What is the meaning of the literal interpretation of the Bible?

File:Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg

(image courtesy Wikipedia: A Bible handwritten in Latin, on display in Malmesbury Abbey, Wiltshire, England)

By Spencer D Gear

When I affirm that I support the literal interpretation of any document, whether that is the reading  of my local newspaper, the Brisbane Times, Shakespeare’s King Henry the Fourth (which I studied in high school), or the Bible, it is not uncommon to get the following kind of reaction. It normally comes when I support a literal understanding of my reading of the Bible. Here goes with an example from an online forum where I contribute:

So you take EVERYTHING in the Bible literally? Balaam’s donkey really talked? Really? Really? REALLY??

‘Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood‘?clip_image001[1]

[2]With this kind of statement, she has told me a great deal of what she thinks ‘literal’ means but she has created a straw man fallacy in respect to my views. Her understanding is a far cry from my view.

What is a literal meaning of a text?

When I was an MA student in Ashland Theological Seminary, I used A Berkeley Mickelsen’s (1963) text in hermeneutics (biblical interpretation). Mickelsen provided this definition:

‘Literal’ … means the customarily acknowledged meaning of an expression in its particular context. For example, when Christ declared that he was the door, the metaphorical meaning of ‘door’ in that context would be obvious. Although metaphorical, this obvious meaning is included in the literal meaning (Mickelsen 1963:33).

This is the method of interpretation that I use to read her post (and all posts on that Christian forum) and the Bible.

Bernard Ramm, another promoter of orthodox, historical, cultural and literal biblical hermeneutics,  wrote:

We use the word “literal” in its dictionary sense: “. . . the natural or usual construction and implication of a writing or expression; following the ordinary and apparent sense of words; not allegorical or metaphorical” (Webster’s New International Dictionary). We also use it in its historical sense, specifically, the priority that Luther and Calvin gave to literal, grammatical, or philological exegesis of Scripture in contrast to the Four Fold Theory of the Roman Catholic scholars (historical meaning, moral meaning, allegorical meaning, eschatological meaning) developed during the Middle Ages and historically derived from Augustine’s Three Fold Theory. It was particularly the allegorical use of the Old Testament that the Reformers objected to, and the manner in which Roman Catholic dogma was re-enforced by allegorical interpretation. Hence the “literal” directly opposes the “allegorical”
.

The accusation so frequent in current theological literature that Fundamentalism is a literalism is not at all what we have in mind when we use the word “literal.” The word is ambiguous. To some scholars the word “literal” means “letterism” and this is really what they mean when they say Fundamentalists are literalists. Ordinarily we think that the word “bear” means an animal in its literal sense; and that a speculator in the stock market who is called a “bear” is a bear by metaphor. But if the population uses the word “bear” three times more frequently for the stock speculator than for the animal then the literal meaning of “bear” is the stock speculator
.

When we assert that the literal meaning of a word or a sentence is the basic, customary, socially designated meaning we do not underestimate the complexity of language
. The spiritual, mystical, allegorical, or metaphorical usages of language reflect layers of meaning built on top of the literal meanings of a language. To interpret Scripture literally is not to be committed to a “wooden literalism,” nor to a “letterism,” nor to a neglect of the nuances that defy any “mechanical” understanding of language. Rather, it is to commit oneself to a starting point and that starting point is to understand a document the best one can in the context of the normal, usual, customary, tradition range of designation which includes “tacit” understanding (Ramm 1970:119-121)

Bernard Ramm cited Thomas Hartwell Horne (AD 1780–1862),[3] British theologian and researcher, who wrote what Ramm described as ‘a very excellent definition of what is meant by literal in literal interpretation’ (Ramm 1970:121, emphasis in original). Horne’s words about literal interpretation were:

Although in every language, there are very many words which admit of several meanings, yet in common parlance, there is only one true sense attached to any word; which sense is indicated by the connection and series of the discourse, by its subject-matter, by the design of the speaker or writer, or by some other adjuncts, unless any ambiguity be purposely intended. That the same usage obtains in the Sacred Writings there is no doubt whatever. In fact, the perspicuity of the Scriptures requires this unity and simplicity of sense in order to render intelligible to man the design of their Great Author, which could never be comprehended if a multiplicity of senses were permitted. In all other writings, indeed, besides the Scriptures, before we sit down to study them, we expect to find one single determinate sense and meaning attached to the words; from which we may be satisfied that we have attained their true meaning, and what the authors intended to say. Further, in common life, no prudent and conscientious person, who commits his sentiments to writing or utters anything, intends that a diversity of meanings should be attached to what he writes or says; and, consequently, neither his readers, nor those who hear him, affix to it any other than the true and obvious sense. Now, if such be the practice in all fair and upright intercourse between man and man, is it for a moment to be supposed that God, who has graciously vouchsafed to employ the ministry of men in order to make known his will to mankind, should have departed from this way of simplicity and truth? Few persons, we apprehend, will be found in this enlightened age, sufficiently hardy to maintain the affirmative (Horne 1841:322; emphasis in original).

Then Horne defined the literal sense as it applied to Scripture:

The Literal Sense of any place of Scripture is that which the words signify, or require, in their natural and proper acceptation, without any trope [a figure of speech], metaphor, or figure, and abstracted from mystic meaning
. The literal sense has been called the Historical Sense, as conveying the meaning of the words and phrases used by the writer at a certain time
.

Interpreters now speak of the true sense of a passage, by calling it the Grammatico-Historical Sense
. The object in using this compound name is, to show that both grammatical and historical considerations are employed in making out the sense of a word or passage (Horne 1841:323; emphasis in original).

We have similar meanings for understanding a literal meaning of Scripture from Thomas Horne in the early nineteenth century, Mickelsen in 1963, Ramm in 1970 and with a contemporary promoter of a literal interpretation of Scriptures in Mal Couch who wrote:

A normal reading of Scripture is synonymous with a consistent literal, grammatico-historical hermeneutic.  When a literal hermeneutic is applied to the interpretation of Scripture, every word written in Scripture is given the normal meaning it would have in its normal usage.  Proponents of a consistent, literal reading of Scripture prefer the phrase a normal reading of Scripture to establish the difference between literalism and letterism (Crouch 2000:33, emphasis in original). 

J I Packer related hermeneutics and theological perspective:

J. I. Packer

J I Packer (photo courtesy InterVarsity Press)

The truth is that ever since Karl Barth linked his version of Reformation teaching on biblical authority with a method of interpretation that at key points led away from Reformation beliefs, hermeneutics has been the real heart of the ongoing debate about Scripture. Barth was always clear that every theology stands or falls as a hermeneutic and every hermeneutic stands or falls as a theology (Packer 1992:325).

However, Packer does see an interaction taking place between the interpreter and the text. It is not that of postmodern deconstruction, but he acknowledged that for both evangelicals and liberals, the text and interpreter have mutual impact on each other. He wrote:

A major insight is focused by what Gadamer, following Heidegger, says of horizons[4] . The insight is that at the heart of the hermeneutical process there is between the text and the interpreter a kind of interaction in which their respective panoramic views of things, angled and limited as these are, ‘engage’ or ‘intersect’ – in other words, appear as challenging each other in some way. What this means is that as the student questions the text he becomes aware that the text is also questioning him, showing him an alternative to what he took for granted, forcing him to rethink at fundamental level and make fresh decisions as to how he will act henceforth, not that he has realized that some do, and he himself could, approach things differently. Every interpreter needs to realize that he himself stands in a given historical context and tradition, just as his text does, and that only as he becomes aware of this can he avoid reading into the text assumptions from his own background that would deafen him to what the text itself has to say to him (Packer 1992:338-339; emphasis in original).

Melissa has imposed on my understanding of a post that I made to the Forum, a wooden literalism that really is a false view of my view of hermeneutics of the Bible. Thus she has used a straw man logical fallacy in presenting a false perspective of my approach to biblical interpretation. I suggest that it would have been better to pursue my view of hermeneutics, asking questions of me regarding definition and exposition of hermeneutics, rather than imposing what she thought I meant.

J I Packer has a realistic explanation of my view in ‘The Interpretation of Scripture‘. The plain, normal meaning of the text, whether it be reading Shakespeare, the Brisbane Times, or the Bible is what I use and Melissa’s words want to attribute a wooden literalism to my understanding. This is a false view.

What about the talking donkey? Isn’t that an ass of an idea?

(photo courtesy Wikipedia)

What about Balaam’s donkey talking? Isn’t that a stupid, ridiculous, nincompoop idea that Christians support and promote? That’s what some have said to me and in even more blasphemous, profane, anti-God sentiments!

But doesn’t this get down to one’s view of God?

Since the Lord God who created the universe out of nothing and raised Jesus from the dead, is the God of absolute omnipotence perfectly capable of doing what he chooses to do that is consistent with his nature? Therefore, we need to seriously consider what the Scriptures state. If one has an anti-supernaturalist perspective (presupposition), there is no way that you will want to consider the speaking donkey as one of God’s supernatural miracles.

This is what the Scripture says concerning Balaam and the speaking donkey – for a detailed description of the incident with Balaam’s donkey talking, see Numbers 22:22-41 (ESV). The specifics of the speaking donkey are:

26 Then the angel of the Lord went ahead and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left. 27 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, she lay down under Balaam. And Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he struck the donkey with his staff. 28 Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” 29 And Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have made a fool of me. I wish I had a sword in my hand, for then I would kill you.” 30 And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Is it my habit to treat you this way?” And he said, “No.”

31 Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand. And he bowed down and fell on his face. 32 And the angel of the Lord said to him, “Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out to oppose you because your way is perverse[a] before me. 33 The donkey saw me and turned aside before me these three times. If she had not turned aside from me, surely just now I would have killed you and let her live.” 34 Then Balaam said to the angel of the Lord, “I have sinned, for I did not know that you stood in the road against me. Now therefore, if it is evil in your sight, I will turn back.” 35 And the angel of the Lord said to Balaam, “Go with the men, but speak only the word that I tell you.” So Balaam went on with the princes of Balak (Numbers 22:26-35 ESV).

Ronald Allen has noted in his commentary on Numbers 22:21-28,

We see the prophet Balaam as a blind seer, seeing less than the dumb animal. In this graphic representation of Balaam pitted against the donkey, we also see a more important contrast, as Goldberg avers, the contrast of Balaam and Moses. The long shadow of Moses falls across the pages of the Balaam story even though Moses is never named once. Moses spoke face to face with God [see Numbers chapter 12]. Balaam does not even know that God is near—but his donkey does!

This section is the ultimate in polemics against paganism. It is well known that the ass has been depicted from the earliest times as a subject of stupidity and contrariness. Yet here the “stupid” ass sees the angel of the Lord and attempts to protect her rider from God’s drawn sword. Three times the hapless Balaam beat his donkey.

Then the donkey spoke (v.28). Some have imagined too much here. The donkey did not give a prophetic oracle; she merely said what a mistreated animal might say to an abusive master if given the chance. There was no preaching from the donkey! Others have stumbled at the improbability of an animal speaking, for such is the stuff of fairy tales. What keeps this story from the genre of legend or fairy tale is the clear factor that the animal did not speak of its own accord but as it was given the power to do so by the Lord. Only an exceedingly limited view of God would deny him the ability to open the mouth of a dumb animal; such an objection should lead one to a rereading of Job 40 – 41.

