an email copy of Dr. Foley’s letter to Dr. Paul Connett a noted scientist who has concluded that fluoride in the water supply is not good for teeth decay prevention. This was:

**d. Dr. Connett’s reply to the News-Mail letters**

Dr. Connett wrote;

Letters-to-the-Editor (NewsMail: editorial@news-mail.com.au)

March 16, 2005.

Dr. Michael Foley in his letter of March 15 disputes Spencer Gear’s claim that Armfield and Spencer “found no statistically significant benefit for permanent teeth through fluoridation in South Australia.”

But in challenging Gear, Foley cites these authors talking about what other studies have shown not their own. He quotes Armfield and Spencer as saying:

“Numerous studies in the last two decades and recent reviews provide support for the positive health consequences of the consumption of fluoridated water.”
But this is what Armfield and Spencer actually say about their own findings in the abstract of their paper:
“The effect of consumption of nonpublic water on permanent caries experience was not significant.”

So Spencer Gear was right, and Dr. Michael Foley was wrong.

But it is not just in the details that Michael Foley is wrong, the whole sweep of his claims about fluoridation are off the mark. For example he claims that “more than 100 of the world’s leading health and scientific authorities have strongly endorsed water fluoridation as being both safe and effective” but he fails to point out that only 9 countries in the world have more than 50% of the population drinking fluoridated water. If fluoridation is such a good idea why isn’t it practiced in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden or Switzerland? And why are their teeth just as good as those countries which practice fluoridation?

It is largely the English speaking world that has succumbed to this silly American idea. Unfortunately, once the US Public Health Service endorsed the practice in 1950 (before one single trial had been completed) many of the health and scientific “authorities” Foley cites, fell into line, because they receive their funding from this source. Too many dentists swallow the second hand assertions of “authorities” on this matter, rather than read the primary literature.

But I am glad that Dr. Foley is speaking out. I have visited Australia three times since 2002 and on each occasion I have challenged representatives of the Australian Dental Association in four states to debate this issue with me in public and to date they have all refused. Now that Dr. Michael Foley has declared his hand perhaps he will take me on during my next visit. If he will then perhaps he will let your readers know, otherwise I recommend that they take his views with a piece of salt (and make that sodium chloride not sodium fluoride)!

Dr. Paul Connett,
Professor of Chemistry,
St. Lawrence University,
Canton, NY 13617.
1- 315-379-9200
paul@fluoridealert.org

Surprise! Surprise! The Bundaberg News-Mail did not publish Dr. Connett’s letter. But this is the newspaper that stated on August 12, 2004, following one of my letters: “Editor’s note: All anti-fluoridation letters sent by readers of the News-Mail have been published by the paper in an effort to keep the debate balanced. The News-Mail is calling for local governments to take the issue to the ratepayers in the shire, not to put fluoride in the water supply.”

By 16 March 2005, it had changed its view and had censored Dr. Connett’s correction of Dr. Foley’s erroneous views. I provided two follow-up letters to the News-Mail supporting Dr. Connett’s evidence, but neither letter was published, thus confirming this newspaper’s position of not allowing continuing “balanced” debate on this subject.

B. World Health Organisation [WHO], government & professional bodies support water fluoridation.

The Queensland government supports fluoridation: “I support the extension of water fluoridation wherever it receives the endorsement of the local community. . . It has received the endorsement of the World Health Organisation, government and professional bodies in many countries including Australia. [2] Health council chairman and former mayor of the Kolan Shire Council [near Bundaberg, Qld.], Viv Chase, “said his personal view was there was a strong case in favour of fluoridation.” [3] Dentist, Dr. Michael Foley of Brisbane stated, “According to the World Health Organisation, fluoridation of water supplies significantly improves dental health, and where possible, is the most effective public health measure for the prevention of dental decay.” [4]

Let’s investigate:

1. World Health Organization (WHO) and Fluoride

The WHO’s published view is:

Despite great improvements in the oral health of populations across the world, problems still persist particularly among poor and disadvantaged groups in both developed and developing countries. According to the World Oral Health Report 2003, dental caries remains a major public health problem in most industrialized countries, affecting 60–90% of schoolchildren and the vast majority of adults. Although it appears that dental caries is less common and less severe in developing countries of Africa, it is anticipated that the incidence of caries will increase in several countries of that continent, due to changing living conditions and dietary habits, and inadequate exposure to fluorides. Research on the oral health effects of fluoride started around 100 years ago; the focus has been on the link between water and fluorides and dental caries and fluorosis, topical fluoride applications, fluoride toothpastes, and salt and milk fluoridation. Most recently, efforts have been made to summarize the extensive database through systematic reviews. Such reviews concluded that water fluoridation and use of fluoride toothpastes and mouthrinses significantly reduce the prevalence of dental caries. WHO recommends for public health that every effort must be made to develop affordable fluoridated toothpastes for use in developing countries. Water fluoridation, where technically feasible and culturally acceptable, has substantial advantages in public health; alternatively, fluoridation of salt and milk fluoridation schemes may be considered for prevention of dental caries (World Health Organization 2005).

We can therefore conclude that the WHO’s position is pro-fluoride. But what about governments?

2. Governments and fluoride

This is a mixed bag. Locally, a representative from the Kolan Shire Council, near Bundaberg, Qld., mayor Viv Chase, supports fluoridation (see above).

a. Brisbane’s Lord Mayor & fluoridation

There had been a report in the Brisbane Courier-Mail (19 July 2004) of a new “bid to put fluoride in [Brisbane’s] water” (Griffith 2004). In The Australian newspaper, 24 February 2005, the heading was, “Beattie [Qld. Premier] to demand fluoride in water” (Parnell 2005). In this article it was reported:

Mr Beattie indicated he was more likely to support financial incentives being provided to councils.

“There are very strong arguments in favour of fluoridation and we’d be delighted to see councils do it, but it is a council responsibility at the moment,” Mr Beattie told The Australian.
The Local Government Association of Queensland, however, wants the state to take control. It estimated the cost of statewide water fluoridation to be $80 million, regardless of who made the decisions.
Queensland Health has put forward a figure of $13 million upfront and at least $3.8 million in annual maintenance costs, but maintains the benefits would far outweigh the costs. The issue has already been raised in budget committee and Labor caucus meetings.

Former Brisbane Labor lord mayor Jim Soorley opposed fluoridation, but the incumbent, Liberal Campbell Newman, has been more open to the idea (Parnell 2005). However, in December 2004, the Labor Party in Queensland was divided over this issue:

The Queensland government is split over whether to add fluoride to the state’s water supply. he issue has pitted Premier Peter Beattie against his health minister after Mr Beattie ruled out taking charge of fluoridation. Mr Beattie killed off any likelihood of blanket fluoride protection in the state’s water supply on Tuesday, saying local councils held the decision-making power for using fluoride.
However, the announcement has pitted him against Health Minister, Gordon Nuttall, who has strongly advocated the introduction of statewide fluoridation to address childhood dental disease (National Nine News 2004).

On 24 February 2005, I sent this email to Lord Mayor Campbell Newman of Brisbane to check out his position:

Good Evening Lord Mayor,

I saw your news item about fluoride on tonight’s [24 Feb. 2005] Channel 7 news, wanting the State Government to impose fluoridation on Queenslanders.

It just about caused me to choke on my chicken wrap as I ate dinner and watched Rod & Kay.

Channel 7 rushed to a spokesman for the Australian Dental Association (ADA) to give the ADA one-eyed pro-fluoride push. Why didn’t they get the balanced facts? These are just to whet your appetite for the truth and nothing but the truth about fluoride:

1.         Why don’t you check out some of the scientific information AGAINST fluoride, from dental specialists such as Dr. Hardy Limeback? He’s no Johnny come lately when it comes to dental research, being the Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Take a read of his article, “Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water” available at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm.   He gives the “new evidence for lack of effectiveness of fluoridation in modern times.”

2.         Dr. Mark Diesendorf, Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales, Sydney, has his article, “Toxic chemicals: the case against fluoride,” [4a] in the January/February 2005 issue of Chemistry in Australia journal, also available online at: [http://www.raci.org.au/chemaust/] . Since fluoride in the water supply is used as a treatment for people, no matter what redefinition people try, it is still a medication. Dr. Diesendorf   states that, “Contrary to the false impression created by some health and dental authorities, there is no scientific evidence supporting the notion that fluoride at a daily dose of several milligrams per day is a nutrient – indeed, there [are] many communities around the world with much lower fluoride intakes who have excellent teeth. Those who provide medications have a duty to inform ‘patients’ of the risks and benefits of the medications.”

Dr. Diesendorf states that “people are being misled by pro-fluoridationists that: (1) The ingestion of 1 ppm fluoridated water is highly effective in reducing dental caries (when the mechanism of action is redominantly topical), and (2) Ingestion of 1 ppm fluoride is safe for everyone.”

3.         “New York — April 30, 2003 –Over forty years of water fluoridation failed to reduce tooth decay in Basel, Switzerland, where children’s cavity rates increased from 1996 – 2001, according to a Swiss Government Report.

Basel, the only Swiss city adding fluoride to water supplies, halted fluoridation on April 9, 2003, on the advice of their governmental Health and Social Commission.

