I have gone from a Protestant who was very certain that no such state as Purgatory existed to one on the verge of conversion who ardently believes in its existence and sincerely hopes for it. What changed me? What considerations made me alter my views?
It hit me one night as I was thinking about the subject—we really need Purgatory or something like it. Why? Because (as Protestants never tire of saying) “none of us are perfect.” None of us has reached the level of maturity that is the “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13)or the “be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect” level (Matthew 5:48). And factually speaking most of us will one day die in that same condition.
Purgatory is simply the state of preparation for those who are going to enter Heaven but have not grown up fully into Christ. They need some work and this is the place where that final work is done.
I thought about people I have known who were good, godly people but they still had major flaws. They loved God with all their hearts but there were glaring failures that they never overcame. One I am thinking of was racist. That is only one example of the kinds of things that can be a part of a person’s makeup that he/she has not worked through at the time of death.
Do we seriously suggest that God will cast everyone into hell for one sin? I have been bothered by that question. Did I really believe that God would reject a person who on his or her deathbed did some minor sin (venial if you prefer). I could not reconcile that with the loving, merciful God that I knew. Then it became clear: Purgatory is God’s love and mercy in action.
The question arises: what about the Bible? Do you have any verses that speak of purgatory? If you mean do they use that word, the answer is “no.” But no one would throw out a belief because of lack of a specific theological term in Scripture (think of the words “Trinity” and for most Protestants “rapture”). Are there any verses that offer, even in kernel form, any hope of a third place? I believe so.
First, Matthew 12:31-32 “(31) Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. (32) Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” This passage about the “unpardonable sin” offers an interesting point: there is the implication here that some sins can be forgiven in the age to come. Elsewise, the addition of this phrase is useless. IF there is no forgiveness of any kind in the next age, the fact that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven would be moot because no sin would be forgiven.
A second Scriptural passage, 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 “(12) Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; (13) Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. (14) If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. (15) If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” This passage again offers us some insight in noting that there will be a fire that burns up the works of men that are built upon the wrong foundation. This judgment does not end in condemnation but in eternal salvation for the person although their works have been burned up.
While there are other verses that could be presented, these are sufficient to confirm the idea of cleansing after death as a Scriptural concept. There were other things that influenced my thinking about this subject also.
As I mentioned in the last post, the concept of praying for the departed (attested strongly in early church writings) convinced me that some place was needed for those departed for whom the church prayed and offered Masses to be in which prayer was needful.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not teach that purgatory is a second chance escape from Hell and that prayers can avail to snatch anyone from Hell once they have entered—this is a common Protestant misconception. CCC 1030 says, “All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.”
The power and comfort offered by the Church’s true teaching is wonderful: (a) God has made provisions for those who are imperfectly purified at the time of death; (b) Those in purgatory are assured of their eternal salvation; and, (c) God gives them purification so that they can enter the joys of heaven.
No one knows the hour of his or her death with certainty. It could come suddenly or take months. The thought that one could sin (even a “small” sin, then drop dead, and go to eternal damnation because of it, is not comforting. It, in fact, is scary and offers the majority of us little hope of making it to eternal life. Most folks I know who believe that way have so minimized sin that only really big things (and the things that other people do) are really considered sins anyway.
When one realizes the truth about sin and its pervasiveness in the human population, it is a fearful thing to have to think of facing God. The fact that God has graciously provided for those who die, although imperfectly purified, to enter His eternal glory brings great comfort to someone like me who knows he will need that gracious provision. I can say now, “Thank God for Purgatory and the mercy and grace that caused God to provide it for us His unworthy and imperfect servants.”
The Resurrection of Christ our God
24 August 2012
21 August 2012
My Journey
If you have read my blog, I hope you have understood it as a journey. I have for many years been on a spiritual quest; I have for a long time had the nagging feeling that there was something more than I had ever experienced. Please understand, I have had many Pentecostal experiences but even in that I always sensed that something was missing. I could not put my finger on it nor could I explain it. It was something that lingered in the back of my mind and at odd times emerged to occupy the center of my attention.
For the last few years, I have felt comfortable that my journey would end in Eastern Orthodoxy. I was prepared to make that leap. But there were some things (which I hated to admit to myself) that bothered me about Orthodoxy: (a) blatant lack of unity; (b) exclusivism; (c) ethnocentricity; (d) majoring on some very minor points; and, (e) competition between the various groups of Orthodox.
These things were very obvious to anyone who looks. Then, some other things began to surface—things that took me a while to see and longer to grasp. Two things that shook me the most: (a) the teaching authority and (b) praying for the dead.
The teaching authority issue started nagging at me when I realized Orthodoxy has no authoritative voice to speak to the issues of modern life. Let us suppose that some new thing comes out that is only tangentially related to the past, Orthodoxy has no way to speak to it. Sure, a plethora of bishops, archbishops, and even Patriarchs can offer their opinions but that is all they can do.
Since they believe that the unity of the whole church is required to convoke another Ecumenical Council, (like the seven they recognize) and since that has not and most likely will not happen, they have no mechanism to speak to the issues of today with authority.
The Orthodox teach and believe the infallibility of the Church in theory but it is since the 1054 A.D. split nothing but a theory; it has no method by which to operate. If a new heresy were to spring up, the Orthodox have no method to authoritatively combat it.
I have a great deal of difficulty with a theoretically infallible church that has no practical method to make infallible pronouncements. Does it seem reasonable that the Lord Jesus would build His church, invest them with infallibility by the Holy Spirit, and then leave them without a way to express that infallible authority for the last 1000 years? That certainly seems very ill conceived and almost cruel.
It also struck me that having an infallible Bible is useless unless one has an infallible interpreter of said Bible. No matter how right, good, and errorless one’s Bible is, he or she can certainly interpret it in the most fallible ways. The Orthodox offer the voice of the Fathers and the Tradition but what does one do when the Fathers disagree or are inconsistent and the Tradition is vague?
My other new difficulty with Orthodoxy came up when I was reading about praying for the dead and thinking about the Roman doctrine of purgatory. As a potential Orthodox convert, I accepted praying for the dead (see my earlier blog on the subject). Then I started to think about why the Orthodox prayed for the dead. They deny purgatory. So why do they pray for the departed? If there is no intermediate state and only Heaven and Hell are possibilities, then why would one pray for those who had fallen asleep? If they are in Heaven, they do not need our prayers (and in fact we need theirs) and if they are in Hell, our prayers will not be of any use to them.
There are many other Biblical arguments in favor of purgatory, which I will not get into, but this one thought was enough to make me give the doctrine a serious look. Prayer for the dead presupposes an intermediate state in which those prayers can be of some use OR prayers for the dead are just a pious piece of uselessness. The testimony of the Early Church Fathers is unanimous that these prayers are useful, thus, there has to be a third choice.
Once I read and studied the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and understood what it really says about purgatory, I had no trouble accepting it. Then when I understood the problem of authority as outlined above and understood the Papacy, I had no trouble accepting it. For Protestants who think they know what papal infallibility means, I suggest that they read the CCC and the limits placed on it. Suffice it to say at this point that this idea is probably one of the least understood Catholic distinctives.
In case you have not garnered from what I have said, I am now convinced of the truth of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe and confess that it is the Church that Christ founded and that it is the pillar and ground of truth (I Timothy 3:15). Now believing that and being certain of it, I must be obedient and submit to the Lord’s Church or be eternally damned for “Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin” (James 4:17 NRSV).
For the last few years, I have felt comfortable that my journey would end in Eastern Orthodoxy. I was prepared to make that leap. But there were some things (which I hated to admit to myself) that bothered me about Orthodoxy: (a) blatant lack of unity; (b) exclusivism; (c) ethnocentricity; (d) majoring on some very minor points; and, (e) competition between the various groups of Orthodox.
These things were very obvious to anyone who looks. Then, some other things began to surface—things that took me a while to see and longer to grasp. Two things that shook me the most: (a) the teaching authority and (b) praying for the dead.
The teaching authority issue started nagging at me when I realized Orthodoxy has no authoritative voice to speak to the issues of modern life. Let us suppose that some new thing comes out that is only tangentially related to the past, Orthodoxy has no way to speak to it. Sure, a plethora of bishops, archbishops, and even Patriarchs can offer their opinions but that is all they can do.
Since they believe that the unity of the whole church is required to convoke another Ecumenical Council, (like the seven they recognize) and since that has not and most likely will not happen, they have no mechanism to speak to the issues of today with authority.
The Orthodox teach and believe the infallibility of the Church in theory but it is since the 1054 A.D. split nothing but a theory; it has no method by which to operate. If a new heresy were to spring up, the Orthodox have no method to authoritatively combat it.
I have a great deal of difficulty with a theoretically infallible church that has no practical method to make infallible pronouncements. Does it seem reasonable that the Lord Jesus would build His church, invest them with infallibility by the Holy Spirit, and then leave them without a way to express that infallible authority for the last 1000 years? That certainly seems very ill conceived and almost cruel.
It also struck me that having an infallible Bible is useless unless one has an infallible interpreter of said Bible. No matter how right, good, and errorless one’s Bible is, he or she can certainly interpret it in the most fallible ways. The Orthodox offer the voice of the Fathers and the Tradition but what does one do when the Fathers disagree or are inconsistent and the Tradition is vague?
My other new difficulty with Orthodoxy came up when I was reading about praying for the dead and thinking about the Roman doctrine of purgatory. As a potential Orthodox convert, I accepted praying for the dead (see my earlier blog on the subject). Then I started to think about why the Orthodox prayed for the dead. They deny purgatory. So why do they pray for the departed? If there is no intermediate state and only Heaven and Hell are possibilities, then why would one pray for those who had fallen asleep? If they are in Heaven, they do not need our prayers (and in fact we need theirs) and if they are in Hell, our prayers will not be of any use to them.
There are many other Biblical arguments in favor of purgatory, which I will not get into, but this one thought was enough to make me give the doctrine a serious look. Prayer for the dead presupposes an intermediate state in which those prayers can be of some use OR prayers for the dead are just a pious piece of uselessness. The testimony of the Early Church Fathers is unanimous that these prayers are useful, thus, there has to be a third choice.
Once I read and studied the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and understood what it really says about purgatory, I had no trouble accepting it. Then when I understood the problem of authority as outlined above and understood the Papacy, I had no trouble accepting it. For Protestants who think they know what papal infallibility means, I suggest that they read the CCC and the limits placed on it. Suffice it to say at this point that this idea is probably one of the least understood Catholic distinctives.
In case you have not garnered from what I have said, I am now convinced of the truth of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe and confess that it is the Church that Christ founded and that it is the pillar and ground of truth (I Timothy 3:15). Now believing that and being certain of it, I must be obedient and submit to the Lord’s Church or be eternally damned for “Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin” (James 4:17 NRSV).
04 November 2011
Another Crusade
I received a call from a frantic woman not too long ago. She was extremely upset by some information that had been passed on to her from some internet source. She was all up in arms and ready to “raise Cain” (not Herman Cain) about the fact that the Obamas had decreed that there would be no religious ornaments on the White House “Holiday Tree” this year. She wanted to do something to let the White House know that we are still a Christian nation.
The above scenario is an all-too frequent occurrence. Someone gets a hold of a piece of “information” (that is an attempt to be nice about it), gets all fired up, and charges into battle. The Problem: the cause du jour is FALSE. This fact is easily confirmed by a number of sources (for example, http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/christmas-ornaments-white-house.htm or http://www.snopes.com/politics/christmas/ornaments.asp or http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/white_house_christmas_ornaments.htm?r=facebook).
I never cease to be amazed at the Christians who are ready for a crusade—anxious to saddle up and joust with the windmill of the day. It doesn’t seem to matter that the majority of the causes are false or that some of those that are true are useless—“we’ve just got to do something about this!”
I can vividly remember the Proctor and Gamble flap. We were told to boycott the company because they supported the Church of Satan. Then there was the movies about Jesus as a homosexual which we needed to sign the petition to stop. Then, of course, who can forget the evil machinations of Madalyn Murray O'Hair as she tried to get religious programming outlawed. Amazingly, she carried on this campaign for quite some time after her decease.
My frustration with all of this stems from several things:
1. There is little or no effort made to verify the stories. If one receives it in an email, obviously it must be true! It makes Christians look gullible and naïve because anything that plays in to the “us-them” paranoia complex is readily accepted without the slightest bit of evidence.
2. Many hours and much money is expended on these crusades which could be used much more profitably on almost anything else.
3. In reality, what possible difference does it make whether the White House Christmas tree is called a holiday tree or if it is decorated with non-religious ornaments? Who really cares? There are much more important things for Christians to be concerned over than a tree (which by some accounts is only a pagan carryover anyway).
The idea of choosing our battles carefully has been eclipsed by the desire to mount a crusade. In these kinds of battles winning the battle will lead to losing the war. People will not be influenced for the good nor convinced of the reality of God by someone protesting and petitioning about a Christmas tree.
Oddly enough, as the Urban Legends article points out, there was some censorship of religious ornaments at the White House but it was under the Bush Administration. Nobody was fussing, petitioning or protesting back then. That sure makes it look politically motivated! Or is it OK for a Republican to do it but not OK if a Democrat does the same thing? The “good Christian” Bush not allowing religious ornaments does not fit into the conspiracy theory. It only works when the “Socialist, Islamic” Obama does it.
Those kinds of double standards and disingenuous dealings are unacceptable for Christians. One cannot promote the Truth by using a lie. One cannot encourage right by doing wrong.
The above scenario is an all-too frequent occurrence. Someone gets a hold of a piece of “information” (that is an attempt to be nice about it), gets all fired up, and charges into battle. The Problem: the cause du jour is FALSE. This fact is easily confirmed by a number of sources (for example, http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/christmas-ornaments-white-house.htm or http://www.snopes.com/politics/christmas/ornaments.asp or http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/white_house_christmas_ornaments.htm?r=facebook).
I never cease to be amazed at the Christians who are ready for a crusade—anxious to saddle up and joust with the windmill of the day. It doesn’t seem to matter that the majority of the causes are false or that some of those that are true are useless—“we’ve just got to do something about this!”
I can vividly remember the Proctor and Gamble flap. We were told to boycott the company because they supported the Church of Satan. Then there was the movies about Jesus as a homosexual which we needed to sign the petition to stop. Then, of course, who can forget the evil machinations of Madalyn Murray O'Hair as she tried to get religious programming outlawed. Amazingly, she carried on this campaign for quite some time after her decease.
My frustration with all of this stems from several things:
1. There is little or no effort made to verify the stories. If one receives it in an email, obviously it must be true! It makes Christians look gullible and naïve because anything that plays in to the “us-them” paranoia complex is readily accepted without the slightest bit of evidence.