Noth observes that the speaking of the ass is not particularly stressed but is an integral part of the story and is attributed to a miracle on the part of the Lord, “which indicates how directly and unusually Yahweh acted in this affair of blessing or curse for Israel” (p. 179). The speaking of the donkey is affirmed by the NT (2 Peter 2:16), a genuine element in the righteous acts of the Lord. It is not that this miracle is the focus of the text; it is not. It is just an amazingly humorous way to humiliate the prophet Balaam. Before the Lord revealed himself to Balaam, he first “got his attention” in this dramatic fashion. Balaam had to learn from a donkey before he could learn from God. This is one of the most amusing stories in the Bible (Allen 1990:891-892, emphasis added).

Therefore, the answer to the doubting Melissa and all others who doubt the credibility and authenticity of God’s using a speaking donkey to get through to Balaam, is: It is your extraordinarily low view of God that causes you to deny God, the Omnipotent One’s, ability to speak through a dumb animal – and an ass at that.

I invite you to read carefully Job 40-41.

Melissa is imposing on Scripture her anaemic understanding of God who cannot perform supernatural events – including speaking through an ass!

Works consulted

Allen, R B 1990. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 2, 655-1008. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library (Zondervan Publishing House).

Couch, M 2000 (gen ed). An introduction to classical evangelical hermeneutics: A guide to the history and practice of biblical interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.

Farrar, A S & Lardner, N 2009-2010. Horne, Thomas Hartwell (online), Library of historical apologetics. Available at: http://historicalapologetics.org/horne-thomas-hartwell/ (Accessed 23 September 2013).

Horne, T H 1841.[5] An introduction to the critical study and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (online), 8th edn, vol 1. Philadelphia: J Whetham & Son. Part of it is available as a Google Book HERE  (Accessed 23 September 2013).

Mickelsen, A B 1963. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Packer, J I 1992. Infallible Scripture and the role of hermeneutics, in Carson, D A & Woodbridge, J D (eds) Scripture and truth, 321-356, 412-419. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books / Carlisle, Cumbria, United Kingdom: Paternoster Press.

Ramm, B 1970. Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics, 3rd rev ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Notes:

[1] Melissa #71, Christian Fellowship Forum, The Fellowship Hall, ‘Dumb Dr. Lyn’, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=71&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=122328 (Accessed 19 September 2013). I had supplied Melissa with this link to an article by creationist, John Morris, on flood stories.

[2] This is my response as ozspen #72, ibid.

[3] Thomas Horne’s lifespan dates and other biographical details are from Farrar & Lardner (2009-2010).

[4] Packer footnotes his edition of Gadamer as pp. 217ff (Packer 1992:415, n. 44). However, a discussion of Gadamer’s understanding of the concept of ‘horizon’ is in my edition of Gadamer (2004:301-305).

[5] Volume 1 of this writing was first published in 1818 and the last and eighth edition was published in 1840-1841 (Farrar & Lardner 2009-2010).

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 21 May 2016.

‘As for me, I have come to Scripture with a totally bias-free approach’.

Spencer D Gear

Foolish Reply

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

Can you imagine anyone with such a naĂŻve approach to Scripture as stated in the title of this article? Well, I met one in an online Christian forum. He responded to one of my exegetical explanations of 1 John 2:29. He wrote:

Many thanks for the clarification [exegesis of 1 John 2:29]… but, to be honest, it’s all so obvious that no one should need to understand the ins and outs of the Greek to see the truth.
God never intended for anything to be that deep anyway!
Salvation is mostly for the poor, needy, desperate, hungry and thirsty soul who is below average in everything (and hence hurting) … and I suppose Scriptural proof will be required for this as well.
God intended that Scripture, and the Holy Spirit inside, would suffice very nicely indeed.
For those who have not been brainwashed with false doctrine, that is.
As for me, I have come to Scripture with a totally bias-free approach.
Try it, everyone, you might like it.[1]

My response was: ‘Not one of us comes to Scripture with a ‘totally bias-free approach’. All of us have our presuppositions that we bring to the text. For some of us, those presuppositions are challenged with the provision of extra evidence from the biblical text that we might not have seen before and then we change our view’.[2]

How do you think that a person who supposes he does not have bias-free presuppositions would respond when challenged about this? This is how he came back, even though it was very brief: ‘Please enlighten me with one of my so-called suppositions. Like, there is a God? Oh, wow … thanks’.[3]

What is a presupposition?

A presupposition is a phenomenon by which speakers or writers mark linguistically the information that is ‘taken for granted, rather than being part of the main propositional content of a speech act. Expressions and constructions carrying presuppositions are called “presupposition triggers”, forming a large class including definites[4] and factive verbs’[5] (Beaver & Geurts 2011).

Anthony Thiselton considered that the term presupposition ‘conveys the impression of rooted beliefs and doctrines which are not only cognitive and conceptual, but which also can only be changed and revised with pain, or at least with difficulty. Neither element is necessarily involved in [using the term] “horizon”’ (Thiselton 1992:45; emphasis in original). He prefers the term ‘horizon’, explaining that ‘every reader brings a horizon of expectation to the text. This is a mind-set, or system of references, which characterizes the reader’s finite viewpoint amidst his or her situatedness in time and history’. He emphasised that ‘patterns of habituation in the reader’s attitudes, experiences, reading-practices, and life, define and strengthen his or her horizon of expectation’. His perspective is that it is easier to change a horizon because a text ‘can surprise, contradict, or even reverse such a horizon of expectation’ (Thiselton 1992:34).

The Christian-based linguistics organisation, SIL International, defines a presupposition as ‘background belief, relating to an utterance’ that (1) must be known by both the speaker and addressee to be considered appropriate in a given context; (2) will be a necessary assumption for an utterance, whether the form is an assertion, denial or question; and (3) it generally can ‘be associated with a specific lexical item or grammatical feature (presupposition trigger) in the utterance’ (SIL International 2004).

Presuppositions uncovered

I decided that the best way to do this was to take quotes from this person’s posts in this Christian Forums’ thread and try to expose his presuppositions. Here is what I discovered:[6]

I have taken the following numbers (identified as #) from your posts to uncover some of your presuppositions which you think that you do not have.

clip_image002_thumb#1, ‘May I suggest this for securing your eternal life?‘[7]
Presupposition: It is possible to secure a person’s eternal life.

clip_image002_thumb#1: ‘The Christian is responsible for maintaining his imputed righteousness! …
“… whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.” (Acts 10:35)‘.[8]
Presupposition: Imputed righteousness can be maintained by Christians through works of righteousness.

clip_image002_thumb#1: ‘Too many people just cannot handle the powerful threats contained in the warnings!‘[9]
Presupposition: There are threats against salvation contained in the warning passages.

clip_image002_thumb#1: ‘Dunno, maybe this is the most important part of practicing righteousness: the sincere repentance of sin.’[10]
Presupposition: The uncertainty of sincere repentance of sin needed as the most important part of practising righteousness.

clip_image002_thumb#3: ‘FYI, the grace boy messed up again … he meant to say … you have abandoned trusting in Jesus’ righteousness’.[11]
Presupposition: To obtain righteousness, one must trust in Jesus’ righteousness.

clip_image002_thumb#9: ‘IMO, your idea of most people being someone’s employee/slave is incorrect’.[12]
Presupposition: In the first century, most people were not someone’s employee/slave.

clip_image002_thumb#10: ‘no one should need to understand the ins and outs of the Greek to see the truth’.[13]
Presupposition: To understand an English translation of the Greek NT, one does not need to understand the grammar of Greek to understand the truth of what is written. A translated language gives the truth and it is not necessary for anyone to know the original language.

clip_image002_thumb#10: ‘God never intended for anything to be that deep anyway!’[14]
Presupposition: God never intended for the NT to provide deep knowledge and understanding for anyone.

clip_image002_thumb#10: ‘Salvation is mostly for the poor, needy, desperate, hungry and thirsty soul who is below average in everything (and hence hurting)’.[15]
Presupposition: Salvation is mostly necessary and provided for the poor.

clip_image002_thumb#10: ‘and I suppose Scriptural proof will be required for this as well’.[16]
Presupposition: Others may require Scriptural proof for a statement, but I don’t believe it is necessary.

clip_image002_thumb#10: ‘God intended that Scripture, and the Holy Spirit inside, would suffice very nicely indeed. For those who have not been brainwashed with false doctrine, that is’.[17]
Presuppositions: All that is needed to obtain Christian doctrine is the English Scripture and the Holy Spirit’s internal ministry. Scripture and the Holy Spirit’s ministry will be no good for those brainwashed by false doctrine. It is possible for a person to be brainwashed by false doctrine.

clip_image002_thumb#10: ‘As for me, I have come to Scripture with a totally bias-free approach. Try it, everyone, you might like it’.[18]
Presupposition: It is possible to go to the Scriptures with no presuppositions – a bias-free approach’.

clip_image002_thumb#14: ‘Please correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the verbs connected with the most important aspects of salvation, e.g. believe, in the continual sense?’[19]
Presuppositions: If I’m uncertain about the original languages behind the NT, I ask someone else about the meaning of the English language. There are some more and some less important aspects about salvation.

clip_image002_thumb#14: ‘A favorite example of mine … We are sanctified (set apart) one time, as in positional sanctification, and we are being sanctified (continually), as in progressive sanctification’.[20]
Presupposition: I have favourite examples of how there are differences in the uses of language in the NT in dimensions of salvation and this includes positional sanctification and progressive salvation.

clip_image002_thumb#19: ‘Please enlighten me with one of my so-called suppositions. Like, there is a God? Oh, wow … thanks’.[21]
Presupposition: When it comes to the Bible, I do not have presuppositions but OzSpen thinks I have. I can be cynical about the charge that I have suppositions because it is false – deserving a ‘wow’ and ‘thanks’ response.

Discovering more objective ways to identify presuppositions

Who am I?

ChristArt

How can one be as objective as possible in uncovering a writer’s or speaker’s presuppositions? The tendency is for presuppositions to be unspoken, even though they involve values that direct a person’s life. An excellent model for identifying presuppositions in an objective manner can be found in David Beaver and Burt Geurts article, ‘Presuppositions’ in the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Beaver & Geurts 2011).[22]

Examples of ‘triggers’ of this model for identifying presuppositions are here stated. Lexical dimension have been agreed by philosophers and linguists as examples of some of these presupposition triggers. They include: Factives, aspectual verbs, temporal clauses that begin with conjunctions such as before, after or since, manner adverbs, sortally restricted predicates of various categories, cleft sentences, quantifiers, definite descriptions, names, and intonation. Please refer to the Beaver & Geurts (2011) article online for examples of these triggers.

While I have prepared explanations and examples of these kinds of presuppositions, they cannot be shared here as the dissertation is in process.

Conclusion

It is an exaggerated claim, without foundation, that ‘as for me, I have come to Scripture with a totally bias-free approach’.[23] Everyone has a world and life view and in that view there are values that are accepted as true, without demonstration. These are part of an understanding of the nature of presuppositions.

In closing, Michael Lockridge’s comments are appropriate in summarising the nature of presuppositions and how they impact on everyone’s world and life view. He wrote:

Presuppositions are the foundation of any world view, and editing them is frightening and often difficult. Conflict between any individual’s world view and the new and expanded reality they might come to experience can be traumatic and even catastrophic. A defensive response is natural, and getting past such a response requires an act of the will. It is a matter of choosing presuppositions from which to operate
.

In order to interact with our world, it is necessary to believe certain things. Some fundamental beliefs need not be formally structured or even articulated. Other living things interact with the world around them, exhibiting the “belief” that those things experienced in the world are real and significant. Again, not necessarily articulated
.