“Europe’s cavity rates declined despite being 98% fluoridation-free. The UK and Spain remain fluoridated at 10% and 3%, respectively. Ireland is 73% fluoridated, where 12-year-olds have more cavities than 12-year-olds in four non-fluoridated European countries and the U.K.

“Twenty years ago Levittown, New York, stopped 29 years of water fluoridation. Neighboring New York City’s daily newspaper, “The N.Y. Daily News” predicted Levittowner’s teeth would rot. However, many studies show cavity rates improve when fluoridation ends” (available from: http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/1154.html).

I call upon you to turn to those who give us the whole truth and nothing but the truth when it comes to fluoride. And there is plenty of BAD news about adding fluoride to our water supply.

Yours sincerely,
Spencer Gear,
Bundaberg

(I have children who live in Brisbane.)

P.S. Dr. Limeback has two doctorates, one in dental science. He’s no dill.   Why don’t you contact him for an interview on why we should not add fluoride to Brisbane’s (and Queendland’s) water supplies? Here are his contact details:

Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS
Associate Professor and Head,
Preventive Dentistry
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, M5G-1G6
Fax (416) 979-4936
Tel(416) 979-4929
E-mail: hardy.limeback@utoronto.ca

Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, sent me this email reply:

12 March 2005

Mr Spencer Gear
[he included my email address]

From Campbell Newman
Lord Mayor, Brisbane
Email: LORD.MAYOR@brisbane.qld.gov.au

Dear Mr Gear

I refer to your email of 24 February 2005 regarding your concerns about fluoridation of Brisbane’s public water supply.

As you may be aware, following the recommendation of a Lord Mayoral Taskforce on Fluoridation in 1997, Brisbane City Council decided that Brisbane’s water supply should not be fluoridated. During the course of the Taskforce, Council invited a number of experts on both sides of the issue to put forward their case, including Dr Mark Diesendorf referred to in your email.

Council’s decision was based on a number of factors, including concerns about health effects and the impact of a lifetime consumption of fluoridated water. Council was also concerned about the absence of Australian-based research that had been recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

I have made my own position clear that I would not support water fluoridation for Brisbane unless a sound and coherent case can be made that convinces the community that their health concerns are unfounded.

Thank you for the Internet references that you have provided. We have added them to our already extensive library on fluoridation.

Yours sincerely
Campbell Newman
LORD MAYOR
Ref: 238919

It’s interesting that The Australian newspaper of 24 February 2005 reported that “Liberal Campbell Newman,has been more open to the idea [of fluoridating Brisbane’s water supply], yet Newman wrote to me on 12 March 2005 declaring his position that “I would not support water fluoridation for Brisbane unless a sound and coherent case can be made that convinces the community that their health concerns are unfounded.” I await the “sound and coherent case” in support of fluoridation to convince me and the community. To date, the evidence against fluoridation is too substantive for me. Why would the governments of Europe be overwhelmingly against fluoridation?

b. The governments of Europe

According to the Fluoride Action Network, “98% of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the majority of the United Kingdom (90%)” (Fluoride Action Network 2002).

The above evidence indicates that some governments support the addition of fluoride to the water supply, but there’s a swag of them that do not.

c. What about the USA?

It has been stated that “in about 60% of 2000 referenda held in the U.S. since 1950, fluoridation has been voted down.” For a list of USA “communities which have rejected fluoridation since 1990” see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.htm. For an indication of the “Fluoridation Status” of the various states of the USA from the years1992-2002, see: http://www2.cdc.gov/nohss/FluoridationV.asp.

3. Professional bodies support water fluoridation.

The Australian Dental Association supports the introduction of fluoride to the water supply. Its policy on “Community Oral Health Promotion” of fluoride is that the use of fluorides in dentistry is one of the most important ways of preventing dental caries and has the support of all peak public health and dental authorities. International bodies such as the US-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], the World Health Organisation [WHO] and the US Surgeon General actively promote water fluoridation. The CDC placed water fluoridation in the top ten public health achievements of the 20th Century. Similarly, scientific bodies in Australia, recognised public health groups and professional organisations support water fluoridation. Community water fluoridation continues to be the most cost-effective, equitable and safe means to provide protection from tooth decay and has been successfully utilised in Australia for over 50 years. The effect of water fluoridation is predominantly topical, with some systemic influence in children. (Australian Dental Association 2004).

For a list of the professional associations in support of water fluoridation, see The American Dental Association (2005). These include:

American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
American Dietetic Association
American Heart Association
American Medical Association
American School Health Association
American Society for Nutritional Sciences/American Society for Clinical Nutrition
American Water Works Association
Australian Dental Association
British Fluoridation Society
British Medical Journal
Canadian Dental Association
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Division of Oral Health
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/MMWR

What is the situation in Europe where most of the countries are opposed to fluoridation?

C. Young children’s teeth removed through decay.

“Bundaberg children as young as four were having all their teeth removed because of shocking decay.” [5]

D. All the information for an informed decision.

“Our role is to ensure people have all the information so that they can make an informed decision.” [6]

E. Fluoride is not poisonous:

“Fluoride at the level recommended for fluoridation is totally safe.” [7]

F. Water fluoridation better than fluoride tablets.

Fluoride tablets are not as effective as “water fluoridation for the majority of the population. Fluoride works mainly by a topic effect, washing over the teeth and becoming incorporated in saliva.” [8] Bundaberg dentist, Harry Akers: “Fluoride tablets were not an effective substitute for fluoridating the water supply.” [9] “Tablets, toothpaste and fluoride treatments from dentists are neither as effective nor as efficient as water fluoridation.” [10]

G. Fluoride is a health issue.

Bundaberg dentist, Harry Akers, states that “all other Australian states legislatively regard fluoridation as a health issue but in Queensland it’s a local authority issue.” [11] I agree with my personal dentist, Mr. Harry Akers, that fluoride is a “health issue.” But what’s the evidence, either positive or negative, from the research on fluoride in the water supply?

My Response:

Dr. Robert K. Ferrie is a practising physician with an MD (doctor of medicine). What’s his view on the “health issue” of fluoridation?

I am a physician practicing in Alton [Ontario, Canada] and my wife is a medical science writer and publisher of books on health and environment. We attended the May 6th [2004] meeting and presented our objections to fluoridation. The currently available international scientific literature shows beyond any doubt that fluoridation is ineffective as a preventive measure against tooth decay and seriously harmful to the immune system and it is a known carcinogen at even minute levels. We urged an open discussion of all the available information, especially also to the residents of Bolton , so that legally mandatory informed consent is observed (Ferrie 2004).

Dr. Ferrie quoted the American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) views on fluoride:

Dr. Charles Gorden Heyd, the AMA’s past president [1936-1937, died 1970], recently said, “I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs; fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long-term basis.” The current position of the AMA is that the safety of fluoride, at any dilution, cannot be proven (Ferrie, 2004).

Dr. Ferrie goes on to quote the Ontario Government’s (Canada) Lockyer Report of 1999 came to the following cautious conclusions:

Ontario Government’s 1999 commissioned Locker Report was not mentioned at all either. That report came to the following cautious conclusions:

“The magnitude of the effect… is often not statistically significant, and may not be of clinical significance… Canadian studies do not provide systematic evidence that water fluoridation is effective in reducing decay in contemporary child populations. The few studies of communities where fluoridation was withdrawn do not suggest significant increases in dental caries as a result.” (Page 4) “ The main limitations of current research on the effectiveness of water fluoridation are its exclusion of adults and elderly and failure to consider quality of life outcomes. Since water fluoridation is a total population strategy, its benefits to the population as a whole need to be documented.”(Page 62) [in Ferrie 2004, emphasis in original].

There is an opposing view. The City of Mountain View, California, commenced fluoridation of its water supply in 2001 and in its “Fluoride Fact Sheet,” it stated:

The following organizations endorse water fluoridation as an important public health measure reducing tooth decay:

The American Dental Association (ADA) endorsed fluoridation in 1950, and reaffirmed its endorsement in 1997.

The American Medical Association (AMA) endorsed fluoridation in 1976, and reaffirmed its endorsement in 1982.

As part of its “Healthy People 2000” project, the United States CDC set a goal of providing fluoridated water to 75 percent of the American people by 2010.

The State Department of Health Services has approved Mountain View’s fluoridation program. . .

Fluoride is a safe, effective way to prevent tooth decay and is endorsed by numerous professional health care and governmental organizations. Increasing the amount of fluoride in the water to the “optimal level” should not change the water’s taste, smell or appearance (City of Mountain View 2001).

H. Water fluoridation is good for all people.

“Water fluoridation, because it predominantly works through a topical effect, benefits all of the population who have their own teeth.” [12]

My Response:

Dr Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in medicine in the year 2000, disagrees that water fluoridation benefits all people. In an article for the Journal of the Swedish Medical Association he opposed adding fluoride to drinking water, stating that

in this situation a poison [fluoride] should deliberately be distributed throughout our environment in enormous quantities represents an ill-considered action, especially as this is a poison which, through industrialization, will probably find its way in increasing quantities into our environment. Water fluoridation also goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication – of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day – to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy. Not only in that the dose cannot be adapted to individual requirements. It is, in addition, based on a completely irrelevant factor, namely consumption of drinking water, which varies greatly between individuals and is, moreover, very poorly surveyed (Carlsson 1978).