2. Many hours and much money is expended on these crusades which could be used much more profitably on almost anything else.
3. In reality, what possible difference does it make whether the White House Christmas tree is called a holiday tree or if it is decorated with non-religious ornaments? Who really cares? There are much more important things for Christians to be concerned over than a tree (which by some accounts is only a pagan carryover anyway).
The idea of choosing our battles carefully has been eclipsed by the desire to mount a crusade. In these kinds of battles winning the battle will lead to losing the war. People will not be influenced for the good nor convinced of the reality of God by someone protesting and petitioning about a Christmas tree.
Oddly enough, as the Urban Legends article points out, there was some censorship of religious ornaments at the White House but it was under the Bush Administration. Nobody was fussing, petitioning or protesting back then. That sure makes it look politically motivated! Or is it OK for a Republican to do it but not OK if a Democrat does the same thing? The “good Christian” Bush not allowing religious ornaments does not fit into the conspiracy theory. It only works when the “Socialist, Islamic” Obama does it.
Those kinds of double standards and disingenuous dealings are unacceptable for Christians. One cannot promote the Truth by using a lie. One cannot encourage right by doing wrong.
11 October 2011
So What’s the Problem?
Some believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and some do not. That is a fact that is indisputable. My question for today: what difference does it make to those who do not believe in it that others do? Please note I am not asking nor attempting to answer the reverse question (viz., what difference does it make to those who believe that others do not believe it?)
First, will believing in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary affect the salvation of one’s soul? Will a person who chooses to believe tradition which does not contradict Scripture in any way be condemned for believing in this (or for that matter any other similar) doctrine?
Is this a cardinal belief that Mary was not a perpetual virgin? Is it an article of anyone’s faith that she could not have been such? Do any churches have a point in their Fundamentals of the Faith that reads, “We believe that Mary was not Ever-Virgin and that she had other children after the birth of the Lord Jesus”?
Since this belief in no way denies the Incarnation, the Deity, the sinless life, the Crucifixion or the Resurrection of Jesus, it is hard to believe that it can possibly be a negative reflection on the Lord. He is neither lowered nor besmirched by the idea that His Mother bore no children after His holy birth. One might even say it made him unique as the Only Son of Mary as well as the Only Son of God.
This doctrine does not demean the Lord Jesus Christ. So why fight people who choose to believe it?
This doctrine does not contradict the Word of God (since “brothers” can refer to cousins or other kin—as when Abram refers to his nephew as a brother). This doctrine does not deny any of the cardinal doctrines of the faith. This belief does not divert attention from the Lord Jesus Christ.
This doctrine does not elevate Mary to some special status that she does not deserve. It does not make her a goddess or a goddess like entity.
From the point of view of those who do not believe in this teaching, why can a teaching like this not be accorded the status of other beliefs that are neutral and, thus, allow those who see good reasons to hold this idea to do so without constantly trying to tear this down and “convert” them to your belief? Would not the dictum, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity” be rightly and gracefully applicable to this case?
We must ask: why do some people spend so much time fighting this idea when holding to it doesn’t condemn a soul to hell, diminish our Lord and Savior, or contradict the testimony of Scripture? The question is made even more powerful when one realizes that many of the great Christians of the past (most of them actually) have unanimously held to this position. This would include Luther and Calvin as well as, Jerome, St. Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, John Wesley, Heinrich Bullinger and Zwingli.
Since there is NO Scripture that says that Mary had any other children and since it would have been unthinkable for Christ to have committed the care of His Mother to the Apostle John had she had any male offspring, what does it hurt to posit as so many have before us that the Blessed Virgin Mary is actually Ever-Virgin? What is the problem with that piece of conjecture (if you wish to denominate it as such)?
I fail to see what the big fuss is about from the side of those who do not believe that Mary was a Virgin to the day of her decease. It would seem to be a pious opinion (at the worst) that affects no one negatively for holding to it. It does not appear to me that any soul will be damned eternally because they chose to ascribe perpetual virginity to the Mother of the Lord. Again, I must ask, what is the big deal? Why do the non-believers insist on challenging those that believe? Why waste time trying to convince someone to stop believing in this when there are so many substantial challenges to the Faith?
First, will believing in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary affect the salvation of one’s soul? Will a person who chooses to believe tradition which does not contradict Scripture in any way be condemned for believing in this (or for that matter any other similar) doctrine?
Is this a cardinal belief that Mary was not a perpetual virgin? Is it an article of anyone’s faith that she could not have been such? Do any churches have a point in their Fundamentals of the Faith that reads, “We believe that Mary was not Ever-Virgin and that she had other children after the birth of the Lord Jesus”?
Since this belief in no way denies the Incarnation, the Deity, the sinless life, the Crucifixion or the Resurrection of Jesus, it is hard to believe that it can possibly be a negative reflection on the Lord. He is neither lowered nor besmirched by the idea that His Mother bore no children after His holy birth. One might even say it made him unique as the Only Son of Mary as well as the Only Son of God.
This doctrine does not demean the Lord Jesus Christ. So why fight people who choose to believe it?
This doctrine does not contradict the Word of God (since “brothers” can refer to cousins or other kin—as when Abram refers to his nephew as a brother). This doctrine does not deny any of the cardinal doctrines of the faith. This belief does not divert attention from the Lord Jesus Christ.
This doctrine does not elevate Mary to some special status that she does not deserve. It does not make her a goddess or a goddess like entity.
From the point of view of those who do not believe in this teaching, why can a teaching like this not be accorded the status of other beliefs that are neutral and, thus, allow those who see good reasons to hold this idea to do so without constantly trying to tear this down and “convert” them to your belief? Would not the dictum, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity” be rightly and gracefully applicable to this case?
We must ask: why do some people spend so much time fighting this idea when holding to it doesn’t condemn a soul to hell, diminish our Lord and Savior, or contradict the testimony of Scripture? The question is made even more powerful when one realizes that many of the great Christians of the past (most of them actually) have unanimously held to this position. This would include Luther and Calvin as well as, Jerome, St. Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, John Wesley, Heinrich Bullinger and Zwingli.
Since there is NO Scripture that says that Mary had any other children and since it would have been unthinkable for Christ to have committed the care of His Mother to the Apostle John had she had any male offspring, what does it hurt to posit as so many have before us that the Blessed Virgin Mary is actually Ever-Virgin? What is the problem with that piece of conjecture (if you wish to denominate it as such)?
I fail to see what the big fuss is about from the side of those who do not believe that Mary was a Virgin to the day of her decease. It would seem to be a pious opinion (at the worst) that affects no one negatively for holding to it. It does not appear to me that any soul will be damned eternally because they chose to ascribe perpetual virginity to the Mother of the Lord. Again, I must ask, what is the big deal? Why do the non-believers insist on challenging those that believe? Why waste time trying to convince someone to stop believing in this when there are so many substantial challenges to the Faith?
14 September 2011
The Anointing
Just the word “anointing” is enough to start many Charismatics foaming at the mouth. They want “a greater anointing,” “a double portion of the anointing,” and to “learn to flow in the anointing.” Many books and articles have been written on the subject: e.g., Understanding the Anointing by Kenneth E. Hagin, The Anointing by Benny Hinn, and The Anointing of His Spirit by Smith Wigglesworth.
While all of this sounds grand and wonderful, it is built around a flawed understanding of the anointing per se and a set of out-of-context texts for so-called Biblical support.
We must first concern ourselves with a definition of the anointing. Generally, it is defined as the “power of God in a person’s life to do what needs to be done.” According to Kenneth Copeland Ministries website the “Anointing, as described in the Bible, can be defined as ‘God on flesh doing those things that flesh cannot do.’ It is God doing those things only He can do, and doing them through a flesh-and-blood, earthly vessel….” [http://www.kcm.org/real-help/article/understanding-anointing]
Even a cursory study of Scripture should be sufficient to dispel the notion that this is the proper definition of the anointing. In the Old Testament, priests, kings and prophets were anointed. This leads many to speak of the “different anointings.” But was this their empowerment, God coming on them to do things flesh couldn’t do? The answer is a resounding “NO!” What is often overlooked is the fact that the Tabernacle, the altar, the candlestick, and all the implements of the Tabernacle were also anointed. Do we think they were being empowered to do what flesh couldn’t do? Were they human flesh?
The truth is the anointing was not for empowering but for consecration. It symbolized the setting apart of a thing or person to the exclusive service of God. When something or someone was anointed for a task, they were separated solely to the purpose for which God called them.
One Scripture that shows the set apart aspect of the anointing is Leviticus 10:7—”And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the LORD is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses.” The priests were disallowed from defiling themselves with the dead bodies of Nadab and Abihu not because they were empowered but because they were set apart. The anointing distinguished them from the ordinary person.
So now that we know what the anointing is not, we should look at the fact that many are encouraging people to seek the anointing, to pray for more anointing, and to “pay the price for the anointing.” Is any of this Biblical? Is it necessary?
The most significant New Testament verse in this regard is found in I John 2:27—“But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
The words “which ye have received” tell us something that we must never forget: if we have been saved, we have been already anointed. There is no talk of more, double, praying for, or paying the price for the anointing. We are already anointed by virtue of being a Christian. Further this verse says that the anointing teaches, trains and instructs us. This leads us to ask a most pertinent question.
What then is this anointing anyway? It is the presence of God within a person—in other words, the Holy Ghost that dwells in every believer is the anointing. John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
While there are many Pentes who believe that the other denominations who do not believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues do not have the Holy Spirit, this is sheer ignorance and stupidity. When a person is saved, the Spirit of God comes to live in that person. In fact, as Romans 8:9 pointedly states: “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
We can see from the foregoing that the anointing is not something we Christians should seek but someone that we should realize lives in us. When we became believers the Holy Spirit became resident in us and thus, from that moment we were anointed.
Some say they wanted anointed preaching, anointed singing, and anointed services. For the most part they mean emotional preaching, emotional singing and emotional services. The anointing has nothing to do with emotion—it has everything to do with the presence of the Spirit of God within a person.
While all of this sounds grand and wonderful, it is built around a flawed understanding of the anointing per se and a set of out-of-context texts for so-called Biblical support.
We must first concern ourselves with a definition of the anointing. Generally, it is defined as the “power of God in a person’s life to do what needs to be done.” According to Kenneth Copeland Ministries website the “Anointing, as described in the Bible, can be defined as ‘God on flesh doing those things that flesh cannot do.’ It is God doing those things only He can do, and doing them through a flesh-and-blood, earthly vessel….” [http://www.kcm.org/real-help/article/understanding-anointing]
Even a cursory study of Scripture should be sufficient to dispel the notion that this is the proper definition of the anointing. In the Old Testament, priests, kings and prophets were anointed. This leads many to speak of the “different anointings.” But was this their empowerment, God coming on them to do things flesh couldn’t do? The answer is a resounding “NO!” What is often overlooked is the fact that the Tabernacle, the altar, the candlestick, and all the implements of the Tabernacle were also anointed. Do we think they were being empowered to do what flesh couldn’t do? Were they human flesh?
The truth is the anointing was not for empowering but for consecration. It symbolized the setting apart of a thing or person to the exclusive service of God. When something or someone was anointed for a task, they were separated solely to the purpose for which God called them.
One Scripture that shows the set apart aspect of the anointing is Leviticus 10:7—”And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the LORD is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses.” The priests were disallowed from defiling themselves with the dead bodies of Nadab and Abihu not because they were empowered but because they were set apart. The anointing distinguished them from the ordinary person.
So now that we know what the anointing is not, we should look at the fact that many are encouraging people to seek the anointing, to pray for more anointing, and to “pay the price for the anointing.” Is any of this Biblical? Is it necessary?
The most significant New Testament verse in this regard is found in I John 2:27—“But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
The words “which ye have received” tell us something that we must never forget: if we have been saved, we have been already anointed. There is no talk of more, double, praying for, or paying the price for the anointing. We are already anointed by virtue of being a Christian. Further this verse says that the anointing teaches, trains and instructs us. This leads us to ask a most pertinent question.
What then is this anointing anyway? It is the presence of God within a person—in other words, the Holy Ghost that dwells in every believer is the anointing. John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
While there are many Pentes who believe that the other denominations who do not believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues do not have the Holy Spirit, this is sheer ignorance and stupidity. When a person is saved, the Spirit of God comes to live in that person. In fact, as Romans 8:9 pointedly states: “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
We can see from the foregoing that the anointing is not something we Christians should seek but someone that we should realize lives in us. When we became believers the Holy Spirit became resident in us and thus, from that moment we were anointed.
Some say they wanted anointed preaching, anointed singing, and anointed services. For the most part they mean emotional preaching, emotional singing and emotional services. The anointing has nothing to do with emotion—it has everything to do with the presence of the Spirit of God within a person.
26 May 2011
Reasons for the Reverend Ms.
While reading an online discussion today of whether females should be pastors, I ran into the old familiar argument about Mary Magdalene. It runs something like this: women should be able to be pastors because the first one to tell about the resurrection was a woman, namely, Mary Magdalene. The person added that the Woman at the Well in Samaria was also a bearer of the good news and thus, women can be pastors.
When I thought about that for a few seconds, I suddenly realized just how silly that argument is. Please note, whichever side of this debate you fall on, this argument is invalid and does absolutely no service to the pro point of view.
First of all, one must realize that neither of these two women were pastors in even the remotest sense of that word. They were indeed tellers of good news but that is not the main job of pastors nor does it qualify one to be a pastor. Rather, these two are great examples of women who testify to their spiritual experiences to others in order to bring them to faith in Jesus.
Secondly, we dare not appropriate these two incidents to say that women can be pastors lest we run into some very serious problems. If Mary and Samary can be pastors because they once spoke for God, then Balaam’s Donkey and, by extension, all other donkeys could also pastor. After all, no one is arguing that these two WERE actually pastors but that because they spoke for God, the door is open for females to be pastors. If that argument holds water, then we should also allow people who hate Jesus and want to kill him to pastor because Caiaphas prophesied once (John 11: 49-51).
Like Caiaphas and the Reverend Donkey, the two females cited are merely one-time incidents not examples to be emulated. A better tack might be to use the daughters of Philip who prophesied to bolster the case for a female pastor. Even that case, however, is not analogous because those young women were NOT pastors, they were prophetesses. Clearly, prophets and pastors are not the same thing.
Some bring in Deborah the judge as a support for women pastors. Again, it does not work. She was a judge in Israel—someone raised up to be a deliverer, not a pastor. If this qualifies women for pastoral roles, then we should also allow long-haired, harlot-hopping, Philistine-killing men to be pastors because Samson was a judge. Judges are not analogous to pastors. One might use Deborah to support women in political roles and be fairly safe; but to utilize her as a reason to have a female pastor is clearly not correct.
