Does the superiority of New Testament revelation exclude the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit? Is cessationism biblical?

Spirit Filling

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

Rev. Paul Cornford, pastor of North Pine Presbyterian Church,[1] has written an excellent article presenting the theology of the cessation of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit in the contemporary church. The article is, ‘The Superiority of New Testament Revelation’ (Cornford 2008) and is available on that church’s website.

Cornford begins the article by raising the issue of ‘the meteoric rise of modern pentecostalism and its claim to ongoing revelation’. Rightly he points to the challenge that this view puts to traditional churches. He confronts the issues of whether there is a continuation of prophets, speaking in tongues, and miracles in the contemporary church, especially in light of church growth and the success of the Pentecostal churches that are growing while traditional churches are shrinking.

He advocates a position that has become known as cessationism. This is the view that ‘certain miraculous gifts ceased long ago, when the apostles died and Scripture was complete’ (Grudem 1994: 1031 n 22). My responses here will try to assess the merits and difficulties of Paul Cornford’s position as expounded in Cornford (2008).

1. The merits of this cessationist position

The major merit of Cornford’s position is described in the first few paragraphs of the article, in which he affirms that the emphases of Hebrews 1:1-3 (NKJV)[2] where the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old Testament is established because God has spoken through his Son and this is recorded in the New Testament. I am in agreement with the view that the writing of God’s written Word has ceased with the conclusion of the New Testament and that the evangelical church must remain firm in maintaining this position. This comes in the midst of the emphases by some denominations and scholars to include in the Bible, the Apocrypha (as with the Roman Catholic Church) and extra-canonical books such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of the Hebrews, etc. (as with scholars such as J. D. Crossan[3] and the Jesus Seminar[4]).

1.1 Emphases in Hebrews 1:1-3

Hebrews 1:1-3 reads:

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (NKJV).

1.1.1 Cornford (2008:1) expounds these emphases from Heb. 1:1-3:

a. In the OT revelation, God spoke ‘in various ways’ through various ‘prophets’ and he believes this began with Moses and was given in ‘piecemeal’ revelation over a period of about 1,000 years.

b. He states that this OT revelation came through visions, dreams, voices, a sheep’s fleece, the urim and thummim, etc. This revelation was from the time of Moses in about 1500 BC to Malachi in about 400 BC. I definitely agree that in the OT revelation in the earlier days, God spoke through powerful works of mercy and judgment. These are my observations: Some of God’s leaders in those days were advised in advance of God’s plans (see Jer. 23:18, 22; Amos 3:7). God spoke in the thunder to Moses (Ex. 19:19), but it was through a ‘low whisper’ to Elijah (1 Kings 19:12 ESV). According to Isa. 8:6ff, for those who would not take notice of the gently flowing waters of Shiloah, the Lord spoke through a flood. Throughout the OT, God’s agents were priest, prophet, wise person and singer, but all of God’s acts of mercy and judgment were not as complete as when Christ, the Son, came. God’s divine revelation was revealed progressively until it came to finality in the Son, ‘in these last days’ (Heb 1:2).[5] However, we need to examine the Scriptures to discern what God says about continuing ‘revelation’ of a different kind after the close of Scripture as 1 Cor. 14:6 speaks of ‘revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching’ (ESV).

c. The NT revelation of ‘these last days’ was spoken to us in the Son and ‘the writer has just answered all of our questions concerning New Testament revelation’ because ‘has spoken’ used the Greek aorist tense that is illustrated by a full stop[6]. It indicates completed action, happened only once and does not continue. ‘So the revelation of the New Testament is a single event, the speaking of God in Christ’ (Cornford 2008:1).

d. Therefore, the main difference between OT and NT revelation is that there was a plurality of prophets in the OT and a singularity of prophet in the NT and this one prophet, the Son, the second person of the Trinity, is described as ‘ the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person’ (Heb. 1:3).

e. Then Cornford quotes John 1:14; 14:8-9 to highlight the ‘uniqueness of the revelation of God in Christ’ (2008:2).He concludes that the Lord Jesus Christ is THE prophet of the New Testament church who has given us a vastly superior revelation to anything the ancient people of God ever received through the various prophets and various modes. Jesus has met all of the New Testament church’s prophetic needs and has rendered obsolete the dreams, visions and voices of the Old Testament mode (Cornford 2008:2).

I highly commend Paul Cornford for his conclusion that we have the entire Bible in written form and that the New Covenant in Jesus, the Son, is the superior revelation to the Old Covenant and that God’s written revelation in the Scriptures has been completed. Cornford has beautifully established the superiority of NT revelation over the OT revelation and that the final word of written revelation in Scripture has been spoken with the conclusion of the written New Testament.

BUT, these are some of …

2. The difficulties of this cessationist position

What are the difficulties with the position as stated above and as we examine his overall argument? His major difficulties are within the very document that he affirms with such authority – his interpretations of the NT, and verses which he fails to consider.

2.1 But what about this verse?

On page 2 of his document he quotes John 14:8-9 and John 14:25-26. The latter two verses are used to confirm the superiority and uniqueness of God’s revelation in the Son, Jesus Christ, and the mechanism God used is providing NT revelation. However, between these two sets of verses there is a verse in John 14 that he ignores that should challenge his cessationism at its core and it is a biblical emphasis that was established by Jesus. He omits John 14:12, which states:

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father (ESV).

These are the words of the inerrant Scripture and they tell us what will happen among believers when Jesus is no longer on earth and returns to the Father. It does not place a limit on what will happen when the Scriptures close. These are the words of Jesus.

Here Jesus states that ‘whoever believes’ in Jesus will have access to something incredible. He does not say that ‘because my 12 disciples/apostles believe in me’, this will be the ministry for them and this ministry will cease when the NT Scriptures are completed. It’s important to emphasise some of the exegesis of this text:

a. The appeal in the context is for faith and in John 14:12 he states ho pisteuwn eis eme = the one believing in me = anyone having faith in me = whoever believes in me. The participle, pisteuwn, is present tense, active voice. Being present tense, it refers to continuous action, meaning that it refers to the one who continues to believe in Jesus. What will happen to any person who continues to believe in Jesus?

b. The works that Jesus is doing (present tense, indicating continuous action), that person who believes in him will do. But more than that, any believing person will do ‘greater works than these’ because Jesus is returning to the Father. What could these ‘greater works’ be?

c. The ‘works’ (Greek erga) that Jesus had been doing included humility (John 13:15), acts of love (John 13:34-35), proclamation of Jesus’ words (John 14:10). But throughout the Gospels, Jesus’ works included many miracles. What could these ‘greater works’ be?

D. A. Carson gives a perceptive analysis: ‘Jesus’ “works” may include more than his miracles; they never exclude them. But even so, greater works is not a transparent expression’ (Carson 1991:495). Carson adds that ‘greater works’ cannot mean ‘more works’ as there are excellent Greek words to mean ‘more’, but it would be trite to say ‘more works’ if it meant that the church throughout its history would do more works than Jesus would have done while on earth. That meaning would be ‘unbearably trite’. It could not refer to greater works meaning ‘more spectacular’ as what could be more spectacular or supernatural than raising Lazarus from the dead, the multiplication of the bread and turning water into wine (Carson 1991:495).

He perceptively notes that there are clues in the expression from 14:12 that (1) ‘I am going to the Father’ (ESV), and (2) Based on the parallel in John 5:20, the ‘greater works’ (same expression as 14:12) refers to what will happen to Jesus through his death and resurrection and ‘their works will become greater precisely because of the new order that has come about consequent on his going to the Father’ (Carson 1991:496). These greater works, the life-giving power of Jesus Christ that will be made available to every believer in Christ, will be based on the fact of Christ’s resurrection (and judgment) – see also John 5:17, 24-26.

The ‘greater works’ are made possible by the resurrected Christ and the Spirit and they point to the salvation realities of the risen Christ. However, miracles are not excluded from these ‘greater works’, and these are made available to everyone who believes, on the basis of John 14:12.

2.2 What about the Byzantine Textform of Mark 16:16-18?

In his exposition, Cornford (2008) has not dealt with the content of the Byzantine text of the NT in Mark 16:16-18. These verses state:

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover (NKJV).’

I know that Paul Cornford supports the Byzantine[7] Majority Text of the NT, which is the foundation of the NKJV translation, as he has stated such and the NKJV is the only translation that is allowed for public reading in the church where he is pastor.[8] As indicated by the above quote from Mark 16:16-18, signs will follow those who believe (aorist tense, point action). Even though I have doubts about the authenticity of these verses for inclusion in Mark’s gospel, the verses do relate to the early teaching of the church and thus indicate one kind of tradition that was manifest in the early church. Grudem rightfully notes that Mark 16:17-18 ‘is included in several manuscripts of Tatian’s Diatessaron (A.D. 170) and is quoted by Irenaeus (d. A.D. 202) and Tertullian (d. A.D. 220)’ (Grudem 1994:365 n 22).

If one is to accept the authenticity of the Byzantine textform and the inclusion of Mark 16:16-18, it is self evident that the supernatural ‘signs’ need to be accepted among believers. These signs include casting out demons, speaking in new tongues, picking up serpents with the hands, drinking deadly poison without being hurt, and the sick recovering through the laying on of hands. There is not a word in this passage that comes close to stating that these ‘signs’ would cease when the NT canon is completed. These signs are to be available to all who believe.

Has Cornford’s doctrine of cessationism prevented his seeing the significance of these verses in Mark 16 or is it related to his next interpretation?

2.3 The meaning of ‘the perfect’ in 1 Corinthians 13:10

This verse states: ‘But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away’ (NKJV). The ESV translates as, ‘But when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away’. How does Cornford (2008) interpret this verse?

He quotes 1 Cor. 13:8b-13 (NKJV) and draws out these meanings:

a. Prophecies, tongues and the supernatural gift of knowledge will fail when the ‘perfect’ comes. What is the meaning of perfect? He acknowledges that some commentators (he does not mention them by name) ‘see it as the final return of the Lord Jesus Christ and verse 12 would seem to support that view’ (Cornford 2008:3). BUT…

b. The word translated ‘perfect’ could just as easily be translated as ‘complete’ and for him this seems to be the more reasonable interpretation based on 1 Cor. 13:11 where it speaks about the ‘partial’ and this is a ‘more likely’ translation to contrast with the ‘complete’ rather than ‘perfect’ (Cornford 2008:3).

c. My observations: Let’s check out the Greek dictionaries to find the meaning of ‘to teleion‘ in 13:10 that has traditionally been translated as ‘the perfect’. These major translations support ‘the perfect’ as the legitimate translation: KJV, NKJV, Douay-Rheims 1899, NAB, NJB[9], RSV (the NRSV translates as ‘when the complete comes’), NIV 1984 (NIV 2011 translates as ‘completeness’), ESV and NASB. The NLT translates as, ‘when full understanding comes’. Of these major translations, only the NRSV and the NIV 2011 translate to teleion as ‘complete’ or ‘completeness’. What is the meaning of this neuter adjective with the definite article, to teleion?

d. Teleion ( from teleios) is an adjective, based on the verb teleiow. Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon gives the root meaning of teleios in 1 Cor. 13:10 as ‘having attained the end or purpose, complete, perfect’ (1957:816). Therefore, the NRSV and NIV 2011 have legitimacy in translating teleion as ‘complete’, instead of ‘perfect’ and Cornford’s acceptance of the meaning of perfect = complete, is a legitimate translation from NT Greek. In Kittel & Friedrich’s, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, G Delling (1972:73, 75-76) states that ‘in Greek thought the usage teleios often means “totality”‘ and ‘in the Pauline corpus the meaning “whole” is suggested at 1 Cor. 13:10 by the antithesis to ek merous [“in part” in 13:10]’. He explains that the spiritual gifts of knowledge and prophecy are mentioned and that these ‘do not give full knowledge of God. This will be granted to the Christian only with the immediacy of face-to-face, v. 12’.

e. Paul Cornford and Gordon Fee both accept ‘complete’ as the meaning of teleios in 1 Cor. 13:10, but one (Cornford) is a cessationist and the other (Fee) is a Pentecostal and a leading, published Greek exegete.

What is the meaning, in context, of 1 Cor. 13:10, of teleios, whether one accepts the translation as ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’? Gordon Fee, a card-carrying Assemblies of God (Pentecostal) minister[10], and a Greek exegete with an international reputation, supports the ‘complete’ translation when he stated the adjective and the verbal forms of teleiow, mean to “bring to an end, to complete” something, although they also carry the further sense of “making” or “being perfect.” That is, the completing of something is the perfecting of it…. The meaning in the present case [1 Cor. 13;10] is determined by its being the final goal of what is ek merous, “partial.” Thus its root sense of “having attained the end or purpose” (BAGD)[11], hence “complete,” seems to be the nuance here (Fee 1987:644 n 22).

How can Fee, who agrees with the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit, agree with Cornford’s cessationist interpretation that ‘perfect’ means ‘complete’ in 1 Cor. 13:10? Both are coming from theological perspectives that are radically different in understanding of manifestations of the Spirit. Let’s examine Fee’s perspective to see how it is different in its understanding to Cornford’s ‘complete’ as referring to the completion of the canon of Scripture and the cessation of the gifts of the Spirit.

f. Fee explains his exegesis of teleios and its meaning in the context of 1 Cor. 13:10 (1987:644-646):

In 1 Cor. 13:9-10, Paul explains what he has asserted in 13:8, ‘Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away (NIV 1984). In v. 9, Paul uses language for ‘in part’ to describe the ‘for now only’ nature of spiritual gifts and he repeats the verb ‘pass away’ from v. 8 to indicate what will happen to them. He uses the language of perfect/complete, which can sometimes mean ‘mature’ (v. 10) to indicate the time when ‘in part’ will cease. Fee’s view is that

the language of childhood vs adulthood in this context is ‘ambiguous’ as an analogy because it has led some to contrast immaturity with maturity, but that is an inadequate explanation as the contrast has to deal with gifts and their being ‘partial’ and it is not referring to the believers themselves. In addition, to use the ambiguous analogy is compounded by ‘a whole and plain statement of v. 12b’[12] (Fee 1987:645)

Paul, the apostle’s, distinctions are between ‘now’ and ‘then’, the incomplete (which is ‘perfectly appropriate to the church’s present existence’) and the complete (‘when its final destiny in Christ has been reached and ‘we see face to face’ and ‘know as we are known’ (Fee 1987:645)

So,

“in part” refers to what is not complete, or at least not complete in itself. The phrase by itself does not carry the connotation of “temporary” or “relative”; that comes from the context and the language “now … then” in v. 12. But the implication is there. It is “partial” because it belongs only to this age, which is but the beginning, not the completion, of the End. These gifts have to do with the edification of the church as it “eagerly awaits our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed” (1:7). The nature of the eschatological language in v. 12 further implies that the term “the perfect” has to do with the Eschaton itself, not some form of “perfection” in the present age. It is not so much that the End itself is “the perfect,” language that does not make tolerably good sense; rather, it is what happens at the End, when the goal has been reached. At the coming of Christ the final purpose of God’s saving work in Christ will have been reached; at that point those gifts now necessary for the building up of the church in the present age will disappear, because “the complete” will have come. To cite Barth’s marvelous imagery: “Because the sun rises all lights are extinguished”[13]’ (Fee 1987: 654-646).

g. What is Cornford’s (2008) view of the ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’ in 1 Cor. 13:10?

When we consider the use of ‘partial’ in the previous verse, it is more likely that Paul will contrast it with the ‘complete’ and thus the completion of the NT canon of Scripture. The ‘partial’ refers to the OT mode of revelation. Therefore,

Paul’s reference to ‘partial’ in 13:9 refers to the supernatural gifts of tongues, prophecy and knowledge being partial. So, relying on Heb. 1:1-3, Cornford’s understanding is that the OT mode or prophets, various modes and various parts, continued until the completion of the NT canon when the ‘partial’ would no longer be necessary.

The childhood metaphor of 13:11 compares prophecy, tongues and knowledge to childhood and the ‘complete’ comes with adulthood. He draws a parallel with Gal. 3:23-4:7 where he compares the church of the OT being a child under the Mosaic law and the ‘fullness of time’ (Gal. 4:4) being when ‘God sent forth his Son’.

The mirror metaphor of 13:12 describes tongues, prophecy, and supernatural knowledge as ‘looking into a dim mirror’ while the ‘complete … is like a face to face encounter…. Is there any sense in which the completed canon of scripture gives us a face to face encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ?’. He concludes that ‘it is no overstatement to say’ that the full canon of Scripture of both OT and NT ‘taken together do indeed provide us with this type of “face to face” encounter with the divine character’ (Cornford 2008:3).

His conclusion affirms what he considers are the views of the writer to the Hebrews and the apostle Paul, that ‘the revelation of the completed canon of scripture, especially the Old and New Testaments taken together, is actually far superior to the partial mode of prophecies, tongues and miracles. It is a superior as adulthood is to childhood’ (Cornford 2008:4).

I find this to be an unusual interpretation because it goes against two issues in the text:

(1) Cornford’s interpretation requires an escape into typology, which in my view, is an escape into multiple meanings of the literal text, to get his cessationist understanding of ‘face to face’. The plain meaning of the text is rejected in favour of a typological interpretation that is not at all evident from a common reading of the text.

(2) It avoids a straightforward meaning of the text, which Fee has given, that it is a comparison of partial and complete, what is now vs then, the contemporary church vs the second coming of Christ (the Eschaton).