Dr. Carlsson continues:

Judging from current Scandinavian studies – no marked reduction in caries can be expected; one cannot, in fact, be sure that there will be any completely positive effect. Secondly, there is the danger of adverse effects in some individuals, among other things in the form of enamel damage, an increased tendency to caries and other symptoms of ailments, together with disruptions to the development of the growing individual. There is, if not definite proof, sound reason for doubt relating to such negative effects of water fluoridation (Carlsson 1978).

I. Children under age 8 benefit most.

“While children under eight benefit most because fluoride strengthens their growing teeth, everyone benefits because fluoride in saliva kills bacteria. . . Bundaberg children aged six have twice the Australian average number of decayed, missing and filled teeth.” [13]

J. Water fluoridation is not costly.

In Bundaberg, “it would cost about 80 cents per person per year for water fluoridation. In return it would save the average person about $50 in dental costs.” [14]

K. Water fluoridation is the most cost-effective way to reduce tooth decay.

“All major reviews of water fluoridation have concluded that it is the most cost effective means of reducing dental decay.” [15] “Water fluoridation is recognised safest, most cost-effective and equitable intervention available to reduce dental decay.” [16] Bundaberg dental surgeon, D. D. Hoffman stated that fluoridated water “is safe, cheap and effective.” [17] “There has never been a better time to introduce water fluoridation to this community. . . Fluoride is the cornerstone of any preventive dental treatment and fluoridated water is the most effective way to dose the low levels required to benefit the entire community.” [18]

L. Water fluoridation chemicals are not dangerous.

“This issue has been looked at many times by many groups, the latest being the UK Medical Research Council in 2002 which found no evidence of any health effects.” [19]

M. Fluoridated water & immediate effects.

Mike Charles, “Bundaberg residents are likely to notice the effects of drinking fluoridated water immediately. . . Fluoridate water would start to reverse tooth decay as soon as people took a sip.” [20]

It’s interesting that that is not the case in Ireland:

A GROUP of more than 100 dentists have demanded an end to fluoridation of tap water over cancer fears.
Their action came yesterday following a study by the Harvard School of Dental Health which found an increased cancer risk in children.
The research has already led to the Environmental Working Group, a Washington research organisation, calling for the US government to list fluoride as a carcinogen. In Ireland public water supplies have been fluoridated by law since the 1960s and we remain one of the few countries in Europe still adding the chemical.

Dr Don McAuley of the Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation (IDOF) said the US research shows that boys drinking fluoridated water from the age of five to ten will experience a greater risk of osteosarcoma bone cancer when they are older.

Another study comparing figures between the Republic of Ireland (fluoridated) and Northern Ireland (unfluoridated) also found a 40pc rise in bone cancer levels. In 1996, Northern Ireland refused to dose drinking water with chemical fluoride when 25 out of 26 councils voted against water fluoridation because of concerns over fluoride health damage (Hogan 2005).

N. Most dentists support fluoride.

Mr. Charles “said 98% of Queensland dentists were in favour of councils fluoridating water and Queensland health was urging the community to consider the benefits.” [21]

My Response:

That may be the case, but there is an increasing number of dentists who are objecting, based on the evidence. As indicated above, “A group of more than 100 [Irish] dentists have demanded an end to fluoridation of tap water over cancer fears” (Hogan 2005).

O. Many studies show fluoride reduces cavities.

“Many studies have concluded fluoridation can reduce cavities by 15% to 40%.” [22] “We only have to look at the amount of tooth decay in Queenslanders and it defies logic, to me as an individual, why we have not had fluoride in our water for years.” [23]

P. All water contains some fluoride.

“All water supplies have some fluoride. In the Bundaberg area it is about 0.1 parts per million of water. Health authorities recommend one part per million to benefit teeth without staining.” [24]

Q. Unfluoridated areas with more teeth decay.

“A 1992-1994 study found that children in unfluoridated Brisbane had higher cavities than in fluoridated Townsville.” [25] A Bargara dentist asks parents, “Was your child born in New South Wales or Victoria? You can tell this because their children [as opposed to children in Queensland] have no cavities and the enamel of their teeth has no defects. Their teeth are so much better that you can tell they come from a fluoridated area. . . It’s a choice between fluoridation or dental infection, possible dental abscess, root canal therapy or surgical extractions.” [26]

R. Legs will fall off & brown teeth.

“Antifluoridationists will claim that your legs will fall off and we will all end up with brown teeth if we fluoridate water.” [27]

S. How bad teeth look in North America & Europe.

“Have you also noticed how bad the teeth look on the 300 million North Americans and the (roughly) 200 million Europeans that drink fluoridated water?” [28]

T. If you don’t like fluoride, go & buy a water filter!

“If you do not like fluoride go and buy a water filter and let the rest of us who like adding (about) one kilogram of fluoride to a thousand tons of water is infinitely safer than having a severe dental infection requiring a week of several very strong anti-biotics, several x-rays, and some uncomfortable or painful surgical procedure.” [29] “Let the antifluoridationists drink bottled water.” [30]

U. Fear tactics.

See Lincoln Harris above. [31] Scare tactics of anti-fluoridationists. “Once the anti-fluoridation people get in there with their scare tactics people just play safe and say ‘no'” says Mike Foley. [32]

V. All major health bodies support fluoridation.

“All the major health bodies support fluoridation.” [33]

W. Logical fallacies & fluoride.

Feature writer and former editor of the Bundaberg News-Mail, Roy Theodore, claims that “the anti-fluoridation lobby was responding with so much alarming and emotional claptrap that the subject was a certain vote loser,” and those who oppose water fluoridation are “the flat-earth anti-fluoridationists . . . the flat-earthers.” [34] Dental surgeon, J. P. J. Davidson wrote of “the anti-fluoridation ratbags.” [35]

My Response:

This claim, said this way, stymies discussions because it uses an ad hominem logical fallacy. A what? What is a logical fallacy? “A fallacy is an invalid form of argument, an instance of incorrect reasoning” (The Philosophical Society 2005). These are known as fallacies because they present arguments that my mislead a person into accepting a false conclusion. Sometimes these are used so frequently that they are accepted as a common method in discussion. Others make honest mistakes by using them, while at other times people make these deliberate actions that stifle logical discussion and may influence people to make decisions based on false premises.

The logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem (“argument against the person”) is commonly used these days. It attacks the person and not the argument that the person is making. The Philosophical Society states that it is a fallacy in which someone argues against a position or claim by assailing the proponent of it. The truth or falsehood of a position doesn’t depend on who does (or doesn’t) espouse it. e.g. “You can’t trust Jones’ theory of electromagnetic particles because he’s a communist.” (The theory is good or bad because it comports (or doesn’t comport) with certain facts and evidence, not because the man propounding it holds a political affiliation (The Philosophical Society 2005).

So when these writers attack people who oppose fluoride by calling them “flat-earthers” and “ratbags” they are attacking the person by name-calling and not dealing with the issues of why these people oppose the addition of fluoride to drinking water.

Using the argumentum ad hominem, the arguments against fluoride are not treated on their merits. In any debate or discussion, statements for or against a position ought to stand or fall on the basis of their own qualities. The personal qualities of the person affirming or denying a position should not come into the question. In this case, what are the strengths of the arguments for or against fluoridation.

Strictly speaking, the merits of fluoride or anti-fluoride argument stand or fall on the content of the argument, not the personal characteristics of the presenter. This ad hominem argument does not state the scientific or logical reasons for rejecting fluoridation. It doesn’t provide the evidence to refute the anti-fluoride position, but attacks the persons, calling them “flat-earthers” or “ratbags.” This insults the person rather than providing the evidence in support of one’s position.

We should be quick to halt or withdraw from discussions if the person is being attacked instead of a reasoned argument being presented. It is impossible to have a logical discussion with somebody who engages in the use of argumentum ad hominem.

X. Harmful if too much drunk.

Back in the 1950s, Dr. George Christianson, a Brisbane oral surgeon, said that “it could be harmful . . . if you drank a bathful of water every day.” [36]

Endnotes:

1. “Stop the Rot” series, “Fear campaigns to hit fluoridation,” Bundaberg News-Mail, July 26, 2004, p. 5.

1a. These details are from, “Fluoridation demise in Switzerland: Fluoridation stopped after 41 years experimenting on the people,” The Australian Fluoridation News, May-June 2003, p. 1.

1b. Available from, http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm [23rd July 2004]

1c. “UNICEF’s Position on Water Fluoridation,” available from: http://www.nofluoride.com/Unicef_fluor.htm [23rd July 2004].

1d. Barry Forbes, Mesa, AZ Tribune, cited in Linda Chae, “Fluoride,” available from: http://www.lindachae.com/fl uoridenews.htm [23rd July 2004].

1e. Cited in “Fluoride is a Corrosive Poison,” available from: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/poison.htm [23rd July 2004]. See more at, “Fluoridation in Calgary,” available from: http://www.fluoridation.com/news.htm#Toronto%20Star [23rd July 2004].

2. Gordon Nuttall MP, Health Minister (Qld.), Member for Sandgate, letter to the editor, “Nuttall bites into issue,” Bundaberg News-Mail, July 29, 2004, p. 6.