In spite of history and Scripture if one decides to favor women in the pastoral role, it is advisable to argue from somewhere besides these two women. If one chooses to use them as an argument that women can testify and witness to people, he/she will have my full support. If, on the other hand, one tries to pull them into supporting female pastors, he/she will find logic, reason, history, Scripture, and common sense opposing their conclusions.
When I thought about that for a few seconds, I suddenly realized just how silly that argument is. Please note, whichever side of this debate you fall on, this argument is invalid and does absolutely no service to the pro point of view.
First of all, one must realize that neither of these two women were pastors in even the remotest sense of that word. They were indeed tellers of good news but that is not the main job of pastors nor does it qualify one to be a pastor. Rather, these two are great examples of women who testify to their spiritual experiences to others in order to bring them to faith in Jesus.
Secondly, we dare not appropriate these two incidents to say that women can be pastors lest we run into some very serious problems. If Mary and Samary can be pastors because they once spoke for God, then Balaam’s Donkey and, by extension, all other donkeys could also pastor. After all, no one is arguing that these two WERE actually pastors but that because they spoke for God, the door is open for females to be pastors. If that argument holds water, then we should also allow people who hate Jesus and want to kill him to pastor because Caiaphas prophesied once (John 11: 49-51).
Like Caiaphas and the Reverend Donkey, the two females cited are merely one-time incidents not examples to be emulated. A better tack might be to use the daughters of Philip who prophesied to bolster the case for a female pastor. Even that case, however, is not analogous because those young women were NOT pastors, they were prophetesses. Clearly, prophets and pastors are not the same thing.
Some bring in Deborah the judge as a support for women pastors. Again, it does not work. She was a judge in Israel—someone raised up to be a deliverer, not a pastor. If this qualifies women for pastoral roles, then we should also allow long-haired, harlot-hopping, Philistine-killing men to be pastors because Samson was a judge. Judges are not analogous to pastors. One might use Deborah to support women in political roles and be fairly safe; but to utilize her as a reason to have a female pastor is clearly not correct.
In spite of history and Scripture if one decides to favor women in the pastoral role, it is advisable to argue from somewhere besides these two women. If one chooses to use them as an argument that women can testify and witness to people, he/she will have my full support. If, on the other hand, one tries to pull them into supporting female pastors, he/she will find logic, reason, history, Scripture, and common sense opposing their conclusions.
17 November 2010
What If...
Here is something I wrote several years ago. I just found it and thought I would post.
What has always amazed and perplexed me about liberals of all kinds is that they constantly holler about tolerance until it is their turn to tolerate. Oh sure, they will tolerate anything except opposition. For example, our liberal church friends will tolerate all types of heresy but no hymns. They will allow every new-fangled fad but want nothing to do with the Faith that was once delivered to the saints. Their tolerance, which they tout as what makes them so different, has well defined limits. When a person dares cross the boundary, they are quickly and summarily declared “out of step” and relegated to irrelevance. It is not enough for them to discard all of Christian history before the 20th century, they also feel the need to decry anything that is not absolutely the newest and the trendiest. If a person happens to “transgress” and appear to them to be “out of date” (meaning something from earlier than last week), they are told that they will never be able to go to the “next level” (wherever that is) and are doomed to stagnate and die.
It would probably have been good if they had caught up with the Early Church before it made all the “mistakes” that it did; I am certain it would have been called “out of date” and irrelevant. After all, they relied on a book that was over 400 years old (at it youngest part) and sang from the Psalms. Surely, they couldn’t grow with a unfriendly non-seeker-friendly program like that. Instead of being seeker sensitive, they provoked the crowd following the tradition of a “wild” preacher that had addressed His audience as “whited sepulchers” and “snakes and hypocrites.” If only they had known how to engage their culture and open up avenues of communication rather than just “speaching” at people. It is obvious that they were bound to shrivel up and die. Far from being user friendly and adapting to the pagan polytheism and philosophy of their day, they preached ludicrous ideas like the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus. In fact, the culture of their day seems to have been the thing they really railed on because one of their “officials” told them to “be careful not to let anyone rob you of this faith through a shallow and misleading philosophy. Such a person follows human traditions and the world's way of doing things rather than following Christ.” (Colossians 2:8 God’s Word) Wow, they were really old fashioned and out of date, weren’t they?
So woefully backward, they didn’t have a drama or mime team and still expected young people to be attracted to their services. They did not conduct surveys to find out the felt needs of their community and thus continued preaching to people’s often unfelt (but deepest) need. The theory (so outdated) was that if you spoke the Word of God, the Holy Spirit would bring people past all their temporary felt needs and reveal to them their true need. The Early Church was so irrelevant and “not with it.” No wonder they foundered.
They were really out of touch in that they believed there was one truth and that it couldn’t be compromised in order to win people. The same leader mentioned earlier even condemned (O, the horror) anyone who preached another message. He was so narrow-minded. Some of them actually felt it was better to die than to accept the premise that there might be another truth. They even flaunted their Pentecostal distinctives by heading to the streets with the Gospel and the power of the Spirit. How could they expect to grow like that? They needed to be more seeker sensitive and become emergent. IF they had, we might have known something about their movement today. As it stands, we seem to know very little about them and their methods.
What has always amazed and perplexed me about liberals of all kinds is that they constantly holler about tolerance until it is their turn to tolerate. Oh sure, they will tolerate anything except opposition. For example, our liberal church friends will tolerate all types of heresy but no hymns. They will allow every new-fangled fad but want nothing to do with the Faith that was once delivered to the saints. Their tolerance, which they tout as what makes them so different, has well defined limits. When a person dares cross the boundary, they are quickly and summarily declared “out of step” and relegated to irrelevance. It is not enough for them to discard all of Christian history before the 20th century, they also feel the need to decry anything that is not absolutely the newest and the trendiest. If a person happens to “transgress” and appear to them to be “out of date” (meaning something from earlier than last week), they are told that they will never be able to go to the “next level” (wherever that is) and are doomed to stagnate and die.
It would probably have been good if they had caught up with the Early Church before it made all the “mistakes” that it did; I am certain it would have been called “out of date” and irrelevant. After all, they relied on a book that was over 400 years old (at it youngest part) and sang from the Psalms. Surely, they couldn’t grow with a unfriendly non-seeker-friendly program like that. Instead of being seeker sensitive, they provoked the crowd following the tradition of a “wild” preacher that had addressed His audience as “whited sepulchers” and “snakes and hypocrites.” If only they had known how to engage their culture and open up avenues of communication rather than just “speaching” at people. It is obvious that they were bound to shrivel up and die. Far from being user friendly and adapting to the pagan polytheism and philosophy of their day, they preached ludicrous ideas like the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus. In fact, the culture of their day seems to have been the thing they really railed on because one of their “officials” told them to “be careful not to let anyone rob you of this faith through a shallow and misleading philosophy. Such a person follows human traditions and the world's way of doing things rather than following Christ.” (Colossians 2:8 God’s Word) Wow, they were really old fashioned and out of date, weren’t they?
So woefully backward, they didn’t have a drama or mime team and still expected young people to be attracted to their services. They did not conduct surveys to find out the felt needs of their community and thus continued preaching to people’s often unfelt (but deepest) need. The theory (so outdated) was that if you spoke the Word of God, the Holy Spirit would bring people past all their temporary felt needs and reveal to them their true need. The Early Church was so irrelevant and “not with it.” No wonder they foundered.
They were really out of touch in that they believed there was one truth and that it couldn’t be compromised in order to win people. The same leader mentioned earlier even condemned (O, the horror) anyone who preached another message. He was so narrow-minded. Some of them actually felt it was better to die than to accept the premise that there might be another truth. They even flaunted their Pentecostal distinctives by heading to the streets with the Gospel and the power of the Spirit. How could they expect to grow like that? They needed to be more seeker sensitive and become emergent. IF they had, we might have known something about their movement today. As it stands, we seem to know very little about them and their methods.
22 October 2010
Ramblings on Halloween
After reading John Sanidopoulos blog about Halloween, my mind was stirred about the subject. I have already let my feelings on the subject be known in a post called “Halloween” on 25 October 2008
(http://chrisconjectures.blogspot.com/2008/10/halloween.html). I am not going to rehash that post or try to improve upon John’s post. Rather, I just want to post some random thoughts on the subject.
I am at present a pastor of a Protestant church. Therefore, I am compelled to deal with this question much more frequently than I care to. When I was growing up, there were never any problems. We had our Church Halloween parties complete with costumes, apple bobbing, hayrides, and tons of candy. I even remember that one year our church had a haunted room (which was not very scary—more like haunted comedy).
Now the shocker, I have not turned into a devil-worshipper, an animal sacrificer, nor a child poisoner. I am not a Satanist, a Wiccan, a pagan, or a Druid. I do not associate with nor am I in league with Anton LaVey, Beelzebub, Samhain, nor any other pagan or neopagan deity, spirit, or practitioner. Wow, it is hard to believe, is it not?
I have often wondered why some of the folks that are the most opposed to Halloween are also opposed to Christmas and Easter celebrations. Then again, there is not much mystery there because they want to avoid all things pagan or with pagan origins. Nevertheless, they are strangely inconsistent in that they still call the days of the week and the months of the year by their pagan names.
Then there is the group that celebrates Easter and Christmas (ignoring the dire warnings from the aforementioned group about the pagan origins of said holidays) but won’t have anything to do with Halloween because it is pagan. This bunch celebrates Easter or the Resurrection on the Day of the Invincible Sun and avoids Halloween because of paganism.
This phenomenon highlights a contention that I have held for many years: logical consistency is not valued by religious right type folks. I could also point out the same odd inconsistency in them screaming for their “religious freedoms” and being more than willing to deprive others of theirs. They want to be able to pray to the Protestant God in schools but wouldn’t dare allow a Buddhist to offer prayers (but all that’s for another post).
Can we go too far? Of course. But I cannot see how it is different to desensitize kids to violence by allowing them to go to a spook house or watch a horror film and allowing them to be desensitized by visiting Hell House or the like. If the problem is desensitization both are equally problematic.
As far as horror films go, I will say there are some that should be avoided. Most of the older films, however, are almost preachy in that good triumphs over evil in the end. No matter how much success the monster or villain has in the course of the film, he/she is soundly defeated in the end. They can be viewed as parables of sorts (much as some see the Harry Potter movies). Even if the evil cannot be permanently stopped (or keeps coming back) that teaches that evil is always with us and even when it is defeated it must be defeated repeatedly. The real monsters are the ones that live in us and it’s for certain they have to be repeatedly vanquished.
I didn’t like Stephen King until I started viewing them as commentaries on social issues (The Shining as a commentary on alcoholism, Carrie on bullying and teenage angst, and Pet Sematary about the dangers of playing God with life and death). These stories are little different from morality plays of old when viewed like this.
In any case, these are my ramblings. Read, think, and react.
(http://chrisconjectures.blogspot.com/2008/10/halloween.html). I am not going to rehash that post or try to improve upon John’s post. Rather, I just want to post some random thoughts on the subject.
I am at present a pastor of a Protestant church. Therefore, I am compelled to deal with this question much more frequently than I care to. When I was growing up, there were never any problems. We had our Church Halloween parties complete with costumes, apple bobbing, hayrides, and tons of candy. I even remember that one year our church had a haunted room (which was not very scary—more like haunted comedy).
Now the shocker, I have not turned into a devil-worshipper, an animal sacrificer, nor a child poisoner. I am not a Satanist, a Wiccan, a pagan, or a Druid. I do not associate with nor am I in league with Anton LaVey, Beelzebub, Samhain, nor any other pagan or neopagan deity, spirit, or practitioner. Wow, it is hard to believe, is it not?
I have often wondered why some of the folks that are the most opposed to Halloween are also opposed to Christmas and Easter celebrations. Then again, there is not much mystery there because they want to avoid all things pagan or with pagan origins. Nevertheless, they are strangely inconsistent in that they still call the days of the week and the months of the year by their pagan names.
Then there is the group that celebrates Easter and Christmas (ignoring the dire warnings from the aforementioned group about the pagan origins of said holidays) but won’t have anything to do with Halloween because it is pagan. This bunch celebrates Easter or the Resurrection on the Day of the Invincible Sun and avoids Halloween because of paganism.
This phenomenon highlights a contention that I have held for many years: logical consistency is not valued by religious right type folks. I could also point out the same odd inconsistency in them screaming for their “religious freedoms” and being more than willing to deprive others of theirs. They want to be able to pray to the Protestant God in schools but wouldn’t dare allow a Buddhist to offer prayers (but all that’s for another post).
Can we go too far? Of course. But I cannot see how it is different to desensitize kids to violence by allowing them to go to a spook house or watch a horror film and allowing them to be desensitized by visiting Hell House or the like. If the problem is desensitization both are equally problematic.
As far as horror films go, I will say there are some that should be avoided. Most of the older films, however, are almost preachy in that good triumphs over evil in the end. No matter how much success the monster or villain has in the course of the film, he/she is soundly defeated in the end. They can be viewed as parables of sorts (much as some see the Harry Potter movies). Even if the evil cannot be permanently stopped (or keeps coming back) that teaches that evil is always with us and even when it is defeated it must be defeated repeatedly. The real monsters are the ones that live in us and it’s for certain they have to be repeatedly vanquished.
I didn’t like Stephen King until I started viewing them as commentaries on social issues (The Shining as a commentary on alcoholism, Carrie on bullying and teenage angst, and Pet Sematary about the dangers of playing God with life and death). These stories are little different from morality plays of old when viewed like this.
In any case, these are my ramblings. Read, think, and react.
A Unique Post
This will not be a usual post in any sense. I read a blog that carried an excellent evaluation of Halloween and wanted to share it.
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/10/orthodoxy-and-halloween-seperating-fact.html
John has done a super job with his research and injecting some common sense into this emotionally-charged and ignorance-drowned issue.
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/10/orthodoxy-and-halloween-seperating-fact.html
John has done a super job with his research and injecting some common sense into this emotionally-charged and ignorance-drowned issue.
21 October 2010
The Silent Years that Weren't
The years between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament are erroneously referred to as the “400 Silent Years.” This period has been defined as “The time gap between Malachi the last book of the Old Testament and Matthew the first of the gospels. God did not speak to His people Israel during this time.”
This subject came to my mind when I was writing the series on 21 objections to the Apocrypha. The fact is when one looks at the facts of history and Scripture, he/she would be hard pressed to refer to these years as silent in any sense.
As we saw in dealing with the Apocrypha, God was not silent as far as written Word. He was inspiring the writers of the Apocryphal books during these years. These books were written in a period from about 100 to 300 years before the birth of Christ, thus in the very heart of the “silent” period. If a person denies the canonical status of the Apocrypha, she/he would naturally think of them as silent in this regard.
