Why would a Presbyterian denomination reject Jesus’ atoning sacrifice as propitiation?

Presbyterian cross (image courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

Why would a couple of hymn writers not change their lyrics for Presbyterians?

According to this news item from ABC News (USA), 31 July 2013, ‘Hymn writers won’t change lyric for Presbyterians‘, the Presbyterian Church (USA) was wanting to change lyrics that deleted Christ’s propitiation to replace it with the love of God. This is the change that PCUSA was wanting. It wanted to change the words, ‘On that cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied’ to ‘the love of God was magnified’. The ‘hymn writers Keith Getty and Stuart Townend refused to change the lyrics’.

I posted this link to Christian Forums with my comment that I understand the Presbyterian Church USA has a strong theological liberal dimension, but this story just about tops it all for me to show how far off the biblical base this denomination has become in its Christology. Is this denomination not advocating a move away from biblical truth about the atonement?[1]

A PCUSA member replied. Part of that reply was:

Historically there are a number of different theological descriptions of the atonement. The early Church, and today’s Eastern Church, didn’t accept penal satisfaction. My understanding of Calvin is that he didn’t have a single theory of the atonement, but most often used something based on the beginning of Rom 6.

Here’s the PCUSA’s most recent detailed confession of faith: A Declaration of Faith – Introduction. This confession was adopted by the GA but was not made part of the constitution. There is a slightly later one that was, but it’s not as detailed. I think they’re consistent in approach, so it makes sense to look at the longer Declaration when you want more specifics. Note that this confession tends to stick with Biblical terminology, including its description of the atonement. My understanding is that it doesn’t mandate any particular theory of the atonement, an approach that I think is wise.

We certainly believe that Jesus died for us. We don’t assert, and many (it begins to appear most) of our members don’t believe, that he died because God couldn’t forgive us without someone of infinite value dying. That is not a Scriptural doctrine.

This controversy goes back to the late 19th Cent, so I doubt many here have first-hand experience of its origin. Wikipedia has a reasonable article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundame…st_Controversy. Despite the title, this article is mostly about the early 20th Cent Presbyterian debates. I don’t think there’s been a significant change between 1903 and now, but there has been a departure of folks who want to stick with 16th and 17th Cent theology, and that has probably shifted the balance. My understanding of the 1903 revision of the Westminster Confession is that it effectively rejects double predestination.[2]

Then he replied in more detail. Here is part of what he wrote (I recommend a complete read of the content of this post by hedrick):

There are of course different varieties of liberalism, as there are different varieties of conservatism. I am a “sola scriptura” liberal, meaning that I’m committed to a Scriptural theology. There are liberals who for reasons that I can explain aren’t as strongly committed as I am to Scripture. From being a Presbyterian and looking at discussions within the Church, I would say that almost all of the PCUSA is liberal in the sense of accepting the best current understanding of Scripture, not in the sense of having abandoned it as an authority. When you see conservative Presbyterians attacking the majority of the Church for “abandoning Scripture”, don’t take that seriously. What they have abandoned is certain traditional understandings of what Scripture says, because the best evidence is that those understandings aren’t in accordance with the intent of the authors. There certainly are Christians who have given up on Scripture. I don’t believe most of the PCUSA falls into that category. (In fact one reason I’m a Presbyterian is precisely because I believe the PCUSA follow Scripture, and that its preaching is typically Scriptural.)

There are four confessional documents from 1967 and later. See Presbyterian Creedal Standards. There is also a resource paper accepted by the GA on scripture, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) – Resources – Presbyterian Understanding and Use of Holy Scripture. I believe the general view is expressed by the Declaration of Faith:

33 Led by the Spirit of God
34 the people of Israel and of the early church
35 preserved and handed on the story
36 of what God had said and done in their midst
37 and how they had responded to him.
38 These traditions were often shaped and reshaped
39 by the uses to which the community put them.
40 They were cherished, written down, and collected
41 as the holy literature of the people of God.

I think a reasonable summary is that God revealed himself by what he did with Israel and with Christ. Scripture is a human witness to that revelation.

Because that is God’s only public revelation, we accept it as our primary way of knowing God, and as authoritative. However as human documents, we understand them in light of historical and literary scholarship.[3]

My response[4]

I read his post thoroughly but I did not see anything that would indicate that the PC(USA) believed in vicarious atonement of Christ for our sins and that his death propitiated the wrath of God. Surely this lack is what led to rejecting this statement from the song in my original post, ‘On that cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied’ and wanting to replace it with ‘the love of God was magnified’. This sure sounds to me like the PC(USA)’s rejection of Christ’s propitiation.

While I admit that to define ‘theological liberalism’ or ‘modernism’ can become a slippery topic, it does represent a major shift in theological thinking in the church, led by theological colleges and seminaries.

Critical realism

At the outset, I need to state that I am essentially a critical realist in my epistemology. Tom (N T) Wright has described this:

I propose a form of critical realism. This is a way of describing the process of ‘knowing’ that acknowledges the reality of thing known, as something other than the knower (hence realism), whilst also fully acknowledging that the only access we have to this reality lies along the spiralling path of appropriate dialogue or conversation between the knower and thing known(hence ‘critical). This path leads to critical reflection on the products of our enquiry into ‘reality’, so that our assertions about ‘reality’ acknowledge their own provisionality. Knowledge, in other words, although in principal concerning realities independent of the mind of the knower, is never itself independent of the knower (Wright 1992:35).

Why I am not a theological liberal

Roger Olson wrote an article that he titled, ‘Why I am not a “liberal Christian”’. I am in essential agreement with many of the emphases of this article in explaining theological liberalism to which he and I speak and reject. Olson wrote:

Gary Dorrien, professor of theology at Union Theological Seminary and author of a magisterial three volume history of liberal theology in America, defines liberal religion as rejection of any authority outside the self. However, when I read his three volume history of liberal theology in America I discern that all these theologians have one thing in common—recognition of the authority of “modern thought” alongside or above Scripture and tradition….

Liberal theologian Delwin Brown describes the essence of liberal Christianity as granting authority to “the best of contemporary thought” in his dialogue/debate with Clark Pinnock entitled Theological Crossfire.

I use the term ‘theological liberalism’ to describe modernism and postmodernism and their influence on the interpretation of Scripture and its application in the church.

By modernism/theological liberalism, I refer to these major distinctives:[5]

(1) The adaptation of Christian ideas to modern culture and contemporary ways of thinking;

(2) There is a rejection of Christian faith/belief based on God’s authority alone. All beliefs need to be examined under the light of human reason and experience.

(3) God’s immanence is core to theological liberalism with its emphasis of God in the present and acting in the world in the now. Immanence seems to be elevated above God’s transcendent Being.

(4) As a result, the doctrine of sin is de-emphasised as liberal theology sees God’s divine immanence as moving towards the optimistic, positive, humanistic implementation of the kingdom of God on earth.

Theological postmodernism

Emeritus Professor David Clines

David J A Clines (The University of Sheffield)

By ‘theological postmodernism’, I refer to these emphases by David Clines:

I want to propose a model for biblical interpretation that accepts the realities of our pluralist context…. First comes the recognition that texts do not have determinate meanings…. The second axis for my framework is provided by the idea of interpretative communities…. There is no objective standard by which we can know whether one interpretation or other is right; we can only tell whether it has been accepted…. There are no determinate meanings and there are no universally agreed upon legitimate interpretations.

What are biblical scholars then to be doing with themselves? To whom shall they appeal for their authorisation, from where shall they gain approval for their activities, and above all, who will pay them?… If there are no ‘right’ interpretations, and no validity in interpretation beyond the assent of various interest groups, biblical interpreters have to give up the goal of determinate and universally acceptable interpretations, and devote themselves to interpretations they can sell – in whatever mode is called for by the communities they choose to serve. I call this ‘customised’ interpretation.

Such an end-user approach could entail recycling old waste interpretations which were thought to have been superseded by the progress model of modernity. Now these discarded interpretations could be revived in a post-critical form to stock afresh the shelves of the interpretational supermarket (Clines 1993:78-80, emphasis added).

J.G.Machen.jpg

J Gresham Machen (Wikipedia)

A Presbyterian Church (USA) theological professor left the denomination over its theological liberalism in 1936. I’m referring to J Gresham Machen. He wrote in his 1923 seminal publication, Christianity and Liberalism (Eerdmans) this explanation of ‘liberalism’ as applied to the Christian faith:

the present time is a time of conflict; the great redemptive religion which has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology. This modern non-redemptive religion is called “modernism” or “liberalism.” Both names are unsatisfactory; the latter, in particular, is question-begging. The movement designated as “liberalism” is regarded as “liberal” only by its friends; to its opponents it seems to involve a narrow ignoring of many relevant facts. And indeed the movement is so various in its manifestations that one may almost despair of finding any common name which will apply to all its forms. But manifold as are the forms in which the movement appears, the root of the movement is one; the many varieties of modern liberal religion are rooted in naturalism – that is, in the denial of any entrance of the creative power of God (as distinguished from the ordinary course of nature) in connection with the origin of Christianity. The word “naturalism” is here used in a sense somewhat different from its philosophical meaning. In this non-philosophical sense it describes with fair accuracy the real root of what is called, by what may turn out to be a degradation of an originally noble word, “liberal” religion (Machen 1923:2, emphasis added).

Machen also wrote that

two lines of criticism, then, are possible with respect to the liberal attempt at reconciling science and Christianity. Modern liberalism may be criticized (1) on the ground that it is un-Christian and (2) on the ground that it is unscientific. We shall concern ourselves here chiefly with the former line of criticism; we shall be interested in showing that despite the liberal use of traditional phraseology modern liberalism not only is a different religion from Christianity but belongs in a totally different class of religions. But in showing that the liberal attempt at rescuing Christianity is false we are not showing that there is no way of rescuing Christianity at all; on the contrary, it may appear incidentally, even in the present little book, that it is not the Christianity of the New Testament which is in conflict with science, but the supposed Christianity of the modern liberal Church, and that the real city of God, and that city alone, has defenses which are capable of warding of the assaults of modern unbelief. However, our immediate concern is with the other side of the problem; our principal concern just now is to show that the liberal attempt at reconciling Christianity with modern science has really relinquished everything distinctive of Christianity, so that what remains is in essentials only that same indefinite type of religious aspiration which was in the world before Christianity came upon the scene (Machen 1923:7, emphasis added).

Machen noted three points of difference between liberalism and Christianity: (1) Presuppositions of the Christian message; (2) the view of God, and (3) the view of man (human beings). ‘In their attitude toward Jesus, liberalism and Christianity are sharply opposed’ (p. 80).

I think I am poles apart with this fellow in my understanding of biblical Christianity that is opposed to theological liberalism, whether that be modernism or postmodernism. Postmodernism’’s deconstruction is a country mile from a biblical understanding of the world.

His rejoinder

Hedrick came back with:

Vicarious atonement yes. Propitiating the wrath of God depends upon how you mean it. If you want official theology, not my personal view, I don’t think there’s a mandated model of the atonement. I.e. that view is permitted, and in fact is common. The Confession of 1967 mentions it as one of a number of descriptions of the atonement given in the Bible.

Personally, I think God hates sin but not sinners (a view that Calvin took as well, I note). But I think the committee saw more than that, that he hated sinners until Christ died for them, and they may well have seen propitiation as either representing a false concept of how his death worked, or at least felt that it was likely to be misunderstood as in that way. I agree with them, though as I’ve noted I would still have accepted it, because I think it’s a view that is acceptable under our standards, and that many of our churches think it’s important.[6]

Calvin & Packer on propitiation

My further response was:

John Calvin did believe in propitiation, as appeasing the wrath of God. He wrote in his Institutes of the Christian Religion,

I will quote a passage of Augustine to the same effect: “Incomprehensible and immutable is the love of God. For it was not after we were reconciled to him by the blood of his Son that he began to love us, but he loved us before the foundation of the world, that with his only begotten Son we too might be sons of God before we were any thing at all. Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us, but that we were reconciled to him already, loving, though at enmity with us because of sin. To the truth of both propositions we have the attestation of the Apostle, ‘God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,’ (Rom. 5:8). Therefore he had this love towards us even when, exercising enmity towards him, we were the workers of iniquity. Accordingly in a manner wondrous and divine, he loved even when he hated us. For he hated us when we were such as he had not made us, and yet because our iniquity had not destroyed his work in every respect, he knew in regard to each one of us, both to hate what we had made, and love what he had made.” Such are the words of Augustine (Tract in Jo. 110) [John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.16.4, emphasis added).

Calvin further explained:

The free favour of God is as fitly opposed to our works as is the obedience of Christ, both in their order: for Christ could not merit anything save by the good pleasure of God, but only inasmuch as he was destined to appease the wrath of God by his sacrifice, and wipe away our transgressions by his obedience: in one word, since the merit of Christ depends entirely on the grace of God (which provided this mode of salvation for us), the latter is no less appropriately opposed to all righteousness of men than is the former.

