The New Heavens And New Earth

 

            So many Christians are longing to be free from evil and to live in HIS glorious presence.

            Evil is rampant in our world (cf. Ephesians 2:2). Those whose lives are overwhelmed by evil are yearning for deliverance.

            For Christians, this earthly life is a road to the glorious life we would be living with God forever.

            After our death, our soul (in a disembodied existence) would proceed to God’s presence (although not yet into the new heavens and new earth), awaiting the final judgment.

            After the final judgment, Christians will enter into the full enjoyment of life in the presence of God forever. Jesus will say to us, “‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.’” (Matthew 25:34, ESV). We will enter a kingdom where “And there will no longer be any curse, and the throne of God and the Lamb will be in the city. His servants will worship him...” (Revelation 22:3, NET). We would be with God in heaven forever in the new heavens and a new earth – an entirely renewed creation (cf. Isaiah 65:17, 66:22; 2 Peter 3:13).

            The new heavens and new earth is a joining of heaven and earth in this new creation wherein we will live in the presence of God forever. Just as the earth is a place, the new heavens and new earth will be a literal place, not a state of mind.

            In the new heavens and new earth, we will live in our resurrected bodies – a body that will never grow old or become weak or ill.

            We will have perfect knowledge – a beatific vision of God. For the very first time, we shall see and know God in a direct way (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:9-12 & 1 John 3:2).

            The following aspects characterize the new heavens and new earth:¹

           No death, sorrow, or sickness (Revelation 21: 4; 2 Corinthians 1: 4-5).

           No curse (Revelation 22: 3).

           A place of abundant life and joy (John 10:10; Revelation 22: 1-2 cf. Psalm 16: 11; Luke 15:10).

           Perpetual worship and service (Revelation 4:8, 5:13-14, 22:3).

           We will be perfect in heaven – in body, in morality, in knowledge (Philippians 3: 21; 1 Corinthians 13: 9-12, 15: 51-53; Revelation 21: 27).

           There could be heavenly homes, mansions and palaces (John 14: 1-3).

           We would be reunited with our loved ones in heaven (1 Thessalonians 4: 13-18).

           Heaven is a place of eternal rest and eternal reward (Revelation 14:13, 22:12; Hebrews 4: 9)

           Heaven will be exceptionally beautiful and indescribably glorious (1 Corinthians 2: 9; Revelation 21: 18-21; Romans 8:18; Ezekiel 1:13).

            Heaven is an eternal or everlasting or an endless abode. Heaven will not cease to exist (Titus 1: 2; Matthew 25: 46). 

            William Lane Craig describes our post-death corporeal existence in the new heavens and new earth as, “Your next life will not be “in heaven” but on the new Earth that God will usher in after the close of human history and the dissolution of this universe. We shall have resurrection bodies that Paul describes as glorious, powerful, immortal, and supernatural (I Corinthians 15.42-44), inhabiting a new universe which has undergone a resurrection of its own (Romans 8.21), free of decay and death... I would say that the afterlife will, indeed, be “an extension of our earthly life.”... There will not be marriage in the afterlife, but that’s no reason to think that you will not know your earthly wife (or wives!) as your sister in heaven.”²

            How does the study of the new heavens and new earth help us now? The present creation filled with evil is temporary. Our life in the new creation will last for eternity.

            Hence, we should strive to live a godly life while on earth regardless of living in a [perpetual] state of happiness or sorrow (cf. 2 Peter 3:11-13).

Endnotes:

¹https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2016/02/what-is-heaven-like.html

²https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P40/how-will-we-be-different-in-heaven

Websites last accessed on 29^th April 2021.

The Incarnation Of God: The Necessity (What Do We Celebrate At Christmas?)

            What do we really celebrate at Christmas?

            We celebrate the incarnation of God, says R.C Sproul:¹

R.C. Sproul reminds us that what we really celebrate at Christmas is the incarnation of God Himself.

What we celebrate at Christmas is not so much the birth of a baby, as important as that is, but what’s so significant about the birth of that particular baby is that in this birth we have the incarnation of God Himself. An incarnation means a coming in the flesh. We know how John begins His gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” So in that very complicated introductory statement, he distinguishes between the Word and God, and then in the next breath identifies the two, “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And then at the end of the prologue, he says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Now in this “infleshment,” if you will, of Christ appearing on this planet, it’s not that God suddenly changes through a metamorphosis into a man, so that the divine nature sort of passes out of existence or comes into a new form of fleshiness. No, the incarnation is not so much a subtraction as it is an addition, where the eternal second person of the Trinity takes upon Himself a human nature and joins His divine nature to that human nature for the purpose of redemption.