3. “Stop the Rot” series, “Fluoridation put on the agenda,” Bundaberg News-Mail, July 30, 2004, p. 5.

4. Dentist, Dr. Michael Foley, Brisbane, letter to the editor, “Sad story on teeth,” Bundaberg News-Mail, July 29, 2004, p. 16.

4a. The article by Dr. Mark Diesendorf is actually titled, ‘Sustainable development and toxic chemicals: The case of fluoride’, available from: http://www.raci.org.au/chemaust/docs/pdf/2005/CiAJan-Feb2005p14.pdf [2 July 2005].

5. “Fear campaigns to hit fluoridation,” reference above.

6. “Stop the Rot” series: Dr. Mike Charles, Queensland Health Oral Health Wide-Bay Burnett director, “Answers to fluoride fears,” Bundaberg News-Mail, August 14, 2004, p. 13.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. “Stop the Rot” series, “Fluoride should be a local health issue,” Bundaberg News-Mail, July 24, 2004, p. 4.

10. Specialist orthodontist, Phil Saxby, letter to the editor, “Action on fluoride,” Bundaberg News-Mail, July 29, 2004, p. 6.

11. “Fluoride should be a local health issue,” reference above.

12. “Answers to fluoride fears,” p. 13.

13. “Stop the Rot” series, “Fluoride: some facts,” Bundaberg News-Mail, July 28, 2994, p. 9.

14. “Answers to fluoride fears.”

15. Ibid.

16. Gordon Nuttall MP. See reference above.

17. D. D. Hoffman, Dental Surgeon, Bundaberg, letter to the editor, “Budget stretch,” Bundaberg News-Mail, July 29, 2004, p. 17.

18. Paul Stockham, dentist, Burnett Dental Centre (Bundaberg), Letter to the editor, “Push for fluoride,” Bundaberg News-Mail, July 29, 2004, p. 16.

19. “Answers to fluoride fears.”

20. “Stop the Rot” series, “Fluoride’s benefits to start working for teeth,” Bundaberg News-Mail, July 27, 2004, p. 3.

21. Ibid.

22. “Stop the Rot” series, “Fluoride: some facts,” Bundaberg News-Mail July 28, 2004, p. 9.

23. Gordon Nuttall MP, Qld. Health Minister, reference above.

24. “Fluoride’s benefits to start working for teeth,” reference above.

25. Ibid.

26. Letter to the editor, Lincoln Harris (BDSc), Bargara, “Fluoride the answer,” Bundaberg News-Mail, July 29, 2004, p. 6.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Specialist orthodontist, Phil Saxby, reference above.

31. Dentist, Lincoln Harris, reference above.

32. “Fear campaigns to hit fluoridation,” reference above.

33. “Fluoride: some facts.”

34. Roy Theodore, “Just for the Record” feature, “The buck-passing tragedy,” http://www.fluoridealert.org/Bundaberg News-Mail Weekender, July 31, 2003, p. 4.

35. J. P. J. Davidson, Dental Surgeon, Bundaberg, letter to the editor, “Facts on fluoride,” Bundaberg News-Mail, July 29, 2004, p. 17.

36. Roy Theodore, “Just for the Record” feature, “The wicked wordsmith,” Bundaberg News-Mail Weekender, August 14, 2004, p. 5.

Bibliography

American Dental Association 2005, ‘Oral Health Topics A–Z: Fluoride & Fluoridation’, available from: http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/fluoride_links.asp [2 July 2005]. Australian Dental Association Inc. 2004, ‘Policy Statement: Community Oral Health Promotion Fluoride Use’, available from: http://www.ada.org.au/media/documents/Policies%20and%20Guidelines/April05/FluorideUse.pdf [2 July 2005].
Carlsson, A. 1978, “Current problems relating to the pharmacology and toxicology of fluorides’, Journal of the Swedish Medical Association, vol. 14, pp. 1388-1392, available from: http://www.fluoridealert.org/carlsson.htm [14 August 2004].

City of Mountain View (California) 2001, ‘Fluoride fact sheet’, available from: www.mountainview.gov/citynews/fluoride_fact_sheet.htm [2 July 2005].

Ferrie MD, R. K. 2004, “Doctor comments on ‘Myths,'” Caledon Citizen [Ontario, Canada], June 2, 2004, Available from: http://www.kospublishing.com/html/comments.html [2 July 2005].
Fluoride Action Network 2002, ‘Facts about Fluoridation’, March 2002, available from: http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm [2 July 2005].

Griffith, C. 2004, ‘Bid to put fluoride in water’, The Courier-Mail, 19 July 2004, available from: http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/1975.html [2 July 2005].

Hogan, T, “Dentists demand end to ‘Cancer Risk’ fluoride in water’, Irish Independent (14 June 2005), Available from: http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/2288.html [2 July 2005].
National Nine News 2004, ‘Queensland spilt over fluoride issue’ (22 December 2004), available from: http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/2139.html [2 July 2005].

Parnell S. 2005, ‘Beattie to demand fluoride in water’, The Australian (24 February 2005), available from: http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/2183.html [2 July 2005].

The Philosophical Society 2005, ‘Logical fallacies’, available from philosophical ociety.com at: http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm [22 June 2005].

World Health Organzation 2005, ‘Effective use of fluorides for the prevention of dental caries in the 21st century: the WHO approach’, available from: http://www.who.int/oral_health/media/en/orh_cdoe_319to321.pdf [2 July 2005].

Anti-Fluoride Propaganda Blitzes

(courtesy fluoridealert.org)

By Spencer D Gear

13 April 2006

The Editor

Fraser Coast Chronicle

Dear Editor,

In your editorial lambasting anti-fluoride people, you have done your best to try to close down rational dialogue in this debate. You label us as engaging in “bizarre . . . propaganda blitzes” with roots “in the extreme right” and we have “manufactured organised hysteria.”

Then you filter the evidence claiming that our lobbyists “captured the internet with lies.”

Let’s look at a few truthful facts. About 98% of Europe does not drink fluoridated water. The exceptions are 10% of the UK and 3% of Spain. Why have these countries ceased to force fluoride on their people? They have stopped or rejected outright water fluoridation as a health programme.

A recent Harvard University (hardly a dummy uni) research study, led by Dr. Elise Bassin, found that boys who drink water with levels of fluoride considered safe by federal USA guidelines are five times more likely to have a rare bone cancer (osteosarcoma) than boys who drink unfluoridated water. This research was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal, Cancer Causes and Control.

Ms. Editor, are you trying to tell us that these are lies?

If fluoride has any effect on the teeth, it is topical. It acts when it makes direct contact with the tooth.

Congratulations to the Maryborough City Council for considering the evidence and voting against introducing a fluoride toxin into the city’s water supply.

Yours sincerely,

Spencer Gear

Bundaberg

Copyright (c) 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document is free content. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the OpenContent License (OPL) version 1.0, or (at your option) any later version. This document last updated at Date: 5 September 2013.

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

Flying Feet

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

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

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

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

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

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

7. Mark 13:18-27 states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See my other articles on this topic:

Is the rapture of the church hogwash?

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

Notes

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

Jesus is the Messiah! True or False?

Is Jesus of Nazareth the Christ (Messiah/anointed one) as claimed in orthodox Christianity?

By Spencer D Gear

A. Introduction

At Easter time in some Western countries, the mass media love to seek out historical Jesus’ experts who rattle the theological cage. “Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah,” is hardly an attention grabber for the populace! But this type of statement could get people involved in a discussion: “We have no way of knowing whether Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah or as the Son of God in some special sense” (Marcus Borg 1994:29). A headline for Borg’s challenge could be:

Jesus was no messiah.

Then add this problem: Who believes what the Bible says anyway? Even if the Bible supports orthodox Christianity’s view of Jesus as the Christ/Messiah, what’s the point of promoting this when the Bible is an unreliable document according to many? “Jesus’ burial by his friends was totally fictional and unhistorical”, wrote historical Jesus’ scholar, John Crossan (1994:160).

Another historical Jesus’ expert says that the Gospels “can no longer be viewed as the trustworthy accounts of unique and stupendous historical events at the foundation of the Christian faith. The gospels must now be seen as the result of early Christian mythmaking” (Burton Mack 1993:10). A great newspaper heading for Mack’s view could be:

The mythical Bible: Fantasy at work

Is Jesus the Messiah? David Layman (2009) gave the crass answer, “Bloody unlikely”. Part of his reasoning was:

“The ecumenical creeds (Nicene, Apostles’, Athanasian) or Reformation confessions (Augsburg, Heidelberg, Westminster) nowhere declared belief in the messianic identity of Jesus to be an article of faith. Indeed when the Heidelberg Catechism had an opportunity to make the connection, it twice went out of its way to avoid it… ‘Why is he called CHRIST, that is, the ANOINTED ONE?’ It answered that Christ is ‘ordained by God the Father and anointed with the Holy Spirit.’ Christ had a three-fold ministry, prophet, priest and king, but the kingly authority (where one would expect some interpretation of his messianic identity) was given a spiritualized explanation: Christ is ‘governing up by his Word and Spirit and defending and sustaining us in the redemption he has won for us'” (Layman 2009).

Is the absence of specific statements about the Messiah in these historic creeds and confessions a stumbling block to the affirmation of Jesus the Christ/Messiah in orthodox Christianity?