2. This distinction is found in numerous passages of Scripture: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish,” (John 3:16). We see that the first place is assigned to the love of God as the chief cause or origin, and that faith in Christ follows as the second and more proximate cause. Should any one object that Christ is only the formal cause, he lessens his energy more than the words justify. For if we obtain justification by a faith which leans on him, the groundwork of our salvation must be sought in him. This is clearly proved by several passages: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” (1 John 4:10). These words clearly demonstrate that God, in order to remove any obstacle to his love towards us, appointed the method of reconciliation in Christ. There is great force in this word “propitiation”; for in a manner which cannot be expressed, God, at the very time when he loved us, was hostile to us until reconciled in Christ. To this effect are all the following passages: “He is the propitiation for our sins;” “It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell, and having made peace by the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself;” “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;” “He has made us accepted in the Beloved,” “That he might reconcile both into one body by the cross.” The nature of this mystery is to be learned from the first chapter to the Ephesians, where Paul, teaching that we were chosen in Christ, at the same time adds, that we obtained grace in him. How did God begin to embrace with his favour those whom he had loved before the foundation of the world, unless in displaying his love when he was reconciled by the blood of Christ? As God is the fountain of all righteousness, he must necessarily be the enemy and judge of man so long as he is a sinner. Wherefore, the commencement of love is the bestowing of righteousness, as described by Paul: “He has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Cor. 5:21). He intimates, that by the sacrifice of Christ we obtain free justification, and become pleasing to God, though we are by nature the children of wrath, and by sin estranged from him. This distinction is also noted whenever the grace of Christ is connected with the love of God (2 Cor. 13:13); whence it follows, that he bestows upon us of his own which he acquired by purchase. For otherwise there would be no ground for the praise ascribed to him by the Father, that grace is his, and proceeds from him (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.17.1-2, emphasis added).

Another Reformed writer, J I Packer, wrote in Knowing God (1973):

(image courtesy Hodder & Stoughton)

If, however, you look at the RSV or NEB versions of the four texts quoted above [Rom 3:21-26; Heb 2:17; 1 Jn 2:1f.; 1Jn 4:8-10], you will find that the word ‘propitiation’ does not appear. In both 1 John passages, NEB has ‘remedy for the defilement’ of our sins; elsewhere, these versions replace the thought of propitiation by that of expiation. What is the difference? The difference is that expiation means only half of what propitiation means. Expiation is an action that has sin as its object; it denotes the covering, putting away, or rubbing out of sin so that it no longer constitutes a barrier to friendly fellowship between man and God. Propitiation, however, in the Bible, denotes all that expiation means, and pacifying the wrath of God thereby. So, at any rate, Christian scholars have maintained since the Reformation, when these things first began to be studied with precision, and the case can still be made compellingly today….

What manner of thing is the wrath of God which was propitiated at Calvary? It is not the capricious, arbitrary, bad-tempered, and conceited anger that pagans attribute to their gods.  It is not the sinful, resentful, malicious, infantile anger that we find among humans.  It is a function of that holiness which is expressed in the demands of God’s moral law (“be holy, because I am holy” [1 Peter 1:16]), and of that righteousness which is expressed in God’s acts of judgment and reward.… God’s wrath is “the holy revulsion of God’s being against that which is the contradiction of his holiness”; it issues in “a positive outgoing of the divine displeasure.”  And this is righteous anger – the right reaction of moral perfection in the Creator toward moral perversity in the creature.  So far from the manifestation of God’s wrath in punishing sin being morally doubtful, the thing that would be morally doubtful would be for him not to show his wrath in this way.  God is not just – that is, he does not act in the way that is right, he does not do what is proper to a judge – unless he inflicts upon all sin and wrongdoing the penalty it deserves….

In paganism, man propitiates his gods, and religion becomes a form of commercialism and, indeed, of bribery. In Christianity, however, God propitiates his wrath by his own action. He set forth Jesus Christ, says Paul, to be the propitiation of our sins. It was not man, to whom God was hostile, who took the initiative to make God friendly, nor was it Jesus Christ, the eternal Son, who took the initiative to turn His Father’s wrath against us into love. The idea that the kind Son changed the mind of His unkind Father by offering Himself in place of sinful man is not part of the gospel message – it is a sub-Christian, indeed an anti-Christian idea, for it denies the unity of will in the Father and the Son and so in reality falls back into polytheism, asking us to believe in two different gods. But the Bible rules this out absolutely by insisting that it was God Himself who took the initiative in quenching His own wrath against those whom, despite their ill desert, He loved and had chosen to save.

The doctrine of the propitiation is precisely this: that God loved the objects of His wrath so much that He gave His own Son to the end that He by His blood should make provision for the removal of His wrath. It was Christ’s so to deal with the wrath that the loved would no longer be the objects of wrath, and love would achieve its aim of making the children of wrath the children of God’s good pleasure (John Murray, The Atonement, p. 15)    (Packer 1973:205-205, emphasis added).

Packer cites R V G Tasker: ‘It is inadequate to regard this term (wrath) merely as a description of the “inevitable process of cause and effect in a moral universe” or as another way of speaking of the results of sin. It is rather a personal quality without which God would cease to be fully righteous and His love would degenerate into sentimentality’ (New Bible Dictionary, s.v. ‘Wrath’). Then Packer adds: ‘The wrath of God is as personal and as potent, as His Love; and, just as the blood-shedding of the Lord Jesus was the direct manifestation of His Father’s love towards us, so it was the direct averting of His Father’s wrath against us‘ (Packer 1973: 204, emphasis added).

See also:

cubed-iron-sm Roger E Olson, ‘Evangelicalism and Postmodernism’;

cubed-iron-sm Zane C Hodges, ‘Post-evangelicalism confronts the postmodern age’;

Works consulted

Clines, D J A 1993. Possibilities and priorities of biblical interpretation in an international perspective, in Biblical Interpretation, no 1 (online), 67-87.

Machen, J G 1923. Christianity and liberalism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Packer, J I 1973. Knowing God. London, Sydney, Auckland, Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton. Also available, but with different page numbers, as a partial Google book online at, ‘Knowing God‘.

Pierard, R V 1983. Liberalism, Theological, in W A Elwell (ed), Evangelical dictionary of theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 631-635.

Wright, N T 1992. The New Testament and the people of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. (Series in Christian origins and the question of God, vol 1).

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, Soteriology, ‘Hymn writers won’t change lyrics for Presbyterians’, OzSpen #1. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7764331/ (Accessed 5 August 2013).

[2] Ibid., Hendrick #4.

[3] Ibid., Hendrick #8.

[4] Ibid., OzSpen #10.

[5] These emphases are from Pierard (1983:631-635.

[6] Christian Forums, Soteriology, ‘Hymn writers won’t change lyrics for Presbyterians’, Hendrick #11, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7764331-2/#post63857029 (Accessed 5 August 2013).

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 12 August 2016.

Some Calvinistic antagonism towards Arminians

James Arminius 2.jpg

Jacobus Arminius (Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

Why can the following be said of those who believe in an Arminian view of salvation?

  • You can’t be a biblical Christian and believe that.
  • It has been judged as heresy in the past and is consigned to heresy today.
  • It’s an oxymoron.
  • No such beast exists.
  • It is not what God says about salvation.
  • They are playing with fire.
  • They are dying with their false gospel; it is another gospel.
  • They are demons from hell.
  • There is no spiritual life in Arminian salvation.
  • Since Arminians think contrary to God’s word, they go to the second death in the fire of falsehood and will be in death for eternity.

That is a summary of what a Calvinistic promoter of monergism wrote to me, an Arminian promoter of synergism, on a Christian forum on the Internet (see below).

It’s a hotly contested topic

In Christian circles, monergism versus synergism can be a provocative and passionately debated topic, as we’ll see below. This is terminology that has not been used frequently. In my older theology books, I cannot find the language used. It is not in the indices of Charles Hodge , Louis Berkhof, Henry Thiessen or H. Orton Wiley. Even some modern theologians don’t use this language, examples being Wayne Grudem and Millard Erickson. However, it is in John Miley’s Systematic Theology, first published in 1893:

We have no power of self-regeneration. The nature of inherited depravity precludes its possibility. As a subjective state it is as really in us and of us as if original to our nature. Hence a power of self-regeneration would be the same as a power of changing one’s own nature. There can be no such power. It is the sense of Scripture respecting our natural state that we have no such power. In this moral impotence lies the necessity for the economy of redemption. Regeneration is a true sphere of the divine monergism.

There is also a sphere of synergism. Regeneration is not an absolute work of the Spirit. We have already shown its conditionality. There are prerequisites which cannot be met without our own free agency. There must be an earnest turning of the soul to God, deep repentance for sin, and a true faith in Christ. Such are the requirements of our own agency. There is no regeneration for us without them. Yet they are not possible in the unaided resources of our own nature. Hence there must be a helping work of the Spirit prior to his work of regeneration. There is such help. The Holy Spirit enlightens, awakens, and graciously draws us. All this may be without our consent. And even despite our resistance. We may finally resist, or we may yield to the gracious influences, and be born of the Spirit. Here is the sphere of synergism.[1]

Here’s how my opponent began:

Listen you have to know that a synergistic view of Salvation is not even Biblically Christian. It was judged a heresy at the synod of Dordt and it is a heresy today. You place yourself in Gal 1:6-9 Arminianism is another gospel which is NO gospel= no salvation.[2]

What is monergism regarding Christian salvation?

This article from Wikipedia, ‘Monergism’, gives a good, summary definition:

Monergism describes the position in Christian theology of those who believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, works to bring about effectually the salvation of individuals through spiritual regeneration without cooperation from the individual. Monergism is most often associated with Calvinism (like many American Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed) and its doctrine of irresistible grace and in particular with historic doctrinal differences between Calvinism on the one hand and Arminianism on the other.

What is synergism in relation to Christian salvation?

For fairness, I would like to use the Wikipedia article on synergism to define the theology, but the article is too slanted in favour of Calvinism for a balanced perspective.

Simply stated, ‘Synergism [is] any system that affirms some kind of cooperative interaction between the divine and the human in the process of salvation…. It is entirely possible for one to affirm the cooperative interaction of both divine and human while still affirming that the process of salvation begins entirely with God’s salvific (not common) grace’.[3]

See Norman Geisler’s ‘Monergism vs. Synergism’. His summary statements are that monergism:

  1. It is not supported by the Bible;
  2. It is not supported by the church fathers;
  3. It is not supported by the attribute of God’s omnibenevolence;
  4. It is not supported by man’s God-given free will.
  5. It is inconsistent.

Monergistic antagonism

Untimely Words

ChristArt

A person responded to me on Christian Forums (online) with some inflammatory antagonism towards my Arminian/synergistic views. He wrote:

You say: “Synergistic Christian” That name is an oxymoron, no such animal. It doesn’t matter what anyone says, what does God say? Look, this is more important than a heart attack okay? You have no idea what you’re doing. You’re playin (sic) with fire. All of you in this “synergistic safe house” are like a smokers emporium, you’re all dieing (sic) with your false gospel. Isa 8:20 And I come in and all the demons of hell are screaming “have you come to disturb us before our time?” Matt 8:29 Yeh I am, are you able to get up and get out of there? You will have to be “quickened” Eph 2:1 to do it. There is no spiritual life in believing as you do. “as a man thinks so is he” If you think contrary to God’s word you get death, the second death the lake of fire. Rev 22:18 The fire of falsehood you so loved in life, you’ll have in death for eternity Rev 14:11.[4]

[5]See what he does with his presuppositional imposition on me for my theology? His presuppositions include:

  1. Synergist Christians do not fit his Calvinistic soteriology, so they are wrong.
  2. What does God say? That means, ‘What do Calvinists say?’
  3. Only Calvinists (non-synergists) know the biblical teaching on the gospel and salvation.
  4. I have no idea what I’m doing in supporting synergism, but Calvinistic supporters of monergism know what they are doing. They are the only people who can get the doctrine of salvation correct.
  5. Synergism is a false gospel according to Calvinistic monergism.
  6. There is no spiritual life in understanding the Scriptures from a synergistic perspective.
  7. Those who believe in synergism are ‘the demons of hell’.
  8. The fire of falsehood of synergism sends people to damnation.

He confuses his interpretation of what the Scriptures say and calls it what God says. He is absolutist in his view that monergists are correct and synergists (as he understands synergism) are wrong and are going to hell. He doesn’t seem to be able to differentiate between what God says and his interpretation of the biblical text.

After his and my responses above were deleted, he came back to me with a similar kind of language:

A synergistic view of salvation that is two or more agents (in this case the sinner and God) to effect the result of salvation is a false gospel or another gospel as Paul calls it in Gal 1:6-9 faith of this sort is not the “faith of God’s elect” Titus 1:1 but rather a self conjured faith in the idol of imagined free-will, producing no salvation but eternal damnation.[6]

Is monergism vs synergism creating a wrong antithesis?