Humans have a capacity to think about and articulate their choices. This capacity seems to vary considerably from human to human, but they do have this capacity and act on it to varying degrees. Temperament can be a factor in defining presuppositions, and experiences can define and redefine presuppositions for many humans. It is a necessarily complex process in a relatively complex creature (Lockridge 2010).

My own presuppositions are articulated in articles on my homepage, Truth Challenge. Some of my personal, primary presuppositions are:

  • The Lord God Almighty, creator of the heavens and earth, exists.
  • God is the one and only true God who is one God in three persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
  • He has revealed himself in the Christian Scriptures, the Bible.
  • The Christian Scriptures are inerrant in the original manuscripts.
  • To understand Scripture and nature, God has given human beings logical, reasoning abilities, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
  • Scriptures are interpreted through a historical-cultural-grammatical understanding of the culture of the time and knowledge of the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek.
  • Jesus Christ’s substitutionary atonement provided salvation for all who will repent and believe in Christ alone. Eternal salvation is provided only through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

Works consulted:

Beaver, D I & Geurts, B 2011. Presupposition, in Zalta, E N (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (online), Summer. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/presupposition/ (Accessed 22 September 2013).

Lockridge, M 2010.[24] Presuppositions, in Philosophy on purpose (blog online), 8 March. Available at: http://philosophyonpurpose.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/presuppositions.html (Accessed 22 September 2013).

SIL International 2004. What is a presupposition? (online). Available at: http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAPresupposition.htm (Accessed 22 September 2013).

Thiselton, A C 1992. New horizons in hermeneutics: The theory and practice of transforming biblical reading. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Notes:

[1] Extraordinary#10, Christian Forums, General Theology, Soteriology, ‘May I suggest this for security your eternal life’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7775405/ (Accessed 22 September 2013, emphasis added).

[2] OzSpen#12, ibid.

[3] Extraordinary#19, ibid.

[4] The term ‘definites’ is meant to convey the placing of limits or boundaries on anything. A definite is the antithesis of being imprecise or vague.

[5] A factive verb affirms the truth of the following statement or clause. An example is, ‘I know that Crossan’s view on the use of redaction by New Testament authors is correct’. ‘Know’ is the factive verb. However, sometimes a comparative meaning can be expressed with, ‘This is Crossan’s view
.’, or some other sentence, where ‘is’ functions as the factive.

[6] OzSpen#26, ibid.

[7] Extraordinary#1, ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Extraordinary#3, ibid.

[12] Extraordinary#9, ibid.

[13] Extraordinary#10, ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Extraordinary#14, ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Extraordinary#19, ibid.

[22] This model is being used by the author of this article in writing his PhD dissertation in New Testament with a major university.

[23] Extraordinary #10, op cit.

[24] At the time of writing this article, Michael Lockridge, stated, ‘I am currently 59 years old. At present I am a retired correctional officer with 20 years of service’ and he lived in Medford, Oregon, USA (Lockridge 2010).

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 3 November 2015.

What does it mean to shipwreck your faith?

Edit Post

Spencer D Gear

clip_image002

Maheno shipwreck (photo 2007), Fraser Island,

off the Queensland coast (about 3 hours north of Brisbane)

Courtesy Wikipedia

clip_image004

The New Zealand hospital ship Maheno (before the wreck)

Courtesy Wikipedia

In the controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism it is not unusual to read or hear a back and forth about the ability or inability to lose eternal salvation through Christ. Since Calvinists believe that a person, once genuinely saved, cannot lose salvation, it is common to hear language like this:

clip_image006 ‘It is my opinion, and I stress opinion, that it is not possible to lose one’s salvation’ (CARM).

clip_image006[1]’56 Bible Verses about Losing Your Salvation’ (OpenBible.info)

One set of verses often raised about losing salvation is, First Timothy 1:18-20, which states,

18 This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, 20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme (ESV).

In commenting on these verses, one Calvinist wrote, ‘Did Paul say that they lost their salvation?’[1]

My response was:

So what does ‘shipwreck of their faith mean’? The Maheno ship wreck on the shores of Fraser Island (about 3 hours north of Brisbane on the Pacific Ocean coast) is useless, wrecked as a viable ship.

Is a shipwrecked faith viable or not to enter the sea of eternal life? Or is shipwrecked faith as useless as the Maheno as a ship in the Pacific Ocean?[2]

clip_image008

(courtesy ChristArt)

The reply from this person was:

‘This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme’ (1 Timothy 1:18-20 NASB).

It would appear that Paul has I’m (sic) mind correction for these two. Not because they lost their salvation, but because they are not acting in the right manner. Paul is hoping that they will be corrected (taught).[3]

[4]Paul has a motivation to deal with ‘keeping faith and a good conscience’ or ‘holding faith and a good conscience’ (ESV). In context this is faith in the prophecies (apostolic teaching?) he had received.

What had Hymenaeus and Alexander done to ‘shipwreck’ their faith? Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon gives the meaning of this word from apwthew as ‘reject, repudiate’ (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:102). Therefore Lenski’s commentary, based on the Greek, concludes that

they got so far away from the apostolic prophecies that they did even what is here stated regarding their conscience and their faith. Paul himself had dealt with two of them, and when he held up to them the prophecies, i. e., the apostolic gospel teaching, and thereby tried to reach their conscience he found that they had actually thrust all good conscience away and had thereby lost their faith altogether. The true gospel teaching no longer made an impression on them, it had been smothered by their myths, etc (Lenski 1937:532-533).

The consequence for Hymenaeus and Alexander was that Paul has them ‘handed over to Satan’. What this means exactly has been the cause of much debate. However, it seems evident that these two men no longer have a good conscience and faith, so it seems that Paul means that these two are, according to exegete, Gordon Fee, ‘”put back into Satan’s sphere,” outside the church and the fellowship of God’s people…. Paul expects by such an “excommunication” they will “be caught not to blaspheme”‘ (Fee 1988:59).

What ‘blaspheme’ means here is not certain but there are hints in context. In 1:13 Paul says of his life before Christ, ‘formerly I was a blasphemer’ and in 6:4 he states that ‘slander’ (ESV) or ‘malicious talk’ (NIV) that come out of ‘a different doctrine’ (ESV) or ‘false doctrines’ (NIV). However the word is blasphemiai (i.e. blasphemies). This is from a list of what happens as a result of false teachers who had ‘an unhealthy craving for controversy’ (6:4 ESV).

Thus handing over to Satan seems to be an action of excommunication because they had rejected God’s grace for salvation and had pursued the arguments of the false teachers. It seems that Timothy was in Ephesus to deal with the false doctrine that was being perpetrated by false teachers and this was leading people away from the faith.

How would he respond? It was predictable for a Calvinist: ‘So you don’t think that they were apostate, right?’[5] To which I responded, ‘False! They had rejected, repudiated their faith. That’s what the Greek word means!’[6]

File:Wreck of the Central America.jpg

An artists rendition of the 1857 shipwreck (the Central America).

 Courtesy Wikimedia Commons

To another person, he wrote: ‘It still says nothing of them losing their salvation’.[7] To which I replied,[8] ‘Yes it does! That’s the meaning of ‘shipwrecked’, based on the Greek exegesis.

What had Hymenaeus and Alexander done to ‘shipwreck’ their faith. Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon gives the meaning of this word from apwthew as ‘reject, repudiate’ (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:102).

Therefore Lenski’s commentary, based on the Greek, concludes that

they got so far away from the apostolic prophecies that they did even what is here stated regarding their conscience and their faith. Paul himself had dealt with two of them, and when he held up to them the prophecies, i. e., the apostolic gospel teaching, and thereby tried to reach their conscience he found that they had actually thrust all good conscience away and had thereby lost their faith altogether. The true gospel teaching no longer made an impression on them, it had been smothered by their myths, etc. (Lenski 1937:532-533).

Faith that is shipwrecked is faith that has been repudiated, rejected. It couldn’t be clearer, based on the Greek etymology.

To shipwreck one’s faith is to abandon/repudiate the faith, reject the faith. This is similar to the message given in Hebrews 6:4-6,

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt (ESV).

For my lengthy exegesis and exposition, see: ‘Once Saved, Always Saved or Once Saved, Lost Again? (an exposition of Hebrews 6:4-6)’.

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

See also:

clip_image012 Conversations with a Calvinist on apostasy;

clip_image012[1] Is the Holy Spirit’s seal a guarantee of eternal security?

clip_image012[2] Is prevenient grace still amazing grace?

clip_image012[3] What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

clip_image012[4] Does God want everyone to receive salvation?

clip_image012[5] Does God’s grace make salvation available to all people?

This writer is convinced that it is possible to lose salvation if a person commits apostasy by repudiating the Christian faith. However, there are many fine Christians on both sides of this debate – Arminians and Calvinists.

clip_image010

(courtesy ChristArt)

Works consulted

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

Fee, G D 1988. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (New International Biblical Commentary). Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

Lenski, R C H 1937. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St. Paul’s epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc.

Notes:

[1] Hammster #25, Christian Forums, Baptists, ‘Saved only by grace’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7773567-3/ (Accessed 14 September 2013).

[2] OzSpen #32, ibid.

[3] Hammster #34, ibid.

[4] This is my reply as OzSpen #39, ibid.

[5] Hammster #41, ibid.

[6] OzSpen #43, ibid.

[7] Hammster #37, ibid.

[8] OzSpen #42, ibid.

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 7 March 2018.

clip_image014clip_image014[1]clip_image014[2]clip_image014[3]clip_image014[4]clip_image014[5]clip_image014[6]clip_image014clip_image014[1]clip_image014[2]clip_image014[3]clip_image014[4]clip_image014[5]clip_image014[6]clip_image014clip_image014[1]clip_image014[2]clip_image014[3]

Interested in low interest rates? Try apologetics in the local church!

Full Trust

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

I was in a discussion on a Christian forum on the question, ‘Is Jesus God?’ A fellow responded:

I have the Bible to do that. If they don’t believe the Bible why woud (sic) they believe what some man says? You and I cannot convince anyone that Jesus was God. Only God’s Holy Spirit can lead people into the truth.[1]

Why was the ministry of apologetics dismissed in this response?

Our pluralistic world

I responded as follows:[2]

We live in a world that also has the Muslim Quran, the Hindu Vedas, the Book of Mormon, etc. How are you going to convince people that they ought to listen to the Gospel from the Bible?

The Mormons speak of a ‘burning in the bosom’ that awakened them to the ‘truths’ of Mormonism. How will you convince them that the Holy Spirit leading you into the truth is different from the burning in the bosom and that you have the truth?

Just believe

How would this person reply to such content?

I can’t convince them. It is not my job to convince gthem [sic]. If given the opportunity all I can do is tell them what I believie [sic] and why I believe it.  Then they are God’s problem
.

All one can do with Mormons is show them where some things in the other writings, the BOM for example, contradict the Bible and wher [sic] some of the prophecies of past leaders did not happen.

Again I canot [sic] convince them of anything. All I can do is tell them wht [sic] I believe and why I beleive [sic] it. Then it is up to God.

I am in sales not management.[3]

This is an example of why the church is in such a sorry state with its ministry of pre-evangelism, known as apologetics. This ‘just believe’ mentality that it is not the Christian’s responsibility to convince anyone of the Gospel and to clear up difficulties with the Gospel, is expressed here as, ‘all I can do is tell them what I believe and why I believe it’ and the rest ‘is up to God’. This ‘just believe’ mentality is very damaging to the Christian’s and the church’s responsibility to exercise the ministry of apologetics when people have objections to the Christian faith.