            William Lane Craig’s model for understanding the doctrine of Incarnation is valuable:²

I suggested a model for understanding the doctrine of the incarnation that allows us to affirm the deity and humanity of Christ in a logically coherent way that is also biblically faithful. This model involved, as you recall, three planks. First, that we affirm with the Council of Chalcedon that Christ has two complete natures – human and divine. Secondly, that the soul of the human nature – that body/soul composite that was Jesus of Nazareth – was the second person of the Trinity; it was the Logos. In uniting with the flesh, the Logos brought to the flesh everything needed to complete the human nature and to make it a genuine human being. And then, thirdly, I suggested that we think of the divine elements of Jesus’ consciousness as being largely subliminal during the time of his earthly sojourn. Although on occasion it may have surfaced in consciousness in different ways, for the most part we think of Jesus as having an ordinary human consciousness just like any other human being, and that enables us to explain his growth in wisdom and knowledge, his ignorance of certain facts, the ability of Jesus to feel genuine temptation, the anxieties and struggles that he experienced in life, his need for spiritual discipline and reliance upon his heavenly Father, his prayer life, the struggles in Gethsemane, and so forth. It gives us a realistic portrait of Jesus as we read about him in the Gospels, and yet he was also very much aware of who he was and the divine identity that he possessed at the same time.

            The Incarnation was necessary.

            Thomas Aquinas emphasizes that the Incarnation, a consequence to the human fall, was necessary for God to communicate HIMSELF in the highest manner to HIS creation, namely man.:³

Article 1. Whether it was fitting that God should become incarnate?

Objection 1. It would seem that it was not fitting for God to become incarnate. Since God from all eternity is the very essence of goodness, it was best for Him to be as He had been from all eternity. But from all eternity He had been without flesh. Therefore it was most fitting for Him not to be united to flesh. Therefore it was not fitting for God to become incarnate…

…On the contrary, It would seem most fitting that by visible things the invisible things of God should be made known; for to this end was the whole world made, as is clear from the word of the Apostle (Romans 1:20): "For the invisible things of God . . . are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." But, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 1), by the mystery of Incarnation are made known at once the goodness, the wisdom, the justice, and the power or might of God—"His goodness, for He did not despise the weakness of His own handiwork; His justice, since, on man's defeat, He caused the tyrant to be overcome by none other than man, and yet He did not snatch men forcibly from death; His wisdom, for He found a suitable discharge for a most heavy debt; His power, or infinite might, for there is nothing greater than for God to become incarnate . . ."

…To each things, that is befitting which belongs to it by reason of its very nature; thus, to reason befits man, since this belongs to him because he is of a rational nature. But the very nature of God is goodness, as is clear from Dionysius (Div. Nom. i). Hence, what belongs to the essence of goodness befits God. But it belongs to the essence of goodness to communicate itself to others, as is plain from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). Hence it belongs to the essence of the highest good to communicate itself in the highest manner to the creature, and this is brought about chiefly by "His so joining created nature to Himself that one Person is made up of these three—the Word, a soul and flesh," as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii). Hence it is manifest that it was fitting that God should become incarnate.

Article 3. Whether, if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate?

Objection 1. It would seem that if man had not sinned, God would still have become incarnate. For the cause remaining, the effect also remains. But as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17): "Many other things are to be considered in Incarnation of Christ besides absolution from sin";…Therefore if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate…

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Verb. Apost. viii, 2), expounding what is set down in Luke 19:10, "For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost"; "Therefore, if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have come." And on 1 Timothy 1:15, "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners," a gloss says, "There was no cause of Christ's coming into the world, except to save sinners. Take away diseases, take away wounds, and there is no need of medicine."

…There are different opinions about this question. For some say that even if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would have become incarnate. Others assert the contrary, and seemingly our assent ought rather to be given to this opinion.

For such things as spring from God's will, and beyond the creature's due, can be made known to us only through being revealed in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us. Hence, since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is assigned as the reason of Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed, Incarnation would not have been. And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.ligonier.org/blog/incarnation-what-we-celebrate-christmas/

²https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-doctrine-of-christ/doctrine-of-christ-part-8/

³http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm#article3

Websites last accessed on 30^th November 2019.