Ben Henshaw explains how the terms synergism and monergism get confused in his article, ‘Is Arminian Theology Synergistic?‘[7]

For some, the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism boils down to whether salvation is monergistic or synergistic. I believe the term “synergism” is not always accurately applied to the Arminian position. The word comes from the Greek synergos, which essentially means “working together”. While monergism (to work alone) may be an acceptable label for what Calvinists believe (God does all the work in salvation), synergism does not always rightly portray what Arminians have historically believed.

The word itself, when taken in a grammatically strict sense, is not a very good description of what Arminians believe regarding salvation. Arminians do not believe that both God and man “work” together in salvation. We believe that we are saved “by faith from first to last” (Rom. 1:17). Since faith is antithetical to works (Rom. 3:20-28; 4:2-5; 9:32; 10:5, 6; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5; Eph. 2:8, 9; Phil. 3:9), it is a misnomer to label Arminian soteriology as synergistic in the strictest sense of the word.

Arminian theology, when rightly understood, teaches that salvation is monergistic. God alone does the saving. God alone regenerates the soul that is dead in sin. God alone forgives and justifies on the merits of Christ’s blood. God alone makes us holy and righteous. In all of these ways salvation is entirely monergistic. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is whether or not God’s saving work is conditional or unconditional. Arminians believe that God will not save until we meet the God ordained condition of faith. Faith may be understood as synergistic only in the sense that God graciously enables us to believe, but we are the ones who must decide whether or not we will believe.

F. Leroy Forlines put it well in The Quest for Truth when he said,

“I believe that saving faith is a gift of God in the sense that the Holy Spirit gives divine enablement without which faith would be impossible (John 6:44). The difference between the Calvinistic concept of faith and my concept of faith cannot be that theirs is monergistic and mine is synergistic. In both cases it is synergistic. Active participation in faith by the believer means it must be synergistic. Human response cannot be ruled out of faith. Justification and regeneration are monergistic. Each is an act of God, not man. Faith is a human act by divine enablement and therefore cannot be monergistic.” (Forlines 2001:160).

If faith were monergistic then it would not be the person believing, but God believing for the person. Faith is the genuine human response to God’s call, and the means by which we access His saving grace (Rom. 5:1, 2). It is still God’s grace that saves, but that grace must be received by faith, and the nature of faith is such that it can never be properly called a “work”.

Does this mean that man is the determiner of salvation and not God? Absolutely not. God has determined that those who believe in His Son shall be saved, and that determination is absolute and unchangeable (Jn. 3:16-18, 36). We simply determine whether or not we will meet the God ordained condition of faith.

See the article on the Society of Evangelical Arminians website, ‘The False Antithesis Between Monergism and Synergism: A Lesson from Historical Theology’.

Conclusion

Gratefully, there are not many like the hostile person I met on Christian Forums who is prepared to announce my damnation in the hell of fire because I believe in a synergistic view of salvation. When I asked a Lutheran on the Forum, who believes in monergism, if he would say that there is no eternal salvation for those who believe in a synergistic view of salvation through Christ, his response was:

Of course not. That would be works-righteousness, placing the onus of salvation in the power and capacity of man. Grace being grace, however, must mean that the onus is on the saving power of Christ, who by His Means creates faith in us—not a mental assent to doctrine, but a saving, justifying faith. Such faith even the unlearned and the infant can have—according to the gracious work of Christ alone.

Making such doctrinal minutia intrinsic to our eternal salvation ignores the whole point of what makes Grace Grace; and further draws focus away from Christ and His Cross toward ourselves and our ability.[8]

Ben Henshaw’s view (as above) is to the point and is as good and brief as any I have read recently:

The word itself [synergism], when taken in a grammatically strict sense, is not a very good description of what Arminians believe regarding salvation. Arminians do not believe that both God and man “work” together in salvation. We believe that we are saved “by faith from first to last” (Rom. 1:17). Since faith is antithetical to works (Rom. 3:20-28; 4:2-5; 9:32; 10:5, 6; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5; Eph. 2:8, 9; Phil. 3:9), it is a misnomer to label Arminian soteriology as synergistic in the strictest sense of the word.

Arminian theology, when rightly understood, teaches that salvation is monergistic. God alone does the saving. God alone regenerates the soul that is dead in sin. God alone forgives and justifies on the merits of Christ’s blood. God alone makes us holy and righteous. In all of these ways salvation is entirely monergistic. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is whether or not God’s saving work is conditional or unconditional. Arminians believe that God will not save until we meet the God ordained condition of faith. Faith may be understood as synergistic only in the sense that God graciously enables us to believe, but we are the ones who must decide whether or not we will believe.

See my other articles:

arrow-small An Arminian view of faith in Christ;

arrow-small Is prevenient grace amazing grace?

arrow-small Calvinists, free will and a better alternative;

arrow-small Does regeneration precede faith in Christian salvation?

arrow-small What is the nature of human free will?

arrow-small Is it possible or impossible to fall away from the Christian faith?

arrow-small Calvinistic excuses for rejecting Jesus’ universal atonement;

arrow-small Once Saved, Always Saved or Once Saved, Lost Again?

References:

Forlines, F L 2001. The quest for truth: Answering life’s inescapable questions. Nashville, Tennessee: Randall House Publications.

Notes:

[1] John Miley 1893. Systematic Theology (online), vol 2. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, available at: www.lcoggt.org/General/Miley/REGENERATION_MILEY.doc (Accessed 19 July 2012).

[2] Christian Forums, Theology (Christians Only), Christian Scriptures, ‘Did God stop “dictating” his Word after the Book of Revelation?’, kevinmccue #43, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7554361-5/#post61004583 (Accessed 19 July 2012).

[3] Marc Cortez,‘Synergism is not semi-Pelagianism’, Everyday Theology, available at: http://marccortez.com/2010/11/20/synergism-is-not-semi-pelagianism/ (Accessed 19 July 2012).

[4] Ibid #46. This post has since been removed from the thread after I complained about the inflammatory nature of the post and a moderator of the Forum advised me that this poster was using ‘flaming’ language and the post was deleted.

[5] This was my response a OzSpen, ibid. #47. However, since #46 has been removed, so has been my response at #47.

[6] Ibid., kevin mccue #56.

[7] Available at: http://evangelicalarminians.org/is-arminian-theology-synergistic/. Also available from kangaroodort, Arminian Perspectives, July 25, 2007, available at: http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/is-arminian-theology-synergistic/ (Accessed 1 August 2013). Could kangaroodort be Ben Henshaw? At the time of posting this article to my homepage, Ben Henshaw’s article was no longer available online from the Society of Evangelical Arminians. I wrote them to inquire why it had been removed and am awaiting a reply.

[8] ViaCrucis, Christian Forums, #53, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7554361-6/ (Accessed 19 July 2012).

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 29 October 2015.

The damage done by hoax email and misinformation on the Internet

Image result for boat people Indian Ocean to Australia public domain
(courtesy The Independent, 17 June 2014)

By Spencer D Gear

I was at a Bible study group on the morning of 31 July 2013 in an outer Brisbane suburb. There I received a scanned copy of a page that indicated that Centrelink benefits for an Australian aged pensioner and spouse were $16,068.00 annually compared with $56,680.00 annually for illegal immigrants/refugees living in Australia.

This is what was handed to the members of the group, not by the leader, but by a group member:

clip_image002[6]

(image courtesy theantibogan)

What are the facts?

This image was located on this webpage in the article, ‘Asylum seekers: “Robert Bretton” liar & fraud’, March 15 2012.[1] It was also located HERE (on 31 July 2013).

When I was provided with this handout, I found these figures to be questionable and I ‘smelt a rat’. It would be unjust of the Australian government to promote this kind of inequity. I found the information to be somewhat unusual so I searched online. I’ve tried to verify the figures that were given in the handout.  This is what I found:

Robert Bretton’s information shown to be a hoax

Vietnamese boat people (image courtesy Wikipedia)

1. ‘Hoax e-mails‘[2] (The Refugee Council of Australia, May 2012). This includes the hoax of the Centrelink benefits that were allegedly higher for refugees than for aged pensioners.

2. Refugees and asylum seekers receive higher social security payments than Australian aged pensioners (The Refugee Council of Australia, February 2011).[3] This article states:

“Refugees and asylum seekers receive higher social security payments than Australian aged pensioners.”

A refugee who has permanent residency in Australia receives exactly the same social security benefits as any Australian resident in the same circumstances. Refugees apply for social security through Centrelink like everyone else and are assessed for the different payment options in the same way as everyone else. There are no separate Centrelink allowances that one can receive simply by virtue of being a refugee.

Centrelink payments are calculated at exactly the same rate for both refugees and non-refugees. A single person with no dependent children applying for Special Benefit or the Newstart Allowance (whether or not he or she is a refugee) will receive $469.70 per fortnight, whereas a single person on an Age Pension payment will receive a fortnightly payment of $658.40. A single age pensioner therefore receives over $180.00 more per fortnight more than a single refugee (or a single Australian citizen or permanent resident) who qualifies for Special Benefit or Newstart. Australian citizens and permanent residents with dependent children on lower to middle incomes (including refugees) may also be eligible to receive Family Tax Benefits or Parenting Payments. However, none of these allowances are paid at a higher rate than the single age pension.

Asylum seekers are not entitled to the same forms of financial support as citizens or permanent residents. The Asylum Seeker Assistance (ASA) Scheme provides assistance to some eligible asylum seekers who are in the process of having their refugee status determined. The ASA Scheme offers income support to cover basic living expenses, at a rate below Centrelink benefits.

Please note that the figures on Centrelink payment rates quoted above are current as at February 2011 and are subject to change. For the latest payment rates, visit www.centrelink.gov.au

3.    A House of Representatives Committee statement, dated 28 September 2012, ‘Australian Government assistance to refugees: fact v fiction‘.[4] This indicates that the information that was provided to the study group was a hoax and it is in emails that are circulating around the country/world.

4.    The Refugee Council of Australia on March 9 2010 stated that these figures about the discrepancies between benefits for aged persons and refugees were false. See, ‘Response to outlandish claims about benefits to refugees: update‘.[5]

5. The Australian Red Cross issued a ‘Fact sheet Migration Support Programs: Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme’, part of which stated:

Australian Red Cross : The Power Of Humanity

Australian Red Cross

Our case workers can assist you in accessing financial assistance to cover:

• basic living expenses (89% of Centrelink special benefits)

• general healthcare

• protection visa health and character checks.[6]

6. Parliament of Australia, 13 February 2013, corrected this benefit misinformation in, ‘Asylum seekers and refugees. What are the facts?’[7] It states:

In recent years, a series of emails have been widely circulated throughout Australia claiming to describe higher social security entitlements for refugees, compared with those of other Australian residents. A common claim in these emails is that refugees in Australia receive higher social security benefits than age pensioners.

There is no truth to claims that refugees are entitled to higher benefits than other social security recipients. Refugees have the same entitlements as all other permanent residents—they do not receive special refugee payments or special rates of payment.

7. In a letter-to-the-editor to the Fraser Coast Chronicle (published 17 June, 2010), sent by Sandi Logan, National Communications Manager, Department of Immigration and Citizenship by the Australian Government, ‘Asylum seekers don’t receive Centrelink benefits‘, it was stated:[8]

The figure mentioned in the letter of a $50,000 benefit paid by Centrelink to asylum seekers is completely incorrect. Asylum seekers, while in detention undergoing the processing of their claims, are not entitled to Centrelink social security benefits.

Until such time as an asylum seeker is determined to be a refugee, as defined by the United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), or returned home, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) is solely responsible for the care of detainees.

If an asylum seeker is ultimately found to be a refugee and granted a visa, they then become a permanent resident and have access to exactly the same entitlements as any other resident or citizen of Australia: no more, no less.

Another questionable email sent by Christians

On 10 August 2013, I received an email titled, ‘She was a Christian’ that began with these words and these font colours:

WARNING:  THE PHOTO BELOW IS QUITE GRAPHIC….BUT VERY TRUE!  IF YOU THINK YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO STAND LOOKING AT IT THEN PLEASE DELETE THIS EMAIL.

What’s wrong with the Muslim world ???

HORRIBLE !!!!

SHE WAS ATTACKED – RAPED BY ABOUT 20 MUSLIMS AND AFTERWARDS MURDERED IN SYRIA.

WHAT WAS HER CRIME? “SHE WAS A CHRISTIAN”

MAY OUR DEAR LORD TAKE HER IN HIS ARMS……    AMEN!