It is also damaging to the promotion of thinking Christianity. Why are Christians required to ‘be transformed by the renewal of your mind’ (Rom 12:2) if they are not required to do some biblical thinking and living in the real world?

The problem with ‘only believe’ and apologetics

My response was as follows.[4] The problem with this fellow’s comeback is that it contradicts a command of Scripture, which is the primary reason for doing apologetics with people who have questions about the Christian faith, including questions about the reliability of the Bible.

This is what I find in the command of the fundamental statement of 1 Peter 3:15,

but in your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect (ESV).

What is commanded of all Christians?[5] The command in the Greek language is translated at ‘honour’ in the ESV. Other translations have the meaning as:

  • ‘sanctify[6] Christ as Lord’ (NASB; NRSV; NAB);
  • ‘sanctify the Lord God’ (NKJV);
  • ‘revere Christ as Lord’ (NIV);
  • ‘you must worship Christ as Lord’ (NLT);
  • ‘set Christ apart as Lord’ (NET);

So Christians are commanded to honour, sanctify, revere or set apart Christ as the holy Lord and they do that by being ready/prepared to make a defence of the faith to anyone who seeks a reason for the hope that Christians have. They must always be prepared for an apologia (a defence of the faith). How is this to be done? It is delivered with gentleness and respect.

The exhortation here is that all Christians must honour Christ by being ready to do this. Whenever we come across someone who asks tough questions about the Christian faith, including penetrating questions such as, ‘Surely you are not telling me that you accept that Bible crap? (which someone said to me)’, we have to be ready to give a defence (an apologetic). What was this fellow recommending? His statement was that ‘it is not my job to convince them’. That is far from the exhortation in 1 Peter 3:15. All Christians, including this fellow, are commanded to give a defence of the biblical perspective. I found him to be diluting – even running away from – the biblical exhortation to be engaged in the pre-evangelistic ministry of apologetics.

Apologetics is pre-evangelistic in the sense that it is an attempt to provide answers to objections to the Christian faith that may be in the way of a person receiving the Gospel message. These are some of the primary objections I have struck over many years of proclaiming the Gospel and defending the Christian faith and have addressed them on this homepage.

3d-red-star-small The existence of God.

See:

A biblical theist responds to an atheist;

Evidence for the existence of God;

What is a biblical method for defending the Christian faith (apologetics)?

3d-red-star-small The trustworthiness, integrity and accuracy of the Bible.

See:

Can you trust the Bible? Part 1

Can you trust the Bible? Part 2

Can you trust the Bible? Part 3

Can you trust the Bible? Part 4

3d-red-star-small The problem of evil and suffering.

See:

September 11 & other tragedies: Why doesn’t God stop it?

Is God responsible for all the evil in the world?

Did God create evil?

Isaiah 45:7: Who or what is the origin of evil?

‘I will beat the hell out of God’;

Can God do anything and everything?

We may never come across anyone who doubts the authority and integrity of, say, the Bible, but we must be ready – prepared – to respond if someone asks. This is not being ready with this person’s remark, ‘All I can do is tell them what I believe and why I believe it.  Then they are God’s problem’. That is fobbing off our biblical responsibility.

Yes, we need to be ready to share the truth of what we believe, but we are to give a reason (an apologetic) to those who ask questions – even penetrating questions like, ‘You Bible people don’t seem to have an answer for all the garbage that is happening in the world like Syria, the Sudan, Afghanistan, 9/11, the Japanese tsunami, etc.’

Not everyone will need this kind of pre-evangelism, but when they do seek answers, we must be ready, willing and able to give an answer. This includes being prepared to reply: ‘Wow! That’s a penetrating question and I’ll have to think further about it. Can I get back to you?’

Heart faith and defense of faith

What is interesting and critical about 1 Peter 3:15 is that it links heart faith with defence faith. Those who honour Christ the Lord in their hearts are also those who are ready and prepared to engage in apologetics for the Christian faith. This is not a, ‘Just believe’, or ‘I tell them what I believe’, kind of response.

If Jesus is truly our Lord, we will want to be obedient to the command of 1 Peter 3:15 and not fob somebody off with, ‘This is what I believe and this is why I believe it’. Instead, we will be eager, prepared and ready to ask: ‘What questions do you have about the Christian faith? Let’s see if we can dialogue to find answers for you and if I don’t know the answers, I’ll seek them out and get back to you’.

First Peter 3:15 goes hand in glove with our biblical requirement in 2 Corinthians 10:5, ‘We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ’ (ESV).

This requirement is that we, as Christians, not only confront the issues that trouble our own thinking, but also deal with the ‘lofty opinions’ of others that are raised against knowing God, the Bible and other aspects of the Christian faith.

This is some of what the ministry of apologetics involves, but this fellow on the forum fobbed it off with his statement: ‘Again I cannot convince them of anything.  All I can do is tell them what I believe and why I believe it.  Then it is up to God. I am in sales not management’.

Biblically, I find this to be a false perspective. He is in sales so he knows that there will be those who object to some features of the product and, if he is pressing for a sale, he will deal with the objections. It is his responsibility to give an apologetic for the Christian faith – he is commanded to honour Christ the Lord and to do that requires that he provide an apologetic response to questions about the faith.

Of course God is involved in convincing people of the truth of the Gospel, but that does not exempt him from engaging in pre-evangelism. He is commanded to engage in apologetics with everyone who seeks answers for their objections to the faith.

Will he become ready and prepared to do this with gentleness and respect? Or will he continue to fob off this responsibility?

Resorting to use of a logical fallacy

When I shared some of the above material with the fellow mentioned, these were some of his responses:[7]

  • ‘I can and do answer such quesions [sic] but I cannot convince them they are true and neither can you.  Does everyone you explain the Scriptures to fall donw [sic] and worship God?  There is no command to convince anyone that the Scriptures are true.  Only God the Holy Spirit can do that’.
  • ‘I am prepared to do that and do when somone [sic] asks me to, but I have not convinced many that what I beleive [sic] is true’.
  • ‘When you tell me you have been 100% effective in convincing those who ask, get back to me’.

[8]Telling people what you believe and why you believe it is not the ministry of apologetics of 1 Peter 3:15. Apologetics is not declaration, but an endeavour to wipe away the cobwebs of doubt that are presented to us. It is pre-evangelism.

I told him that if his response to me is any guide, he doesn’t seem to be convinced of the need for the ministry of apologetics, so why would he want to give them an effective apologetic answer? I suggested that he become exposed to more of the teaching of Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig and Norman Geisler on apologetics. Geisler’s book, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Baker Books 1999) is a comprehensive resource for so many aspects of an apologetic ministry with an evangelical Christian response.

When he stated, ‘When you tell me you have been 100% effective in convincing those who ask, get back to me’, he was using a straw man logical fallacy. At no point have I ever stated to this person or anyone else on Christian Fellowship Forum that I’m 100% effective in convincing people. Here he has used a straw man fallacy.

What’s a straw man logical fallacy? Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, professor of philosophy,  Florida A&M University,gave this definition:[9]

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

3. Person B attacks position Y.

4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Dedicated to 12 million Holocaust victims who suffered and died
at the hands of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime

When a person uses logical fallacies, it makes it extremely difficult – it is nigh impossible – to have a logical conversation. Therefore, I find it necessary to expose the use of logical fallacies in a conversation, especially online. I have engaged in discussions on other Christian forums in which I found it necessary to draw attention to such fallacies. Most will not admit to their fallacious reasoning. I think it’s often because they don’t understand what logical fallacies are and how they use them.

I find that in some/many TV and radio interviews, politicians are experts at using the red herring fallacy. No matter what question is asked by the interviewer, the politician has a political agenda he/she wants to push and will promote it, no matter what the question that was asked. Going off topic in the answer (a red herring) is commonly used by politicians when in mass media interviews.

In this person’s response to me on this Christian forum, there were also elements of a red herring logical fallacy. Dr. Lobossiere explained: ‘A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic
. This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim’.  [10]

Conclusion

Apologetics has reached a very low level of importance in the evangelical church, in my view, for these reasons:

  1. ‘To equip the saints for the work of ministry’ (Ephesians 4:12) is not high on the agenda in many of these churches. Getting a handful of leaders to do the ministry by themselves is standard fare in some churches. So equipping other believers is not a strong suit for pastors and teachers in such churches.
  2. Learning to defend the faith, using apologetics, seems to be left to leading public apologists for the Christian faith. A pastor said to me recently, ‘Whenever I have people with questions about evolution and creation, I refer them to Creation Ministries International. They have lots of pertinent responses. I’m not equipped to do that’. Amazing! A pastor who doesn’t want to equip himself to an adequate level to be able to provide a ready apologetic for those who question creation and evolution.
  3. When one has a presuppositional approach, ‘Just believe’ and ‘I cannot convince you’, which is being defended in some churches, then evidential apologetics will not be considered a necessary ministry.
  4. I attended an evening presentation in 2013 by leading Indian cultural apologist, Vishal Mangalwadi, ‘What GOOD is Christianity?‘
  5. At question time I asked him, ‘Why is the ministry of apologetics given such a low priority in today’s evangelical church?’ He pointed to the contemporary emphasis in churches on telling stories about the faith and this does not harmonise well with the nature of apologetics. I found this to be a pointed and true observation. See Mangalwadi’s book, The Book That Made Your World; How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization (2011. Nashville: Thomas Nelson).
  6. I consider that there is an additional problem: Thinking Christianity is in short supply. In churches that place such a strong emphasis on the experience of knowing Jesus and the charismatic gifts (I am a supporter of such gifts), there is a problem integrating a warm Christian faith with logical, thoughtful, apologetic ministry. That’s why it’s important to emphasise 1 Peter 3:15 as these two ministries go together. They are both needed for the health of the Christian Church. However, there is a necessary biblical emphasis on the need ‘to be renewed in the spirit of your minds’ (Eph. 4:23) and Christians ‘have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator’ (Col 3:10).
  7. I don’t recall ever hearing a sermon by a regular pastor of a church on the need to be a thinking Christian who engages in logical discussions, exposes logical fallacies, and uses discernment in knowing when to stop a conversation in pre-evangelism when it becomes argumentative.

If this minimising of the ministry of apologetics is not rectified, there are grim consequences for Christian upper high school and university students who have their faith challenged in these places of learning.

Why is apologetics of such low interest in the church? It is not given the place it deserves by church leaders in equipping believers for the work of ministry (Eph 4:12) AND I suggest it could be that not enough Christians are seeking answers for some tough, challenging questions that are asked of them by unbelievers. Or, are too many Christians out of touch with unbelievers and their issues against the Christian faith?

Notes:

[1] Christian Fellowship Forum, Bible Study & Discipleship, ‘Is Jesus God?’, Kermit, who responds sometime as ‘k’ for kcdavis222, #9, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=6&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=122312 (Accessed 31 August 2013).

[2] Ibid., ozspen #14.

[3] Ibid., kcdavis222 #16.

[4] Ibid., ozspen #20.

[5] For some of the following content, I used material from Norman L Geisler 1999. Apologetics, Need for, in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, p. 37.

[6] The footnote was ‘set apart’.

[7] kcdavis222 #21, loc cit., available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=16&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=122312 (Accessed 31 August 2013).

[8] This is my answer at ibid., ozspen #24.

[9] The Nizkor Project 1991-2011, Fallacy: Straw Man, available at: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html (Accessed 31 August 2013).