Overall, I found that Fee’s interpretation of the passage was demonstrated by exegesis of the text, rather than an imposition on the text by Cornford, which I understand is eisegesis. Although the cessationist view is advocated by many well-trained theologians and exegetes, it seems to be clouded by a denial of the immanence of God (see below) and failure to interpret 1 Cor. 13:10 in context.

h. D. A. Carson’s reasons for rejecting the ‘perfection’ understanding of cessationists

Carson (1987:68-69), in his exposition of 1 Corinthians, chapters 12-14, stated that there are ‘three groups of theories’ that have been promoted to understand when the perfection comes and to define what this perfection consists of. These are:

1. ‘Perfection’ refers to the maturity of the church or maturity of individual Christian believers;

2. ‘Perfection’ means that the canon of Scripture has been completed, and

3. The majority interpretation where ‘perfection’ refers to the parousia (Christ’s second coming) itself, or is related to the parousia, or death if it intervenes before the parousia.

Carson gives seven reasons for his support of the third position of the ‘perfection’ (1 Cor. 13;10) referring to the parousia, which he claims ‘has powerful evidence in its defense’ (1987:70). These reasons are (Carson 1987:70-72).

(a) It is difficult to believe that Paul was expecting the Corinthians to understand that he was alluding to ‘perfection’ as a reference to the cessation of the writing of Scripture.

(b) According to 1 Cor. 13:12b, perfection refers to a situation where knowledge has some kind of comparison with God’s present knowledge of us: ‘then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known [by God]’. This is not full omniscience but in the consummation, Paul expects to be freed from some of the misconceptions and inabilities to understand in the present age. ‘His knowledge will resemble God’s present knowledge of him because it will contain no false impressions and will not be limited to what is able to be perceived in this age’ (Grudem in Carson 1987:70).

(c) Now we see ‘but a poor reflection’ (1 Cor. 13:12a), a phrase that suggests ‘unclear or still indistinct divine revelation’ until perfection comes when ‘we shall see face to face’, which is almost certainly a reference to the parousia. Carson’s comment is that ‘however much we respect the New Testament canon, Paul can only be accused of the wildest exaggeration in verse 12 if that is what he was talking about’ (Turner in Carson 1987:71).

(d) The force of verse 12 rules out the idea expressed in Ephesians that ‘perfection’ refers to the joining together of Jews and Gentiles into a new and ‘perfect’ man and this theme is not relevant to 1 Cor. ‘Any preparousia maturity simply trivializes the language of verse 12′ (Carson 1987:71, emphasis in original).

(e) The sharp contrast between infant and adult in verse 1 Cor. 13:11, a common device of the ancient world, requires one to leap from infancy to manhood. To argue that the comparison of the spiritual experience of the pre-canonical church to the post-canonical church, is to compare infant’s talk with the understanding of an adult ‘is historical nonsense’ (Carson 1987:71).

(f) If it is true that ‘perfection’ refers nowhere else to the state of affairs brought on by the parousia, it is just as true that it almost never occurs as an adjective as it does in 13:10, being a neuter, articular substantive in the Greek, ‘probably created precisely to serve as a contrast to “the partial” or “the imperfect”‘ (Carson 1987:72).

The cessationist view of ‘perfection’ as ‘referring to the closing of the canon depends on understanding New Testament prophecy and related gifts as having the same revelatory and authoritative significance as inscripturated prophecy’ is a presupposition that needs to be challenged (Carson 1987:72).

Carson challenges this view in Carson (1987:77-106) in his chapter on ‘Prophecy and Tongues: Pursuing What is Better: (1 Cor. 14:1-19)’. Some of his emphases are:

(i) An OT prophet once tested and approved was expected to be obeyed by God’s people.

(ii) The oracles of NT prophets had to be carefully weighed (1 Cor. 14:29), which presupposes ‘that any one New Testament prophetic oracle is expected to be mixed in quality, and the wheat must be separated from the chaff’ (Turner in Carson 1987:95).

(iii) The NT prophets were not the solution to apostolic succession.

(iv) Although NT prophets addressed a variety of topics, ‘there is little evidence that they enjoyed the clout in the church that either the apostles demanded in the church or the writing prophets demanded in Israel and Judah’ (Carson 1987:96).

(v) In the Book of Acts there is evidence that there were prophecies that are considered as genuinely from God but having less status than OT prophecy (e.g. Acts 21:4, 10-11). In this latter prophecy by Agabus in Acts 21:10-11, he stated that the Jews at Jerusalem would bind the one who owned Paul’s girdle and hand over to the Gentiles. But what happened was that Paul was bound by the Romans and not the Jews and the Romans sought to kill Paul with mob violence and the Romans had to rescue him. Carson notes, ‘I can think of no reported Old Testament prophet whose prophecies are so wrong on the details’ (1987:98).

(vi) The constraints placed on prophecy in 1 Cor. 14:29, 30 and 36, indicate ‘that the gift of prophecy stands considerably tamed. Moreover, it is precisely because prophecy operates at this lower level of authority that Paul can encourage women to pray and prophesy in public under the constraints of 1 Corinthians 11 (whatever they mean)’ (Carson 1987:98).

Therefore the better understanding of ‘perfection’ or ‘complete’ in 1 Cor. 13:10 is not that or Cornford (2008) but of Fee (1987) and Carson (1987) – it refers to Christ’s second coming (the parousia). That’s when the gifts of the Spirit will cease for all Christian believers. They still operate in the 21st century and the cessationist view is an evangelical aberration that is not backed up by consistent interpretation of Scripture.

2.4 There’s an added problem of opposition to continuing revelation by cessationists

Cornford’s (2008:1) opposition to modern Pentecostalism is ‘its claim to ongoing revelation’. However, what does the Bible say about what should happen when the church gathers? We find this penetrating verse in 1 Corinthians 14:

What then, brothers? 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 ESV).

2.4.1 Men and women receive gifts of the Spirit

The ESV translates as, ‘brothers’, in 1 Cor. 14:26. What is the meaning of the Greek adelphoi (plural, from the singular, adelphos) that is here translated as the masculine, brothers. Arndt & Gingrich note that ‘the plural can also mean brothers and sisters’ and it is ‘used by Christians in their relations with each other’ (1957:15-16). So in this context of 1 Cor. 14:26, adelphoi should be translated as brothers and sisters. We know that on the Day of Pentecost it fulfilled Joel’s prophecy that in the last days, God declares that ‘I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh’ (Acts 2:17) – so, men and women are included. We know from 1 Cor. 11:5 that the gifts of the Spirit included the ministry of women because it states, ‘…. Every wife who prays or prophesies’ (ESV).

Fee (1987:52 n 22) notes in his comment on 1 Cor. 1:7 that adelphoi means ‘brothers’ but it is clear from 1 Cor. 11:2-16 and Phil. 4:1-3 that women participated in the community of believers at worship and would have been included when ‘brothers’ were addressed.

2.4.2 What is the lesser gift of revelation?

Now we move to 1 Cor. 14:26 where we find that “when you (plural) come together”, is a phrase that continues the theme started in 14:23 when ‘the whole church comes together’. What should happen in that context, and by application, to every church when it gathers?

Each brother and sister in Christ has the opportunity to minister with ‘a hymn, a lesson [or teaching], a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation’ (14:26). Please note that one of the gifts or ministries of the Spirit when the church gathers is the gift of ‘revelation’. This is apokalupsis, which refers back to 14:6 where tongues would be of no ‘benefit unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge’. Arndt & Gingrich give the root meaning as ‘revelation, disclosure’ and in 1 Cor. 14:6, 26, it means that ‘the secret was made known to me by revelation’ (1957:91). Fee (1987:662-663) stated that ‘revelation’ can be used in a number of ways but the argument in 1 Cor. 14:6, 26 suggests ‘some kind of utterance given by the spirit for the benefit of the gathered community’ but how its content could differ from the gift of the word of knowledge or prophecy, ‘is not at all clear’ but Paul could be using ‘revelation’ to mean a broader term than prophecy or knowledge, but with ‘revelation’ including the gifts of prophecy and knowledge. He quotes Barrett (Fee 1987:663 n 16) who stated that ‘all these activities … shade too finely into one another for rigid distinctions’.

However 1 Cor. 14:6 and 26 confirm that the gift of revelation is a continuing gift of the Spirit, even though the revelation of Scripture has closed with the completion of the NT.

This should be good news for all Christians. When the church gathers, everyone should have the opportunity for these gifts of the Holy Spirit to be manifested in the congregation. Every-member ministry when the church gathers is what God intended. That is hardly possible in most churches in my country, where there is so much one-way communication, and no opportunity is given or possible for 1 Cor. 14:26 to be practised. The problems lie with: (1) the contemporary nature of worship in medium to large churches, and (2) where this type of ministry is permitted in Christian Brethren Assemblies, the ministry is limited to males and often this male ministry is quite commonplace in reading out a hymn to sing or some other statements that are far removed from the ministries of 1 Cor. 14:26.[14] (3) Growing evangelical churches with large numbers of people prevent such a dimension of worship. Even in small groups in churches, the teaching of 1 Cor. 14:26 is not practised.

There are considerable problems with application of 1 Cor. 14:26 in Australian churches. This is also a problem in traditionally Pentecostal-charismatic churches as they also have moved into large gatherings when the church gathers on Sunday and have moved away from the possibility of every-member ministry on Sunday when the church gathers.

This kind of every-member ministry expression through the gifts of the Spirit is made easier in house churches, which were probably the kinds of churches in the early years of Christianity. So many in contemporary local churches are missing out on active ministry through the expression of the gifts of the Spirit.

3. What about Eph. 4:11-12?

This is not the place to do a detailed exposition of the ministry gifts of Christ to the church in this passage. However a couple points need to be noted as they relate to the topic being discussed in this article – the continuation of the gifts vs. cessationism. These points are:

3.1 These ministry gifts were initiated at Christ’s ascension

In a sermon I heard Paul Cornford preach on 18 December 2011, he stated that the gifts of apostle and prophet (Eph. 4:11-12) have ceased and that visions are no longer necessary since we have a completed canon of Scripture. This is a standard cessationist view.

3.1.1 Has the gift of apostle ceased?

Charles Hodge, a cessationist, states that ‘modern prelates are not apostles’ and modern bishops are not apostles (1979:139). He stated that the gift of apostles only applied to a definite number of men, selected by Christ as his witnesses, to testify to Christ’s doctrines, and the facts of his life – including Christ’s death and resurrection. Qualifications for these apostles were:

(1) ‘They should have independent and plenary knowledge of the gospel’;

(2) ‘They should have been with Christ after his resurrection’;

(3) ‘They should be inspired, i.e. they should be individually and severally so guided by the Spirit as to be infallible in all their instructions’;

(4) ‘They should be authenticated as the messengers of Christ, by adherence to the true gospel, by success in preaching (Paul said to the Corinthians that they were the seal of his apostleship, 1 Cor. ix. 2); and by signs and wonders and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost’ (Hodge 1979:139).

Those who did not have these qualifications were ‘pronounced false apostles and messengers of Satan’, according to Hodge (1979:139).

Is this a biblical view? Were there any apostles in the NT and the early church after the completion of the NT, where it is not specifically stated that they met these 4 qualifications that Hodge has articulated for being a genuine apostle of Christ?

It was impossible for the apostle Paul to meet qualification (2) as he could not have been with Christ in person after Christ’s resurrection. Or would Hodge allow Paul’s encounter with the Lord on the road to Damascus, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?… I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do’ (Acts 9:4-6), to be the equivalent to what the 12 apostles encountered? That would not seem to be the same as Hodge’s claim that an apostle ‘should have been with Christ after his resurrection’. Was a visionary encounter the same as being ‘with Christ after his resurrection’? In fact, this encounter by Paul with the Lord through a light that flashed from heaven is further affirmation of the continuation of supernatural encounters after Christ’s ascension. But the cessationist will claim that the NT canon had not yet been finalised.

What about Agabus? He was a prophet according to Acts 21:10.

If we delete apostle and prophet from the list in Eph. 4:11, but accept evangelists, pastors and teachers, this involves selective exegesis and makes an imposition on the text.  We know that all of these gifts, including apostle and prophet, are ‘to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12 ESV).  This is the work of the ministry until Jesus comes again and all 5 ministry gifts are needed.

For ‘apostle’, there are three primary meanings:

a.  As in John 13:16, ‘Truly, truly I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor a messenger [Gk: apostolos, apostle] greater than the one who sent him’ (ESV).  In this sense, all Christians are servants and apostles.  We know that the verbal form, apostell?, means “I send,” and all believers are sent as “messenger-apostles” into the world to be ambassadors and witnesses for Christ.

b.  Apostles of the churches as in 2 Cor. 8:23, ‘… and as for our brothers, they are messengers [apostles] of the churches, the glory of Christ’.   Phil. 2:25 speaks of Epaphroditus as brother, fellow worker, fellow soldier, messenger [apostle] and minister to Paul’s need.  These apostles could be those who are sent out from the church as missionaries or on other Christ-sent duties.  There is no reason to consider that these types of apostles no longer exist.  I Cor. 12:28-29 speaks of “God appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.  Are all apostles? [expecting the answer, No]  Are all prophets? [No!]  Are all teachers? [No!] . . .”

God continues to give these kinds of gifts, including apostles and prophets.

c.  The direct apostles of Christ (his disciples, incl. Paul).  There can be no repeat of these.

I endorse the teaching that the gift of apostles continues in the contemporary church. The use of priority in biblical terminology seems to suggest that pioneer, church planting messengers (apostles) or missionaries are closer to the biblical understanding of being an apostle: ‘God has appointed in the church first apostles . . .’ (ESV, I Cor. 12:28) and ‘he gave some as apostles [mentioned first]…’ (NASB, Eph. 4:11). However, the purpose of these five ministry gifts is ‘to equip the saints for the work of ministry’ (Eph. 4:12, ESV), is a strong indicator that these gifts should be functioning in association with every church. It could be that the apostle emanated from a local church and had a wider ministry of church planting, based in that local church.

This is only a brief dip into some of the issues surrounding the gift of apostleship. Also see my article, ‘Are there apostles today?’

3.2 The 5-fold ministry gifts continue until the second coming

Ephesians 4:7-8 states when these five ministry gifts were given:

But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says,

“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men” (ESV).

These gifts were given to people when Christ ascended and there is no indication in the context that they have ceased. These gifts are:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:11-13 ESV).

Common sense should tell us that all of these gifts are needed ‘for building up the body of Christ’ until the end of the age when Jesus returns, so that we will attain unity of the faith and maturity in Christ. Could it be that the cessationists, who promote an unbiblical view of the gifts, are actually the ones preventing ‘unity of the faith’ and are the ones encouraging division?

Scripture does give an example of the necessity of spiritual gifts in the body of Christ in 1 Cor. 12:27-31. This list contains a mixture of ministries and the charismata. It is not a hierarchy of gifts (except for the first three) or even teaching about gifts, but as the previous context indicates, it is to indicate that the body of Christ needs different parts/members with different functions. Yes, the first three are ranked, but not those thereafter:

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles?[15] Are all prophets?[16] Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues?[17] Do all interpret?[18] But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way [love] (1 Cor. 12:27-31 ESV).

There is an important piece of Greek grammar associated with each of these questions in 12:29-30: ‘Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?’ The literal reading of these statements is: ‘Not all apostles, not all prophets, not all teachers, not all powers/miracles, not all have gifts of cures/healing, not all speak with tongues, not all interpret’. Each is accompanied by the Greek negative, m? (meaning no or not). So ‘the m? expects a negative answer with each group’ (Robertson 1931:174).[19] If one expects the answer, ‘Yes’, to a question, the negatives ou or ouchi would be used.

4. The doctrine of the immanence of God attacked

I consider that Paul Cornford’s view of cessationism (and the theology of others promoting the same perspective) attacks the doctrine of the immanence of God. For them, God is remote, almost like a Deist version of God. The deistic view of God’s providence is that

God’s concern with the world is not universal, special and perpetual, but only of a general nature. At the time of creation He imparted to all His creatures certain inalienable properties, placed them under invariable laws, and left them to work out their destiny by their own inherent powers. Meanwhile He merely exercises a general oversight, not of the specific agents that appear on the scene, but of the general laws which He has established. The world is simply a machine which God has put in motion, and not at all a vessel which He pilots from day to day (Berkhof 1941:167).

Berkhof admitted that theism’s God was both transcendent and immanent and that ‘Deism moved God from the world and stressed His transcendence at the expense of His immanence’ (1941:24). Immanence is one of the attributes of God by which he is not a remote deity who is disinterested in his creation, but is involved in the creation and particularly with his people. ‘The Bible is the story of God’s involvement with his creation’ (Grudem 1994:267). This includes God’s ability to continue to perform supernatural miracles in the contemporary universe. This is affirmed in John 14:12 (see explanation above).

Regarding Deism, B. B. Warfield commented that ‘English Deism set the supernatural so far off from the world that French Atheism thought it an easy thing to dispense with it altogether. “Down with the infamy!” cried Voltaire, and actually thought the world had hearkened to his commandment’ (Warfield 1952:3). Deism is an assault on God’s imminence and ability to intervene in the world – even supernaturally.

I find this, along with incorrect exegesis, to be one of the major flaws in Cornford’s (2008) promotion of cessationism.

5. Why accept the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit?

I reject cessationism and accept the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit because:

(1) The primary reason is that it is based on a careful, consistent exegesis of the relevant NT passages of Scripture. Cessationism is an imposition on Scripture when the plain meaning of Scripture is that the gifts will continue and the ‘complete’ or the ‘perfect’ will have come when we see Jesus face-to-face at death or his second coming.

(2) It is a direct result of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. The expectation is that under the New Covenant, the Spirit’s ministry will continue until Christ’s return. Acts 2:16-21 states that the Day of Pentecost is the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy in Joel 2:28-32: The Spirit would be poured out on all people, sons & daughters will prophesy, young men will see visions, old men will dream dreams, God’s servants – men and women – will prophesy, there will be wonders in the heavens and signs on the earth below, and everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Nowhere in Acts 2 is there an indication that this outpouring will cease and the gifts of the Spirit mentioned will pass away with the completion of the NT Scriptures.