Then followed what looks like Arabic writing and two photos, one of a beautiful teenage girl and beside her a photo of a murdered teen with the base of a cross shoved into her mouth and blood gushing forth (it’s too graphic for me to include on this page). The first thought that came to my mind was: Is this an accurate depiction from a credible source? Or is this another example of credulous Christians who pass on information without checking. So I went on a search, thanks to Google and some sites that check Internet hoaxes. This is what I found:

There are a number of reports in news items online of a 15-year-old Christian teenager in Syria who experienced multiple rapes from Muslim men. See:

cubed-redmatteSyria: 15-Year-Old Christian Girl Systematically Raped By Islamist …

cubed-redmatteMost victimized in Syria? Young Christian women – WND

cubed-redmatteList of Islamic Terror Attacks on Christians – TheReligionofPeace.com

cubed-redmatteTeenager in Syria raped & killed by 15 Islamist rebels

cubed-redmatteRumors confirmed: Christian women being raped in Aleppo …

cubed-redmatteMembers of ‘Free Syrian Army’ raped, killed girl in Syria, UN official …

cubed-redmatteSyria: 15-Year-Old Christian Girl Systematically Raped By Islamist …

cubed-redmatteChristian Girl Raped by 15 Islamists in Syria by the Side …

However, from where did this gory, bloody photo of a teenager with a cross being forced down the woman’s throat originate? I had doubts that this was genuine in referring to an actual Christian woman, so I sent an inquiry online to www.snopes.com to ask them to investigate if this is a hoax.

I did find this statement in a news item, ‘Support Remy Couture and You Support Violence Against Women‘. Part of it stated:

Quebec filmmaker, Remy Couture, was charged in 2009 under the Criminal Code obscenity law over material posted to his website, and went to trial in Montreal in December 2012. The material in question includes hundreds of photos and a pair of videos that depict gruesome murders, torture, simulated rape, extreme violence and necrophilia, all with young female victims. The sets viewed in court included titles like “Hook”, a series of photos depicting a woman being tortured with hooks by a masked man. Another picture set titled “Burn” involves a woman’s burned body being assaulted and mutilated.

The films, titled Inner Depravity I and II, feature Courture in the role of a serial killer who hacks off limbs and performs sex acts on his victims. Couture says the films are meant to depict the life of a serial killer, assisted by a 10-year-old boy, whose tendencies lead him to also have sex with his dead female victims. One sequence shows a woman bleeding after a crucifix was shoved down her throat. Another graphic scene shows a character carving out a victim’s organs (emphasis added).

The pictures that were supplied to be by email of this young woman and a cross being forced down a throat come from twicsy, the Twitter Pics Engine. I urged the person who sent the email not to pass these things on until they are verified as genuine. They may be genuine, but in a quick look on the www this morning, I cannot verify them as genuine from a woman who has been raped by Muslims in Syria, murdered, and then a cross shoved down her throat.

I came across this item from 20 March 2011,

‘**GRAPHIC** Body of Young Christian Woman, and Indonesian Jihadi Brutally Murdering Christians **GRAPHIC**‘ with other graphic images, but I don’t know if these are genuine. They could be, but I don’t know. However, a comment on this website confirmed that that picture of the woman with a cross down her throat is from the film ‘Inner Depravity’.

However, what about the other pictures at the bottom of the article? Are they also from a film and are fake? I don’t know how to confirm the authenticity. However, some of the pictures from the bottom of this article are labelled as ghostpics. I investigated to find the nature of ghostpics and found this article to confirm how ghostpics may be genuine pictures but they have been known to manipulate pictures electronically. See, ‘Best Ghost Pictures Ever Taken‘.

This picture of the cross down the throat is also found in Encyclopedia Dramatica, which seems to suggest that this is not a genuine photo.

I urge Christians and others not to forward these kinds of email until their content can be verified.

It is critical to check the facts before circulating

This information indicates that the figures provided in the handout this morning are from hoax emails that have been circulating. Would you please do all you can to put an end to this kind of email that misrepresents the situation should you come across these incorrect figures?

There are too many people who are falling victim to circulating Internet and email hoaxes about various subjects. Many of them can be checked out at various sites on the Internet that investigate possible hoax emails and Internet information. These are the ones I use regularly:

check Snopes.com;

check Urban Legends;

check Hoax-Slayer; and

check TruthorFiction.com.

Notes:

[1] Available at: http://theantibogan.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/asylum-seekers-robert-bretton-liar-and-fraud/ (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[2] Refugee Council of Australia, available at: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-email.php (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[3] Refugee Council of Australia, available at: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php#centrelink (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[4] Parliament of Australia, available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AustGovAssistRefugees (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[5] Available at: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/releases/2010/100309%20Updated%20Response%20to%20email%20on%20Centrelink%20benefits.pdf (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[6] Available at: http://www.redcross.org.au/files/20120203_ASAS_Fact_Sheet_.pdf (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[7] Available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AsylumFacts#_Toc348096472 (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[8] This online version of the letter is dated as 22 July 2010, available at: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/letters/letters10/le100722.htm (Accessed 31 July 2013).

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 11 March 2018.

Did Moses write the Pentateuch?

By Spencer D Gear

The Pentateuch consists of the first five books of the Bible – Genesis to Deuteronomy. Here is an overview of the JEDP theory:[1]

clip_image002

(courtesy www.cs.umd.edu)

The JEDP theory (sometimes called the Graf-Wellhausen or Documentary Hypothesis) was developed in the 18th and 19th century by critical scholars of the Bible. Under this view, the Pentateuch was not written by Moses. Instead, it was the result of a later author/editor, who pieced multiple sources together. Among these sources were:

J: From the German “Jahweh” or Yahwist source (dated ~950-850 BC).

E: From the Elohist source. Northern kingdom (~750 BC).

D: From the Deuteronomistic source. Southern kingdom (~650 BC).

P: From the Priestly source. Post-exilic (~587 BC).

An online discussion re JEDP

I engaged in discussion online with Jim, a promoter of the JEDP theory. Here is a copy of the discussion:[2]

OZ: The biblical evidence is right before us of Mosaic authorship.

JP: Does that evidence include Moses referring to himself in the third person and writing about his death, burial and 30 days of mourning AFTER he died?  believe it is from Moses’ time but not necessarily from his hand. (He was rather busy, you know.)

OZ: The Pentateuch claims in many places that Moses was the writer, e.g. Exodus 17:14; 24:4–7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24.

JP: It also has many places where Moses is referred to in the third person. So what? That means that Moses is reported to have written portions of “the Book of Moses.” It does not require that he wrote the whole thing. (Unless you are willing to hold to his continued, post-mortem, writing.)

OZ: Many times in the rest of the Old Testament, Moses is said to have been the writer, e.g. Joshua 1:7–8

JP: “Only be strong and very courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you”.That does not say Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch. It says he commanded Israel to keep the Law.
Joshua 8:32–34 Ditto.  Judges 3:4 Ditto.

Here’s what the Bible DOES say Moses wrote:

Exodus 24:4, And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD. (The Laws)  And he rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars according to the twelve tribes of Israel (NKJV).

Numbers 33:2, Now Moses wrote down the starting points of their journeys at the command of the LORD. And these [are] their journeys according to their starting points:

Deuteronomy 31:9, So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.

Deuteronomy 31:22, Therefore Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it to the children of Israel.

OZ: In the New Testament, Jesus frequently spoke of Moses’ writings or the Law of Moses,

JP: This is a very common and simplistic “proof.” The Torah was referred to as “The Book of Moses.” That name does not carry with it a statement of authorship. I have a “Webster’s Dictionary.” I have no misconception that it is a copy of what Noah Webster personally wrote.

OZ:   it seems likely that a sole author was responsible. Their exhaustive computer analysis conducted in Israel suggested an 82 percent probability that the book has just one author.

JP: I think Genesis is the work of a sole author. And a sole author can include more than one tradition and relating of the same story. It takes a great deal of skill and sophistication to do it well. I believe it was written by a sole author, most probably a contemporary of Moses and probably at the direction of Moses.

You seem to be rejecting out of hand, without consideration, the possibility that there could be more than one version of the creation and flood stories among these ancient people. That flies in the face of the existence of a variety of creation and flood stories among the ancient Mesopotamian people.

You also seem to be hung up on the idea that one author would, of necessity, have only one view to relate. That is not only unnecessary but, considering the text, it is unreasonable.

Further, you seem to assume that if I can see more than one tradition reflected in the text that I must agree with the whole of the documentary hypothesis, lock, stock and barrel. I do not. I think it is the result of over-analyzation combined with fertile imaginations and the need to publish.

I do see the two traditions, both representing valid recitals of the story of beginning from God’s creation of the heavens and earth through the dispersion. (Gen 1:1 – 11:9).

The dispersion is followed by a genealogy which connects the creation story to the story of the Hebrews who are the sons of Abraham, the descendant of Shem (SHem means “Name” and apparently refers to those who called upon Ha-Shem) the descendant of seth the son of Adam.

There is a felt need among many people that only Moses be allowed to be the author of the Pentateuch. It is an irrational need that flies in the face of the words of which Moses is demanded to be sole author. It is an imposition of man’s desire upon the word of God which detracts from it by restricting our understanding of His message to the views of one sect among God’s people.

Let my people go.

The Pentateuch and the JEDP theory

See my brief article, ‘JEDP Documentary Hypothesis refuted’.

This is not the place for a detailed critique of JEDP, but a few criticisms given by R. N. Whybray, who is certainly not a conservative, are in order:

1. While those espousing the documentary hypothesis assume that the biblical writers avoided repetitions, ancient literature from the same period reveled in repetitions and doublets as a mark of literary artistry.

2. The documentary hypothesis breaks up narratives into different sources thereby destroying their inherent literary and artistic qualities.

3. The source critics assume that variety in language and style is a sign of different sources, but it could just as well be a sign of differences in subject matter that carry with them their own distinctive vocabulary and style.

4. Inadequate evidence exists to argue for a sustained unique style, narrative story line, purpose and theological point of view in each of the four main documents that are thought to be the sources for the contents and message of the Pentateuch (cited in Kaiser 2001:137).

This we know from Scripture

The Pentateuch often refers to Moses as the author (eg Ex. 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:1-2; Deut. 31:9). Christ and the apostles gave unequivocal support for Moses as the author of the Torah (Law), eg John 5:46-57; 7:19; Acts 3:22 [cf. Deut. 18:15]; Rom. 10:5.

Works consulted

Kaiser Jr., W C 2001, The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Notes:

[1] This summary of JEDP is provided by James Rochford of Xenos Christian Fellowship, ‘Authorship of the Pentateuch’, Evidence Unseen, available at: http://www.evidenceunseen.com/authorship-of-exodus/ (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[2] This is based on an interaction I (ozspen) had with Jim Parker on Christian Fellowship Forum, Contentious Brethren, ‘Dawkins won’t debate creationists’, FatherJimParker #41, 5 June 2012, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=121081.41&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship (Accessed 6 June 2012).

 

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

What is the nature of human free will?

Free Gift

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

It is not unusual to get questions from Christians like, ‘What, exactly, do you mean by free will?’[1] This can become an especially animated discussion between Arminians and Calvinists in theological discussions.

When we ask, ‘What is the nature of free will or free choice?’ we may be asking: How long is a piece of string in theological terms? If we are going to answer this question with biblical accuracy, we will need to ask further questions about:

  1. Free will / free choice and the power of God (see Isa 45:11-13; 46:4; Jer 32:16-44; Acts 4:24-31);
  2. Free choice and the decrees of God (Rom 8:28; Eph 1:9, 11; 3:11);
  3. Free choice and the salvation of human beings (Tit 2:11; Prov 1:23; Isa 31:6; Ezek 14:6; Matt 18:3; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 16:31; 17:30; Phil 1:39; 1 Jn 3:23);
  4. Free choice as it is related to God’s providence (Jas 4:2);
  5. Free choice and God’s foreknowledge (Rom 8:29-30; 2 Cor 6:1-2; 1 Pt 1:1-2);
  6. Free choice and a human being’s moral nature (Jn 1:12-13; 7:17; Rom 3:26; Heb 3:7-8, 15; 4);
  7. Free choice and Adam’s original sin (the origin of the sin of the human race) [Gen 3:1-8; Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:21-22; 1 Tim 2:13-14];
  8. Free choice and human depravity (Deut 6:4-5; Matt 22:35-38; Rom 2:14; 7:18; 8:14; 2 Tim 3:4);
  9. Free choice and eternal security/perseverance of the saints (Jer 3:12, 14, 22; Hos 14:4; Mt 24:13; Mk 4:16-17; 7:21-23; Jn 6:66-67; 13:10-11; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-31; 2 Pt 2:20-22; 1 Jn 2:19)[listed in  Thiessen 1949:524].

I’ll make a brief attempt at an understanding of human free choice, but this will not be an adequate understanding without biblical knowledge of the above 9 points, with some biblical references provided.

From a human point of view, we understand God’s knowledge of the future is foreknowledge. But from God’s point of view, He knows all things ‘by one simultaneous intuition’ (Thiessen 1949:125).

Simply stated, the nature of human free will or of human free choice is, according to Norman Geisler, ‘the power of contrary choice’ (Geisler 2003:444). This is a basic and simple definition: ‘Free will or free choice is the power of contrary choice’ and it is not taken away from human beings by God’s sovereignty.