[10] This quotation is courtesy of The Nizkor Project, Fallacy: Red Herring, available at: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html (Accessed 31 August 2013).

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 26 February 2020.

Is homosexual life expectancy lower than for heterosexuals?

Courtesy Wikipedia

By Spencer D Gear

I read an article online from news.com.au, ‘EXCLUSIVE: Libs in preference crisis in Lindsay over gay comment‘.[1] Here it stated:

THE Liberal Party has scrapped a preference deal with the Christian Democratic Party in the must-win seat of Lindsay after a candidate described gay men as having a “lower life span” than heterosexual males.

The decision to dump the CDP’s Andrew Green is a blow to the hopes of Liberal Party hopeful Fiona Scott, who had earlier struck a preference deal with Fred Nile’s religious party.

But after being alerted to Mr Green’s inflammatory remarks – made at a public forum last week – the NSW Liberal Party last night said it “will be amending” the CDP swap deal.

Mr Green, the 55-year-old CDP candidate for the western Sydney seat, shocked the public audience with his remarks, and was yesterday unable to cite his source.

The church pastor made his comments during a debate on gay marriage at a candidate’s forum in the western Sydney seat.

Why didn’t news.com.au do its own research to discover the data that is backing what Christian Democratic Party’s (CDP) candidate for the seat of Lindsay,  Andrew Green, stated?

Research shows that life expectancy rates are lower for the homosexual men than for heterosexual men. That’s what research has confirmed. Here are some examples of the research:

1.    ‘Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men‘ (Robert S. Hall, et al, 1997. International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 25, no 3, pp. 657-661). This study found that:

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

2.    There was this information in Psychological Reports, ‘Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS‘ (2005 June; 96 (3 Pt 1):693-697). It’s abstract states:

The age distribution of AIDS deaths of males who have sex with males [MSM] was estimated from obituaries in the Washington Blade, a gay newspaper. Statistics from the 2003 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Supplemental Report are highly congruent with deaths of MSM due to AIDS from these obituaries. Death due to AIDS in old age was most frequent for heterosexuals and least frequent for MSM who were drug abusers. Obituaries in the Washington Blade are thus consistent with and may be representative of deaths due to AIDS among MSM. The latest CDC [Centers for Disease Control] report tends to strengthen the overall finding based upon obituaries: that the lifespan of MSM is shortened two to three decades by AIDS and, possibly, other causes (emphasis added).

3. There is an added factor – the increase in HIV diagnosis among men having sex with men. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the USA has this article online, ‘HIV Among Gay and Bisexual Men‘. It outlines some of the statistics on the increased HIV infection among homosexual and bisexual men. These are:

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU.

When will this news organisation get to the point of stating what the research is showing that life expectancy rates of homosexuals is less than for heterosexuals, statistics that support Andrew Green’s statement?

It’s too bad that Andrew Green didn’t have these statistics at his finger tips and quote them from a researched source. I hope this teaches him a lesson about being accurate and giving the source for his provocative statement. But they are there for any journalists to investigate, but this news source, for this article, didn’t give accurate information about the mortality rates in the homosexual community in this article. Why not?

It is abominable that the Liberals will dump his preferences and not take into account the researched truth of what Green stated.

Andrew Green hit the mark. But news.com.au did not acknowledge the accuracy of what Green stated.

(photo courtesy Wikipedia)

Notes:

[1] Steve Lewis, News Limited Network, 21 August 2013, available at: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/exclusive-libs-in-preference-crisis-in-lindsay-over-gay-comments/story-fnho52ip-1226700883582 (Accessed 24 August 2013).

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 27 August 2019.

How to destroy a Christian denomination

By Spencer D. Gear PhD

Presbyterian Church in USA Logo.svg

(image courtesy Wikipedia)

If your denomination lost 100,000 members in a year, wouldn’t you think that this would be enough of a ‘hint’ to investigate why this is happening?

You may be interested to see the effect of theological liberalism on a denomination. What happens when a denomination gives up its commitment to the integrity of Scripture and seeks another view of the Bible? What is the effect of a denomination giving up its evangelical faith for something else? What happens when a denomination is promoting a politically correct agenda rather than a biblical agenda?

Take a read of what this has done and is doing to the Presbyterian Church (USA): ‘2012 statistics show dramatic decrease in PCUSA membership, congregations‘. Here you will learn that

Membership in the Presbyterian Church (USA) declined by more than 100,000 last year, according to the 2012 statistics released recently by the denomination’s Office of the General Assembly. It is the single largest annual membership decline since the PCUSA was formed in 1983
.

[Mateen] Elass said that the explanation from Parsons “boils down to two things: 1) All the mainline churches are in decline; the PCUSA is a mainline church; therefore it is in decline. 2) Our culture is increasingly resistant to affiliating with religious institutions — how can we help it if people today don’t want to sign on the dotted line 
? Both these reasons, whether true or not, show a desire to excuse the leadership from responsibility rather than a passion to turn things around. There are certain churches that are growing in this environment. Why not study them and invest the denomination’s significant resources in retooling itself to become a more effective proponent of the gospel? Why not return with passion to the heart of the Biblical Gospel rather than giving itself over to causes that are ancillary to the church’s true mission?”

He continued, “On the other hand, the denomination is leaking like a sieve when it comes to membership retention. The number who transferred out to other denominations by certificate was up 126 percent from 2011 (52,064 compared to 23,082). The number lost through ‘other’ means (cleaning the rolls, usually) was up about 4 percent (from 95,613 to 99,067). The only category showing a slight decrease in losses from that of 2011 was in number of deaths. This is small consolation.”

For some diagnoses of what is happening in the PC(USA), take a read of these:
designRed-small The end of the Presbyterian Church (USA), Mark Roberts
designRed-small Fighting the wrong battle in the PCUSA, Calvin Fox
designRed-small The Road to Gay Ordination in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Donald Fortson III
designRed-small 13 Differences Between the PCA and the PCUSA, Andrew Webb

Mateen Elass, a former PC(USA) pastor, gave his assessment in ‘A Long Oblivion in the Same Direction’. Part of his assessment reads:

I have a few suggestions for Gradye and other PCUSA leaders seeking to reach more Americans with the gospel and reverse the decline of the denomination:

1) In the name of racial diversity, invest more effort in reaching out to white Anglo-Saxon Americans. This is still the largest segment of American society, but the group that is fleeing evangelical and mainline churches in largest numbers. On the other hand, failure to do this will at least lead the PCUSA to perhaps reach an expired GA goal of 20% minority membership by 2010. As more WASPs leave the church, and minority numbers hold steady, overall minority percentages will increase dramatically. Not what was originally envisioned, I’m sure, but hey, at least it’s a goal to check off.

2) Since Jesus said to go where the fields were white unto harvest, and since the Pew report indicates that those most likely to affiliate with religious institutions are the politically conservative, begin a top to bottom house-cleaning of social, political and economic endorsements that lean leftward, and replace them with ones that lean right. This will attract those most likely to affiliate and give you a chance to welcome larger numbers into membership. Right now, you’re pitching your message to those least likely to respond. Isn’t that a waste of time and energy?

3) Since the unaffiliated (that fastest growing segment of the younger American population) is turned off by power-grabbing, money-grubbing religious institutions, and since you obviously want to reach this segment of society, rein in all the presbyteries and synods and GA entities that are lording it over individual congregations seeking to leave the PCUSA. Instead of ignoring or secretly encouraging them as they abuse their institutional power to cause as much pain as possible and extract as much money as they can in exchange for permission to legally become part of the body of Christ in another denominational structure, why not remove the property trust clause from the Book of Order, or declare that all churches are free to leave, no strings attached, no fees assessed? Any wishing to stay will do so voluntarily, and all unaffiliateds will see that the PCUSA is in fact not a money-grubbing, power-obsessed institution. Perhaps in observing such Christian grace, they will begin flooding into the new PCUSA.

These suggestions are, of course, made with tongue in cheek, though they each contain a kernel of truth worth considering as the denomination reels with its losses.

For some of my assessment of what happens when theological liberalism invades churches and denominations, see:

blue-satin-arrow-small Is liberal theology heresy?

blue-satin-arrow-small What does historical-critical theology do to the Bible?

blue-satin-arrow-small Is theology important?

blue-satin-arrow-small Spong’s deadly Christianity

blue-satin-arrow-small John Shelby Spong & the Churches of Christ (Victoria, Australia)

blue-satin-arrow-small Spong’s swan song — at last!

blue-satin-arrow-small Why would a Presbyterian denomination reject Jesus’ atoning sacrifice as propitiation?

blue-satin-arrow-small The Gospel Distortion: A reply to John Shelby Spong

That should be enough to get you thinking about core elements of the Christian faith and what to do about spiritual surgery – cutting out the diseased stuff in any church or denomination.

First Presbyterian Church of Houston

(Courtesy Wikipedia)

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 1 August 2018.

Do angels have free will?

By Spencer D Gear

Jacob

Jacob wrestling an angel (image courtesy ChristArt)

A friend at our Bible study group asked me this question: ‘Do angels have free will? He said that he was chastised by a member of a Christian group gathering (after the group) for saying that angels have free will. What do you believe?’

Before we pursue the ‘free will’ or otherwise of angels, we will make a brief excursus into the ministry of angels.

Who are angels and what is their ministry?

We don’t have an ABC of angelology that is provided for us in one chapter of the Bible. I’m grateful for the biblical scholars in systematic theology who have gathered the information about angels and provided an analysis for us. They’ve done the hard word and I reap their labours.

This is how we are introduced to angels as the Scriptures unfold:

3d-red-star-small Psalm 148:2, 5 (ESV):[1] ‘Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his hosts!… Let them praise the name of the Lord! For he commanded and they were created’;

3d-red-star-small Colossians 1:16: ‘For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him’.

3d-red-star-small Nehemiah 9:6, ‘You are the Lord, you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and you preserve all of them; and the host of heaven worships you’.

3d-red-star-small Genesis 1:1, ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth’.

3d-red-star-small Genesis 2:1, ‘Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them’.

Thus we learn that angels, ‘the hosts’, were created beings. They are not eternal and they are invisible. So they are spirits but may take on physical form as we learn from Genesis 18. Hebrews 1:13-14 states: ‘And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?’ We learn from Jesus’ words after his resurrection, according to Luke 24:39, ‘See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have’.

So angels are unseen ministers of God among us. They do not have gender and never die (Matt 22:30; 25L41; Luke 20:35-36); have great wisdom and knowledge (2 Sam 14:20; Mark 13:32); exercise enormous power (Gen 19:10-11; Ps 103:20; Matt 24:31; 1 Thess 1:7; 2 Pt 2:11); have feelings (Lk 15:10) and are beings of beauty (Isa 6:1-2; Matt 28:3; 2 Cor 11:14).

For what reason are there angels? Norman Geisler (2003:479-480) has summarised their purposes as:

3d-gold-star-small To glorify God (Ps 148:2; Rev 4:11);

3d-gold-star-small To serve God (Col 1:16; Job 1:6; 2:1);

3d-gold-star-small To reflect God’s attributes (Isa 6:3; Ezek 1:5, 28);

3d-gold-star-small To learn God’s wisdom and grace (Eph 3:10; 1 Pet 1:12);

· To minister to God’s elect (Heb 1:14; Matt 18:10).