Why Did Paul Quote Pagan Philosophers?

            There is a common argument that the Old Testament is reliable because the New Testament affirms the Old Testament. If this is the case, would Paul’s quote of pagan (non-christian/unbelievers) philosophers affirm the reliability of the pagan works? Alternatively, would the inclusion of pagan work in the Bible undermine the reliability of the Bible?

            Did Paul quote pagan philosophers? Yes, here’s an excerpt from CARM:¹

Paul quoted Menander in the book of Acts and in 1 Corinthians.  He quoted Epimenides in the book of Titus.  Let's take a look.

·  Acts 17:28, "for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.'"

o "The first part of verse 28 comes from Cretica by Epimenides, and the second part of the verse from Hymn to Zeus, written by the Cilician poet Aratus. To be sure, both of these lines were directed at Zeus in Greek literature, but Paul applied them to the Creator of whom he spoke."1

o Paul quoted "the first half of the fifth line, word for word, of an astronomical poem of Aratus, a Greek countryman of the apostle, and his predecessor by about three centuries. But, as he hints, the same sentiment is to be found in other Greek poets. They meant it doubtless in a pantheistic sense; but the truth which it expresses the apostle turns to his own purpose—to teach a pure, personal, spiritual Theism."2

·  1 Cor. 15:33, "Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.'”

o"a current saying, forming a verse in MENANDER, the comic poet, who probably took it from Euripides [SOCRATES, Ecclesiastical History, 3.16]."3

o "The words “Bad company ruins good morals” are found in a play by Menander (4th-3rd century B. C.) but may well have become a common saying by Paul’s time."4

o "Evil communications corrupt good manners. An iambic line from the ‘Thais’ of Menander, and perhaps taken by Menander from a play of Euripides. More accurately it means “evil associations corrupt excellent morals."5

· Titus 1:12, "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."

o "Epimenides of Phaestus, or Gnossus, in Crete, about 600. He was sent for to purify Athens from its pollution occasioned by Cylon. He was regarded as a diviner and prophet. The words here are taken probably from his treatise “concerning oracles.” Paul also quotes from two other heathen writers, ARATUS (Ac 17:28) and MENANDER (1 Co 15:33), but he does not honor them so far as even to mention their names.6

o "A prophet of their own; viz. Epimenides, a native either of Phæstus or of Cnossus in Crete, the original author of this line, which is also quoted by Callimachus. Epimenides is here called a prophet, not simply as a poet, but from his peculiar character as priest, bard, and seer; called by Plato θεῖος ἀνήρ and coupled by Cicero with Bacis the Boeotian prophet, and the sibyl (Bishop Ellicott); described by other ancient writers as a prophet (Alford)."7

            Would these quotations affirm the reliability of the works of pagan philosophers?

            Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, in their work The Big Book of Bible Difficulties respond to this question (p.507-508):²

TITUS 1:12—DOESN’T PAUL PRONOUNCE THIS PAGAN POET INSPIRED BY MAKING HIM PART OF SCRIPTURE?

PROBLEM: Christians believe that only the Bible is the Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16). Yet the Apostle Paul quotes pagan poets on at least three occasions. But in so doing he seems to give assent to the sources he quotes as inspired, just as when he quotes OT Scripture as the Word of God (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

SOLUTION: Paul is not quoting this non-Christian source as inspired, but simply as true. All truth is God’s truth, no matter who said it. Caiaphas the Jewish high priest uttered a truth about Christ (John 11:49). The Bible often uses non-inspired sources (cf. Num. 21:14; Josh. 10:13; 1 Kings 15:31). Three times Paul cites non-Christian thinkers (Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12). Jude alludes to truths found in two non-canonical books (Jude 9, 14). But never does the Bible cite them as divinely authoritative, but simply as containing the truth quoted. The usual phrases, such as, “thus saith the Lord” (cf. Isa. 7:7; Jer. 2:5, kjv) or “it is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) are never found when these non-inspired sources are cited. Nonetheless, truth is truth wherever it is found. And there is no reason, therefore, that a biblical author, by direction of the Holy Spirit, cannot utilize truth from whatever source he may find it.

            Here’s another response from Phillip J. Long, the Chair / Professor of Biblical Studies at the Grace Christian University:³

Paul quotes two Greek writers as support for his case that the creator God does not need temples or temple services from humans. The use of this material has always prompted discussion among readers of Acts, especially with respect to application. Is Paul modelling how Christians ought to present the gospel in a non-Christian, non-Jewish environment?