(3) Therefore, it should not be surprising that churches that deny the continuation of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit are stagnating and those promoting the charismata are growing. However, there is a need for the gift to ‘distinguish between spirits’ (ESV)[20] to continue among all Christians and especially among the charismatic-Pentecostals (see 1 Cor. 12:10; 14:29). Those who promote the charismata among believers in the contemporary church are encouraging consistent biblical Christianity.

However, there are aberrations and false teachings that have developed among some Pentecostal-charismatics. These must be addressed biblically. False manifestations should not negate the need for biblically-based manifestations. I would not write off all Toyota Camrys if my Camry developed a fault, even a severe problem. Even so, Pentecostal excesses should not deter from a biblical proclamation of the need for the gifts of the Spirit to be manifested within biblical order (as in 1 Cor. 12-14). I have written about some of these in:

6. Practical implications

What are the practical ramifications of the God who is not immanent and does not perform ‘signs’ in our contemporary society? Could this be a supernatural way that God is showing that churches which practise the gifts of the Spirit and believe in God’s immanence are the ones that are growing – Pentecostalism vs. traditional churches? However, it does need to be noted that in the National Church Life Survey of 2001 the Anglican church in Sydney, which is evangelical but not charismatic/Pentecostal, had ‘a significant increase in attendance in the Sydney diocese’ which is the largest Anglican diocese in Australia.[21] This does demonstrate that evangelical churches that take evangelism seriously are growing.

However, this should not deny the doctrine of the immanence of God and the supernatural ministry of the Holy Spirit.

6.1 What God is doing in the Muslim world!

This article on ‘Doors into Islam’ by Stan Guthrie (Christianity Today) demonstrates what God is doing in the world of Islam through the supernatural ministry of the Holy Spirit. The article contains sovereign ways that God is reaching Muslims through dreams and visions:

“We also [have] many reports from workers in Sudan of. … people coming to faith through evangelistic efforts and dreams and visions,” Noor says.

Noor credits increased prayer through the AD2000 and Beyond Movement for more spiritual receptivity and reports of dreams and visions in his own Egypt. “We can see this especially happening in Egypt,” Noor says. “Although it’s very hard to give numbers, it’s hard to miss the obvious increase in number of workers with Muslims and the number of Muslims being baptized”….

Khaled AbdelRahman grew up in Iraq, believing that one day he would be an imam (leader) of a mosque. After AbdelRahman became a serious student of Islam, he began arguing about religion with some young Christians. “I created many faith problems for them,” he says. They introduced him to their church’s priest, who expertly fielded his questions. The priest died a year later, but AbdelRahman, now a young man, found his view of Christianity changing, and he began to struggle with the contradictions he saw in Islam.

One night, as he slept, AbdelRahman saw a vision of a man with a beard.

“Son,” the man said, “why do you attack my sheep?”

AbdelRahman replied, “Who are you, Sir?”

“Jesus Christ.”

“I’m not attacking your sheep, Sir. I’m trying to bring your lost sheep back to the straight path.”

“You are the one who is lost. I’m the straight path.”

Confused, AbdelRahman stopped pursuing Islam and Christianity and began pursuing a life of pleasure. About that time, his father, a high-ranking officer in the Iraqi army, died in a car crash.

AbdelRahman’s mother, a journalist and native of another Arab country, assumed the death was a tragic accident. Later, AbdelRahman heard a commanding voice as he slept: “Run away from your country now!” He knew it was the voice of Jesus. A few hours later, he was on a flight to his mother’s home country (which he prefers to be left unnamed, for security reasons), feeling a little sheepish. From his grandfather’s house he called his mother. She said a police unit had assassinated his father and was now looking for him.

In shock, AbdelRahman passed out. When he woke up a few hours later, he began praying earnestly for God to show him the truth. Later, in a dream, Jesus told him, “I love you. Why don’t you love me likewise? Come to me, because I have a plan for you.”

AbdelRahman did so. A few months later, Iraq invaded Kuwait. After he got kicked out of his mother’s country because of his evangelism and “apostasy,” he evangelized Muslim refugees in the Netherlands while applying for religious refugee status, which he obtained. He now lives in the United States and works in the information technology sector. He also has an Internet-based apologetics ministry directed toward Muslims. His story can be found on www.answering-islam.org, a Christian ministry to Muslim seekers.

Woodberry says dreams and visions like this one constitute a major factor in the conversion stories of Muslims from around the world. He has collected more than 650 testimonies from Muslims who have received Christ. He says a third of these conversion accounts mention dreams as a factor.

Warren Larson has seen some of these accounts, and he is not surprised. For 23 years Larson planted churches and worked at a Bible correspondence school in Pakistan.

“God speaks to people, Muslims in particular, through dreams,” Larson says. “[He] draws them to himself, continues to work through dreams.”

Frontiers is also hearing reports of dreams and visions among Muslims. The agency has 600 missionaries—250 from outside the West—serving on about 100 church-planting teams in 35 countries with Muslim areas. But Blincoe, who launched the agency’s work in Iraq following the Gulf War, cautions that people are still needed.

“We can talk about miracles,” Blincoe says. “But there is no substitute for the apostolic method that Christ directed. That is, a person with his voice should tell the gospel message. In the end, people who have had dreams and miracles still need a human being”.[22].

In his sovereign way, God is using miracles and dreams to reach some in the Muslim world.

“Missionaries who are reaching Muslims with the gospel have some unusual help: the Muslims’ own dreams. As many as one-third of Muslim converts to Christianity, according to one missions scholar quoted in Stan Guthrie’s article, report having dreams of Christ and of angels. Why would God use dreams to convince Muslims of his truth? When does God speak through dreams? Certainly he did in the Bible, but what about in our time? In this study, we’ll explore New Testament dreams and visions since Pentecost”.[23]

Another website posts testimonies by Muslim converts to Christianity. A man who identified himself only as “a brother from Saudi Arabia” writes:

As a teenager I went to the mosque five times a day in obedience to my parents…. One night while was asleep I had this horrible dream of me being taken into hell. What I saw there brought me real fear and these dreams kept coming to me almost every night…. Suddenly one day Jesus appeared to me and said, “Son, I am the way, the truth, and the life. And if you would give your life to Me and follow Me, I would save you from the hell that you have seen.”…Christianity is totally banned in Saudi Arabia…. [After I converted] I was taken into custody and tortured. They told me I would be beheaded if I did not turn back to Islam…. I told the authorities I’m willing to die for Jesus and that I would never come back to Islam…. The appointed day came for my execution and I was waiting with much anticipation, yet very strong in my faith….One hour lapsed, two hours went by, then it became three hours and then the day passed by. No one turned up. Then two days later the authorities turned and opened the doors and told me, “You demon! Get out from this place!”.[24]

Iranian Muslims are embracing Christ in record numbers, some through dreams and miracles.[25]

“We hear stories of Jesus appearing to Muslims in dreams and visions…. But after the visions, after the miraculous (or quiet) conversions, how are new believers being nurtured, discipled and brought into Christian churches? In many cases, they aren’t”.[26]

6.2 What about the illiterate and those who don’t have a Bible?

The ministry of Wycliffe Bible Translators tells us that at the beginning of the 21st century,

Today about 340 million people do not have any Scripture in their language. Wycliffe’s vision is to see the Bible accessible to all people in the language they understand best. To make this vision a reality, Wycliffe also focuses on community development, literacy development and church partnerships.[27]

Compassionate Christians should not promote cessationism for three reasons: (1) The Bible does not teach it, and (2) There are 340 million people in the world who do not have a Bible in their own languages to read, and (3) There is a significant illiteracy rate around the world. Talking of the closing of the canon, has no relevance to those without the scriptures or those who cannot read.

But there is an additional problem! Even if the language of a certain people group does have a translated Bible, many in these cultures are illiterate. What is the problem with illiteracy?

The ‘World illiteracy map’ states that

World literacy statistics show that Africa has the largest number of countries with 60% of illiterate people…. Most of North America, Europe and Australia fall into the category of less than 5% adult illiteracy. Third world literacy figures show that in the developing countries, most of the population is illiterate. Highest illiteracy rates are observed in developing countries such as South Asian, Arab and Sub-Saharan countries. In developed countries the illiteracy rate is low. For instance, illiteracy in America cannot be compared with the  functional illiteracy  rates of the third world.  US illiteracy is a meager 2.8 million in a country of more than 300 million people.[28]

This dismal picture is a further practical impediment to the doctrine of cessationism. How many people in the world are illiterate and cannot read the canon of Scripture? The ‘World illiteracy map’ states, ‘World literacy rates as a whole presents a bleak picture’.[29] The 2011 census report in India from the Government of India, Ministry of Home affairs, revealed an average literacy rate of 74.04% (82.14% males; 65.46% females).[30] The United Nations’ assessment is:

The United Nations, which defines illiteracy as the inability to read and write a simple message in any language, has conducted a number of surveys on world illiteracy. In the first survey (1950, pub. 1957) at least 44% of the world’s population were found to be illiterate. A 1978 study showed the rate to have dropped to 32.5%, by 1990 illiteracy worldwide had dropped to about 27%, and by 1998 to 16%. However, a study by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) published in 1998 predicted that the world illiteracy rate would increase in the 21st cent. because only a quarter of the world’s children were in school by the end of the 20th cent. The highest illiteracy rates were found in the less developed nations of Africa, Asia, and South America; the lowest in Australia, Japan, North Korea, and the more technologically advanced nations of Europe and North America. Using the UN definition of illiteracy, the United States and Canada have an overall illiteracy rate of about 1%. In certain disadvantaged areas, however, such as the rural South in the United States, the illiteracy rate is much higher.[31]

The lack of Bibles accessible to many millions around the world and the continuing problem with illiteracy, are practical impediments for many people to access the Scriptures in written form.

This has practical ramifications for those who promote cessationism. However, the biggest issue for cessationists is their clash with consistent biblical interpretation.

7. Conclusion

I conclude with the flip side to the introduction to Paul Cornford’s article. His concern was with ‘the meteoric rise of modern pentecostalism and its claim to ongoing revelation’ (2008:1). My concern is with the lack of consistent biblical interpretation among cessationists. Therefore, the real concern should be to answer Paul Cornford’s question biblically: ‘we have to ask: why are the pentecostal churches growing and the traditional churches shrinking? Have we missed something? (Cornford 2008:1).

Yes, he and the cessationist movement have missed something BIG TIME! The gifts of the Spirit were meant to continue until Christian believers meet the Lord face-to-face at death or at the Parousia – Christ’s second coming. There is every biblical reason to expect that Pentecostal-charismatic churches should be growing and cessationists should be losing members or stagnating. One (Pentecostalism) practises a biblical doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the other (cessationists) deny this doctrine of continuing gifts of the Holy Spirit.

This is not an endorsement of the Pentecostal practice of tongues in the church gathering without the gift of interpretation. Also, I do not support the extremism of the ‘Toronto blessing’ and the alleged ‘Pensacola revival’. There are other practices in Pentecostal-charismatic churches that require discernment before acceptance. However, on this the Pentecostals have biblical support – the gifts of the Spirit continue today and have not ceased.

Down through the years, I have addressed some of these Pentecostal theological aberrations in articles such as:

I am committed to “rightly handling the word of truth”

(2 Tim. 2:15)

8. Works consulted

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

Barth, K 1933. The resurrection of the dead. New York: Fleming H. Revell.

Berkhof, L 1941. Systematic theology. London: The Banner of Truth Trust.

Bruce, F F 1964. The epistle to the Hebrews (The New International Commentary on the New Testament, F F Bruce gen ed). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Carson, D A 1987. Showing the Spirit: A theological exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14. Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press.

Carson, D A 1991. The gospel according to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Cornford, P 2008. The superiority of New Testament revelation. North Pine Presbyterian Church. Available at: http://www.northpinepresbyterianchurch.org/downloads/articles/ntRevelation.pdf (Accessed 30 December 2011).

Crossan, J D 1991. The historical Jesus: The life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

Crossan, J D 1994. Jesus: A revolutionary biography. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

Crossan, J D 1998. The birth of Christianity: Discovering what happened in the years immediately after the execution of Jesus. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco. Also available [e-book] at: HERE (Accessed 18 September 2010).

Dana, H E & Mantey, J R 1955. A manual grammar of the Greek New Testament. Toronto, Ontario: The Macmillan Company.

Delling, G 1972. teleios. In G Friedrich (ed), tr by G W Bromiley, Theological dictionary of the New Testament, vol 8, 67-87. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Fee, G D 1987. The first epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Grudem, W 1994. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

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

Marlowe, M D n.d. ‘What about the majority text?’, Bible Research, Textual Criticism, available at: http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html (Accessed 31 December 2011).

Robertson, A T 1931. Word pictures in the New Testament: The epistles of Paul, vol 4. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press.

Warfield, B B 1952. Biblical and theological studies. Ed S G Craig. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

Notes:


[1] This is at Petrie (Brisbane) Qld., Australia. At the beginning of 2017, Cornford was defrocked by the Presbyterian Church of Queensland because of adultery committed with a member of the congregation.

[2] I know through personal contact with Rev. Cornford that he supports the Byzantine Majority Greek Text (or Byzantine Textform, Received Text of the Textus Receptus) that lies behind the NT translations of the King James Version (KJV) and the New King James Version (NKJV). I support the Alexandrian Text, the older Alexandrian Greek text of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament that is behind NT translations such as the English Standard Version (ESV), New International Version (NIV), New Living Translation (NLT), Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). For a discussion of the differences between The Majority Text and the Received Text and which is preferred, see Marlowe (n d).

[3] See Crossan (1991; 1994; 1998).

[4] The Jesus Seminar is sponsored by the Westar Institute and does not promote orthodox Christianity. See: http://www.westarinstitute.org/index.html (Accessed 30 December 2011). For a critique of the Jesus Seminar see N T Wright, ‘Jesus seminar critically examined: Setting scholars straight about the Bible’, 5 March 2007, available at: http://jesusseminar.blogspot.com/2007/03/setting-scholars-straight-about-bible.html (Accessed 30 December 2011).

[5] Some of these OT illustrations were suggested by Bruce (1964:3).

[6] ‘Period’ is the USA word for ‘full stop’.

[7] I support the Alexandrian text that is older than the Byzantine text, and thus closer to the time of the NT writers. The Alexandrian text is evident in the contemporary translations of the ESV, NIV, NLT, RSV and NRSV.

[8] However, in some of his sermons, he does use quotations on the digital projector of the NIV 2011.

[9] The New Jerusalem Bible translates as, ‘once perfection comes’.

[10] Gordon Fee’s website states that he is Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies, Regent College (Vancouver, Canada) and ‘besides Dr. Fee’s ability as a biblical scholar, he is a noted teacher and conference speaker. An ordained minister with the Assemblies of God, Dr. Fee is well known for his manifest concern for the renewal of the church’, available at: http://www.gordonfeeonline.com/ (Accessed 31 December 2011).

[11] This is Arndt & Gingrich (1957).

[12] Fee is referring to the second half of 1 Cor. 13:12, the whole verse stating, ‘Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known’ (NIV 1984). Fee describes the cessationist views of B. B. Warfield, contemporary Reformed and Dispensationalist theologies, as advocating ‘an impossible view … since Paul himself could not have articulated it…. It is perhaps an indictment of Western Christianity that we should consider “mature” our totally cerebral and domesticated—but bland—brand of faith, with the concomitant absence of the Spirit in terms of his supernatural gifts! The Spirit, not Western rationalism, marks the turning of the ages, after all; and to deny the Spirit’s manifestations is to deny our present existence to be eschatological, as belonging to the beginning of the time of the End’ (Fee 1987, 645 n 23).

[13] This refers to Barth (1933:86).

[14] I have relatives who are in Brethren Assemblies.

[15] The expected answer in Greek is, ‘No’.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Dana & Mantey’s Greek grammar of the NT states that ‘in questions me (or meti) implies that the expected answer is “no”‘. They use the example of Judas’s memorable question in Matt. 26:25 and the difference in meaning between the two negatives, ou and me in Luke 6:39, ‘a blind man is not able to guide a blind man, is he? They will fall into a ditch, will they not?’ They demonstrate that the differences between ou and me in other sentences include, ‘the general distinction between ou and me is that ou is objective, dealing only with facts, while me is subjective, involving will and thought…. Or, according to Dr. C. B. Williams … ou expresses a definite, emphatic negation; me an indefinite, doubtful negation’ (Dana & Mantey 1955:265-266).

[20] This is called ‘discerning of spirits’ in the KJV and NKJV. The literal Greek is diakriseis = discernings/distinguishings.

[21] Michael Gilchrist 2004, ‘National Church Life Survey: church-going declines further’, available at: http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2004/apr2004p3_1581.html (Accessed 30 December 2011).

[22] Available at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/010/1.34.html (Accessed 31 December 2011).

[23] Christian Bible Studies, ‘Muslims dream their way to Christ’. Available at: http://shop.store.yahoo.com/biblestudies/dreamourwayb.html (Accessed 31 December 2011).

[24] Wendy Murray Zoba, ‘How Muslims see Christianity’, Christianity Today, 1 March 2000, available at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/marchweb-only/31.0c.html (Accessed 31 December 2011).

[25] See: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/6/prweb133066.php (Accessed 31 December 2011).

[26] Available at: http://www.baptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=4243 (Accessed 31 December 2011).

[27] Available at: http://www.wycliffe.org/ (Accessed 31 December 2011).

[28] Available at: http://www.mapsofworld.com/thematic-maps/world-illiteracy-map.htm (Accessed 31 December 2011).

[29] Ibid.

[30] Available at: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/indiaatglance.html (Accessed 31 December 2011). An average of the male and female literacy rates does not calculate to 74.04% but 73.8%.