Norm Geisler summarised some further ministry of angels:

Angels come regularly as “sons of God” to present themselves before the Lord (Job 1:6; 2:1 NKJV; cf. Ps. 91:11). They are constantly seen throughout the Bible running errands for God (Gen. 18:2ff; Den. 10:1ff; Matt. 1:20-24; Luke 1:11ff.). They eventually escort believers into the presence of the Holy One (Luke 16:22). But, most fundamentally, angels are God’s servants, and all their service is for His glory. Meanwhile, some angels are assigned to fight evil angels in a cosmic spiritual warfare (Dan. 10:13-21; 12:1; cf. Eph. 6:12) [Geisler 2003:480].

What about angels and free will?

My immediate response to my friend when he asked about whether or not angels had free wills, was to say that I had not considered this issue in recent times, but we live in a free will universe where Adam has the opportunity to choose between two alternatives – from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or not to eat (see Genesis 2:16-17,’ And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’ (ESV).

The following is the result of my further investigations.

The fall of angels into sin

Evangelical theologian, Henry Thiessen, wrote the following concerning the fall of angels and the problem of the origin of evil:

Evil originated in heaven and not on earth
.

There is every reason for believing that the angels were created perfect. When we come to the account of creation in Gen. 1, we are told seven times over that all that God made was good. In the last verse of this chapter we read “and God saw everything that He had made and behold it was very good.” Surely that includes the perfection of the angels in holiness when originally created. Some think that Ezekiel 28:15 refers to Satan. If this be so then he is definitely said to have been created perfect. But various Scriptures represent some of the angels as evil (Ps. 78:49; Matt. 25:41; Rev. 9:11; 12:7-9). This is because they left their own principality and proper abode (Jude 6), and sinned (2 Pet. 2:4). Satan no doubt was the leader in the apostasy. Isa. 14:12 seems to speak of him as the Day Star and the Son of the Morning and to bewail his fall. Ezek. 28:15-17 likewise seems to describe his fall. There can be no question, therefore, as to the fact that there was a definite fall for some of the angels (Thiessen 1949:194-195).

However, when did the angels fall? Thiessen continues, ‘Scripture is silent on this point; but it is clear that the fall of the angels occurred before the fall of man, since Satan entered the Garden in the form of a serpent and induced Eve to sin’ (Thiessen 1949:195).

Thiessen reached the very controversial view that Genesis 1:2 ‘represents the outcome of some great catastrophe’ and ‘the fall of the angels [came] somewhere between vss. 1 and 2
. We suggest that it occurred some time after the creation of the heavens and the earth and that it was a chief cause in bringing about the condition described in Gen. 1:2’ (Thiessen 1949:195). This is known as the Gap Theory which is explained:

The gap theory postulates that an indefinite span of time exists between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. This time span is usually considered to be quite large (millions of years) and is also reputed to encompass the so-called “geologic ages.” Proponents of the gap theory also postulate that a cataclysmic judgment was pronounced upon the earth during this period as the result of the fall of Lucifer (Satan) and that the ensuing verses of Genesis chapter 1 describe a re-creation or reforming of the earth from a chaotic state and not an initial creative effort on the part of God (Sofield 2004).

Edward Rice’s comments on Thiessen’s view were:

Gaptists[2] place the fall in a fictitious and great catastrophe after Genesis 1:1

And Gen 1:2. Thiessen prefers such folly
. In literal Bible interpretation the fall had to occur after the 6 day creation when every thing created was good, and the temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden (Rice n d:7).

Thiessen concluded that

the fall of angels was due to their deliberate, self-determined revolt against God. It was their choice of self and its interests in preference to the choice of God and His interests. If we ask what particular motive may have been back of this revolt, we seem to get several replies from Scripture. Great prosperity and beauty seem to be thrown out as possible hints in this respect. The “Tyrian king seems to symbolize Satan in Ezek. 28:11-19; and he is said to have fallen because of these things (cf. 1 Tim. 3:6). Undue ambition and the desire to surpass God seems to be another hint. The king of Babylon is charged with this ambition, and he, too, seems to symbolize Satan (Isa. 14:13, 14). It will be seen that in any case it was selfishness, discontentment with what he had and the craving to get all that anyone else had. No doubt the cause of the fall of Satan was also the cause of the fall of the other evil angels and the demons (Thiessen 1949:196, emphasis added).

Norman Geisler in his Systematic Theology, vol 2, had this heading and brief exposition:

Angels have free will
Paul spoke of Satan, who chose to rebel against God, saying, “[Do not place] a recent convert [in a position of spiritual leadership], or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil” (1 Tim. 3:6). Jude added, “Angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home – these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day ” (Jude 6). Peter noted that “God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment” (2 Peter 2:4) [Geisler 2003:478, emphasis added].

I highly recommend chapter 20 in Geisler (2003), titled, ‘The creation of spiritual creatures (angels).

Conclusion

Angels are created beings who are good and evil as a result of their choices. They are free-will, unseen beings who are ministering spirits to human beings and for the glory of God.

Works consulted

Geisler, N 2003. Systematic theology, vol 2: God, creation. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.

Rice, E G n d. Coursework for TH502 Systematic Theology II angelology, anthropology: A project submitted to Louisiana Baptist University Seminary Dean, Dr Steven R Petty, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the course TH502 Systematic Theology II. Available at: http://gsbaptistchurch.com/seminary/lbts/th502_course.pdf (Accessed 8 August 2013).

Sofield, J C 2004. The gap theory of Genesis chapter one, 5 May. Bible.org, available at: https://bible.org/article/gap-theory-genesis-chapter-one (Accessed 8 August 2013).

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

Notes:

[1] Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture is from the English Standard Version (ESV).

[2] Gaptists is a pun on Baptists who believe the Gap Theory.

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 3 November 2015.

‘I will beat the hell out of God’

By Spencer D Gear

#

OpenClipArt

It is not unusual to read of or hear about someone who turns off or away from God after a traumatic experience.

A fellow who was hurting deeply started a new thread on Christian Forums that he called, ‘lost all faith in a god’. He wrote:

My world has crashed down like a ton of bricks these last few weeks after watching my 16 year old son die a slow painful death of cancer, he suffered so much and as i am a single parent dad i was the only one to be with him and i never left his side. my faith is smashed now as i think if there is an all loving god who saves people then why not save my son ? my son was the kindest kid in the world always thinking of others and even to the end was thinking about me.

there is just no sence (sic) to this and my feeling of anger is such that if there is a god then when its my turn to die i will beat the hell out of him and make him or her or it suffer like my son did i grew up to belive (sic) in being good kind and help others in this cruel world as it is today my son was so loved and yet this kind of thing happens to many people its just all so unfair to watch others live a good happy life never knowning (sic) what its like to suffer why on earth does this go on why carnt (sic) we just leave in a peaceful world without the suffering ? and when we die then just let us die of old age without suffering ? if god is all powerful and loving and kind then surely he would have to the power to grant that to us all ? hence my faith now is smashed as i dont have the answers and never will have.[1]

How does one respond to a hurting individual, especially when he is blaming God for his teenager’s painful death from cancer? I replied:[2]

I know you are hurting deeply and nothing I can say will ease that pain.

You say that you don’t mean to anger or upset anyone, but what did you say about my Lord God?

Please consider three points:

  1. When the Lord Almighty made the universe (see Genesis 1), did he consult with you and me as to how the world is to be run? And,
  2. When Adam and Eve fell into sin (Genesis 3), they did it for you and me. They were our representatives. If we had been there, we would have disobeyed God just as they did. And what happened?
  3. What was unleashed on your son were the consequences of sin entering into the world. I have lived with a rheumatic heart condition all of my life and have had 5 open-heart, mitral and aortic valve replacement surgeries, along with a tricuspid valve repair. I know the pain of 3 bouts of rheumatic fever as a child that left me with heart problems. I cannot begin to tell you about the excruciating pain I experienced with attacks of rheumatic fever at ages 6, 10 and 12. The pain was so bad that a hoop had to be placed over my knees and ankles to prevent a sheet from resting on them. My father dropped dead of a heart attack at age 57. My dear friend suffered a massive stroke recently and entered the presence of the Lord through death. I am not immune to pain in my life, but I am not blaspheming God like you did.

Why? It is my view of God that is based on biblical revelation. God has told us why your son could experience cancer and why I suffered attacks of rheumatic fever. It is a direct consequence of Adamic sin.

Besides, you and I spend so little time during our earthly journey when compared with eternity. Where will you be spending eternity with your current view of God? Why are you blaspheming him? Do you know God personally and do you have a relationship with him?

I then encouraged him to send me a private message on the Forum and asked if he had had any grief counselling to deal with his son’s death.

Sadly, he did not respond to what I wrote and did not engage much further with others on that Forum.

How do we explain evil in our world?

See my articles:

blue-arrow-small  Did God create evil?

blue-arrow-small Is God responsible for all the evil in the world?

blue-arrow-small Isaiah 45:7: Who or what is the origin of evil?

blue-arrow-small September 11 & other tragedies: Why doesn’t God stop it?

blue-arrow-small Sinful nature or sinful environment?

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Baptists, ‘lost all faith in a god’, desypete #1, 3 June 2012, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7661562/ (Accessed 4 June 2012).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen #11.

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 3 November 2015.

Fluoride, asthma and the Israeli Supreme Court

Spencer D Gear

Dental fluorosis (Google – public domain)

Here is an issue that you may want to take up with your local Council and State Government (if you live in Australia) where States and Councils are continuing to fluoridate or allow fluoridation of the water supply.

The Israeli Supreme Court, near the beginning of August 2013, ruled against adding fluoride to the water supply because of its negative health effects. It is requiring the nation of Israel to end fluoridation by the year 2014. See the article, ‘Israeli Supreme Court Backs Work of Irish Scientist on Fluoride‘ (Hot Press, 6 August 2013).

Here is some of the evidence from this article that seems to have influenced the Israeli high court to go against Israel’s minister of health and cancel the use of fluoride in the water supplies.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court in Israel has ruled that all public water fluoridation in the state of Israel must cease by 2014.

The court’s ruling is remarkable in that it goes even further than – and thus overturns – the decision taken earlier this year by Israel’s Minister for Health, Yael German, who had legislated for an end to mandatory fluoridation, leaving the option open to local councils to fluoridate water supplies at their own discretion. Now, however, by order of the Supreme Court, fluoridation in Israel is definitively at an end. This is regarded as a crucial victory by anti-fluoridation campaigners, especially given the close diplomatic and economic links between Israel and the US – the original home of the policy of fluoridation.

The decision is a further vindication of the work of Irish scientist Declan Waugh, who has been directly involved in the campaign to end fluoridation in Israel.

Waugh had alerted the Israeli Minister for Health to the risks associated with fluoride, outlining how within less than a decade of commencement of water fluoridation, inflammatory respiratory diseases such as asthma had increased by 100% in young adults in Israel. Since commencement of water fluoridation in Ireland in the late 1960s, the prevalence of asthma has increased by 500% – it now affects approximately half a million people and one in five children 12 years of age in this country. Ireland now has one of the highest prevalences of asthma in the world, levels that are only to be found in fluoridated countries.

“Scientific studies have clearly demonstrated that Fluoride is a pro-inflammatory agent that can contribute to all inflammatory diseases, not just asthma,” Waugh told Hot Press.

If there has been an increase of 100% in the inflammatory respiratory diseases of Israel’s youth since the commencement of fluoridation, what is fluoride in our water supply doing to Australia’s incidence of asthma and other inflammatory respiratory diseases?