The first allusion is to Epimenides the Cretan, the poet Paul cited in Titus 1:12. The original poem no longer exists, but fragments appear in other ancient writers. The second citation is from Aratus, a Cilcian poet (Phaenomena 5).  The original line, “in him we move and live and have our being,” was pantheistic, but Paul spins this line into a statement about God as the source of our life.

In other words, he ignores the writer’s original intention so that he can effective make his point. If Aratus had been in the audience in Acts 17, what would he have said in response to Paul? In modern scholarly writing, misrepresenting another scholar’s ideas is not just a mistake, but intellectual dishonesty. Someone who does this sort of thing today would be dismissed as a poor scholar or a crank (or possibly just a biblio-blogger). In some areas of scholarship, authorial intent is not important, so perhaps Paul is not out of line here. Can Paul legitimately pull this line out of context and reapply it to prove the God of the Bible is superior to the other gods?

A second problem is how Paul came to know these lines of poetry. There are not many modern readers who can quote freely from current poets or philosophers. One possibility is Paul had some secular education which could be applied to the preaching of the gospel. We might imagine Paul thinking through his task of being a light to the Gentiles and researching possible points of contact in order to preach to pagan audiences. This is in fact a typical way of doing apologetics today. Christians will study philosophy for the purpose of interacting with the philosophical world in their own terms.

While I do not think this kind of cultural education is a bad idea at all, that may not be Paul’s point in using these sources (or, Luke’s point in presenting Paul as using these sources). These lines may have been well known proverbial wisdom, common knowledge. If so, then the allusion to Greek poets is more like the preacher who uses a common phrase in order to make his point.

Or better, this is an example of a modern pastor quoting lyrics of popular songs to make a point. I occasionally use a line from a popular movie or song in order to make a point (although with my taste in music, it usually does not work very well).  This comes down to knowing your audience.  I have found that I can get a lot further with college age group with a Simpsons reference, while the same line is lost on an adult group.  Perhaps that is what Paul is doing here in Acts 17 – he is riffing on the culture.

In both of the allusions Paul simply intends to demonstrate his thinking is not too far from the culture the audience understood and appreciated.  To cite the Hebrew Bible would have been fruitless since the audience did not know it, nor were they inclined to listen to philosophy drawn Jewish texts.

Does this mean Acts 17 gives permission for Pastors to quote Bob Dylan lyrics or use Simpsons clips in their sermons and Bible studies? Perhaps, but we need to couple cultural reference with a serious point from the text of the Bible.  It is one thing to mimic culture to attract attention to you point, but it is a fairly worthless strategy is if there is no point behind the reference. I think that you can (and should) illustrate serious theological points via cultural artifacts (like poets, books, movies, etc.), but this can be very dangerous if it overwhelms the Scripture.

If the message of the Gospel is obscured by the using Fifty Shades of Grey as a sermon title, or by playing U2 songs during your worship, or hosting a Dancing with the Stars night at church, then you have missed Paul’s point in Acts 17.

            These responses are terse as well as comprehensive. Therefore, quoting unbelievers would neither affirm their reliability as divinely inspired nor undermine the reliability of the Bible. 

         

Endnotes:

¹https://carm.org/did-paul-quote-pagan-philosophers

²The same material is also found here: https://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Titus_1.12_(2).php

³https://readingacts.com/2015/03/25/acts-1722-28-quoting-the-philosophers/

Websites last accessed on 29^th October 2019.

Ordination Of Women Pastors; How Do We Respond?

            Could a woman be ordained as a [senior] pastor of a church? Is it biblically right or wrong?

            The Christian community is divided over this sensitive matter. Some say yes, others say no.

            Why?

Yes

            “Dr. Amy Orr-Ewing is a senior vice president with Ravi Zacharias International Ministries and Joint Director of the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics.”¹ She also pastors in a church, “Based in Oxford, England, where she pastors at Latimer Minster with her husband Francis…”²

            Regarding the view that there are ‘silence passages’ in the Bible wherein women are instructed to not be authoritative over men, Amy, while speaking with Eternity News, said:³

Even Paul, who is often seen as a key obstacle to women’s progress in the church, accepted that women could teach and prophesy, she points out.

“What’s interesting in 1 Corinthians where Paul mentions about women being silent in the church, two chapters earlier he’s talked about how women should behave when they prophesy, which means get up and speak in front of everyone.