The question is why? There are other periods in which the Word is not being actively enscripturated. For example, from the Creation to the time of Moses (this is anywhere from 1000’s of years to who knows how long). So all during the time of the Patriarchs, God was silent as far as writing Scripture is concerned.
The ostensibly silent years were not silent as far as prophets speaking from God. As we saw previously, there were prophetic writings even in the Apocrypha itself (recall the book of Widsom’s prophecy about Jesus in Wisdom 2). Anna, who lived during these years, is called a “prophetess.” She was undoubtedly known to prophesy and that during the Silent Years. (See Luke 2: 36-38)
Was God on vacation for 400 years before the coming of Jesus? Even those who deny the Apocrypha’s canonical status, accord it important historical importance. The intertestamental years are replete with divine activity. God was strengthening the Maccabees to defend Israel, giving a mother and her seven sons strength to face martyrdom (II Maccabees 7), and many other wonderful things.
While the Jews deny that the Apocrypha is inspired Scripture, they celebrate a holy day that is mentioned ONLY in the Apocrypha, namely, Hanukkah. This holiday commemorates the re-dedication of the Temple in the 163 BC after its desecration by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. God performed a miracle when the consecrated oil, sufficient for only one day, was multiplied and burned for eight days until more oil could be pressed and prepared (1 Maccabees 4:56–59).
Therefore, we can see that God was neither silent nor inactive during this time. The fact is He is never inactive or silent; He is ever working and we should all be thankful for that.
This subject came to my mind when I was writing the series on 21 objections to the Apocrypha. The fact is when one looks at the facts of history and Scripture, he/she would be hard pressed to refer to these years as silent in any sense.
As we saw in dealing with the Apocrypha, God was not silent as far as written Word. He was inspiring the writers of the Apocryphal books during these years. These books were written in a period from about 100 to 300 years before the birth of Christ, thus in the very heart of the “silent” period. If a person denies the canonical status of the Apocrypha, she/he would naturally think of them as silent in this regard.
The question is why? There are other periods in which the Word is not being actively enscripturated. For example, from the Creation to the time of Moses (this is anywhere from 1000’s of years to who knows how long). So all during the time of the Patriarchs, God was silent as far as writing Scripture is concerned.
The ostensibly silent years were not silent as far as prophets speaking from God. As we saw previously, there were prophetic writings even in the Apocrypha itself (recall the book of Widsom’s prophecy about Jesus in Wisdom 2). Anna, who lived during these years, is called a “prophetess.” She was undoubtedly known to prophesy and that during the Silent Years. (See Luke 2: 36-38)
Was God on vacation for 400 years before the coming of Jesus? Even those who deny the Apocrypha’s canonical status, accord it important historical importance. The intertestamental years are replete with divine activity. God was strengthening the Maccabees to defend Israel, giving a mother and her seven sons strength to face martyrdom (II Maccabees 7), and many other wonderful things.
While the Jews deny that the Apocrypha is inspired Scripture, they celebrate a holy day that is mentioned ONLY in the Apocrypha, namely, Hanukkah. This holiday commemorates the re-dedication of the Temple in the 163 BC after its desecration by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. God performed a miracle when the consecrated oil, sufficient for only one day, was multiplied and burned for eight days until more oil could be pressed and prepared (1 Maccabees 4:56–59).
Therefore, we can see that God was neither silent nor inactive during this time. The fact is He is never inactive or silent; He is ever working and we should all be thankful for that.
20 October 2010
Used or Misused
I have heard something twice lately from two different people.
1. A lady was talking about something she had done and said, “How can I be wrong when the Lord is using me like he does?”
2. A man was disparaging another person’s attendance and lifestyle and said, “How can the Lord be using that woman when she lives like that?”
Both questions are based on the idea that God only uses people that are doing everything right and that if a person is not “right” they cannot be used by God.
This idea leads to two other equally false premises:
1. That a person can be judged by the miracles or great works for God that they do.
2. That being used is evidence of a holy life.
One question is easily that answered is “Does God only use those who are “right?” The answer to that question has to be “no.” Let’s look at some examples:
1. Balaam’s donkey was not right or even saved, but God spoke to Balaam through him.
2. Caiaphas the high priest prophesied although he was condemning Jesus. John 11:49-52 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
3. Samson could carry the gates of the city off even after having just slept with a harlot--Jdg 16:1 & 3 Then went Samson to Gaza, and saw there an harlot, and went in unto her.
(3) And Samson lay till midnight, and arose at midnight, and took the doors of the gate of the city, and the two posts, and went away with them, bar and all, and put them upon his shoulders, and carried them up to the top of an hill that is before Hebron.
The two bases for this are answered easily also. Can a person be judged by the great works they do or miracles they perform? Jesus answers that question in Matthew 7:
So according to Jesus, great works (“being used”) does not equate to holy living and is, therefore, no evidence of God’s favor or a righteous person.
Part of the problem with this kind of thinking is that they are looking for evidence in all the wrong places. Some want to see miracles, signs and wonders but care very little for holiness of attitude and heart. The same person who is so “wonderfully used” in the gifts of the Spirit has no interest in cultivating the fruit of the Spirit.
Among Pentes, it leads to such things as a person who says, “Well, I give out messages in tongues and interpret” who are simultaneously the most arrogant and unpleasant person one could ever have the displeasure to encounter. But because of their “spiritual” attainment, they “know” that their life is fine and approved by the Almighty.
Some may think the foregoing is merely caricature and that no real person exhibits this kind of behavior. If you are among those believing such, let me be the one to disabuse you of that fallacy. I know (and have known) many folks that do and have done the very things I have described.
One reason I want to bring this out is the great spiritual danger attendant upon this type of thinking. A person can be easily deluded into feeling perfectly secure in their sinful lifestyle because they can still speak in tongues. They can have horrible fits of anger and act in all kind of ungodly ways and still feel justified in doing so because they “speak in tongues every day” or because “God is still answering my prayers.”
This kind of self-delusion is the worst type of delusion because when one believes that God is validating her/his life, they see no need to change or repent. After all, “if the Spirit of the Lord is still using me, I must be doing something right.” (This is the same idiotic retort given when the heresies of some church or pastor are mentioned: “Well, they are growing exponentially so they must be doing something right.)
1. A lady was talking about something she had done and said, “How can I be wrong when the Lord is using me like he does?”
2. A man was disparaging another person’s attendance and lifestyle and said, “How can the Lord be using that woman when she lives like that?”
Both questions are based on the idea that God only uses people that are doing everything right and that if a person is not “right” they cannot be used by God.
This idea leads to two other equally false premises:
1. That a person can be judged by the miracles or great works for God that they do.
2. That being used is evidence of a holy life.
One question is easily that answered is “Does God only use those who are “right?” The answer to that question has to be “no.” Let’s look at some examples:
1. Balaam’s donkey was not right or even saved, but God spoke to Balaam through him.
2. Caiaphas the high priest prophesied although he was condemning Jesus. John 11:49-52 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
3. Samson could carry the gates of the city off even after having just slept with a harlot--Jdg 16:1 & 3 Then went Samson to Gaza, and saw there an harlot, and went in unto her.
(3) And Samson lay till midnight, and arose at midnight, and took the doors of the gate of the city, and the two posts, and went away with them, bar and all, and put them upon his shoulders, and carried them up to the top of an hill that is before Hebron.
The two bases for this are answered easily also. Can a person be judged by the great works they do or miracles they perform? Jesus answers that question in Matthew 7:
"Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'
(Mat 7:21-23)
So according to Jesus, great works (“being used”) does not equate to holy living and is, therefore, no evidence of God’s favor or a righteous person.
Part of the problem with this kind of thinking is that they are looking for evidence in all the wrong places. Some want to see miracles, signs and wonders but care very little for holiness of attitude and heart. The same person who is so “wonderfully used” in the gifts of the Spirit has no interest in cultivating the fruit of the Spirit.
Among Pentes, it leads to such things as a person who says, “Well, I give out messages in tongues and interpret” who are simultaneously the most arrogant and unpleasant person one could ever have the displeasure to encounter. But because of their “spiritual” attainment, they “know” that their life is fine and approved by the Almighty.
Some may think the foregoing is merely caricature and that no real person exhibits this kind of behavior. If you are among those believing such, let me be the one to disabuse you of that fallacy. I know (and have known) many folks that do and have done the very things I have described.
One reason I want to bring this out is the great spiritual danger attendant upon this type of thinking. A person can be easily deluded into feeling perfectly secure in their sinful lifestyle because they can still speak in tongues. They can have horrible fits of anger and act in all kind of ungodly ways and still feel justified in doing so because they “speak in tongues every day” or because “God is still answering my prayers.”
This kind of self-delusion is the worst type of delusion because when one believes that God is validating her/his life, they see no need to change or repent. After all, “if the Spirit of the Lord is still using me, I must be doing something right.” (This is the same idiotic retort given when the heresies of some church or pastor are mentioned: “Well, they are growing exponentially so they must be doing something right.)
15 October 2010
Answers to Objections to the Apocrypha Part III
Let us now examine Bible.ca’s list of 21 reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha beginning at number 14.
The word that jumped out at me was “occasionally.” I suppose there could be a number of denotations of this word according to the context in which it was used, but in this case it seems a highly inappropriate choice. The reason is found in the answer to the #1 objection. As Bercot notes, there are more than 300 direct and indirect references to the Apocryphal works found in the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
As to the assertion that “it was nowhere accepted in the canon,” one might question why it is quoted as “Scripture” and said to be spoken by the Holy Spirit if it is not in the canon.
When referencing Eusebius concerning Origen, the writer should have done two things: 1) Read the passage carefully; and, 2) Read the footnote attached in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. First, let us look at the passage from Ecclesiastical History [NPNF 2-01: bk IV, ch. 25: 273]:
Now footnote 1975:
Melito enumerated 21 books in the Hebrew canon (inexplicably omitting the book of Esther). But his is the opinion of one bishop, not the consensus of the Church. He is allowed to have private opinions but his opinions are not the opinion of the whole Church.
Allow me to quote footnote 675 from NPNF 2-01 p. 144-5 (please recall that this series was in no wise sympathetic to Catholicism):
Both the Synod of Hippo (393) and the 3rd Council of Carthage also affirm that the Apocrypha could be read as divine Scripture in the Church.
We also have the “Decretum de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris” attributed to Pope Gelasius late in the Fifth Century who affirms the canonicity of the Apocryphal books. Even if this document comes from the early Sixth Century, it serves to prove that the Catholic Church did accept the books as canonical.
Again, our writer has failed to cite even one instance of the “many medieval Catholic scholars” who supposedly realized the Apocrypha was not inspired. Dealing with phantom scholars and unknown texts makes this very difficult to refute.
This is really a weak argument. So because it took longer for the Deuterocanonical books to be recognized as inspired means that they aren’t? Better be careful with that argument because that would also take away the books of 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. The title Deuterocanon is applied because the books are not put on the same level as the Protocanon by portions of the Early Church. It is true there was dispute with some Fathers and churches but in the end the Church as a whole came down in favor of the books being included and treated as Scripture.
This objection is convoluted to say the least. In order to deal with it we will have to deal with the separate issues stated.
First, let’s look at the Council of Carthage (by which I assume the writer intends the Third Council of Carthage in 397). This council accepted the Apocrypha, as had the earlier Synod of Hippo (393) [see NPNF 2-14 p. 453-4 for the 24th canon of the Council of Carthage]. So I am not sure why they even bring this Council up because it serves to disprove parts of their arguments.
I have not found the quote (for which there is no citation) ostensibly from the Council of Carthage in any of the canons of that Council. Again, citations would be immensely helpful if we are to take these objections seriously.
The comments on Jerome are especially hard to take seriously. It is true that Jerome separated the books outside the Hebrew canon and deemed them “Apocrypha” but it is not true that he did not include them in the Vulgate. In fact, every complete edition of the Vulgate contains these books. Thus, it is clear that Jerome was inconsistent and his theory was not reflected in his practice.
Even so, it is helpful to note Jerome’s own words in reference to the Apocrypha as found in his Preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs [NPNF 2-06: 492]:
Please notice that he admits here that the Church does indeed read these books even if they do not use them to “give authority” to any Church doctrine.
This is very vague since we are not informed if the quote comes from Cyril of Jerusalem or Cyril of Alexandria. Using the approximate date, I would surmise the writer refers to Cyril of Jerusalem who was born about 313. Again, I would certainly appreciate some citations for this (and other) quotations. However, in this case we don’t even need one to refute this point because it the Septuagint contained the Apocrypha (see next answer).
Wow! What a mess of an objection. The Alexandrian Jews are the ones who translated the Septuagint! And they translated all the books of the Apocrypha. So the first part of this objection is confused rubbish.
The writer probably should have read a bit more closely because St. Hilary actually includes the Epistle of Jeremiah, Tobit and Judith in his listing. [See http://www.bible-researcher.com/hilary.html]
One may refer to the following website to refute this nonsense http://www.bible-researcher.com/epiphanius.html. Please note in both passages cited there, Epiphanius mentions apocryphal books in his lists. He notes that some of them are of “disputed canonicty” but then calls them “sacred books” in the Panarion VIII.6 and “divine writings” in Panarion LXXVI.5. IF Bible.ca would describe these books as Bishop Epiphanius did, I wouldn’t have had this wonderful subject to write about on my blog!
While I am on this subject, I want to address one more very common objection to the Apocrypha. It is stated that none of the books are ever quoted from or alluded to in the New Testament. I am surprised that anyone would use this objection in that there are several Old Testament books that are never quoted by the New Testament (the ones not quoted are Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).
This objection is not correct in what it asserts either. Two examples are enough to invalidate this argument (many more could be adduced). First, Paul alludes to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Secondly, the writer of Hebrews refers to Maccabees 7 in Hebrews 11:35. One other good example is found in Sirach 27:6 and Matthew 7:16.
As a way to close out this series of post, I want to share one of the finest prophetic descriptions of our Lord Jesus Christ that is found in Wisdom 2: 12-20:
I’m glad I at long last abandoned Protestant beliefs on a “shorter canon”; otherwise, I would have never seen this beautiful prophesy about the Lord and His death.
14. Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
The word that jumped out at me was “occasionally.” I suppose there could be a number of denotations of this word according to the context in which it was used, but in this case it seems a highly inappropriate choice. The reason is found in the answer to the #1 objection. As Bercot notes, there are more than 300 direct and indirect references to the Apocryphal works found in the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
As to the assertion that “it was nowhere accepted in the canon,” one might question why it is quoted as “Scripture” and said to be spoken by the Holy Spirit if it is not in the canon.