One of two main schools of Gnosticism that attacked orthodox Christian doctrines in the first couple of centuries of the Christian era was Cerinthianism, named after Cerinthus (ca A.D. 100), who, according to Irenaeus (Against Heresies 26.1), was educated in the wisdom of Egypt. It is reported that he taught in Asia Minor (Turkey) but no further details are known of his birth location. Some contend that he was a contemporary of the apostle John.

One of the beliefs of the heretical Cerinthians was that “the Christ” came upon Jesus at his baptism, granting him power for ministry but it departed before Christ’s crucifixion. It was only a man who died on the cross and rose again. This theology invalidates the need for Christ’s atoning work (Keathley III n.d.). A current headline for this heresy could be:

Jesus zapped for practical reasons.

Before we can examine the truth or otherwise of the orthodox Christian claim of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ/Messiah, we have to address one main issue: the reliability of the Bible as a document providing the truth about Jesus Christ.

B. Myth or truth: How do we determine if the Bible is true or false historically?

Fortunately, others have done the hard yards for us. Craig Blomberg (1987) wrote that if we wanted to evaluate the historical accuracy of the Gospels, “we assume from the outset that its testimony is reliable and then to consider the force of various objections which might cause a person to change his or her mind”. However, he notes that much critical scholarship “inverts this process altogether by assuming the gospels to be unreliable” (246).

1. How do you prove any historical document to be reliable?

Four criteria are commonly used by historians (based on Blomberg 1987:247):

“Multiple attestation or forms”. Is the report in more than one Gospel and is there independent testimony outside of the Bible?
“Palestinian environment or language”. This examines how the Greek text is related to a literal translation of a Jewish original. Or, if events and teaching reflect concepts from first century Palestine, then there is no need to seek a Greek (Hellenistic) church for the origins of the document.
“Dissimilarity”. This is an unusual criterion which examines the Gospel’s picture of Jesus and how it might differ from some ancient Jewish belief or differ from some things that were happening in early Christianity. “Because Jesus seemed to stand out so much from his contemporaries and because his first followers so easily deviated from his very demanding requirements, this criterion has appealed to many as the most helpful” (Blomberg 1987:247).
“Coherence”. If material harmonizes with material from the other three criteria, it may be accepted as authentic and reliable.

When we apply these tests to the Bible, what do we find?

“The gospels may be accepted as trustworthy accounts of what Jesus did and said. One cannot hope to prove the accuracy of every detail on purely historical grounds alone; there is simply not enough data available for that. But as investigation proceeds, the evidence becomes sufficient for one to declare that what can be checked is accurate, so that it is entirely proper to believe that what cannot be checked is probably accurate as well” (Blomberg 1987:254)

If the Gospels are given the same close historical investigation as any other documents from history, the Gospels will be shown to be reliable documents. It is to these trustworthy documents that we turn to find the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth’s claims to be the Christ/Messiah.

C. The Bible’s teaching on Jesus the Messiah, the Christ

In everyday language, what are the meanings of Messiah and Christ? How are the terms used in the New Testament?

“Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22 ESV).[1] This verse is in a section of John’s epistles that warns against antichrists who were challenging the church when John wrote this general letter to churches that were being threatened in Asia Minor (Turkey today) towards the end of the first century A.D.

In the region of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (Matt. 16:13). Some said he was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or another one of the prophets. The bold “Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God'” (Matt. 16:16).

At Jesus’ trial before his execution, he appeared before Caiaphas, the high priest, along with the scribes and elders. The chief priests and the whole Council were trying to uncover false testimony against Jesus to give them reason to execute him. Many false witnesses presented their evidence. The high priest asked for Jesus’ response. Matthew records, “But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, ‘I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.’ Jesus said to him, ‘You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven'” (Matt. 26:63-64). Jesus admitted that he Himself is “the Christ”.

When Jesus called his first disciples, Andrew told his brother, Simon Peter, “We have found the Messiah (which means Christ)” (John 1:41).

The scene is Jesus at the well with the woman of Samaria who was there to draw some water and Jesus engaged her in conversation. “The woman said to him, ‘I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I who speak to you am he'” (John 4:25-26).

Again, Jesus admits to a female stranger that he is the Messiah, the Christ. This is an amazing situation because in the socio-cultural context of the first century Jewish and Greco-Roman world, men not only regarded women negatively but also held them responsible for most sin, especially for sexually temptation. Jesus did not see women this way when he chose to declare to a woman his Messiahship and that he is the Christ.

The circumstances involved the death of Jesus’ friend, Lazarus, and Jesus’ raising him from the dead. The Jews tried to console Lazarus’s sisters, Martha and Mary, following Lazarus’s death. Jesus told the sisters and those who had gathered that Lazarus would rise again and that Jesus is the resurrection and the life and those who believe in him, even though they die, continue to live. After Jesus declared that death was not the end, Martha responded: ‘Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world'” (John 11:27).

In the midst of devastating grief, Martha affirmed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Those Scriptures refer to various circumstances in which Jesus Himself and others support the view that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God. What do these terms mean?

The Greek, christos, translated as “Christ” appears 531 times in the NT, based on the Nestle-Aland 26^th edition of the Greek NT (Hurtado 1991:106). The description of Jesus as the “Christ” in the Gospels reflects the Jewish origins of Christianity. Jesus is portrayed as the Christ, the anointed One, the Messianic hope of Israel. But the scriptural references above also present the Christ, the Messiah, as the son of God (eg John 10:36), a phrase that “modern scholarship holds … is used of Jesus … as the Messianic king. But in John 5:18, 10:33, 36 the claim of sonship is clearly intended to denote deity” (Thiessen 1949:142).

Christos had no Greek cultural significance. It is from the ancient Jews that Christians obtain the meaning of “the Christ, the Messiah”. Christos is the NT equivalent of the Hebrew, mashiach, from which “Messiah” is derived, meaning anointed (with oil). For the Jews, the person anointed with oil often referred to somebody appointed to a special office such as king or priest as seen in passages such as Ex. 28:41 (Aaron & his sons); 1 Sam. 9:15-16; 10:1 (Saul); 1 Sam. 16:3, 12-13 (David); and 1 Chron. 29:22 (Zadok and Solomon). These passages indicate that these people were chosen by God and others, to perform a special mission.

Mashiach, in the OT, is used especially for the anointing of the Israelite kings (see 1 Sam. 24:6; 2 Sam. 1:14) but there is an application to God’s Messiah in Dan. 9:25-26:

“Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, aprince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed”.

This “anointed one”, according to the context in Dan. 9:24 will “bring in everlasting righteousness” or “bring in righteousness of ages”, a righteousness that contrasts with sin (Wood 1973:249). This anointed one could not follow in the steps of the Israelite leaders who historically had led the people into sin, then spiritual renewal, followed by a return to sin. This anointed one would bring in “everlasting righteousness”.

Leon Wood notes that the Hebrew terms “anointed one” and “prince” in Dan. 9:25-26 are “applied to various leaders in the Old Testament, but here they clearly refer to Christ. He is the supreme Messiah and Prince; no one else fits the chronology developed in the text” (1973:251).

There is a special application of “the Anointed” in Psalm 2:2, “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his Anointed”. The phrase, “the kings of the earth”, is common one in the Psalms (see also Ps. 76:12; 138:4; 148:11) and refers to rulers of kingdoms that are separate from the kingdom of God.

Many commentators regard the entire second psalm as “typically Messianic”, and apply it to Jesus, while others want to deny this messianic connection.

We conclude that the NT use of the term, “Messiah”, in John 1:41 and 4:25 is associated with Old Testament usage and not simply a reference to the apocryphal Book of Enoch 48:10.

The Christian view of Jesus the Messiah (i.e. the Christ) focuses on the question asked of the disciples by Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 16: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (v. 13). Then he became specific to them: “But who do you say that I am?” (v. 15). Simon Peter’s response was, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (v. 16). Jesus’ answer was that flesh and blood did not reveal this to Peter but it was revealed by “my Father who is in heaven” (v. 17).

D. Orthodox Christianity’s teaching on Jesus the Messiah, the Christ

“Orthodoxy is a myth” according to the liberal theologian and philosopher of religion, John Hick (1978:ix-x). To the contrary, the view adopted in this article is that orthodox Christianity refers to

“right belief, as opposed to heresy or heterodoxy. The term is not biblical; no secular or Christian writer uses it before the second century…. The word [orthodoxy] expresses the idea that certain statements accurately embody the revealed truth content of Christianity and are therefore in their own nature normative for the universal church” (Packer 1984:808).

As Packer explains, it is rooted in the biblical teaching that the Gospel has “specific factual and theological content” (1 Cor. 15:1-11; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 4:3-4) and that there can be no fellowship between those who accept orthodoxy and those who pursue heterodoxy (see 1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 7-11). Orthodox Christian teaching had to be defended in the second century, precipitated by the threat of Gnosticism and other errors affecting the biblical understanding of the Trinity and Christology (Packer 1984:808).

1. Messiah in orthodox theology

Historically, what have been the statements from orthodox theologians and Bible teachers about Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One?