“So obviously, when he says be silent, he doesn’t mean all women for all time should never say anything. He turns to a specific group of women who are disrupting services and he’s asking them to be silent, but in general he’s saying when women do teach or prophesy in the church they should cover their hair. And the reason he says that is your hair was incredibly seductive; it would be like saying don’t wear an incredibly short skirt when you get up in front of people in church today. He’s not saying ‘don’t get up in front and prophesy.’”

She said this is a classic example of people taking a verse out of context and applying it to everyone for all time.

“It’s absolutely clear if you read the letter in its entirety that it doesn’t mean that,” she says.

No

            Norman Geisler advocates for male church leadership (Emphasis Mine):⁴

…when understood in context, the “silence” passages are not negating the ministry of women, but are limiting the authority of women. Paul asserts that women were not permitted “to have authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12). Likewise, he follows his exhortation to “keep silent” by reminding them to be “submissive” (1 Cor. 14:34). Of course, men too were under authority and needed to submit to the headship of Christ over them (1 Cor. 11:3). Indeed, the ultimate proof that there is nothing degrading about being submissive is that Christ, who was God in human flesh, is always submissive to the Father, both on earth (Phil. 2:5–8) and even in heaven (1 Cor. 15:28). That male headship and leadership is not simply a cultural matter is evident by the fact that it is based on the very order of creation (1 Cor. 11:9; 1 Tim. 2:13). Thus, elders are to be men, “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2). This, however, in no way demeans or diminishes the role of women, either in the family or in the church. The fact that men cannot have babies is not demeaning to their humanity or their role in the family. It is simply that God has not granted them this function, but a different one.

            Wayne Grudem is also of the opinion that women should not be pastors, “My own conclusion on this issue is that the Bible does not permit women to function in the role of pastor or elder within the church.”⁵

            However, Wayne Grudem endorses the role of women in the various ministries of the church as long as that role precludes ruling and teaching functions. A woman can be a deacon (provided there is a pastor in that church), a treasurer, a counselor etc.⁶

Why Not?

            There should be no doubt whatsoever that Jesus Christ elevated the status of women in the society:⁷

1. Although Jews would have no dealings with the Samaritans, particularly the blatant sinners among them, Jesus engaged the Samaritan woman in conversation because HE cared about her spiritual condition (John 4).

2. Jesus commended the woman with hemorrhage who touched the edge of HIS cloak for her faith (Matthew 9: 20-22).

3. Mary and Martha were among Jesus’ closest friends.

4. A woman anointed Jesus at Bethany (Matthew 26:6-13) would be remembered for her act of devotion whenever and wherever the gospel was preached (vv. 10-13).

5. Mary Magdalene was the first person to whom Jesus appeared following HIS resurrection, and HE instructed her to tell HIS disciples that HE has risen (John 20: 14-18).

            This list is partial.

            Women stand on the same footing as men in the sight of God, as far as salvation is concerned (Galatians 3:28). The context of this verse is the issue of justification by faith, the individual’s status before God in terms of personal righteousness (v. 27).⁸

            Women have played a significant role in the kingdom of God:⁹

1. Miriam assisted Moses and led the Israelite women in singing and dancing after their escape from Egypt (Exodus 15: 20-21).

2. Deborah was the judge of Israel. Esther saved the Jewish people from destruction.

3. Women were seen at the cross (Luke 23: 49), they sought to anoint Jesus’ body (Luke 23: 55-56), they discovered the empty tomb, heard the message of the two angels, and conveyed the news to the apostles (Luke 24: 1-11).

4. Women were given the gift of prophecy (Isaiah 8:3; Acts 21:9; Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17; 1 Corinthians 11:5).

5. Paul commends Phoebe’s leadership (Romans 16:2). He speaks of Priscilla and Aquila as his ‘fellow workers’ in Christ Jesus (Romans 16:3-4). He speaks of Mary, Persis, Tryphena and Tryphosa as having worked very hard in the Lord (Romans 16: 6, 12). 

            The fact that both men and women are created in the image of God should not be forgotten (Genesis 1: 26-27, 5: 1-2).

            The virtuous woman in Proverbs 31 is adorned because she promotes the welfare of her family, does not constantly remain within the confines of her home, and she is engaged in trading and business affairs (vv. 18, 24).¹⁰

            The Bible says that the woman was created to be a ‘helper’ to man. This does not relegate the woman to a position of insignificance or subservience. Rather the helper is thought to be as a co-worker or enabler.¹¹

            Having said this, let’s contemplate this matter from another angle.

