Monthly Archives: August 2012

Tongues and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit

clip_image001

By Spencer D Gear

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

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

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

The Day of Pentecost

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

To make Acts 2:4 support the ā€œinitial evidenceā€ doctrine, one, to be consistent, must require that those baptised in the Holy Spirit today must speak in known dialects.

Other References in the Book of Acts

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

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

In Acts 4:8, ā€œfilledā€, an aorist participle, could be translated ā€œhaving just been filledā€, does not mention tongues.Ā  This is repeated in 13:9, 52.Ā  Acts 4:31 does not mention tongues.Ā  In fact the evidence was that they ā€œbegan to speak the word of God with boldnessā€ (NASB).Ā  Why are not boldness (Acts 4:31), power (Acts 1:8) and prophecy (Acts 19:6) the evidences of the filling of the Spirit?

Tongues in I Corinthians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on Experience

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

  • Ā ā€œWe have different gifts according to the grace given usā€ (Rom. 12:6a).
  • Ā ā€œAll these [gifts] are the work of the one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determinesā€ (I Cor. 12:11).
  • Ā·Hebrews 2:4 speaks of ā€œgifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.ā€
    I believe it grieves the Holy Spirit and is a promotion of doctrinal error when denominations and Christian leaders go contrary to the Bibleā€™s teaching.

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

References

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

Endnotes:

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

(a)Ā  Statement 8 of the Assemblies of God (a Pentecostal denomination) ā€œFundamental Truthsā€ is:

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

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

(b)Ā  The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (a Pentecostal denomination) in its ā€˜Declaration of Faithā€™ states:

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

(c)Ā  The Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee (a Pentecostal denomination), in its ā€œDeclaration of Faithā€ states that ā€˜we believe ā€¦ in speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance and that it is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghostā€™.

(d) The Vineyard Churches USA take a different slant in their statement of Core Values, ā€˜The Ministry of the Holy Spiritā€™:

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

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

(e) The Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa (a Pentecostal denomination) in the ā€œConfession of Faithā€ states that,

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

Copyright Ā© 2012 Spencer D. Gear.This document last updated at: 11 October 2015.

clip_image002

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

Man jumping from church across the globe

ChristArt

By Spencer D GEar

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

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

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

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

“I said, ‘Sure, I’m aware of it.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clip_image002 prayer life[4];

clip_image002[1] ministry in the church[5];

clip_image002[2] freedom from legalism of human regulations[6];

clip_image002[3] holy living[7];

clip_image002[4] how families, employers & employees should live[8]; and

clip_image002[5] gospel proclamation at every opportunity.[9]

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

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

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

Let’s meet . . .

A. Tychicus

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

clip_image004 Tell them all the news about Paul (4:2 says Paul is “in chains”, possibly in Rome, for proclaiming “the mystery of Christ”);

clip_image004[1] Tychicus will tell them about Paul’s circumstances;

clip_image004[2] He will encourage the Colossian believers. Paul had never been to Colosse. Reading this letter gives one the impression that Epaphras introduced these people to Christ and founded this church and possibly churches at Laodicea and Hierapolis (4:13).

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

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

clip_image004[3] A dear brother; a beloved brother. Of all the Christian people

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

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

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

clip_image004[4] A faithful minister; A minister is not a pastor but a “diakonos”

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

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

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

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

Illustration:

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

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

Illustration:

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

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

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

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

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

B. Onesimus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illustration:

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

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

clip_image006 to those who do not know the Lord;

clip_image006[1] for ministry outreach;

clip_image006[2] that we might be a truly Christ-centred church in what we say and do;

clip_image006[3] for the Holy Spirit to rule every part of this church.

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

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

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

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

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

In today’s church, this can happen to Christians

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a Demas streak in you right now?

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

clip_image008 needs faithful people in a radically close relationship;

clip_image008[1] needs prayer agonisers, people powerful through prayer;

clip_image008[2] will have some who are slack or ineffective in ministry;

clip_image008[3] will minister to the doubters & backsliders;

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

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

The first is:

1. Onesimus (v. 9)

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

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

2. Mark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

clip_image010 Are you a faithful Christian? Can you be depended on in ministry, work and at home?

clip_image010[1] Are you a prayer warrior, an agoniser? I pray that more of us will get serious with prayer.

clip_image010[2] Do you know your gifts? Have people, including the leaders, of this church, affirmed them? Are you being slack and ineffective in your ministry? Will you allow God to get hold of you so that you minister in your gifts?

clip_image010[3] If you are a doubter, a backslider, or somebody thinking of chucking your faith, please see me after this service so that we can arrange to spend time in working through your doubts.

clip_image010[4] All of you who know Christ have been wonderfully forgiven. Some of you have been forgiven from a deeply depraved lifestyle. I praise God for you. May you know the reality of sins forgiven and grow in grace and knowledge of the Saviour.

Notes:


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

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

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

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

[5] See 1:24ff.

[6] See 2:6ff.

[7] See 3:1ff.

[8] See 3:18ff.

[9] See 4:2-6.

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

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

[12] Lenski, p. 30.