St. Jerome (A.D. 347-420) wrote in his commentary on Daniel 7:13,

“And behold, there came One with the clouds of heaven like unto the Son of man.” He who was described in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar as a rock cut without hands, which also grew to be a large mountain, and which smashed the earthenware, the iron, the bronze, the silver, and the gold is now introduced as the very person of the Son of man, so as to indicate in the case of the Son of God how He took upon Himself human flesh; according to the statement which we read in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up towards heaven? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him going into heaven'(Acts 1:11)”.

Contemporary Reformed theologian, Wayne Grudem, affirms and expands Jerome’s explanation, writing that it is striking that the One who is described as a “son of man” who came “with the clouds of heaven” according to Dan. 7:13-14, refers to

“someone who had heavenly origin and who was given eternal rule over the whole world. The high priests did not miss the point of this passage when Jesus said, ‘Hereafter you will see the Son of man seated on the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven‘ (Matt. 26:46). The reference to Daniel 7:13-14 was unmistakable, and the high priest and his council knew that Jesus was claiming to be the eternal world ruler of heavenly origin spoken of in Daniel’s vision. Immediately they said, ‘He has uttered blasphemy…. He deserves death’ (Matt. 26:65-66)” (Grudem 1994:546, emphasis in original).

The Nicene Creed, representative of one of the most well used doctrinal summaries in Christianity, was developed at the first ecumenical Council of the church at Nicaea in A.D. 325. Part of the Nicene Creed declares this of Christ: “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father” (creeds.net).

This creed was a promotion of sound doctrine, developed in response to the crises of the Arian controversy. Arius, a heretic from the Libyan region, taught the deity of Christ but his Christology was that God created Christ and there was a time when Christ did not exist. The Arian anti-Trinitarian doctrine was corrected in the statement of the Nicene Creed, although the words Messiah and anointed are not included. Pertinent to the content of this article, the Nicene Creed declares Jesus as the Christ (which is the meaning of Messiah), the only Son of God. It was not needed to affirm Him as “Messiah” as “Christ” covers that designation.

In his treatise, “On the Trinity”, St. Augustine of Hippo in the early fifth century referred to Acts 10:38 when he stated, “In the Acts of the Apostles it is more plainly written of Him [the Lord Jesus Christ], because God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit. Certainly not with visible oil but with the gift of grace…” (XV.26.46).

Martin Luther, in an anti-Semitic document, “On the Jews and their lies, 1543“, spoke of the Jews having no hope until “they are forced to confess that the Messiah has come, and that he is our Jesus”.

John Calvin, in his commentary on Luke 24:26, wrote, “There is no room to doubt that our Lord discoursed to them [the two on the road to Emmaus] about the office of Messiah, as it is described by the Prophets, that they might not take offense at his death”.

Jacob Arminius (1560-1609) affirmed the orthodox doctrine of Christ as Messiah:

“The word ‘Christ,’ denotes an anointed person, who is called … ‘the Messiah,’ by the Hebrews…. It is proper, that he who was eminently styled ‘the Messiah’ should be anointed with the Holy Spirit, indeed ‘above all his fellows,’ (or those who were partakers of the same blessings,) (Psalm xlv,7)” (Arminius 1977:549)

Another historical Protestant confession, The Westminster Confession of Faith‘s statement (ch. 7), “Of God’s covenant with man“, stated that this covenant

“was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foreshadowing Christ to come, Heb 8:1-10:39 Ro 4:11 Col 2:11,12 1Co 5:7 which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, 1Co 10:1-4 Heb 11:13 Joh 8:56 by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament”.

Alfred Edersheim‘s 1500 pages on The life and times of Jesus the Messiah (1971), first published in 1883, set forth the orthodox doctrine that “the Gospels be regarded as four different aspects in which the Evangelists viewed the historical Jesus of Nazareth as the fulfilment of the Divine promise of old, the Messiah of Israel and the Saviour of man” (xi).

The Catholic Encyclopedia‘s article on “Messiah” promotes the orthodox doctrine on Jesus, the Messiah and Saviour:

“For those who, before the Christian dispensation, sought to interpret the ancient prophecies, some single aspect of the Messiah sufficed to fill the whole view. We, in the light of the Christian revelation, see realized and harmonized in Our Lord all the conflicting Messianic hopes, all the visions of the prophets. He is at once the Suffering Servant and the Davidic King, the Judge of mankind and its Saviour, true Son of Man and God with us. On Him is laid the iniquity of us all, and on Him, as God incarnate, rests the Spirit of Jahveh, the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, the Spirit of Counsel and Fortitude, the Spirit of Knowledge and Piety, and the Fear of the Lord”.

In contemporary theology, the following are samples of orthodox Messianic statements regarding Jesus.

Reformed theologian, R. C. Sproul, explains that

“the title Christ is so often given to Jesus that people often mistake it for his last name. It is, however, not a name, but a title that refers to his position and work as Messiah. The term Christ comes from the Greek Christos, which is used to translate the Hebrew word for Messiah. Both Christ and Messiah mean ‘Anointed One'” (1992:103).

Arminian theologian, Henry C. Thiessen, in the mid twentieth-century wrote that the “son of man” name “is used prophetically of Christ in Dan. 7:13; cf. Matt. 16:28. That this name was regarded by the Jews as referring to the Messiah is evident from the fact that the high priest rent his garment when Christ applied this prophecy in Daniel to Himself (Matt. 26:64, 65) (Thiessen 1949:302).

Roman Catholic, Rev. Bertrand L. Conway, C.S.P, in his sermon, “Christ the true Messiah“, briefly expounded the Gospel passages that teach the orthodox doctrine of Christ, the Messiah. He “sketched the Gospel witness to the Messiahship of Jesus the Son of God. It is important for us to know it well, in view of the modern denial of the unbeliever, and the Jew”.

Orthodox Christian commentator, H. C. Leupold, regards Psalm 2 as a description of “the ultimate victory of the Lord’s anointed…. This psalm sets forth the basic truth concerning the Messiah and His kingdom” and gives due prominence to the Messianic truth, which looms large in the psalms” (1959:41). Leupold not only regards this psalm as “directly Messianic” but also “from beginning to end [it is] an out-and-out prophecy about the Christ” (42).

E. Conclusion

There have been heterodox and orthodox promotions regarding Christ, the Messiah, throughout the history of the church. The contemporary denigration of the Messiah is keeping pace with historical statements that date back almost two millennia.

Nevertheless, the orthodox doctrine of the Messiah, from predictive prophecy in the Old Testament, New Testament declaration, and the teaching of orthodoxy throughout church history, has been that Jesus Christ, whose incarnation is associated with the city of Nazareth, is the Messiah, the Anointed One. The Christos (Christ) is the Messiah (based on the Hebrew understanding of mashiach) and he shed his blood for the sins of the world as a vicarious atonement on the Golgotha cross in Jerusalem in approximately A. D. 30.

F. Works consulted

Arminius, J. 1977. The writings of James Arminius, vol. 1. Translated from the Latin by J. Nichols. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Blomberg, C. L. 1987. The historical reliability of the Gospels. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

Borg, M. J. 1994. Meeting Jesus again for the first time: The historical Jesus and the heart of contemporary faith. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Crossan, J. D. 1994. Jesus: A revolutionary biography. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Edersheim, A. 1971 (one vol. edn.). The life and times of Jesus the Messiah. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Grudem, W. 1994. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Hick, J. (ed) 1978. The myth of God incarnate. London: SCM.

Hurtado, L. W. 1991. Christ, in Green, J. B; McKnight S. & Marshall I. H. (eds), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 106-117. Downers Grove, Illinois/Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press.

Keathley III, J. H. n.d. The supremacy of the person of Christ (Col. 1:15-18). bible.org, Paul’s letter to the Colossians: An exegetical and devotional commentary. Available at: http://bible.org/seriespage/supremacy-person-christ-col-115-18#P848_264818 [Accessed 1 April 2010].

Layman, D. 2009, Is Jesus the Messiah? First Things (Spengler blogs) 22 August. Available at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/spengler/2009/08/22/is-jesus-the-messiah/ [Accessed 28 March 2010].

Leupold, H. C. 1959. Exposition of the Psalms. London: Evangelical Press.

Mack, B. L. 1993. The lost gospel: The book of Q & Christian origins. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Packer, J. I. 1984. Orthodoxy, in Elwell, W. A. (ed), Evangelical dictionary of theology, 808. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

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

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

Wood, L. 1973. A commentary on Daniel. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Notes:

[1] The Bible translation used is, The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (ESV) 2001. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles.

Easter: God’s solution to our greatest need (1 Peter 3:18)

(mega tsunami, Indonesia 2004, public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

1. Introduction

The deadliest tsunami of all time hit the Indian Ocean on 26th December 2004. “In the aftermath of the quake, resultant tsunami waves … killed over 280,000 people in towns and villages along the coast of the Indian Ocean. Over 3 million of survivors have [had] their livelihoods destroyed.”[1]

The death toll in the earthquake in Haiti was expected to be over 100,000 according to the Haitan Prime Minister.[2]

Is our greatest need to end all earthquakes and tidal waves of the enormity of tsunamis?

What about curing all paedophiles, all diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis C?

What about stopping war and violence around the world? If we could solve the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East, the Sudan, North Korea, would that provide the solution to our greatest need?