In my understanding, God gave to Satan (Lucifer) and to Adam the power of free choice before the Fall. However, to discuss free choice, God’s sovereignty and human depravity will take a lot of space that I have not attempted here.

This view of free will, the power of contrary choice, is not incompatible with God’s complete sovereignty over human choice as God’s omniscient attribute knows absolutely what every free choice will be. God cannot be the one who decrees sinful actions. Why?

We know God cannot sin. We know that he cannot lie (Heb 6:18; Titus 1:2) and he cannot be tempted by evil and he cannot tempt people with evil (James 1:13). This is the nature of our Lord God Almighty:

The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he’ (Deuteronomy 32:4 ESV)

That is not the way Jonathan Edwards saw it:

That we should say, that God has decreed every action of men, yea, every action that they do that is sinful, and every circumstance of those actions . . . and yet that God does not decree the actions that are sinful as sinful, but decrees [them] as good, is really consistent.

We do not mean by decreeing an action as sinful, the same as decreeing an action so that it shall be sinful; but by decreeing an action as sinful, I mean decreeing [it] for the sake of the sinfulness of the action. God decrees that it shall be sinful for the sake of the good that he causes to arise from the sinfulness thereof, whereas man decrees it for the sake of the evil that is in it (The Miscellanies of Jonathan Edwards #85).

1. Free will and the power of God

Power

(image courtesy ChristArt)

God’s omnipotence means that God ‘is able to do whatever He wills; but since His will is limited by His nature, this means that God can do everything in harmony with His perfections’ (Thiessen 1949:126). So this means that God cannot do whatever is contrary to his perfect nature. The implications are:

clip_image002 God is ‘pure and cannot stand the sight of evil’ (Habakkuk 1:13 NLT).

clip_image002[1] God cannot deny who he is (2 Tim 2:13 NLT);

clip_image003 It is impossible for God to lie (Heb 6:18 NLT);

clip_image003[1] God never tempts anyone and God himself is not tempted to do wrong (James 1:13 NLT).

It should be self evident that the God who created logic could not do that which is a self-contradiction. Since the spirit is immaterial, it is contradictory to speak of a material spirit – and a square circle. God can do what he wills with his power, but

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).

These Scriptures teach the all-powerful nature (omnipotence) of God: Genesis 17:1; Job 42:2; Jeremiah 32:17; Matthew 19:26; Luke 1:37 and Revelation 19:6.

2. Free choice and God’s foreknowledge

Custom Made

(image courtesy ChristArt)

What is the meaning of God’s knowing everything? This is called God’s omniscience.

‘By the omniscience of God we mean that He knows Himself and all other things, whether they be actual or merely possible, whether they be past, present, or future, and that He knows them perfectly and from all eternity. He knows things immediately, simultaneously, exhaustively and truly. He also knows the best ways to attain His desired ends’ (Thiessen 1949:124)

How does this apply to God’s knowing the future and His foreknowledge? Henry Thiessen again: ‘From man’s standpoint God’s knowledge of the future is foreknowledge, but not from God’s since He knows all things by one simultaneous intuition’ (Thiessen 1949:125). This means that God’s foreknowledge includes:

clip_image005 Knowledge of the past, present and future (Isa 46:9; Daniel 2 and 7; Matthew 24 and 25; Acts 15:18);

clip_image005[1] Knowing that Israel would become prosperous and then practice idolatry, despise God and the intentions of these people – their wickedness (Deut 31:20-21);

clip_image005[2] The future work of Cyrus (Isa 44:26-45:7);

clip_image005[3] The Messiah would come (Micah 5:2);

clip_image005[4] What would happen to Jesus at his crucifixion and what wicked people would do to him in fulfillment of Scripture (Acts 2:23; 3:18);

Thiessen emphasised that foreknowledge did not mean cause: ‘We must not confuse foreknowledge with the predetermining will of God. Free actions do not take place because they are foreseen, but they are foreseen because they will take place’ (1949:126).

Thiessen (1949:126) cites Charles Hodge, a Calvinist, in support of this position: ‘That free acts may be absolutely certain, is plain, because they have in a multitude of cases been predicted. It was certain that the acts of Christ would be holy, yet they were free’ (Hodge 1979:401).

So, in God’s economy, God’s foreknowledge involves free acts but God’s foreknowledge does not cause a free action to happen in human beings. It knows a free action will lead to a certain effect.

3. Conclusion

Free will is defined as the power of contrary choice that has been given by God to all human beings. This operates within the sovereignty of God. God has put parameters around his power by allowing the free will of His rational creatures – human beings.

God’s attribute of omniscience means that He knows Himself and all other things, whether they be actual or merely possible, whether they be past, present, or future, and that He knows them perfectly and from all eternity.

From a human perspective, we can say that God knows the future through his attribute of foreknowledge (a dimension of omniscience). However, from God’s viewpoint, he knows all things ‘by one simultaneous intuition’ (Thiessen 1949:125).

‘Free actions do not take place because they are foreseen, but they are foreseen because they will take place’ (Thiessen 1949:126). God’s foreknowledge does not cause a free action to happen in human beings. It knows a free action will lead to a certain effect.

We can praise the Lord that he did not make robots or lemmings when he created human beings. He created them with genuine free will and that was not cancelled by the fall into sin and the depravity of the human race. How that can be, is contained in the infinite wisdom of God. Human beings find it difficult to grasp this concept of free will being still available to human beings although they are in bondage to sin before conversion to Christ.

4. See also my articles:

arrow-small ‘Did God create evil?’

arrow-small ‘Calvinists, free will and a better alternative’;

arrow-small ‘How a Calvinist can distort the meaning of 2 Peter 3:9’;

References

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

Hodge, C 1979 reprint. Systematic theology, vol 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, General Theology, Soteriology, ‘The “free will” dilemma’, nobdysfool #325, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7746203-33/#post63269032 (Accessed 29 July 2013).

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 13 August 2018.

Is it possible or impossible to fall away from the Christian faith?

Spencer D Gear

A Lutheran, Dr Richard P Bucher, wrote:

The same Paul that could triumphantly state that he was convinced that nothing in all creation “shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39), could also write, “Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize” (1 Cor. 9:26-27). By these latter words Paul freedly (sic) admitted the possibility that even he, the great Apostle, could “be disqualified,” that is, fall away (Bucher 1998).

I’ve been in this kind of discussion many times on Christian forums on the Internet. Here’s an example of one fellow wrote: ‘There are no passages that threaten Christians with losing their salvation’.[1]

Passages that warn of loss of salvation

Scarlet Salvation Button

(image courtesy ChristArt)

My response was:[2]

You know there are passages that warn against loss of salvation and Hebrews 6:4-8 is a classic example. I know that you want to interpret this passage differently as loss of salvation doesn’t fit in with your theological presuppositions. These verses read:

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned (Heb 6:4-8 NIV)

We’ve debated loss of salvation at length on Christian Forums on several occasions. I have a lengthy exposition of this passage at, ‘Once saved, always saved or once saved, lost again‘.

Paul to Timothy gives another example:

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 (1 Timothy 1:18-20 ESV).

Hymenaeus and Alexander have so shipwrecked their faith that Paul handed them over to Satan to deal with what they had done. He called it as an example of blasphemy. Shipwrecking one’s faith is blaspheming God, in Paul’s understanding.

Lutheran commentator, R C H Lenski. in his commentary on 1 Tim 1:19 wrote:

The Greek permits Paul to continue with three consecutive relative clauses; in English we should use independent clauses. The first is to be construed with “a good conscience” and not also with “faith,” for “the faith” appears in the relative clause: “which some by thrusting away (or: having thrust away) made shipwreck regarding the (their) faith.” When they thrust aside their conscience which tried to hold them to the prophecies they had learned from faithful teachers they made shipwreck of their very faith. One cannot keep his faith while he plays fast and loose with the prophecies (Word). He will have to silence his conscience, make it cease crying out against such practice, and then his faith is wrecked whether he admits it or not (Lenski 1937:532, emphasis added).

Clearly this is another example, this time from Paul, of people who thrust away, made shipwreck, could not keep their faith. But this does not fit in with eternal security presuppositions of a Calvinist.[3] Falling away refers to Jewish sacrificial system.

There was another person who responded to my stated interpretation of apostasy in Hebrews 6:4-6. He wrote:

The reason that a person would fall away as indicated by this passage in Hebrews 6 would be if they were once Jewish and returned to the sacrificial system of the old covenant after having “tasted the heavenly gift” – and then went back to the sacrificial system – then they have fallen away – and worse have no chance of ever getting back. So who around here does this apply to?

The main point of the passage from Hebrews 6 is to demonstrate that the old sacrificial system of the old covenant is not only worthless but dangerous to Jews who might be considering going back to it.

It is not talking about sinning or breaking the law leading to falling away. Its (sic) talking about going back to a system of works based salvation leading to a person falling away. I find it ironic that someone would use this passage to defend the idea that someone could fall away when the very thing that would make such a person fall away is by going to a system of works instead of trusting in God’s grace for salvation.[4]

How should I respond?[5]

That’s not what Heb 6:4-8 says in context. In fact, the English Standard Version has a heading, ‘Warning Against Apostasy’, that begins at Heb 5:11 and continues to Heb 6:12. Obviously these translators of the Greek NT disagree with your view. They consider it relates to apostasy, ‘a total desertion of or departure from one’s religion, principles, party, cause, etc’ (an online dictionary definition of ‘apostasy’).

The context tells us that these Christians (‘in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son’, Heb 1:2 ESV) asked, ‘How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard’ (Heb 2:3). This is dealing with a message to those who are experiencing this ‘great salvation’ from Jesus the Son.

Good Book

(image courtesy ChristArt)

Is the Book of Hebrews addressing Christians or Jews?

Could it be that this person’s current theological worldview does not permit him to see that apostasy can be committed and salvation lost?

There were these additional problems in context:

  • They need someone to teach them ‘AGAIN the basic principles of the oracles of God’ as they were not able to get into solid food but were drinking milk instead (5:12 ESV);
  • Those who live on milk are ‘unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child’ (5:13);
  • ‘Solid food’ is for the mature, those who have ‘powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil’ (5:14).
  • These Christians are challenged to move from an elementary doctrine of Christ, to maturity (6:1);
  • Part of this movement from the immature to the mature doctrine is to understand the seriousness of committing apostasy (Heb 6:4-8).
  • ‘We desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end‘ (6:11).

Here we are dealing with immature Christians who need to move from milk to solid food and part of that movement is to understand how serious falling away (apostasy) from the faith is, and their need to have assurance of their faith UNTIL THE END.

What about John 10?

Another person wrote:

Jesus says it very simply.
John 10:25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.

v28, Jesus gives them eternal life.
‘ETERNAL’ means forever does it not?
Second part of the verse says something very significant.
“and they shall never perish”
Well who are we going to believe? Lets believe what Jesus has already said about these things.
“NEVER” does not allow for any other thing to happen.
But of course this is only for the elect of God, who are on the straight, narrow path, not the broad wide world on the path to destruction.[6]

What should be an appropriate response?[7]

This person’s listing off of proof texts does not support his view. When I examine the Greek text of John 10:28-29, this is what I find. These verses place a very different emphasis than his conclusion that “they shall NEVER perish.”

These verses demonstrate the conditional nature of salvation by use of the present tense in Greek, stating that continuing to believe is the condition required for eternal life to be experienced and for being in a position where there are no deleterious salvific consequences.

Here in John 10:27-28 we learn: “My sheep hear [present tense, continue hearing] my voice, and I know [present tense, continue knowing] them, and they follow [present tense, continue following] me. I give [present tense, continue to give] them eternal life, and they will never perish [aorist, perish as a fact of action], and no one will snatch [future tense, snatch in the future] them out of my hand”. Here the need for a continuation of belief is necessary to prevent a future snatching of believers from the Father’s hand.

This person’s promotion of unconditional eternal security in this passage has changed the biblical meaning from continuing to believe, which produces eternal life, into believing as a momentary act and they NEVER perish.

Arminius’s words are wise and consistent with the biblical revelation of John 10:27-28 and other verses. He wrote that it is “impossible for believers, as long as they remain believers to decline from salvation” (Arminius 1977:281).

Is once saved, always saved a deception?

Another person asked of me:

My only question is … Where did the OSASers fall into their deception?
In the cradle? On Granny’s lap? At an OSASer’s dinner table? In an OSAS church pew?
Oh, there are a multitude of possibilities … that’s why we have so many of ’em.[8]

I was rather subjective in my following response:[9]

My view is that it comes from the theological worldview known as Calvinism. I cannot find unconditional eternal security in an inductive exegesis of Scripture (as I’ve attempted to show in my exegesis of John 10:28-29 above).

This, for me, raises a bigger issue: What causes Christians to have blind spots in these areas? I can have them, you can have them; others can have them. The BIG issue in my hermeneutics is: How can I be consistent with the original languages in my interpretation of Scripture? What do we do when Scripture disagrees with our own present theological worldview? To be honest, for me I must change my view when an inductive study of Scripture proves me wrong.