            Would God be unhappy or angry if the church ordains women pastors?

            Would God not bless the church that has a woman as a senior pastor (cf. Psalm 145: 9; Nahum 1: 3; Matthew 5: 45; Luke 6: 35)?

            It is God who calls a person to be a pastor (Ephesians 4:11). So if a person, even if it is a woman, has that calling, who are we to say no?

            When we argue that a woman cannot be ordained as a pastor, are we claiming that God will not give that gift to women? Can we second-guess the sovereign God?

            Are we going to claim that since God’s word explicitly mentions that the overseer/pastor/elder ought to be a man, God will not contradict HIS words and hence not offer the spiritual gift of the pastoral office to a woman?

            The description of an overseer/elder/pastor is not a command from God; rather it is a guideline/teaching for the church governance.

            So to contest God’s sovereignty even in light of HIS written word may not be a good choice (cf. Romans 9: 15-26 & ‘Cessationism’). (Contesting the ordination of women pastors and thereby peacefully agreeing to disagree is one thing. But to contest the ordination of women pastors and dividing the church of Jesus Christ is entirely another thing altogether.)

            When a church ordains women pastors, it is not sinning against God. A woman who pastors in a church will not lose her salvation.

            If the woman in contention is a sincere disciple of the Lord, Spirit-filled and has the calling into the pastoral office, why should she not be ordained?

            Significantly, the doctrine of a woman pastoring a church is not an essential doctrine of Historic Christianity. If some churches ordain women as pastors, and if these women live up to their calling, then so be it.

            Why quarrel and divide the church over a theme that is non-essential? We have much bigger matters to be concerned about e.g. Science vs. Religion, Effects of Postmodernism and New Atheism, etc.

            So then, should I be a legalist and not espouse the ordination of women into the pastoral office?

            I would rather err on the side of grace than on the side of the law.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.rzim.org/speakers/amy-orr-ewing

²https://www.rzim.org/read/rzim-global/is-christianity-bad-news-for-women

³Ibid.

⁴https://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/1_Timothy_2.12-14.php

⁵Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine), p. 937.

⁶Ibid, p. 945.

⁷Millard J. Erickson, “Christian Theology,” Second Edition, p. 564-565.

⁸Ibid, p. 565.

⁹Ibid, p. 565-566.

¹⁰Ibid, p. 564.

¹¹Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 9^th October 2019.

Are There Lesser & Greater Sins?

            Andrew Murray¹ defined sin as an assault against God. Millard J. Erickson defines sin as, “Sin is any evil action or motive that is in opposition to God. Simply stated, sin is a failure to let God be God and placing something or someone in God’s rightful place of supremacy.” ²

            Are all sins the same? Is stealing a loaf of bread the same as murdering the neighbor?

            The wages of sin is death, teaches the Bible³– small and big included.

            Wayne Grudem in his work Systematic Theology explains why all sins need not be construed as the same. However, in another sense, he asserts that all sins are the same.

            In a legal sense, even a very small sin makes us legally guilty before God and therefore worthy of eternal punishment. The classic case of Adam and Eve’s disobedience against God resulted in the penalty of death (Genesis 2:17 cf. Romans 5:16). That one sin made Adam and Eve sinners before God. They were no longer able to stand in HIS Holy presence.

            Galatians 3:10 and James 2:10-11 also teaches us that we are guilty even if we commit one small sin. Therefore, in the legal sense, every sin, large or small does not matter, makes us guilty before God.

            The Bible also teaches us that some sins are worse than others because they have more harmful consequences in our lives and in the lives of others, and in terms of our personal relationship to God as Father, they arouse HIS displeasure more and bring more serious disruption to our fellowship with HIM.

            When Jesus stood before Pontius Pilate, he referred to a greater sin, “Jesus replied, “You would have no authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin.”” (John 19:11, NET, Emphasis Mine). Jesus referred to Judas, who had known HIM for three intimate years, yet willfully betrayed HIM to death. Thus the sin of Judas was greater because of Judas’ far greater knowledge and malice connected with it.