Advice from the Fluoride Action Network

In this article on the FAN website, ‘Israel Will End Fluoridation in 2014, Citing Health Concerns’, it was stated:

On July 29, 2013, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that new regulations require Israel to stop adding fluoride chemicals into public water supplies in one year, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

Izun Hozer Association for Dissemination of Health Education and Yaacov Gurman petitioned Israel’s highest court, November 12, 2012, demanding that the Ministry of Health order the cessation of fluoridation because it presents health dangers and its benefits are no longer widely accepted.

A 1974 regulation mandated fluoridation throughout Israel.  But in April 2013, the Minister of Health,Yael German, created a new regulation removing that mandate.

“It must be known to you that fluoridation can cause harm to the health of the chronically ill,” including “people who suffer from thyroid problems,” German wrote in a letter addressed to doctors opposed to ending fluoridation.

The court ruled that the new regulations will not only bring an end to mandatory fluoridation in Israel in 2014 but will also put an end to any fluoridation – mandatory or voluntary.  See translation of the Court’s ruling at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/israel_supreme_ct_july2013.pdf

Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director, says, “Zealous fluoridation promoters try to convince the American public that ‘everyone drinks fluoridated water.’ But the opposite is true. An overwhelming number of countries do not fluoridate, including 97% of the European population. In fact, over half the people in the world drinking fluoridated water live in the US. We are the odd ones out.”

“Fluoridation is an outdated, unscientific, failed public health blunder,” says Connett. ”What I find remarkable here is that Health Minister German has been able to escape the unscientific belief system on fluoridation that traps so many public health bureaucracies in fluoridated countries.”

Many communities, over the last few years, stopped fluoridation in the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Recently, both Wichita, Kansas and Portland, Oregon rejected fluoridation 60% to 40%. Hamilton, NZ, councilors voted 7-1 to stop 50 years of fluoridation after councilors listened to several days of testimony from those  for and against fluoridation

Windsor, Ontario, stopped 51 years of fluoridation.  Sixteen regional councils have halted or rejected fluoridation in Queensland since mandatory fluoridation was dropped there in Nov 2012.

Meanwhile, New York City Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr continues in his effort to halt fluoridation in NYC.

Research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals indicates that fluoride ingestion is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and harmful to health.  See http://www.FluorideAction.Net/issues/health

Why is it that only about 5% of the world’s population has fluoridated water supplies? There are serious effects which many in the medical and dental profession don’t seem to want to admit. Why don’t you check out what is happening in other countries around the world. Here’s a starter:

fluoride photo: fluoride is toxic m_a3b8933c01e64f12785965a4019c8e3c.jpg

(courtesy photobucket)

Fluoridation status of some countries

Despite dental pressure, 99% of western continental Europe has rejected, banned, or stopped fluoridation due to environmental, health, legal, or ethical concerns

Only about 5% of the world population is fluoridated and more than 50% of these people live in North America. The Danish Minister of Environment recommended against fluoridation in 1977 because “no adequate studies had been carried out on its long-term effects on human organ systems other than teeth and because not enough studies had been done on the effects of fluoride discharges on freshwater ecosystems.”

“In 1978, the West German Association of Gas & Water Experts rejected fluoridation for legal reasons and because ‘the so-called optimal fluoride concentration of 1 mg per L is close to the dose at which long-term damage [to the human body] is to be expected’ ” .[1]

At the time of writing this short article (7 August 2013), Moreton Regional Council, where I live, continues its forced medication of its entire people with fluoride in the water when we know the negative consequences of ingesting fluoride. See my articles:

arrow-small New Fluoride Warning for Infants

arrow-small More Fluoride Spin

arrow-small Hazardous waste put in our water as fluoride

arrow-small Anti-fluoride advocates provide ‘all sorts of wild, weird and whacky information’

arrow-small Fluoride for politicians

arrow-small Anti-Fluoride Propaganda Blitzes

Why can’t we have the benefits of freedom in our democracy and choose whether or not we want fluoride in our water?

If people want fluoride in their water supplies, they can voluntarily obtain fluoride tablets from Councils (if Councils make such available). However, forcing people to drink fluoridated water supply is not only against the spirit of freedom in our democracy, but it also is compulsorily medicating Queensland’s population with a deleterious medication over which there is no control of intake. We don’t know how much water is drunk by each person, so we do not know how much of this unauthorised ‘medicine’ is taken into the system.

For further information on the negative affects of ingested fluoride, see: The Fluoride Action Network.

Action needed

Please contact your local Councillor and State MP to advise them to act on your behalf to halt fluoridation of the water supply. You may use some of the above information.

If your Council will not remove fluoride from the water supply, I urge you to do what I have done. I have installed a reverse osmosis (RO) machine under my kitchen sink to provide fluoride-free water from just one tap in the house. This is what we use for all drinking water.

How does RO work? See the article based on its chemistry, ‘What Is Reverse Osmosis and How Does It Work?’

Notes:

[1] Quotes from: Hilleman B, “FLUORIDATION: Contention won’t go away,” Chemical and Engineering News, 1988 Aug, 66:31 (The [ ] brackets were in the original article).

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 3 November 2015.

Can God do anything and everything?

By Spencer D Gear

Volcanoe

ChristArt

It is not unusual to hear from Christians in person or on the Internet, statements like this: ‘By definition, God is omnipotent. He can do anything and everything’. [1]

Is this a true statement? Can God do absolutely anything and everything? What is the truth?[2]

The error of one Bible paraphrase

To answer that question, I recommend that we DO NOT accept this shocking paraphrase version of the Bible’s Ephesians 3:20 in The Message. It reads:

God can do anything, you know – far more than you could ever imagine or guess or request in your wildest dreams! He does it not by pushing us around but by working within us, his Spirit deeply and gently within us (emphasis added).

What does Ephesians 3:20 actually state? It pays to check it out, not in a one-man paraphrase by Eugene Peterson (The Message), but in a committee translation of the Bible:

Open, gold leaf, glowing Bible light up a globe of the western hemisphere

(courtesy ChristArt

cubed-iron-sm Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us (ESV).

cubed-iron-sm Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us (NASB).

cubed-iron-sm Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us (KJV).

cubed-iron-sm Now to him who is able to do all things more abundantly than we desire or understand, according to the power that worketh in us (Douay-Rheims).

cubed-iron-sm Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine (NRSV).

cubed-iron-sm Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us (NIV).

cubed-iron-sm Now all glory to God, who is able, through his mighty power at work within us, to accomplish infinitely more than we might ask or think (NLT).

cubed-iron-sm Glory be to him whose power, working in us, can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine (NJB).

cubed-iron-sm Now to him who is able to accomplish far more than all we ask or imagine, by the power at work within us (NAB).

As the above committee translations, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, demonstrate, The Message paraphrase commits a very false impression and gives us a wrong translation when it begins with these words, ‘God can do anything, you know’. It is a shocking translation (paraphrase), based on the Greek text, but it gives a translation that is contrary to the teaching of Scripture about God’s actions.

‘God can do anything, you know’ – wrong!

Worm and Lace

ChristArt

In spite of this paraphrase assertion from The Message Bible, God cannot ‘do anything and everything’. To adapt this paraphrase to the truth, we must change it to read, ‘God cannot do anything, you know’. On this verse, The Message promotes false theology and a message that is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture.

We know this because God has revealed in Scripture that this is not the case. He cannot do things that are contrary to his perfect nature. Here are examples from Scripture:

  • He ‘cannot look at wrong’ (Hab 1:13 ESV);
  • ‘He cannot deny himself’ (2 Tim 2:13);
  • ‘It is impossible for God to lie’ (Heb 6:18);
  • ‘God cannot be tempted by evil’ (Jas 1:13).

When we speak of God’s omnipotence, the biblical definition is not that He ‘can do anything and everything’ as this person has stated.

Henry C. Thiessen

Henry C Thiessen (Courtesy Wheaton College)

Henry Thiessen defines God’s omnipotence:

By the omnipotence of God we mean that He is able to do whatever he wills; but since His will is limited by His nature, this means that God can do everything that is in harmony with His perfections. There are some things that God cannot do: (1) Such as are contrary to His nature as God [examples above]
. And (2) such as are absurd or self-contradictory [examples below]
.

The possession of omnipotence does not, however, imply the exercise of His power, certainly not the exercise of all His power. God can do what He wills to do; but He does not necessarily will to do anything. That is, God has power over His power; otherwise He would act of necessity and cease to be a free being. Nor does omnipotence exclude but rather imply the power of self-limitation. God has limited Himself to some extent by the free will of His rational creatures. That is why He did not keep sin out of the universe by a display of His power; that is also why He does not save anyone by force (Thiessen 1949:126).

Wayne Grudem explains his understanding of omnipotence:

God’s omnipotence means that God is able to do all his holy will. The word omnipotence is derived from two Latin words, omni, ‘all,’ and potens, ‘powerful,’ and means ‘all-powerful’. There are no limited on God’s power to do what he decides to do
. There are, however, some things that God cannot do. God cannot will or do anything that would deny his own character. This is why the definition of omnipotence is stated in terms of God’s ability to do ‘all his holy will.’ It is not absolutely everything that God is able to do, but everything that is consistent with his character
.

Although God’s power is infinite, his use of that power is qualified by his other attributes (just as all God’s attributes qualify all his actions). This is therefore another instance where misunderstanding would result if one attribute were isolated from the rest of God’s character and emphasized in a disproportionate way (Grudem 1999:98-99).

Then Grudem gives examples of what he can’t do by not lying (Tit 1:2), not tempted with evil (Jas 1:13), and can’t deny himself (2 Tim 2:13).

The omnipotence of God means that God is only able to do what He wills to do and what he wills is limited by his nature (holy character) and purposes. So God can only do all things that harmonise with the perfections of God Himself.

In Job 42:2 it is stated: ‘I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted’ ESV). Although this is an early revelation of God’s nature, it is clear that God’s doing ‘all things’ is tied to the ‘purpose of yours’. We know from elsewhere in Scripture that the purpose of God is to do what is consistent with his perfect nature.

In my understanding, there are other things that God cannot do. He can’t do what is absurd or self-contradictory. I’m thinking of examples such as creating a spirit that has material properties; making a stone that is sensitive and compassionate; developing a square circle, etc.[3]

God cannot do evil?

Because ‘God cannot be tempted by evil’ (Jas 1:13) and his character is holy (see Lev 11:44-45; Hab 1:12; Jn 17:11; Heb 12:10; 1 Pt 1:15-16; Rev 4:8), we need to define those terms of evil and holiness.

What, then, is evil or the nature of evil?

William C Williams in his article on ‘evil’ in Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology states:[4]

As a prerequisite for any discussion of evil, moral evil must be distinguished from physical or natural evil. This essay uses the term “moral evil” to include both social offenses (ethics: murder, theft) and cultic sins (those offenses aimed directly against the deity: blasphemy, idolatry). Moral evil, therefore, whether its setting be cultic or social, when carried out may be considered a sin. That cultic and ethical values were one and the same in the Hebraic mind may be illustrated by the similar penalties exacted for the severest offenses in either category (death, being cut off). Cultic values are addressed in the first four of the Ten Commandments ( Exod 20:3-11 ; Deut 5:7-15 ) and by the first of Jesus’ “Great Commandments” ( Matt 22:37-40 ; Mark 12:30 ; Luke 10:27 ; cf. Deut 6:5 ); ethics are considered in the last six of the Ten Commandments ( Exod 20:12-17 ; Deut 5:16-21 ) and by the second “Great Commandment” ( Lev 19:18 ).