What about the tragedy of murder and suicide in our own country? What is the world’s greatest need? What is your greatest need?

I’d like to share a verse from Scripture with you that, if practised, would help to put an end to war, violence and sexual abuse. It helps us to understand why tsunamis, earthquakes and the September 11 2001 disaster happened.

It causes us to reflect on what is wrong with our world and what can be done about it. The verse I am referring to is: 1 Peter 3:18, “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit” (NIV).

The title of this message is: “Easter: God’s solution to our greatest need.”

This verse shows us what is wrong with our world and proclaims the solution. Here we see:

The greatest problem with our world;

The greatest need of individuals and our world.

And the solution to the greatest problem;

2. The greatest problem with our world

This verse uses two words that describe our greatest problem, but we don’t want to hear them. I don’t expect that you’ll hear them too often on the radio or TV. Some of you may object with me this morning for even mentioning them. But unless we understand the greatest problem, we will never know the greatest solution. If we don’t understand what is really wrong with our world, we won’t want to seek the best way to solve it.The greatest problem is NOT:

Osama Bin Laden[3] and Al-Qaeda[4],

the Americans and their Allies in Iraq; OR

paedophilia, murder and violence around the world.

These are symptoms of the greatest problem.

Those two words that spell out the greatest problem with our world from this verse are:

a. Sin, and

b. Unrighteousness

We don’t like to be told we are sinners, but if we don’t understand that every human being since the time of Adam and Eve has been born sinners, we won’t understand the solution.

What does it mean that we are sinners? Most of us think that the meaning is simple: We do wrong. That’s only part of the answer. Those of us with a long association with the church can easily rush over this greatest problem in the whole world. Briefly, let’s talk about

A. SIN

In this 1973 book by a secular Jewish psychiatrist, Karl Menninger, Whatever Became of Sin, he wrote this:

In all of the laments and reproaches made by our seers and prophets, one misses any mention of “sin,” a word which used to be a veritable watchword of prophets. It was a word once in everyone’s mind, but now rarely if ever heard. Does that mean that no sin is involved in all our troubles . . ? Is no one any longer guilty of anything? . . Anxiety and depression we all acknowledge, and even vague guilt feelings; but has no one committed any sins?[5]

Menninger says that “the sinful act” includes “an implicitly aggressive quality—a ruthlessness, a hurting, a breaking away from God and from the rest of humanity, a partial alienation, or act of rebellion. . . sin has a willful, defiant, or disloyal quality; someone is defiled or offended or hurt.”[6]

These are amazing statements from a secular psychiatrist. Karl Menninger pushed the boundaries of what is wrong with our city, our country, the world – what is wrong with you and me.

Our text agrees that the major problem is “sin.” SIN, with a big “I” in the middle.

Too often we think of “sin” as an act of wrongdoing like telling a lie, stealing, killing somebody, sexually abusing a child. Sin includes wrong actions such as those, BUT its fundamental understanding in the Scriptures is “a state of alienation from God. For the great prophets of Israel, sin is much more than the violation of “[7] something that is forbidden or breaking some external law.

Sin indicates a breaking “of a personal relationship with God, a betrayal of the trust he places in us.”[8] Here are a couple of examples.

Isa. 6:5, “‘Woe to me!’ I cried. ‘I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.'”

Luke 5:8, “When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, ‘Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!'”

The British evangelist, Michael Green, put it this way:

“What would you think of a doctor who, on discovering you had a tumor buried deep in your body, responded, ‘Take two aspirin and you’ll be just fine.’?

“How about a fireman who responded to the fire alarm by saying, ‘It’ll probably burn itself out soon enough,’ or a policeman who, on arriving at the scene of a robbery, merely shook his head and said, ‘Boys will be boys’!

“In each case the response is inappropriate to the situation. Is your response to sin also inappropriate.”[9]

Our greatest problem is not only that we are alienated from God, but that the sinful acts that come out of this alienation, flow from deep within all of us. Jeremiah put it as straight as you can get: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (ESV)

So, SIN is a state of alienation from God and this comes from deep within all of us.

And this SIN is associated with:

B. UNRIGHTEOUSNESS

What does it mean for all of us to be unrighteous? “Righteous” or “just” is based on the Hebrew word meaning “straight” or “right.” “The corresponding Greek term[10] in Greek society referred to that which is in accordance with law or social norm.”[11] For example, the God of Israel, asks, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25).

If righteous means to do what is right and in accordance with the law, what do you think unrighteousness might mean? The opposite: To fail to do what is correct and to do what is against the law.

Here’s the BIGGEST problem: We all are sinners by nature, alienated from God, and we DO what is wrong and against the law – against the law of God, against the law of the land, and even against the law of our own consciences.

Unless we understand the GREATEST problem, we will not grasp the GREATEST solution celebrated at Easter. We will not understand the wickedness in our world if we miss the meaning of these two words: SIN and UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.

That great British Baptist preacher of the 19th century, C. H. Spurgeon, often told this story:

“A cruel king called one of his subjects into his presence and asked him his occupation. The man responded, ‘I’m a blacksmith.’ The ruler then ordered him to go and make a chain of a certain length.

“The man obeyed, returning after several months to show it to the monarch. Instead of receiving praise for what he had done, however, he was instructed to make the chain twice as long.

“When that assignment was completed, the blacksmith presented his work to the king, but again was commanded, ‘Go back and double its length.’ This procedure was repeated several times. At last the wicked tyrant directed the man to be bound in the chains of his own making and cast into a fiery furnace.”[12]

We are like that cruel king because sin takes a dreadful toll in our lives. Rom. 6:23 says, “For the wages of sin is death. . .” In the verse we are considering in 1 Peter, it says, “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous.” Why was it necessary for the righteous one, Christ, to die for the sins of the unrighteous?

Since sin means we are alienated from God;
Since unrighteousness means that we do wrong and crooked things,
that tells us something about our greatest need. This verse from First Peter nails it:

3. Your greatest need . . .

is “to bring you to God.” Wait a minute, you might be saying: “I haven’t the faintest interest in God.” In fact, I’m of the Perry Como vintage and I believe “Love Makes the World God Round,” and my greatest need is LOVE. Or if you’re of the Madonna vintage, “Love [still] Makes the World Go Round.”

Just a moment folks. Who or what makes the world go round? Who is the one “who gives food to every creature. His love endures forever. Give thanks to the God of heaven. His love endures forever” (Ps. 136:25-26)?

There would be no understanding of “love” without the one whose love endures forever and the one who provides food for every creature, sends rain on the just and the unjust, and who sustains this world – in spite of its sin and unrighteousness.

We think our greatest need is love, human love. Our biggest need is not to deal with war, tsunamis, Sept. 11, cancer, crime, our job and our family.

God says that your greatest need is to be in fellowship with God himself – your greatest need is for somebody “to bring you to God.” The greatest issue is that we are cut off from Almighty God, our Creator and Sustainer.

If this greatest need and greatest problem are NOT solved, then the anger of God will rest on us and our eternity will be miserable.

Please understand what this would mean. If we were in fellowship, companionship, friendship, in love with the Lord of the Universe, we would not want to tear one another apart, violate one another, and do violence in our world. We would want to love as God loves.

You see, no matter whether you have been raised in deepest, darkest Africa or deepest, darkest Bundaberg, you know that God exists. How do I know? God tells us in Rom. 1:20, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (TNIV).

Deep down within you and me, our conscience convicts us of the existence of God. But we feel out of step with him. The Bible puts it that we are “alienated from God.” Augustine of Hippo, Northern Africa, was a sexually immoral man who indulged his passions in his youth, fathering an illegitimate child.[13] He eventually obtained a reputation to be called, St. Augustine, and described this alienation in the 4th century in his book, Confessions. In that book he wrote: “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you”.[14]

Our greatest need is for somebody who can bring us to God. We are rebels who don’t want anything to do with God but our greatest need is to be in relationship with the Lord God of the universe.

How can that happen? I’m glad you asked. That leads us to what this verse tells us about.

4. The greatest solution to our greatest need

If sin and doing wrong are our problems, we too often think of better security, more police, bigger prisons, tougher penalties, better parenting.

If you don’t understand the greatest problem with our world and reject the greatest need that we have, you won’t be interested in the greatest solution to our personal problems and the world’s problems.

A T Easter, we are directed to the greatest solution and it has nothing to do with police, prisons and security: “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit.”

These are the steps to the greatest solution.

Christ suffered for sins;

Christ, the righteous one suffered for us, the unrighteous;

Christ died on the cross and rose again from the dead.

A. Step One: Christ suffered for sins once for all; [15]

What’s the deal about Christ’s suffering “once for all”? Understand what happened for the Jews in the OT. If they wanted to be right before God and have their sins forgiven, “God set up a system by which the people of Israel could make atonement for their sins. To atone is to make amends, to set things right.”[16] God’s law was that “the high priest entered the Most Holy Place once a year to sprinkle blood [of animals] as an atonement for the sins of the people (Lev. 16:3-34: Heb. 9:7, 25).”[17] To set things right between the Jews and God, blood was sprinkled on the altar only once a year.

When Jesus Christ suffered on the cross, he provided the blood atonement, not once a year, but once for all people for all time, so there is no need to wait for this once a year sacrifice. You can set things right with God any day at any time because “Christ suffered for sins once for all” times. This is wonderful news of freedom from sin and easy access to God.