[31] The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia 2007, 6th edition. Columbia University Press, available at: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0858751.html (Accessed 31 December 2011).

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 03 September 2020.

Loree Rudd: Support for homosexual marriage caused a Labor Party member to quit the Party

Loree Rudd (brisbanetimes.com)

By Spencer D Gear

Loree Rudd has a famous brother, Kevin Rudd, former Australian Prime Minister. But something has been troubling Loree, according to the mass media. The Labor Party’s 46th National Conference in Sydney, 2-4 December 2011[1], voted to support homosexual marriage and give MPs a conscience vote[2].

Loree Rudd objected so strongly to the support for homosexual marriage that she resigned from the Labor Party, Nambour, Qld., branch. This is reported in, ‘Kevin Rudd’s sister quits Labor over gay marriage policy’ (The Age, 13 December 2011).[3] According to The Age, these are the reasons given:

  • She cannot back a party that supports “homosexuals marrying”.
  • “It’s not something I believe in and it’s also the way it happened that I dislike”;
  • “I don’t believe gay marriage is good for the community”.
  • “Homosexuals should be loved and treated right and they should not be discriminated against”.
  • “But to make that huge leap from their rights to breaking a commandment of Moses”.
Bible bashing antagonists

It was this last comment in The Age that used support from “a commandment of Moses” that caused a battering in the online letters of response about Loree Rudd’s decision and association with Moses. This is a small sample of what was said about the “commandment of Moses” issue:

1. “Moses? Please? Being Christian and screaming Moses does not give you special rights to deny citizens of this country marriage equality”.

2.”She can’t say ‘I love and cherish gay people’ and then say ‘I uphold the laws of Moses’. Last time I checked, gay people and other ‘undesirables’ were ordered to be stoned to death under the ‘Law of Moses’. Unless I am mistaken, Ms Rudd is a Christian and ought at least to be aware that Jesus decreed the ‘Law of Moses’ to be secondary to his golden ‘love thy neighbour’ rule. Again, she is entitled to her convictions but her theology seems a little muddled to me”.

3. “The laws of Moses allowed for slavery and subjugation of Women as well. Ms Rudd support this as well?”

4. Marriage is a Christian/Religious institution and “hijacking” the sanctity of marriage for the purposes of justifying unnatural unions is ultimately an exercise in futility. Rant all you want about your rights etc etc but it doesn’t change the basic fact that gay relationships are abhorred by God”.

5. “Hey, it’s against her religious beliefs, you morons are pretty bigoted yourselves, you’re all ragging on the old girl for holding to her beliefs. I applaud her”.

6. “Ms Rudd, I respect your right to express your clueless, bigoted, moronic opinions….You lady are an imbecile”.

7. The only huge leap is to believe that Moses actually existed. I’m sorry Ms Rudd, that is utter nonsense. I’m sure you believe that you are a decent person but here is an example of where your religious beliefs have blinded you. Please, live & let live”.

What some other media reported

The Sunshine Coast Daily reported the following points on 13 December 2011 in the article, “Rudd’s sister quits Labor”:[4]

  • “I’m not representing any particular church or religious group. It is me giving my thoughts and taking a stand which is important for my integrity”.
  • “This is a huge issue in our society. Any government honest with its people would take this matter to a referendum after a couple of years of open debate”.
  • ‘She was also concerned with the way “Jesus is misrepresented”.
  • “The whole concept of equality comes from the Bible, from the sacred scriptures. All people are equal before God, but not all relationships,” she said.
  • ‘Miss Rudd said she had also sent Member for Nicklin Peter Wellington a letter expressing her views on same-sex civil unions, but she was “sad he felt harassed or intimidated by Christians”‘.

What were some of the online responses to this Sunshine Coast Daily article?

1.”Flabbergasted at the contradictions in her comments: All people are equal before God, but not all relationships – what?
Gay marriage won’t affect my life at all, but it would be a tragic loss for our society. – wouldn’t that affect your life pretty profoundly then?
If the benefit was that homosexual couples knew more joy, it would be worth the trade-off. But I don’t think they will experience more joy”.

2. “Loree Rudd has to be congratulated for her stand on this issue. Her previously favoured political party (Labor) has certainly lost it’s way since Gillard became leader and seems to be controlled by the Greens Bob Brown”.

3. “Marriage is what it is and cannot be changed. Marriage is between a man and a woman excluding all others for life. They are the rules of the game. They have been the rules for thousands of years. If you don’t like the rules go and play another game but don’t call it Marriage. Loree Rudd is a courageous woman of character and conviction who should be applauded by every fair minded Australian for pointing out the obvious”.

4. “I am male and my wife is female and we are “MARRIED”. If a male and a male or a female and a female want to unite in their relationship then that is their choice but they need to choose a name that that will not offend the male/female tradition of being married. My suggestion is “GAYRIED” as is easily accepted on Google”.

5. “Is she serious? Gay marriage was the deal breaker? Yet she’s happily been in a political party that, for years, has encouraged and financially supported the rapid decline and breakdown of decent family homes for children? A party that finances males and females to indiscriminately procreate, and a lot of times not care decently for the those children? A political party that rewards slothfulness, bad values and welfare dependant households? And she’s worried a few gay marriages is the breakdown of the family unit and family values. The mind boggles at the sheer ignorance”.

How do I respond to this berating of a person & her Christian views?

Congratulations Loree Rudd on your resignation from the Labor Party over its support of homosexual marriage.  You appealed to a “commandment of Moses” to support heterosexual marriage. Jesus Christ gave the same reason.

When Jesus was asked about divorce, he appealed to the same “commandment of Moses” to state that marriage was between a man and a woman. According to Mark 10:7-9 (NRSV), Jesus Christ stated, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Genesis 2:24 NRSV).

We already have an historical example of what happened to cities that supported homosexuality. They were Sodom & Gomorrah. Genesis 13:13 states that “the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord” (ESV). What was the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah? Genesis 19:4-13 states:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9 But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down. 10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door. 11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.

12 Then the men said to Lot, “Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place. 13 For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it” (ESV).

Yes, there was some homosexuality in this city, but the unrighteousness was broader than homosexuality, as we find in Gen. 18:20, 2 Peter 2:6, and Jude 7.

Genesis 18:20 states: ‘Then the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave”‘ (ESV).

2 Peter 2:6 explains further: ‘If by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly’ (ESV).

Jude 7: ‘Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire’ (ESV).

It has been stated that “there are 27 references outside of Genesis where Sodom is mentioned. It is emblematic of gross immorality, deepest depravity, and ultimate judgment”.[5]

No person or nation will get away with indulging in sexual immorality of any kind and to giving free rein to gratifying unrestrained pleasure. Whether that sexual immorality be heterosexual or homosexual, it brings judgment on individuals and nations according to Scripture. However, most secular people don’t give a hoot about what God says. Nevertheless, for them, this is God’s assessment: “Just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27, NLT).

One minute after they die, they’ll know the reality of what God has stated. What have been the words of dying people?

  • Sir Julian Huxley, the famous agnostic: ‘It is reported by his nurses that on his deathbed, as he looked up to heaven with a blank stare, he said, “So it is true”’.
  • Sir Francis Newport, head of the English Infidel Club, said to those gathered around his death bed, “Do not tell me there is no God for I know there is one, and that I am in his angry presence! You need not tell me there is no hell, for I already feel my soul slipping into its fires! Wretches, cease your idle talk about there being hope for me! I know that I am lost forever”.
  • Dwight L. Moody, Christian preacher, awakening from sleep shortly before he died said: “Earth recedes. Heaven opens before me. If this death, it is sweet! There is no valley here. God is calling me, and I must go.” “No, no, Father,” said Moody’s son, “You are dreaming.”
    “I am not dreaming,” replied Moody. “I have been within the gates. I have seen the children’s faces.”
    His last words were, “This is my triumph; this is my coronation day! It is glorious!”
  • David Hume, the atheist, cried: “I am in flames!” His desperation was a horrible scene.
  • Josef Stalin, communist tyrant and one of the most murderous dictators in history: ‘In a Newsweek interview with Svetlana Stalin, the daughter of Josef Stalin, she told of her father’s death: “My father died a difficult and terrible death. . God grants an easy death only to the just…. At what seemed the very last moment he suddenly opened his eyes and cast a glance over everyone in the room. It was a terrible glance, insane or perhaps angry…. His left hand was raised, as though he were pointing to something above and bringing down a curse on us all. The gesture was full of menace…. The next moment he was dead”‘.
  • Voltaire, the famous skeptic, died a terrible death. His nurse said: “For all the money in Europe I wouldn’t want to see another unbeliever die! All night long he cried for forgiveness.”
  • Sir Thomas Scott, once president of the English Lower House said: “Up until this time, I thought that there was no God neither Hell. Now I know and feel that there are both, and I am delivered to perdition by the righteous judgment of the Almighty.”
  • A Chinese Communist who delivered many Christians to their execution, came to a pastor and said: “I’ve seen many of you die. The Christians die differently. What is their secret?”

I am grateful to Loree Rudd for taking a stand for heterosexual marriage as being the norm since the beginning of time. She is right on track, but not with the politically correct crowd.

Notes:


[1] See: http://www.alp.org.au/australian-labor/national-conference-2011/(Accessed 14 December 2011).

[2] The Brisbane Times, 4 December 2011, ‘All’s fair in love, but now for the war in the House’, available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/alls-fair-in-love-but-now-for-the-war-in-the-house-20111203-1ocio.html (Accessed 14 December 2011).

[3] Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/queensland/kevin-rudds-sister-quits-labor-over-gay-marriage-policy-20111213-1os44.html (Accessed 14 December 2011).

[4] Available at: http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2011/12/13/rudds-sister-quits-labor/ (Accessed 14 December 2011).

[5] Gregory Koukl, Stand to Reason, ‘What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?’, available at: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702 (Accessed 14 December 2011).

[6] Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/queensland/kevin-rudds-sister-quits-labor-over-gay-marriage-policy-20111213-1os44.html (Accessed 14 December 2011).

 

Copyright (c) 2012 Spencer D. Gear.  This document last updated at Date: 9 October 2015.

JEDP Documentary Hypothesis refuted

(Diagram of Documentary Hypothesis, courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

RefCath[1], who said he is Catholic and Reformed, responded to one of my posts on the topic of “the Documentary Hypothesis” (DH) on Christian Forums. He wrote:

the DH is an hypothesis attempting to explain the development of the biblical text taking into account specific textual phenomena. For example, in Genesis 6-9 there does seem to be two stories having been combined. However, the traditional DH has been challenged and indeed very few biblical scholars adhere to it. Whybray offers a substantial critique of the DH however his solution is radical, like John Van Seters. Personally I’d go with Christoph Levin or David Carr. Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation is an excellent read.

This is my response (I’m OzSpen):

This JEDP overview and brief refutation makes some valid points against the JEDP Hypothesis, “The J.E.D.P. Theory: An Explanation and Refutation” by Brian Davis of Xenos Fellowship.[2] JEDP is designed by those who want to deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and I will not support such a view.

I have a higher view of Jesus Christ than the JEDP folks seem to have, in my support of Mosaic authorship. Mr Miller wrote on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch:

Livingstone summarizes the external evidence in PCE: 218-219:

“The term ‘the book of Moses,’ found in II Chronicles 25:4; 35:12; Ezra 3:2; 6:18; and Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1, surely included the Book of Genesis and also testifies to a belief in Israelite circles in the fifth century B.C. that all five of the books were the work of Moses. Ben Sira (Ecclus. 24:23), Philo, Josephus, and the authors of the Gospels held that Moses was intimately related to the Pentateuch. Philo and Josephus even explicitly said that Moses wrote Deuteronomy 34:5-12. Other writers of the New Testament tie the Pentateuch to Moses. The Jewish Talmud asserts that whoever denied Mosaic authorship would be excluded from Paradise.”

To this may be added the explicit statements of Jesus:

  •  Then Jesus said to him, “See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” (Matt 8.4)
  •  For Moses said, `Honor your father and your mother,’ and, `Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ (Mark 7.10)
  •  “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. (Mark 10.5)
  • Now about the dead rising — have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? (Mark 12.26)
  •  “He said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'” (Luke 16.31)
  •  He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” (Luke 24.44)
  •  Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 5 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. (John 3.14-15)
  •  If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” (John 5.46f)
  •  Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?” (John 7.19)
  •  Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. 22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. 23 Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? 24 Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.” (John 7.21ff)

Thus, the external evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Mosaic authorship of the core substance (and most of the form) of the Pentateuch.

We have seen that the internal evidence for the antiquity of the Pentateuchal materials is exceedingly abundant, and that the external witness to Mosaic authority is virtually unanimous and very early. The main residual challenges to Mosaic authorship are in supposed historical inaccuracies (e.g. domestication of the camel), which I cannot go into now, but will later. The vast array of KNOWN historical points of validation, however, should engender a sense of humility in us, before judging this surprisingly accurate text as being in error!

Mr Miller was responding to an objector in ‘Was the Pentateuch “adulterated” by later additions?“’

Notes:


[1] #48, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7619203-5/ (Accessed 1 January 2012).

[2] When I updated this current writing on 29 February 2020, this article still available online. However, to access it one needs a free log-in.

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date:29 February 2020.

6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small6pointGold-small

A Martin Luther quote is not from Luther

(Martin Luther, Wikimedia)

By Spencer D Gear

This quote has been widely attributed to have come from Martin Luther:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except that point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however, boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point”.

I picked it up while reading John MacArthur’s article, ‘Truth in the Crosshairs‘ (Accessed 22 December 2011). MacArthur introduces the quote with, ‘Let me start with a quote from Martin Luther’. I found this quote attributed to Luther at these sites that I Googled:

I went searching for the exact location in Luther’s writings of this quote. Nowhere on the Internet could I find this quote with a footnote reference to Luther’s works, so pursued in a wider circle and came across this article by Dr. Carl Wieland of Creation Ministries International, 4 February 2010, ‘Where the battle rages – a case of misattribution‘ (Accessed 22 December 2011).

Dr. Wieland’s research indicates that this is a quote from a fictional character and ‘it comes from a 19th Century novel by Elizabeth Rundle Charles, called The Chronicles of the Schoenberg Cotta Family (Thomas Nelson, 1864)’.

The view that this quote is not from Luther also is in Bob Caldwell’s article in a Lutheran journal, ‘”If I profess:” A Spurious, if Consistent Luther Quote”, Concordia Journal 35(4):356–359, 2009 (Accessed 22 December 2011).

I find that it is always wise to require a primary source reference for any quote. Perhaps it is my academic study that has encouraged me to always reference material. It was this desire for a primary source that caused me to search and find that a popular quote that is attributed to Martin Luther is not from Luther at all.

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 15 October 2015.

Richard Harvey, Dr. Lee, a flask and supernatural prayer

#

(image courtesy Open Clip Art Library)

By Spencer D Gear

Is prayer a necessary discipline of the Christian life? Does God answer prayer? Richard H. Harvey tells a true story of what happened in his life when at Allegheny College, Meadville, Pennsylvania, USA. This is how the story goes:

The Flask Story[1]

“… if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them by my Father, who is in heaven” (Matthew 18:19).

The college experience I am about to tell now has left the most lasting impression upon me of any. I have told it over the world for more than forty years. Suddenly it began to appear in print in many magazines, in different languages and under various titles, sometimes under my name, sometimes not.

Probably the most popular class at the college was the first-year chemistry class. It was definitely the largest. Most every student took the class sometime during his four years regardless of his major. But since it was a first-year subject, most took it their freshman year.

Dr. Lee[2] was the most noted and honoured professor in the college. He had had many honors bestowed on him from numerous scientific societies around the world. His influence carried more weight than that of any of the other teachers. He insisted that he believed in God as the creator of an original mass that was thrown into space and that God had set a group of laws to govern it. He also believed that God no longer paid any special attention to the earth as far as man was concerned. He believed it was useless for man to try to get God’s attention, much less His intervention.[3]

Among many involved themes in his lectures, Dr. Lee chose the subject of prayer—a series of three lectures given annually the week before the Thanksgiving recess. The second lecture emphasized the thought that there was no such thing as a miracle. After that class when some of the students were gathered around him I asked, “Dr. Lee, I have proof of a miracle. I know a man named Jerry Sproul whose vocal cords were destroyed by gas in World War I. He was declared incurable by three army hospitals and thus given an irrevocable pension. He is well known by all the officials of the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania City Hall and reporters of that city. After he was prayed for, he received new vocal cords. His medical records are obtainable and I will be glad to obtain them for you.”

Dr. Lee’s answer was, “I don’t believe in any such thing. If there is such an unusual circumstance as you describe, it must have some scientific explanation.” And he turned aside.

Dr. Lee’s third lecture was on the subject of the impossibility of an objective answer to prayer. He said he would prove his contention. At the end of his lecture he announced that he would step down from his platform onto the concrete floor. Then he would challenge, “Is there anybody here who still believes in prayer?” And he would say, “Before you answer, let me tell you what I am going to do and what I am going to ask you to do. I will turn around, take a glass flask and hold it at arm’s length.” Then he would continue, “If you believe that God answers prayer, I want you to stand and pray that when I drop this flask, it won’t break. I want you to know that your prayers and the prayers of your parents and Sunday School teachers, and even the prayers of your own pastor cannot prevent this flask from breaking. If you wish to have them here, we will put this off until you return after the Thanksgiving recess.”

No one had ever accepted Dr. Lee’s challenge.

But one year a certain freshman learned about Dr. Lee’s dare. And decided prayerfully that he would accept the challenge. He believed that God had given him the promise, “… if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them by my Father, who is in heaven.” Then the young man sought out another Christian to stand with him in prayer for courage and faith and they believed together that God would keep the flask from breaking.