When referencing Eusebius concerning Origen, the writer should have done two things: 1) Read the passage carefully; and, 2) Read the footnote attached in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. First, let us look at the passage from Ecclesiastical History [NPNF 2-01: bk IV, ch. 25: 273]:
“The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis….And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.”
Now footnote 1975:
“[I]t must be regarded as certain that Origen did not reckon the books of the Maccabees as a part of the Hebrew canon, and on the other hand, that he did reckon those books, as well as others (if not all) of the books given in the LXX, as inspired Scripture. This latter fact is proved by his use of these books indiscriminately with those of the Hebrew canon as sources for dogmatic proof texts, and also by his express citation of at least some of them as Scripture.”
Melito enumerated 21 books in the Hebrew canon (inexplicably omitting the book of Esther). But his is the opinion of one bishop, not the consensus of the Church. He is allowed to have private opinions but his opinions are not the opinion of the whole Church.
15. Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
Allow me to quote footnote 675 from NPNF 2-01 p. 144-5 (please recall that this series was in no wise sympathetic to Catholicism):
“The Latin Church, meanwhile, has always regarded the Apocrypha as canonical, and by its action at the Council of Trent has made them a part of the official canon.”
Both the Synod of Hippo (393) and the 3rd Council of Carthage also affirm that the Apocrypha could be read as divine Scripture in the Church.
We also have the “Decretum de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris” attributed to Pope Gelasius late in the Fifth Century who affirms the canonicity of the Apocryphal books. Even if this document comes from the early Sixth Century, it serves to prove that the Catholic Church did accept the books as canonical.
Again, our writer has failed to cite even one instance of the “many medieval Catholic scholars” who supposedly realized the Apocrypha was not inspired. Dealing with phantom scholars and unknown texts makes this very difficult to refute.
16. The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.
This is really a weak argument. So because it took longer for the Deuterocanonical books to be recognized as inspired means that they aren’t? Better be careful with that argument because that would also take away the books of 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. The title Deuterocanon is applied because the books are not put on the same level as the Protocanon by portions of the Early Church. It is true there was dispute with some Fathers and churches but in the end the Church as a whole came down in favor of the books being included and treated as Scripture.
17. Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible.” Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
This objection is convoluted to say the least. In order to deal with it we will have to deal with the separate issues stated.
First, let’s look at the Council of Carthage (by which I assume the writer intends the Third Council of Carthage in 397). This council accepted the Apocrypha, as had the earlier Synod of Hippo (393) [see NPNF 2-14 p. 453-4 for the 24th canon of the Council of Carthage]. So I am not sure why they even bring this Council up because it serves to disprove parts of their arguments.
I have not found the quote (for which there is no citation) ostensibly from the Council of Carthage in any of the canons of that Council. Again, citations would be immensely helpful if we are to take these objections seriously.
The comments on Jerome are especially hard to take seriously. It is true that Jerome separated the books outside the Hebrew canon and deemed them “Apocrypha” but it is not true that he did not include them in the Vulgate. In fact, every complete edition of the Vulgate contains these books. Thus, it is clear that Jerome was inconsistent and his theory was not reflected in his practice.
Even so, it is helpful to note Jerome’s own words in reference to the Apocrypha as found in his Preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs [NPNF 2-06: 492]:
(After speaking of the books of the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, which were sent at the same time, the Preface continues):
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.
Please notice that he admits here that the Church does indeed read these books even if they do not use them to “give authority” to any Church doctrine.
18. Cyril (born about A.D. 315) – "Read the divine Scriptures – namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
This is very vague since we are not informed if the quote comes from Cyril of Jerusalem or Cyril of Alexandria. Using the approximate date, I would surmise the writer refers to Cyril of Jerusalem who was born about 313. Again, I would certainly appreciate some citations for this (and other) quotations. However, in this case we don’t even need one to refute this point because it the Septuagint contained the Apocrypha (see next answer).
19. The apocrypha wasn’t included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century.
Wow! What a mess of an objection. The Alexandrian Jews are the ones who translated the Septuagint! And they translated all the books of the Apocrypha. So the first part of this objection is confused rubbish.
20. Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
The writer probably should have read a bit more closely because St. Hilary actually includes the Epistle of Jeremiah, Tobit and Judith in his listing. [See http://www.bible-researcher.com/hilary.html]
21. Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."
One may refer to the following website to refute this nonsense http://www.bible-researcher.com/epiphanius.html. Please note in both passages cited there, Epiphanius mentions apocryphal books in his lists. He notes that some of them are of “disputed canonicty” but then calls them “sacred books” in the Panarion VIII.6 and “divine writings” in Panarion LXXVI.5. IF Bible.ca would describe these books as Bishop Epiphanius did, I wouldn’t have had this wonderful subject to write about on my blog!
While I am on this subject, I want to address one more very common objection to the Apocrypha. It is stated that none of the books are ever quoted from or alluded to in the New Testament. I am surprised that anyone would use this objection in that there are several Old Testament books that are never quoted by the New Testament (the ones not quoted are Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).
This objection is not correct in what it asserts either. Two examples are enough to invalidate this argument (many more could be adduced). First, Paul alludes to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Secondly, the writer of Hebrews refers to Maccabees 7 in Hebrews 11:35. One other good example is found in Sirach 27:6 and Matthew 7:16.
As a way to close out this series of post, I want to share one of the finest prophetic descriptions of our Lord Jesus Christ that is found in Wisdom 2: 12-20:
Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education. He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord. He was made to reprove our thoughts. He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, his ways are of another fashion. We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father. Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him. For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience. Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected.
I’m glad I at long last abandoned Protestant beliefs on a “shorter canon”; otherwise, I would have never seen this beautiful prophesy about the Lord and His death.
14 October 2010
Answers to Objections to the Apocrypha Part II
Let us now continue looking at Bible.ca’s 21 reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha (Deuterocanon) and our reasons for rejecting their 21 reasons.
The first verse here when seen in context is not objectionable at all:
Ecclesiasticus 25:16-20 KJV “I had rather dwell with a lion and a dragon, than to keep house with a wicked woman. The wickedness of a woman changeth her face, and darkeneth her countenance like sackcloth. Her husband shall sit among his neighbours; and when he heareth it shall sigh bitterly. All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman: let the portion of a sinner fall upon her. As the climbing up a sandy way is to the feet of the aged, so is a wife full of words to a quiet man.”
It becomes clear that the verse referred to is telling what a man (a husband) feels about the iniquity of his wife. (See the Good News Translation and the New American Bible for other versions that clarify the issue).
According to Genesis 3, the first human sinner was a woman, namely Eve. So what’s the problem with Ecclesiasticus 25:24? This verse also comports well with I Timothy 2: 13-14.
In dealing with Ecclesiasticus 22:3, it is helpful to consult the context and other translations also. The King James Apocrypha reads [vv. 3-5]:
“An evilnurtured man is the dishonour of his father that begat him: and a foolish daughter is born to his loss. A wise daughter shall bring an inheritance to her husband: but she that liveth dishonestly is her father's heaviness. She that is bold dishonoureth both her father and her husband, but they both shall despise her.”
Again, I see nothing objectionable about this passage. It is true that the book of Proverbs deals largely with evil, unruly sons; there is no doubt, however, that evil daughters are equally blameworthy as Ecclesiasticus accurately portrays.
The problem here is first with the word “teaches.” If they mean that these books portray these actions, they are quite correct. But that can’t be a problem since the Biblical books they accept also show people involved in sinful acts (and some of them seem to be “approved” actions).
Since they have adduced no proof of the Apocryphal books “approving” any sinful practice, they have not proven their point. No need to refute this because it is self-refuting.
This raises a few questions in my mind:
First, if these books aren’t inspired what difference does it make that they refer to the so-called Silent 400 years? Maybe these are some of those “fabulous” statements to which they referred in to in point #6. And why if these books are uninspired and full of errors would anyone even mention this as a point?
Secondly, do they mean to imply that only prophets can write inspired Scripture? If so, we will have to throw out anything by Solomon who was no prophet and will have to be selective in dealing with some of the other books since we don’t know who wrote them. Besides it is very limiting to God to say that He can’t inspire Scriptures unless there are some prophets around to write it down. I would think God could use whomever He chose to write His Word.
Thirdly, since these folks are sola scripturaists, where are we told in the canonical books they accept that there were 400 Silent Years? This is a supposition at best. There is no inspired statement to that affect. In fact, the above-cited passages don’t prove nor even imply that there was a silent period nor do they prove that only prophets can write inspired words from God.
Interesting! So they are willing to deny the possibility that God inspired the Apocrypha but willing to put faith in the pronouncements of Josephus as to what books God actually inspired?
He was a member of the Pharisees and was born several years after the death of Christ. Thus, we cannot be certain that he reflected the general attitude of the Jews at the time of Christ.
Even if he did accurately reflect Jewish attitudes of his time, that is as meaningless as the Jewish attitude reflected in their rejection of the Apocrypha in 7O CE and of Jesus in 30 CE. Josephus is suspect as a historian and even more suspect as a theologian.
The twenty-two books mentioned by Josephus are also mentioned by that great defender of the faith Athanasius the Apostolic. However, two paragraphs later, he tells us the following:
Please take notice that he distinguishes between the writings that are read for “instruction in the word of godliness” and the “apocryphal writings” which he does not even mention in that they are the “invention of heretics.”
It is clear therefore, that admitting there are 22 books in the Old Testament does not preclude believing in the Apocrypha Bible.ca’s objections to the contrary notwithstanding.
Another reason to which I say, so what? The Manual of Discipline was written by a sect of Jews known as Essenes at Qumran (although there are other theories as to their origin this is the most prevalent one). Were they inspired? Does the Manual of Discipline speak infallibly?
This book is thought to have originated around 100 BCE, so it was during the 400 Silent Years. If, that argument invalidates the Apocrypha, it would also invalidate the Manual. One cannot have it both ways.
Although it is asserted that the Manual rejects the Apocrypha as uninspired, they offer us no proof or citation of that fact. Strangely, also among the Dead Sea Scrolls can be found copies of some of the Apocryphal books and books that aren’t accepted even by the Catholic Church (for example, Jubilees and Enoch).
With all due respect to Dr. Bruce, I cannot accept his word as fact in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Let’s look at some facts rather than opinions. The Council of Jamnia was a Jewish council that was held sometime near the end of the First Century. There are two major things that happened at this meeting. First, the Septuagint (LXX) was rejected. Secondly, a curse was pronounced on Christians and other sects.
One reason for the rejection of the Septuagint was that it was considered the Bible of the Christians although it had been translated in pre-Christian times by Jews in the city of Alexandria. The LXX much more clearly contains prophesies of Jesus Christ which the Early Church used to convince both Jews and Gentiles that Jesus was the Christ. In order to forestall such efforts, the Council opted for what is known as the Masoretic Text.
It makes me wonder why this Christian group at Bible.ca would want to take the opinion of Christian-cursing Jews as the truth. Why would the Jewish leaders who rejected Jesus and His followers and even cursed them, be thought of as a reliable source of information on the divine inspiration of anything much less the Apocrypha?
Dr. Bruce obfuscates the fact that this council did indeed delete things that had been there. In fact, the books of the Apocrypha had been a part of the Septuagint from the very beginning. They were not a part of the Hebrew text it is true. His statement that they had never “been admitted” is misleading in that the first time any texts were admitted by the Jews was this council.
We will begin with their 14th objection in our next post.
8. The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship.
Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.
Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.
Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
The first verse here when seen in context is not objectionable at all:
Ecclesiasticus 25:16-20 KJV “I had rather dwell with a lion and a dragon, than to keep house with a wicked woman. The wickedness of a woman changeth her face, and darkeneth her countenance like sackcloth. Her husband shall sit among his neighbours; and when he heareth it shall sigh bitterly. All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman: let the portion of a sinner fall upon her. As the climbing up a sandy way is to the feet of the aged, so is a wife full of words to a quiet man.”
It becomes clear that the verse referred to is telling what a man (a husband) feels about the iniquity of his wife. (See the Good News Translation and the New American Bible for other versions that clarify the issue).
According to Genesis 3, the first human sinner was a woman, namely Eve. So what’s the problem with Ecclesiasticus 25:24? This verse also comports well with I Timothy 2: 13-14.
In dealing with Ecclesiasticus 22:3, it is helpful to consult the context and other translations also. The King James Apocrypha reads [vv. 3-5]:
“An evilnurtured man is the dishonour of his father that begat him: and a foolish daughter is born to his loss. A wise daughter shall bring an inheritance to her husband: but she that liveth dishonestly is her father's heaviness. She that is bold dishonoureth both her father and her husband, but they both shall despise her.”
Again, I see nothing objectionable about this passage. It is true that the book of Proverbs deals largely with evil, unruly sons; there is no doubt, however, that evil daughters are equally blameworthy as Ecclesiasticus accurately portrays.
9. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
The problem here is first with the word “teaches.” If they mean that these books portray these actions, they are quite correct. But that can’t be a problem since the Biblical books they accept also show people involved in sinful acts (and some of them seem to be “approved” actions).
Since they have adduced no proof of the Apocryphal books “approving” any sinful practice, they have not proven their point. No need to refute this because it is self-refuting.
10. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)
And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)
And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)
This raises a few questions in my mind:
First, if these books aren’t inspired what difference does it make that they refer to the so-called Silent 400 years? Maybe these are some of those “fabulous” statements to which they referred in to in point #6. And why if these books are uninspired and full of errors would anyone even mention this as a point?
Secondly, do they mean to imply that only prophets can write inspired Scripture? If so, we will have to throw out anything by Solomon who was no prophet and will have to be selective in dealing with some of the other books since we don’t know who wrote them. Besides it is very limiting to God to say that He can’t inspire Scriptures unless there are some prophets around to write it down. I would think God could use whomever He chose to write His Word.
Thirdly, since these folks are sola scripturaists, where are we told in the canonical books they accept that there were 400 Silent Years? This is a supposition at best. There is no inspired statement to that affect. In fact, the above-cited passages don’t prove nor even imply that there was a silent period nor do they prove that only prophets can write inspired words from God.
11. Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
"From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
Interesting! So they are willing to deny the possibility that God inspired the Apocrypha but willing to put faith in the pronouncements of Josephus as to what books God actually inspired?
He was a member of the Pharisees and was born several years after the death of Christ. Thus, we cannot be certain that he reflected the general attitude of the Jews at the time of Christ.
Even if he did accurately reflect Jewish attitudes of his time, that is as meaningless as the Jewish attitude reflected in their rejection of the Apocrypha in 7O CE and of Jesus in 30 CE. Josephus is suspect as a historian and even more suspect as a theologian.