            God while showing Ezekiel the visions of sins in the temple of Jerusalem referred to greater sins, “He said to me, “Son of man, do you see what they are doing—the great abominations that the people of Israel are practicing here, to drive me far from my sanctuary? But you will see greater abominations than these!”… He said to me, “You will see them practicing even greater abominations!”… He said to me, “Do you see this, son of man? You will see even greater abominations than these!”” (Ezekiel 8:6,13,15, NET, Emphasis Mine).

            Christ also refers to some sins as lesser than the others, “So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19, NET, Emphasis Mine).

            Similarly, Christ while pronouncing woes on the Pharisees said, ““Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You give a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you neglect what is more important in the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness!” (Matthew 23:23, NET, Emphasis Mine).

            Presence of lesser and greater commandments imply certain sins being of a lesser magnitude than the others or certain sins being worse than other sins in terms of God’s own evaluation of their importance.

            Wayne Grudem goes on to explain further.

            We can readily see how some sins have much more harmful consequences for ourselves and others and for our relationship with God. If I were to covet my neighbor’s car, that would be a sin before God. But if my coveting led me to actually steal the car, that would be a more serious sin. If in the course of stealing the car I also fought with my neighbor and injured him or recklessly injured someone else as I drove the car, that would be even more serious sin.

           Similarly, if a new Christian, who previously had a tendency to lose his temper and get into fights, begins witnessing to his unbelieving friends and, one day is so provoked he loses his temper and actually strikes someone, that is certainly sin in God’s sight. But if a mature pastor or other prominent Christian leader were to lose his temper publicly and strike someone, that would be even more serious in God’s sight, both because of the harm that would come to the reputation of the gospel and because those in leadership positions are held to a higher standard of accountability by God: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, because you know that we will be judged more strictly.”(James 3:1, NET, Emphasis Mine) and “But the one who did not know his master’s will and did things worthy of punishment will receive a light beating. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required, and from the one who has been entrusted with much, even more will be asked.” (Luke 12:48, NET, Emphasis Mine).

            Our conclusion, then, is that in terms of results and in terms of degree of God’s displeasure, some sins are certainly worse than others.

            June marks LGBTQ Pride month, so an application of the doctrine of greater and lesser sin to homosexuality would be appropriate.

            We can confidently assert that possessing a homosexual orientation need not be a sin if that orientation is not practiced via romantic gay relationships. A mere homosexual orientation excluding the lustful thoughts need not be a sin because the orientation does not lead to either lustful thoughts or a detestable homosexual behavior.

            Finally, here’s a prayer point. Let us pray that our brothers and sisters in the LGBTQ community will seek the power of the Triune God to not allow their orientation to give birth to sinful and detestable practices against God.

Endnotes:

¹Andrew Murray, a famous Christian writer, in his work The Joy of being Forgiven

²Christian Theology (Second Edition)

³Romans 6:23

Can Prayer Change Prophecy?

            Quite a few Christians believe that [determined] prayers can alter a prophecy. Is this a tenable belief or not?

            God is the source of prophecy. The prophet bears God’s message. This message need not always be a prediction or foretelling of future events but this message can simply be instructional (Acts 21:4), warning (Jonah 3:4), etc.

            A presupposition to the notion that prayer can change a prophecy is that God is capable of changing HIS mind. But God cannot change HIS mind. This Divine Constancy contains various aspects: God cannot change quantitatively or qualitatively and God’s nature does not undergo modifications. Hence, God cannot change HIS mind.

            In an earlier blog entitled, “Could We Change God’s Mind?” I addressed this subject. Here’s a relevant excerpt:¹

Can God change HIS mind?

There are two diametrically opposite answers to this question. Some Christians believe that God can change HIS mind, whereas others assert that God does not and cannot change HIS mind.

Let us briefly study their assertions.

God Changes HIS Mind

Some Christians think that God can change HIS mind, “…advocates of a theory called open theism have argued that God can and does change and that we can cause that change. They find their support for this in passages such as Genesis 18, where Abraham intercedes before the Lord for Sodom and Gomorrah, and God seemingly changes His mind. They claim further support from passages like Jeremiah 18:7–10, Jonah 3:10, and Genesis 6:6, which speak of God repenting or relenting or being sorry.”1

These Christians, upon reading these verses, believe that God changes HIS mind:

 “The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.” (Genesis 6:6, NIV, Emphasis Mine).

 “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people.” (Exodus 32:14, RSV, Emphasis Mine).

 “If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." (Jeremiah 18: 7-10, NIV, Emphasis Mine).

 “When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.” (Jonah 3:10, NIV, Emphasis Mine).