You might ask: “Why does any blood have to be shed? That sounds gruesome to me.” We need to understand that when it comes to dealing with sin and unrighteousness, we don’t set the rules. God does.

That’s step one from this verse: Christ suffered for sins once for all.

B. Step 2: Christ, the righteous one suffered for us, the unrighteous.

This is God’s justice in action. There are no unfair, unjust sentences with God.

When Peter was preaching to the Jews in the Temple at Jerusalem, according to Acts 3:14, he said, “You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you.” He was speaking of Christ, “the Holy and Righteous One.”

Jesus is “righteous.” He’s without sin. We are unrighteous – with sin deep within us and in the behaviour we do. How is it possible for us, the unrighteous, to enter the presence of the totally righteous and holy God?

This is how God does it. God set in place this wonderful solution to our greatest problem. This is how he says it in 2 Cor. 5:21, “God made him who had no sin to be sin [or a sin offering] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

So, what’s the effect of this? Simon Kistemaker summarised this beautifully when he wrote:

Jesus’ sacrificial death is to enable us to enter God’s presence. Jesus opens the way to the throne of God, introduces us to the Father, and re-establishes for us an intimate relationship with the Father. By removing sin as the cause of our alienation from God, Jesus provides access to God and makes us acceptable in his sight.[18]

This is what is means to be justified by faith – to be declared righteous before God. For all those who place their total trust in Jesus Christ by faith, they now have a friendly relationship with God, “are acceptable to him and have assurance that he is favorably disposed toward us.”[19]

The third step in this greatest of all solutions is:

C. Step 3: Christ did this by dying on the cross and rising again from the dead.

I Peter 3:18, “He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit.”

We must always keep these two actions together: Christ’s death and Christ’s resurrection.

The resurrection shows that God was satisfied with Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross. This means that God will be satisfied to have you, if you become a believer, in his presence because of Christ’s death and resurrection. We know that when Christ died on the cross that he continued to live in a new realm. How do we know that? To the repentant thief who was crucified alongside Christ on the cross, Jesus said, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).

Then Christ was resurrected three days later, transformed into a new “spiritual body” that didn’t have the limitations of his fleshly body.

God said a big YES to Christ’s death as a substitute for our sins by raising him from the dead.

5. Conclusion

Let’s pull this all together, based on 1 Peter 3:18. That verse again, “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit.“

a. The greatest problem with our world is not tsunamis, Sept. 11, crime, violence & sexual abuse. Our greatest problem is defined by two words that you probably won’t hear on TV tonight: SIN (a state of alienation from God) and UNRIGHTEOUSNESS (sinful actions that we do).

b. The greatest need of all people is not to solve the teenage rebellion or broken relations, to find peace in the Middle East, Iraq, the Sudan, or in downtown Bundaberg, but that greatest need is to deal with our alienation from God. How can we ever have a relationship with the holy, righteous God of the universe?

c. The greatest solution, that you won’t read in tomorrow’s newspaper, is found in 3 steps that are linked together:

First, Christ suffered for sins once for all;

Second, the righteous one suffered for us, the unrighteous;

Third, Christ did this by dying on the cross and rising again from the dead.

I would be remiss if I did not offer this challenge. This message is wasted if you do not respond.

How are you going to deal with the biggest problem you have – your sin and unrighteousness?
Since your greatest need is to be in relationship with God and you are alienated from him, what will you do about that today?
What’s the point of the greatest solution: Christ suffered for your sins, the righteous for the unrighteous by dying on the cross and rising again from the dead?
What’s the meaning of all this if you don’t repent of your sin and trust Christ alone as your Lord and Saviour?
How can you do that? The Bible says:

“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord” (Acts 3:19).

“Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12).

If you repent and receive Christ by faith, what will happen to you?

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (2 Cor. 5:17 TNIV).
Won’t you receive the greatest solution today? If you want to know more, please speak with me after the service.

Chuck Swindoll once said:

If our greatest need had been information,

God would have sent us an educator.

If our greatest need had been technology,

God would have sent us a scientist.

If our greatest need had been money,

God would have sent us an economist.

If our greatest need had been pleasure,

God would have sent us an entertainer.

But our greatest need was forgiveness,

So God sent us [the][20] Savior.[21]

Notes:

[1] Dr. T. Matthew Ciolek (ed.), “2004 tsunami disaster: Scholarly and factual analyses,” updated 22 January 2020, Asian Studies WWW Virtual Library, available at: http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/AsiaPages/Tsunami-Analyses.html [Accessed 23 January 2010].

[2] “Death toll in Haiti expected to be over 100,000 says Prime Minister”, Gather News, 13 January 2010, available at: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977993233&grpId=3659174697244816 [Accessed 23 January 2010].

[3] See “Osama Bin Laden”, Wikipedia, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden [Accessed 23 January 2010].

[4] “Al-Qaeda”, Wikipedia, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda [Accessed 23 January 2010].

[5] Karl Menninger 1973, Whatever Became of Sin, Bantam Books, New York, p. 15.

[6] Ibid., p. 22.

[7] D. G. Bloesch 1984, ‘Sin’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 1012.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Michael P. Green (ed.) 1982, Illustrations for Biblical Preaching, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 346.

[10] Dikaios.

[11] D. W. Diehl 1984, ‘Righteous’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 952.

[12] ‘Sin’s Deadly Wages’, Our Daily Bread, Saturday, December 28, 1996. Also available as Richard W. De Haan, ‘Sin’s Deadly Wages’, Sermonettes, available at: http://www.nccg.org/Sermonette-16.html [Accessed 23 January 2010].

[13] Earle E. Cairns 1954, 1981, Christianity through the Centuries (rev. & enl.), Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 146.

[14] Confessions of Saint Augustine, 1.1 (I have modernised the language), available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confessions.iv.html [Accessed 23 January 2010].

[15] Some of the following information is summarised and changed, but based on Pastor John Piper, May 18, 1997, Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota, “What is Baptism and Does It Save? 1 Peter 3:18-22,”, available at: http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper97/5-18-97.htm [Accessed 23 January 2010].

[16] R. C. Sproul 1992, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois, p. 173.

[17] Simon J. Kistemaker 1987, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and of the Epistle of Jude, Evangelical Press, Welwyn, Hertfordshire, p. 139.

[18] Ibid., p. 139.

[19] Thayer, p. 544, cited in Kistemaker, p. 139.

[20] The original said, “a”.

[21] Charles R. Swindoll 1998, Swindoll’s Ultimate Book of Illustrations & Quotes, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, p. 315.

Notes

Introduction

Infiltration of evangelical churches

Worldliness and contemporary Christian music

Is the origin of rock music worldly?

Contemporary Christian rock music is worldly

What do the Scriptures say?

Appendix 1: Comments from a CCM promoter

Notes

Germany:

The following are letters that I have sent to various newspapers on the fluoride issue. I have knowledge that some have not been published.

Letters to the editor: Fraser Coast Chronicle

Letters to the Editor, Brisbane Sunday Mail

Letters to the Editor, Sunraysia Daily (Mildura)

Letters to the Editor: Swan Hill Guardian

Notes:

A. Civic leaders & media must favour it.

1. Bias is the name of the game. Only present one side of the fluoride debate.

2. Censor opposing views

a. This letter was not published

b. “Fluoride debated” (my anti-fluoride letter)

c. “Fluoride clarification” (Michael Foley’s letter)

d. Dr. Connett’s reply to the News-Mail letters

B. World Health Organisation [WHO], government & professional bodies support water fluoridation.

1. World Health Organization (WHO) and Fluoride

2. Governments and fluoride

a. Brisbane’s Lord Mayor & fluoridation

b. The governments of Europe

c. What about the USA?

3. Professional bodies support water fluoridation.

C. Young children’s teeth removed through decay.

D. All the information for an informed decision.

E. Fluoride is not poisonous:

F. Water fluoridation better than fluoride tablets.

G. Fluoride is a health issue.

H. Water fluoridation is good for all people.

I. Children under age 8 benefit most.

J. Water fluoridation is not costly.

K. Water fluoridation is the most cost-effective way to reduce tooth decay.

L. Water fluoridation chemicals are not dangerous.

M. Fluoridated water & immediate effects.

N. Most dentists support fluoride.

O. Many studies show fluoride reduces cavities.

P. All water contains some fluoride.

Q. Unfluoridated areas with more teeth decay.

R. Legs will fall off & brown teeth.

S. How bad teeth look in North America & Europe.

T. If you don’t like fluoride, go & buy a water filter!

U. Fear tactics.

V. All major health bodies support fluoridation.

W. Logical fallacies & fluoride.

X. Harmful if too much drunk.

Recommended reading:

Notes

1. Introduction

2. The greatest problem with our world

A. SIN

B. UNRIGHTEOUSNESS

3. Your greatest need . . .

4. The greatest solution to our greatest need

A. Step One: Christ suffered for sins once for all; [15]

B. Step 2: Christ, the righteous one suffered for us, the unrighteous.

C. Step 3: Christ did this by dying on the cross and rising again from the dead.

5. Conclusion

Notes:

**d. Dr. Connett’s reply to the News-Mail letters**