The twenty-two books mentioned by Josephus are also mentioned by that great defender of the faith Athanasius the Apostolic. However, two paragraphs later, he tells us the following:
“But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple. [NPNF 2-04 p. 552 Athanasius the Apostolic From Letter XXXIX.]
Please take notice that he distinguishes between the writings that are read for “instruction in the word of godliness” and the “apocryphal writings” which he does not even mention in that they are the “invention of heretics.”
It is clear therefore, that admitting there are 22 books in the Old Testament does not preclude believing in the Apocrypha Bible.ca’s objections to the contrary notwithstanding.
12. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
Another reason to which I say, so what? The Manual of Discipline was written by a sect of Jews known as Essenes at Qumran (although there are other theories as to their origin this is the most prevalent one). Were they inspired? Does the Manual of Discipline speak infallibly?
This book is thought to have originated around 100 BCE, so it was during the 400 Silent Years. If, that argument invalidates the Apocrypha, it would also invalidate the Manual. One cannot have it both ways.
Although it is asserted that the Manual rejects the Apocrypha as uninspired, they offer us no proof or citation of that fact. Strangely, also among the Dead Sea Scrolls can be found copies of some of the Apocryphal books and books that aren’t accepted even by the Catholic Church (for example, Jubilees and Enoch).
13. The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
With all due respect to Dr. Bruce, I cannot accept his word as fact in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Let’s look at some facts rather than opinions. The Council of Jamnia was a Jewish council that was held sometime near the end of the First Century. There are two major things that happened at this meeting. First, the Septuagint (LXX) was rejected. Secondly, a curse was pronounced on Christians and other sects.
One reason for the rejection of the Septuagint was that it was considered the Bible of the Christians although it had been translated in pre-Christian times by Jews in the city of Alexandria. The LXX much more clearly contains prophesies of Jesus Christ which the Early Church used to convince both Jews and Gentiles that Jesus was the Christ. In order to forestall such efforts, the Council opted for what is known as the Masoretic Text.
It makes me wonder why this Christian group at Bible.ca would want to take the opinion of Christian-cursing Jews as the truth. Why would the Jewish leaders who rejected Jesus and His followers and even cursed them, be thought of as a reliable source of information on the divine inspiration of anything much less the Apocrypha?
Dr. Bruce obfuscates the fact that this council did indeed delete things that had been there. In fact, the books of the Apocrypha had been a part of the Septuagint from the very beginning. They were not a part of the Hebrew text it is true. His statement that they had never “been admitted” is misleading in that the first time any texts were admitted by the Jews was this council.
We will begin with their 14th objection in our next post.
Answers to Objections to the Apocrypha Part I
The website www.bible.ca provides a wealth of material for those who are against Catholic and Orthodox beliefs. They provide a number of pages filled with what can only be described as half-truths mixed with delusions, mistakes and inaccuracies.
One place this becomes evident is in their treatment of the Apocrypha. They, of course, do not believe that the Deuterocanonical books belong in the Bible. They are not even gracious enough to accord them a place as good reading (as for instance the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church does). This article is found at http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm
Let’s look at their 21 reasons the Apocrypha is not inspired to see what they have to say and if they actually are viable arguments. (By the way, these are fairly typical Protestant arguments concerning the Apocryphal books and thus will serve the purpose of refuting the opinions from many sources.)
Quotes from the website will be in bold type to distinguish it from my answers.
This is only partially true. The Roman Catholic Church did recognize the Apocrypha at Trent but they recognized something that had been viewed as Scripture since very early in the Church’s existence. Evidence of this was presented in an earlier blog entitled “Apocryphal Appreciation” from which I quote the following:
And as I also pointed out previously, many of the Fathers specifically refer to Apocryphal books as “Scripture.”
Besides, the “longer” canon was drawn up and officially accepted in 419 at the Council of Carthage. The identical list had been “accepted” in 382 by Pope Damasus.
While there is supporting evidence for some “Catholic” doctrines, many who believe in these books would dispute that they support purgatory or the treasury of merit.
There are two problems with this argument. Number one, it is inaccurate. In addition to Hebrew, Aramaic was also used in portions of the Old Testament (in Daniel and Ezra for example). Number two even if all the inspired writers used Hebrew, so what? Does that mean they couldn’t use another language as well. They generally used Hebrew because that was the language they and their audience spoke. When the lingua franca changed, they translated their Hebrew Bibles to Greek. Thus, any new books written would have most naturally been written in Greek since Hebrew was the language of scholars and unintelligible to the average “Jew on the street.”
Neither do many of the writers in the Old Testament and the New Testament for that matter. In addition, there are many manifestly ungodly books that do make claims for inspiration. Thus, a claim of inspiration is neither a requirement for a book that is inspired nor a guarantee that one, which claims to be so, actually in inspired. This is one of the weakest points of all concerning the apocrypha and yet it is oft repeated and accepted at face value without any consideration of the problems inherent in it.
This, as presented, is a non sequitir argument. Even if the first part is correct, the second does not follow from the first.
What is not stated here is that the “Jewish Church” did not officially “accept” any books until after the New Testament era. Further, in the “Jewish” Bible of the Greek-speaking world (the Septuagint) the Apocrypha is included. The Septuagint (LXX) is the translation in use during the New Testament period because as we said above it was in the language of the people of that day.
The website
“In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the Apocrypha after the overthrow of Jerusalem in 70 CE.”
How interesting and irrelevant! What does that mean to me as a Christian? Nothing. Why? Well, the fact that they had overthrown (in their hearts at least) the Lord Jesus Christ about 40 years earlier makes their rejection of anything in 70 CE meaningless. They had rejected the Living Word, so is it any surprise that they also rejected parts of God’s written revelation and especially so since these writings were accepted by the followers of their rejected Messiah.
As far as our Lord's sanction of these books, while it it true He never quoted from them, there are certainly allusions to them from His lips and from the Apostles.
See #1 above.
I am not certain what they are getting at by using the word “fabulous” here. This word can mean several things: viz. beyond belief, historically inaccurate, mythical, or extremely pleasing. If they mean that these are only mythical stories, they are wrong. These books provide some very important historical facts unavailable to us from other sources. If they refer to their statements as beyond belief, one might say the same about other statements of Scripture and yet they are accepted on faith. So I will have to conclude that the fabulous statements are the very pleasing ones in these books.
As far as the contradictions are concerned, they are unwilling to deal with the seeming contradictions of the Apocrypha in the same way they deal with the seeming contradictions in the other canonical books. Naturally, this would be attributed to the fact that “these books aren’t canonical.” But this is a circular argument and does not hold water.
One might also remember that there are two different stories of several events (Creation is one example) in the accepted books of the Bible but these are explained by scholars.
The big shocker for Protestants is that the Early Christians also prayed for the dead as I demonstrated in Prayer for the Departed.
Where the Apocrypha teaches sinless perfection is not stated and I have never seen it, so I can’t refute it.
We will pick up on number 8 in our next post.
One place this becomes evident is in their treatment of the Apocrypha. They, of course, do not believe that the Deuterocanonical books belong in the Bible. They are not even gracious enough to accord them a place as good reading (as for instance the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church does). This article is found at http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm
Let’s look at their 21 reasons the Apocrypha is not inspired to see what they have to say and if they actually are viable arguments. (By the way, these are fairly typical Protestant arguments concerning the Apocryphal books and thus will serve the purpose of refuting the opinions from many sources.)
Quotes from the website will be in bold type to distinguish it from my answers.
1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
This is only partially true. The Roman Catholic Church did recognize the Apocrypha at Trent but they recognized something that had been viewed as Scripture since very early in the Church’s existence. Evidence of this was presented in an earlier blog entitled “Apocryphal Appreciation” from which I quote the following:
One indication of the attitude of the Fathers is found in the fact that in the Ante-Nicene Fathers there are “over 300 quotations and references to the deuterocanonical books.” (Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 207)
And as I also pointed out previously, many of the Fathers specifically refer to Apocryphal books as “Scripture.”
Besides, the “longer” canon was drawn up and officially accepted in 419 at the Council of Carthage. The identical list had been “accepted” in 382 by Pope Damasus.
While there is supporting evidence for some “Catholic” doctrines, many who believe in these books would dispute that they support purgatory or the treasury of merit.
2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
There are two problems with this argument. Number one, it is inaccurate. In addition to Hebrew, Aramaic was also used in portions of the Old Testament (in Daniel and Ezra for example). Number two even if all the inspired writers used Hebrew, so what? Does that mean they couldn’t use another language as well. They generally used Hebrew because that was the language they and their audience spoke. When the lingua franca changed, they translated their Hebrew Bibles to Greek. Thus, any new books written would have most naturally been written in Greek since Hebrew was the language of scholars and unintelligible to the average “Jew on the street.”
3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
Neither do many of the writers in the Old Testament and the New Testament for that matter. In addition, there are many manifestly ungodly books that do make claims for inspiration. Thus, a claim of inspiration is neither a requirement for a book that is inspired nor a guarantee that one, which claims to be so, actually in inspired. This is one of the weakest points of all concerning the apocrypha and yet it is oft repeated and accepted at face value without any consideration of the problems inherent in it.
4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
This, as presented, is a non sequitir argument. Even if the first part is correct, the second does not follow from the first.
What is not stated here is that the “Jewish Church” did not officially “accept” any books until after the New Testament era. Further, in the “Jewish” Bible of the Greek-speaking world (the Septuagint) the Apocrypha is included. The Septuagint (LXX) is the translation in use during the New Testament period because as we said above it was in the language of the people of that day.
The website
http://www.yrm.org/apocrypha.htmpresents the following in their diatribe against the deuterocanonical books:
“In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the Apocrypha after the overthrow of Jerusalem in 70 CE.”
How interesting and irrelevant! What does that mean to me as a Christian? Nothing. Why? Well, the fact that they had overthrown (in their hearts at least) the Lord Jesus Christ about 40 years earlier makes their rejection of anything in 70 CE meaningless. They had rejected the Living Word, so is it any surprise that they also rejected parts of God’s written revelation and especially so since these writings were accepted by the followers of their rejected Messiah.
As far as our Lord's sanction of these books, while it it true He never quoted from them, there are certainly allusions to them from His lips and from the Apostles.
5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
See #1 above.
6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
I am not certain what they are getting at by using the word “fabulous” here. This word can mean several things: viz. beyond belief, historically inaccurate, mythical, or extremely pleasing. If they mean that these are only mythical stories, they are wrong. These books provide some very important historical facts unavailable to us from other sources. If they refer to their statements as beyond belief, one might say the same about other statements of Scripture and yet they are accepted on faith. So I will have to conclude that the fabulous statements are the very pleasing ones in these books.
As far as the contradictions are concerned, they are unwilling to deal with the seeming contradictions of the Apocrypha in the same way they deal with the seeming contradictions in the other canonical books. Naturally, this would be attributed to the fact that “these books aren’t canonical.” But this is a circular argument and does not hold water.
One might also remember that there are two different stories of several events (Creation is one example) in the accepted books of the Bible but these are explained by scholars.
7.The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)
The big shocker for Protestants is that the Early Christians also prayed for the dead as I demonstrated in Prayer for the Departed.
Where the Apocrypha teaches sinless perfection is not stated and I have never seen it, so I can’t refute it.
We will pick up on number 8 in our next post.
05 October 2010
Of Gnats and Camels
I never cease to be amazed at how adequately the words of Jesus apply to many religious people with whom I am familiar. Which particular words of Jesus am I referring to? The following:
“You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” Mathew 23:24 RSV
The case in point is with many of my colleagues among the Pentecostals. Recently while visiting a board that I am a member of, the discussion turned to the Pentecostal preacher T. D. Jakes. Someone was going on about how he had said something and how wise he was. Lest one think this is abnormal, I would hasten to point out that many Pentes greatly admire Mr. Jakes and listen to everything he preaches and read everything he writes.
What is the problem with that? Jakes is a unitarian; in other words, he is a Oneness Pentecostal believer. He does not believe that God is Trinity, rather He is Unity—1 person, not three. I have already tackled the idea that the Early Church was Oneness in a previous post, so I won’t go through that again.
What amazes me is that my Trinitarian Pentecostal friends have no problem with Jakes’ beliefs on this foundational doctrine of Christianity. This doctrine is no peripheral matter—it is the very heart of the Christian faith. A person’s beliefs about God are determinative in everything else a person believes.
Not only is Jakes accepted readily, so are other Oneness adherents. One example is Tommy Tenney. A few years back he became very popular among Pentes with his book, The God Chasers (the book, while failing to broach his heretical theology of the Godhead, has a multitude of other problems). Mr. Tenney is a part of the United Pentecostal Church.
The fact that these purveyors of completely heretical drivel could be accepted by orthodox Pentes is only half of the puzzle (the swallowing camels portion). The other half is (straining gnats) is that the same ones who gulp down these Sabellian heretics with relish will reject someone as a heretic because the person does not believe in the pretribulation rapture or some other doctrine that has no real bearing on salvation.
For instance, if a person were to be found that espoused the idea that speaking in tongues is not the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Ghost, they could expect the “left foot” of fellowship to be administered to them in quick order. If a pastor were to teach his congregation that it was appropriate to baptize infants, he would be forced to find another form of employment. Were someone to dare introduce the Scriptural notion that the Communion is the body and blood of Christ, he/she would be rejected instantly as “Catholic” and “backslidden.” In each case, the persons involved would be deemed as heretics of the first order.
Thus, denying the nature of God as revealed by the Scriptures and Tradition are deemed as perfectly acceptable, while denying or espousing some minor doctrinal point is not countenanced. How can such things be? How can one view the foundation of the house as less important than the kind of curtain one places in the house? That is not to say that the above-mentioned doctrines are minor trifles but they do not have the weight of the doctrine of the Trinity.
I don’t have an answer as to why this phenomenon exists among Pentes. It is a mystery that bears some (more) exploration.
“You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” Mathew 23:24 RSV
The case in point is with many of my colleagues among the Pentecostals. Recently while visiting a board that I am a member of, the discussion turned to the Pentecostal preacher T. D. Jakes. Someone was going on about how he had said something and how wise he was. Lest one think this is abnormal, I would hasten to point out that many Pentes greatly admire Mr. Jakes and listen to everything he preaches and read everything he writes.
What is the problem with that? Jakes is a unitarian; in other words, he is a Oneness Pentecostal believer. He does not believe that God is Trinity, rather He is Unity—1 person, not three. I have already tackled the idea that the Early Church was Oneness in a previous post, so I won’t go through that again.
What amazes me is that my Trinitarian Pentecostal friends have no problem with Jakes’ beliefs on this foundational doctrine of Christianity. This doctrine is no peripheral matter—it is the very heart of the Christian faith. A person’s beliefs about God are determinative in everything else a person believes.