The day came. At the end of the final lecture on prayer, the annual challenge was put forth as it had been for twelve years. As soon as Dr. Lee asked, “Is there anyone here who believes God answers prayer?” the young man stepped into the aisle and raised his hand and said, “Dr. Lee, I do.”

“Well, this is most interesting. But young man, you had better let me explain what I am going to do and then we’ll see if you still desire to pray. I wouldn’t want you to be embarrassed before this class.”

The professor then took the glass flask and held it out in front of him over the cement floor. “Now I ask you to pray—if you still want to do it—that this flask won’t break. After you pray, I’ll drop it and I can assure you that it will hit the cement floor and break into hundreds of pieces, and that no prayer can prevent it. Do you still want to pray?”

“Yes, Dr. Lee, I do.”

“Well,” said the professor, “this is most interesting.” And turning to the class he said sarcastically, “Now we will be most reverent while this young man prays.” Then he turned to the young man, “Now you may pray.”

The freshman just lifted his countenance toward heaven and prayed, “God, I know that you hear me. Please honor the name of your son, Jesus Christ, and honor me, your servant. Don’t let the flask break. Amen.”

Dr. Lee stretched his arm out as far as he could, opened his hand and let the flask fall. It fell in an arc, hit the toe of Dr. Lee’s shoe, rolled over and did not break. There was no movement of air and there were no open windows. The class whistled, clapped and shouted. And Dr. Lee ceased his annual lectures against prayer.

Just a few years ago at a Bible conference in Ontario, Canada, I related this story briefly. After the service, a woman said to me, “Dr. Harvey, I too was a freshman in Dr. Lee’s class and heard him make that challenge. What you say is all true.”

What have been some of the responses to this story on the Internet?

When this type of story makes it to the Internet, there are some positive and some cynical responses. This is but a sample of the sceptical, blasphemous nature of antagonism to the supernatural of this true event as told by Richard Harvey:

1. “I’m thinking there has to be a gullibility gene. Maybe it helps the species propagate”.[4]

2. This story made it under the headline, “There is no such thing as miracles. Do you agree”.[5]

3. It is incorporated under the heading, “If you don’t believe in god, watch this”.[6]

4. A comment about Harvey’s story of Dr Lee: “What a pile of steaming shit!?”[7]

5. It was placed under the heading, “Atheism in Academia” in Conservapedia.[8]

God’s view is radically different: And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive if you have faith (Matt. 21:22 ESV)

Prayer Shield

This does require a committed, supernatural faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. The God revealed in Scripture is supernatural by nature and not naturalistic as with deism.

This story that Richard Harvey relates has grown wings and flourished on the www. Let’s check out one of the sites that checks out possible hoaxes, “TruthOrFiction“, to find the truth vs fiction of whether this is a hoax. Here it is:

Appendix A

The Atheist Professor At USC Who Encountered God Through a Piece of Chalk-Fiction![9]

clip_image001 Summary of Rumor
A notorious atheist professor at the University of Southern California [USC] is known for challenging students about their faith.  He dramatically drops a piece of chalk to the floor saying that if God existed, he could prevent the chalk from breaking.  This happens year after year until a particular Christian student becomes a part of the class.  This time, when the professor drops the chalk, it bounces off his clothing and ends up harmlessly on the floor.  The stunned professor runs from the room in shame and the student preaches the Gospel to the remaining class members.
clip_image001[1] The Truth
This has been one of the most commonly circulated inspirational stories on the Internet and one of the most commonly asked-about at TruthOrFiction.com.We’ve never found any evidence that an incident of this nature has taken place involving a piece of chalk, but there is a first-hand source of a similar, older story, which the chalk tale may be based upon.
First, the University of Southern California has officially denied that this ever happened there.  Dr. Dallas Willard, a philosophy professor at USC, has told TruthOrFiction.com that he’s never heard of it happening in his more than 30 years at the school.

There is a related story, however, told by author Richard H. Harvey in his book 70 YEARS OF MIRACLES.  It’s a first-hand account of his experience in a Chemistry class at Allegheny College in Meadville, Pennsylvania in the 1920’s.  Harvey says the professor, a Dr. Lee, was a deist who annually lectured against prayer.   In one of the class sessions, Dr. Lee said he was going to drop a glass flask on the floor and asked if anyone would like to pray first that the flask would not break, therefore demonstrating the reality of prayer.  Richard Harvey volunteered and prayed.  The professor dropped the flask and it rolled off his shoe to the floor without damage.  The class cheered and the professor stopped his annual lectures against prayer.  TruthOrFiction.com has confirmed with Allegheny college that Richard Harvey was a student there and that Dr. Lee was a professor.  Richard Harvey’s son, Rev. John Harvey, a minister in Toccoa, Georgia, says this all happened before he was born, but confirms that the story was told by his father.

Updated 18 February 2001

Notes:

[1] “The Flask  Story” is a copy of the entire chapter by Richard H. Harvey 1977. 70 Years of Miracles. Beaverlodge, Alberta, Canada: Horizon House Publishers, chapter 11, pp. 63-66. Horizon House Publishers is no longer in existence, so I could not obtain permission to publish.

[2] His obituary, “Dr Richard Lee, Local Man’s Son, Passes in North”, was in the Independent, St. Petersburg, Florida, Friday, January 31, 1936, and stated that his full name was Richard Edwin Lee, late head of the department of chemistry, Allegheny College. He was aged 59 at his death. Available at: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19360131&id=tONPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=W1UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3543,5184628 (Accessed 20 December 2011). A Richard Edwin Lee scholarship is offered at Allegheny College to a deserving student who is majoring in chemistry. See: http://www.schoolsoup.com/scholarship-directory/college/allegheny-college/Richard-Edwin-Lee-Scholarship-195663/ (Accessed 20 December 2011).

[3] I note that this is a deist view of God. What is deism? Matt Slick of CARM in, “What is deism?”, has defined deism as “the teaching that God exists, that he created the universe and everything in it, but that he stopped being involved in the universe and in people’s lives after he made the universe. Another way of looking at it is to say that God created the universe with everything in it and is letting everything go its natural course without any further intervention on his part. Deism teaches that there are no more miracles, and that the Bible is not inspired of God”. Available at: http://carm.org/questions-deism (Accessed 20 December 2011).

[4] “Is there a gullibility gene that gets activated by religion?” available at: http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2009/08/is-there-gullibility-gene-that-gets.html (Accessed 20 December 2011).

[5] See: http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091007133249AAlDsVW (Accessed 20 December 2011).

[6] Available at: http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=GJ0MsMp9S18 (Accessed 20 December 2011).

[7] YouTube, available at: http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=m989v49WNsw (Accessed 20 December 2011).

[8] The article was titled, “Conservapedia:Atheism/torfute”, available at: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Atheism/torefute (Accessed 20 December 2011).

[9] “The Atheist and the chalk”, TruthOrFiction, available at: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/chalk.htm (Accessed 20 December 2011).

 

Copyright © 2011 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 14 September 2016.

Flower3Flower3Flower3Flower3Flower3Flower3Flower3

Christ’s resurrection: Latter-day wishful thinking

Worm and Lace

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

“Pastor, I don’t know what to believe about Christ anymore. I’ve just read a leading magazine and I now believe that you and my Christian parents have not been telling the truth about what happened to Jesus at the cross.” These words from a disillusioned 23-year-old in your church might knock the spiritual wind out of your theological sails. They did for me when a bright young Christian openly confessed this.

He had been reading Time magazine which stated that what happened to Jesus, as told in the Bible, is wishful thinking. He gave sceptical details that could have come from a science fiction movie.[1]

What did he learn from Time?

Jesus – a peasant nobody – was never buried, never taken by his friends to a rich man’s sepulcher. Rather, says Crossan, the tales of entombment and resurrection were latter-day wishful thinking. Instead, Jesus’ corpse went the way of all abandoned criminals’ bodies: it was probably barely covered with dirt, vulnerable to the wild dogs that roamed the wasteland of the execution grounds.[2]

What will you do pastor, Christian leader, or parent with this kind of news through the mass media? John D. Crossan goes even further. In speaking of the resurrection of Christ, he wrote that “in I Corinthians 15 Paul begins by enumerating all the apparitions of the risen Jesus.”[3] While now retired, Crossan, a fellow of the radical Jesus Seminar, taught biblical studies for 26 years at the Roman Catholic DePaul University in Chicago.[4]

What’s an apparition? It’s a phantom, a ghost. Jesus’ resurrected body was not real flesh but he claims that “the resurrection is a matter of Christian faith.”[5] Jesus “was buried, if buried at all, by his enemies, and the necessarily shallow grave would have been easy prey for scavenging animals.”[6]

For him, the resurrection of Christ is really a spiritual resurrection among believers – whatever that means!

If that person were listening to ABC radio’s, “Sunday night with John Cleary,” he would have heard an interview with a leading church figure who stated:

I live on the other side of Albert Einstein, and I know what relativity means in all of life, and so I can no longer claim that I possess objective and revealed truth and it’s infallible, or it’s inherent, those become claims out of the past that are no longer relevant for 21st century people.[7]

The interview was with John Shelby Spong, retired Episcopalian [i.e. Anglican] Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, whose diocese lost 40% of its parishioners while he was its bishop.[8]

Spong believes that

God is very real. I believe that I live my life every day inside the reality of this God. I call this God by different words. I describe God as the source of life and the source of love and the ground of being. I engage God when I live fully and love wastefully and have the courage to be who I am. That’s the God I see in Jesus of Nazareth.[9]

Yet Borg & Crossan are so provocative as to state “that probably more people have left the church because of biblical literalism than for any other reasons.”[10] The contrary is true with Spong. His liberal views seem to be associated with people leaving his diocese in droves.

With the freely available blogs on the www, Christian people are likely to encounter more doubting religious statements like those.

What evidence will you give to those who are questioning?

When it comes to Christmas or Easter times and the mass media want a controversial or alternate view of the birth, death, or resurrection of Christ, to whom will they turn? Billy Graham, John MacArthur, Peter Jensen, Bill Newman, or your pastor? Hardly!

If they want to rattle the cages of Bible-believing Christians, they turn to scholars or prominent religious people with a very different outlook. People like John Dominic Crossan, a co-founder of the unorthodox Jesus Seminar, will be in their sights. Marcus Borg & Crossan co-authored a book last year that gives a daily account of Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem.[11]

Without Easter, they admit, we could not know about Jesus. “Easter is utterly central. But what was it?”[12] It is true that God raised Jesus, but does that mean that a miracle happened? Not at all!

When you read Luke 24:13-53 (the road to Emmaus event), you discover that this is one “case that Easter stories are parabolic narratives”[13] and

it is difficult to imagine that this story is speaking about events that could have been videotaped. . . This story is the metaphoric condensation of several years of early Christian thought into one parabolic afternoon. Whether the story happened or not, Emmaus always happens Emmaus happens again and again—this is its truth as parabolic narrative.[14]

According to these expert scholars, Jesus’ appearing, after his resurrection, to two people on the road to Emmaus was not an actual event. It was metaphor of Christian thought! We could be tempted to respond, “What nonsense!” and leave it there. Where does that leave questioning young believers and older Christians who are shattered by such comments?

Compulsory ministry of apologetics

Following the death of the apostles, early leaders of the churches were people who were converted from paganism and needed to defend the faith (apologists) and correct false doctrine (polemicists). They included Justin Martyr (born ca. 100), Irenaeus (b. 120) , Tertullian (b. 160) and Clement of Alexandria (b. after 150).

Why was it necessary for the early church to defend the Christian faith and correct false teachings? The New Testament exhorted us that this would be the case. When the apostle Paul was in Athens, he “reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace ever day with those who happened to be there” (Acts 17:17). Why did he need to do this? The Epicurean and Stoic philosophers who engaged with him, accused him of being a “babbler” and “a preacher of foreign divinities” (v. 18). Why? “Because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection” (v. 18). Then he debated the philosophers on the Areopagus (Acts 17:22ff).

Why was this necessary? First Peter taught that all Christians should be “always prepared to make a defense (Gk. apologia) to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (I Pt. 3:15 ESV).[15]

Paul warned that “the time is coming when people will not endure sound [or healthy] teaching” and “will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (1 Tim 4:3-4).

I am convinced that Christians will be shaken by the heresy of people like Crossan, Borg, and the doubters who are reported in our mass media, if the church does not prepare them as apologists who “make a defence” of their faith. Since the ministry gifts of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher are “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12), church leaders have an obligation to equip believers as apologists in our hostile world.

Our topic is one of the challenges of the first and twenty-first centuries: How do we respond to people like Crossan, Borg and others who deny the bodily resurrection of Christ and want to write it off as a “metaphoric condensation of several years of early Christian thought”?[16]

I thank God for the ministry gift of Christ to the church in Richard Bauckham, who challenges the historical Jesus’ critics of the twenty-first century who are “attempting to reconstruct the historical figure of Jesus in a way that is allegedly purely historical, free of the concerns of faith and dogma”[17] and not according to the Jesus as recorded in the New Testament. Bauckham considers that this enterprise “has been highly problematic for Christian faith and theology.”[18]

What is happening here?

For some historians’ judgements today, such as Crossan, Borg, the late Robert Funk, and other Jesus’ seminar fellows, there is “a Jesus reconstructed by the historian, a Jesus attained by the attempt to go back behind the Gospels and, in effect, to provide an alternative to the Gospels’ construction of Jesus.”[19]

Crossan claims that the “Cross Gospel attempts to write, from prophetic allusions, a first ‘historical narrative about the passion of Jesus. Hide the prophecy, tell the narrative, and invent the history.’”[20] Do you understand the magnitude of what he is saying? The Cross Gospel is the Gospel material that applies to the cross of Christ and he describes it as hiding prophecy and inventing history.

Crossan’s presupposition is that “Jesus, as magician and miracle worker, was a very problematic and controversial phenomenon not only for his enemies but even for his friends.”[21] What about those whom Jesus resurrected such as Lazarus? “A story about a miraculous or physical raising from death could be used or created as a symbol for baptismal or spiritual raising from death,” according to Crossan.[22]

What are these liberal theological scholars doing with the biblical witness and evidence? Bauckham rightly believes that whenever historians consider that biblical texts are “hiding the real Jesus from us,” they at best give us a version of the historical Jesus “filtered through the spectacles of early Christian faith.”[23] At worst, they are developing “a Jesus constructed by the needs and interests of various groups in the early church.”[24] Also, I consider that they are inventing a Jesus who suits their own beliefs. They do not want the biblical texts to speak for themselves and be believed on face value. Crossan regards Christ’s empty tomb stories, not as an event that happened in past history, but as “parables of resurrection, not the Resurrection itself.”[25]

Surely it is reasonable to conclude that when people saw the risen Christ that this evidence should be enough to verify that this actually happened. That’s not how it is for those who attack Christ’s resurrection.

Crossan, for example, rejects the claim that the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection were visions because “they have no marks that you would expect—no blinding lights, no heavenly voice, nobody knocked to the ground.”[26] The stories in John 20 of the race by the two disciples to the empty tomb (Peter and the Beloved Disciple) in addition to that of Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:8-10) “tell us absolutely nothing of historical value about the origins of Christian faith. But they tell us a great deal about the origins of Christian authority. . . They are dramatizations about where power and authority rest in the early Church.”[27]

This kind of conclusion causes me to question the integrity of the one who wrote it. What can we say to those who want to create a Jesus out of their own presuppositions and contrary to the Gospel content?

One of the keys to understanding the Gospels as being authentic and reliable is similar to, but not identical with, our standard for the law courts of Australia. The importance of eyewitnesses can not be over-stated in the courts and in the evidence for the credibility of the truthfulness of the Gospels.

Eyewitness testimony is best

How do we obtain reliable evidence of something that happened in the past such as the German Holocaust of World War 2, the Twin Towers catastrophe of 11th September 2001, the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, or the life and times of Jesus Christ and the early church? Samuel Byrskog’s assessment hits the mark:

The major Greek and Roman historians who comment on their own and/or others’ practice of inquiry and sources adhered to Heraclitus’ old dictum. Eyes were surer witnesses than ears. The ancient historians exercised autopsy [eyewitnesses] directly and/or indirectly, by being present themselves and/or by seeking out and interrogating other eyewitnesses; they related to the past visually.[28]

Instead of leaving history to be constructed according to the creative imagination of the scholar, it is better to go to the texts themselves (in this case the New Testament) to “see to what extent they provide a portrayal which identifies certain persons as capable of being eyewitnesses and informants in line of the emerging gospel tradition.”[29]

The Gospels & eyewitness evidence

Let’s check out the evidence. When we search the Gospels for eyewitness testimony to the events and interpretation of Jesus’ life, what do we find?

1. Women as witnesses of the Christ

One of the surprising pieces of eyewitness testimony for an empty tomb of Jesus is the women as witnesses. Rabbi Judah used to praise God daily that he was not created a woman.[30] In a Jewish culture which regarded the witness of a woman as insignificant, it is important to observe that some of the foremost witnesses of the resurrected Christ are women.

All four Gospels include women as witnesses but the males are given more prominence. In Luke, the women who had followed Jesus were there at the burial with spices (23:55-56) and on resurrection morning, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women reported the empty tomb to the apostles (24:10-12).

At Mark 15:40, particularly, he has women as eyewitnesses in focus at Christ’s crucifixion: “There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.” It is important to note that this “looking” by the women is more than a gaze at a distance. The verb, “looking on” is not some passing glimpse but means “to look at, observe, perceive.” Their purpose as eyewitnesses is accentuated by their being mentioned by name.