Accordingly, what is morally good is not what human society decides is in its best interest, but what the revealed will of God declares. There can be no biblical ethics that stand apart from cult nor a biblical morality apart from theology. Instead, morality is defined by theology, which carries within it certain cultic affirmations and prohibitions together with the ethical. For example, the same Decalogue that declares that stealing and murder are wrong likewise forbids idolatry and blasphemy. What makes these things wrong is not some abstract quality called “the good” as sought by philosophers in time past. Instead, what constitutes social evil is what is so defined by God, and in that respect (i.e., as to why a given act is good or bad), differs little from cultic evil. There are, therefore, no grounds for the oft-repeated error wherein the “moral law” (the ethical) is in some way distinguished from the “ceremonial law” (the cultic) in Israel’s values system. There can be no such distinction! That which is ethical is right because God has declared it so; the cultic portions of the Law likewise determine what is right for the same reason. Because of this, cult and ethics often appear fused in the Bible, as in Cain’s admission of guilt for a faulty sacrifice and the murder of his brother ( Gen 4:13 ); a similar fusion of the cultic and the ethical occurs in Genesis 15:16 (“the sin of the Amorites”), where idolatry and unethical activity are considered as one.

If God is the definer of what is good ( 2 Sam 10:12 ; Mark 10:18 ; Luke 18:19 ), right ( Gen 18:25 ), and just ( Job 34:12 ), it is not surprising that the Bible never attributes moral or cultic evil to him ( Job 34:10 ). Indeed, he hates evil ( Psalm 5:6 ) and is the avenging judge who punishes those who practice it ( Isa 31:2 ; Micah 2:1 ).

On the other hand, what ethicists term physical evil (or, natural evil) is often connected with the activities of God, and thus demonstrates the importance of defining these categories before discussing the subject further. An ethicist may distinguish these two types of evil thus: (1) moral evil, which is real if any intellectual being knowingly does anything he or she ought not to have done without being compelled to do it; and (2) physical evil, which is real if some beings have suffered in situations caused by nonrational beings, or through actions of rational beings acting nonrationally.

Matthew Halstead, in my understanding, gives a satisfactory biblical understanding of the nature of evil (I recommend a read of this entire article online):

A Definition of Evil

Defining “evil” is a bit more difficult.  One might be tempted to think that citing examples of evil might be easier than producing a definition of it.  But for our purposes, this will not do.  In examining the Problem of Evil, we need some sort of definition to run with.  What, then, is evil?

There are two types of evil.  First, there is moral evil.  This is the product of an action (or inaction), which was initiated by a moral agent toward another person, who, in turn, may suffer from such action (or inaction).  An example of this would be murder, which could be defined as “active moral evil.”  By way of contrast, an example of “passive moral evil” would be watching a person drown in a bathtub, all the while not doing anything to prevent it.

The second type of evil is that of natural evil.  This is where a moral agent is not involved.  Examples of this could be earthquakes, hurricanes, or tsunamis.  Clearly, moral agents are not involved in such natural occurrences.

Halstead reaches this:

Conclusion

Sin is willful rebellion against God.  Originating within the ranks of the angelic hosts, evil sought its way into God’s image-bearers—mankind.  After having chosen to disobey God’s command, Adam and Eve (and the entire human race) experienced suffering for the first time.  Sin spread, and so suffering spread—all due to man’s choice.

But was Adam’s choice to sin a direct result of God “making” him sin?  This is certainly not the case.  If it were, then God would be the author of sin, thus making himself a sinner.  But he is not.  James reminds us that God cannot even be tempted to sin (James 1:13).

But again, was Adam’s choice to sin a result of some spontaneous, uninhibited will beyond God’s control?  This could not have been the case for reasons spelled out previously.

But how do we reconcile all of this?  Our goal as Christians should be to learn to affirm what the Bible affirms and deny what the Bible denies, for it is our highest authority.  The Bible affirms God’s sovereignty over man’s actions (Genesis 50:20), and yet at the same time the Bible denies that God is the author, or doer, of sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; James 1:13).

So somehow God is able to ordain that evil exist, all the while abstaining from any spot of sinfulness.  How all this works is a mystery.  But let there be no mistake that it works.  And that is what we have attempted to show.

Let there be hope, then.  God is in control of all things, no matter the circumstance.  This truth should give rise to joy and utter happiness in the heart of the Christian.  All things will truly work out for our good and his glory, since “our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases” (Psalm 115:3).

Soli Deo Gloria!

So evil, from a biblical perspective, has dimensions that are different from the person’s statement above that ‘evil is really nothing. It is the emptiness that is left when good is rejected. Evil “exists” because good was rejected’. The Scriptures take a very different line as Halstead has demonstrated.

The beginning of evil

How did evil commence? The Bible is very definite about the origin of evil as described in Genesis 2:16-17. Here is the temptation that was presented to the first man,

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (ESV).

The future of the human race depended on what Adam, the man, did with this prohibition, ‘You shall not eat’. There were not 10 commandments or multiple laws for Adam to obey. There is just one and the whole human race was affected by what the man did here. The prohibition, ‘you shall not eat’, uses the strongest form of Hebrew prohibition, which H. C. Leupold translated to render this Hebrew grammatical construction according to its emphasis: ‘Thou must not eat’. Leupold explains of what happened when the man violated this prohibition and it happened ‘in the day’ that he did it:

For the thought actually to be expressed is the instantaneous occurrence of the penalty threatened, which is also again expressed in part by the imperfect with absolute infinitive, “dying though shalt die” = “certainly die.” This at once raises the question, “Why was this penalty not carried out as threatened?” We answer: “It was; if the Biblical concept of dying is kept in mind, as it unfolds itself ever more clearly from age to age.” Dying is separation from God. That separation occurred the very moment when man by his disobedience broke the bond of love. If physical death ultimately closes the experience, that is not the most serious aspect of the whole affair. The more serious is the inner spiritual separation. Oehler 
 rightly maintains: “For a fact, after the commission of sin man at once stepped upon the road of death.” The contention that the Old Testament does not know spiritual death, because it does not happen to use that very expression, is a rationalizing and shallow one, which misconstrues the whole tenor of the Old Testament
.

It is a good thing to observe how definitely the account teaches that the first man was gifted with freedom of will. The moral sense must not first develope (sic) later; it is a part of the original heritage of man (Leupold 1942:128, 129).

God gave the man a symbolic representation of the knowledge of good and evil in the tree. We must never forget that Adam did not live in a sinful twenty-first century world. He was a sinless human being in a sinless world. It was in this condition that Adam, with his free will, received God’s warning, ‘You shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’. So the nature of evil in these perfect circumstances was for the first man to seek after what God prohibited.

Adam (and, thus, all human beings) made in the image of God

What would cause God to take this kind of action? We need to understand that Adam was made in God’s image (see Genesis 1:26), so Adam had the God-given ability to choose, investigate, analyse, to be rational. Being made in God’s image, it should have been obvious to this man, Adam, what was contrary to what God’s nature was and required. Genesis 1:26 states that God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ (ESV). Leupold explained:

The double modifying phrase, “in our image, after our likeness,” requires closer study. It is in the last analysis nothing more than a phrase which aims to assert with emphasis the idea that man is to be closely patterned after his Maker
.

To sum up from a slightly different angle we should like to append the thought that the spiritual and inner side of the image of God is, without a doubt, the most important one. It will hardly be safe to say that the body of man is also patterned after God, because God, being an incorporeal spirit, cannot have what we term a material body. Yet the body of man must at least be regarded as the fittest receptacle for man’s spirit and so must bear at least an analogy to the image, of God, an analogy that is so close that God and His angels choose to appear in human form when they appear to men (Strack). In fact, we are justified to go even so far as to say that whatever this man is said to have is in a far more real sense a reality in God. Here lies the basis for the propriety of all anthropomorphisms. If man has a hand, an ear, an eye, a heart, not only may these also be possessions of the Almighty; in a far truer sense such potentialities lie in God. Yet, let it be well marked, in saying this we in no sense ascribe corporeality to the Eternal One (Leupold 1942: 88, 90).

Evil must be contrasted with God’s holiness.

Holiness

Holiness is given a prominent rank among God’s attributes. We see this in examples such as:

Leviticus 11:44-45,

For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. 45 For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy (ESV).

Ezekiel 39:7,

And my holy name I will make known in the midst of my people Israel, and I will not let my holy name be profaned any more. And the nations shall know that I am the Lord, the Holy One in Israel (ESV).

The holiness of God is also evident in other Old Testament passages: Josh 24:19; 1 Sam 6:20; Ps 22:3; Isa 40:23, and Hab 1:12. What about the NT? This emphasis is less frequent but it is certainly to be found in the NT in passages such as

1 Peter 1:15-16,

but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy” (ESV).

See also John 17:11; Heb 12:10, and Rev. 4:8. God’s throne is established on the basis on his holiness as Psalm 47:8 affirms: ‘God reigns over the nations; God sits on his holy throne’. This emphasis also is found in Psalm 89:14 and 97:2.

But what is holiness?

By the holiness of God we mean that He is absolutely separate from and exalted above all His creatures, and that He is equally separate from moral evil and sin. In the first sense His holiness is not really an attribute that is coordinate with the other attributes, but is rather coextensive with them all. It denotes the perfection of God in all that He is. In the second sense it is viewed as the eternal conformity of His being and His will. In God we have purity of being before purity of willing. God does not will the good because it is good, nor is the good good because God wills it; else where would be a good above God or the good would be arbitrary and changeable. Instead, God’s will is the expression of his nature, which is holy.

Holiness occupies the foremost rank among the attributes of God (Thiessen 1949:128-129).

Conclusion

So, this evil action that Adam performed was the opposite of a good action, from God’s perspective. As we saw (above), this choice was against the very nature of the absolute holiness of God. In choosing against God, Adam would be adopting actions contrary to God’s instructions (disobedience), but the choice was utter contamination (evil) with the ultimate consequence of death – death as defined by God.

The contamination of sin which emanated from Adam polluted the whole human race. We see this demonstrated in these scriptural statements:

designRed-small Job 15:14, ‘What is man, that he can be pure? Or he who is born of a woman, that he can be righteous? (ESV)

designRed-small Psalm 51:5, ‘Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

designRed-small Jeremiah 17:9, ‘The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?’

designRed-small Romans 3:9-18, ‘What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15  “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

designRed-small Romans 3:23, ‘For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’.

designRed-small Romans 6:23, ‘For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord’.

So the Bible speaks of evil in terms of sin. And sin is both an internal condition, emanating from Adam, and a situation of committing acts against God’s law. God cannot do everything and anything. He can only make decisions that are consistent with his holiness. Therefore, evil actions cannot be part of God’s regime. That does raise the issue of God’s judgment and evil. However, since God by nature cannot commit sin and evil, all of his judgments are consistent with his holiness and justice/righteousness.

Works consulted

Grudem W 1999. Bible doctrine: Essential teachings of the Christian faith, J Purswell (ed). Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

Leupold, H C 1942. Exposition of Genesis, vol 1 (online). London: Evangelical Press. Available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/leupold/genesis.iii.html?bcb=right (Accessed 6 August 2013).

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

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, ‘Why does evil exist? – moved from the Philosophy forum’, juvenissun #4, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7764645/#post63863104 (Accessed 6 August 2013).

[2] I presented some of this information in ibid., OzSpen #10.

[3] This is based on Thiessen (1949: 126).

[4] I recommend a full read of this excellent article.

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 3 November 2015.