I had to do this almost 50 years ago when I was saved and raised as a Baptist teenager with an OSAS view. Then I went to Bible College in the 1970s, followed by seminary, and found that an inductive study of Scripture forced me to abandon OSAS. It was a BIG move for me to make from OSAS to salvation can be lost. What made it even worse is that two of my close friends from Bible college days, one an outstanding evangelist and the other a brilliant expositor, or no longer serving the Lord. They have abandoned their faith. So I know that salvation can be lost from an inductive study of Scripture and from personal experience with believers.

I also had to do this with my background of support of cessationism with regards to the gifts of the Spirit.

What I have found is that most people who cling to a particular theological model (and I used to be one of them), cling to that position in spite of verses to the contrary. There seems to be a filtering out of verses that contradict one’s presuppositional views.

This fellow was persistent in his requirement what Heb. 6:4-8 was not addressing Christians who committed apostasy from the faith:

The apostasy spoken of in Hebrews is returning to the OT sacrificial system over trusting in Jesus. Clearly this is what the threat is addressing. The author wants to move on from talking about repentance from dead works and faith in Christ – which is what he is addressing in vs 4-6. It’s the returning to dead works that causes a person to be in apostasy.[10]

What did the early church fathers believe?

Saint Irenaeus.jpg

Irenaeus (Wikipedia)

cubed-iron-sm Irenaeus (ca. 125-202), bishop of Lyons, ‘e was most influenced by St. Polycarp who had known the apostles or their immediate disciples’. It was he who wrote in one of his most celebrated publications:

‘Christ shall not die again in behalf of those who now commit sin, for death shall no more have dominion over Him…. We ought not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, to be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of old time, but ought ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom (Against Heresies 4.27.2).

Tertullian 2.jpg

Tertullian (image courtesy Wikipedia)

cubed-iron-sm Tertullian (b. ca 160), the son of a centurion and a pagan until middle life, wrote,

But some think as if God were under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy, what He has engaged (to give); and they turn His liberality into slavery…. For do not many afterward fall out of (grace)? Is not this gift taken away from many? (Tertullian, On Repentance, ch. 6).

Martin Luther on eternal security

Martin Luther by Cranach-restoration.tif

Martin Luther (image courtesy Wikipedia)

In his commentary on Galatians 5:4, he wrote:

Ye are fallen from grace.
That means you are no longer in the kingdom or condition of grace. When a person on board ship falls into the sea and is drowned it makes no difference from which end or side of the ship he falls into the water. Those who fall from grace perish no matter how they go about it…. The words, “Ye are fallen from grace,” must not be taken lightly. They are important. To fall from grace means to lose the atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which Jesus has merited for us by His death and resurrection. To lose the grace of God means to gain the wrath and judgment of God, death, the bondage of the devil, and everlasting condemnation (Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians 5:4).

What about Jacob Arminius’s views?

James Arminius 2.jpg

Jacobus Arminius (image courtesy Wikipedia)

It is worthy of quoting him at some length in his segment on ‘The Perseverance of the Saints’:

My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are, that those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies—yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention, [or Synod] to institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual.

Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration.

Thus, Arminius, whose views have been most often associated with loss of salvation and repudiation of eternal security, actually stated that the one who is ‘a true believer’ (presumably meaning that he/she continues as a true Christian, cannot either totally or finally commit apostasy and fall away from the faith. The key is: Is that person continuing to trust in Jesus for salvation?

Thus it is evident from Scripture, some early church fathers, and evangelical leaders such as Martin Luther that it is possible to fall from grace and lose salvation, and thus experience the wrath and judgment of God.

I don’t believe that the promoters of eternal security are deceived. I place it within their hermeneutical system and the methods they use. However, there is a decided bias that seems to come from traditional interpretations (generally Calvinistic) that they have bought into.

Works consulted

Arminius J 1977. The Writings of James Arminius, vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Bucher, R R 1998. Is a Christian “once saved, always saved?” February. Lexington, KY: Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, available at: http://www.orlutheran.com/html/once.html (Accessed 29 July 2013).

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, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc (originally published by Lutheran Book Concern, The Wartburg Press, and Augsburg Publishing House).

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums.com, Soteriology, ‘A super-short summary of God’s plan of salvation’, Hammster #46. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7762232-5/ (Accessed 29 July 2013).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen #53.

[3] From his many posts, I know that Hammster promotes Calvinism.

[4] Op cit., Behe’s Boy #56.

[5] Ibid., OzSpen #65.

[6] Ibid., sdowney717 #48.

[7] Ibid., OzSpen #55.

[8] Ibid., extraordinary #54.

[9] Ibid., OzSpen #60.

[10] Ibid., Behe’s Boy #67.

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 18 April 2016.

New Fluoride Warning for Infants[1]

Information about dental fluorosis

Courtesy QAWF

By Spencer D Gear

Does your drinking water contain added fluoride? If so, keep it away from infants under the age of  one. This directive was issued recently by an unlikely source: the American Dental Association (ADA).

In a November 9th 2006 email alert sent to all of its members, the ADA noted that “Infants less than one year old may be getting more than the optimal amount of fluoride if their primary source of nutrition is powdered or liquid infant formula mixed with water containing fluoride.” The ADA went on to advise: “If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride.”

The ADA issued this advice because babies exposed to fluoridated water are at high risk for developing dental fluorosis—a defect of the teeth which can result in staining and even corrosion of the enamel. In addition, on October 14th [2006], the Food and Drug Administration stated that fluoridated water marketed to infants cannot claim to reduce the risk of cavities.

Dental fluorosis is not the only risk stemming from a baby’s exposure to fluoride. In the same week that ADA issued its advisory, an article in the British journal, The Lancet, reported that fluoride may damage a child’s developing brain. The Lancet review described fluoride, along with the rocket fuel additive perchlorate, as an “emerging neurotoxic substance” due to evidence linking fluoride to lower IQs in children, and brain damage in animals.

8-month old twin sisters (Wikipedia)

“Newborn babies have undeveloped brains, and exposure to fluoride, a suspected neurotoxin, should be avoided,” notes Hardy Limeback, a member of a 2006 National Research Council panel on fluoride toxicity, and former President of the Canadian Association of Dental Research.

Fluoride is linked with other health problems as well, including weakened bones, reduced thyroid activity, and possibly, bone cancer in boys, according to a recent report from a team of Harvard scientists, the US National Research Council and other recent studies.

While most of western Europe has abandoned the practice of adding fluoride to water, most US water supplies remain fluoridated. In addition, some brands of bottled water sold in the US, such as Nursery Water, specifically market fluoridated water for young babies.

A recent investigation by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that over-exposure to fluoride among infants is a widespread problem in most major American cities. EWG’s study found that, on any given day, up to 60% of formula-fed babies in US cities were exceeding the Institute of Medicine’s “upper tolerable” limit for fluoride.

“Water is supposed to be safe for everyone. Why add a chemical that makes it knowingly unfit for young children? The US should follow Europe’s lead and end fluoridation,” says Michael Connett, Project Director of the Fluoride Action Network.

See also, ‘Is fluoride in baby nursery water safe for infant formula and newborns?’ (Angela Schnaubelt, Examiner.com, 16 July 2009).

For additional information, see: http://www.fluoridealert.org and http://www.ewg.org

Notes:

[1] Available from: Mothering Magazine, November 2006, at: http://www.mothering.com/sections/news_bulletins/november2006.html#fluoride (Accessed 9 Feb. 2008; however, this article was not available at this URL on 26 July 2013). This article was sourced from Fluoride Action Network (FAN) & Environmental Working Group (EWG), available at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/mothering_magazine/ (Accessed 26 July 2013).

 

Copyright (c) 2013 Spencer D. Gear.  This document is free content.  You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the OpenContent License (OPL) version 1.0, or (at your option) any later version.  This document last updated at Date:26 July 2013.

snowflake-green-smallsnowflake-green-smallsnowflake-green-smallsnowflake-green-smallsnowflake-green-smallsnowflake-green-smallsnowflake-green-small

Is the spiritual gift of tongues ‘gibberish’?

By Spencer D Gear

Stir up the Gift

(image courtesy ChristArt)

It is not unusual on public Christian forums on the Internet to be exposed to all kinds of strange or different teaching. I came across this one:

Speaking gibberish has no relation to the Holy Spirit. It is uttered by a person’s spirit. The Holy Spirit will not indulge in such cheap gimmicks and degrading behavior to make known the will of God when He can directly speak to people as evidenced in the entire book of Acts without a middle man designated as an interpreter![1]

Yet one of God’s special ministry gifts to the body of Christ, A W Tozer, wrote, after citing Rom. 12:5-6 and 1 Cor. 12:4-7, that

The Bible teaches us that the genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit are a necessity in the spiritual life and ministries of every Christian congregation serious about glorifying Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord…. It seems to me that Paul was trying to make it as plain as he could in his epistles that any segment of the Body of Christ, anywhere in the world, should recapitulate – gather up and sum up within itself – all of the offices and gifts and workings of the entire church of Christ (Tozer 1978:21, 22; emphasis added).

How is it that a person in the pews is so opposed to the gift of tongues to call it ‘gibberish’, yet one of God’s special gifts to the body of Christ, A W Tozer, should claim that the Bible’s teaching that genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit are needed in every congregation? And these gifts include ALL of the offices, gifts and workings of the entire church. Tozer was adamant: ‘A careful study of the Apostle’s teachings concerning Jesus Christ and His church should persuade us that any local assembly ought to demonstrate all of the functions of the whole body’ (1978:22). Tozer is inferring that if God gives the gift of tongues to any local assembly of Christian believers, that gift should be allowed to function. Of course, the gift of tongues requires the gift of interpretation to make tongues intelligible for the congregation.

Sneering language against God’s gifts

How does one reply to such pejorative language of the Holy Spirit’s gift of speaking in tongues being described as ‘gibberish’, ‘cheap gimmicks and degrading behavior’? My response was:[2]

So what are we told not to forbid in this verse: ‘Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:39 NIV)? Does this verse apply to the 21st century church as much as it did to the Corinthians?

What I often find in these discussions is that a person avoids some of the specific content of what is said. When this happens, it is called a red herring logical fallacy. The Nizkor Project explains that ‘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’.

That is what happened to me in this circumstance. The response I received was:

Paul was referring to people who had already practicing this emotional part of personal prayer. I have nothing to say about personal prayers done in private in whatever language they want. But as one grows in the knowledge of the Lord, one would prefer greater gifts as Paul advised. That happened actually. Speaking gibberish diappeared (sic) after sometime (sic).
Now deluded Christians backsliding to bring back the worst conditions of Corinthian church![3]

This person continues with derogatory language for the gift of tongues, ‘emotional part of personal prayer’, ‘gibberish’, and ‘deluded Christians backsliding’ in the Corinthian church. Also the gift of tongues is not included in the ‘greater gifts’.

Rejection of mocking language for the gift of tongues

How should one reply to such negative views and mocking language against the gift of tongues? I wrote that[4] this person referred to tongues as ‘this emotional part of personal prayer’ and ‘speaking gibberish’ and that it is associated with ‘the worst conditions of Corinthian church’. To refer to God’s gift as ‘gibberish’ is something that I find pejorative towards God the Holy Spirit and the gifts that he gives. I note that he provided no biblical exposition for his position.

God’s language for the gift of tongues

What do the Scriptures state about the nature of the gift of tongues (glossolalia)?
The gift of tongues is a gift that God continues to give by his Spirit as a spiritual gift. We know this from 1 Corinthians 14:1-5,

Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up (ESV, emphasis added).

We are to earnestly desire all spiritual gifts, especially prophecy, but the genuine gift of tongues and interpretation continues. There is no place in the church gathering for any who speaks in tongues without interpretation. The exhortation from 1 Cor 14:13 is, ‘One who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret’. Why? It is in order that the gift is intelligible to the remainder of the congregation that does not understand the tongue.

However, these verses teach that there is a genuine gift of tongues where one ‘speaks not to men but to God … for he utters mysteries in the Spirit’ (14:2). Please note that the biblical language does not speak of glossolalia as ‘gibberish’ but as speaking ‘to God’ and people uttering ‘mysteries in the Spirit’. I find it offensive that this person calls a ministry of the Spirit ‘gibberish’.

While the apostle Paul gives a preference for prophecy as a gift in the church as it ‘builds up the church’, he still gives this important teaching about tongues:

clip_image002_thumb‘I want you all to speak in tongues’ (1 Cor 14:5).

So the gift of tongues was available to all NT believers. Notice the contrast:

clip_image0021_thumb‘The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up’ (1 Cor 14:5).

So the gift of prophecy approximately equals tongues with interpretation for the building up of the church.

Contemporary evangelical scholars and the gift of tongues

While a person who posts on an evangelical Christian forum regards the gift of tongues as ‘gibberish’ and a ‘cheap gimmick’, how do some evangelical scholars describe this gift?