2. Luke’s Gospel & eyewitnesses

On the human level, Luke explains how he compiled his Gospel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1-4).[31]

While these verses have come in for a lot of scholarly discussion, the concept being communicated about evidence from “eyewitnesses” is not like that in the law courts of the land. Instead, the autoptai (eyewitnesses)

are simply firsthand observers of the events. (Loveday Alexander offers the translations: “those with personal/firsthand experience: those who know the facts at first hand.”) But the concept expressed in the words, “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses” is clearly the same as in Acts 1:21-22 and John 15:27.[32]

Luke 24:33-34 confirms the importance of eyewitnesses after Christ’s resurrection: “And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, saying, ‘The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!’ I Cor. 15:5 confirms that Christ “appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve.”

Peter, the apostle, was a reliable eyewitness of Christ’s resurrection and of other evidence (see Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15). He was a firsthand observer of the events. The Gospel reliability is confirmed by eyewitness accounts of participants in these unique events of the first century.

Since Luke was not one of the 12 apostles, it is important that one of the sources for his Gospel is that of those who had first hand knowledge of the events in Jesus’ life – the eyewitnesses.

However, let’s not overlook the fact that eyewitness testimony is only as good as the integrity of the eyewitness.

3. John’s Gospel & eyewitnesses

John’s Gospel provides special evidence for the importance of eyewitnesses through John the Baptist:

And John [the Baptist] bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God” (John 1:32-34).

The first followers of Jesus, including the apostle John himself, were important eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry (see: John 15:27; 19:35; 21:24).

In one of the most detailed recent commentaries on the Gospel of John, Andreas Köstenberger has emphasized the importance of eyewitnesses in the Gospel records:

This role of eyewitness is both vital and humble. It is vital because eyewitnesses are required to establish the truthfulness of certain facts. Yet it is humble because the eyewitness is not the center of attention. Rather, eyewitnesses must testify truthfully to what they have seen and heart—no more and no less. The Baptist fulfilled this task with distinction. The last time he is mentioned in this Gospel, it is said of him that “all that John said about this man [Jesus] is true” ([John] 10:41).[33]

4. Papias & the importance of eyewitnesses

Reading the writings of Papias may not be one of your favourite bedtime stories, but in the writings of this early Christian leader is evidence for the importance of eyewitnesses testimony.

Papias was a bishop of Hierapolis in the Roman province of Asia, close to Laodicea and Colossae, in what is Turkey today. He wrote an important work in the early second century AD, Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, in five books. While a full copy of the works has not survived, fragments of it are preserved in one of the writings of the very earliest church historians, Eusebius of Caesarea’s, Ecclesiastical History. Notice carefully what Papias wrote:

But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you [singular] along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.

If, then, any one came, who had been a follower [or, goes closely with, attends][34] of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders—[that is] what [according to the elders] Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.[35]

In order to understand what Papias is driving at, we need to note the four categories of people he mentions:

(1) those who “had been in attendance on the elders,” i.e. people who had been present at their teaching; (2) the elders themselves; (3) the Lord’s disciples, consisting of Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, and others; (4) Aristion and John the Elder, who are also called “the Lord’s disciples.”[36]

Based on Papias’ two verbs used in categories (3) and (4), aorist tense (“said”) present tense (“say”), we know that those in category (3) were dead, while Aristion and John the Elder were still teaching. This means that “Papias could learn from their disciples what they were (still) saying. These two had been personal disciples of Jesus but at the time of which Papias speaks were prominent Christian teachers in the province of Asia.”[37] The Apostle John had died but, John the Elder, was alive and teaching in the churches of Asia.

I enthusiastically recommend a read of Richard Bauckham’s, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, to refute those who are suggesting that the Gospels include “creative fiction.”

Why this emphasis on eyewitness testimony?

Perhaps you are questioning why I am placing such emphasis on the record of eyewitness testimonies in the New Testament and particularly in the Gospels.

My point is simple. Some of today’s doubters about the integrity of the Gospels are claiming that the Gospels included creations by the Gospel writers. Crossan admits, “Sometimes people are shocked at the notion that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John might have elaborated upon actual events or even created stories and sayings about Jesus from scratch” by using “creative freedom.”[38]

However, the evidence from Scripture is that the Gospels contain eyewitness accounts of the death, empty tomb, and appearances of the resurrected Jesus.

The doubters are raising considerable questions that may unsettle those who are new in the faith or those whose faith is weak. There is an obligation on Christian leaders to equip God’s people to deal with the attacks on Jesus and the Gospels.

When it is stated by prominent scholars that “eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him, according to the Jesus Seminar,”[39] what are Christian leaders who are concerned about God’s people to do? If only 18% of Jesus’ words in the Gospels are authentic according to these researchers, how can church leaders respond?

At the time of the writing of the Gospels, eyewitness testimony was available that could have been checked with the original apostles, such as Peter and John, and with other eyewitnesses. Generally, people are less willing to question the authenticity of writing or oral tradition if there are witnesses available to verify what has been stated.

There is also an urgent call today for Christian leaders to be engaged in equipping Christians for the ministry of apologetics (see I Peter 3:15; Acts 17:22ff).

Which one will you choose?

(1) “Hide the prophecy, tell the narrative, and invent the history,” OR,

(2) “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.”

Notes:


[1] This information is based on a conversation that I had with a person who claimed to be an evangelical Christian believer.

[2] Ostling, R. N. 1994, ‘Jesus Christ: Plain and simple’, Time, 10 January, Available from: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979938-3,00.html [cited 7 July 2007]

[3] Crossan J. D. 1998, The Birth of Christianity, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, p. xxviii.

[4] See Crossan’s autobiography, John D. Crossan 2000, A Long Way from Tipperary, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, p. 95.

[5] Crossan J. D. 1995, Who Killed Jesus? HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, p. 189.

[6] Crossan J. D. 1994, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, p. 160.

[7] Bishop Shelby Spong, “Sunday Nights with John Cleary,” 17 June 2001, available from: http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s815368.htm [cited 7 July 2007].

[8] D. Marty Lasley 1999, “Rescuing Christianity from Bishop Kevorkian”, Anglican Voice, 2 June, available from: http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/1999-June/000415.html [cited 31 July 2011].

[9] Spong in “Sunday Nights with John Cleary,” 17 June 2001, available from: http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s815368.htm [cited 7 July 2007].

[10] Marcus J. Borg & John Dominic Crossan 2006, The Last Week: A Day-by-Day Account of Jesus’s Final Week in Jerusalem, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, p. 218 n16.

[11] Borg & Crossan 2006 (details above).

[12] Ibid., p. 190.

[13] Ibid., p. 200.

[14] Ibid., p. 201.

[15] ESV – The English Standard Version of the Bible. Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical quotations are from the ESV.

[16] See note 14.

[17] Richard Bauckham 2006, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K., p. 2.

[18] Ibid., p. 2.

[19] Ibid., p. 3.

[20] J. D. Crossan 1991, The Historical Jesus, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, p. 372.

[21] Ibid., p. 311.

[22] Ibid., p. 330.

[23] Bauckham 2006, p. 2.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Crossan 2000, A Long Way from Tipperary, p.166.

[26] J. D. Crossan with R. G. Watts 1996, Who Is Jesus? HarperPaperbacks, New York, NY, p. 162.

[27] Ibid., p. 163.

[28] Samuel Byrskog 2002, Story as History—History as Story, Brill Academic Publishers Inc., Boston / Leiden, p. 64, emphasis in original.

[29] Ibid., p. 67.

[30] Ibid., p. 74.

[31] Emphasis added.

[32] Bauckham, p. 117.

[33] Andreas J. Köstenberger 2004, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 33.

[34] Suggested by Bauckham, p. 15, n17.

[35] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 3, ch. 39, vs. 3-4, available from New Advent at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm [cited 15 July 2007].

[36] Bauckham, p. 16.

[37] Ibid., p. 17.

[38] Crossan with Watts 1996, Who Is Jesus?, pp. 7-8.

[39] Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar 1993, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, Macmillan Publishing Company (a Polebridge Press Book), New York, p. 5.

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 14 April 2016.

Mary as the mother of God: Is it orthodox theology?

Blessed Virgin Mary

(Blessed virgin Mary, courtesy dreamstime.com)

By Spencer D Gear

 

Roman Catholics readily accept the designation of Mary as the mother of God. See:

I got into a discussion on this topic on Christian Fellowship Forum at Christmas time 2011. I as ozspen wrote:

As for Mary being the mother of God, I consider that is as erroneous as saying that Christmas celebrates the birth of God. Mary was the human mother of Jesus’ humanity. She was not the mother of divinity. She was the mother who enabled Jesus to become the God-man and NOT the mother of God”.[1]

This is Jim’s response on Christian Fellowship Forum:

Of course it is a Biblical doctrine. Jesus is God. (Or, no one can be saved.)
The appellation, “Mother of God” was specifically chosen by the Church to refute the Nestorian heresy that the man Jesus was the Christ but not eternal God. Nestorius taught that God dwelt in Jesus as in a temple, that is, as a totally separate being who indwelt the man Jesus of Nazareth. That notion rendered Jesus “the God bearer” but not the “eternal Word.”

Nestorius taught that the Virgin Mary was, therefore, properly called, Christotokos; the “Christ Bearer.”

The 3rd Ecumenical Council, held in Ephesus in 431, confirmed the dual nature of Christ, that He is wholly man and wholly God, having two natures; human and divine, indivisible yet without confusion or commingling.

The Virgin Mary is, therefore, not the barer of the Christ (Christotokos) but the bearer of the incarnate Word of God. (Theotokos) She is the God-bearer.

The name, “Mother of God,” refers to the fact that Jesus nothing less than the one eternal God. It in no way suggests that the Virgin Mary bore the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or that the name arises from some Babylonian mythology, as some folks would have us believe.[2]

My response to Jim was:

God cannot have a birth, so the language that a human being, Mary, is the mother of God is paradoxical, an oxymoron. God cannot be born. Jesus, the human being, was conceived in Mary’s womb, but that does not make Mary the mother of God. It makes her the mother of the human personhood, humanity, of Jesus.[3]

Jim’s comeback was:

Jesus was never “the human being.” From the moment of His conception He was “the Word made flesh.” (John 1:14). He was never a human being in whom God dwelt. He was always the “God-man.”
It was just as necessary that Jesus be a human being as it was that He be the eternal God.
You cannot separate “the Man Jesus Christ” out from “the Word became flesh.” That was  the error of Nestorius.[4]

Here is my response:

Jesus became a human being. “The Word (Jesus) became flesh” (John 1:14). Jesus was most certainly a human being. That’s what “flesh” is when referring to a child born of a woman.

Your view is that we cannot separate the man Jesus from the Word became flesh. I agree. But it was Mary who gave birth to Jesus’ humanity. She did not give birth to God.

And I appreciate that this hypostatic union is difficult to describe in simple language, but I’m wanting to be careful that I do not convey the idea that God had a beginning. Christmas does not celebrate “the birth of God”. It celebrates the birth of the human Jesus, thus making him the God-man. I am NOT advocating the Nestorian error.[5]

Jim’s reply was:

The term, “Mother of God” does not convey the idea that God had a beginning to anyone who understands that Jesus is God. The Virgin Mary is she who bore “God incarnate.”
It is a logical impossibility for the Virgin Mary to have born the creator of all things eons after He had created all things. God cannot come into existence eons after He created all things.
The only logical conclusion is exactly what the scriptures teach; that the child born of her is God incarnate.
In your care to avoid a logical impossibility, you appear to embrace the teaching of Nestorius even though you do not.
The words “Mother of God” have never, and do not now, suggest that God did not exist before the birth of Jesus.[6]

In 21st century language, a mother is one who gives birth to a human child. So today if we speak of Mary being the mother of God, it conveys a very wrong view of who Jesus Christ is as the God-man.

The biblical view is that Mary was the mother of the humanity of Jesus, come in the flesh, and at his conception-birth, he became the God-man.

We must never forget the prophetic emphasis of Isaiah 9:6, “For to us a CHILD is BORN, and to us a SON is GIVEN”. God the Son is given; Jesus the child is born.

For 21st century people, you will not get me to accept that Mary is the mother of God. It conveys a very wrong understanding to modern people. I understand its historical development, but we need to move to a contemporary statement of the biblical doctrine of the God-man Jesus.[7]

My summary

God, the Son, was God from eternity. Therefore, Christmas cannot be “the birth of God”. That is paradoxical language – an oxymoron. At Christmas, the human Jesus was conceived and born to Mary. She gave birth to the humanity of Jesus and thus the Son, Jesus, the Word, became the God-man.

It is an unbiblical syllogism to say that Mary is the mother of God because God, the Son, is divine and Jesus is the God-man.

See,

If A is B and if B is C then A is C: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, does it follow that Mary is the mother of God? What kind of logic is this? Seriously thinking about it, if this syllogism is theologically sound, doesn’t it also follow that since Mary is the Mother of God, Mary is also God? Or, since God is Triune, doesn’t it follow that Mary is also the mother of the Holy Spirit, or, Mary, the mother of the Father? Of course they’re not saying that but do you see how inconsistent their position is on this matter? Even though Mary to them is not the source of Jesus’ Divinity, they’re still bent on calling her the Mother of God. Why call Mary God’s mother in the first place? How did it come about? And what are the theological consequences of this unbiblical expression?[8]

Notes:

[1] Christian Fellowship Forum, Contentious Brethren, “The Birth of God”, #5. Available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=2&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=120946 (Accessed 27 December 2011).

[2] Ibid., #7.

[3] Ibid., #13.

[4] Ibid., #14.

[5] Ibid., #15.

[6] Ibid., #17.

[7] I wrote this in ibid., #19.

[8] I provided this example to Jim at ibid., #18.

 

Copyright © 2011 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 15 October 2015.

 

Is N T Wright an evangelical?[1]

NTWright071220.jpg

(N T Wright 2007, courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

What is N. T. Wright’s position regarding evangelical Christianity? Rowan Williams, (hardly known for any evangelical persuasion) on the back cover of N. T. Wright’s magnificent exposition, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress Press 2003) states:

No one could read this without learning something fresh about almost every verse of the Synoptics, and being provoked into new wrestling with the text … an Evangelical energy that will make it a book for prayerful meditations as well as intellectual stimulus (emphasis added).

You (ebia) may not like what Tom (N T) Wright calls his own theological perspective. He unashamedly calls himself an Anglican evangelical, but you don’t want to be identified as an evangelical, but you want to be associated with Tom Wright’s theological perspective. This is what Tom Wright says about his own view of his theological position:

I believe that to call myself an evangelical Anglican, and/or

an Anglican evangelical, is not to precipitate an identity problem, let alone a crisis, but rather to place myself at that point on the ecclesiological map where I am free to learn how to be a Bible person, a Gospel person, a Church person (emphasis added).[2]

This article associates N T Wright with the “open evangelical” movement.

Ridley Hall at Cambridge University, where Wright has taught, gives this explanation of the meaning of ‘open evangelical’:

We are unashamedly evangelical in our commitment to the authority of Scripture, the need for personal faith, the uniqueness of Christ and the free gift of eternal life for humankind only through his death on the cross. We recognize the truth of orthodox Christian belief as expressed in the early Creeds of the Church. We are open in a number of ways:

Open to the world around us. If we are to communicate the Gospel effectively we must be engaged in a process of “double listening” to the Bible and to the world, hearing the questions and the insights of others around us, and working to hear the message of the scriptures in the light of this.

Open to God’s work in other Christian traditions. Evangelicals do not have a monopoly on the truth, and through partnership and dialogue we seek to be open to learn from what God has done and is doing in other parts of His Church. This refers to other Christians in our own Western setting, but must also increasingly include the voices of our fellow believers in the Two-Thirds World.

Open to playing our full part within the Church of England. Following the lead set by the National Evangelical Anglican Congresses at Keele in 1967 and Nottingham in 1977, Open Evangelicals are committed to involvement in the structures of the Church of England and to making a significant constructive contribution to the direction of the Church’s life. And finally.

Open to God saying new things through the Bible and His Spirit. Being under the authority of scripture means we may need to be ready to change our mind as we understand more fully.

So, in identifying with the theology of Tom Wright, are you distancing yourself from identifying yourself as an Anglican evangelical when you say that you are not an evangelical. If so, you are not associating with the theology of Tom Wright as he defines his own theology.

Ebia did admit:

I don’t choose to use the label about myself [evangelical or liberal theology]. I’m not a big fan of labels.
I’m not a member of the green party either.[3]
I have been an active member, including Warden and lay-preacher, in an evangelical parish for the last few years. I’ve also been teaching Catholic RE. I’m comfortable in both contexts.[4]

Notes:


[1] This was my response (I’m OzSpen) to ebia, Christian Forums, Christian Scriptures, “Documentary Hypothesis” #36, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7619203-4/ (Accessed 30 December 2011). Ebia did not want to identify herself as an evangelical (Anglican) or a theological liberal.

[2] Tom Wright 1980. “Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for contemporary Evangelicalism”, available at: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justification_Biblical_Basis.pdf (Accessed 30 December 2011).

[3] However her icon on Christian Forums indicates that she identifies with the Australian Greens Party.

[4] Christian Forums #41, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7619203-5/ (Accessed 30 December 2011).

 

Copyright © 2011 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 15 October 2015.

Tolerance, homosexuality and not inheriting the Kingdom of God

God love you

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

It is standard fare to hear of theological liberals who accept and even promote the homosexual lifestyle. But getting acceptance from a supposed Bible-believing pastor is quite another thing. Former homosexual, Joe Dallas, wrote in 1995 in “Answering Pro-Gay Theology”, “The debate over homosexuality and the Bible – specifically, whether or not the Bible condemns homosexual acts in all cases – will do no less than rip the body of Christ apart in the next decade. It will force believers to declare, in black and white terms, where they stand on issues of sexuality and Biblical interpretation” (p. 172).[1] Joe hit the mark – big time!