Not only is Jakes accepted readily, so are other Oneness adherents. One example is Tommy Tenney. A few years back he became very popular among Pentes with his book, The God Chasers (the book, while failing to broach his heretical theology of the Godhead, has a multitude of other problems). Mr. Tenney is a part of the United Pentecostal Church.
The fact that these purveyors of completely heretical drivel could be accepted by orthodox Pentes is only half of the puzzle (the swallowing camels portion). The other half is (straining gnats) is that the same ones who gulp down these Sabellian heretics with relish will reject someone as a heretic because the person does not believe in the pretribulation rapture or some other doctrine that has no real bearing on salvation.
For instance, if a person were to be found that espoused the idea that speaking in tongues is not the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Ghost, they could expect the “left foot” of fellowship to be administered to them in quick order. If a pastor were to teach his congregation that it was appropriate to baptize infants, he would be forced to find another form of employment. Were someone to dare introduce the Scriptural notion that the Communion is the body and blood of Christ, he/she would be rejected instantly as “Catholic” and “backslidden.” In each case, the persons involved would be deemed as heretics of the first order.
Thus, denying the nature of God as revealed by the Scriptures and Tradition are deemed as perfectly acceptable, while denying or espousing some minor doctrinal point is not countenanced. How can such things be? How can one view the foundation of the house as less important than the kind of curtain one places in the house? That is not to say that the above-mentioned doctrines are minor trifles but they do not have the weight of the doctrine of the Trinity.
I don’t have an answer as to why this phenomenon exists among Pentes. It is a mystery that bears some (more) exploration.
29 June 2010
I Was Wrong
The words that form the title of this are some very difficult words for any human to utter. I was blown away several years back when Jim Bakker of PTL fame (or infamy) wrote a book entitled I Was Wrong. It takes a lot of courage to tell one person but to tell the whole world in written form is certainly tough to do.
Now it’s my turn! I have been pastoring for eighteen years or so and have preached a number of years prior to pastoring. In that period of time, I have made a lot of mistakes and said a lot of stupid things. However, today I will address some things that I got wrong. Without excuse, I want to admit that I have preached, taught and believed the following things wrong! (Note: the following will not be anywhere near an exhaustive list—I want to give two examples only)
Lift Jesus Up
Like many others I have encouraged people to “Lift Jesus up—lift him up in praise because He said ‘if I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me.’” In doing this I was following others before me—I had heard it from preachers, pastors and worship leaders for many years. There are even songs which encourage people to “lift him up, lift him up, lift the name of Jesus higher.”
Now I do not take issue with the idea behind this phrase. I still believe that if we will worship God, it will cause others to look favorably on Him and thus, draw them to Him. (We need to also remember that Jesus told us to let our light shine before men that they would see our good works “and glorify your Father which is in Heaven.” in Matthew 5:16) But that is not at all what Jesus is communicating in the passage from which this idea is “lifted.”
Let’s look at John 12: 32:
Observe the next verse:
So not only had I taught and thought wrong, I had also sung wrong.
Jesus Forsaken at Calvary
This mistake like the last was the result of listening to and uncritically accepting the ideas of others. Also like the previous error, this is also bolstered by songs that I sung and/or heard sung.
The idea is that Jesus was forsaken on Calvary by the Heavenly Father. To be exact, I taught that the Father was so repulsed by Christ becoming sin for us, that He was forced to turn His back on His own Son. That idea will really stir up a congregation because it just proves to them how much God loved them.
The problem is this idea is impossible! I say that for the following reasons:
1. God does not have a back to turn. He is spirit. Of course, I understand that this is an anthropomorphism and means that God forsook His Son but even that won’t fly.
2. Why would God forsake Jesus at the most terrible moment of His earthly life when Jesus was doing the perfect will of the Father? If God would turn His back on Jesus, then I can hardly trust Him to stand by me during my hard times because I fall far short of doing His will perfectly.
3. There is no way God could forsake Jesus because to do so would destroy the Holy Trinity. They have never been apart from each other (and the Holy Spirit) from eternity and will never be eternally.
The question then arises, what does it mean in Matthew 27: 46, when Jesus cries from the Cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
There are many explanations (do a search and you will see) but the one I find most plausible is as follows: Jesus quotes here from the 22nd Psalm as a way of showing that He fulfills this prophetic passage. By doing so, Jesus Himself shows us that He was not forsaken. Just take a look at
This verse says the very opposite of what is generally taught; it says that God did not hide His face (and thus did not turn His back either) from the dying Lord Christ.
From the foregoing I have learned some valuable lessons:
1. Don’t let “gospel songs” shape your theology—they can be (and often are) wrong.
2. Don’t uncritically accept the ideas of others.
3. Study the Bible in its context and don’t isolate passages—"A text without context is a pretext.”
4. Just because something will “preach” does not make it correct. Unfortunately, untruths will galvanize a crowd at times when truth will anesthetize them.
I was wrong, I am now wrong about some things (many actually) and I will be wrong again in the future. There I’ve said it now!
Now it’s my turn! I have been pastoring for eighteen years or so and have preached a number of years prior to pastoring. In that period of time, I have made a lot of mistakes and said a lot of stupid things. However, today I will address some things that I got wrong. Without excuse, I want to admit that I have preached, taught and believed the following things wrong! (Note: the following will not be anywhere near an exhaustive list—I want to give two examples only)
Lift Jesus Up
Like many others I have encouraged people to “Lift Jesus up—lift him up in praise because He said ‘if I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me.’” In doing this I was following others before me—I had heard it from preachers, pastors and worship leaders for many years. There are even songs which encourage people to “lift him up, lift him up, lift the name of Jesus higher.”
Now I do not take issue with the idea behind this phrase. I still believe that if we will worship God, it will cause others to look favorably on Him and thus, draw them to Him. (We need to also remember that Jesus told us to let our light shine before men that they would see our good works “and glorify your Father which is in Heaven.” in Matthew 5:16) But that is not at all what Jesus is communicating in the passage from which this idea is “lifted.”
Let’s look at John 12: 32:
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.On the surface and isolated completely from its context this verse could very well be used to support the “praise-Jesus-draw-all-men” theory. Unfortunately when the concept of context is applied, it blows the whole thing.
Observe the next verse:
“This he said, signifying what death he should die.Thus, it becomes clear that when Jesus used the term “lifted up” He was not referring to praising Him but crucifying Him. It is clear that no one wants to do that AGAIN in order to draw people to the Lord. And in fact, it is not possible to do that again because He died once and now He is “He that liveth, and…[is] alive for evermore.” (Revelation 1:18)
So not only had I taught and thought wrong, I had also sung wrong.
Jesus Forsaken at Calvary
This mistake like the last was the result of listening to and uncritically accepting the ideas of others. Also like the previous error, this is also bolstered by songs that I sung and/or heard sung.
The idea is that Jesus was forsaken on Calvary by the Heavenly Father. To be exact, I taught that the Father was so repulsed by Christ becoming sin for us, that He was forced to turn His back on His own Son. That idea will really stir up a congregation because it just proves to them how much God loved them.
The problem is this idea is impossible! I say that for the following reasons:
1. God does not have a back to turn. He is spirit. Of course, I understand that this is an anthropomorphism and means that God forsook His Son but even that won’t fly.
2. Why would God forsake Jesus at the most terrible moment of His earthly life when Jesus was doing the perfect will of the Father? If God would turn His back on Jesus, then I can hardly trust Him to stand by me during my hard times because I fall far short of doing His will perfectly.
3. There is no way God could forsake Jesus because to do so would destroy the Holy Trinity. They have never been apart from each other (and the Holy Spirit) from eternity and will never be eternally.
The question then arises, what does it mean in Matthew 27: 46, when Jesus cries from the Cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
There are many explanations (do a search and you will see) but the one I find most plausible is as follows: Jesus quotes here from the 22nd Psalm as a way of showing that He fulfills this prophetic passage. By doing so, Jesus Himself shows us that He was not forsaken. Just take a look at
Psalm 22: 24 “For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.”
This verse says the very opposite of what is generally taught; it says that God did not hide His face (and thus did not turn His back either) from the dying Lord Christ.
From the foregoing I have learned some valuable lessons:
1. Don’t let “gospel songs” shape your theology—they can be (and often are) wrong.
2. Don’t uncritically accept the ideas of others.
3. Study the Bible in its context and don’t isolate passages—"A text without context is a pretext.”
4. Just because something will “preach” does not make it correct. Unfortunately, untruths will galvanize a crowd at times when truth will anesthetize them.
I was wrong, I am now wrong about some things (many actually) and I will be wrong again in the future. There I’ve said it now!
29 March 2010
Refutation Part II
Even if one were to concede that St. Patrick was a Baptist (which we most certainly are not doing), he/she would have to admit that he was a strange kind of Baptist, as the following will demonstrate.
First, in his "Confession" and "Letter to Coroticus", Patrick mentions priests and bishops. One might suppose these are Baptist priests and Bishops. The argument will then be that these bishops are just pastors of Baptist churches. Fine. Who or what are these “priests” of whom he speaks? He mourns in paragraph 1 of the Confession that the people of Ireland have been “quite drawn away from God, we did not keep his precepts, nor were we obedient to our priests who used to remind us of our salvation.” So undoubtedly, he felt obedience to these priests was important and that disobedience was something for which repentance was needed. That certainly doesn’t sound like any Baptist I’ve ever heard. In fact, I am not aware of them giving obedience to any man.
In paragraph 6 of the Letter, he gives us a very interesting piece of information concerning these priests:
Patrick talks about some other non-typical Baptist folk in paragraph 13 of the Letter:
While in the next paragraph of the same, he rejoices,
Patrick also mentions some very un-Baptist acts in his writings.
Patrick speaks about the “Roman Christians of Gaul” (Letter, par. 15). It would not be too hard to guess what kind of Christians these were. It is certain that they were not Baptist. And it is unthinkable for this Baptist Bishop to be commending a catholic as a Christian at all.
While Landis et al. may be thoroughly convinced of the truth of their claims, there is absolutely no historical evidence to back them up. He asserts that Patrick could not be Catholic because the Catholic Church was “an embryo” during Patrick’s time. If that is the case, we can also say he was not a Baptist because the Baptist church was not even an embryo then and would not begin for another 1000 years at least.
First, in his "Confession" and "Letter to Coroticus", Patrick mentions priests and bishops. One might suppose these are Baptist priests and Bishops. The argument will then be that these bishops are just pastors of Baptist churches. Fine. Who or what are these “priests” of whom he speaks? He mourns in paragraph 1 of the Confession that the people of Ireland have been “quite drawn away from God, we did not keep his precepts, nor were we obedient to our priests who used to remind us of our salvation.” So undoubtedly, he felt obedience to these priests was important and that disobedience was something for which repentance was needed. That certainly doesn’t sound like any Baptist I’ve ever heard. In fact, I am not aware of them giving obedience to any man.
In paragraph 6 of the Letter, he gives us a very interesting piece of information concerning these priests:
“Coroticus, a man who has no respect for God nor for His priests whom He chose, giving them the highest, divine, and sublime power, that whom ‘they should bind upon earth should be bound also in Heaven.’”That sounds vaguely catholic (little “c” on purpose) to me. It sounds as if he is speaking of the power pronouncing the forgiveness of sins to the penitent. Although it has been a while since I have been to a Baptist church, I don’t think things have changed so much as to include a pronouncing of forgiveness to the penitent. The way Patrick speaks of this “highest, divine, and sublime power” certainly does not sound like any Baptist I have ever heard or heard about ever.
Patrick talks about some other non-typical Baptist folk in paragraph 13 of the Letter:
“Ravening wolves have devoured the flock of the Lord, which in Ireland was indeed growing splendidly with the greatest care; and the sons and daughters of kings were monks and virgins of Christ - I cannot count their number.”
And here from "The Confession" (par. 41): “the sons of the Irish [Scotti] and the daughters of the chieftains are to be seen as monks and virgins of Christ.”
While in the next paragraph of the same, he rejoices,
“a most beautiful, blessed, native-born noble Irish [Scotta] woman of adult age whom I baptized; and a few days later she had reason to come to us to intimate that she had received a prophecy from a divine messenger [who] advised her that she should become a virgin of Christ and she would draw nearer to God.”Again, I was unaware that the Baptist have monks or virgins for Christ (nuns). When did this begin? Where is the Southern Baptist Monastery located? One wonders how many Baptist women have divine prophecies given to them to become nuns and how many Baptist Bishops would give God praise if any women did. We have to admit that Patrick is sounding less and less (rather than increasingly) Baptist.
Patrick also mentions some very un-Baptist acts in his writings.
Note the following:
“I plead with you earnestly, ye holy and humble of heart, it is not permissible to court the favor of such people, nor to take food or drink with them, nor even to accept their alms, until they make reparation to God in hard-ships, through penance, with shedding of tears….” (Letter, par. 7)
“The day after the newly baptized, anointed with chrism, in white garments (had been slain) - the fragrance was still on their foreheads when they were butchered and slaughtered with the sword….” (Letter, par. 3)I have not been apprised of the fact that the Baptist have now begun practicing penance or anointing the newly baptized with oil. When did this start? We all know that it has not started and never will.
Patrick speaks about the “Roman Christians of Gaul” (Letter, par. 15). It would not be too hard to guess what kind of Christians these were. It is certain that they were not Baptist. And it is unthinkable for this Baptist Bishop to be commending a catholic as a Christian at all.
While Landis et al. may be thoroughly convinced of the truth of their claims, there is absolutely no historical evidence to back them up. He asserts that Patrick could not be Catholic because the Catholic Church was “an embryo” during Patrick’s time. If that is the case, we can also say he was not a Baptist because the Baptist church was not even an embryo then and would not begin for another 1000 years at least.
28 March 2010
Refutation of St. Patrick the Baptist Part 1
Recently I was exposed to another example of the Baptist penchant for rewriting Christian history (I’ve talked about the Trail of Blood previously). The name of the article/sermon was “St. Patrick A Baptist!” by Dr. L. K. Landis (http://www.carmichaelbaptist.org/Sermons/landis1.htm). As I dug a little bit into the subject, I discovered that Landis was not the first to try to Protestantize St. Patrick. In fact, he quotes from Henry C. Vedder who declares that the Catholic theft of St. Patrick was among the worst of their crimes. This statement came from is from Vedder’s A Short History of the Baptists dated 1907.
In 1952, John Summerfield Wimbish delivered a sermon entitled St. Patrick was a Baptist to the congregation at Calvary Baptist Church in New York City (http://www.reformedreader.org/history/patrick.htm). W. A. Jarrel goes so far as to assert that scholars have “have succeeded in stripping his history of much of the Romish fables.” (http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0197.htm)
Since Landis is seems to be the stand out among the group, I would like to deal with his work.