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

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

[15] A “sundoulos.”

[16] Lenski, p. 196.

[17] Lenski, p. 196.

[18] Brian Bill, op cit.

[19] Lenski, pp. 202-203.

[20] The original said, “Brethren.”

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

clip_image012

What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Sticky Sin

(courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

This verse has often confused Christian people. Have they committed a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and will it not be forgiven? Iā€™m particularly referring to Matthew 12:31, ā€œTherefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgivenā€ (ESV).

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

Forgivable or Blasphemous?

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

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

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

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

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

Letā€™s look at a few other translations of this verse (Matthew 12:31):

  • ā€œAnd so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.ā€ (NIV);
  • ā€œTherefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgivenā€ (ESV).
  • ā€œWherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto menā€ (KJV)
  • ā€œTherefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgivenā€ (NASB).
  • ā€œSo I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgivenā€”except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgivenā€ (NLT).
  • ā€œTherefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.ā€ (NRSV)
  • ā€œFor this reason I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgivenā€ (NET)
  • ā€œTherefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgivenā€ (NAB)
  • ā€œAnd so I tell you, every human sin and blasphemy will be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgivenā€ (NJB).
  • ā€œTherefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgivenā€ (D-R)

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

For a fuller explanation of the blasphemy of the Spirit, I recommend this article from Hard Sayings of the Bible (1996. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce & Manfred T. Brauch. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, pp. pp. 414-417), ā€œThe unpardonable sinā€. Iā€™m grateful that somebody has taken the time to make this article available online. The book is one of the finest available in print in dealing with Bible difficulties.

Notes:


[1] Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, ā€˜Forgivable or blasphemousā€™, guitarintro#1, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7679489/ (Accessed 14 August 2012).

[2] Ibid., #21.

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

Green-blue dove outline casting shadow

(courtesy ChristArt)

Copyright Ā© 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 15 March 2016.

Has evolution been proved by science?

Creation Fish Wins

(courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

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

Evolution proved by science

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

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

Marcus Toyne, Mango Hill

What is a theory?

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

What was the basic content (in summary) of Darwinā€™s evolutionary theory? This is one reasonable summary:

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

Dr. Henry Morris wrote, ā€˜The vanishing case for evolutionā€™, in which he stated:

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

Morris cited David Kits who stated that ā€˜Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observerā€™.

What are the holes in the argument in Toyneā€™s letter to the editor?

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

What are the facts about transition species?[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Gould also wrote:

ā€œNew species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same regionā€ (1977:12).

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

ā€˜I regard the failure to find a clear ā€˜vector of progressā€™ in lifeā€™s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil recordā€™ (Gould 1984, link).

A letter of reply to the North Lakes Times

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

Letters-to-the-editor
North Lakes Times

Dear editor,

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

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

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

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

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

Spencer Gear
North Lakes

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

Evolution theory ā€˜lacks factsā€™

Marcus Toyne (Pine Rivers Press, August 8) seems to have confused theory and factĀ when saying ā€œthere are no facts being discovered that bring the theory of evolution into questionā€.

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

Former leading evolutionist of Harvard University, the late Stephen Jay Gould, wroteĀ the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages ā€œhas been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolutionā€.

As for Toyne’s view that mainstream faiths ā€œdon’t take the first book of the Bible literallyā€, is a red herring. ā€œIn the beginning God created the heavens and the earthā€ and then statements of what was created on dayĀ one and so onĀ are literal ways of stating God’s creation of the universe, according to Genesis 1.

Spencer Gear, North Lakes

Two further letters in the North Lakes Times

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

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

My reply to Mr. Toyne

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

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

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

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

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

Another letter opposing my position

Phil Gilbankā€™s response included these elements:

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

How should I respond?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the article, ā€˜Are there two creation accounts?ā€™ (Tekton). See also, ā€˜Alleged biblical contradictions ā€“ creation storiesā€™ (CreationWiki); ā€˜Are there two creation accounts in Genesisā€™ (Wayne Jackson). See my own very brief article, ā€˜Are there two creation stories in Genesis?ā€™

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes


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

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

[3] The email was sent to: [email protected].

 

Copyright Ā© 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 29 October 2015.

Buttons 4 Buttons 4

Does regeneration precede faith?

thumbnail

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

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

ā€œSirs, what must I do to be saved?ā€ And they said, ā€œBelieve in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your householdā€ (Acts 16:30-31 ESV).

Was this a true or false statement? Is it possible for reprobate sinners to believe on the Lord Jesus and be saved? If you talk to some Calvinists, they will say, ā€œNo!ā€. I encountered one of these on Christian Fellowship Forum. He wrote:

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

Hereā€™s the word of another Calvinist, R. C. Sproul:

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

Notes


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

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


Copyright Ā© 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 29 October 2015.

What is a Christian definition of when marriage begins?

Marriage cover photo

Courtesy Salt ShakersĀ (Christian ministry)

By Spencer D Gear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Granberg provides these dimensions of understanding ā€˜marriage and the NTā€™:

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

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

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

References

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

 

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

Blue Greek Key With Lines Border by GR8DAN - A blue greek key based border.