A theologically liberal Anglican clergyman

 

We saw this in Brisbane with a liberal Anglican clergyman, Peter Catt, supporting the Queensland Bill for the legalising of homosexual civil unions. See the article, “Anglican Church’s Peter Catt backs gay civil unions at Queensland parliamentary hearing” (Courier-Mail, 11 November 2011). What were some of his arguments?

  • The same-sex unions’ Bill does not denigrate the legitimacy of marriage;
  • It extended “liberties” to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples;
  • “I really don’t see that this impinges on marriage at all”;
  • This will mean that children in same-sex unions are in a relationship with good values;
  • Bad marriages did more to undermine the institution of marriage.
  • He said, “To some extent … [I’m] putting my neck on a chopping block”;

Rev. Dr. Peter Catt is the Anglican Dean of Brisbane. This link provides a reflection on what liberal Anglicanism means: “We strive for open-minded conversation, seek to practice inclusion, and reflect on how we might see our beliefs put into action”. Open-minded, inclusive practice means that homosexuals are included in the name of inclusion, tolerance and open-mindedness. Do you notice what he missed out in what was reported?

The Courier-Mail did not provide one statement from Rev. Dr. Catt on what the Bible says about homosexuality. There was not a word about the content of anything in I Corinthians 6:9-11,

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (ESV).

Liberal, inclusive, open-mindedness means that the full story of God’s view of homosexuality (and all other sin) as portrayed in the Bible is censored. Also, theological liberalism has a low view of the Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God, so it’s not surprising that that this liberal view downplays the importance of a biblical view of sexuality, including homosexuality. Now, I expect that from a liberal Anglican, but I did not expect something similar from a charismatic preacher.

What about the ‘tolerance’ view from a leading charismatic minister?

Rob Buckingham is the senior pastor at the large charismatic Bayside Church, Cheltenham, Victoria.  The Sunday Herald Sun, 17 November 2011, reported on his approach to homosexuals in, “Preaching tolerance bayside. You can hear this message by Rob Buckingham at Youtube online, ‘Real Christianity is accepting‘. It was preached in 2009. What is your view on this approach?

What some other churches are concluding

a. Australia: There is an assumption among some that the Bible and religious tradition do not teach that homosexual relationships are contrary to God’s plan. A brochure, representative of the Uniting Church in Australia, stated that ‘Homosexuality is a good part of God’s diverse creation’.[2] Adelaide’s new Anglican Bishop, Dr Tim Harris, supports homosexual clergy but they must follow church guidelines and not engage in homosexual sex.[3]

b. The USA: The United Church of Christ’s General Synod (USA), in 2005, affirmed a resolution that there should be “equal marriage rights for all people regardless of gender”, but that denomination does not require pastors to perform homosexual marriage.[4] The United Church of Canada urged its federal government in Ottawa to recognise same-sex relationships.[5] The Presbyterian Church USA in 2011 ratified support for homosexual clergy, stating that

“persons in a same-gender relationship can be considered for ordination,” General Assembly Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons told the Presbyterian News Service. “The gist of our ordination standards is that officers submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and ordaining bodies (presbyteries for ministers and sessions for elders and deacons) have the responsibility to examine each candidate individually to ensure that all candidates do so with no blanket judgments”.

c. Canada: The United Church of Canada has developed a resource that “offers four workshops to help a congregation or a group within the congregation to explore civil recognition of same-sex relationships from a faith and justice perspective. It also offers a process for congregational decision making on same-sex marriage”.

d. Europe: The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany has affirmed that

Gay and lesbian Lutheran ministers in the conservative German state of Bavaria may live with their partners in parish parsonages, but only if they enter into a state-sanctioned civil union. Although the move may seem bold for what is generally considered one of Germany’s most traditional states, Bishop Johannes Friedrich of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria said it was no great departure from existing policies. He noted that the church had already welcomed openly gay ministers and same-sex unions. “We had only left out that a couple could live in a civil union in the parsonage,” he said. To abide by the ruling, gay or lesbian ministers must receive a church blessing for their union and enter into a civil union officially recognized by government officials.[6]

tolerance by bedpanner - John 14:2 In my fathers house are many rooms.

(image courtesy openclipart)

Of the Church of Scotland, the Herald Scotland reported:

THE Church of Scotland is being starved of donations due to the growing schism in the Kirk over moves to allow gay ministers. The Church has been riven with internal divisions since its decision to set up a special commission on same-sex relationship in the ministry in 2009. An internal report by Glasgow Presbytery described how in one church – St George’s Tron in Glasgow – the “general disquiet and sadness about the Church of Scotland’s decision to set up a special commission on this matter had been a contributory factor in several members directing their sacrificial giving and tithing towards the congregation’s evangelical ministry and outreach, rather than the central funds of the Church of Scotland…. “Someone,” he says, “said to me recently, ‘I’m in the wrong church.’ I know a lot of people are feeling like that”.[7]

e. Africa:

The largest Protestant church in Africa grabbed the world’s attention when it publically denounced homosexuality and said people who support gay rights were not welcome in the church—and neither was their money. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania (ELCT) posted a notice on its Web site entitled: Church rejects homosexuality. “Those in same sex marriages, and those who support the legitimacy of such marriage, shall not be invited to work in the ELCT,” a press release states. “We further reject their influence in any form, as well as their money and their support.” In addition the fastest-growing church in Africa with 5.3 million members said it “supports all those around the world who oppose churches that have taken the decision to legalize same-sex marriage.” This loud warning was seen as a prelude to split from its main financial partner, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which now supports gay rights.[8] In Uganda in 2010, African Anglican bishops forcefully opposed homosexuality in the church: The question of homosexuality reared its head for the umpteenth time this week at the all African Anglican Church conference that is taking place in Entebbe. Despite pressure from the western world, African bishops have renewed their condemnation of the practice of homosexuality in the church. The widely criticised practice in Africa has been viewed as a threat to the unity of the church. Homosexuality and ordination of women prelates are two of the underpinning practices that have put the Anglican Church at cross-roads over how its pastoral commitments should be exercised. Archbishop Nicholas Okoh of the province of Nigeria says the church has always had differences of opinion over certain issues. Breeding disunity “Homosexuality is not a new phenomenon in the society but the only trouble is that the issues dividing us (church) now are very difficult to handle. They are threatening the unity of the church because they disobey the authority of the scriptures,” says Bishop Okoh. He says homosexuality is a result of some people engaged in making their culture to be superior to the biblical teachings. “It is two sided; while some people want to be obedient to their culture to determine the content of the church, others say no and it must be the guidance of the bible,” he added. The primates describe homosexuality as an imposed interpretation and alien culture that has hindered the growth of an authentic church which could respond to its people. “We are saying homosexuality is not compatible with the word of God. We are saying that this culture of other people is against the traditional belief of marriage held by the Anglican Communion,” says the Archbishop of the Church of Uganda, Henry Luke Orombi. Bishop Orombi says that the Anglican Church will never accept homosexuality because the scriptures too do not allow people of same sex to join in marriage.[9]

f. South America: Time magazine reported in 2010 that

the legislators of the South American nation passed a law on Thursday, July 15 [2010], that made Argentina the 10th country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. By a vote of 33 to 27, they gave homosexual couples the same inheritance and adoption rights as heterosexual ones. Against the intense and sustained opposition of the church, President Cristina Fernández staked her political reputation on passing the law, deepening her often bitter feud with the country’s Catholic hierarchy. “I am very satisfied. It has been a positive vote,” said the President in Shanghai, where she is on an official tour of China. “This is a positive step that defends the right of a minority.” Her Cabinet chief Aníbal Fernández was slightly more effusive, posting on Twitter, “Same-sex marriage is law in Argentina. Don’t worry, be happy”.[10]

g. However, these views contradict the biblical Scriptures which state that God’s plan for love and sexuality does not include homosexual relationships, either in the Old Testament or the New Testament. See Genesis 19:1-29; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:24-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11. The Bible is clear that from the beginning of time, expressions of sexual intimacy were designed for a man and a woman in marriage and there were severe consequences for the practice of homosexuality. h. Heterosexual sin and homosexual sin are so serious that people who continue to practise these sins ‘will not inherit the kingdom of God’ (1 Corinthians 6:9). i. Jesus Christ defined marriage: ‘“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate’ (Matthew 19:4-6). j. A nation that dares to promote the violation of God Almighty’s laws, is calling for judgment (see Romans 1:18-32; Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:5-6). k. ‘Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord’ (Psalm 33:12). The New Testament teaches that homosexuals need to be changed by the living Christ and “such were some of you”. Yes, God changes homosexuals.  Read the story of a lesbian whom God radically changed: “One woman’s journey out of lesbianism: An interview with Jeanette Howard”.

 

Notes:

[1] This is from a chapter in the book, Michael Mazzalongo (ed) 1995. Gay Rights or Wrongs: A Christian’s Guide to Homosexual Issues and Ministry. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company.

[2] Uniting Network, NSW/ACT, ‘Gay and Lesbian Couples: Prayers and blessings’, available at: http://www.unitingnetworkaustralia.org.au/resources/UN%20NSW%20Gay%20and%20Lesbian%20Couples.pdf (Accessed 12 March 2012).

[3] David Jean, The Advertiser, ‘New Anglican bishop welcomes homosexual ministry’, November 19, 2011, available at: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/gay-clergy-practice-what-we-preach/story-e6frea83-1226199415441 (Accessed 12 March 2012).

[4] See the BBC News report, 5 July 2005, US Church backs same-sex marriage, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4651803.stm (Accessed 12 March 2012).

[5] See the United Church of Canada, available at: http://www.bible.ca/cr-united-Can.htm (Accessed 12 March 2012).

[6] Neils Sorrells 2011. German church allows gay pastors to live with partners. The Huffington Post, 25 May. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/17/german-church-allows-gay-_n_784518.html (Accessed 15 March 2012).

[7] Herald Scotland 2011. The gay divide, 28 May. Available at: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/the-gay-divide.13864698 (Accessed 15 March 2012).

[8] Wayne M. Anderson n.d. African church waivers on homosexuality. Gnesio [Lutheran], available at: http://gnesiolutheran.com/african-church-waivers-on-homosexuality/ (Accessed 15 March 2012).

[9] Ephraim Kasozi 2012. Uganda: African bishops unite to denounce homosexuality. The Monitor (All Africa). 29 August. Available at: http://allafrica.com/stories/201008290002.html (Accessed 15 March 2012).

[10] Uki Goñi / Buenos Aires 2010. Defying church, Argentina legalizes same-sex marriage. Time, July 15. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2004036,00.html (Accessed 15 March 2012).

 

Copyright © 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 23 October 2018.

Flower15Flower15Flower15Flower15Flower15Flower15Flower15 

Alcohol and the Christian[1]

By Spencer D Gear

Where do Australians rank in the world of alcohol consumption? This article from the Australian Times [UK] (‘World’s 20 drunkest countries: Where does Australia rank in alcohol consumption?’ 18 May 2014) stated:

Aussies are renowned the world over as prolific beer drinkers (and we make a bloody good drop of wine too). It’s in our culture and runs through our veins, so the stereotype goes. But exactly how does Australia rank against the rest of the world when it comes to alcohol consumption?

Well, a 2014 WHO (World Health Organisation) report looks at alcohol consumed globally by drinkers aged 15 and older (the stats were taken from the years 2010-2011).

So, how did we go? Aussie drinkers consumed 14.5 litres of pure alcohol per capita, per year. This is more than twice the global average of 6.55 litres. But guess what; Australia only ranks 19th out of all countries when looking at alcohol consumed per capita:

Drunk countries

Mashable’s map of the WHO report highlighted the “drunkest countries in the world”. Eastern European countries are world beaters, but Australia wasn’t too far behind, as this WHO map shows:

WHO map

Source: WHO

The map shows how Australia compares to countries outside the Western Pacific Region. So while Aussie drinkers might consume less than most in Eastern Europe, they’re drinking more than Brits (13.8 litres of pure alcohol per drinker) and Kiwis (13.7). We’ll drink to that!

Stats say Aussies favour beer over most drinks, with wine as a close second:

Aus beer

Source: WHO

With men consuming more than double that of women in Aus, we’ve definitely got the boys to thank for this one. Pass us another cold one, would ya mate? [1]

“Alcohol abuse has now become the major drug problem in Australia, with alcohol-related road deaths, hospital admissions and drownings bearing witness to the enormity of the problem. Family breakdowns, domestic violence, homicides and money worries go hand-in-hand with excessive drinking, as do depression, sexual impotence, permanent brain damage and poor dietary habits.” [2]

“Drug misuse [is] estimated to cost Australia more than $14 billion a year in road trauma, health care, lost productivity, and law enforcement.” [3]

Yet, it appears that God wants us to enjoy food and alcohol. Ecclesiastes 9:7 says, “Go then, eat your bread in happiness, and drink your wine with a cheerful heart; for God has already approved your works.” [4]

How do we put these two ideas together? The devastation of alcohol on the Australian community on the one hand, and a God who seems to approve of alcohol use? Is God a big ogre, saying, “Go ahead, enjoy your alcohol, and too bad about what happens in your life and nation?” That doesn’t compute with the compassionate, merciful God of the Bible!

Is the Lord saying it’s perfectly okay for Christians to enjoy their booze — beer, wine and spirits?

My focus will be on wine-drinking. I want to take a serious look at the Bible’s view of alcohol use and what our response should be.

A.  WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT WINE DRINKING?

1.  It’s a sin to get drunk.

In the Old Testament,[5] the stubborn and rebellious son who received the death penalty for his sin, was also a glutton and a drunkard.

While the O.T. was the covenant of law and Christians are under grace, the New Testament agrees with the Old. I Corinthians 5:11 tells Christians “not to associate” with “a drunkard.”

I Corinthians 6:10: No “drunkards” will inherit the kingdom of God;

Ephesians 5:18, “Do not get drunk with wine.”

Galatians 5:19-21 lists “drunkenness” as one of the “deeds of the flesh.”

The Bible is very clear that drunkenness is a sin that will prevent you from entering heaven.

2.  Strong drink is deceptive and sinful.

The Bible has a lot to say about strong drink.

  • O.T. priests were not to have ‘wine or strong drink’ (Deut. 10:8-9).
  • Prov. 20:1, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler.”
  • Prov. 31:4-5, Kings are not to drink wine; rulers are not “to desire strong drink.” Why? “Lest they drink and forget what is decreed, and pervert the rights of all the afflicted” (v. 5).
  • Isa. 5:11, “Woe to those who rise early in the morning that they may pursue strong drink.”
  • Micah 2:11 says it was the false prophet who said, “I will prophesy for you plenty of wine and beer.”[6] He’s called a “liar and a deceiver.”

The Hebrew word for “strong drink” is used 23 times in the OT. It refers to “an intoxicating drink made from barley, pomegranates, dates, apples or honey.”

The most common word for “wine” is used 141 times in the OT. “New wine” is used 38 times and refers to “freshly pressed juice of the grape, that is, grape juice that has not yet fully fermented,”[7] e.g. Gen. 27:28; Joel 2:24; Mic. 6:5.

The use of strong drink will deceive you and is sinful.

3.  Drinking in excess is wrong.

(public domain)

  • Amos 6:1, 6: “Woe to you who are complacent in Zion… You drink wine by the bowlful.”[8] Cups were apparently not large enough, so they were drinking from bowls.
  • Hab. 2:15 states that over-drinking leads to sexual sin.

The Scriptures assert that drinking in excess has these results:

  • slowing of the thinking processes (Prov. 31:4-5; Isa. 28:7; Hos. 4:11);
  • a stupor (Jer. 25:27; 51:39);
  • sickness (Isa. 19:14; 28:7-8; Jer. 48:26);
  • staggering (loss of balance and loss of mental control) (Job 12:25; Isa.28:7- 8; 29:9);
  • arrogance (Hab. 2:5);
  • forgetfulness (Prov. 31:6-7);
  • confusion & delirious dreams (Prov. 23:31, 33);
  • sleepiness (Gen. 9:20-24; 19:33);
  • lack of feeling (Prov. 23:31, 35);
  • bloodshot eyes (Prov. 23:29-30);
  • poverty (Prov. 23:20-21).

Biblically, drinking in excess is clearly wrong.

4.  Church elders and deacons are to be moderate in their use of wine.

  • An elder is to be “not given to drunkenness” (I Tim. 3:3, NIV);
  • A deacon is to be “not indulging in much wine” (I Tim. 3:8, NIV).

God is not saying that church leaders should not drink wine, but that church leaders were to drink wine in moderation.

5.  Wine was a medicine in New Testament times.

  • Paul told Timothy to “use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses” (I Tim. 5:23, NIV). In the ancient world, wine was used to aid the digestive tract, and as a laxative.[9]
  • Prov. 31:6: “Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to him whose life is bitter.” This is indicating that “strong drink was used as a sedative or pain-killer for the dying, and that wine was also used to calm the nerves.”[10]
  • I Sam. 16:2 says that wine would “refresh those who become exhausted in the desert” (2 Sam. 16:2, NIV).
  • What did the Good Samaritan pour on the wounds of the man who had been beaten by thieves (Luke 10:34)? Oil and wine. It was to help heal wounds.

Biblically, wine had at least four uses as a medicine: a laxative, pain-killer, stimulant to refresh, and to help heal wounds.

That is what the Bible says about wine and strong drink.

However, a number of myths about alcohol have crept into the Bible-believing church.

B.  WHAT THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY ABOUT ALCOHOL

1.  The Bible does not teach that the wine at the Lord’s supper was unfermented, i.e. non-alcoholic.

I know some fine Christians who insist that alcoholic wine must not be used at the Lord’s Supper. It must be grape juice or some other unfermented drink, they say. People did not know of Sanitarium and Berri grape juice in those days.

I Corinthians 11:21 (one of the chapters dealing with the Lord’s supper) says that some Corinthians were getting drunk at the Lord’s Table. From grape juice? Hardly.