These three evangelical, New Testament scholars from very different traditions provide their definitions of the gift of tongues.

cubed-redmatte Jack W MacGorman, distinguished professor emeritus of New Testament, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, does not consider the gift of tongues to be a demonstration of ‘gibberish’. He wrote of the glossolalia in 1 Corinthians as, ‘Holy Spirit inspired utterance that is unintelligible apart from interpretation, itself an attendant gift. It is a form of ecstatic utterance, a valid charismatic endowment’ (MacGorman 1994:390-391). MacGorman considers that this definition is supported by these verses from 1 Corinthians 14:

  1. 1 Corinthians 14:2, “For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit” (ESV). McGorman’s argument was that nobody understands the ‘tongues’; he speaks to God and he speaks mystery.
  2. 1 Corinthians 14:13-14, “Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful” (ESV). The one speaking with the gift of tongues is not understood but his spirit is praying and therefore the person needs to be interpret.
  3. 1 Corinthians 14:18, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you” (ESV).
  4. 1 Corinthians 14:26, “What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up” (NIV).

MacGorman’s view is that if these verses refer to tongues as real languages, then these verses become sheer nonsense.

cubed-redmatte D A Carson, research professor of New Testament at Trinity International University, is not of the view that it is nonsense, but Carson considers that the tongue is a real language that is not known to the tongues-speaker. Carson’s perspective is that

the evidence favors the view that Paul thought the gift of tongues was a gift of real languages, that is, languages that were cognitive, whether of men or of angels…. What bearing does the discipline of linguistics have on the assessment of modern tongues? To my knowledge there is universal agreement among linguists who have taped and analysed thousands of examples of modern tongues-speaking that the contemporary phenomenon is not any human language. The patterns and structures that all known human language requires are simply not there. Occasionally a recognizable word slips out; but that is statistically likely, given the sheer quantity of verbalization (Carson 1995:83).

cubed-redmatte Gordon D Fee, professor emeritus, Regent College, Vancouver BC, Canada, a card-carrying Assemblies of God minister, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians states of the nature of the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12:10:

The following seem certain (a) It is Spirit-inspired utterance; that is made explicit in vv. 7 and 11 and in 14:2; (b) The regulations for its use in 14:27-28 make it clear that the speaker is not in “ecstasy” or “out of control.” Quite the opposite; the speakers must speak in turn, and they must remain silent if there is no one to interpret. (c) It is speech essentially unintelligible both to the speaker (14:14) and to other hearers (14:16). (d) It is speech directed basically toward God (14:2, 14-15, 28); one may assume, therefore, that what is “interpreted” is not speech directed toward others, but the “mysteries” spoken to God.

What is less certain is whether Paul also understood the phenomenon to be an actual language. In favour of such a view are (a) the term itself, (b) the need for “interpretation,” and (c) the evidence from Acts 2:5-11. In the final analysis, however, this question seems irrelevant. Paul’s whole argument is predicated on its unintelligibility to both speaker and hearer; he certainly does not envisage someone’s being present who would be able to understand it because it was also an earthly language. Moreover, his use of earthly languages as an analogy in 14:10-12 implies that it is not a known earthly language, since a thing is not usually identical with that to which it is analogous. Most likely, therefore, the key to Paul’s – and their – understanding lies in the term “the language of angels” in 13:1 (q.v.) [Fee 1987:598].

Yet, a lay person on a Christian forum wants to call the gift of tongues, ‘gibberish’ and the Holy Spirit does not engage in ‘cheap gimmicks’. Such is not consistent with an exegesis of the passage as MacGorman, Carson and Fee have demonstrated.

There have been excesses

My experience is that there is such poor teaching on the correct approach to the manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit – especially tongues and interpretation. I have seen too much existential chaos allowed by church leaders at the local church level that is too much like Toronto ‘blessing’ and Brownsville Pensacola ‘revival’ excesses that I’ve seen online and on DVDs. I can understand, but not endorse, this Christian forum person’s use of the language of ‘gibberish’ to describe tongues. I also have witnessed much disorder with the gift of tongues in a church gathering when there is no gift of interpretation taking place.

However, I have been in church gatherings when the gifts of the Spirit of tongues and interpretation have been manifested and I have been built up in my faith.

Paul was correcting excesses at Corinth with language such as the following in 1 Corinthians:

  • ‘If with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said?’ (14:9);
  • ‘Since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church’ (14:12);
  • ‘One who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret’ (14:13);
  • ‘I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue’ (14:18-19);
  • ‘Tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers’ (14:22);
  • ‘If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God’ (14:27-28).

God’s gifts functioning when the church gathers

However when the church gathers, this should be how the gifts of the Spirit are manifested by brothers and sisters in Christ: ‘When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up’ (1 Cor 14:26). Imagine if that were allowed in many churches today! The dominance of a few people in worship could be replaced by ‘each one’ being allowed to function in ministry. There is this biblical proviso, ‘All things should be done decently and in order’ (1 Cor 14:40).

So, the gift of tongues with the gift of interpretation should continue in the church gathering. These are gifts from the Holy Spirit of God and are meant for the ‘building up’ of the church. We have as much need for this building up in the 21st century as the 1st century.

The excesses should not cause us to reject the correct biblical teaching of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit that include tongues and interpretation. Faulty use of the gifts should not negate the gifts. It should mean correction of improper use of the gifts of the Spirit and promotion of the need for the Holy Spirit to be allowed to function with supernatural gifts when the church gathers.

It is important for us to remember that ‘God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose’ (1 Cor 12:18). Since he arranges the gifts of tongues and interpretation in the body, who are we to label one of them as ‘gibberish’? God did not arrange for ‘gibberish’ in the body of Christ. He arranged for His gifts by His Spirit and I dare not diminish them to a humanistic standard. However, there is always the need when the church gathers for believers to ‘weigh what is said’ (14:29) – weigh prophecy in this context.

What is the biblical exhortation about the gift of tongues? ‘Earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order’ (14:38-39).

The person who wrote negatively about the gift of tongues on this forum, also wrote:

I am going by the dictionary definition for speaking unknown tongues as gibberish just as Paul claimed himself as an apostle based on a similar understanding. There are only twelve apostles according to spiritual understanding, and in that Judas was replaced by Matthias.[5]

Which kind of dictionary was he using? Is it an English dictionary or a Greek dictionary (lexicon)? [6]

So what was he meaning when he said that ‘there are only twelve apostles according to spiritual understanding’? He did not explain how that relates to the gift of glossolalia (speaking in tongues).

I wrote: ‘The gift of tongues is a gift that God continues to give by his Spirit as a spiritual gift. I know that from 1 Corinthians 14:1-5, we are to earnestly desire all spiritual gifts, especially prophecy’. His response was:

Sorry, you are wrong here! Paul did not say to desire all spiritual gifts
1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

I replied that he was correct. It was an error of mine to write, ‘to desire all spiritual gifts’. This we do know that Paul taught the Corinthians, ‘Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy’ (1 Cor 14:5). So Paul was urging all of the Corinthian believers to be open to speaking in tongues, but even more to prophesy. He wrote:

No way God wants an agent’s agent to speak on behalf of the Holy Spirit!
1 & 2 Corinthians were early letters of Paul. He was still growing in the knowledge of the Lord that he had missed out since he was not a part of the ministry of Jesus on earth.

So he was inferring that the theopneustos (God-breathed)[7] Scripture of 1 & 2 Corinthians is a lower level of knowledge since he said that Paul ‘was still growing in the knowledge of the Lord’. Was Paul writing the truth about spiritual gifts or not? Was Paul writing the truth in the Corinthian correspondence or was he writing a lower knowledge since he was still growing in the Lord’s knowledge (his words)? He wrote:

One need (sic) to read 2 Corinthians to understand the 1 Corinthians. 2 Corinithians (sic) is nothing but a boastful and confessing letter of him that puts him in the right perspective.

I haven’t read anything in 1 or 2 Corinthians to say that I have to read 2 Corinthians to help me to understand 1 Corinthians. The second letter is addressing mostly different matters to the first letter. This person wrote:

This piece-wise interpretation is misleading. Let us see the entire verse:
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
So do you accept that Paul is calling one gift is superior to another! That cannot happen when it comes to gifts of God! (emphasis in original)

The greater gifts are the intelligible ones. We know that from 1 Corinthians 14:9-12:

So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. 12 So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church (ESV, emphasis added).

The emphasis here is on gifts that are intelligible, understandable. The gift of tongues, as long as there is the gift of interpretation, is intelligible.

He asked an excellent question: ‘What do you mean by ‘approximately’? Do you have a yardstick to compare?’

This is what I wrote to which he was responding: ‘So the gift of prophecy approximately equals tongues with interpretation for the building up of the church’. I was referring to 1 Cor 14:5, ‘The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up’. Here, the use of the word, ‘unless’, shows that the gift of prophecy is like the gift of tongues PLUS interpretation. That’s what I mean by ‘approximately’.

He wrote: ‘One need (sic) to imitate Jesus Christ, not Paul, Apollos et al with their claims based on their personal traits!’

The biblical perspective is that ‘All Scripture is theopneustos [breathed out by God] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work’ (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV, emphasis added).

Instruction for my Christian living to become competent and equipped for my Christian life and ministry, is from ALL Scripture and not just from Jesus Christ. That’s what the Bible teaches.

This person wrote:

No theory or behavior should be based on one verse, one author, one book, etc. Show me where else in the Bible you find the mention of this business of speaking unknown language supported by interpretation?

Since all Scripture is God-breathed, the book of 1 Corinthians comes with the authority of God. I dare not reject the gifts as articulated in 1 Corinthians when God has given them authoritatively for the edification of the church. Acts 2:1-11 does speak of ‘tongues’ but in a different context and understanding to the exposition in 1 Cor 12-14.

This person wrote that ‘from this it is obvious that what was happening and what is happening now in many churches is uncontrolled emotions elevated to spurioius (sic) spiritual status!’

I agree that there is excess happening in some churches regarding the gifts of the Spirit. The truth is that excesses and spurious teachings should be corrected, but excesses do not negate the truth of the spiritual gifts that are available for the 21st century.

This was the response from that person to what I wrote above:[8]

‘Since we are communicating in the known English language, any emotional blurting out by a person of an unknown language – when God has given one of the greatest gifts of speaking an intelligible language – can be branded as gibberish!’

My response was as follows:[9]

I find it offensive that he would call the Holy Spirit’s gift of tongues to be ’emotional blurting out’ and ‘gibberish’.

Why didn’t he answer what I wrote about going to the Greek language to obtain the meaning of the Greek lalein (to speak) in glwssia (tongues)? Even though we speak the English language, we need to go to the original NT language of koine Greek to obtain the meaning of glossolalia. Why did he ignore this input that I provided? Is it because he does not read and understand NT Greek?

Then this man wrote:

As I indicated earlier, the answer to this is found in 2 Corinthians when Paul admits the use of his craftiness to bring order there. Let us consider a situation wherein one person speaks an unknown tongue, and there is no interpreter. His sayings go as a waste. That can never happen if the Holy Spirit is prompting that.[10]

Paul’s craftiness has nothing whatsoever to do in context with an understanding of the gifts of tongues and interpretation in 1 Cor 12-14.As for there being nobody with the gift of interpretation in the church gathering, the person who spoke in tongues should be told by the elders that he/she is out of order and should not have spoken that gift.

First Corinthians 14:13 provides the answer to the question he raised: ‘Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret’ (ESV). I have seen this happen on many occasions where the person God gifts with the manifestation of tongues is also given the gift of interpretation. It is very rare that I have ever heard someone manifest the gift of tongues without the gift of interpretation. Does he have any experience in attending a Pentecostal/charismatic church or group where the gifts of tongues and interpretation have been happening? It seems that he is speaking from a lack of knowledge of the Bible (1 Cor 14:3) in this area, and non-exposure to these supernatural gifts of the Spirit in the local church.

How does one respond to his statement, ‘At the same time this unknown tongue is an act of person’s spirit. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with that’?[11]

I do wish that he would read carefully what I Cor 12-14 states. Yes, the gift of tongues comes through the human spirit as 1 Cor 14:14 states, ‘For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful’. However, who or what is the origin of his gift? ‘For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God, for no one understand him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit‘ (1 Cor 14:3, emphasis added).

In context, 1 Cor 12:1 reads, ‘concerning spiritual gifts’, that person is ‘speaking in the Spirit of God … in the Holy Spirit’ (12:3). Then we are assured in 12:4, ‘There are varieties of gifts but the same Spirit‘ (12:4). As for the ‘varieties of gifts’ (12:4), ‘it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good’ (12:12:6-7).

Conclusion

Therefore, all of these spiritual gifts that are manifest in the ekklesia, are through the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit, the same God. But he wanted to label one of these gifts as ’emotional blurting out’ and ‘gibberish’. I urged him not to impose his pejorative meaning on these supernatural gifts from God’s Spirit. Of course, there can be abuse and misuse, but I am exposed to such in preaching/teaching as well. Abuse and misuse are not the sole responsibility of the spiritual gifts. They can happen elsewhere in the church as well.