God Cannot Change HIS Mind

Pastor, theologian, and author, R.C Sproul, unpacks this dilemma from the vantage point of God’s omniscience.2

There’s one sense in which it seems God is changing his mind, and there’s another sense in which the Bible says God never changes his mind because God is omniscient. He knows all things from the beginning, and he is immutable. He is unchanging. There’s no shadow of turning within him. For example, He knows what Moses is going to say to him in Numbers 14 before Moses even opens his mouth to plead for the people. Then after Moses has actually said it, does God suddenly changes his mind? He doesn’t have any more information than he had a moment before. Nothing has changed as far as God’s knowledge or his appraisal of the situation.

Is God confused, stumbling through all the different options—Should I do this? Should I not do that? And does he decide upon one course of action and then think, Well, maybe that’s not such a good idea after all, and change his mind? Obviously God is omniscient; God is all wise. God is eternal in his perspective and in his full knowledge of everything. So we don’t change God’s mind. But prayer changes things. It changes us. And there are times in which God waits for us to ask for things because his plan is that we work with him in the glorious process of bringing his will to pass here on earth.

Similarly, Dr. William Lane Craig explains this theme from the perspective of God’s foreknowledge and the need for us to understand the literary genre’s of the Bible and the literary devices used by the biblical authors for an effective narration. If we understand these details, we will be able to accurately interpret the Bible. Thus we would possess a proper understanding of God. Here’s William Lane Craig:3

I don’t think that God can change his mind, because as an omniscient being, he knows everything that will happen, including his own decisions. God has foreknowledge not only of everything that creatures will do, but also knowledge of his own acts…If God knows the truth value of all true future tense propositions — then he will know the truth value of propositions about his own actions — like God will part the Red Sea; he knows that. So, God would have knowledge of everything in the future, and therefore there could be no basis for changing his mind. An omniscient being cannot change his mind, it would only be an ignorant being, a being that is ignorant, that could acquire some new reason for doing something that would cause him to change his mind…

There are some Scriptures which, at least superficially to a layperson, looks like God’s changing his mind. Jonah and the whale and Nineveh where God was going to destroy the city unless something happened, and he seemed to change his mind.

It’s vital that we understand the literary genre, or type, of most of these biblical stories. The Bible is in the form of narratives. They’re stories about God told from the human point of view. And so, a good storyteller will tell his story with all the vivacity and color that he wants to enhance his narrative.

And so, you’ll find stories in the Bible about God, told from a human perspective where God not only lacks knowledge of the future, but even lacks knowledge of what’s going on presently. God comes down to Abraham and says, “I’ve heard the outcry in Sodom and Gomorrah. I’m going to go see if what I’ve heard is really happening there.”

Well, that would deny not only God’s foreknowledge, but his knowledge of the present. And there are other passages where God is spoken of in anthropomorphic terms of having nostrils and eyes and arms and other sort of bodily parts—wings. If you take all of these literally, God would be a sort of fire-breathing monster.

And so, these are anthropomorphisms. They are literary devices that are part of the storyteller’s art, and shouldn’t be read like a philosophy of religion or systematic theology textbook. There’s just a naïve view of the type of literature that Scripture is.

            To conclude, let us briefly consider two instances in the Bible that some Christians use to contend that God changes HIS mind.

            Consider the prophecy to King Hezekiah. The omniscient God knew that when Prophet Isaiah warned King Hezekiah (about putting his house in order else he would die), Hezekiah would pray earnestly to HIM, and that HE would extend Hezekiah’s lifetime by 15 years. Hence, if we consider the foreknowledge of God, wherein HE knows every future event, we cannot construe this instance to that of God changing HIS mind.

            Similarly, in Jonah’s case, God knew that the Ninevites would repent upon hearing Jonah’s preaching/prophesying. Therefore, it was not a change of mind that prompted the forgiveness of God. Rather the plan to forgive the Ninevites was always in God’s mind because of HIS foreknowledge of all future events.

            Therefore, a proper interpretation of every prophecy in the Bible would render the notion of God changing HIS mind as untenable. It’s not that God does not change HIS mind; it’s that you and I, however righteous our prayer may be, cannot force God to change HIS mind. So no amount of prayer can change a prophecy, unless God, according to HIS foreknowledge, has already determined another course of action based on the response to a particular prophecy.

Endnotes:

¹http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2017/10/could-we-change-gods-mind.html

Website last accessed on 31^st May 2019.