The first thing that jumps out at me is the fact that much of what Landis has to say is based on the notoriously weak evidence of argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio). The problem with this kind of argument is one of the least effective arguments that can be adduced; it is insufficient grounds for believing something simply because there can be found no evidence to the contrary.
Let’s look at Landis’ use of argumentum ex silencio:
In relation to infant baptism, Landis states, “in all of Patrick's writings he does not mention one single incident when he baptized an infant.”
In relation to baptism by immersion, we read, “in all of his writings there is not one shred of evidence that the Irish preacher knew anything of sprinkling. All of the records of his baptisms tell of immersion.”
On the subject of church relations, Landis says, “There is not any evidence whatsoever that even remotely suggests that the famed Irish preacher acknowledged any man to be of superior authority, power or position than he.”
In addition, Landis tells us in relation to Patrick made “No mention of baptism for salvation. No mention of a confessional. No mention of communion.”
None of these arguments will hold water because they are trying to positively prove something that is not denied by the Saint but is merely unmentioned by him. The fact that we have only two certainly genuine writings (“The Confession of St. Patrick” at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/patrick/confession.txt and his “Letter To Coroticus” at http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1166.htm) by him highlights the paucity of material that we have.
The majority of Landis’ arguments are from silence and he, thus, establishes nothing but the absence of certain things in Patrick’s writing. If we are to buy into the fable that Patrick was actually a Baptist, we will have to have some positive evidence to prove it. Otherwise, we cannot reliably conclude that he was.
Actually, this kind of argument can be turned around and used against Landis very easily.
For example, Landis says, “He also firmly conveys the message of the eternal security of the believer in that those who are genuinely saved have put on immortality.” Notice the words of St. Patrick from "The Confession" (par. 4): “And he poured out his Holy Spirit on us in abundance, the gift and pledge of immortality, which makes the believers and the obedient into sons of God and co-heirs of Christ who is revealed….” If he meant that they were eternally secure this would have been a great place to mention it. Since he does not mention it here or anywhere else, how can we accept that he believed it. According to Landis’ methodology, this “proves” that the Saint was NOT a believer in eternal security which means he was not a Baptist. (One might note that this passage connects eternal life not only with believing but also with obedience in a very non-Baptist style)
This specious kind of argumentation does nothing to help bolster the case for St. Patrick being Baptist. But then again, if I were trying to prove that point, I would want to avoid sound arguments and logic also.
In 1952, John Summerfield Wimbish delivered a sermon entitled St. Patrick was a Baptist to the congregation at Calvary Baptist Church in New York City (http://www.reformedreader.org/history/patrick.htm). W. A. Jarrel goes so far as to assert that scholars have “have succeeded in stripping his history of much of the Romish fables.” (http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0197.htm)
Since Landis is seems to be the stand out among the group, I would like to deal with his work.
The first thing that jumps out at me is the fact that much of what Landis has to say is based on the notoriously weak evidence of argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio). The problem with this kind of argument is one of the least effective arguments that can be adduced; it is insufficient grounds for believing something simply because there can be found no evidence to the contrary.
Let’s look at Landis’ use of argumentum ex silencio:
In relation to infant baptism, Landis states, “in all of Patrick's writings he does not mention one single incident when he baptized an infant.”
In relation to baptism by immersion, we read, “in all of his writings there is not one shred of evidence that the Irish preacher knew anything of sprinkling. All of the records of his baptisms tell of immersion.”
On the subject of church relations, Landis says, “There is not any evidence whatsoever that even remotely suggests that the famed Irish preacher acknowledged any man to be of superior authority, power or position than he.”
In addition, Landis tells us in relation to Patrick made “No mention of baptism for salvation. No mention of a confessional. No mention of communion.”
None of these arguments will hold water because they are trying to positively prove something that is not denied by the Saint but is merely unmentioned by him. The fact that we have only two certainly genuine writings (“The Confession of St. Patrick” at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/patrick/confession.txt and his “Letter To Coroticus” at http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1166.htm) by him highlights the paucity of material that we have.
The majority of Landis’ arguments are from silence and he, thus, establishes nothing but the absence of certain things in Patrick’s writing. If we are to buy into the fable that Patrick was actually a Baptist, we will have to have some positive evidence to prove it. Otherwise, we cannot reliably conclude that he was.
Actually, this kind of argument can be turned around and used against Landis very easily.
For example, Landis says, “He also firmly conveys the message of the eternal security of the believer in that those who are genuinely saved have put on immortality.” Notice the words of St. Patrick from "The Confession" (par. 4): “And he poured out his Holy Spirit on us in abundance, the gift and pledge of immortality, which makes the believers and the obedient into sons of God and co-heirs of Christ who is revealed….” If he meant that they were eternally secure this would have been a great place to mention it. Since he does not mention it here or anywhere else, how can we accept that he believed it. According to Landis’ methodology, this “proves” that the Saint was NOT a believer in eternal security which means he was not a Baptist. (One might note that this passage connects eternal life not only with believing but also with obedience in a very non-Baptist style)
This specious kind of argumentation does nothing to help bolster the case for St. Patrick being Baptist. But then again, if I were trying to prove that point, I would want to avoid sound arguments and logic also.
05 March 2010
Is Every Promise in the Book Mine?
A well-worn saying with many Pentes (and other Christians too, I guess) is “Every promise in the book is mine.” Some maintain that there are 365 promises in the Bible—“one for every day of the year.”
I heard a “preacher” just today speaking on one of the Word of Faith networks (which one I shall refrain from saying). He was talking about the ridiculous concept of “a financial anointing.” He had seven points (which I did not bother to listen to) but he used one verse as a promise for those who get into the financial anointing: Isaiah 45:3. He said that this tells us that God will give “secret riches” to those who have an impartation of this so-called financial anointing.
Without going into the ludicrous nonsense of a financial anointing, I want to look at the concept that he used to arrive at this promise. It is a very common use of Scripture to pull promises out of context and claim them for oneself. I have heard people advised to choose a verse that relates to their need and claim the promise of the verse for themselves.
Is this a valid way to use Scripture? Is this what God gave us His Word for and how he intends us to use it?
The short answer is “No. No. No.” But we need to expand a little bit on that brief reply.
First, when we see a promise in the Bible, we need to understand to whom it was given and under what circumstances. There are general promises (“Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”); however, there are also promises that are specific to a certain person, place, time, or circumstance.
Let’s look at the aforementioned verse in Isaiah:
To whom is the verse given? Cyrus of Persia.
Does it apply to anyone else? No.
The whole context militates against applying this to me or to anyone other than Cyrus. I cannot legitimately appropriate this verse to myself. I cannot take this verse any more than I can take Exodus 3: 17 to mean that God is going to carry me to Israel. Or to believe that God will give me twice as much as I once had if I will only pray for my friends because of Job 42: 10. Nor would it be appropriate for me to “claim” the promise of Acts 27: 24 in order to assure people on a ship with me that none of them was going to die even if the ship sinks.
When looking at Bible promises one must determine if it is extended to more than just the originally intended person(s). To ignore the context is very dangerous and quite silly.
So in reality, every promise in the book is NOT yours or mine. There are “many great and precious promises” which we can hold to and on which we can stand securely. Others, however, are not ours for the taking and no matter how much faith we have, we cannot legitimately make them our own.
I heard a “preacher” just today speaking on one of the Word of Faith networks (which one I shall refrain from saying). He was talking about the ridiculous concept of “a financial anointing.” He had seven points (which I did not bother to listen to) but he used one verse as a promise for those who get into the financial anointing: Isaiah 45:3. He said that this tells us that God will give “secret riches” to those who have an impartation of this so-called financial anointing.
Without going into the ludicrous nonsense of a financial anointing, I want to look at the concept that he used to arrive at this promise. It is a very common use of Scripture to pull promises out of context and claim them for oneself. I have heard people advised to choose a verse that relates to their need and claim the promise of the verse for themselves.
Is this a valid way to use Scripture? Is this what God gave us His Word for and how he intends us to use it?
The short answer is “No. No. No.” But we need to expand a little bit on that brief reply.
First, when we see a promise in the Bible, we need to understand to whom it was given and under what circumstances. There are general promises (“Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”); however, there are also promises that are specific to a certain person, place, time, or circumstance.
Let’s look at the aforementioned verse in Isaiah:
Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and ungird the loins of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed: 2 "I will go before you and level the mountains, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut asunder the bars of iron, 3 I will give you the treasures of darkness and the hoards in secret places, that you may know that it is I, the LORD, the God of Israel, who call you by your name."Isaiah 45:1-3
To whom is the verse given? Cyrus of Persia.
Does it apply to anyone else? No.
The whole context militates against applying this to me or to anyone other than Cyrus. I cannot legitimately appropriate this verse to myself. I cannot take this verse any more than I can take Exodus 3: 17 to mean that God is going to carry me to Israel. Or to believe that God will give me twice as much as I once had if I will only pray for my friends because of Job 42: 10. Nor would it be appropriate for me to “claim” the promise of Acts 27: 24 in order to assure people on a ship with me that none of them was going to die even if the ship sinks.
When looking at Bible promises one must determine if it is extended to more than just the originally intended person(s). To ignore the context is very dangerous and quite silly.
So in reality, every promise in the book is NOT yours or mine. There are “many great and precious promises” which we can hold to and on which we can stand securely. Others, however, are not ours for the taking and no matter how much faith we have, we cannot legitimately make them our own.
Where is the Evidence?
If one were to inquire as to what the distinctive doctrine of Pentecostals is, most would have to admit that the Initial Evidence doctrine (hereinafter referred to as IE) is it. Simply stated, this doctrine says that THE initial physical evidence of a person being baptized in the Holy Ghost is that he/she speaks in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. Please note that this does not say that it is the only evidence but it is considered the incontrovertible proof of the reception of this experience.
As I stated in my last post, I have come to question IE. In order to understand my questioning one must consider the facts behind the doctrine.
One pertinent question in doctrinal issues is origin, viz., where did this doctrine come from and who was the first to espouse it. For some Pentes it might come as a surprise to learn that in the whole history of Christianity no one taught this doctrine prior to 1900 or thereabouts. The man who is given “credit” (or blame, according to which way you look at it) for first propounding IE is Charles Fox Parham as even some Pentes attest.
From the Assembly of God:
From the International Pentecostal Holiness Church (IPHC):
According to the Guided by Truth website (a decidedly non-Pentecostal source):
Although Parham is the originator of the doctrine, it became standard belief for the majority of Pentecostal denominations including but not limited to, the Assemblies of God, the Church of God (Cleveland, TN), the International Pentecostal Holiness Church ( IPHC), United Pentecostal Church (UPCI), and The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (ICFG).
We can conclude from the foregoing that this doctrine was never taught by the Apostolic Church, the Fathers of the Church, or anyone else in all of church history. This is true although there were a number of ecstatic outbreaks of tongue speaking among various groups prior to this time.
When confronted by these things, one is impelled to ask several questions. For one thing, are we to believe that no one before Parham had believed this “truth” if indeed it was the “Bible evidence”? Can we seriously contend that Parham found something in Scripture that had been missed by the likes of Augustine, Athanasius, Irenaeus, or the Didachaist? These ideas stretch credulity to the breaking point.
The fact is IE is a 20th Century innovation of Christian doctrine. It cannot be supported by the foundations of Scripture or Tradition. It miserably fails the test of true doctrine delineated by St. Vincent of Lerins ("universality, antiquity, and consent") because it was not believed or even taught anywhere, ever, or by anyone prior to Parham.
So are we to take Parham’s word in opposition to the saints, bishops, and Apostles? God forbid!
As I stated in my last post, I have come to question IE. In order to understand my questioning one must consider the facts behind the doctrine.
One pertinent question in doctrinal issues is origin, viz., where did this doctrine come from and who was the first to espouse it. For some Pentes it might come as a surprise to learn that in the whole history of Christianity no one taught this doctrine prior to 1900 or thereabouts. The man who is given “credit” (or blame, according to which way you look at it) for first propounding IE is Charles Fox Parham as even some Pentes attest.
From the Assembly of God:
“It is much to Parham’s credit that defined the chief doctrinal distinctive of the Movement: the truth about speaking in tongues as the uniform ‘Bible evidence’ or “initial evidence” of baptism in the Holy Spirit.”[Enrichment Journal, Summer 1999; Tongues, The Bible Evidence: The Revival Legacy of Charles F. Parham by Gary B. McGee at enrichmentjournal.ag.org/199903/068_tongues.cfm]
From the International Pentecostal Holiness Church (IPHC):
“Parham formulated the doctrine that tongues was the "Bible evidence" of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.”[ASPECTS OF IPHC HISTORY: CENTENNIAL NOTES by Dr. Harold D. Hunter at http://www.pctii.org/arc/timeline.html]
According to the Guided by Truth website (a decidedly non-Pentecostal source):
“Charles Parham is said to be the originator of the belief that speaking in tongues was the evidence of the Spiritual baptism. Parham, who founded a Bible School in Topeka Kansas, began teaching this before he had ever seen or experienced this phenomenon. After teaching that speaking in tongues was the evidence of Spirit baptism one of his students finally began speaking in tongues. Up until this time, there were no other churches, denominations or sects that taught speaking in tongues was the evidence of Holy Spirit baptism.”[http://www.guidedbytruth.com/pentecostalhistory.php]
Although Parham is the originator of the doctrine, it became standard belief for the majority of Pentecostal denominations including but not limited to, the Assemblies of God, the Church of God (Cleveland, TN), the International Pentecostal Holiness Church ( IPHC), United Pentecostal Church (UPCI), and The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (ICFG).
We can conclude from the foregoing that this doctrine was never taught by the Apostolic Church, the Fathers of the Church, or anyone else in all of church history. This is true although there were a number of ecstatic outbreaks of tongue speaking among various groups prior to this time.
When confronted by these things, one is impelled to ask several questions. For one thing, are we to believe that no one before Parham had believed this “truth” if indeed it was the “Bible evidence”? Can we seriously contend that Parham found something in Scripture that had been missed by the likes of Augustine, Athanasius, Irenaeus, or the Didachaist? These ideas stretch credulity to the breaking point.
The fact is IE is a 20th Century innovation of Christian doctrine. It cannot be supported by the foundations of Scripture or Tradition. It miserably fails the test of true doctrine delineated by St. Vincent of Lerins ("universality, antiquity, and consent") because it was not believed or even taught anywhere, ever, or by anyone prior to Parham.
So are we to take Parham’s word in opposition to the saints, bishops, and Apostles? God forbid!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