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?
The Resurrection of Christ our God
11 October 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