In fact, because of the drunkenness and gluttony around the Lord’s Table, some Corinthians became sick and died (I Cor. 11:30). Judgment fell on the people of God because of their sins around the Lord’s Supper.

It was definitely alcoholic wine used at the Corinthian Lord’s supper.

Perhaps you might observe: That’s not surprising. There were lots of strange things happening in the church at Corinth. They were clearly out of order in many ways. But not once in Paul’s correction of what was happening at Corinth did he say that they must change from alcoholic to non-alcoholic beverage at the Lord’s Supper.

2.  The Bible does not teach that the new wine was non-alcoholic.

Some have taught that the old wine was fermented, but the new wine, especially of the NT, was non-fermented. Two passages refute that idea:

  • Hosea 4:11, “Wine and new wine take away the understanding.”
  • Acts 2:13. On the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended and the people were filled with the Holy Spirit, the crowd said, “They are full of sweet wine [or new wine].”

So, new wine in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was just as alcoholic/fermented as the old wine.

3.  I am not convinced that it is correct to say that the wine Jesus made at Cana of Galilee was non-alcoholic.

Take a look at John 2, especially verses 9-10. It is called “wine” and “good wine.” It was so good that the people at the wedding feast, who expected the cheaper wine to be brought on at the last, found it was as good as what was used at the beginning.

The word for “wine” (oinos) at Cana, is the same word that appears in Mark 2:22 and Eph. 5:18, “Be not drunk with wine.” It’s clearly alcoholic wine.

4.  It is not biblical to say that the NT teaches that first century Christians did not use wine at any time.

David Wilkerson, the founder of Teen Challenge and the author of The Cross & the Switchblade, was so concerned about the amount of alcohol drinking among the Christian community, particularly in the U.S.A., that he wrote a strong little book against such drinking that he called, Sipping Saints.

I must be true to the Scriptures. No verse in the Bible states that Christians in biblical times abstained from all wine at all times. The biblical commands are against use of “strong drink” and against drunkenness.

5.  Total abstinence from alcoholic beverages was not a condition of membership in the NT church.

Some churches today have a ‘pledge’ in their membership commitment that prohibits the drinking of alcohol. For example, the Salvation Army has this statement regarding church membership. If one wants to become a senior soldier (i.e. church member), he or she pledges to ‘abstain from alcoholic drink, tobacco, the non-medical use of addictive drugs, gambling, pornography, the occult, and all else that could enslave the body or spirit’ (Abstinence from alcohol, Salvation Army New Zealand, Fiji & Tonga). This is the Assemblies of God USA’s statement on ‘abstinence’.

I do not believe it is biblical to conclude that not drinking alcohol should be a condition of church membership.

Nor is it a condition of being a godly believer. That’s a myth perpetuated by some evangelical churches.

Some of you may be wondering where I am heading. Am I advocating that all Christians, including our youth, should be able to drink alcohol freely, as long as they don’t get drunk?

You are jumping to unwarranted conclusions. I have had to be honest with the biblical data.

An important question is:

C.  IS WINE IN AUSTRALIA TODAY THE SAME AS NEW TESTAMENT WINE (OINOS)?

Many Christians today assume that the N.T. wine is identical with wine today. That’s an error. Today’s wine, beer and spirits are, by biblical definition, “strong drink.” And use of that is forbidden by the Bible. Wine in the Bible was essentially purified water.[11]

Homer was a Greek poet who lived in the 8th century before Christ. He said that in his day, wine was 20 parts water and one part wine. [12]

A writer after the time of the N.T., Pliny (lived in the 2nd century after Christ), spoke of wine being eight parts water and one part wine.

Aristophanes said wine was three parts water and two parts wine. Other Greek writers said it was three to one.

The average was about three or four parts of water to one part of wine.

In the ancient world, sometimes it was one part water and one part wine — that was considered strong wine. “Anyone who drank wine unmixed [with water] was looked on as a Scythian, a barbarian. That means the Greeks would say today, `You [Australians] are barbarians — drinking straight wine.'”

They said, “Mix it half and half and you get madness: unmixed — bodily collapse.” Here is a pagan saying: “Half and half is madness, and unmixed wine brings death.”

There are several instances in the O.T. where a distinction is made between wine and strong drink (Lev. 10:8-9; Deut. 14:26; 29:6; Judges 13:4).

The Jewish Talmud (writings at the time of the early church) states that the `wine’ of the Passover meal was three parts water and one part wine (cf. 2 Maccabees 15:39).

“In ancient times not many beverages were safe to drink… Water could be made safe in one of several ways. It could be boiled, but this was tedious and costly. Or it could be filtered, but this was not a safe method. Or some wine could be put in the water to kill the germs — one part wine with three or four parts water.”

Wine, beer and spirits in Australia today have a much higher alcoholic content than wine in the N.T. One researcher calculated that “in New Testament times one would need to drink twenty-two glasses of wine in order to consume the large amount of alcohol in two martinis today.”

He put it this way: “In other words, it is possible to become intoxicated from wine mixed with three parts water, but one’s drinking would probably affect the bladder long before the mind.”[13]

What am I saying?

Fermented, alcoholic wine was drunk in Bible times, and the Bible approved of this kind of wine-drinking, as long as one did not become drunk. Drunkenness is clearly sin.

HOWEVER, beer, wine and spirits in Australia today (wine coolers have the same alcoholic content as beer) are what the Bible calls strong drink and is forbidden for believers to use. “Even the ancient pagans did not drink what some Christians drink today.”

(public domain)

D.  HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHETHER TO DRINK ALCOHOL OR NOT?

I suggest asking and answering these four questions:

1.  What are the facts about alcohol?

  • “The average Australian family consumes an estimated 936 cans of beer, 61 bottles of wine and 20 bottles of spirits each year, according to the Australian Drug Foundation…
  • “In 1990, there were an estimated 6600 deaths due to alcohol, representing a quarter of all drug-caused deaths and 5 per cent of all deaths.”[14]
  • [15] Money: How much does drinking cost you? Just three drinks a day every day will cost you more than $1000 a year. Twenty drinks over a weekend will cost you about the same. Some people spend as much as half their income on alcohol. For them drinking is more important than other activities.
  • Work: Drinking could cost you your job. If you are even slightly intoxicated at work, or have a hangover, you can’t work properly. Sometimes you can’t work at all and have to take time off. Around 1 in 15 people in the work force have an alcohol problem. These problems cost Australian industry about one billion dollars (Australian currency) a year.
  • Motor skills: Alcohol affects your co-ordination. It affects your ability to drive any kind of vehicle or operate many kinds of machinery. Alcohol is a common cause of accidents in industry, on the roads and in the home. Alcohol is also a common cause of drowning in Australia.
  • The law: Alcohol can get you into trouble with the law. Drinking and driving are against the law and offences carry heavy penalties. Alcohol is also a factor in more than half the serious crimes in Australia and in about three-quarters of violent crimes committed.
  • Personality: Most drugs affect your mood. Alcohol is a mood changing drug, but it is not a stimulant as many think. Alcohol acts as a depressant and slows you down. It can also make you uninhibited and aggressive and you are still responsible for what you do when you have been drinking.
  • Sex: Alcohol can make you feel less inhibited about sex and more sexually active. But it can often reduce your ability to perform sexually.

It can also make you more aggressive. Alcohol is a major factor in sexual offences like rape, incest and child abuse.

  • Relationships: Alcohol causes many personal and family problems. It is a factor in many unhappy relationships, causing arguments, violence and poverty.

At least 1.5 million Australians are affected by drinking problems in their families. Two in every five divorces and separations are caused by alcohol problems.

“Relationships often break down in a cloud of violence and abuse. The bottle can replace all thought of your partner, friends, job, family… It can all add up to a pretty ugly and depressing picture.” [16]

  • Appearance: Alcohol has no real value as a food, but it contains a lot of kilojoules. Drinking can quickly make you put on weight. Heavy drinkers are often fat, and this increases other health risks, like heart disease. Alcohol also affects the condition of your skin.
  • Health: “Heavy drinking is one sure way of damaging your health. Liver, brain, and pancreas damage; heart and blood disorders; ulcers; and loss of memory are conditions common to many heavy drinkers.”[17]  Regular alcohol use can kill brain cells (and you know what that means?) It can attack your liver in a severe way, for some leading to cirrhosis of the liver.

Recently my wife phoned a friend to cancel out on a job the woman was doing for us. The wife was not home, so the message was given to her husband who answered the phone. After my wife got off the phone, she said to me: “He didn’t sound coherent; or was he drunk?”

Sure enough, that woman turned up at our place at the regular time to do the job. My wife said, “But I phoned your husband earlier in the week and left a message for you not to come.” His wife’s reply was: “He never said a word to me about your message. In fact, I said I was coming to your place as I was leaving and he didn’t mention your message. But then, he had his birthday on the day you phoned and he was probably drunk.”

“How you feel tomorrow depends on how you handled the night before.”[18]

So, if you believe it is okay for a Christian to drink alcohol, you must consider these facts.

2.  Will my alcohol drinking lead me to sin?

The Bible is very clear — drunkenness is sin and will keep you out of the Kingdom of God. I Cor. 6:12 gives a very clear principle: “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable.”

Even if alcohol drinking is permissible, is it profitable for the Christian? It’s profitable for the publican, but is it profitable for you in your life as a believer?

I Cor. 6:12 adds: “All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.” If you drink alcohol, you need to ask, “Am I the master of it, or is it the master of me?”

3.  Will my drinking alcohol lead anybody else to sin?

“Am I my brother’s keeper?” The Christian answer is a resounding, “Yes.” Phil. 2:4, “Do not merely look out for your own personal interests but also for the interests of others.” If you drink alcohol, are you considering “the interests of others” (spouse, children, boss, fellow employees, friends, mates who play sport with you, etc.) or is it for your own indulgence and pleasure?

If you are a genuine Christian concerned about your impact on and witness in this city, you must take seriously Romans 14:21: “It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.”

I have raised three teenagers. I would not dare give my children the example of seeing alcohol in my refrigerator. In this alcohol-soaked country, what a pathetic model I would be to say to my kids: alcohol is destroying families across the nation; accidents, homicides, and abuse are epidemic in Australia, associated with alcohol — but it’s okay for Christians to drink. I believe that is hypocritical.

I must ask: Will my drinking cause anybody else to sin? Even if it is not a problem to me, is it possible that I would cause somebody else to stumble? I’m not talking about mature Christians being offended by your stance, but causing another brother or sister to stumble in his/her Christian growth.

4.  Can alcohol drinking be done to the glory of God?

I Cor. 10:31, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” If you as a Christian cannot be praising God and glorifying Him while you are drinking alcohol, then it is not good for you.

E. WHY I DO NOT DRINK ALCOHOL

This has been my choice and does not make me a better Christian than another. I had one shandy as a 10-year-old kid at a Christmas party where we used to live. I drank a glass of champaign when I was about 24 years old and attended the opening of a bridal boutique when I was program manager at a radio station.

Glass and keys

I am a teetotaller because:

1.  I am convinced . . .

There is a strong biblical argument for Aussie alcohol being the equivalent of “strong drink” in the Bible. As a committed Christian, God says I should not have ‘strong drink’ and I must be obedient. My life will always be the loser if I disobey the Lord’s commands. I am committed to pleasing Him, no matter how nice a glass of wine may be or feel. Christ is my Master.

2.  As a counsellor for 34 years . . .

I have counselled enough people and families whose lives have been wrecked by grog, to cure me from any alcohol use for the rest of my life. Heroin, marijuana, LSD, amphetamines are dangerous drugs. But the number one drug problem in Australia is alcohol abuse.

I counsel young people to keep away from that dangerous mind-altering drug marijuana. But young people have every right to say to adults: “You hypocrites! You approve of your drug, alcohol, and look at what it does to families and the nation! And you disapprove of our drug, marijuana.”

It’s very difficult to convince young people to quit marijuana use when adults are into booze. However, it’s a myth to say that marijuana is no more harmful than cigarettes or alcohol.

3.  We in Australia have plenty of wholesome non-alcoholic beverages available.

4.  Australia is an alcohol-soaked culture.

“Heroin is not the biggest drug problem among young people. Nor is marijuana [although it is a dangerous mind-altering drug.] The use of ICE has tragic consequences.

However, “the highest contributor to death and serious injury among Australia’s youth is alcohol, according to a NSW Health Department document: “In the 15-34 age group [in NSW], of 1409 drug-related deaths [in one year], 915 were alcohol-related.”[19]

This NSW document said, “It is imperative that control elements for reduction or prevention of harm be developed.”  In the A.C.T., a 1991 schools’ survey of alcohol and drug use

“Showed that 40 per cent of boys in Years 7 to 11 and 30 per cent of girls reported binge drinking in the four weeks before the survey. Binge drinking is having five or more drinks in a row. . .  Studies showed that most youth tended to do their drinking at home or at a friend’s place with no supervision  This indicated that action was needed at a community level to encourage more responsibility among parents.[20]

“A study of 5000 Victorian students found half of year 11 students drink regularly, 46 per cent have travelled in a car with a driver, often a parent, affected by alcohol, and 24 per cent had been sexually harassed by a drunk person.”[21]http://www.normgeisler.com/

The New South Wales Government was calling for “control elements for reduction or prevention of harm” from alcohol use. The ACT Government is calling for “action . . . at the community level to encourage more responsibility among parents.” How then can we, who love Jesus, be contributing to the problem rather than preventing it?

I refuse to be a model of a destructive, alcohol-drinking lifestyle for my children, the youth I counsel, and the Christian community of which I am part.

5.  Total abstinence is the safer policy.

Would you fly in an aeroplane if you knew there was a 1 in 15 chance that the plane would crash? The chances of a plane crashing are much lower than that. But the chances of having an alcohol problem in the work force are 1 in 15.

Australia is an alcohol-saturated society.

Will you as Christians join me in a vow never to use alcohol (or any illegal drug)? Will you voluntarily abstain from all alcohol consumption?

This abstinence does not make you more spiritual. Nor does the Bible say Christians must abstain from all alcohol. This is our voluntary protest against the abuse of alcohol in Australian society.

One of the main reasons people drink alcohol is to provide relaxation and enjoyment. Is God a cosmic killjoy who wants to zap you of peace and enjoyment? Absolutely not!

He wants you to experience genuine peace and real joy — the peace of God and the joy of Christ. As Eph. 5:18 puts it, “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit” (NIV).

GOD WANTS YOU TO HAVE PEACE WITHOUT GOING TO PIECES.

The Daily Telegraph (Sydney Australia) reported this incident (Accessed 6 February 2016):

Andrew Johns allegedly passes out at Toowoomba airport 

RADIO broadcaster Ray Hadley [2GB, 4BC & network stations] has lashed out at rugby league immortal Andrew Johns for lewd comments allegedly made by the former footy star to a mother at a Queensland airport.

Describing the comments as “abhorrent”, the 4BC announcer chastised Johns on air for his actions.

The Channel 9 commentator is said to have approached the mother of three at a Toowoomba airport, asking her for a kiss before inquiring whether she had given birth via caesarean.

King David said of God (Ps. 16:11): “You show me the path of life. In your presence is fullness of joy; in your right hand are pleasures forevermore.”[22]

It is shameful for Christians to have to resort to grog to relax when the “peace of God, which surpasses all understanding” is available to them.[23]

It is an insult to the Holy Spirit when we have to seek superficial pleasure from stimulants when He can give us the permanent joy of the Holy Spirit.

I enthusiastically recommend the article by Norman Geisler, ‘To Drink or Not to Drink: A sober look at the question‘.

GOD DESIRES THAT YOUR PLEASURES BE SPIRIT-DIRECTED, NOT SELF-CENTRED; THAT THEY BE HELPFUL, NOT HARMFUL.


Notes:

[1] I retired in 2011 as an Australian family counsellor and counselling manager. I am indebted to the article, ‘A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking, Norman L. Geisler, Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March, 1982, pp. 6-56, that helped me clarify the differences between wine and strong drink, biblically. I have taken many of Geisler’s ideas and contextualised them for the Australian scene. For a different perspective, see: ‘A “Biblical” View of Alcohol: Another Thought’ (Preston Sprinkle, 2014).

[2] “A devil too many of us know well,” The Canberra Times, March 3, 1992, p. 21.

[3] “Legal drug abuse more costly than illegal use,” The Canberra Times, April 7, 1993, p. 19.

[4] Unless otherwise stated, all Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.

[5] Deuteronomy 21:20-21.

[6] New International Version (NIV).

[7] Geisler, p. 47.

[8] NIV.

[9] Geisler, p. 48.

[10] Ibid.

[11] The following details are taken from Geisler, pp. 50-51.

[12] Odyssey 9: pp. 208-9.

[13] Robert H. Stein, in Geisler, p. 51.

[14] “Legal drug abuse more costly than illegal use,” The Canberra Times, April 7, 1994, p. 19.

[15] The following information is from the Queensland Health Pamphlet on Alcohol, reproduced in Drug Stop insert in the Fraser Coast (Maryborough, Qld.) Chronicle.

[16] “How will you feel tomorrow?” A pamphlet published by The Drug Offensive: A Federal and State initiative, p. 6. To obtain: outside Brisbane in Queensland, phone (008) 177 833.

[17] As in note [15], p. 4.

[18] Ibid.

[19] “Alcohol strategy to combat biggest threat to young people,” The Canberra Times, July 25, 1992, p. 5.

[20] “Call to limit access to alcohol,” The Canberra Times, December 4, 1992, p. 2.

[21] “Alcohol a part of teen lives,” The Canberra Times, October 1, 1993, p. 18.

[22] New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRSV).

[23] Phil. 4:7, NRSV.

 

Copyright © 2007 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 4 April 2017.

FlowerFlowerFlowerFlowerFlowerFlowerFlower