And have a guess what? Two of those manifestations of the Holy Spirit of God are ‘various kinds of tongues’ and ‘interpretation of tongues’ (1 Cor 12:10). That is why I find his labelling of the Holy Spirit’s gift of tongues as ’emotional blurting out’ and ‘gibberish’ to be contrary to what the Scriptures state and to be offensive to Christian exegesis of the text. Why is he using such derogatory language to label God’s gifts of tongues and interpretation?

This person is anti the gifts of the Spirit and has resorted to using language that is contrary to what the Scriptures state in 1 Corinthians 12-14. Therefore, this person erected a straw man logical fallacy. When one does that, one is building a non-existent case for a view that comes from somewhere else – perhaps from a person’s anti-charismatic presuppositions. It looks very much like imposing a worldview on the text. Thus, this becomes eisegesis – the meaning is not determined by what the text says but by what the interpreter believes and imposes on the text.

I urged this person not to use such offensive language for two of God’s Spirit’s gifts to the congregation that are designed ‘so that the church may be built up’ (1 Cor 14:5).

Works consulted

Carson, D A 1995.[12] Showing the Spirit: A theological exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14. Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press.

Fee, G D 1087. The new international commentary on the New Testament: The first epistle to the Corinthians, F F Bruce (gen ed). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MacGorman, JW 1974. The gifts of the Spirit: An exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14. Nashville: Broadman Press.

Tozer, A W 1978. Tragedy in the church: The missing gifts. Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications.

Notes:

 [1] Justtruly #26, Christian Forums, Baptists, ‘Gift of Tongues – Book Research’, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755995-3/ (Accessed 24 July 2013).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen #31.

[3] Ibid., justtruly #32.

[4] Ibid., OzSpen #33.

[5] Ibid., justtruly #34.

[6] My response is at ibid., OzSpen #35.

[7] Based on 2 Timothy 3:16 which states: ‘All Scripture is breathed out by God [theopneustos] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness’ (ESV).

[8] Ibid., justtruly #49.

[9] Ibid., OzSpen #50.

[10] Ibid., justtruly #49.

[11] Ibid.

[12] This book was first published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA in 1987.

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 20 May 2016.

Calvinistic excuses for rejecting Jesus’ universal atonement

By Spencer D Gear

                          James Arminius 2.jpg

John Calvin (courtesy Wikipedia)                   Jacob Arminius (David Bailly 1620)

I was engaged in discussion on a Christian forum about the meaning of 1 John 2:2 , which states, ‘He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world’ (ESV).

The issue at stake is the meaning of Jesus’ ‘propitiation for our sins’ (our, referring to believers), but also ‘for the sins of the whole world’. Calvinists do not want ‘the whole world’ to refer to the entire humanity in the past, present and future. For them, Jesus didn’t die an atoning death for the whole world but only for the elect.

A Calvinist responded,

[In 1 John] the scripture says no such thing about Him being a “provision” for sins! It says that He IS the propitiation for our (Jew’s) sins, and not for ours (Jews) only, but also for the sins of the whole world (Gentiles).” John was writing to Jews telling them that Christ was the propitiation for Gentiles also.

The scripture says, “He IS the propitiation for sins….”

The Arminian says, “He is the provision for sins….”[1]

I responded, ‘Nowhere in 1 John 2:2 does it state what you said: “He IS the propitiation for our (Jew’s) sins”. Not a word about the Jews in that verse. That is your insertion’.[2]

A Calvinist replied:[3]

John was writing to Jewish Christians saying that Christ IS the propitiation for our (Jew’s) sins, and not for ours (Jews) only, but also for the sins of the whole world (Gentiles).

Paul said a similar thing in Romans chapter eight. In 7:1 He said that he was writing to them that “know the law” (Jews). He continues to address Jewish Christians specifically from 7:1 to 11:13 where he begins to address the Gentiles specifically. So he is addressing Jews throughout chapter eight. In verse verse 22 he says that the “whole creation” (Gentiles) groans with birth pangs. Then he says that we (Jews) ALSO groan within ourselves waiting for the redemption of the body.

John was speaking exactly in the same manner as Paul. For Paul the whole creation was the Gentiles. They groan in birth pangs, and we (Jews) also groan within ourselves. Likewise, for John the “whole world” was the Gentiles. John said that Christ IS the propitiation for our (Jew’s) sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (Gentiles).

John and Paul were NOT speaking about every human being. You should not give promises to those to whom God has made no promise.

The following was my response:[4]

You provided not one reference from 1 John to demonstrate that John was writing to Jews. That does not leave a good impression with me when I’m addressing a verse in 1 John 2:2 and you go to Romans to try to demonstrate that both Paul and John were addressing Jewish ‘our (Jew’s) sins’ and Gentiles ‘the whole world’. That’s called eisegesis – bringing in a meaning that is not there in the text.

In fact, some who have written detailed commentaries on 1 John disagree with this poster on First John being written to Jewish Christians.

The ‘Introduction’ in the English Standard Version of the Bible to First John states that ‘John wrote this general letter to congregations across Asia Minor (now Turkey) in the late first century A.D.’ (p. 1127).

Enlarge

(Courtesy Augsburg Fortress)

R C H Lenski, in his commentary on 1 John, states that:

This letter is an encyclical that is intended for the congregations that were under John’s special care; it was occasioned by the antichristian teachings of Cerinthus and of his following. It is usually supposed that this letter was written only to congregations in the province of Asia (1966:363).

Exposition of James, Epistles of John, Peter, and Jude (0801020808) by Simon J. Kistemaker

(Courtesy BookFinder.com)

Calvinist commentator, Simon J Kistemaker, wrote of the ‘recipients of I John’ that

Tradition holds that John wrote his epistles during his ministry in Ephesus, and that his first epistle was addressed to a church or group of churches whom the author knew well. Succeeding Paul and Timothy, John was a pastor in Ephesus until his death in about A.D. 98. From Ephesus he wrote his epistles, presumable to Gentile audiences rather than to readers who were Jewish Christians (Kistemaker 1986:207-208, emphasis added)

These commentators also disagree with your Jewish audience: I Howard Marshall, F F Bruce, and James Montgomery Boice.

So this evidence points to a Gentile, not a Jewish, audience who received this letter of First John and it was written to churches in Asia Minor to correct the false doctrine of Cerinthus, opponent of St. John or an early form of Gnosticism.

Bibliography

Kistemaker S J 1986. New Testament Commentary: James, Epistles of John, Peter, and Jude. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Lenski, R C H 1966. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of the epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers (special permission of Augsburg Fortress).

Notes:

[1] Christian Forums, General Theology, Soteriology, ‘Is rejecting Christ a sin?’ The Boxer #609. Available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755517-61/ (Accessed 12 July 2013).

[2] Ibid., OzSpen #611.

[3] Ibid., The Boxer #641 (emphasis in original).

[4] Ibid., OzSpen #649.

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 17 March 2020.

Does God’s grace make salvation available to all people?

Ribbon Salvation Button

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

It is common in Arminian vs Calvinist discussions for Arminians to proclaim that God’s grace offers Jesus’ salvation to all people. And this verse is one of the cornerstones of understanding the “all people” who have this grace of salvation offered.

Titus 2:11-12 reads: ‘For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age’ (ESV).[1]

I encountered one fellow on a Christian forum who stated: ‘The verse says this grace brings salvation teaching to renounce ungodliness. Are you saying it doesn’t actually do that since apparently it comes to people and they reject the Gospel?[2]

How should I respond? This is what I stated:[3]

It’s amazing what you leave out of a verse. You should have begun your post with, ‘The verse says this grace brings salvation to all men [people] teaching to renounce ungodliness….’

Verse 11 in the Greek begins, ‘Appeared [aorist tense] for the grace of God saving to all men….’

As to ‘the grace … saving to all men’, Lutheran exegete and commentator, R C H Lenski, stated:

the grace … saving for all men.” Here is the universality of this saving grace, which is in direct contradiction to Calvin’s limited grace, who writes in his Commentary, published in Geneva in 1600, p. 542 … “Yet, he (Paul) does not understand individual men but rather notes orders or diverse genera of life,” i. e., “classes in life,” and he does this because slaves have just been mentioned as being one such class. To Calvin “all men” = some slaves, some young men, some young women, some old women, some old men. He has a similar exegesis of other passages, for instance, John 3:16: “God so loved the world,” regarding which he says that “the world” is mentioned only because there was nothing in the whole world to call forth God’s love.
12) This wondrous grace which is “saving for all men” is now operative in us (in Paul, Titus, the Cretan Christians), “educating (or training us as a pais or boy is educated, this verb is found also in I Tim. 1:20; II Tim. 2:25) us, that, having denied the ungodliness … we live sober-mindedly,” etc.  (Lenski 1937:919-920).

Emeritus professor of New Testament at Regent College, Vancouver BC, Canada and editor of Eerdmans’ New International Commentary series on the New Testament, Gordon D Fee (ordained with the Assemblies of God), wrote of Titus 2:11,

An explanatory for opens the paragraph and thus closely ties verses 11-14 to 2-10. It proceeds to explain why God’s people should live as exhorted in 2-10 (so that the message from God will not be maligned [v. 5] but instead will be attractive [v. 10]): because the grace of God that brings salvation to all people has appeared.
In the Greek text all of verses 11-14 form a single sentence, of which the grace of God stands as the grammatical subject. But contrary to the NIV (and KJV), Paul does not say that this grace appeared to all men; rather, as almost all other translations have it, and as both Paul’s word order and the usage in 1 Timothy 2:3-6 demand it, what has appeared (see disc. on 1 Tim. 6:14; epiphaneia) is grace from God that offers salvation to all people.
Paul does not indicate here the reference point for this revelation of God’s grace. Most likely he is thinking of the historical revelation effected in the saving event of Christ (v. 14; cf. 2 Tim. 1:9-10), but it could also refer existentially to the time in Crete when Paul and Titus preached the gospel and Cretans understood and accepted the message (cf. 1:3 and 3:3-4). That at least is when the educative dimension of grace, emphasized in verse 12, took place (Fee 1988:194, emphasis in original).

These evangelical commentators who are committed to a high view of Scripture affirm, contrary to Calvin, that Titus 2:11 affirms that what has appeared is grace from God that offers salvation to all people. Period! Full stop!

The kind of response to this post was predictable from the Calvinists. Here are a couple of examples:

6pointGold-small ‘Bringing now means offering. Got it’.[4]

My response was:

Why don’t you do your own Greek exegesis on the aorist, epephane (Titus 2:11), from epiphainw?

Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon gives the meaning in the passive voice (as here), ‘show oneself, make an appearance’ (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:304).

So are you going to challenge Arndt & Gingrich’s etymology of the word?

It doesn’t matter whether one uses ‘bringing’ or ‘offering’, the meaning is the same as I understand it. It refers to the Epiphany of Christ’s Incarnation that brought, offered salvation to the whole world – the entire race of humanity – ALL.[5]

Here was another Calvinistic response to my post:

6pointGold-small Appeal to authority fallacy. The verse says nothing about ‘offering salvation’. There you go attempting to shoehorn your free will-ism in there again.

‘These evangelical commentators who are committed to a high view of Scripture affirm, provide exegesis of the text that is contrary to Calvin’ [myy citation above]

It’s also contrary to the Bible.[6]

I responded in this way: [7]

That’s exegesis speaking and you don’t seem to like it.

But I consider it is rather contradictory when you claim that it is my tradition speaking but you don’t state that your tradition is doing some speaking through you in this thread.

Now answer the exegesis that Lenski and Fee provided. I gave them as examples, not as promoting a genetic fallacy, but to demonstrate that I am not the only exegete who comes to conclusions different to Calvin and griff.

The Nizkor Project’s explanation of the genetic fallacy contains this qualification, ‘It should be noted that there are some cases in which the origin of a claim is relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. For example, a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise)’.

I have provided expert exegesis from Lutheran and Assemblies of God scholars who contradict your and Calvin’s view on Titus 2:11. It is a perfectly legitimate approach as Lenski and Fee have expertise in their area – NT Greek Exegesis.

Works consulted

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature.[8] Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

Fee, G D 1988. I and 2 Timothy, Titus. W Ward Gasque, New Testament (ed). 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.

Notes:

[1] Unless otherwise stated, all Bible citations are from the English Standard Version.

[2] Christian Forums, Soteriology, Is rejecting Christ a sin, griff #510, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7755517-51/ (Accessed 10 July 2013).

[3] Ibid., OzSpen #535.

[4] Ibid., Hammster #536.

[5] Ibid., OzSpen #541.

[6] Ibid., griff #537.

[7] Ibid., OzSpen #538.

[8] This is ‘a translation and adaptation of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Wörtbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur’ (4th rev & augmented edn 1952) (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:iii).
Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 29 October 2015.